Where Things Stand in Russia's War Against Ukraine

Summary

Amanpour: "Where Things Stand in Russia's War Against Ukraine"

CNN Podcasts | September 8, 2025
Host: Christiane Amanpour (with Bianna Golodryga sitting in for Amanpour)

---

Episode Overview

This episode offers an in-depth, multi-part exploration of the current state of global crises. The primary focus is on the escalating war between Russia and Ukraine, featuring military analyst Michael Kaufman. Additional segments examine the US–Venezuela standoff following a deadly drug interdiction raid, the fallout from the UK’s ban of a pro-Palestinian activism group, and a conversation with Stacey Abrams about the warning signs of growing autocracy in the United States.

---

Key Segments & Insights

1. The Ukraine War: Largest Russian Airstrikes & Battlefield Realities

Guest: Michael Kaufman, Senior Fellow, Russia Eurasia Program, Carnegie Endowment for International Peace
Host: Bianna Golodryga

[00:34–14:49] Russia’s Escalation and Ukraine’s Response

• Largest Russian Aerial Attack:

  • Russia has carried out its largest aerial attack, hitting even a government building in Kyiv with a ballistic missile.
  • Civilian deaths continue to mount, including mothers and children.
  • Quote: “The Russian strike effort is widening rather than being contained or reflecting some kind of limitation on Moscow’s part.” — Michael Kaufman [03:37]

• Moscow’s Strategy:

  • Attacks focus on Ukrainian defense, industry, and energy infrastructure, as well as cities to drive out civilian populations.
  • Russian drone and missile production capabilities have scaled up “maybe 10 times compared to last year.” — Kaufman

• Ukrainian Frontlines & Morale:

  • Despite the prolonged and difficult situation, Ukrainian forces have “held the Russian military to relatively incremental gains.”
  • Russia’s material and manpower advantage is evident, with backing from China and North Korea, but Ukrainian resilience and adaptability remain strong.
  • “If we assess the results of Russian offensive efforts from spring through the summer, they are likely...lackluster...They haven't captured major cities.” — Kaufman [04:51]

• The Reality of a Prolonged Conflict:

  • Kaufman foresees the war continuing well into 2026, emphasizing the stalemate nature of current fighting.

• Manpower & Technology:

  • Ukraine faces consistent manpower challenges versus Russia’s historic advantage.
  • Offsetting this are western capital and technological innovation, with significant investment in defense and drones.
  • “I don’t think that drones and drone units alone can stabilize the frontline, but they’ve done quite a bit to stymie the Russian offensive effort.” — Kaufman [06:19]

• Economic Sanctions & Western Measures:

  • U.S. sanctions have been inconsistently applied and lack the necessary maintenance and reinvigoration. Russia’s objective appears to be stalling for time while hoping for a collapse of Western support.
  • “We've gone from one set of negotiations to another to a summit without much progress.” — Kaufman [07:47]

• Crucial Military Needs for Ukraine:

  • Essentials: Communications, protected mobility, basic equipment.
  • High priority: Air defense batteries and munitions (“you can never have enough”), as well as longer-range and precision strike capabilities.
  • “There's a significant fall off in abilities that Ukrainian forces have to hit Russian military in the rear...at the tactical level.” — Kaufman [09:14]

• Status of Western Aid:

  • Ukraine is producing much of what it needs for “day-to-day battlefield needs,” but relies on the West for major systems (e.g., HIMARS, Patriot batteries).
  • There is concern about the volume and timeliness of Western support, but Austrian defense is not expected to collapse imminently if funding continues.
  • “I think the capacity is there. I wish it was greater. And of course, I wish...we...had gotten down the path of investing in expanded defense industrial production much sooner in this war.” — Kaufman [10:48]

• U.S. and Europe’s Role:

  • The decisive factor will be sustained and clearly signaled Western commitment. The prospect of shifting U.S. focus to the Indo-Pacific raises some concern among analysts.
  • “Making a sustained commitment is critical.” — Kaufman [13:32]

Memorable Moment:

“We are in a race now between: how long can the Ukrainian military hold up, versus how long can the Russian economy hold up?”
— Kaufman [02:44]

Takeaway:
The conflict is unlikely to see a rapid or game-changing development in the near-term. Sustained Ukrainian resistance depends on both internal innovation and continued external support, while Russian strategy bets on outlasting Ukrainian resources and Western resolve.

---

2. U.S.–Venezuela Standoff: Major Escalation in the War on Drugs

Guest: Ivan Briscoe, Senior Director for Policy, International Crisis Group
Host: Christiane Amanpour

[15:33–24:43] U.S. Military Strike & Strategic Build-up

• Deadly Raid:

  • The U.S. conducted a strike on a Venezuelan vessel, killing 11 alleged traffickers. The action marks a shift toward direct U.S. military involvement in anti-drug operations.
  • “For the United States itself to attack a boat...without giving warning beforehand” is “a change in the model of the war on drugs.” — Ivan Briscoe [16:39]

• Largest Military Deployment in Decades:

  • U.S. has moved substantial military assets—destroyers, aircraft, troops, and a nuclear sub—into the Caribbean.

• Trump Administration’s Intentions:

  • Officially denies pursuing regime change, but rhetoric and military pressure suggest aims to destabilize Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro. The bounty for handing over Maduro has doubled to $50M.
  • “There is a desire to...intimidate the Venezuelan government...to encourage parts of the military to break away, turn against Maduro and maybe deliver Maduro to the U.S. Forces.” — Briscoe [18:55]

• Risk of Escalation:

  • Both sides are increasing the risk profile, with Venezuelan threats of "maximum rebellion" and U.S. show of force. The potential for accidental conflict is high.
  • “Once the military is engaged, if there is...a clash with Venezuelan forces, then the risk, of course, is that the conflict will escalate.” — Briscoe [21:26]

• Legal and Congressional Questions:

  • The Trump administration justifies military actions under the classification of drug groups as foreign terrorist organizations.
  • “We are in a very uncertain position: there is no war; there is supposedly legitimate use of self-defense...” — Briscoe [24:20]

---

3. Tensions in Israel and the West Bank

With: Jeremy Diamond (reporting from Jerusalem), Christiane Amanpour

[24:43–29:47] Shooting at Jerusalem Bus Stop & Gaza Conflict

• Jerusalem Bus Stop Attack:

  • Two Palestinian gunmen killed at least six at a bus stop, prompting Israeli forces to conduct raids in their West Bank village. Hamas praised but did not claim responsibility for the attack.

• Gaza escalation:

  • Four Israeli soldiers killed, as the Israeli Defense Minister promises a “massive hurricane” of military response in Gaza.
  • Trump administration presents a new proposal for ceasefire and hostage release but with no strong Israeli commitment to ending the war, complicating acceptance by Hamas.
  • “The alternative...is this...intensifying Israeli military assault on Gaza City...only in its opening stages.” — Diamond [27:49]

• On the ground:

  • Widespread destruction in Gaza; at least 40 high-rises destroyed.
  • “The comfort that I enjoy living in London is soaked in Palestinian blood.” — Protester, via Isabel Young [33:14]

---

4. Political Protest & Free Speech Under Fire in the UK

With: Isabel Young (on the ground in London)

[29:47–37:28] Pro-Palestinian Group Banned, Mass Arrests

• Palestine Action Ban:

  • Nearly 900 arrested in London for protesting the UK’s ban of Palestine Action under anti-terrorism laws.
  • The ban criminalizes not only activists’ actions but also public displays of support.
  • “Anyone showing any support...even holding up a sign is currently being arrested.” — Isabel Young [33:45]
  • “What Israel doing is terrorism.” — Protester [34:19]

• Debate on Definition of Terrorism:

  • John Woodcock (Lord Walney), who advised on the ban, argues their actions meet the economic disruption criteria under UK terrorism laws.
  • “There is a category of criminal behavior...which can fall under the definition of terrorism.” — Lord Walney [35:12]
  • Gray area remains, given peaceful protest and the age/demographics of many arrestees.

• Concerns for Free Speech:

  • The restrictions have ignited debate about civil liberties, protest, and overreach in anti-terror laws.

---

5. America’s Slide Toward Autocracy

Guest: Stacey Abrams, Democratic politician
Host: Michelle Martin, with Bianna Golodryga

[38:06–55:31] Warning Signs and the Path Forward

• Autocracy Warning:

  • Abrams says, “We are in the midst of an authoritarian regime... It's already happening.” [38:26]
  • Cites expansion of executive power, suppression of Congress and the courts, media attacks, and political violence as defining features.

• Descent by Stages:

  • Abrams lays out “ten steps” by which democracies can slide into autocracy, arguing the U.S. is at or has completed step 10:
    • Last free election
    • Executive excess
    • Neutering independent institutions
    • Media attacks
    • Erosion of government and civil society
    • Aversion to dissent (even minor protest criminalized)
    • Incentivizing and weaponizing private violence

• Political Violence & Manipulation:

  • Discusses recent examples:
    • Purged voter rolls
    • Military and ICE presence in cities
    • Political prosecutions of dissenters (“If you can go to jail for a sandwich, then how dare you protest in the streets?” — Abrams [47:20])

• Democratic Responsibility & Hope:

  • Calls on ordinary people—regardless of party—to claim agency and resist normalization of these patterns.
  • Stresses the need for accountability, civil engagement, and reclaiming basic rights to prevent “the end of voting actually making a difference.” [43:14]
  • “We have not fully fallen. We are in an authoritarian moment, but we are not so far in that we can’t find our way out. We have to recognize where we are. We then have to activate ourselves to do something about it.” — Abrams [49:08]

• Personal Motivation:

  • Abrams shares that family history fuels her faith in civic participation and democracy: “My grandfather...was born 25 years after the end of slavery. Within two generations, his granddaughter became the first Black woman in American history to be nominated to be governor of a state.” [54:32]

---

Notable Quotes & Timestamps

• “The Russian strike effort is widening rather than being contained.”

  • Michael Kaufman [03:37]

• “We are in a race now between: how long can the Ukrainian military hold up, versus how long can the Russian economy hold up?”

  • Michael Kaufman [02:44]

• “For the United States itself to attack a boat...is a change in the model of the war on drugs.”

  • Ivan Briscoe [16:39]

• “We are in the midst of an authoritarian regime... It's already happening.”

  • Stacey Abrams [38:26]

• “If you can go to jail for a sandwich, then how dare you protest in the streets?”

  • Stacey Abrams [47:20]

• “The comfort that I enjoy living in London is soaked in Palestinian blood.”

  • Pro-Palestine Action protester [33:14]

---

Final Thoughts

This episode threads together global flashpoints and domestic anxieties, underscoring the fragility of democratic norms amid war, protest, and power politics. Insights from experts and direct reporting from conflict and protest zones provide a sobering look at why vigilance and engagement matter on every front—from Ukrainian battlefields to the streets of London and the halls of Congress.

---

Next episode previews, entertainment sections, and all ad content have been omitted in this summary.

Transcript

[Audie Cornish]

This episode is brought to you by LifeLock.

[Bianna Golodryga]

Between two factor authentication, strong passwords, and a VPN, you try to be in.

[Audie Cornish]

Control of how your info is protected. But many other places also have it, and they might not be as careful. That's why LifeLock monitors hundreds of millions of data points a second for threats.

[Bianna Golodryga]

If your identity is stolen, they'll fix.

[Audie Cornish]

It, guaranteed, or your money back.

[Bianna Golodryga]

Save up to 40% your first year.

[Audie Cornish]

Visit lifelock.com podcast for 40% off. Terms apply.

[Christian Amanpour]

Hello, everyone, and welcome to Amanpour. Here's what's coming up. Another devastating day of airstrikes in Ukraine as calls grow for stronger action against Putin. I asked military analyst Michael Kaufman how this could shape things on the battlefield.

[Audie Cornish]

Then billions of dollars of drugs are.

[Christian Amanpour]

Pouring into our country from Venezuela. Could Trump's war on drugs turn into an actual war? I speak to senior director at the International Crisis Group, Ivan Briscoe about escalating tensions between the US And Venezuela.

[Isabel Young]

Also ahead, hundreds of people here are being arrested.

[Christian Amanpour]

British police take on protesters in London as thousands stand against the banning of a pro Palestinian group. Isabel Young's special report on the cost of opposing the war in Gaza.

[Audie Cornish]

Plus, we are in the midst of an authoritarian regime.

[Christian Amanpour]

Democratic politician Stacey Abrams tells Michelle Martin why she's sounding the alarm on what she says is the rise of autocracy in America. Welcome to the program, everyone. I'm Bianna Galadrigo. New York, sitting in for Christian Amanpour. The largest Russian air attack of the war so far. A government building damaged for the first time. And more Ukrainian civilians killed in the strikes, including Ukrainian media say a mother and her baby in Kyiv. So has President Putin blown his place at the negotiating table? It seems the days of diplomatic dialogue with President Trump could be numbered. Take a listen.

[Jeremy Diamond]

It's such a horrible waste of humanity.

[Audie Cornish]

So, no, I am not thrilled with what's happening there.

[Michael Kaufman]

I believe we're going to get it.

[Audie Cornish]

Settled, but I am not happy with them.

[Christian Amanpour]

President Trump says he's now ready to move to a, quote, second phase of sanctions on Moscow. And the stakes are high. As Secretary treasury, as Treasury Secretary Scott Besant made clear over the weekend, we.

[Michael Kaufman]

Are in a race now between how long can the Ukrainian military hold up versus how long can the Russian economy hold up?

[Christian Amanpour]

And yet the Kremlin claims sanctions could never force them to change the course in the war. But is that a position that they have the privilege to hold at this point? Here to tell us where things stand on the battlefield is Michael Kaufman, a senior fellow in The Russia Eurasia Program at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace. He is joining us from London. Mike, it is good to see you. So, as we noted, Russia just carried out its largest aerial attack of the war, striking even a government building in Kyiv, which, according to President Zelensky, was hit with a ballistic missile. From a military standpoint, what does that tell you about Moscow's current strategy here?

[Michael Kaufman]

I think that beyond what's happening on the front line, the Russian military has been trying to bombard Ukrainian defense, industrial production, Ukrainian energy infrastructure. It's been going after cities, it's been going after civilians, trying to drive civilians out of cities as well. And as you see, in fact, the Russian strike effort is widening rather than being contained or reflecting some kind of limitation on Moscow's part. If anything, Russian drone production, missile production has increased over the past several years. And for those who have been to Ukraine, they can see that year on year, the amount of drones that Ukrainians have to deal with has increased maybe 10 times compared to last year. So this is an escalating problem. And very little about the Russian military effort suggests a willingness to negotiate.

[Christian Amanpour]

You were on the front lines in Ukraine just a few weeks ago, and I know that you have communication and conversations regularly with Ukrainian defense officials and those on the front lines as well. What are they telling you about some of their major concerns right now? And if you can just give us a sense of morale at this point, three years, over three years into this war.

[Michael Kaufman]

So, look, this war has been dragging on. It's a prolonged conventional war. And it's fair to describe that the situation at the front is difficult. It's been difficult for some years. But on the other hand, Ukrainian forces are holding the Russian military to relatively incremental gains. When you consider the overall material advantage and manpower advantage that Russia has backed by countries like China and North Korea and others, I would say that on the one hand, things are challenging. You see, the Russian military adapts as the Ukrainian military adapts to the Russian tactics and, and war fighting effort. But on the other hand, you also see that Ukraine has proven consistently resilient. If we assess the results of Russian offensive efforts from the spring through the summer, they are likely, from my point of view, to be lackluster and probably from the Russian point of view as well. As Russian military has continued to advance, but not very significantly. They've not captured major cities. There's still quite a bit of fighting ahead, even this fall. And I increasingly think that the war is going to go into 2020.

[Christian Amanpour]

That is really sobering to hear if the war continues at the same course that it is right now, how sustainable are the manpower issues for Ukraine alone? I know Russia has their own concerns, but they are a larger country. They do have more of a fighting force.

[Michael Kaufman]

One of Ukraine's consistent challenges has been manpower. That's where Russia has an advantage, and a historic advantage, if I might add. But one of the key offsets to manpower, traditionally war, has been capital and technology. Ukraine remains technologically very innovative country. It's trying to fight smarter. And one thing that the west has in abundance at the end of the day is capital. Now, from what I've seen, I don't think that drones and drone units alone can stabilize the front line, but they've done quite a bit to stymie the Russian offensive effort. And if Ukraine can continue also working in innovative solutions to Russian drone strikes, which already have been developed. They're just being scaled right now in terms of the deployment and its own offensive strike effort targeting Russian energy infrastructure, targeting those facilities that generate resources or they're essential for maintaining the Russian economy. The Ukrainian vision, at least as I understand it, is to try to make the war effort as futile as possible for Russia and to significantly increase the cost, which over time may force Russia to the negotiating table, assuming the west and also the United States are willing to do their part in compelling Russia and, and enacting some of the measures that have long been talked about, but let's be frank, haven't really been seen.

[Christian Amanpour]

Which of those measures do you think at this point would have the greatest impact on setting Vladimir Putin back, or at least really taking negotiations more seriously than he has thus far?

[Michael Kaufman]

So I think one of the challenges that I've seen is that certainly in the United States side, and this is being somebody who lives in greater Washington, D.C. area, much has been made of potential course of economic measures. A host of ultimatums have been issued in deadlines, but one after another have come and passed, and very little has been done on that front. In fact, if anything, we're even struggling with maintaining maintenance sanctions, that is, the sanctions that have to be routinely reapplied on new Russian companies, new Russian actors who work to get around sanctions and export controls. And so I think we've gone from one set of negotiations to another to a summit without much progress. As you can clearly see that the Russian objective is to stall for as long as possible while they're continuing to fight on the ground and continuing to increase their strikes against Ukrainian critical infrastructure.

[Christian Amanpour]

And you made the point. And others have as well, how important it is for Ukraine to build its own defense industrial complex and how it's going to need more assistance to do that from the west, particularly from the United States. But in terms of the weaponry that is needed most right now on the battlefield that could be provided by key allies, what would you say are the most important right now that they need in terms of taking this fight at least a few months forward and possibly even into their own, into a positive direction for them?

[Audie Cornish]

Sure, sure.

[Michael Kaufman]

Beyond. So I would say of course outside of the basics, which every military needs, folks in conversation tend to focus on big ticket items, right. But at the end of the day on the ground soldiers need basic of equipment, communications protected our mobility. All that I say was critical for Ukraine's air defense batteries and air defense munitions. You can never have enough. And Ukraine has both coverage issues and it simply has issues in terms of the ammunition available to defend itself against sustained Russian long range missile and drone strikes, secondarily precision strike, that is those capabilities which can hit Russian forces in the rear beyond maybe 30km or so where Ukraine struggles in terms of its reach, there's a significant fall off in abilities that Ukrainian forces have to hit Russian military in the rear and all the supporting elements behind that fight at the tactical level. And lastly, long range strike capabilities, which of course are a challenge both in terms of availability in the west, potential restrictions imposed upon them. But Ukraine is working hard to develop its own. A number have been revealed most recently and there as you can see, that Ukraine's strike campaign this year against Russian energy infrastructure has been much better organized, better resourced and more concerted than the ones seen last year.

[Christian Amanpour]

And the long range weaponry, I know that you say it's a numbers issue as well and it takes time to procure them even if they are green lit. But if it's just a stopgap measure to buy Ukraine more time to produce some of their own, is there enough in the pipeline now to get more to the front lines?

[Michael Kaufman]

So the good news is that at this point in the war, Ukraine does make a lot of what it needs in terms of day to day battlefield needs. So what the west is filling more are key munitions for its own capabilities, right? Such as Himars multiple launch rocket systems or Patriot air defense missile defense batteries. And there of course is a host of things that that only the west and some cases only United States can supply. Is there enough in the pipeline? More or less. It's hard to say what is enough. It depends on how much Russia intensifies its offensive efforts and most importantly, the strikes are being conducted. The honest answer is probably not. But is there sufficient capacities there if funded by the United States, more importantly by European partners and allies, which has increasingly been the direction of policy in Washington, D.C. to shift the financial burden onto European allies, then? I think so. I don't think Ukrainian air defense is going to collapse. I don't think Ukrainian front lines are going to collapse in the near future. And I think that the capacity is there. I wish it was greater. And of course, I wish that both we, he and European colleagues had gotten down the path of investing in expanded defense industrial production much sooner in this war.

[Christian Amanpour]

You mentioned that in your view, you see this war going and continuing through 2026. There are conflicting and mixed signals coming from not only the president himself, but also his own Pentagon officials like Elbridge Colby. The reports that he's pushing for cutting military aid to some of the Eastern countries most at risk and susceptible to Russian attacks there along the border. Is there anything that could change that timeline projection, in your view, that the U.S. the West, but led by the U.S. could do imminently that could change the calculus that Putin has laid for himself in terms of how far he can keep going.

[Michael Kaufman]

So look, my own view on war, especially a large scale conventional war like this, which has gone on for years, that there are a few immediate game changers that can alter the dynamic on the battlefield so easily and quickly. Much of it is about numbers. At the end of the day, it's about making the right investments and making them at the right time. It is also about effectively resourcing and sustaining the capabilities you've already deployed. When I look at what the United States and Europe can do, of course they can send a clear signal that the commitment to Ukraine remains not only strong, but it's not just a near term commitment. It's more of a medium and long term commitment.

[Christian Amanpour]

Right.

[Michael Kaufman]

And of course, I think the Russian leadership holds out this hope that either something's going to happen on the front line, that maybe the Ukrainian front lines will collapse, even though we haven't seen that and the Russian military is not fighting in a way that can really achieve an operationally significant breakthrough, or that Western support will collapse. Which, to be frank, I think early on this year was very much in question or perhaps in jeopardy. So I think making a sustained commitment is critical. And last point on this with, with your question regarding the views of some folks in the Pentagon that prioritization and the focus on the Indo Pacific and China means that we need to do a lot less in Europe. We need to cancel our sustainment, our programs in Europe. Those are views that they have long held and they held those views before they came into the administration. But I think that some of what is being done very much sends the wrong signal about our commitment to European security.

[Christian Amanpour]

And we should note, I don't believe those views have been espoused or at least publicly stated by the president himself. You're right to know people like Elbridge Colby have long focused on China and moving away from Europe. I'm not sure President Trump has specifically stated as much. Michael Kaufman, it is good to see you. Thank you so much for taking the time.

[Michael Kaufman]

Always happy to join.

[Christian Amanpour]

All right. And do stay with CNN. We'll be right back after a break.

[Audie Cornish]

I'm Dr. Sanjay Gupta, host of the Chasing Life podcast.

[Christian Amanpour]

If you think about your devices that can integrate vocal biomarkers to help understand your health, that's really where the future is going, in my opinion. Dr. Yael Bahnsusin is a laryngologist.

[Audie Cornish]

She is director of the University of.

[Christian Amanpour]

South Florida's Health Voice Center. She is co leading research there on.

[Audie Cornish]

Using AI to try and detect diseases and perhaps even treat them. Listen to Chasing Life streaming now, wherever you get your podcasts.

[Christian Amanpour]

Next to spiraling tensions between the United States and Venezuela, outrage continues to build over President Trump's strike on an alleged drug vessel he says departed from Venezuela. Eleven people were killed in the attack. Officials say this was just the beginning of a much larger antidrug mission in the region. But it has rattled Venezuelan President Nicolas Maduro, who says Trump is plotting to dislodge him from power. The US has moved substantial military firepower into the Caribbean in recent weeks, even ordering 10 F35 fighter jets to Puerto Rico on Friday. So is Trump gearing up for a full blown military conflict? Ivan Briscoe is a senior director for policy at the International Crisis Group, joins me now from London. Ivan, welcome to the program. So let's begin with what's just happened in the last week, the US Military carried out the strike in the southern Caribbean, sinking a vessel the White House said belonged to Venezuela and the Venezuelan gang, particularly Trent Aragua, killing 11 alleged traffickers. What stands out to you in the episode that transpired over the last few days?

[Ivan Briscoe]

Well, I think there are two elements in particular which stand out. First of all, it's the use of U.S. military force directly against suspected drug traffickers, which is something of a novelty. Now, this is not to say that Latin American countries haven't used extreme force against criminal organizations for decades now, often with the backing of the United States. But for the United States itself to attack a boat seemingly without giving warning beforehand. We don't know all the circumstances around the attack, but we do know that There are certainly 11 casualties and there's a town on the coast of Venezuela which is, which is mourning them at the moment. So this definitely took place and it seems to have been carried out, as I said, without warning, without using the usual protocols of seizures and captures of suspected drug traffickers at sea. So it's a change in the model of the war on drugs as waged by the United States, for one. But at the same time, this is taking place as part of a large military deployment in the Caribbean which seems to be focused on Venezuela, accuses the Venezuelan government of being part of the head of a large drug trafficking organization and therefore seems to be, as it were, trying to separate Nicolas Maduro from the presidency, weaken his government and possibly bring about a change in government in the country. And we don't precisely know at the moment what the dimensions of the military force being used to achieve that goal is going to be.

[Christian Amanpour]

Well, analysts are calling this the largest deployment in decades. Let's just go through what has been deployed. Guided missile destroyers, intelligence planes, fighter jets, a nuclear powered submarine, an amphibious ready group carrying more than 4,000 troops into the Caribbean region. And Bloomberg News is reporting that Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth and Air Force General Dan Kaine also made a visit to Puerto Rico on Friday as well. What do you think the Trump administration's ultimate goal here is in terms of the show of force?

[Ivan Briscoe]

We don't know at the moment. Clearly there is a desire to project strength and force in front of Venezuela and the Latin American region as a whole. We know from what officials have said that there is a disdain and extreme dislike for what Trump's spokesperson called the narco terror cartel which is supposedly running the government in Venezuela, referring, of course, to Nicolas Maduro in particular. And so there is a desire to, as it were, intimidate the Venezuelan government to make them understand that they run the risk of a military strike of some sort or possibly some form of landing or invasion, some form of missile strike, and therefore to spread fear in those ranks and therefore possibly to lead, to encourage parts of the military to break away, turn against Maduro and maybe deliver Maduro to the US Forces, Remembering, of course, that the bounty for the handing over of Maduro to US law enforcement was doubled recently, so has reached $50 million. So that seems to be a little bit of what's going on Now. What we don't know at the moment is whether there is a serious commitment in Washington in the Trump administration to regime change. Trump said explicitly on Friday he's not interested in regime change. Marco Rubio has been a little bit more equivocal on the subject. It seems to be the case that they are identifying the Venezuelan as a drug trafficking target and therefore as a foreign terrorist organization, according to their recent definitions. But they're not saying they're involved in the game of intervention aimed at achieving political change. But once the military is engaged, if there is advertently or inadvertently a clash with Venezuelan forces, then the risk, of course, is that the conflict will escalate and the US Forces might carry out more important attacks on Venezuelan soil.

[Christian Amanpour]

Well, how might this spiral? Because even if President Trump says this is not about regime change, if Nicolas Maduro in fact thinks that it is and then responds accordingly, he's already warning of maximum rebellion if attacked. I mean, do you envision an actual war and fire exchange between U.S. forces and Venezuelan forces?

[Ivan Briscoe]

There was, of course, a very evident risk. The United States has shown it's perfectly willing to blow a go fast boat out of the sea. Last week there was supposedly, we don't have confirmation, an encounter between two Venezuelan fighter jets and an American warship. That was the pretext on which those 10 F35 fighter jets were dispatched to Puerto Rico. There was clearly a course of escalation. There is an increasing tide of rhetoric. There may well be an attempt by the Venezuelan military to send out jets or send out ships again into the area where the U.S. are patrolling. There is a risk of clashes as a result. And also there is the possibility, and this is what we don't know, that the US Might seek to be reaching an arrangement with parts of the Venezuelan military or civilian leaders in an effort to ensure that the US that the rather Maduro or senior figures in the government are delivered into their hands. Now, at that moment, that would seem unlikely because the Venezuelan government traditionally has acted as a very united, coherent and resistant structure in the face of US Pressure. But at the same time, we've never seen the sort of military deployment which is now in the Caribbean, as it were, led by the United States before.

[Christian Amanpour]

Well, do you envision in the final few seconds we have here of Congress actually preventing a hot war from ensuing between these two countries? Because thus far the US Is formally not at war with Venezuela. It would require approval from Congress to do as much. And there is a real question of legality of all of these operations. Now, how far do you think the Trump administration is willing to go?

[Audie Cornish]

There are many.

[Ivan Briscoe]

There are many questions about legality. Obviously, the pretext for using a force, military force against drug trafficking operations, is the classification of eight or nine drug trafficking groups in Latin America as foreign terrorist organizations. And it's on the basis of the classification, the designation that the United States, the Trump administration is claiming that it can use military force. And it's also, there's a secret directive which has reportedly been signed by Trump allowing the use of military force against Latin American criminal organizations. So there is a legal case or claim which is being made by the US Government to you to make the rightful use of force. At the same time, there is a denial by the senior U.S. officials that they are in the game of regime change and that there is a desire to strip Maduro of the presidency and to remove him from the country. But at the same time, they say that if this was one of the effects of the, the US Military buildup, then that would be perfectly desirable and that that would be welcome. So we are in a very uncertain position where there is no war. There is supposedly legitimate use of self defense by the US Authorities against criminal organizations, and where the political effects, the ramifications of what is being done haven't really been calculated.

[Christian Amanpour]

Yeah. And the largest amassing of US Troops in the Caribbean in a number of decades. You have to go back to George H.W. bush to have comparable figures. Ivan Briscoe, thank you so much. Appreciate your expertise. Well, we turn now to Jerusalem, where at least six people have been killed in a shooting that left the city reeling. The attackers opened fire on a crowded bus stop in the northern outskirts of that city. That's according to Israeli police who have identified the attackers as west bank residents. Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu visited the site and has deployed troops to the west bank, vowing to carry out harsher measures in response. Now, this comes just days after Israeli security officials warned the Prime Minister about a potential flare up of violence in the West Bank. For more, let's bring in Jeremy Diamond. So, Jeremy, we know at least six people have died from the shooting, more injured and in hospital. Right now. Prime Minister Netanyahu vowing to retaliate. What more have we learned about this incident?

[Jeremy Diamond]

Well, first of all, to talk to you about the scene. I mean, we were there in the hours after this attack took place. Shards of glass still littering the floor, pools of blood drying on the sidewalk. Of course, cleanup crews then quickly came in and got rid of it. All allowing Israelis to kind of try and get back to their sense of normalcy. But indeed, it was far from a normal morning today in Jerusalem as at least six people were killed, more than a dozen people were injured after two Palestinian gunmen opened fire indiscriminately on this crowd in what Israeli authorities are describing as a terrorist attack. The Israeli prime minister indeed on the scene vowing a harsh response. And we've seen the opening moves, at least of that response, as Israeli security forces were spotted in the Palestinian villages just northwest of Jerusalem in the occupied west bank, from which these two attackers, age 20 and 21, reportedly hailed, according to Israeli authorities. Now, we've also heard from Palestinian authorities, first of all, Hamas, praising this attack, but not taking responsibility for it. And so it's not clear under whose auspices these two gunmen were acting, if they were acting under the agency of any Palestinian militant group. The Palestinian Authority, for its part, condemned any targeting of Palestinian and Israeli civilians following this very deadly shooting. What they also said is that they believe that ultimately the creation of a Palestinian state with security and dignity for both Palestinians and Israelis will be the only thing that ultimately ends this cycle of violence. Bianna.

[Christian Amanpour]

And meantime, the attacks in Gaza continue. Headlines just out that four Israeli soldiers were killed in Gaza and the IDF and the defense minister warning in terms of their Gaza City takeover operation that a massive hurricane will hit the skies of Gaza City. This is President Trump once again issued a new ultimatum, a new proposal in terms of bringing this war to an end. Where does that proposal stand right now?

[Jeremy Diamond]

Well, Bianna, we can very much see two paths that are kind of starting to make themselves clear in front of us. One of those paths is exactly what the United States proposed just yesterday, a cease fire and hostage release deal, one that would see the release of all of the Israeli hostages on the first day of this agreement in exchange for several thousand Palestinian prisoners and a ceasefire agreement, the beginning of negotiations to end the war, but with no real assurance from the Israelis that that war will end, which, you know, seems to make it difficult to see Hamas accepting that proposal, at least as it stands right now. But the alternative to that, and this is the way that the Israelis and the Americans are very much framing this to Hamas and to Palestinians on the ground in Gaza, is this, you know, intensifying Israeli military assault on Gaza City, which the Israeli prime minister has said is only in its opening stages. Even as we have seen the widespread destruction and blowing up of some of these high rise buildings in Gaza City. We have seen at least 40 of those towers that have been destroyed. The Israeli military claiming that Hamas was using these towers. But it's also important to put it in the context of what we've seen before in Gaza and of the language that we are seeing Israeli, senior, Israeli officials using already. And that is the language of massive destruction of civilian infrastructure in Gaza City, with the Israeli Defense Minister Yisrael Katz comparing it to what the Israeli military did in Rafah, for example. And in Rafah, it's important to keep in mind there was not always a justification of Hamas using some of these buildings. It was also a clear, intentional policy of destroying civilian infrastructure to render that city unlivable, inadequate for Palestinian life in the future. And that very much seems to be the path that the Israeli military is laying out going forward as well.

[Christian Amanpour]

Yeah. Prime Minister Netanyahu warning Palestinians to get out of Gaza City as Israel intensifies its aerial assault. That's new CNN reporting. Jeremy Dimon reporting to us live from Jerusalem. Thank you. Well, Israel's war in Gaza continues to draw public outcry across the globe, with many speaking out in solidarity with the Palestinian caus. In the UK, nearly 900 people were arrested in the city over the weekend at a protest against the ban on the group Palestine Action. The majority were handcuffed under the UK's Terrorism act after the group was declared a terrorist organization this summer. The protest organizers described the rally as peaceful. Correspondent Isabel Young has the details.

[Isabel Young]

The police might be a about to arrest her. Why does the UK government think these seniors are terrorists? Have you been arrested before?

[Michael Kaufman]

No, no.

[Christian Amanpour]

Never.

[Isabel Young]

Never. I don't do things like this. Their stories are at the heart of a debate roiling the uk. How far is too far to oppose the war in Gaza? Millions of people around the world have turned out on the screen streets, including in London. But almost two years on from Hamas's October 7 attack on Israel, over 60,000 Palestinians in Gaza have been killed. Mass starvation continues to spread. For some, protesting is just not enough. Palestine Action is a UK based group of hundreds of individuals. They accused the UK arms industry of complicity in supporting Israel's government. They've targeted Israeli weapons factories, destroyed British military equipment, and even vandalized US President Donald Trump's golf course. This June, action on a British air base was seen as a step too far by the UK government. He designated them a terrorist organization, meaning anyone taking part in these actions could face terrorism charges. Audrey Cornot, who just turned 23, studied dance and drama. She's been a member of the group. She's vandalized The UK Defence Headquarters. And just a few months ago she occupied a factory she claimed was supplying military equipment to Israel. She spent two months in jail. So now you're out on. You have an ankle tag that you have to wear, you've got a curfew, you're waiting for your court hearing. What are the maximum potential consequences to this?

[Bianna Golodryga]

The maximum term of 10 years imprisonment.

[Isabel Young]

Would these actions have been worth it?

[Bianna Golodryga]

Yeah, of course.

[Isabel Young]

What would it have been worth it for?

[Audie Cornish]

It's everyone's responsibility.

[Bianna Golodryga]

To.

[Audie Cornish]

Do everything in.

[Christian Amanpour]

Our power to stop a genocide from happening.

[Isabel Young]

There will obviously be people watching this who will think, you know, you don't know enough about. You haven't been to Israel or to Gaza heavy. You don't know enough about the situation. You are just jumping on a bandwagon. What would you say to them?

[Christian Amanpour]

Well, this isn't a bandwagon. The more I learned about how deeply.

[Bianna Golodryga]

Complicit Britain is in the supply of.

[Christian Amanpour]

Arms to Israel and in fueling this.

[Bianna Golodryga]

Genocide, the more I realize that the comfort that I enjoy living in London is soaked in Palestinian blood.

[Isabel Young]

Now the UK government has designated Palestine Action a terrorist group. Even holding a sign in support is illegal, sparking fears that free speech itself is being stifled.

[Michael Kaufman]

Genocide.

[Isabel Young]

Anyone showing any support for this group, even holding up a sign is currently being arrested, which means hundreds of people here are being arrested.

[Bianna Golodryga]

Just follow me, madam.

[Isabel Young]

Clearly a terrorist in your hands there.

[Christian Amanpour]

Yeah.

[Bianna Golodryga]

Things are getting very rowdy.

[Isabel Young]

People who will be committed offences will be arrested. Everyone will be arrested. Everyone that's committed offenses will be arrested. So essentially everyone holding a sign will be arrested.

[Michael Kaufman]

If that sign falls within the remit.

[Isabel Young]

Of saying that they support Palestine Action. You have to fight against things which are wrong. And this is wrong. Not being allowed to speak about is wrong. Palestine Action weren't a terrorist group. They didn't haven't harmed anybody. What Israel doing is terrorism.

[Ivan Briscoe]

The essential case against Palestine action.

[Isabel Young]

The politician John Woodcock Lord Wolney was the UK government's independent advisor on political violence and disruption. The 300 page report he wrote last year was a major factor in banning Palestine Action under anti terrorism laws.

[Ivan Briscoe]

I take real exception to that idea of this being a peaceful protest. The definition of terrorism absolutely encompasses the kind of economic damage for a political cause which Palestine Action have systematically carried out.

[Isabel Young]

You're putting them in the same category as ISIS and Al Qaeda and Hamas.

[Ivan Briscoe]

So I think that there is a gap in the law, which I identified in my report, that there is a category of criminal behavior that is politically Motivated which can fall under the definition of terrorism. That at the moment there is not the sufficient tools to be able to stop and deter.

[Isabel Young]

Half of the people that I saw at the protests were over 60. I spoke to a 70 something year old grandma literally holding up a sign and getting arrested. I mean, they're not what people think of when they think of terrorists.

[Ivan Briscoe]

No, no, no, sure, but so are they terrorists?

[Audie Cornish]

Well.

[Ivan Briscoe]

The criminal justice system will have to deal with them and my.

[Isabel Young]

But you're saying they are terrorists.

[Ivan Briscoe]

No, I'm saying that if you, but.

[Isabel Young]

You'Re not answering the question, are they, do you see them as terrorists?

[Bianna Golodryga]

If you, you're the one, you're the.

[Isabel Young]

One pushing this prescription. So surely you think that they are terrorists.

[Ivan Briscoe]

If you break the law, then you face having a criminal record, a terrorist, you face having a criminal record of service associated with terrorists. And they know that and that's why they are doing it.

[Isabel Young]

Are you the right person to be advising, to have been advising the UK government on this? I mean you were the head of Labour Friends of Israel. You have taken several all expenses trips paid to Israel. And so you can understand why people would question your motivations.

[Ivan Briscoe]

I could understand why they would want to because they don't want to account for their own actions. But people will make up their own minds on me. My interest in declarations are out in the open. That's why you're able to talk about it. We ought to be able to say it's not okay to break the law and to terrorize working people.

[Isabel Young]

In the meantime, other activists continue to take direct action. We're still locked on against arms manufacturers. They accuse of complicity in the bombing of Gaza. And protesters holding up signs continue to risk arrest to support Palestine Action.

[Christian Amanpour]

Isabel Young reporting there. In a note, the UK government says Palestine Action waged a campaign including weapons and violence against people which would have been irresponsible to ignore. It did not provide evidence for those claims. We'll be right back after this short break. Now, autocracy is on the rise around the world and our next guest argues it's now happening in the United States. Democratic politician Stacey Abrams speaks with Michelle Martin about what she says is happening right here in America and what can be done to stop it.

[Bianna Golodryga]

Thanks, Bianna. Stacey Abrams, thank you so much for talking with us once again.

[Audie Cornish]

Thank you for having me.

[Bianna Golodryga]

So we called you specifically for an essay, pretty strongly worded essay that you just published in Time. It's headlined we can stop the rise of American Autocracy. Why now? What Is it that triggered this piece now?

[Audie Cornish]

Because we are in the midst of an authoritarian regime. We keep talking about it as though it's something that's looming, and it's critical that we understand it's already happening. But if we want to reclaim our country, we have to understand the moment we're in, and we've got to start fighting back immediately.

[Bianna Golodryga]

Who's the we?

[Audie Cornish]

The we is the American people. Anyone who actually believes that democracy should be the organizing principle for how we live together in this country. Autocracy. Authoritarianism is an alternative. Under the proposed regime of this current administration and its supporters in the Republican Party. We have an authoritarian regime where we've seen an expansion of executive power, a sublimation of competing powers, both Congress and the courts. But we've also seen attacks on the media, attacks on communities. We've seen the kidnappings of people in our country, including citizens. But we're also watching the military occupation of our cities. That's what happens in authoritarian regimes. And. And that is being led by the Republican Party, spearheaded and helmed by Donald Trump.

[Bianna Golodryga]

The reason I ask who the we is is one of the points that you make in your piece is that historically, governments that have taken on an authoritarian cast or have become, you know, true authoritarians are often voted in. Absolutely. It has to be said, the Republicans in Congress were voted in. The president was voted in. We could dispute what the margins are, but those. But that is the truth of it. So does that suggest that there is a critical mass of people who agree with what he's doing and with what the Republicans in Congress are supporting?

[Audie Cornish]

Not at all. So one of the features of modern day authoritarianism, we are used to thinking about autocrats rising dictators rising through coup d' etats and through military overthrows. But the modern version is actually winning elections. Erdogan in Turkey, Modi in India, Putin in Russia. We've forgotten that he was elected to these. They've been elected into these positions and they maintain elections in those nation states. Bolsonaro. Maduro. Maduro has elections. Venezuela has elections. But there is no question that it's an authoritarian regime. And it is a naivete that we hold in America that it's only authoritarianism if we didn't vote those people into office. The question isn't what do we vote them for, is what are they doing with the power they have now? And the reason this is so important is that we are not protected from authoritarianism because we have democracy. We ushered in authoritarianism using democracy, and now it is our Responsibility to protect democracy from those who would take it from us.

[Bianna Golodryga]

Your argument is. Well, you lay out what you call a ten step process and you say that we are at about step nine. Well, let me go through the steps. You say you have a free and fair election, but it's the last time. Exceed the limits of their executive power. Numerous executive orders claiming authority that the President doesn't actually hold. They take competing versions of power, Congress and the courts, and make them complicit or neuter them. Go after the media, obvious gut the government, fire the people who know how to do stuff. Go after the people who do the good work. You sue law firms and nonprofits, you have to have someone to blame. If they can push that forward, then we're fighting each other other instead of fighting for our country. They incentivize private violence. Now that's what you say. We're at step nine. What do you mean by that? They incentivize private violence. And what do you mean by that and how do you see that?

[Audie Cornish]

Well, we saw what happened in Minnesota to Speaker Wirthman, but let's broaden it out. One of the ways private violence takes hold as a means of control is that people feel threatened. They feel a constant sense, sense that their rights and their physical bodies are under duress. And what we have seen happen is that we have a private police operating in the United States called ice. They go around mask. They do not operate under the rules that we understand in terms of due process. They do not have to reveal themselves. They have blatantly opposed actually complying with existing law. And now we have the President of the United States summoning up National Guardsmen. We have had a court in California say, no, you cannot use the threat of emergency or the declaration of a false emergency to justify this occupation. And we are seeing it happen in Washington D.C. the way private violence takes hold in a tyrannical, authoritarian, autocratic ad in certain language here, the way it takes hold is because people start to believe they aren't physically safe. And they believe that it is okay to respond to that lack of safety. But you also see people thinking that violence is the way to respond to harm. And that is why we saw the assassination of a speaker, a state speaker. We have seen political violence rise in this country. We've seen threats of political violence rise. And we can't see this as separate pieces. They are of a piece and they work together. And that goes to your question about step nine. When we were writing this piece, and I'm so proud to be Working with, with Professor Kim Shepple from Princeton University. But the point of this is these things can happen simultaneously. We are actually watching step 10 unfold as well. When Texas gerrymandered in the middle of the decade to intentionally strip people of color of their voting power and to hand power to a political party, that was step 10. When Georgia purged 471,000 voters with very clear understanding of what effect it would have have on minority voters, that was step 10. We are watching this happen around the country. When you interfere with elections, the end of democracy doesn't mean the end of voting. It means the end of voting actually making a difference. And that is what we're facing right now. So I would actually say we've now hit all of the 10 steps and the question is, how much more will we see? Because these steps repeat, they amplify, and they can happen simultaneously.

[Bianna Golodryga]

Step 10 is you make sure no one ever votes again. Now you have them captive, now you've got them scared. Now you've got them poor. And now you have the power. This is a violent country and there are a lot of guns, A lot of people have access to weapons. And I'm just sort of wondering if not to quibble with your kind of steps here, but how do you identify that particular facetime of American life with what you call this authoritarian takeover, this authoritarian push?

[Audie Cornish]

So part of the responsibility. You asked me at the beginning who did I mean by we? We as the people. But they, the authoritarians are the state. And that's the place where we have to put responsibility. Violence is part of human nature. As you pointed out, political violence has always attended any political system. If you're reading the Bible, violence is rife throughout the Bible. The difference is who is wielding violence as a tool for the accrual of power. And that's why it's so important that we understand it and we identify it. Incentivizing private violence is a step in authoritarianism because it's when the state starts to co opt the people into doing its will. Because when you have us fighting each other, we are not fighting against those who are taking our power from us. Us. I'm not diminishing how harmful it is and how often we see political violence happening. But what I am saying is that when the state suborns that, when the state incentivizes that, when the state mimics the kinds of behaviors that the people then start to believe are necessary to protect themselves, then that's when authoritarianism has to be rooted out and has to be noted as the cause.

[Bianna Golodryga]

It's interesting because speaking of violence, the U.S. attorney, the newly named U.S. attorney in Washington, D.C. who, because of of the District's unique sort of legal framework and relationship to the federal government, also prosecutes local crimes in D.C. recently issued a ruling that gun crimes, carrying concealer, et cetera, would not be prosecuted, but that she has brought felony charges against individuals who were protesting. Like there was an individual who threw a sandwich and was charged with a felony. The grand jury declined to indict. In fact, the grand jury grand juries in D.C. have repeatedly refused to validate charges in some of these cases. Especially noteworthy given that this president refused to call on the National Guard for many hours when his supporters were violently attacking the Capitol, but yet his appointed representatives have issued felony charges or tried to charged people with felonies for throwing a sandwich at somebody.

[Audie Cornish]

And that's an important distinction. The reason they went after the person throwing the sandwich was because that was someone who expressed dissent. And in an authoritarian regime, you respond to dissent with overwhelming force. A man threw a sandwich and faced a federal grand jury. The weight and heft of the federal government came after a man who, in a moment of panic and anger, threw a sandwich. Authoritarianism amplifies the smallest behaviors of citizenship and turns them into crimes. That's important to understand, because if you can go to jail for a sandwich, then how dare you protest in the streets? How dare you take action against how dare you sue? It's why they defunded public television. You defund public broadcasting because public broadcasting dare to tell the truth. And instead of just being angry and fighting in court of public opinion, you strip public broadcasting of its ability to do its job. And so it's critically important that we actually look at these small moments and knit them together. And that's why the 10 steps are so important, because we need people to see not these as individual, distinct moments, but as part of a pattern of behavior and a coordinated attempt to undermine the democracy of our country and make authoritarianism seem normal. That is not normal.

[Bianna Golodryga]

Why do you think it is that, you know, there is supposed to be an opposition party in this country, and in fact, the margins in the Congress are very, very narrow. There were a number of moments where people could have stopped some of these initiatives. For example, I'm just curious why you think it is that they're justif the situation is as dire as you describe, why more people aren't willing to object or say no.

[Audie Cornish]

So let's talk about the people in power. The question isn't are they voting against their self interest? It's what interest do they hold? If you are Senator Dan Sullivan, who watches his colleague, Senator Lisa Murkowski, go to the floor of the Senate and play a recording of your constituents who were facing a typhoon, a tsunami, and that tsunami warning only came about because of of public broadcasting. Lisa Murkowski voted no. Dan Sullivan said yes, it's true that this will cause them harm, but I'll fix it later. Because his best interest in that moment, his self interest was power. His self interest was basically becoming complicit and not offending the authoritarian leader, in this case, Donald Trump. And so we have to stop thinking that self interest is one thing. If the interest you have is power, then sublimating yourself to this current authoritarian regime feels like not just survival, but it gets you a ticket to the dance. And so we have to understand that those who are elected to represent us will not do so unless we hold them accountable. And not just at the ballot box during midterms, but every single day. But here's the other piece. Holding them accountable does not mean they will be better. There have been protests in authoritarian nations since the moment those autocrats came to power, and that is why the urgency is now. We have not fully fallen. We are in an authoritarian moment, but we are not so far in that we can't find our way out. We have to recognize where we are. We then have to activate ourselves to do something about it. And that's to your point about who's voting for this, who's supporting it? There's a reason that Republicans stopped having town hall meetings because they didn't want to be held accountable, because they know people aren't happy. And when we see the economy collapse because of rising inflation, rising unemployment, and slowing economic growth. The reason the President of the United States is trying to remove a member of the Federal Board of Reserve Governors is because he needs to be able to manufacture an answer to why the economy is not doing as it should. So we have to recognize we have to activate, and most fundamentally, we have to reclaim our rights as citizens to a country that works for all of us. And ultimately, that's what I want. I'm not here just to harangue the authoritarians. I'm here to call into action those who believe in democracy. And even if you don't think you believe in democracy, if you believe in your right to make your own choices, if you believe in your own freedom and your own power, then we've got to stop those who would take Those things from us right now.

[Bianna Golodryga]

What about the Democrats in this moment? Yeah. What's their role and are they fulfilling it?

[Audie Cornish]

We are in a moment where we are looking for leaders, but I actually believe what we need is leadership. Leaders anoint individual people to make decisions for us. This is a moment where we all have to own for ourselves the role we can play. I am a very proud Democrat, and what that means is I'm part of a very large party that has multiple roles and responsibilities. We are the minority party, which means we do not have the normal levers of power. But Democrats have to still show that we can deliver. And that means that when authoritarian behaviors impact our people, we've got to do something about it. When people start going hungry, we've got to be there to provide access to food. When people can't get what they need, we've got to help them find solutions. That doesn't mean we can solve every problem, but we cannot bemoan our fates and hold our head in our hands. Hands. We've got to do the work. And so what I would say to Democrats is, no, we may not hold the majority, but we are watching across this country as leadership is being shown. Washington, Oregon and California have said in response to the decimation of the cdc, we're going to provide public health to our people. But also down in small communities, they're doing community gardens because they know that the USDA food that they relied on is no longer coming. We have to, as Democrats at every level of government, show that we understand the problem, that we see the pain, and that we're willing to do something to mitigate it. We can't solve it until we have power again, but we can use the power we do have, because before we had power, before we had money, we had each other. And Democrats are best when we are doing the work of the people.

[Bianna Golodryga]

And before we let you go, I'll tell you one thing that people say to me. Maybe they say the same thing to you, which is, I don't pay attention to the news anymore. It's too depressing. So people say that. They say, I just don't. I just. It's just too depressing. I just have to focus on my house, my family, my garden, whatever. And what do people say that. I'm curious, if people say that to you, and if they do say that to you, what do you say they do?

[Audie Cornish]

And my point is, do you want to be able to stay in that garden or do you want someone who can come along and say that they want your garden for themselves, and there is no one to go. And you can't call the police because they no longer answer to you. You can't call your city council member because they no longer get to make decisions. You can't go to your job because they've decided your job is obsolete, because they've decided that the work you do is no longer valuable to the regime. Our individual freedom is yoked to our national belief in freedom. If we do not have it at a national level, we cannot enjoy it at a local level. And authoritarians want to take what we have. They want to take what we know. But most importantly, they want to take our will to want more. We can fight back.

[Bianna Golodryga]

And how come you aren't discouraged? What keeps you going?

[Audie Cornish]

My grandfather, my mother's father, was born 25 years after the end of slavery. Within two generations, his granddaughter became the first black woman in American history to be nominated to be governor of a state. That arc of history tells me that we can hold this country, that even those who were trampled upon did what they could to preserve our nation. It is not that we don't get to be depressed, but we don't get to allow depression to steal our futures from us. They want us to feel broken. They want us to feel beaten. I was raised in a family that has overcome so many odds. But more importantly, they've always believed that despite how little their citizenship was valued, that belonged to them and they were going to use it to its fullest extent. I am here because. And I am. I'm engaged because I want the full measure of my citizenship to be made real.

[Bianna Golodryga]

Stacey Abrams, thank you so much for speaking with us.

[Audie Cornish]

Thank you for having me this week on the Assignment with me, Audie Cornish.

[Christian Amanpour]

My guest is Larry Wilmore. He's a writer and producer who's worked.

[Audie Cornish]

On some of the most successful shows of the century. In Living Color, the Bernie Mac show.

[Christian Amanpour]

The Daily Show, Blackish, Insecure.

[Bianna Golodryga]

We're just naming a few, but in his heart, he's still a comedian.

[Michael Kaufman]

I'm getting back into doing standup again, which I really haven't done full time in a while. So.

[Christian Amanpour]

What? Wait a second. Like, you're going.

[Bianna Golodryga]

You're doing open mics?

[Michael Kaufman]

I'm going up Saturday night. I'm gonna start working on a new hour. Yeah. So it's a little scary. Audie, don't get me wrong.

[Christian Amanpour]

I can imagine. Evan, what do you think is pulling at your chest here?

[Michael Kaufman]

I feel like I have to say something. I can't stay silent anymore about just the world that I'm in.

[Christian Amanpour]

Listen to the assignment with me, Audie Cornish.

[Bianna Golodryga]

Streaming now on your favorite podcast, apparently.