Loading summary
Transcript108 lines
- [00:05]
Paula Newton
Hello, everyone, and welcome to Amanpur. Here's what's coming up.
- [00:10]
Donald Trump
Our country is winning again. In fact, we're winning so much that we really don't know what to do about it.
- [00:17]
Paula Newton
The state of the Union, according to Trump. As his poll numbers sink, we look at what might be next on the president's agenda. Then the deadly consequences of foreign aid cuts. David Miliband, head of the International Rescue Committee, joins us.
- [00:32]
Chris John
Plus, it's a beloved Western film. It feels like a part of the Americana culture.
- [00:39]
Paula Newton
High Noon stars Billy Crudup and Denise Gough on bringing a classic western to the London stage. And a very warm welcome to the program, everyone. I'm Paula Newton in New York, sitting in for Christiana Rampur. Donald Trump beat his own record Tuesday night, delivering the longest State of the Union speech in American history. The president boasted about his accomplishments, brought out the US Ice hockey team, and slammed the Democrats for, in his words, destroying the country. But on future plans, he was light on specifics.
- [01:31]
Donald Trump
The golden age of America is upon us. The revolution that began in 1776 has not ended. It still continues because the flame of liberty and independence still burns in the heart of every American patriot. And our future will be bigger, better, brighter, bolder, and more glorious than ever before.
- [01:57]
Paula Newton
Viewers all over the world were tuned in as the US Builds up its largest military presence in the Middle east since the 2003 Iraq invasion. On Iran, Trump said this My preference
- [02:11]
Donald Trump
is to solve this problem through diplomacy, but one thing is certain, I will never allow the world's number one sponsor of terror, which they are by far nuclear weapon, can't let that happen.
- [02:25]
Paula Newton
As for the Democrats, Virginia Governor Abigail Spamberger gave the rebuttal and focused squarely on what her party considers Trump's weakness right now. Kitchen table issues. Okay, we want to dig into all of this with our guests. Greg Nunziata is executive director of the Society for the Rule of Law, having previously worked, we will note, worked very closely, in fact, with then Senator Marco Rubio and Susan Glasser. She's a longtime journalist and staff writer for the New Yorker. I want to welcome, welcome you both to the program. And we will dig in here. Susan, I want to begin with you. Golden age. Trump painted this as a roaring economy, and as he calls it, it's the golden age of America. This belies what the CNN poll tells us, right? It shows only 31% of speech watchers have a lot of confidence, a lot of confidence that he'll make the cost of living more affordable. And 40% have no confidence at all in any of that. Now, how, Susan, do you explain the gap even among a heavily Republican audience here?
- [03:32]
Susan Glasser
Yeah, look, I mean, before the speech, you had Donald Trump's presbytery coming out and saying this speech was going to be an extended case made by the President of the United States for why he and his Republican Party were best equipped to handle the affordability crisis. And by the way, that's the term that the White House press secretary used, affordability. Cris. The problem, as quickly became evident in this epic speech, is that the president himself is not going to be able to make a case to Americans for how he's going to handle an affordability crisis that he simply does not believe exists. And he said that in many recent speeches as well. Just last week in Iowa, he said that he had won on affordability. And there was a triumphalist tone in Trump's State of the Union that really undercut any effort he might have made. Now, he didn't really make many efforts, as you pointed out. I think Americans are looking not for kind of rah rah rhetoric, but concrete ways in which the administration might make new efforts, might make new programs. You didn't hear any of that. Donald Trump essentially has governed not with Congress, but by executive fiat. And you didn't hear him saying anything other than he still believes in the magical power of his tariffs, notwithstanding a Supreme Court decision that threw them out. But he still believes that that should be the pillar of his economic policy, even though many Americans in both parties think the tariffs are one of the reasons why prices are so out of control in America that they're basically attacks on Americans. So Trump risks seeming almost delusional and disconnected from the facts if he keeps
- [05:09]
Paula Newton
with this course and getting to that Supreme Court ruling. Greg, during the address, the president looked directly at the Supreme Court justices. It was a reality show moment. He called their recent ruling against his tariffs that Susan was just talking about unfortunate, disappointing. While announcing, though alternatives, nothing. Let's take a listen here.
- [05:33]
Donald Trump
Despite the disappointing ruling, these powerful countries saving, it's saving our country the kind of money we're taking in peace. Protecting many of the wars I settled was because of the threat of tariffs. I wouldn't have been able to settle them with a will remain in place under fully approved and tested alternative legal statutes. And they have been tested for a long time.
- [05:59]
Paula Newton
I mean, the justices are sitting there, Greg, what are the implications of the president? He used his State of the Union to say, look, I'm going to work around this court and I Am wondering what's on your mind when you heard what he said on Friday. Much more aggressive language towards the Supreme Court ruling than he had during that speech.
- [06:19]
Greg Nunziata
Yeah, the State of the Union remarks to the justices were really toned down from what he said at the White House earlier in the week where he said the Supreme Court justices should be ashamed of themselves, that their families should be disappointed in them, and even suggested that those who ruled against him were influenced by somehow shadowy foreign money or something along these lines. I mean, it was a real attack on the legitimacy and the authority of the court, which is of a piece of this administration's strategy now for the whole year. And plus they've been in office, the president and his top members of his staff, cabinet secretaries, have over and over again when the courts rule against the White House and the administration suggested that somehow the judges were corrupt, were radicals, belonged to the other side. This has been how the president talks about the independent judiciary, which is a crown jewel of our constitutional system, part of the checks and balances and the part of the government that's really doing its job to check a president when he overreaches. Congress has not been doing that. As we saw last night, the president has very little legislative agenda. He mentioned things he wants to do a few times. He said it would be nice if Congress passed a law, but it need not do it because he's going to just follow his own authorities to. And really beyond the breaking point, he's now talking about new tariffs on another kind of emergency statute where there is no real emergency, which will be again challenged in court for their legal dubiousness. So this is what we've come to see, and it's a credit to the judiciary that they've not been swayed by these attacks from the most powerful man in the world.
- [08:10]
Paula Newton
Well, he's been doing away with a lot of these rulings, really with a flourish and defying the facts in many regards. Another issue here, Susan, would be that during his address he claimed that voter cheating is, in his words, rampant. Let's listen.
- [08:27]
Donald Trump
I'm asking you to approve the Save America act. To stop illegal aliens and other others who are unpermitted persons from voting in our sacred American elections. That cheating is rampant in our elections. It's rampant. Why would anybody not want voter id? One reason. Because they want to cheat. There's only one reason.
- [09:00]
Paula Newton
You know, Susan, we're heading into the midterms here at the end of the year. How do these types of unfounded claims again challenged in so many jurisdictions and courts, unfounded but how will they really inform voters going into these midterms? It is eroding trust, is it not?
- [09:20]
Susan Glasser
Yeah, absolutely. And I think it's. I'm glad you played that. I mean, you know, it's one example of many untruths that underpin almost all of what Trump was saying in the address. And I think, you know, people have become so inured to that. It's actually important at this point to remind people that a lot of what he was saying last night, not just about voter fraud that doesn't exist, but about economic stability don't exist, that a lot of this was just simply not accurate. But more importantly, right after that, Trump launched into an attack where he said basically, Democrats can never win an election unless it's cheating. And I think he's already told us that he won't accept any result in 2026 except Republicans winning. Legitimate. And I think that is something that really deeply concerns anyone who's concerned about democracy in the country. And he's willing to take actions, not just use words to follow through on that.
- [10:18]
Paula Newton
Yeah, we don't have to remind anyone here about what happened the last time he denied the outcome of an election. I mean, Greg, that other issue that has proven really so successful for the President was immigration. The polling shows that the president's ratings on immigration now have back to his first term lows. He doubled down, though, on immigration in this speech. Why? I'm wondering where you believe Americans are. And when I say Americans, that crucial pocket of voters, substantial. The independents. Right. Who have clearly in recent polls showed that they want to move away from these enforcement tactics.
- [10:53]
Chris John
Yeah.
- [10:54]
Greg Nunziata
I think the whole immigration issue should remind the President, should remind all of us that policy is only part of governing. How policies are implemented is a big part of it, too. And I think that the American people elected the President in part because they were dissatisfied with Democratic policies on immigration and were attracted to the President's promise to enforce the law, secure the border, and even start deporting populations that are here illegally. The border security issue, I think still reflects well on the president, polls well on him. The interior enforcement, the deportations, much less. So I think we see that Americans really wanted to prioritize the removal of people who had committed other crimes while they were here, the most dangerous of this population, and to use more judgment with folks who are not a threat, who have been established here. And even beyond that, even those who were eager for broad deportations really did not want to see these kinds of heavy handed tactics, mass agents on our streets the militarization of urban areas in America. I don't think that's what anybody voted for. And we're seeing people turn away from it, even people who are at root sympathetic to the idea that we need to get a lot tougher on immigration enforcement. So this is a real problem for the president. I think what happened in Minnesota and the way people responded should have been a wake up call. This president does not do apologies well, does not change course well. But it really could have been an opportunity last night for him to say that some mistakes were made. We're recalibrating. We're going to do this in an effective way that will respect constitutional rights and minimize disruptions in the lives of ordinary Americans. And then he did not do that. He doubled down and promises more of what we've seen.
- [12:45]
Paula Newton
And on those constitutional rights, Greg, that most Americans hold dear, I want to get a sense from you again, Greg, because you've been very active on this, on social media, that there is an increasing sense from critics of this administration that those constitutional guardrails are being actively dismantled, including flat out ignoring court rulings. I'm wondering, in your opinion, Greg, are we seeing a permanent fracturing of the rule of law under Trump, or do you have a more relaxed opinion towards this? It is an institutional structure that, through the courts, will remain resilient.
- [13:21]
Greg Nunziata
Well, I'm worried. I mean, I'm profoundly worried. I think that a lot of the root causes of the problems we're seeing predate Trump. They're sort of ways in which we as Americans have forgotten some basic civics, the way checks and balances have been eroded over decades. Congress getting weaker and weaker, the president getting stronger and stronger. These are real problems. But I think we've reached a new breaking point with Trump for a lot of reasons. One, the president has three jobs in America. To be the head of his party, to be the head of the executive branch, and to be the head of state. And in that last role, he's called upon to be bigger than partisanship, bigger than himself. He's called on to speak for all the American people and to guard the Constitution, uphold its basic promises. And this president has shown no interest in that last role. And that's a deep, deep problem. He's not being checked by Congress, and he is assaulting the authority and the independence of the judiciary. We need as Americans to come together and reinsist once again 250 years into our life as a nation on the fundamental promises of our Constitution, on those checks and balances. And I Don't think they're gone forever. I think they're being tested in a way they've not been tested in generations. And I really hope that Republicans and Democrats over the next couple years can come together and start talking about how we can restore checks and balances and really protect the constitutional rights that we all hold dear.
- [14:53]
Paula Newton
And, Susan, you know, Greg just called it a new breaking point, but, you know, he is mentioning both Democrats and Republicans here in terms of their role. Do you see, certainly a corrosive influence right now on these checks and balances and on the Constitution itself?
- [15:10]
Susan Glasser
Oh, let's be. I mean, you know, yes, absolutely. I mean, I think we have to just be very clear about what's the reality in front of us right now, you know, and again, you know, if there weren't all these weaknesses to take advantage of, Trump would not have come from anywhere. Right. He didn't create American divisions. But again, to be clear eyed about what's happening right now, we have never had a president in my lifetime or in any of our lifetimes who have done the things that Donald Trump has done to directly challenge the norms, rules, practices, and even laws that have shaped modern American governance. And so, you know, you can look on a variety of fronts and see that happening. You know, I would say it's the sweeping assertion of executive authority that has gone mostly unchecked, actually, by the Supreme Court. In fact, that Supreme Court decision last week was very notable because it was the first major decision on the substance on the merits, not just in terms of an emergency case where the court was ruling against Donald Trump, but it's the same Supreme Court that also ruled that a president has nearly unlimited immunity. And that was in the middle of the 2024 election, in a way, a precursor event. Trump himself has cited that as a reason why he basically can govern in a way that's much closer to a king or an autocratic ruler, number one. Number two, bypassing Congress. This is really important. Our checks and balances aren't functioning anymore right now under a Republican controlled Congress with Trump in the White House. This is put the whole system out of whack. And the third thing I would point out is a sweeping assault on dissent on and weaponizing the federal government against those who stand up to and disagree with Donald Trump, attempting to put members of Congress in jail for speech, attempting to put the citizens of Minnesota, American citizens, in jail, or beating them up because they were trying to bear witness to federal government attacks on their neighbors. This is a really important thing that's happening right now. And it's not American.
- [17:15]
Paula Newton
Greg, you know, we noted that, look, you worked with Marco Rubio. When we talk about this fracturing, this corrosive nature of checks and balances of the Constitution itself, you know, I've often put to people and said, look, a Democratic president could learn from this situation as well. Then the next time there is a Democratic president, Greg, don't you think that person as well could use some of the precedents set by this administration? And when I mention someone like Marco Rubio, who many people believe he will run in the next election, do you have any confidence that someone like that, seeing that the checks and balances are dismantled, do you have any confidence, you know, he will elect to put those checks and balances, to adhere to those checks and balances anymore when he sees what the former president did?
- [18:02]
Greg Nunziata
Well, this is the problem of ever expanding executive power, which, you know, we've been on a course now for decades. A president can get elected even with the best of intentions and want to use the power to its fullest. And that power keeps getting bigger and bigger. And obviously that opens the door to a president with bad intentions using these powers for ill. And it's really, really hard to get a president of any party, of any ideology, of any kind of character to decline to use powers that seem available to them. So, absolutely. I mean, when I speak to my conservative friends all the time talking about how this president is trying to govern by emergency decree on a range of subjects, just imagine what a Democrat might do with that with climate emergencies or gun violence emergencies or whatever the issue is that a Republican voter might care about and worry about what Democrats might do. These kinds of policy changes should rely in the hands of Congress. And again, it's very, very hard to get a president to refrain from using power. So what we need is a Congress doing its job to say no and to push back on a president when they exceed their authority. And that's just not what's been happening in our country for quite some time. And we all really need, and I hope that this, the lessons of this year should really wake people up to that reality across the spectrum. And yeah, I mean, Minnesota was, I think, really clarified a lot of the problems we've seen in this administration. You had violations of the 1st, 2nd, 4th, 10th and other constitutional amendments.
- [19:39]
Paula Newton
The list is long. Susan, both you and Greg mentioned, really Congress here in their role when it turns to issues like Iran. The president didn't say much in the State of the Union, only mentioning his preference for diplomacy. Congress has not weighed in on any military action here. What is the constitutional risk of the administration continuing this buildup that we see at this hour without a formal authorization?
- [20:06]
Susan Glasser
Yeah, exactly. I mean, look, you know, over decades, Congress has really walked away from the, you know, authority that it has under the War Powers Act. Presidents dispute that. But you did see the administration briefing key members of Congress before the speech about Iran yesterday. Many of the Democratic leaders who came out of that said they took away a clear impression that some military action might be imminent. And again, to this point about Donald Trump doesn't even seem to feel compelled to make his case to the American people. I was really struck by what he did say about Iran in that address. Essentially, he said we might need to go to war to obliterate an Iranian nuclear program that, by the way, we've already obliterated. And also we would like to make an Iranian nuclear deal in order to avoid that war. That is similar to the nuclear deal that Donald Trump pulled out of and got rid of in 2018. So, you know, it's very hard on that basis for there to be any real public understanding of what's happening, never mind support for it. Trump has sent a vast armada of air and sea power to the region. And I think what I'm hearing from experts is that deploying that kind of a force generally is means that you are going to do something with it. You know, does Donald Trump have the stomach for a full fledged conflict in the Middle East? To me, he prefers more the quick, militarized display of force and then the easy declaration of victory.
- [21:39]
Paula Newton
Yeah. And again, from what we know so far, Congress will not be getting a word in one way or the other. Greg Nunziada, Susan Glass are grateful to both of you. Thanks so much. Appreciate it.
- [21:48]
Greg Nunziata
Thank you.
- [21:50]
Paula Newton
Now stay with us. We'll be right back with more news in a moment.
- [22:01]
Chris John
Want consistent color for every job? Milo's Pro Rewards members get a 20% paint discount on future purchases. After paint annual qualifying spend reaches $3,000 plus order eligible in stock paint and paint supplies by 2pm for free. Same day delivery by 8pm improving is easy at Lowes. Exclude spray paint and mistints. More exclusions. Terms and conditions apply. Subject to change. Details@lowes.com Terms same day delivery valid in select zip codes. Subject to driver availability.
- [22:28]
Susan Glasser
Details@lowes.com SameDayDelivery I'm CNN Tech reporter Claire Duffy.
- [22:33]
Greg Nunziata
This week on the podcast Terms of Service.
- [22:36]
Susan Glasser
All across the country, from Portland to
- [22:38]
Greg Nunziata
Minneapolis, protests have risen against President Trump's massive immigration crackdown. Many people have shared videos showing ICE agents appearing to photograph or videotape people with their cell phone cameras. What does it mean for people whose status ICE may be trying to assess
- [22:55]
Susan Glasser
and even for those who may come
- [22:56]
Greg Nunziata
into contact with ICE while protesting or observing their operations?
- [23:00]
Chris John
The app is called Mobile Fortify. It was developed by the Department of Homeland Security. If you are an ICE agent, you can walk up to someone, take a photo of their face, and it will pull from internal federal databases to be able to determine immigration status and your immigration history.
- [23:18]
Greg Nunziata
Listen to CNN's terms of service wherever you get your podcasts.
- [23:28]
Paula Newton
Aid groups are ringing alarm bells, warning that in 2026, marginalized civilians are paying the price for a war of deepening conflict and shrinking relief budgets. And it's not just the United States slashing foreign assistance now. The United Kingdom, Germany, Canada and other developed nations also made aid cuts, which are set to take effect this year and next, compounding the impact now, the funding crisis comes at an acute moment, particularly in the west bank and Gaza, where by Sunday dozens of aid groups could see their operations restricted by Israel due to new registration requirements. The International Rescue Committee is one of those organizations and its CEO David Miliband joins us now. Welcome to the program. It is good to see you again. And we do want to start with this quickly approaching deadline for aid agencies working in Gaza and the West Bank. You know, we just explained Israel is rewriting the rules of humanitarian aid. Crucially, the occupied Palestinian territories, you know, according to the irc, is ranked second in the emergency watch list. I'm wondering, how will these new rules affect the IRC's work in Gaza and the West Bank?
- [24:41]
David Miliband
Good evening, Paula. Thank you very much for your interest in these issues. Gaza is indeed one of the humanitarian crises that we highlight in our emergency watch list, which has the top 20 humanitarian crises of 2026. In total, 250 million people need help from aid agencies like the International Rescue Committee. And as you say, Gaza is number two. We're waiting to hear from the Israeli authorities about how they propose to deal with our application to register. We, along with a range of other aid agencies, have filed our papers in the correct way. We've explained what we do. We've explained how we are politically neutral and impartial, that we treat people on the basis of need. And we've explained how we follow very carefully all kinds of protocols that are applied around the world. And so we're waiting to hear whether our registration has been accepted. It's important that it is because we are a vital part of sustaining life and livelihood in places like Gaza. Obviously, we have an international presence in 330 field sites in 30 countries around the world and needs have rarely been greater. So it's important, not just in Gaza and the west bank, but elsewhere in these hotspots of humanitarian need, that aid agencies are able to do their work in a professional and appropriate way.
- [26:03]
Paula Newton
And we will get to some of those other hotspots in a moment. I do want to stick, though, with what is going on, especially with the ceasefire and the plans to obviously have some kind of a durable peace and development in the Palestinian territories and Gaza. To that end, your former boss, British Prime Minister Tony Blair, is involved in President Trump's Board of Peace. Now, at the World Economic Forum in Davos, we heard the board's plan for Gaza, right? It included hotel towers, housing, you know, leisure complexes. What do you make of the plan as you've seen it so far? And what do you believe it means for Palestinians themselves in Gaza?
- [26:43]
David Miliband
I think the most obvious and important thing to say is that those plans are a very, very long way from the realities of daily life for 2 million people in Gaza today. Any sensible person would welcome the ceasefire that was agreed. However, it's also important to point out that since the ceasefire was agreed four months ago, 600 Palestinians have been killed in action in Gaza. And I can report that while the worst excesses of starvation, of malnutrition have now receded, there remain enormous needs, especially in health and other areas that are vital to the sustenance of life and livelihood. We work as the International Rescue Committee in Gaza on water and sanitation issues, on health issues and on child protection. That's a very important part of our work. And the needs remain very great indeed. And it's vital that they are addressed. They are small steps towards the kind of long term vision that was established or that was set out not just by the representatives on. I think it's the Executive Committee of the Board of Peace, not the main border peace, but also by the representative of the 15 Palestinian representatives who are obviously critical to the administration of life in Gaza.
- [28:01]
Paula Newton
In terms of Mr. Blair's involvement, I mean, you make clear there is a lot that has to happen before anything that the Board of Peace sets out comes to fruition. What would you say to him? Have you spoken to him and what do you make of his involvement of this? Does it give you any reassurance?
- [28:15]
David Miliband
I saw Tony in Gaza. I saw Tony in Davos. I mean, he's on this UN sanctioned I mean UN appropriately mandated rather than sanctioned, UN Security Council mandated Executive Committee of the Border Peace, which is about the restoration of life and livelihood in Gaza. And obviously it's vital as a first step that humanitarian aid is able to flow, that humanitarian agencies are able, like the irc, are able to do our work there. And I think that's the first step. Obviously the. The longer term depends on a whole series of political and economic developments that anyone would wish to see, but are still a long way off.
- [28:56]
Paula Newton
I do want to get now to this emergency watch list. It highlights 20 countries most at risk of new or worsened humanitarian emergencies. Now, for the seventh year running, more than half of the listed countries are African ones. And conflicts are also at record highs since World War II. Now the IRC is now sounding the alarm over what you describe as a new world disorder. Can you walk us through that and what it means?
- [29:23]
David Miliband
Yes, I'd like to do that. This analysis, based on 75 different quantitative and qualitative indicators of humanitarian need, is very much data based, but it also draws out bigger themes. And the biggest theme is that the new world disorder that we're seeing in conflict zones around the world is driven by three factors. The first is a decline in international cooperation and a real crisis of diplomacy. There are 60 wars going on around the world at the moment. Secondly, there is a trampling on the rights of civilians caught up in conflict. Between a 50 and 100,000 civilians were killed in conflict last year. And you're more likely to be killed in conflict as a civilian than if you're a. Thirdly, there is increasing profiteering from conflict. And the case study of this is the top of the watch list. Sudan, the largest humanitarian crisis this century. 30 million people in humanitarian need. And there's profiteering from conflict because of the gold trade. That is an important part of Sudan's economy. And these three features are driving this new world disorder that we diagnose and that is so dangerous for civilians who don't just have the moral right to stay alive, they have legal rights or they're meant to have legal rights in conflict, to aid and also to continued livelihood. Because the targeting of civilians that we're seeing in conflict is completely contrary to international law as well as to morality.
- [30:56]
Paula Newton
I hear what you're saying and yet you know better than I that just. It's been more than a year now since USAID was shuttered to other Western countries are now following suit. The numbers are hard to really wrap your head around, especially when you juxtapose them against the progress that had been made for so many decades on this. Now, according to a new Lancet study, these global aid cuts could lead to 9.4 million additional deaths by 2030, including 2.5 million children aged under five. I mean, how do these stark numbers translate on the ground? I know you've seen it for yourself, and I know you're trying to do workarounds at irc, but this must be devastating, especially when you see the health statistics going backwards.
- [31:43]
David Miliband
Yeah, devastating is a very good word to use. And you're right to put this in historical perspective. For really decades now, four decades, indicators like child mortality have been going down. Shockingly, the Gates foundation now reports that child mortality rates in 2025 started to go up. And that's an indicator of quite how devastating this situation is. The combination of very high levels of need, 250 million people in humanitarian need, and aid cuts from the majority of traditional donor countries. No aid cuts from the European Union, I'm pleased to say. No aid cuts from. From Denmark either, I'm pleased to say. But you're right to highlight the other countries, including the us, but not only the US that have reduced their aid. So, yes, it is devastating. I think there's a couple of things that we're doing to mitigate the damage. 2 million international rescue Committee clients have lost access to aid entirely as a result of the cuts. For example, that's 300,000 kids in Afghanistan no longer getting education, boys and girls. But we're trying to mitigate that in two ways. First of all, we're saying there needs to be more focus on what aid that's left in fragile and conflict states where the majority of extremely poor people live. Countries like Sudan, Gaza, you've mentioned, they're very good examples of that. Secondly, we're leading the drive for aid innovation. Just Today, we're using AI to diagnose Mpoke in the Democratic Republic of Congo. We think there's a lot more that can be done on that. We're using AI to anticipate climate shocks so that we're able to prepare communities innovation in the aid sector that's needed, as well as the direction of what resources exist to where the needs are greatest.
- [33:24]
Paula Newton
I take your point about the eu, and yet we have articulated here on this program just how significant the US aid cuts have been. The UK at one time, including when you served in the government, was a stable aid provider. We're a year on from Prime Minister Keir Starmer announcing Britain's aid budget would be slashed right up to 40%. I mean, the government says it needs to increase defense spending. I do want to read to you though, a joint statement 93 leaders from the UK's international NGO sector wrote. And they say over the past year we have witnessed firsthand the consequences of these short sighted cuts have left more people without essential access to water, sanitation and shelter. They have also left us vulnerable to a world with more disease, conflict and climate disasters. I am very curious to get your take, Mr. Millenband. I covered you as a politician in the UK in those years. I'm not sure if you were in Cabinet today what you would be saying about these cuts. But you know better than I do that they do resonate with people in the UK who they themselves believe that these tough decisions have to be made.
- [34:36]
David Miliband
Yeah, I would obviously be deploring the cuts and I have done so publicly as well as privately. I think that the International Rescue Committee is one of the signatories to the letter that you read out. And certainly it's my contention that it's not just morally right to make sure that aid reaches those people in need, it's also strategically smart.
- [34:56]
Paula Newton
But that argument doesn't seem to hold water with this Labour government and I'm sure you've spoken to them.
- [35:01]
David Miliband
No, you're right. So maybe I should be better at arguing or better at convincing or better at persuading. But I think that it remains a very important argument. The world's actually more connected than ever before. We make the point in the emergency watch list that there were 57 large measles outbreaks in the world last year. The problems that start in places like Sudan, they don't end in places like Sudan. They move because people move. At one point, about nine months ago, a large proportion of those people trying to cross the English Channel from France, from Calais to Dover were from Sudan. This is a connected world and that's why I think it's smart. It would be smart as well as right to sustain aid budgets. Of course, Development. The development context has changed a lot in the 30 last 30 years. The economic development of countries depends on markets, it depends on good governance. But when it comes to the world's poorest people, it's just wrong as well as misguided not to help them.
- [36:06]
Paula Newton
I only have about 30 seconds left, but in terms of what will resonate in a country like the uk, do you believe that the rise of reform and the demonization of immigrants is connected to this in some way?
- [36:19]
David Miliband
No. I think the critical thing that we have to get across to people is how much difference they can make. I can tell you that 24 million doses of vaccine have been delivered in six countries by the International Rescue Committee last year at $2.20 a shot. So that's about £1 80 a shot. So we have a very good value for money proposition. And I think part of the job of those of us in the aid sector is to do a much better job of challenging the misperceptions about aid and showing how much difference it can make. I hope that fits within your 30 seconds.
- [36:51]
Paula Newton
You did a brilliant job, as I'm sure you'll have to continue doing in order to really do the advocacy that you've been doing for so many years now. And I hear you. We have all seen firsthand what a few pennies, pennies, literally pennies, can do to the health of children around the world. David Miliband for us. Thanks so much. Appreciate it. Thank you, Paula, and stay with us. We'll be right back with more news.
- [37:19]
Chris John
TAB I GOT NEWS for your ears, the podcast.
- [37:22]
Greg Nunziata
I am your host, Michael Ian Black.
- [37:25]
David Miliband
If you look at the favorability ratings,
- [37:27]
Chris John
in 20 years, Trump will be lower
- [37:29]
David Miliband
than Gacy because Trump destroyed so many
- [37:32]
Chris John
more lives than Gacy. What's Casey's body count?
- [37:34]
David Miliband
60.
- [37:35]
Greg Nunziata
Yes.
- [37:36]
Chris John
I mean, Trump blows up that many in a boat on the weekend. That's what he's doing.
- [37:40]
Susan Glasser
Everything's so hard to keep track of.
- [37:42]
Chris John
That's why shows like have I Got News for your exists.
- [37:45]
Paula Newton
That's right. Oh, right to camera.
- [37:46]
Chris John
Have I Got News for your Ears releases new episodes every Wednesday. Don't miss an episode.
- [37:52]
Greg Nunziata
Follow us wherever you get your podcasts.
- [38:00]
Paula Newton
So next, as the United States heads into a midterm election season marked by sharp polarization, battles over immigration and growing fears about democratic norms, an old Hollywood Western is suddenly feeling strikingly modern. New stage adaptation of High Noon on London's West End. This is High Noon that we're about to tell you. It was, you'll note, first produced in 1952, it was seen as a parable of McCarthy era blacklisting and public cowardice as it confronts those same tensions today. And it confronts those head on. Now. While Bruce Springsteen's music underscores this drama, actors Billy Crudup and Denise Gough joined Chris John in the London studio to talk about High Noon.
- [38:50]
Chris John
Denise Gough, Billy Crudup, welcome to the program. So I've seen High Noon. I saw the stage play and it was really very, very effective. It sort of rolled into today and just grabbed us all with the relevance for today but how difficult was it to put what everybody knows is a movie onto the stage, particularly in the uk, premiering here to the Brits?
- [39:15]
Denise Gough
Well, we did a workshop of it first so that we could get an idea of how to make it work. But I think you should speak to that more because as an American, I'm used to doing theater here a lot of. But doing a very specific American play, American Story.
- [39:30]
Chris John
It's a unique play in several regards, not the least of which that it's a beloved western film that feels like a part of the Americana culture. And Eric Roth is a screenwriter. He hadn't had the idea. Successful film, incredibly successful over many, many decades, still producing. He was inspired by what was happening in the world. And that movie, it turns out, was written by a man who was blacklisted. And there is a correspondence in 1952. In 1952. And there's a correspondence between living during a time that feels lawless and where people are having difficult. A difficult time agreeing on what the rules and what the laws are and how we can all live collectively in a civilized environment. And so the Wild west is a perfect metaphor for that. That land was being developed by people who were coming in from all over the place. And there was quite a bit of dis ease because the Civil War had just ended. People were heavily armed, they were still at each other's throats, and they hadn't agreed upon how to collectively live a civil society. So there was a lot of rage. And I think that's one of the things that was inspiring Eric. He wanted to bring it to the stage in a visceral way. Well, the first draft that I read had an eagle flying in, as I recall, and he was testing out any kind of theatrical vocabulary that he could imagine. So when Thea and Denise were involved, Thea being the director, Thea Sharek, they're high level theater professionals who not only understand dramaturgically how to shape a piece of material like this, because it was probably an hour longer, the text was
- [41:16]
talking about the timing. And you have a clock on the stage.
- [41:20]
Correct.
- [41:21]
And it counts down to high noon. And so in real time. So we're watching.
- [41:25]
It's a great device. It is.
- [41:26]
It really is. Let's just establish you are Will Kane, the sheriff. Who wants to put down.
- [41:30]
Marshall.
- [41:31]
Marshall, I'm so sorry. You're right. Who wants to put down his weapons finally and swan off into the sunset with you, Amy, his new bride, et cetera. You're a Quaker. You hate violence and war. And this is Fundamental that your soon to be husband does not pick up his gun again. But first, I want to ask you, because you've been talking so much about the film, was there pressure to step into Grace Kelly's shoes or to Gary Cooper's shoes? I mean, he won an Oscar. How did you feel?
- [41:59]
Denise Gough
So for me, when I watched the film, I thought, well, when I first read the script, I thought, I'm not sure this is for me. And then we did the workshop on it, and I realized that what Eric was looking to do with the Grace Kelly part was to flesh it out a little, because in the film, she's Grace Kelly and I'm not Grace Kelly. I'm 25 years older than Grace Kelly, for one thing. And so I didn't really think of the pressure of being compared to her. But I wanted to make sure that doing a play like this, that I brought a woman of now somehow. And so being able and encouraged to flesh her out in the way that I was was part of the reason why I wanted to do it. And working with Billy, who wanted that too. I don't think you wanted Grace Kelly. Maybe you do now, after working with me for a while.
- [42:53]
Chris John
So when it was first written in 1952, and you said that the writer was blacklisted, this was during the McCarthy era, where Senator McCarthy was essentially going after. It was the Red Scare. He was destroying people's lives. All this nonsense about this person's a Communist, there's a Communist under every bed, or a Red under every bed and all the rest of it. And why is that relevant today? How does it become relevant today? Because it is about cowardice and a lack of willing by the general population there to confront, you know, an evil who's coming back into town.
- [43:29]
Denise Gough
But also.
- [43:29]
Chris John
And then it's left up to you, the marshal, to do that, much to your chagrin.
- [43:33]
Denise Gough
But it's also, to me, about community and what we're willing to do to protect our communities. And so I think the relevance of it now, like, I think great writing reflects the time that it's. That it's written in. But then great writing is also timeless. So whatever the blacklist and communism of the time, of the film now, I feel like this idea of community, what we're willing to do for the people that we love and also the greater community, the global community, we're seeing this stuff everywhere. And we're living in a time now where artists are even saying things like art shouldn't be political, and all of this, people are censoring Themselves out of fear. And so to me, doing this play, certainly, and certainly playing a woman who I see as a non violent activist, essentially, and a woman at the beginning of the idea of feminism and seeing what she has to go through, I think I. I believe that art, theater, all of that, has the capacity to ask an audience, what would you do if you were in this situation? So, you know, somebody once told me that fiction reading fiction is like an empathy gym. And so for me, theater is like sitting in community empathizing. And as artists, we are able to elicit empathy for imaginary characters. And so there's something to do.
- [45:06]
Chris John
If I could add to that, because that is speaking more to the point that with respect to the communists and blacklisting and stuff, High Noon, when viewed from a certain vantage point, the movie itself isn't about courage. It isn't about one man standing. It's about capricious cowardice and people capitulating in the face of a violent threat. And so those are some of the themes that we started to see, particularly in America, which felt both very familiar and also terrifying that the things that we thought that we had sort of graduated from in some ways had returned with such a vehemence. And there's some portions of the play that are about what happens when politics and retribution get hand in hand. What happens when you get a very powerful person who's interested in vengeance first and employs people around them. And that was what was happening in the 50s as well. And people were closing up their stores, they were turning on their neighbors, they were adding to the lists. And so I think those sorts of correlations are important to.
- [46:11]
So then let's go straight to the denouement. And that is that in this case the retribution was going to be enacted on you by this guy Frank.
- [46:20]
Greg Nunziata
Correct.
- [46:21]
Chris John
Who you as marshal had jailed, convicted. Correct. All the rest of it. And he had been expelled from the town and then he was gonna come back. So you felt because nobody else was gonna help you, that you had to prevent him taking retribution, right?
- [46:35]
Well, he had essentially incarcerated him first based upon the law. He was a law enforcement officer. So he was a person who was devoted to the rule of law.
- [46:48]
That's important today.
- [46:49]
He fought in the Civil War. He was a veteran. It's an important part to understand. Too many of the marshals of that territory, they were hired because they were really good with weapons. And the people who owned the towns, who were the sort of town fathers, they wanted people to enforce the laws that they made. So they would hire a marshal who would enforce the laws that they made. So Will is devoted to the rule of laws. He sees it in America and uses his capacity as an agent of law enforcement. That is to say, he's got tactical awareness. He can negotiate a situation, and if he has to, he can fight. And those are the crucial parts of law enforcement. But he's going to use the law all the time. So this guy, Frank Miller, lawless, criminal law lawless, doesn't think laws apply to him. And Will's like, you can't live in this territory and behave that way. And eventually he comes for his deputy. This isn't in our story, but he kills Will's deputy and Will has to go after him. And then a jury convicts him of his crime, again, part of the rule of law. And he is sentenced to hang. The politicians up north free him for reasons that we don't understand. So all of these sorts of events feel like they have a modern correlation.
- [48:04]
Denise Gough
Well, for sure.
- [48:04]
Chris John
I mean, for sure. And if we didn't hear it once, we'll hear it again. Rule of law, it's under threat right now in the United States, certainly, but. So that's what the sheriff, the marshal does. But you as the wife, and you've been. You've just been married, you are really struggling. You're prepared to give up your new husband for this principle until you're not.
- [48:30]
Denise Gough
I think for me, because she's so clearly all the way through, has her belief system, but then she sees Frank Miller and sees in his eyes what's. Because he tries to tell her about vengeance and what vengeance means. And she has a deep belief that we make these choices and it's not natural, but then she's faced with the reality of when you stand in front of someone that you know is going to tear a community apart. Not just him, a community, a whole world. A world that I've seen that Amy has seen Will build at the beginning, there's a whole speech about what he's done for 17 years and the pride she has in him for that, but understands that you can't. You can't commit to your whole life doing that. And she sees throughout the play all these people abandoning him. And then she sees. She meets Frank Miller, and in that moment, she has to make the biggest decision. And I always feel at the end of the play, it's kind of devastating. It's not. It's devastating what this woman has to give up. And some people cheer. The nights that they cheer, I think, don't cheer at this bit. It's so sad.
- [49:45]
Chris John
Okay, so listen, um, you just talked about politics and how some believe that creatives shouldn't bring their politics to the public. Obviously, you've seen at the. At the Berlinale Film Festival, big debate, rather bitter debate about politics and talking about and using your platform. Do you shy away from. From espousing your politics as an actress?
- [50:07]
Denise Gough
Listen, it goes to what I've said about. It's a transference of skills. My job and what I'm skillful at is getting people to empathize with imaginary characters. So if I can transfer those skills to things that have meaning for me, and I have deep meaning and connections to certain things that are happening in the world that I feel, you know, I'm not just. I'm not just my job. I'm a person. And I don't think about things as being political or not political. It's about who am I as a human. And I can't. I can't say nothing. It's not my fault that I'm given platforms, that I'm here. I'm. This is. I find it sad that artists that I really respect and admire find themselves not able to speak up because of what might happen. I find that really frightening.
- [50:55]
Chris John
So that is frightening. Now, just to say you. One of your great public things has been. Andor. You've been in Andor, which is so famous. You've been in the morning show, you've been in J. Kelly, you've done tons and tons of theater, but you're both very front in today's. In today's creative environment. So I just want to ask you, lastly, because of your role as, you know, the head of this news organization, you probably saw what the fcc, Brandon Carr, tried to do to CBS and Stephen Colbert try to prevent them from interviewing a Texas state senator for whatever reason. Anyway, Colbert basically called them out. He said, listen, I don't care. I'm out of here in May anyway, you've already fired me. And he went against his own company, cbs, the company, as Corey Ellison. What do you make of that? Or as Billy cried it.
- [51:49]
Well, I'll tell you, to Denise's point before it's true, I'm just a dancing monkey. Of course that's part of being a performer. But I am also a citizen and I'm a grown person and a parent, and I try to participate in my civic life as much as I do in my work life. So if I'm given an opportunity then to speak about the correlation between my work and my life, I'm inclined in my personal ideology to join in that conversation. I don't think I'm necessarily right or brilliant or everybody should listen to me. But the conversation is happening between us right now. So I don't believe that there's any particular reason other than you might not agree with me that I should shut up. So that's how I sort of feel when I feel impassioned about a point of view and what's happening in my neighborhood or what's happening to my community, or what's happening to my child's future. Those sorts of things ignite me, and I'm given an opportunity to talk about it. I want to talk about it. Corey is going to have a fascinating time because Corey loves a challenge. And if Corey has to try to navigate his own capability to produce as a capitalist under the threat of a wannabe dictator, that'll be exciting.
- [53:01]
So this is for another season of.
- [53:03]
I'm just suggesting how Cory might think about Ives out there. Is another season coming. I will, I'm sure, suggest this, but they don't really listen to my suggestions.
- [53:12]
Denise Gough, Billy Crudup, thank you so much. Indeed. High Noon.
- [53:15]
Thank you, thank you.
- [53:16]
Denise Gough
Thank you very much.
- [53:19]
Paula Newton
And High noon is on London's west end until March 6th. And finally for us, a new Olympic flame burns. The 2026 Winter Paralympic torch has officially started its relay departing from Stoke Mandeville in the UK, the birthplace of the Paralympic movement. Back in 1948. The flame was lit by Great Britain's four time Paralympic medalist, Millie Knight, alongside Andrea Macri, the vice captain of Italy's para ice hockey team. Now the torch has now touched down in Turin and is expected to reach Verona on March 6, just in time for the opening ceremony. The Games will host more than 600 athletes from 50 nations with medals in 79 events up for grabs. Now be sure to tune in tomorrow for a trip down Penny Lane. A new documentary. Man on the Run is an intimate look at Paul McCartney, maybe as you've never seen him before. Now he grapples with the Beatles breakup, his musical future and even life on the farm. I spoke with its award winning director Morgan Nelville about all this and more and trust me, you don't want to miss it as on tomorrow's show. And that does it for us. If you ever miss our show, you can find the latest episode shortly after it airs on our podcast. And remember, you can always catch us us online, on our website and on social media. I want to thank you for watching and goodbye from New York.