Iranian regime change, press freedom & Jimmy Lai

Summary

---

Podcast Summary: "Iranian Regime Change, Press Freedom & Jimmy Lai"

Christiane Amanpour Presents: The Ex Files
Host(s): Christiane Amanpour & Jamie Rubin
Date: February 10, 2026

---

Episode Overview

In this episode of The Ex Files, renowned journalist Christiane Amanpour and her ex-husband, former US State Department official Jamie Rubin, delve into the tangled state of global affairs—with a special focus on the fragile Iranian regime, the West’s inconsistent commitment to human rights, rising tensions across the world, and the acute threats facing press freedom. Their discussion, blending sharp analysis with candid personal banter, explores how historical patterns and present-day geopolitical shifts are feeding into today’s crises, using recent events in Iran, Israel, Hong Kong, and the U.S. as focal points.

---

Key Discussion Points & Insights

1. The Iranian Regime’s Weakness and Brutality

[01:39 – 10:27]

• Backdrop: Iran recently experienced its most severe crackdown in decades, following protests in December-January sparked by inflation and economic collapse. The protests quickly escalated into calls for regime change.
• Regime's Response: "There are, you know, there could be 20,000 dead and injured even more. And we understand now from reporting inside Iran that there's at least 40 to 50,000 arrests..." (Amanpour, [02:56])
• Western Policy Critique: Amanpour criticizes Western governments—Democrat and Republican alike—for consistently prioritizing nuclear concerns and regional security over human rights in Iran.
  • “For 47 years... it's always only been about nukes, about missiles, about foreign mercenaries in the region, and never about the human rights of the Iranian people.” (Amanpour, [00:07])
• Trump Administration's Mixed Signals: The hosts examine Trump’s inconsistent stance, noting he encouraged Iranians to rise up but provided no tangible support.
  • “On one day, they're calling for the end of the regime... and then help, sorry to say, was not on the way.” (Rubin, [03:42])
• Current Landscape: The regime is internationally weaker than ever, lacking regional support, but still maintains the "willingness to slaughter its own people." (Rubin, [05:56])

---

2. International Reactions & Prospects for Change

[10:27 – 16:56]

• Israel’s Calculations: Netanyahu’s visit to the US coincides with these tensions, but Israel is uncharacteristically reluctant to support direct military action due to potential Iranian retaliation.
  • “For the first time in my memory, the Israeli government has been reluctant to support...military power being used against Iran.” (Rubin, [10:27])
• Potential for a Deal: Jamie pitches a possible "Trumpian deal"—Iran temporarily halting uranium enrichment in exchange for sanctions relief, allowing Trump to claim a win without risk of broader conflict.
  • “It's a very Trumpian deal... Iran could…for the next, and let's pick a number, three years…not conduct enrichment...” (Rubin, [12:36])
• Iranian Opposition & Diaspora: Amanpour highlights increased activity abroad (e.g., Reza Pahlavi gaining traction), raising questions about the future of opposition leadership.

---

3. Geopolitical Uncertainty – (The New 'No World Order')

[16:56 – 21:24]

• Shift Away from US-led Order: Christiane observes that U.S. unpredictability under Trump is pushing allies—including Japan, India, and European countries—to bolster their own defenses, sometimes seeking alternatives to American support.
  • “Europe is united by a common foe. Who’s the foe? The United States of America.” (Amanpour, [16:56])
• Global Adaptation: With security guarantees in question, “middle powers” are stepping up, anticipating a world with less reliable US leadership.
  • “That geopolitical change is generated by...serious doubts about the United States world leadership...” (Rubin, [18:42])

---

4. Press Freedom Under Threat: Hong Kong, China, and the United States

[21:24 – 32:21]

• Jimmy Lai Case: The hosts detail the sentencing of Jimmy Lai, a symbol of press freedom in Hong Kong, to 20 years under China’s draconian national security law.
  • “He’s already spent, I think, five years. He’s 78 going on 80. This is complete madness…” (Amanpour, [23:56])
• Erosion of Free Media in the US: Amanpour draws parallels with attacks on press freedom in the United States, including mass layoffs at The Washington Post and direct pressure on journalists.
  • "If that goes down the drain, we are in deep, deep trouble." (Amanpour, [29:08])
• Comparisons with China: Rubin and Amanpour agree on the danger of equating American press struggles with China’s outright repression, but worry that the US risks ‘eating itself from within’.
  • “To even compare that to the ruthlessness every day that went on during COVID...is an hysterical exaggeration. And yet people make it.” (Rubin, [28:04])

---

5. Memorable Quotes & Moments

Regime’s Priorities

• “It’s always only been about nukes, about missiles, about foreign mercenaries in the region, and never about the human rights of the Iranian people.”
  —Amanpour ([00:07])

On Western Incoherence & Trump

• “On one day, they're calling for the end of the regime...and then help, sorry to say, was not on the way.”
  —Rubin ([03:42])

Israel’s Reluctance

• “For the first time in my memory, the Israeli government has been reluctant to support the idea of military power being used against Iran.”
  —Rubin ([10:27])

Media & Democracy

• “If [The Washington Post] goes down the drain, we are in deep, deep trouble.”
  —Amanpour ([29:08])
• “Thomas Jefferson said that if he had to choose between democratic government and a free press…he would choose a free press because he said democratic government can't work without a free press…”
  —Rubin ([30:49])
• “The free press in the United States has not died, but it is suffering serious assault.”
  —Rubin ([31:11])

On China’s ‘One Country, Two Systems’

• “If the Taiwanese look over at Hong Kong, it’s not two systems, it’s one system.”
  —Rubin ([24:33])

---

6. Cultural and Political Recommendations

[33:01 – 39:35]

• Amanpour: Recommends reading recent releases from the Epstein files, emphasizing their profound political impact in the UK and calling attention to ongoing scandals.
• Rubin: Recommends Rick Atkinson’s historical trilogy on the American Revolution, highlighting the importance of remembering America’s foundational struggle against monarchy.
  • "It's worth remembering what America was fighting for. They were fighting to get rid of a king..." ([37:35])

---

Important Timestamps

• Iran crackdown summary & US response: [02:56] – [08:02]
• Trump’s “help” to Iranian protesters discussion: [03:42] – [05:56]
• Israel’s stance & potential “Trumpian deal”: [10:27] – [12:36]
• Shift in world order, Japan/EU/etc. self-reliance: [16:56] – [18:42]
• Press freedom/Jimmy Lai/Hong Kong: [23:56] – [27:41]
• US press layoffs, The Washington Post, Don Lemon: [29:08] – [32:23]
• Recommendations (Epstein files & Atkinson book): [33:01] – [39:35]

---

Tone & Style

The discussion alternates between searing honesty, political candor, and conversational banter—especially when the hosts riff on their personal history, the Persian carpet in Jamie’s kitchen, and the realities of divorce as a metaphor for geopolitical splits. They finish each other’s sentences and trade barbs, bringing levity to otherwise daunting topics.

---

Conclusion

Amanpour and Rubin argue that the world faces unprecedented instability—what they dub the absence of any world order. The episode leaves listeners with a profound sense of urgency about defending human rights, upholding press freedom, and the need for clear, values-driven leadership, particularly as old alliances fracture and global politics grows ever more unpredictable.

---

Noteworthy Takeaway:
“If [The Washington Post] goes down the drain, we are in deep, deep trouble.”
—Christiane Amanpour ([29:08])

---

Transcript

[A]

This is a global player original podcast.

[B]

For 47 years of this Islamic republic and regime, it's always only been about nukes, about missiles, about foreign mercenaries in the region, and never about the human rights of the Iranian people.

[A]

The Iranian regime is at the weakest moment internationally in terms of its capabilities, allies in the region, but it has the willingness to slaughter its own people.

[B]

It has become a very, very, very unpredictable, almost self defeating. I'm just going to say that series of actions and as some have written, you know, the rest of the world now, particularly Europe, is united by a common foe. Who's the foe? The United States of America.

[A]

They promised in that agreement to leave Hong Kong to its own system for 50 years.

[B]

They're going to gut the Washington Post. And this is one of the most important upholders of democracy in the history of the free press. If that goes down the drain, we are in de deep trouble. Just take a deep breath because I'm going to say something that's really out there but true. Jamie, I don't know it's a new set you've got there or what, but that's my carpet in the background.

[A]

Well, it looks like I got it.

[B]

In the divorce, that one. Let me, let me tell you anyway.

[A]

You'Ve got a lovely purse carpet yesterday.

[B]

In the background, moved it and. No, no, I sent it to you, Jamie. I did it.

[A]

I know that's what happens when you divorce. You split up your goods and I got this.

[B]

That's true, that's true. But the good news is that actually there's a reason to this. Well, it just came to me. We are actually gonna be talking about Iran. So here we are. I'm Christiana Monpour in London and this is the X Files with me and.

[A]

With you, Jamie Rubin. I'm here in Carmela's kitchen for those of you who may remember from a few episodes ago.

[B]

And I am a longtime CNNer as and I've had my own show for the last several years and I try to keep and hold powerful people accountable. Jamie is, I think you said, Jamie, that you were in the State Department under Presidents Biden and Clinton. And we used to be married, hence the X Files. We're not married anymore. And as I said, there is my Persian carpet standing over your left shoulder. So shall we get started, Jamie? Let's talk about Iran first because a lot of people are on tender hooks. The worst and absolutely the worst crackdown in Iranian history, I would say, in the last hundred years. And I'm talking in the last hundred Years came over the December January protests, which happened because of massive inflation and a collapse of their currency and huge, huge economic pain and poverty on the country's 90 million citizens. And then it turned into a political protest where they were calling for the end of the regime. And the regime, as we've talked about many times, really responded with fury and ferocity, unlike it's done before. And I don't know, Jamie, but it's very hard to know real numbers. But there are, you know, there could be 20,000 dead and injured even more. And we understand now from reporting inside Iran that There's at least 40 to 50,000 arrests that have been made of those who they want to silence and terrify into any future, you know, thought of protest. So how does this sit, Jamie, with the US Administration, who's also busily shaking hands with the regime that they called on the people to rise against?

[A]

Exactly. And I think this fits to a pattern of the Trump administration, which is incoherence. On one day, they're calling for the end of the regime. The president himself telling the people of Iran that help is on the way. If they go out and protest and bring down the regime, and then help, sorry to say, was not on the way. For whatever you think of the Trump administration's use of military power, I think those of us who care about the people of Iran and the suffering they're going through imagine that maybe that threat or maybe even the use of force might have an impact on the values, democratic rights and the human rights of the people of Iran. But it didn't. In fact, I think you could argue it made it worse. There's no question that people in Iran heard President Trump, Trump's call believed after Venezuela and the use of force and many other countries under the Trump administration believed that he might actually do something, and I think wrongly believed that there was something militarily he could do.

[B]

Well, because he said he would. You know, he said help is on the way. He called on people to seize their institutions. That is, I believe, the actual words from Truth Social. But let me just quickly point out here, Jamie, because it does bother me, and I've been. I've been raising this at every possible time that I can. Recently, neither your administration, that is Clinton or Biden, nor Obama's, nor previous Republican administrations, and not this administration, not the Trump administration for 47 years, almost now of this Islamic republic and regime, there has never been human rights of the Iranian people as the core of the west, the democratic human rights. Apparently, West's policy towards Iran it's always only been about nukes, about missiles, about foreign mercenaries in the region, and never about the human rights of the Iranian people. And I wonder whether sometimes you, You. You think about that, because in many, many other countries, Jamie, when the west, you know, talks about what the governments are doing against their people, it's always framed in the human rights of the Iranian people, or rather of the people in question.

[A]

Well, yeah, I do think about it, and I think while your statement is generally true, I think you were a bit harsh on the Democratic presidents, because there's no question that under President Biden and under President Obama and under President Clinton, the issue of human rights was part of our foreign policy. It was not the primary issue. You're right about that. Nuclear weapons by Iran was the primary issue. Iran's support for Hezbollah and the Syrian government, Hamas, those were the secondary issues. But human rights was part of our foreign policy. We had basically big debates in Geneva over a human rights resolution in Iran. We called for UN Rapporteurs to go in and find out what happened during the various protests. We did make human rights part and parcel of our policy. But when it came time to the few times where we sat down with the Iranian regime under Biden, under Clinton, I don't think we did under Clinton, actually under a lot talked under Obama, that we didn't make human rights a big issue. And we can talk about why that might be. But I think the truth is that the Trump administration did something that neither any president's done recently, which was call on the Iranian people to rise up, promising them help, and then didn't give that help. And that's why right now, when we're looking at what will happen between the Trump administration and the Iranian regime, it's hard to know precisely because there's an incoherence at the core of the Trump foreign policy on Iran. They've used force once. That certainly gives an indication to the Iranians that we might do it again. The Israelis have used force. The Iranian regime is at the weakest moment internationally in terms of its capabilities, its allies in the region. It doesn't have Hezbollah and Hamas to threaten everybody. It doesn't have that same regional power that it once had to have, an arc of Shiite countries that would support it, but it has the willingness to slaughter its own people.

[B]

And that very weekend was the beginning of the massive crackdown. It was January, I believe, 8th to 11th, and it was brutal. And as I said, even now, even now, as they're talking, you know, in. In. In Oman, indirectly or directly or however they want to describe it, they are undergoing a massive, massive further crackdown, a dragnet all over the place. Going into hospitals, as I said, going into, I believe there have been kids who've been killed, according to the student union there, head of the student unions.

[A]

They're looking for people with eye injuries because that might indicate they were protesting.

[B]

Right, Right. No, no, but exactly all of that. So they're really going hell for leather in terms of regime survival. But let's talk now, whether you think now that everything has happened and Iranians still come up to me and still ask me, and I'm talking about diaspora, but even here from inside Iran, do you think, or when is Trump coming to help us? And I don't know what to say anymore because I think I just don't know what to say. And I don't want to say anything positive, negative, or any way to get people's hopes up or not. But as you say, it is the weakest it has been. So what do you think, in all your experience of being, you know, kind of at the table, certainly in the State Department, when these issues have cropped up, when there's a president who sends, you know, a carrier group to the region, when there's apparently the president, or there have been meetings in Florida between members of the Iranian diaspora in the United States and either members of the administration or people who they've deputed. But to allegedly talk about a transition. Reza Pahlavi is getting more and more traction in the United States, that's for sure. And I hope to be interviewing him soon at the Munich Security Conference. And I think that'll be important to find out what the plan is from the opposition. As we say, there is this military bearing down. And Benjamin Netanyahu, the notorious Iran regime hawk, is making another trip to the United States as this podcast drops. He'll be there on the Wednesday. Let's go through all of that. A Benjamin Netanyahu. Do you think he's going about Iran or is he going about Gaza and the west bank, which is a dreadful, dreadful, dreadful tragedy?

[A]

Still, I think both will come up, but I think it will be a really interesting meeting. For the following reason, for the first time in my memory, the Israeli government has been reluctant to support the idea of military power being used against Iran. I'm not quite sure why that is. I think it's because they don't feel they have the defense system in place to deal with the retaliation that Iran might conduct. And they would conduct retaliation, I suspect much more widespread and deep than before because their regime is on such a tender hook, because they feel that they've lost their regional supporters, because they are desperate, so desperate that they order tens of thousands of Iranian security officials to slaughter their own people. Israelis are concerned that if Donald Trump did use force and the Iranians responded with a missile attack, which they can still do, or other regional attacks, the Israelis would suffer the consequences. And they don't have in place the kind of regional support that they did in the past with an air defense system, the thaad and all of that in place. That is not something I think I'm told the Israelis want to see happen right now, which is ironic, obviously. But here's what I actually think is possible since I try to be an optimist based on reality. I think there's a deal to be had under Trump. And here's the deal. Donald Trump criticized the perfectly good Obama agreement that delayed Iran's nuclear program, that put restrictions on it, that gave us verification and inspections, and he criticized it because it had some enrichment of uranium built into it. Now, right now, because of Israeli airstrikes and American airstrikes, the Iranians cannot conduct enrichment of uranium. To the best of my knowledge, the sites where that was taking place have been destroyed and they have not been rebuilt.

[B]

Well, actually, the intelligence, the overhead surveillance, according to a deep dive by the New York Times says the same thing, that they are not busy active in those nuclear sites.

[A]

So that gives the missile sites for a deal. And it's a very Trumpian deal. And what's the deal? Well, Iran could, for example, suggest that for the next, and let's pick a number, three years, the rest of the Trump administration, it shall not conduct enrichment of uranium that would be practical at all. Practical given the state of their enrichment program. And it would be significant because enrichment is the core of the problem here. And Trump would be able to say he got something that Obama didn't get, which is zero enrichment. Now, the Iranians will not say they will give up some treaty or some international legal agreement forever the right to enrich. But they might say they're not going to rich. And they could come up with some words that seem rather dramatic. And that way we could have an agreement. Because I don't believe President Trump, after threatening force in Iran, after being presented with the various options and dealing with the consequences of the American attack and its follow up by Iran, wants to get started in another regional conflict. Remember, at the core, he's supposed to be the president who doesn't want the United States to get into these forever military conflicts. And believe me, trying to overthrow the regime in Iran is a long term conflict. It's not going to be resolved in a, what they call, you know, one off situation.

[B]

Yes. So a couple of things about, about the military as let's just remind everybody that as they were meant to have a sixth meeting back in June in order to finalize a deal that we're talking about right now to do that. Remember, the Americans struck and the Israelis struck. So that's one thing. The second thing is you say the good news is that a deal is in the now that will sound very, could be okay. Good news for who? Because for the Iranian people, I would say that they have got to a point where they believe that the rest of the world is simply sane washing the regime, thinking that it can come to some kind of deal that and believing that there's some kind of reform or you know what I mean, in other words, prolonging the life of the regime. So I think that's a very interesting perspective.

[A]

Now can I address that? Because it's.

[B]

Yes, you can. But I'll tell you one more thing before you know, you also said that Trump claimed himself to be the peace candidate as opposed to the war candidate. But a report, and I don't know whether you saw it, of a lot of data, US Military strikes all over have intensified under the Trump administration. Air and drone strikes, even those carried out alongside coalition partners. Apparently there's a lot more happening or a significant amount more happening in the one year under Trump, you know, than the four years, you know, under Biden. So I think that's also something that we have to think about because he says he doesn't want to use force, but then he does. And then the other thing, Jamie, none of the, not just Israel has indicated that at least last week they didn't want to see American military action, but also all the so called Iranian adversaries in that region, not Saudi Arabia doesn't want to see, nor Qatar, nor Bahrain, nor Oman, nor the uae. So which way is up? Do they want the regime clipped or do they not?

[A]

Well, yes, it seems the majority would prefer to get rid of the regime. But much of the protest this time came from the miserable condition of the people of Iran as a result of sanctions and the regime's mismanagement. And I think if a deal does happen along the lines I suggested, I think there'll be some form of sanctions relief and that will ease the pain of the people. Now, I can't choose for the people of Iran, whether they prefer some economic more pain and a greater chance of overthrowing the regime versus improving their lives and less chance, all I can say is I don't think there's much of a chance of overthrowing the regime. And so that doesn't seem like something you should expect.

[B]

Let's spend the last few minutes of this part of the podcast talking about Trumpism in the second year because it has become a very, very, very unpredictable, as if it ever was predictable, but even more unpredictable and almost self defeating. I'm just gonna say that series of actions. And as some have written, you know, the rest of the world now, particularly Europe, is united by a common foe. Who's the foe? The United States of America. You've got the Japanese prime minister who just won a landslide election after being, you know, put into office. She just actually won an election. She is center right. Trump did endorse her, but guess what? She has run, yes, on the immigration bogeyman, but with a promise to increase defense spending. And that's also because Trump has cast, you know, doubt on whether he will come to the traditional security guarantee of allies. So all of this is happening. Europeans are spending more and more now on their defense. And everywhere I look, Jamie, people are trying to do workarounds or stand their ground. Carney of Canada standing his ground. I just came from India. Narendra Modi, the prime minister, standing his ground and finally getting a trade deal with Trump in Australia. I was just in Australia a couple of, you know, for the last couple of weeks. They are also, you know, far away, trying not to antagonize, but also not to bend the knee to the United States. So things are adapting very fast now this year.

[A]

Well, I think you're absolutely right. And I think the world is at a moment of geopolitical change unlike anything that's happened in my lifetime other than the fall of communism in 1989. And that geopolitical change is generated by, for the first time since the end of World War II, serious doubts about the United States world leadership and whether that's good or bad for countries around the world, for our allies, for our friends. Is it good or bad to have the United States be so powerful? And Mark Carney, the Canadian prime minister, and many others about the need for what you might call middle powers to start to recognize they have to take care of their own problems in the national security geosecurity area. So there's two possible conclusions from that. You and I talked over the weekend about a brilliant colleague friend of all of ours, Robert Kagan, who's written an article basically saying that we're opening the door to the kind of chaos in world affairs that used to occur, exist prior to World War II. Where we had World War I, we had World War II, we had wars throughout the 19th century, despite what people believe, because the balance of power system doesn't work as beautifully as everyone says it does. And plenty of wars happened during that time. Will Japan and South Korea start being at each other's throats? Will Germany and France be at each other's throats? That's what Robert Kagan is writing about, that you're going to have 10, 11, 12 countries building up their forces and challenging each other's international role. I think that's a fear, but I think it's overblown. And I'll tell you why. Because my assertion would be that European nations, by and large, Asian democracies, all of them are countries that share the same basic values about the world. They don't want China trying to dominate Asia. They don't want Russia invading Ukraine or trying to dominate their regions. They don't want countries like China coercing them economically with rare earths. They don't want big powers dominating medium and small powers. So they're going to build up their capabilities to deal with it. And we're going to talk about Jimmy Lai, and I think that's very important. Yeah. The worst quote I heard all week, I was at a conference on AI and a European legislator actually said to me, and I'll stop now because it's a good place to end for. For me. She said she wasn't sure she wanted the US Or China to win. The AI race. That's pretty chilling.

[B]

I know. But, Jamie, it's everywhere. Welcome to this side of the Atlantic.

[A]

I agree.

[B]

But guess what? This is the fruit of what they've been concocting in the, you know, in the White House, the national security, the Pentagon, the State Department. This is the result now that they are pushing other countries into China's arms. And by the way, I forgot to say, of course in that list of people standing up for themselves is President Xi, because he, when faced with massive Trumpian tariffs, decided to respond in kind and stop sending rare earths. You know, now they've got some kind of detente. Trump's going to visit Xi in April or so, and we'll see what's going to happen. But it doesn't necessarily look like he's going from a position of strength. And Xi's Already read him the riot act over Taiwan. We'll talk about this in the next segment. But let's all just take a deep breath because I'm going to say something that's really out there, but true. China, as you said, Jamie, is cracking down massively, as it does and as it always will, on any kind of freedom of political expression or freedom of the press. Right now, of course, is the Hong Kong verdict. That is the Chinese verdict against Jimmy Lai, the media titan. The United States under the Trump administration is cracking down very heavily on the freedom of expression and the freedom of the press there as well. What do these two countries have in common? Nothing, except for a very alarming trend towards, certainly from the United States, authoritarianism with the press right in the middle of it. That's going to be what we discuss in the next segment. So now, Jamie, we're going to look at the threats to press freedom, not just in China and all the other usual authoritarian, dictatorial suspects, but in the United States of America with the First Amendment, the only nation that guarantees freedom of expression and freedom and safety of the press. So why is it happening, Jamie? First, let's open up by saying, as we record, the Hong Kong government, that is Beijing, under its national security law, that came in a year or more ago, has sentenced Jimmy Lai, owner of the Apple Daily, the biggest, most important independent press in Hong Kong, at least it was before China, you know, overtook that place with its laws, has been sentenced to 20 years. He's already spent, I think, five years. He's 78 going on 80. This is complete madness. And even though China insists that this is about him breaking the law and sponsoring the protests and all the rest of it, most of the, most everybody knows that that is actually not the case and that it, this is a political vendetta and a political message to any in the democratic human rights or press freedom space who wants to carry on in normal fashion and maybe criticize China. So that's what's happening. And Jamie, it's happening in the US as well, to a degree.

[A]

Right? Well, it's starting with Jimmy Lai in China. You may remember, it was, I guess, about right before we were married. I went with Madeleine Albright to the handover of Hong Kong to the Chinese by the British government. It was a really dramatic moment in world history. Margaret Thatcher was there representing part of the team, Tony Blair, Prince Charles. So I vividly remember, and I think people get a kick out of this, standing on a balcony, a tiny little balcony, watching the fireworks. The Chinese put on 2 inches or foot away from Madeleine Albright on one side of me and Maggie Thatcher on the other side of me. Two of these powerful, powerful women, and me looming. Yeah, right. You in the background in my head. And so it was a dramatic moment. Tony Blair and Prince Charles, I remember, were standing stiff, not making a move, because they were doing something very, very important. And here's what's crucial about this, that at that time, nearly everyone thought, there's no way the Chinese are going to destroy the goose that's laying the golden eggs for them in Hong Kong. Everyone thought that. That China was evolving into being a member as a Bush administration called a responsible stakeholder. And so people, some of them were concerned. Chris Patent, the. The governor of Hong Kong was very concerned, and he doubted the Chinese Communist commitment. They promised in that agreement to leave Hong Kong to its own system for 50 years. And that for me, when they started the crackdowns in Hong Kong several years ago and began to, you know, prevent protests, a million Hong Kong people went out on the streets. This was a democratic, thriving place with a rule of law and the Asian system all combined together. It was a beautiful place. I remember, I thought of it as San Francisco, London and New York all wrapped up into one. And now Hong Kong has been subjugated completely as a result of the leadership of Xi Jinping and his sense that China gets to own Hong Kong and then offer the Taiwanese the same deal he offered Hong Kong. One country, two systems. He's claiming if the Taiwanese look over at Hong Kong, it's not two systems, it's one system. And for any people in Europe, Europe who say, as we said in the last segment, that they can't decide who they want to win the AI race, yes, the United States has big problems under Trump. I agree with that. I'm a Democrat. I don't like it. But to even compare that to the ruthlessness every day that went on during COVID that goes on every day in the Uyghur part of China, to what they're doing in Hong Kong, is an hysterical exaggeration. And let's. And yet people make it. And I agree with you, it's not.

[B]

Just even, not even about the AI Thing, just the fact that the US to an extent, I don't know, maybe. Can you blame it all on Trump? I don't know. But the Trump whimsical, mercurial, untrustworthy inconsistency is pushing all these otherwise more reasonable, rational countries into China's arms.

[A]

I agree. And that's why our job People like us is to be be actually lucid about what Trump is doing so that we're precisely explaining the democratic guardrails that are dying, the difficulties we're having in our democracy, but compare it lucidly to what China wants for the world.

[B]

Just to your point about the ruthlessness and what really the west or others who are moving towards China can expect. The British prime minister, beleaguered Keir Starmer over this whole Peter Mandelson, Jeffrey Epstein horror show that is playing out right now, including, you know, criminal stuff. Keir Starmer just a few days ago raised with Xi the issue of Jimmy Lai, who is in fact a British citizen and obviously made absolutely no difference. We don't know whether there'll be a sentencing and then some kind of, oh, well, he's spent so much time in jail, we'll let him out. We don't know he's been sentenced despite the British government's intervention.

[A]

And Donald Trump apparently brought it up, too.

[B]

And. Yeah. So let's talk about, though, democracy and the value of the press. Obviously, a free press and a very, you know, vigorous and feisty press in Hong Kong over the years, even when there was one China, two systems was vital to Hong Kong's thriving nature as well. And, and of course, in the United States, you know, I think it's David Remnick, editor in chief of the, of the New York. But he phrased democracy dies even in broad daylight. You remember the Washington Post slogan, recent, most recent slogan is that democracy dies in the darkness. And now Jeff Bezos, the multi trillion billionaire owner, has decided that they're gonna gut The Washington Post. 300 people from what I can gather in very important parts of the newspaper, foreign news photographers, videographers, sports, all of that kind of stuff have been gutted. And this is one of the most important upholders of democracy in the United States in the history of the free press. And if that goes down the drain, we are in deep, deep trouble.

[A]

Well, let me bring up a friend of yours. She's not particularly a friend of mine, but she writes beautifully. Her name is Peggy Noonan and she wrote an article in these last couple.

[B]

Of days about the Just remind people, Peggy Noonan was Ronald Reagan speechwriter. So she is a conservative. She's a Republican.

[A]

Serious conservative.

[B]

Yes, but not a magazine conservative.

[A]

Correct. And she wrote lament for the Washington Post. The most powerful capital in the world has no major fully functioning newspaper. That's a huge absence. And remember, I like to bring this up every time we talk about the media Thomas Jefferson said that if he had to choose between democratic government and a free press, one or the other, he would choose a free press because he said democratic government can't work without a free press because the citizens won't know what to think about everything. The free press in the United States has not died, but it is suffering serious assault. Every day we talk about some outrage that the Trump administration has committed, and we learn about it from. From the media, right? They don't promote their outrages, but every day, investigative journalists from all the major news organizations and the think tanks and the, you know, the civil society that still exists in our country tells the world what's going on here. Minneapolis was important moment. Jimmy Kimmel, when they tried to put him off the air, was a moment for the free media was rejected by Trump. And then he had to reverse himself, the leader of abc, because the country responded. So all I'm saying is there are guardrails, there are Democratic responses. It's an assault on our democracy and our free press. But it pales in comparison to the world that China wants.

[B]

I know, I know.

[A]

No free press.

[B]

Nobody. I agree. Nobody's saying that. But to have the United States really eat itself from within when it comes to democracy and, you know, it's very hard to watch and hard to see. Look, Don Lemon, a former cnn, a former CNN anchor, really popular at cnn. He has his own. Own show. I think it's on YouTube now. He was arrested inside a church for reporting on the Minneapolis protests. Arrested. Finally, he was released, I believe without bail. But nonetheless, he was arrested on charges that just didn't hold up whatsoever. This is madness. The White House has its own sort of influencers, as you were saying. You know, the legitimate press has basically had to boycott the Pentagon because of untenable conditions that Hegseth put on them. But they have their own sycophants, their own influences who they do direct to consumer information to the Pentagon, the White House. I don't know what the State Department is doing, but it is very, very, very wor. As we said before, the. The fear. The fear is still there. The fear is still there. And I would say that though the. The Minneapolis Horror show of what ICE is doing, the killing of Alex Pretty and Renee Goode, that really did. You're right. It really was the straw that broke the camel's back, at least at the moment. And even Republicans, significant Republicans are. Are pulling, you know, pulling support for these tactics. Okay, that's it for these two segments. We are going to come back with our Recommendations. Right, Jamie, we're back with our recommendations. I have a pretty unusual one because it's caused a massive political firestorm here in the UK over the tenure of Prime Minister Keir Starmer. My recommendation is to. For people to read as much as they can. Although it is filthy, it is contaminating, it'll make you feel sick of some of the latest dump of the Epstein files. Of course, it's part of Trump flooding the zone and trying to keep, you know, everybody sort of on tenderhooks. But it's having a massive, massive repercussion here in the uk, where I am because of the ongoing revelations about Peter Mandelson, the one of the co founders of New Labor, a close ally of Tony Blair, Gordon Brown and obviously Keir Starmer's choice for ambassador to the us. He had to fire him when the first tranche of evidence came out from Epstein that they were very close. And now Keir Starmer's Chief of staff, Morgan McSweeney, I think his name is, he's had to resign over the weekend and now, now Keir Starmer himself has to have a parliamentary Labour Party meeting, as we are recording, to try to save his premiership. It is as serious as that because what Mandelson is revealed to have done is about as bad as it gets, including potentially. He's been referred to potentially. The police. The police raided some of his homes over the weekend of share of sharing privileged government information when he was a minister with Jeffrey Epstein. It just beggars belief.

[A]

I was struck by the decision of Keir Starmer to select Peter Mandelson. When he came in, I completely understood him picking Jonathan Powell as his National Security advisor, because this is a real professional, Tony Blair's Chief of staff, a real pro who really done great work, low key, doesn't go out bragging and trying to get press for himself. But Peter Mandelson has always been one of the most controversial British people I've ever met. When we arrived, we went to live In London in 2000, there were 25 cameras outside Peter Mandelson's house in Notting Hill, near where we live, because he was accused of taking a loan from some media baron or something like that, of hundreds of thousands, thousands of pounds. And every time his name came up, there was controversy around him. And that's fine if you're brilliant, if you're somebody who's really going to change the world. Trump didn't like him at the beginning because he had said something about it. So I never understood why they brought Peter Mandelson back. They obviously did it without doing the due diligence. Or Peter.

[B]

Well, they say he lied to him.

[A]

Jamie, and that's possible too. But why bother? Bother? I never understood why they bothered with Peter Mandelson, but that's not my recommendation. My recommendation, funnily enough, is a book by Rick Atkinson, one of the great journalists. War. He writes about war. And it's the second volume of a three volume trilogy about the revolution that is the battle of the American Revolution between the United States and the United Kingdom.

[B]

There you go.

[A]

And it's called the Fate of the Day. It's a brilliant, brilliant book where he really goes back and finds every single fact and really puts it together and you really feel like you're living back in that time and why I think this is so important other than brilliant history. And everyone knows I love history. It's worth remembering what America was fighting for. They were fighting to get rid of of a king. They didn't want to be ruled by a king. And the idea that all these hundreds of years later we are letting ourselves be ruled in many ways by someone who behaves like a king, wishes he was a king and believes in kings as opposed to real democracy, is one of the most mind boggling things about my country that I will never, ever, ever understand. It's one of the weak is in our system. I still believe in American strength and indispensability and I believe we'll get through this. But boy, is it painful right now.

[B]

And you know what? I'm going to do one of my, you know, segues or recaps and I'm going to say that actually the Washington Post, which we're just talking about in the last, in the last segment before the break was because of the Watergate exposure was the newspaper that created the guardrails to prevent Nixon or anybody else being a king who could act outside the rule of law. And now President Trump has successfully challenged all the courts, the Congress, everyone in his single minded mission to expand executive power. And we are seeing what that looks like. So I tell you a strong press is vital and I'm really looking forward to reading that book. Is, isn't it 250 years since that? This year?

[A]

That's correct. Yes.

[B]

There you go. There you go. All right, Jamie. Bye.

[A]

Goodbye from New York.

[B]

What did you just hit?

[A]

I hit a, a wall.

[B]

Okay, well just be careful. In more ways than one. Thank you for listening. Remember, you can always listen for free on Global Player. Jamie and I will be back on Thursday answering your questions. And don't forget to subscribe to our YouTube channel. You just search Christiana Monpour presents the X Files. So everything we do can also be seen on YouTube. And of course, listen to. As I said, bye bye, everybody.

[A]

This has been a global player original production.