Danny Citrinovich (3:42)

Again, thank you and good evening from Tel Aviv. I have to say that just before I touch the military aspect of things, I have to say that in terms of strategy, I don't think that it will change. In terms of the fact I don't see the Iranians that didn't capitulate in 40 days of war won't capitulate in maritime blockade. Unfortunately. Now what the US Is trying to do is trying to put a blockade using the might of the American Navy. But the thing is, when you're getting closer to the coastline of the Iranian coastline, then you're exposing yourself to the Iranian capability, especially the drones and the surface to sea missile that they still have. So that is one aspect. Second, of course we have to remember that there's going to be friction between presence, the Iranian presence in the straits and of course the US Presence over there. And on top of that, the Iranians can retaliate not by attacking the US presence, but also attacking, for example, tankers, not Iranian tankers that actually would try to cross. And we have the big question of the Chinese tanker that I think that the Iranians will allow them to cross the straits and then what the US Would do, depending on what the President said, I think they're supposed to stop them and then maybe there will be an escalation in their relations between the US and China. But the bottom line of things, that despite of this move, there is no silver bullet solution to the Iranian problem. And I don't think the Iranian will capitulate from it.

Bianna Golodryga (5:05)

And yet there definitely would be a significant financial price that Iran would pay each day that this blockade is enforced. We're talking in hundreds of millions of dollars. You mentioned China and I'd like to pick up on that point because it does seem like China is the wild card here. Obviously the recipient of more oil than any other country. If the United States holds firm, do you think there's an opportunity for not only China, but other countries, including India, who have been able, able to get their vessels through and their oil through and delivered for them to now put More pressure on Iran with this blockade preventing them from receiving the oil they so desperately need.

Danny Citrinovich (5:46)

Well, just in terms of the Iranian strategy and it's important to say the fact that they are, they know they're going to suffer, but they believe that the world will suffer more and quickly because we should remember that Iran has the upper hand in a way than the last 40 days their tankers sold oil and they got the waivers from the American administration and of course the price of war was high. So they earned a lot of money. So they had this kind of cushion until they would feel actually the blockade and they, they actually think that time works for them and not against them, against them in a way that until they would feel the pressure at the end of the day the implication, there's the first, second and third order implications on every one of us in terms of what's happening in the straits will actually pressure the US to stop this blockade. So they are hoping actually they're going to be with the upper hand after the blockade will end. Regarding China, I think the Chinese has no intention in intervening directly and don't think they will put the pressure on Iran to stop the war in a way because it's not really correlates with how the Chinese working the foreign, their way of interacting with Iran in general. I think they will try to raise the pressure. They're working with the Pakistanis to renew negotiations. But at the end of the day I don't think they will do something dramatic. Of course if the attackers will be stopped. This is something else. But I think that they are hoping that in the end of the day they will enjoy the fact that Iran is supporting them allowing the tankers to move. They don't think that you start attackers and they can still enjoy the flow of oil coming from the Gulf itself. I won't rely on China to help us finding some sort of peaceful solution to the problem that we are facing right now.

Bianna Golodryga (7:30)

The President just moments ago in comments to reporters outside of the West Wing said that there had been some calls for towards to the US from quote appropriate people, the right people, he said in Iran and he says they want a deal. We don't know who these calls were from, if these calls actually took place, who they spoke with. But it is notable that you posted on X that treating someone like the parliament speaker Mohammad Golubov, like Delsey Rodriguez of Venezuela is pretending that Iran has indeed experienced regime change. And the President constantly says that, well, in a sense Iran has already experienced regime change. The Ayatollah, the leader has been taking out a number of military, top military brass and officials and government officials have already been killed. So is this the President in your opinion, trying to justify the regime change that he. Whether, you know, depends on the day you ask him whether he initially sought for in the launch of this war or not. And why is Golubov not the Delsey Rodriguez of Iran?

Danny Citrinovich (8:37)

Yeah, I'll define it, but my answer to two sections. The first one is connecting to the fact that I think that both sides are interested in reaching a deal. In general, the problem Islamabad was the expectations in a way that you know, both sides came to negotiation thinking that they had the upper hand. And especially the US thought that they can actually reach comfort of an agreement that using their of course their advantage on the battlefield. Unfortunately, the Iranians had the same notion meaning that we had the upper hand in battlefields. This is why we can require or demand our own conditions to be met. So I think the chances are there for rich agreement depending on how the the expectation would change for both sides, especially from the American side. Regarding regime change, I have to say something important. There wasn't a regime change. There was a change within the regime. Unfortunately a very bad one. We got a more radicalized regime, decentralized regime controlled by much to Barhamenei, a very radical guy, much more than his father, controlled by the irgc. And it would be very hard to reach an agreement with them. It's very hard even for them to finalize something together because of the centralization way or characteristics of the system itself. The thing is, I don't know who called President Trump or the US Mohamed Galiba, you have to remember he was a high ranking official in the IRGC who was the ARGC air force commander. And even if he was the Del Rodriguez, meaning that he wants to do some sort of an agreement with the US he had to go through Ahmad Bahini, the command of the he had to go through Moshtab Al Khamenei and he's not the sole decision maker in Iran and the contrary. So I don't think you can expect that he will change something in their basic demands regarding nuclear, regarding missiles and regarding proxies. So I think it's a hopeless cause in Iran.

Bianna Golodryga (10:24)

Prime Minister Netanyahu today told his cabinet that he spoke with J.D. vance and the U.S. goal remains of zero enrichment inside of Iran for decades to come. And you argue that zero enrichment is a fantasy and instead laid out a framework that you think could possibly work in its place place. And you argue that Washington should acknowledge a right to limited enrichment, while Tehran agrees to a time bound freeze of a few years, not decades, and also dilutes its existing stockpile in exchange for sanctions relief. At this point in the war, where there is essentially zero trust in all sides, why would Iran agree to this deal? And how do you then get the United States and Jerusalem on board with it as well?

Danny Citrinovich (11:14)

Well, Israel will be against any deal with Iran, goes without saying, but we don't have any way to influence that. Well, we can behind the scene for sure. But if President Trump will decide to reach agreement with Iran, that's it. Israel, you won't see Prime Minister Netanyahu turning back, giving speeches in the Congress against this deal. So it only depends on what President Trump will decide to do. This is one aspect. Second thing regarding nuclear, we have to remember one important thing that for Iran, enrichment is much more the question of yes or no nuclear bomb is a testimony for the strength the technology of Iran. It's a part of the ideology of the regime like missiles and like now the almost traits. So not going to forego that. But even before the war, Geneva they offered to dilute the foreign for the kills for 60% and they offered to cap the enrichment capability that they have. So I think if the US will acknowledge the right to enrich, I think there is a room for negotiation, a serious negotiation. Because now we're discussing whether the Iranians that are not enriching right now need to freeze their enrichment capacity to 5 years, 10 years. When it's numbers and it's not principle, you can reach an agreement. And I think even more than that, what Benjamin Netanyahu said today is actually I think reflect a change in the US policy because US past is not insisting anymore about no enrichment whatsoever. They are talking about freezing and then enrichment. And while we are in this room, I think that there is a common ground to be found. Again, returning back to expectation, if the expectation will be right, I think the nuclear thing would be something that they can solve. I think regardless, anything related to missiles or proxies, if the US will raise that is not going to work with this regime in Iran. But in terms of the enrichment, in terms of what's happening now in the negotiation, there is a room, maybe some sort of a small room, but a room to negotiate and moving towards an agreement.

Bianna Golodryga (13:07)

Yeah, you also write that it's time for Israel to go back to the drawing board as it relates to its policies vis a vis Iran and the region, that it accomplished some of its military goals, but strategically it hasn't accomplished any of the major goals that it set out. Finally, the last few seconds we have here, knowing that a large ground invasion is essentially off the table here, you don't have enough Republicans, Republican support for that. As this blockade unfolds, we do have a number of US Assets and troops still in the region. We heard the president say that we have to collect the dust. The dust being the highly enriched uranium buried underground. Do you foresee the possibility of a special military operation to retrieve that in the short term?

Danny Citrinovich (13:53)

Well, theory, it can happen, but practically, I think it would be very hard to do so. We have to remember that the fund for the kilos of 50% enriched uranium are not in one location. As the head of the IAEA Grossi mentioned, it's located in Isfahan in a tan. So you have to do two separate command activities. It actually have to conquer that because of the command and control of the Iranians that actually will try to attack. And of course, the Iranians know where it is, so they will hide it. So you need to find it. You need to have cranes and special equipment and you need airplanes to take it outside. So theoretically, it's possible. Practically, I think it's not. And I think that the only solution to take out the fund for the kilos or to dilute them is by peaceful means, meaning negotiations. This is what, this is why it's so important to reach agreement with Iranian on this issue.

Bianna Golodryga (14:39)

Danny Citronovich, great to have you on. Thank you so much for your perspective.

Danny Citrinovich (14:44)

Thank you. Thank you.

Bianna Golodryga (14:46)

Well, President Trump is attacking an unlikely target, the Pope. After the Catholic leader called for peace in Iran, Trump called the Pontiff weak on crime and terrible for foreign policy, praised Pope Leo's MAGA supporting brother, claimed the Pope was fine with Iran getting a nuclear weapon, and said that he only became Pope because of Trump. He then posted a picture of himself looking like Jesus healing the sick. After much backlash, the President deleted the image about 12 hours later and said that he thought it was him as a doctor. Let's bring in former Republican congressman and Trump critic Adam Kinzinger. Adam, I just have to reiterate everything that I just laid out there actually happened. It's all true. It's not something that. It's not hyperbole. That is the state of play right now. The President Trump doubling down, saying he will not apologize to Pope Leo. You wrote recently on a substack that the president's threat to wipe out an entire civilization in Iran damages America's soul and defies its military core. Values. Can you elaborate more on this and sort of weave in the impact that this new battle with the Pope, what that does to us standing globally?

Adam Kinzinger (16:04)

Yeah, look, I mean, you know, I'm a military veteran. One of the things I always was very proud of about the United States military, not that we were sinless and we never got anything wrong, but we did have a code of honor. That code of honor was we did our best to basically follow the law of armed conflict to ensure that, you know, we weren't intentionally bombing civilians, et cetera. Right. You're trying to achieve the objective and not create any more harm than possible. What Donald Trump did in that first tweet is basically, I mean, regardless of what the action ends up coming from, that you destroy our moral authority, which is something that I think worked very well for the United States until recently. Same thing happens, by the way, when you bomb civilian boats in the Caribbean, or specifically when you do the second and third missile strike and there's a couple guys hanging off the boats simply trying to survive. It damages our soul. And that has a moral impact, not just from us and how we feel, but in our ability to actually do foreign policy. The more we destroy that, I think the more it's likely we actually have to use military force because people don't trust us, they don't want to be near us, they don't believe in. And so with the Pope, stuff is like, look, there's never been a war the US Is engaged in where the, the Pope, whoever it was, usually didn't say we should try to avoid war. This is the first time I've seen a President directly take the Pope on, and especially an American Pope who is very well loved in the United States. It just goes to show me that Trump is like, it feels like he's really losing his grip on reality, or at least his grip on politics, which he actually, you know, used to be good at, believe it or not.

Bianna Golodryga (17:51)

How does this feud, or maybe one sided feud with the Pope, how does that play politically for the President? Maybe we take his MAGA support base out of this, but just with independent voters, with Catholic voters, and with Republicans who are not ideologically aligned necessarily with the President,

Adam Kinzinger (18:13)

this is where he's doing damage to himself. Because in the deep MAGA sphere, like, look, if you call yourself maga, you call yourself that because you specifically have an affection or a love for Donald Trump. And it's really not about policy. It's like it's a him thing.

Danny Citrinovich (18:29)

Right?

Adam Kinzinger (18:29)

I call it a cult for a reason. But the few Republicans that exist and there's a handful that don't call themselves maga, these independents, you know, he certainly lost all kind of leaning Democrats, but those people have turned against him in a huge way, which is why you're seeing potentially November is going to be like a Hungary level landslide for the Democrats because people that maybe have never voted Democratic or usually just don't vote during a midterm are going to vote. And that's where the difference is with like how dumb it is to take on Catholics and how dumb it is to take on Christians is. Maybe they were never with you, maybe some of them were, but now they're really angry and they're going to make sure that they vote in a midterm. And you know, in the United States, midterms usually have about half the turnout you have for a presidential election. So again, you know, as much as I don't like Donald Trump, one of the things I would always say about him is he has this like ability to kind of feel his base and understand what his base voter wants. This makes me think he's losing grip on that or he really doesn't care. Cuz this was dumb politically. Yeah.

Bianna Golodryga (19:40)

And speaking to the larger issue of the war, some of the risks that he's willing to take here on Fox News over the weekend, admitting that gas prices, oil prices could remain as high as they are, perhaps even higher, he hopes they won't be, but that could be the case come the midterms in November. To your point that he doesn't care, perhaps. I mean, he's not on the ballot, obviously Republicans are and control of the House and the Senate are on the ballot. But is there, do you think, the possibility that the President is thinking longer term about his legacy and if indeed he believes that he can be the president that brought in regime change in Iran one way or the other and took away the nuclear threat, that all of this could be worth it?

Adam Kinzinger (20:30)

It's possible. I just, I have a hard time seeing that this deep seated narcissist actually really cares much about his legacy. It's more about this current moment. If you look, if he wanted to do real regime change in Iran, we actually could do it. We would have to send ground troops and it would be very bloody and messy. And so the fact that he's not willing to do that, I don't know if regime changes his final legacy. I just think he's. Since he is not on the ballot in November, he doesn't care as much because it's not about him. Keep in mind, Donald Trump called himself a Democrat just until basically he started running for president. So he's not somebody that has this deep affection for Republican values. In fact, I would argue, which is the reason that I basically left the gop, that GOP values are not Rep. In fact, the Republican Party has gotten rid of all its values to support Donald Trump and I think what would work with him. So if I was a Republican leader talking to him, I would say, look, you are going to be tied up in investigations for the last two years of your presidency unless we win the majority. And I think that may do a little bit to motivate him. But there's, it's clear when he's up at 2 o' clock in the morning tweeting and posting and everything else, this is not somebody that's sitting around thinking about what the best political move for him to do is. This is a man that's driven by the emotion of the moment. And that is very dangerous when you are the president of the most powerful military in the world.

Bianna Golodryga (21:59)

Yeah. And to be objective here, he is not the first president to bypass Congress for an AUMF as it relates to foreign entanglements. But it is notable that when the question has constantly come up as to when Republicans would draw a red line and what that would be about, it does seem to fall with U.S. boots and troops on the ground. So given that, what, what do you think are the military options that he has that could be most effective right now, given the situation in Iran, given that we're there for six plus weeks and this blockade that has just gone into effect?

Adam Kinzinger (22:41)

Yeah, I mean, this is the big key is, look, I don't like Donald Trump, but we, my kid, my family, Americans are gonna have in the world, actually are gonna have to live with the consequences of this much longer than Donald Trump. So I don't wanna let my dislike of Trump affect what I think we should do Now. I wouldn't have launched this war, but the fact is we're in it. So what's the answer? And I think quite honestly, probably this blockade. Although if he did it selectively against Iranian oil, that may be smart. I do think the Kharg island operation has merits, but it's very dangerous, which is basically now you're inflicting strong economic pressure and strong motivation on Iran to basically come to the table. But I think when he stopped bombing and then put a red line in terms of using ground troops, I think he took a lot of his options off the table. Even if he never intended to introduce large amount of ground troops. You never wanna say that because you want your enemy to not know what you're thinking. And he was every day making comments and tweets and everything else arguing with himself. And that said a very clear message to the Iranian regime, which is we just have to wait this guy out because he wants out of this. And I think that's some of the big mistakes made just tactically on this.

Bianna Golodryga (23:58)

Well, the regime knows exactly what the American public wants and that is lower gas prices and not to be entangled in a forever war. But my final question to you is a lot of this does seem to hinge at this point on how far the United States is willing to push or stand up to China and China's role in all of this to finally getting Iran to back down. Do you think the president who says that he has a great relationship with Xi, has postponed his meeting in Beijing now for May? Do you think that he ultimately will be able to, to stand up to China?

Adam Kinzinger (24:30)

No, he hasn't yet. I mean, he can't even stand up to Russia, which is a failing, collapsing country that's losing in Ukraine. He can't even find the courage to stand up to them. I mean, I was in the Oval Office when he came in with a group of seven or eight of us in Congress and asked us to please take China's zte off of our sanctions list in a bill because Xi Jinping called him and asked him personally for a favor. That's not a guy who wants to stand up and defend America against China. That's somebody who frankly does not have the courage to do it. So no, I don't think he's going to be able to stand up to China to stop this. And the fact is if he actually did, he could actually be successful and then forcing a better compromise with the Iranian regime. But there's just something, some blind spot or something I don't understand that exists within him.

Bianna Golodryga (25:24)

Well, and also new CNN reporting that U.S. intelligence says that Beijing is prepar to send new air defense systems to help Iran rebuild what America has spent weeks and billions of dollars taking out similar to Russia's position here. So I think you're right to point out the question as to why the president can't stand up to either one of those leaders. Adam Kinzinger, always good to see you. Thank you so much.

Adam Kinzinger (25:52)

Anytime. You bet.

Bianna Golodryga (25:54)

And do stay with cnn. We'll be right back after the break.

Adam Kinzinger (26:00)

FOREIGN

Bianna Golodryga (26:03)

I'm CNN tech reporter Claire Duffy. This week on the podcast Terms of Service. I don't think I need to tell anyone that life these days is expensive. Now imagine that the cost you're charged is different from the cost your neighbor pays for the exact same product. Maybe because you have different budgets or shopping habits. It's actually happening a big shift. Is everyone seeing the same price tag in the store to now everyone's seeing prices on their private screens and also companies having a ton of information about each of us. I'm talking to Grace Getty, a policy analyst at Consumer Reports. She has some tips on how to look out for automated pricing schemes and what we can all do about it. Listen to CNN's terms of service wherever you get your podcasts. And now Donald Trump threw the weight of the White House behind Hungary's strongman leader, Viktor Orban. And yes, but it didn't matter. Hungarian voters on Sunday ousted Orban after 16 years in power, instead electing a former ally of his, Peter Magyar, to become the country's next prime minister. EU leaders were delighted by the results. Orban had been a thorn in the block side for years over a wide range of issues, including Hungary's recent tilt toward Russia. David Pressman was the US Ambassador in Budapest under President Biden, and he joins me now from New York. Ambassador, welcome to the program. It's good to see you. So we should remind our viewers that you constantly clash with the Orban government over its democratic backsliding, which had transpired over his 16 years in office. And so given the system that he was able to build over that time, gerrymandered districts, state, captured media packing the courts, were you surprised by not only his loss, but the margin at which Peter Magar was able to come out?

David Pressman (27:55)

The Victoria well, thanks for having me. I mean, first let me just start by saying I've noticed that many governments have congratulated the Hungarian people on their election, including Russia. And to date, the United States government has not done so. So as a former US Ambassador to Hungary, let me just say this has been an extraordinary exercise in strength and bravery and democracy to watch from afar. And in answer to your question, it is a surprise that a candidate in an environment as control, controlled as the one that Viktor Orban has created over 16 years, and control is able to emerge and break through and connect with constituencies across the country. I mean, Peter Magyar was generating rallies and movements and huge presence of voters in constituencies in rural Hungary that were thought of as completely written off to be supportive of Orban and the Fidesz movement. So I think it's important for your viewers to understand that, you know, for this entire 16 year period, Orban has effectively been using a propaganda apparatus to distract Hungarians from things that are real with things that are not. He's told them stories about civilizational struggles and about Brussels attempting to invade and undermine Hungarianness, about Hungarians having to go to Ukraine and give up their lives in a war. But meanwhile, Hungarians are watching their economy become the poorest economy in Europe. They're watching their country become the most corrupt country in the European Union, and they're looking for answers. So there's a disconnect between what they're being told by their government and their lived experience. And Peter Magyar went straight after that in a very, very effective manner.

Bianna Golodryga (29:43)

So then, do you think this election should be interpreted as a repudiation towards the tilt of popul in Europe, but around the world or a focus more specifically on kitchen table issues like the economy and, as you noted, corruption?

David Pressman (29:59)

Well, you know, it wasn't a focus on kitchen table issues. I think this is an important clarification. It was a focus on. I mean, Peter Magyar, even in his press conference this morning, refers to Viktor Orban and Viktor Orban's government as a criminal organization. What Peter Magyar ran and won on on was attacking a system, a system of kleptocracy, a system of corruption. And then to your point, connecting that with people's lived experience, connecting that with, you know, the fact that their hospitals are swelteringly hot is because these guys are stealing from you. But I think one of the things, one of the lessons to be learned, if there are lessons to be learned, is this wasn't a policy debate. You know, I mean, candidly, I think a lot of us have questions about what are going to be Peter Magyar's policies. And he may not know what his policies are, but what Peter Magyar focused on was on kleptocracy and corruption and the need for there to be transparency and accountability. And that brought Hungarians to the street in a way that I think no one could have predicted.

Bianna Golodryga (31:00)

Yeah, it is notable that, as you mentioned, the White House has not put out a statement congratulating Peter Magyar yet. And President Putin or the Kremlin did issue somewhat of a statement saying that they would be open to working with whoever is in government. Another ally, Benjamin Netanyahu, I think, also recently congratulated Peter Magyar. So if that is true, that the White House has yet to put out an official statement, that is something worth noting. Viktor Orban was rather quick to concede his loss. And here was his message to Hungarian voters.

Danny Citrinovich (31:39)

Dear friends, the election result is not

Michelle Dickerson (31:42)

final yet, but it is understandable and

Danny Citrinovich (31:44)

clear the election result is painful for

Michelle Dickerson (31:47)

us, but clear the responsibility and possibility of governing was not given to us. I have congratulated the winner.

Bianna Golodryga (31:55)

So Magyar's Tisha Party did win a supermajority, which gives him a lot more leverage in pursuing his policies, whatever that may be. But we also heard Orban say that he will remain leading the opposition. So given everything that he's been able to cement in the government over the past 16 years and within its institutions, what role do you think he could continue to play in government?

David Pressman (32:18)

Well, a significant one. I mean, the challenge now for Tiza and for Magyar is to unwind the state capture of what were public aspects and have been transformed into the assets of a political party. Now, what will be the minority political party? Fides. And by that I mean, take the universities in Hungary. I mean, public universities in Hungary were moved from the control of the public purse, and they created foundations, and the boards of directors of those foundations were appointed for lifetime tenure. And they were all Orban Loyola. And so they effectively move the assets of the educational system from public control to a political party's control. Now, if Tisa is going to stand a chance of reinvigorating Hungary's democratic institutions, including educational institutions, judicial institutions, there's going to need to be a whole scale unwinding of this kind of state capture. I mean, one of the things that Magyar said last night, which I found important and noteworthy, is that he began to list all of the senior public officials that need to submit their resignation, beginning with the President of Hungary, because it's simply not going to be feasible for a government that is now government structures that are now entirely controlled by loyalists to an individual being Viktor Orban, to adopt a different approach and different policy. And the other thing I would just note is this focus on corruption. I mean, you hear him, even Peter Magyar this morning, speaking about the need for an international investigative effort and asset collection and tracing. I mean, this has been a very lucrative time for those family and friends of Viktor Orban. And I think that if Hungary is to repair its economy and restore its rightful place within the European Union, there's going to need to be a degree of accountability to follow.

Bianna Golodryga (34:21)

Well, and there's also going to be sort of more explicit outlining of what his policies are. We know that he was part of the Fidesh government and party up until just a couple of years ago. He knows Orban very well. He himself and his party, Tisha is a center, right, right party. Where they differed obviously were on the issues of corruption, on how to address the economy and on the war in Ukraine. And Magyar said that he would reduce Hungary's dependence on Russian energy by 2035. So still a while out that Hungary will have to depend on some sort of energy coming from Russia. But he said he's going to strive for pragmatic relations with Moscow. And speaking today, here's what he said about Putin's war. Specifically,

Danny Citrinovich (35:12)

if Vladimir Putin calls me, I will pick up the phone, but I will not call him myself. But if we were to speak, I can say I will ask him to please stop the killing after four years, stop the war. That has no point at all for them, either tens of thousands or hundreds, Hundreds of thousands of Russians also died and families destroyed, including Russian speaking people living in Ukraine, killing them, bombarding their cities, raping them, etc. But, so this is what I would tell him and I think that would be a very brief discussion. I'm afraid that he will not stop acting on my advice. But I hope that he will be forced to end the war soon.

Bianna Golodryga (35:58)

So despite their close ties, Viktor Orban publicly said that he was never pro Russia, he was just anti war. So what is the message and the policy going to be now from Peter Magyar as it relates to Ukraine?

David Pressman (36:10)

Well, first let me quibble a little bit with the Prime Minister's characterization of his policy because his policy was not just anti war and in fact, on issue after issue, Moscow could continue to rely upon Viktor Orban's Budapest to advance its interest in international fora, including the European Union and including within the NATO alliance. So that was something more fundamental. And you're right to raise questions about what Peter Magyar's policies will be on really important issues confronting Europe and the United States. And there are question marks around where he will come out on many of these. But one thing that is already different and very clear from the statements he's made and the campaign that he's run is that he will will change the practice of Viktor Orban's Hungary of instrumentalizing their membership in what are consensus based organizations like the European Union, like the NATO alliance, in order to basically leverage their veto in these organizations to secure personal, pecuniary political interests of Viktor Orban and his political party. And that is a tremendous step forward. I mean, we have disagreements with our allies on any number of people issues. But what we expect from our allies is alliance is a commitment to a set of values and principles. And I think Hungary has taken a tremendous step forward in that regard.

Bianna Golodryga (37:34)

Well, we'll see how President Trump responds to all of this, whether there will indeed be a phone call made at some point to congratulate Peter Magyar with his win. David Pressman, good to see you. Thanks so much for joining the program.

David Pressman (37:45)

Good to see you. Thank you for having me.

Bianna Golodryga (37:47)

I'll be right back after this short break. Hey, I'm Anderson Cooper. On my podcast All There Is, we explore grief and loss in all its complexities. You'll hear deeply moving and honest discussions

Adam Kinzinger (38:04)

with people who have faced and are

Bianna Golodryga (38:06)

living with life altering losses.

Adam Kinzinger (38:08)

My conversation with Dax Shepard at Tulane

David Pressman (38:10)

University during the New Orleans Book Festival.

Adam Kinzinger (38:13)

Your relationship with your dad has continued.

Danny Citrinovich (38:16)

Oh, yeah.

Adam Kinzinger (38:16)

It's the best it's ever been.

Danny Citrinovich (38:18)

Which is the most,

Walter Isaacson (38:21)

which is the most heartbreaking part?

Adam Kinzinger (38:24)

Talking grief, building community. That's what the podcast is all about. This is all there is.

Bianna Golodryga (38:30)

Listen and follow wherever you get your podcasts. Now. Owning a home, having a stable job and a well funded retirement plan, all of these are key attributes of America's middle class. But many young Americans fear attaining middle class status is increasingly out of reach. That's according to Michelle Dickerson, author of the Middle Class New Deal, Restoring Upward Mobility and the American Dream. She tells Walter Isaacson how the middle class was first established and why it's struggling to stay afloat today.

Walter Isaacson (39:09)

Thank you. Bianna and Michelle Dickerson, welcome to the show.

Michelle Dickerson (39:13)

I'm glad to be here. Thanks for having me.

Walter Isaacson (39:15)

Your book is the Middle Class New Deal. It's filled with prescriptions of how we can restore a secure middle class in the United States. But let's start with how did we get a middle class in the first place? It's not part of American history. It seems like it was created right after World War II by intentional policies.

Michelle Dickerson (39:35)

Right. And I would say it's part of recent American history. Everyone wants to pretend that we've always had a middle class. We haven't. Political leaders decided after the Depression and World War II that we needed to have a stable middle class. We needed to make sure that the large sort of swath of people in this country could be stable. And they did that by creating the middle class.

Walter Isaacson (40:01)

And they did it through things like housing, you know, which is what we're not doing now. Right?

Michelle Dickerson (40:06)

Exactly.

Walter Isaacson (40:07)

Tell me all the things they did.

Michelle Dickerson (40:09)

Yeah, they decided that we don't want to keep the Depression pre depression model where people have to Come up with, with 50% for a down payment where they have to take out a mortgage loan, that's three to five years, which meant that at the end of five years people didn't own the home. They then had to take out another loan in order to actually be a homeowner because the loans at that time didn't amortize. So at the end of the five years they still owed money on their homes. So although we think that the 15 to 30 year mortgage loans that we have now are the norm, and we've always had that, we didn't, political leaders decided that they needed to give banks encouragement to be able to convince banks let people take out a long term loan, repay it over time to be able to buy homes. So when we have the FHA program, which everyone thinks, oh well, that's the way that we can, that we've always allowed people to buy homes. No, we have that because the government created it.

Walter Isaacson (41:19)

You say it came out of the Depression, but of course in your book you also described it came out of World War II. Veterans coming back. So you have veterans association loans and other things. What did the veteran type benefits do to create a middle class? And was that done just intentionally to create a middle class or just out of obligation to people coming back from World War II?

Michelle Dickerson (41:41)

I would hope it was obligation. I would suspect, I mean I wasn't there. I would suspect it was also a bit of PR that you need to do something so that the servicemen, and although there were some service women, was mostly men coming back from war can get a new start. And so they did that through the GI Bill and the VA loans. So by allowing returning servicemen to be able to buy homes cheaply using VA loans, to be able to take the money with the GI Bill, to be able to either go get a bachelor's degree or even get training through a trade school or a community college type degree, we told our returning servicemen, come back, go to school, buy a home, build some household wealth and you'll be stable and secure.

Walter Isaacson (42:36)

Well, let me read you a sentence from the book talking about that not being the norm anymore. You say because of my parents grit, hard work and determination to become and remain middle class, I am financially secure. But the next sentence says I'm not sure what the future holds for my sons though. You got two sons. Tell me why you're not sure this will continue.

Michelle Dickerson (43:01)

One of the things that we are seeing in this country, I see it a lot because I teach both law students and I also spend a lot of time with undergraduates, mostly student athletes at the University of Texas, is the fear and the despair coming from our young adults. My sons are 22 and 25, so they are in that age band. And I would say, really all young adults under the age 40, they're saying, we did everything right. We graduated from high school, then we realized we have to go to college. Because the types of jobs that our parents or our grandparents were able to get when they graduated from high school, those jobs aren't there anymore. So they work hard and they go to college. Many of them have had to drown themselves in student loan debt to get the degree. But even those whose parents may have been able to help them go to college and they didn't have to take out a lot of debt are now coming out in a market where the unemployment rates for the graduates of the class of 2025 are. We don't see those outside of a recession. So I worry about the future that we are leaving for our young adults. And we see that a lot in their despair and in their anger.

Walter Isaacson (44:22)

Thinker let's define the middle class. You do it in the book somewhat by income, saying, this is the amount of money that a college will give you, free tuition. And that's sort of a cutoff of parameters for the middle class. Right? But what's interesting in the book is you also use markers. The ability to own a home, the ability to get a good education. Explain the markers to me of what is a middle class person?

Michelle Dickerson (44:52)

When we think about what the markers are and when people are interviewed or surveyed about what does it mean to be middle class, they point to the ability to help their kids go to college. They point to the ability to own a home. I would say now it's also just the ability to find affordable housing. A marker is you can find a good full time, 40 hours a week job that has benefits and you are called an employee and not a contractor. It's the ability to have savings so that if you blow out a tire, you don't have to take out a payday loan in order to be able to replace the tire so you can go to work. It's the ability to have retirement savings so you're not 55 or 60 years old and thinking, I may have to work until I die because I don't have a pension in the way that my parents have a pension. Every month my parents get a Social Security and a pension. They have four stable sources of income. And then the final marker is sort of the flip of you want to have savings you don't always want to be in debt. And it is increasingly hard for young adults to be able to attain the markers of the middle class.

Walter Isaacson (46:20)

Well, let's start with the first of the markers you talk about, which is housing. Now, when I turned 30, that was the average age of people getting a home. You say that too in the book. Now, at 40, we most people don't yet have a stable home. How do we fix that?

Michelle Dickerson (46:42)

I'll mention a Senate bill, a recent Senate bill that passed through the Senate. I haven't read it in detail because who knows whether or not they're going to be able to reconcile the Senate bill with the House bill. But the thing that I love about that bill is, well, the main thing is they have acknowledged that housing is unaffordable. The second thing is they're thinking outside the box. So, for example, for the first time, at least since I've been paying attention, this is quite a few years now, they're actually saying things like manufactured housing. Now, do I think that is the solution to the homeownership crisis or the affordability crisis? Not necessarily, but it may be the solution for some people. So the main thing I'm arguing in the book and when I talk about sort of the middle class new Deal is look at your community, look at your zoning laws. Is there something about your zoning laws that makes it either harder for developers to construct affordable housing or does it allow people who are existing homeowners to fence out the middle class and make sure they can never live there? So I would like people to think and also to focus on your local communities to see what could you do there.

Walter Isaacson (48:04)

The second marker you talked about was just a good secure job, not necessarily the highest paying job in the world, but one that you can count on and might actually give you benefits like health care and pension. What's gone wrong with that and how do we fix that?

Michelle Dickerson (48:20)

Part two things went wrong. The first was, and everyone talked about, oh, it's global outsourcing. They're sending our jobs overseas. And that was true. That's what happened. Sort of early 80s, 70s, early 80s. But then an interesting thing was happening domestically that no one was paying attention to. And I call it domestic outsourcing. It's when companies took whole units. So they would take the accounting or they would take the landscape, the folks that they used to employ to take care of the property if it was a big business. And they basically said, we're firing all of you. And then they go out and they effectively rehire the same People, but through a contracting agency. So these folks would show up, do the same work they always did, but they would be private contractors or they would be temporary employers employed by the contracting servicer. So. So if the business decided they didn't want to use that company anymore, you lost your job even though you did absolutely nothing wrong.

Walter Isaacson (49:30)

Let me go to education. Was the college for all mindset a bad idea?

Michelle Dickerson (49:36)

The college for all mindset, I think was a bad idea only because it was forced upon us and it was forced upon us by businesses that decided to use the college degree, a bachelor's degree, as the cutoff for will we even interview this person. So the college for all high schools basically started telling, or states started telling their high schools. You've got to make sure that every single kid that graduates is ready to go to college. There are some kids that either don't want to go to college or aren't necessarily suited for a four year old program. We've ignored the benefits that community colleges have done. Community colleges and I'm a huge fan of community colleges, although I teach at a four year. Because community colleges can pivot quickly. If a new manufacturing company is coming into your area and they need a trained workforce, a community college can create a 6, 9 month certificate that can take people that are there, train them, give a certificate so that they can work. I obviously am a huge fan of four year colleges. I have taught it to my children, went to them. But I think the college for all mantra was used by businesses because they thought this is the easiest way for us to eliminate a lot of the people. We don't have to hire them, we don't need to look at their resumes or whatever. Whatever happens now with the algorithms online, if you don't have a bachelor's degree, you're out.

Walter Isaacson (51:14)

When I finished your book, I realized it wasn't just about middle class having to struggle in affordability, all that, that was huge. It was about a bigger social change. When you say that the median age of buying a home is now 40, the highest it's ever been. And then you look at the fact that, fact that people aren't getting married partly because of that they're not having children because of that, there's not family formation. They don't feel they have a secure job at a secure wage. To what extent is this more than just about economics? And it's just almost tearing apart the fabric of our society.

Michelle Dickerson (51:55)

One of the things that the middle class has always meant in this country, ignoring the way that I define it in terms of income, the middle class has always meant normal. It's always meant stable. It's always meant secure. And if you don't have a middle class and if you are a person that is struggling to become middle class or you wake up every morning in fear that you're going to tumble out of the middle class, we start getting into a space of emotional and psychological and not just financial to imagine that we are in a country when young adults don't think they're ever going to be able to move out of their parents home and live independently unless they have two or three other roommates. When you have young adults that aren't dating because they don't think they can afford to get married, and many that do get married, their babies are fur babies and they're not grandbabies. For those of us that, you know, maybe thought we were going to have grandchildren one day, that is a fundamental transformation of the American society and it's something that our political leaders really need to be paying attention to.

Walter Isaacson (53:14)

Michelle Dickerson, thanks for joining us.

Michelle Dickerson (53:17)

Thanks so much for having me on.

Bianna Golodryga (53:20)

And finally, diplomacy around the table, but not the negotiating conversation. This weekend, young table tennis players from the US and China came together to mark the 55th anniversary of ping pong diplomacy. In 1971, an American team visited China, breaking the ice for relationships between the two countries. It was a milestone in sporting and diplomatic history. Three of those original players led the delegation this year. The attendees also hung wish cards under the trees with messages of hope for lasting friendship, which feel especially important at a time fraught by division and conflict. Good note to leave you on there. And that is it for now. Thank you so much for watching and goodbye. From New York, I'm Eva Longoria and I'm setting out to really experience France, to savor its world celebrated cuisine and explore the country's rich history.

David Pressman (54:23)

EVA longoria, Searching for France now streaming on the CNN app.

Adam Kinzinger (54:28)

Influential journalist Kara Swisher is taking a

David Pressman (54:31)

hard look at the longevity industry.

Bianna Golodryga (54:33)

There's so much bad information that the really good information gets drowned.

Adam Kinzinger (54:37)

The new CNN Original series Kara Swisher Wants to Live Forever.

David Pressman (54:41)

Now streaming on the CNN app.