Return to Transcripts main page
Amanpour
Interview With Head Of Bloomberg News Economics Stephanie Flanders; Interview With Chatham House Director Of U.S. Leslie Vinjamuri; Interview With "Everyone Who Is Gone Is Here" Author And The New Yorker Staff Writer Jonathan Blitzer; Interview With Former World Number One Tennis Player Chris Evert; Interview With Former World Number One Tennis Player Martina Navratilova. Aired 1-2p ET
Aired August 22, 2024 - 13:00 ET
THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.
[13:00:00]
CHRISTIANE AMANPOUR, CNN CHIEF INTERNATIONAL ANCHOR: Hello, everyone, and welcome to "Amanpour." Here's what's coming up.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
OPRAH WINFREY, HOST: We're all Americans, and together, let's all choose Kamala Harris.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
AMANPOUR: A call to action at the Democratic Convention as the party steels itself for a tough fight to come. Foreign Policy Analyst Leslie
Vinjamuri and Bloomberg Economics Editor Stephanie Flanders look ahead.
Then --
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
CHRIS EVERT, FORMER WORLD NUMBER ONE TENNIS PLAYER: We would look at each other and we finally figured out, you know, we're not only competitors,
we're people.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
AMANPOUR: -- an extraordinary tennis rivalry turned into a deep friendship. I speak with two of the greats, Martina Navratilova and Chris
Evert.
And --
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
JONATHAN BLITZER, AUTHOR, "EVERYONE WHO IS GONE IS HERE" AND STAFF WRITER, THE NEW YORKER: The Trump administration attempted some of the most
monstrous policies we've ever seen at the Southern border.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
AMANPOUR: -- Hari Sreenivasan dives into America's immigration crisis with New Yorker staff writer Jonathan Blitzer.
Welcome to the program, everyone. I'm Christiane Amanpour in London. After what, for them, was a cathartic week in Chicago, the Democrats wrapped
their convention with the historic nomination of Vice President Kamala Harris. But, well before the last balloon falls, Democrats are stealing
themselves for a tough fight ahead.
Former President Bill Clinton warns you should never underestimate your adversary. And in his acceptance speech, Vice Presidential Nominee Tim Walz
was in full coach mode.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
GOV. TIM WALZ (D-MN), DEMOCRATIC VICE PRESIDENTIAL NOMINEE: Our job for everyone watching is to get in the trenches and do the blocking and
tackling. One inch at a time. One yard at a time. One phone call at a time. One door knock at a time. One $5 donation at a time.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
AMANPOUR: His family was all in with son Gus exclaiming, that's my dad. But even as Tim Walz was exhorting and Oprah extolling, news of a new
challenge to the Democrats broke, and that is the Bureau of Labor Statistics reports that the economy created more than 800,000 fewer jobs
than originally reported.
So, what policy and messaging does Harris need in the next 75 days? Stephanie Flanders is the head of economics coverage at Bloomberg. And
Leslie Vinjamuri is director of the U.S. and America's program at the international affairs think tank Chatham House.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
AMANPOUR: Welcome both of you to the program. So, Stephanie, I want to ask you first as we talk, you are at the convention still and it's winding
down. So, what do you think this week told you and told America about this battle for the mantle of change? Is it Kamala Harris or do you think Donald
Trump holds that card, as he says he wants to essentially change the whole establishment?
STEPHANIE FLANDERS, HEAD OF BLOOMBERG NEWS ECONOMICS: I think -- I mean, certainly, there was a lot of talk about 2008. I lost count over the course
of the week, the number of people talking about, you know, America is getting the hope back. It feels like 2008 all over again. You know, that's
obviously hopeful from the Democratic faithful.
You know, at some level, relative to the previous lineup we had of President Biden and Former President Trump, she's changed because she's the
one who hasn't been president before. And she certainly also represents, you know, first woman of color, all of those things, they're trying to give
the sense that there's change.
But you're right, every time I'm talking to policy advisers, and this was not a week really for policy works or detail, we would they -- all the
speeches were steering well clear of that. When you talk to those advisers, you can see in their own minds, they're struggling with that message. How
much are they change? How much are they holding on to the legacy of the Biden years, which they consider to have been a success, even if a lot of
voters do not.
AMANPOUR: So, that's really interesting the way you say they skirted and steered carefully away from actual concrete policy, because we're going to
get into that in a moment because it's really vital.
[13:05:00]
But first, Leslie, I want to ask you because apart from the generational difference that Kamala Harris does represent now, she is much younger than
Donald Trump. There's also the gender issue. But I'm really interested in what you tweeted about the convention, and we're going to just put that up.
Basically, how normal it is to see -- you know, to see a woman now.
Just take a moment. There's a woman sitting, waiting to speak on Thursday, her dad from Jamaica, her mom from India, and she's leading the polls to be
president of the United States of America, and it seems so normal.
Does it though, Leslie?
LESLIE VINJAMURIMI, DIRECTOR OF U.S. AND AMERICAS PROGRAM, CHATHAM HOUSE AND FOREIGN POLICY ANALYST: Look, it is for many people going to be a very
hard decision to make at the convention. Yes, it seems normal. She's a woman. She's clearly American. She's very American. That immigrant
background is very strong, but she is all American. She's from California. She's got a vice presidential candidate in Tim Waltz from Nebraska, my home
state, who couldn't be more of an all-American coach, dad, Army National Guard.
So, I think there -- you know, there's a balance here. There is a sense of it being normal of the style of communication being non-elitist. And I
think this is really critical when you think about the last female to run, Hillary Clinton was really attacked as being part of the establishment and
very much an elitist. And I think the rhetoric and the discourse that's coming out of this campaign is really aimed at being something very
different, very every day, very about -- very much about neighbors, everyday America, non-elitist.
And so, it has a feeling of normal. But you're absolutely right, a lot of people when they are ultimately faced with that decision in November it's -
- you know, we say it's about the economy, we say it's about prices and inflation, we say it's about reproductive rights, but time and again, it's
also, do -- can I imagine that person representing me? And that is a difficult ask for a lot of Americans, especially those Americans that will
swing this election.
AMANPOUR: It's really fascinating. I want to now switch for a minute to economics. Leslie, you just mentioned Hillary Clinton, but Bill Clinton had
his moment on the stage and he did address the elephant in the room, that we have a lot of work, in his words, to do if the Democrats are going to
win and the economy has to stay front and center.
Stephanie, I'm going to play a soundbite from his speech where he talks about who historically has created the most jobs for Americans. Take a
listen.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
BILL CLINTON, FORMER U.S. PRESIDENT: Since the end of the Cold War in 1989, America has created about 51 million new jobs. I swear I checked this
three times. Even I couldn't believe it. What's the score? Democrats 50, Republicans 1.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
AMANPOUR: Stephanie, do the Democrats have a natural trust when it comes to the economy given those figures?
FLANDERS: You know, I think -- I mean, the economic cycle obviously has a lot to do with it. And even as we speak now, there's a big meeting of the
great central bankers in Jackson Hole in Wyoming, where probably they'll be talking about things that will have -- could potentially affect the global
economy, certainly affect the economic terrain of the election more than anything that happened here in Chicago this week.
But I mean, I haven't -- I have not gone back and checked out a fourth time, those numbers. But I do know that President Clinton was incredibly
proud of his record of job creation under his watch. I suspect if you started that number from the early '80s you might get a slightly different
picture. But, you know, the Democrat administrations have been, in recent years, administrations where you saw relatively strong economic growth,
certainly under the Clinton years. Those were boom years in retrospect, periods of low inflation as well as job creation.
I think what's frustrated the Biden team is in the last few years they feel like they have a lot of good things to say about the economy, certainly on
the job creation front, but the legacy of inflation, which is still sitting in people's bills every week, even though the headline number has gone back
down, I think they underestimated how much that would linger with voters. And we've seen that all over the world.
And I think the trouble that you've had, and certainly, this is something that Kamala Harris is struggling with, you know, in her North Carolina
speech last week, where she started to lay out some economic proposals, you know, the first half of that speech was still sounding a bit like President
Biden's sort of saying to people, you should feel better about the economy than you do, listen to these great numbers.
But she then pivoted to say, we know that people are still hurting, we know there are things to do. But I think they're going to have to tilt that
balance even further over the next few weeks if they really need to -- want to speak to this sliver of undecided voters in places like Pennsylvania.
[13:10:00]
AMANPOUR: Yes. And obviously, Leslie, undecideds include young people as well. And your reflection on the energy and the youth engagement at the
DNC, what do you think that said?
VINJAMURI: Well, there is tremendous energy --
FLANDERS: I mean, it's just --
AMANPOUR: Leslie?
VINJAMURI: Tremendous energy amongst young voters. You know, the enthusiasm gap. What we saw when President Biden was the nominee running
against Donald Trump, the enthusiasm, the interest in this election had really just gone through the floor. It was really quite a dire situation
across the country and especially for the Democrats, and that has really changed. And part of that is undoubtedly that 18- to 29-year-olds, that
category that we measure is young voters are very energized. The use of social media in this campaign is very sophisticated so far and we can
expect that mobilization to be significant.
But, you know, whether we are talking about the economy, inflation, job creation, none of it matters at the aggregate level. What matters is how it
breaks down for young voters and what matters especially is how it breaks down for those target voters in those swing states, and that's what the big
play is going to have to be for.
AMANPOUR: Let's talk a little bit about Donald Trump and sort of the fakes that have been going around. You know, there was this fake thing created by
A.I. that showed Kamala Harris, you know, quote/unquote, at a Communist Party rally. There was a fake banner using the famous, you know, Uncle Sam
wants you to vote for Donald Trump using Taylor Swift.
Stephanie, you're there. What do you think the effect of that is in today's world, where so many get their -- you know, get their messaging and info
from social media?
FLANDERS: Well, I think it's interesting. I mean, obviously, we've had several weeks where I would say the ground game -- the new version of the
ground game, which is fought on social media, the Harris campaign had been winning hands down, the memes, all of the things that I'm sure, you know,
you've talked about many times, certainly in terms of the young people.
And I have been struck. I mean, those -- my colleagues at Bloomberg who are much more kind of knee deep in sort of seeing some of whether it's A.I. or
some of the trolling or some of the attempted kind of negative memes have been struck, at least in the last week at those -- most of those are
failing to gain traction. When you look at how many likes they're getting, how much times -- how much they're being retweeted.
For example, there's been quite a lot of repeated efforts to suggest that Kamala Harris is an alcoholic with, you know, frankly, rather absurd fake
photos, they have not gained the kind of traction that you might have feared. But it is clearly, you know, there'll be one of these that does get
through and, you know, it just goes to the, you know, relatively urgent need if you're sitting in the -- on the Democrat side to establish your
message early so that, you know, people are kind of pre-inoculated. They see this stuff and it just doesn't ring true because they already have an
idea in their head of what the campaign represents and who she is.
AMANPOUR: I'm going to play this soundbite, Leslie. It goes to Trump's historic nastiness when it comes to his opponents, particularly women. And
this is his daughter-in-law, head of the RNC, talking about Kamala Harris in a very, quote/unquote, trashy way.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
LARA TRUMP, CO-CHAIRMAN, RNC: It reminds me of there was this bag that a very famous designer designed, this is several years ago, and it literally
was a trash bag, but they sold this thing for like $2,000 thinking that people would actually buy it. It's a similar situation with Kamala Harris.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
AMANPOUR: I mean, it is in fact grotesque that kind of personal ad hominem attack. Do you think the sort of statute of limitations on Trump's
nicknames, the nasty words he calls people, even people have said he's losing his sense of humor, do you think that is past its sell by date now?
VINJAMURI: No, because, you know, this is a -- and again, it's an election where people are largely locked in to their candidate, especially people
who support Donald Trump. I think the concern, you know, they're very few - - we talk about undecided voters. There are very few undecided voters, they're undecided about whether they will vote. And my concern with the
deep fakes, with the nastiness, with the rhetoric is that it might cause concern amongst some voters who would otherwise get out of bed and vote for
Kamala Harris, they might decide, not so sure. I'll just stay home. And that I think is the real concern.
[13:15:00]
One of the -- you know, the lines that I think is potentially -- actually, the most dangerous is this attempt to frame her as a socialist, as a
communist. I have heard in my conversations with what we might call working class Americans, middle class who -- you know, whose interests are being
represented to the extent that we know Kamala Harris' economic policies, their interests are being represented, and they are concerned that she's,
you know, giving away the store for free.
So, some of that attempt to frame her as a socialist is -- you know, might work. And that, I think, is going to be very tricky and important avenue
that the Democrats are going to have to work, is persuading people that you can do things for people, that you can give them, you know, $25,000 towards
their first house and it's not going to tank the economy. That is really a big challenge, I think, going forward.
AMANPOUR: And, Stephanie, I have to ask you, I don't know, a frivolous question, or is it? What is the obsession with a tan suit? Kamala Harris
turned up in that the first night by a great designer. Then we've got, you know, Barack Obama in his tan suit from years ago. What is going on? Why
does that matter?
FLANDERS: Well, I could ask you the same question. Why would you even ask me about it?
AMANPOUR: You're right. Why am I asking?
FLANDERS: I think it was slightly bigger outside the hall than it was inside. Not the suit, but the discussion. But I think, you know, I'm
reflecting on that, but also on what you've just been saying. I mean --
AMANPOUR: Do you think she was trolling? Do you think she was trolling them?
FLANDERS: -- compared to a trash bag. I think there's a lot of little -- you know, you mentioned Taylor Swift. I know from my very obsessive Swifty
daughter that there's a whole lot of different levels that go on on social media in terms of like what they call clowning, little clues that they
place for people. And you never really know whether you're just reading way too much into, you know, a dress that she wore or, you know, a particular
broach, or whether it is all part of some secret language.
But you know what? It all involves people talking about Kamala Harris and talking about her looking pretty great. So, I think if that's the worst
that we get, the Democrats will be doing pretty well.
AMANPOUR: And could we just for the record say plenty of Republicans have worn tan suits, they look great. Tan suits are great. Thank you so much,
Stephanie and Leslie, for joining us.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
AMANPOUR: Now, while the economy is the top issue for voters, immigration isn't far behind. We heard yesterday from El Paso Congresswoman Veronica
Escobar.
And now, Hari Sreenivasan speaks to Jonathan Blitzer about it. He's the staff writer for The New Yorker, and he talks about Kamala Harris and why
border policy is such a vexing problem in the United States.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
HARI SREENIVASAN, CNN INTERNATIONAL CORRESPONDENT: Christiane, thanks. Jonathan Blitzer of The New Yorker. Thanks so much for joining us. Let's
talk a little bit about immigration.
You have been reporting on this for quite some time. You had a recent piece, The Real Story of Kamala Harris' Record on Immigration in The New
Yorker. And from the Trump side or people who support the president, they are labeling Kamala Harris as the borders czar, a failed one, and
ineffective one. But is that fair?
JONATHAN BLITZER, AUTHOR, "EVERYONE WHO IS GONE IS HERE" AND STAFF WRITER, THE NEW YORKER: In a word, no. In a word, it's inaccurate. And the reason
for it is, first of all, that the vice president was never in charge of the border. In fact, there's no one who ever had a title quite like the one
Republicans wish existed that would allow them to shift the blame directly to a single person.
But what the vice president was responsible for in the early years of the Biden administration was to address root causes of migration from Central
America, and specifically from the Northern Triangle of Central America. So, three countries in Central America, Guatemala, El Salvador, Honduras,
that have historically sent large numbers of families to the southern border to seek asylum.
And so, she was in charge of the, frankly, rather thankless task of needing to address some of the underlying reasons why people were fleeing their
homes in such large numbers. And as a political matter, it's sort of a dreaded subject, I think, for someone with sort of broader political
ambitions, because on a good day if you're able to cut through all of the complex policy questions and all of the complex regional political
questions, you're looking at the work of years, if not decades, to begin to improve conditions on the ground that would fundamentally change people's
calculus when it comes to whether or not they want to stay home or leave for United States.
And so, it's very hard to get engaged in that work and to have kind of an immediate tangible demonstration of success. And then, the other
complicating factor has been that in the last couple of years, there's been a profound shift, you know, who is arriving at the U.S. southern border.
Now, it's a much more global population.
And so, it was a kind of doubly thankless job because it was, again, quite complex on a good day dealing with these root causes in the region, but of
course, now, that the global forces driving mass migration are so much more varied and international, that it's not enough just to be focused on
Central America.
So, the Republicans are trying to make it out to be the case that Harris was responsible for sort of all of the mixed bag of the Biden
administration's immigration policies, and it just doesn't land.
[13:20:00]
SREENIVASAN: You know, when you look at how the Trump administration tries to contrast itself with what's been happening on the border in the past two
years versus, say, the last two years of the Trump administration, what are they getting right? What are they getting wrong?
BLITZER: The Trump administration did not have the success in managing numbers at the border, quite like they want you to think they did. The
Trump administration attempted some of the most monstrous policies we've ever seen at the southern border. I'm thinking most specifically of
separating families, separating parents and children in an effort to discourage other families from coming in the first place. That was in 2018.
In 2019, you had the largest number of border arrivals in years. I think ultimately, what allowed the Trump administration to sort of claim success
at the southern border. insofar as they felt like they had stemmed the tide of arrivals, was a combination of things, but a big factor in all of it was
the pandemic. And so, you know, that was a very unique historical circumstance.
I think what has really troubled their case against the current administration is the fact that in the last year, the Biden administration
has, I think, really kind of pivoted much more forcefully on the border issue. And as you know, the Biden administration has backed this Senate
negotiation, a bipartisan Senate negotiation that was basically willing to really substantially overhaul how asylum worked at the southern border. And
it was written by one of the most conservative members of the Senate.
And what happened was, as this bill emerged in February of this year, Republicans got word from Trump himself that he wanted them to sabotage the
deal because it was such a potent campaign issue for him. And so, the Democrats ever since essentially pitched themselves as the party that's
actually willing to be tough and practical at the southern border when it comes to asylum and these issues. While the Republicans are just
demagoguing on the issue and are nihilistic about that kind of broader values and policy stakes that they're just in it for the cynicism.
And I think the Republicans, in that sense, have an uphill battle in actually proving that they substantially care about the issue.
SREENIVASAN: I wonder if the Democrats are seeing a significant pushback from the more progressive wing with the kind of rhetoric that they're using
and maybe the policies that they're advocating for, which might not sit well on kind of the other side of the spectrum saying, hey, you're behaving
and advocating ways that are inhumane or uncompassionate.
BLITZER: You know, I'm glad you mentioned that because it's been extremely striking to me, here at the convention and in general in the kind of
campaign landscape right now, how muted this issue has been among Democrats, particularly if it's more progressive bet.
I think there is a widespread consensus in the party, that is not wrong, that the asylum system has sort of just been overtaken at this point by
dysfunction, by political attacks that is just not working the way it's supposed to work. And I really think this has been a market shift since, I
would say, the summer of 2022 when the governor of Texas, Greg Abbott, started busing migrants in huge numbers to Democratic cities across the
country, doing it without coordinating local or state authorities, doing it very deliberately to cause chaos.
You have seen a real recognition inside the Democratic Party that something has to be done with asylum. It has to be reckoned with, this issue, in some
form or another. And so, there's less dissension, I think, than there really ever has been when it comes to the border. But I think the way that
it's felt, and I think probably the way in which it troubles progressives the most, frankly, it troubles me too as someone who follows this stuff, is
the degree to which the border has effective hijacked the broader conversation about immigration in America.
A lot of the other key priorities for Democrats have effectively fallen out of the conversation. I mean, it was very fascinating to see on the first
day of the convention a major Biden administration policy went into effect. They got no mention. And that was a really laudable effort to create a
legal opportunity for undocumented spouses of U.S. citizens, half a million of them, to regularize their status. This is the biggest relief effort from
the U.S. administration since DACA, since 2012. And it literally went into effect the day that the convention started. This is a huge win for
immigrant families across the country, and it barely got mentioned, if at all.
[13:25:00]
Instead, what got mentioned was the border and how the numbers at the southern border have dropped, and they have dropped, but that's been the
kind of the dominant frame.
SREENIVASAN: You know, how do you think that the critiques from both the left and the right have shaped Kamala Harris' thinking about what -- well,
she will eventually do if she's elected president?
BLITZER: I think the vice president is sort of launching herself as a presidential nominee at an interesting moment in the arc of the Biden
administration's sort of evolving approach to immigration and the border. The administration has kind of hit a sweet spot, rhetorically anyway, also
in terms of policy, but they've managed now to have a kind of theory of the case that they can articulate to the public.
The theory of the case is this. We have to be much tougher on asylum seekers when they are crossing in between ports of entry at the southern
border. In other words, when they're crossing irregularly or illegally, when they're not presenting themselves at ports of entry. So, for those
people, we need to really bar asylum.
But at the same time, what the administration has said is, OK, we're not closing the door on people in desperate need to arrive -- to come into the
United States, we're creating other legal channels for them to do so. And so, at ports of entry, for example, they're creating appointments using an
app that allow people to schedule the actual date and time of their arrival at the southern border, so it's more orderly and manageable when they
arrive.
The administration's created a parole program which is very substantial and very significant in which they basically allow, you know, 30,000 migrants a
month to actually come into the country if they have a sponsor in the United States. Now, this program right now is being held up but it has been
in effect for the last several -- last couple of years, and the effects have been significant.
The number of arrivals from these countries that have been covered by these policies at the southern border, have dropped by 90 percent as a result of
the administration creating other legal avenues for people to enter the country.
And so, Kamala Harris inherits this thinking, this way of organizing the issue, which I actually think is quite intuitive to people. The idea of
look, we have to be tough at the southern border. We have to be orderly, but we have to also create other avenues for people to enter legally. I
think that's actually a fairly compelling argument, and I think it's one that she can make and the one that she has made. And then, coupled with all
of that is the fact that Republicans tanked this bipartisan border bill earlier in the year. And so, Democrats now also have the claim that, look,
we want to deal with this issue, they don't.
SREENIVASAN: You know, in both your reporting for The New Yorker, as well as your book, that's called "Everyone Who is Gone is Here," you really look
more deeply into the root causes of what is propelling people to leave their countries and try to get into the United States and also the kind of
consequences of U.S. policy and how we deal with that and what ends up happening.
So, for example, you know, you write about deportations and what that actually ended up doing to gang violence in those countries, which sort of
goes back into feeding that cycle, which is when you create more unsafe and unstable places, people have a tendency to want to leave those places
towards safety, which might be the U.S. border, right?
BLITZER: You know, my book and a lot of my reporting over the last decade or so has been about the United States and Central America, because you can
see in just such a dramatic way is the interconnectedness of the U.S. and countries in the region to a degree that, you know, politics and
immigration law almost can't account for.
I mean, all of these points of connection are just a fact of life. But one of the reasons why they're part of this landscape is because of the history
of U.S. policy, U.S. foreign policy in Central America, U.S. immigration policy in response to domestic political pressures, but there is this
cumulative effect to all of this. It fundamentally changes the world in which people live. And it fundamentally changes people's need to leave. No
one wants to leave home. They leave because they don't have a choice.
And so, the U.S. and Central America, it's an especially dramatic example. Because through the 1980s, there were civil wars raging throughout Central
America. The U.S. intervened because of its Cold War interest in trying to contain the spread of leftism in the region. So, you have the United States
all through the 1980s supporting repressive military regimes in the region that were driving people to leave because they were getting brutalized by
their governments, and the U.S. was looking the other way, arming these governments and providing legal and diplomatic cover.
And then, when people arrived at the southern border seeking asylum, the U.S. in -- you know, in a discriminatory way, rejected all of these asylum
claims of people coming from Central America because to acknowledge these asylum claims would mean acknowledging American complicity and a lot of
this violence.
[13:30:00]
Then you fast forward a decade, and you have the kind of war on crime in America, resulting in, you know, mass deportation of people who are
hardened on the streets of American inner cities like Los Angeles. The mass deportation of these people without coordination of governments in the
region lead to a metastasizing gang culture in Central America, the gang culture that really began in the United States.
And so, we fast forward to 2016 say when you have someone like Donald Trump talking about the gang MS-13 like it's a household name. It's fascinating
and devastating for people who know the history to see a gang that began in Los Angeles in the 1980s kind of turned against immigrants everywhere by a
demagogue who wants to make it seem like these gangs have begun abroad and are kind of converging on America, as though America didn't have a part in
all of this.
SREENIVASAN: How do you think the Trump administration, if there's a second Trump administration, would deal with this? You've already seen some
of his advisers call for using federal troops for mass deportations. You've seen, you know, efforts kind of detailed in the Project 2025 documents that
have been floating around. But what do you see is the kind of potential, I guess, legal, international ramifications if a second Trump administration
was able to carry these policies out?
BLITZER: So, obviously, the -- sort of the MAGA movement in Trump world and people who would be quite influential in a second Trump administration,
if that's what comes to pass, have spoken very explicitly about plans to, you know, arrest people in huge numbers, to hold people in internment camps
across the country, to execute a policy of mass deportation.
You know, I think it's important to take these people at their word when they speak this way, I feel conflicted as someone who spends a lot of time
covering immigration policy because I can think in my head immediately of all the complicating factors, all the resource constraints, all of the kind
of agency and institutional hold ups. Some of the legal challenges that would obviously arise if the administration were to pursue some of these
policies.
So, I don't think it's a clear outcome. It's hard to know exactly what this would look like. But the fact that this is such a fundamental view of Trump
and of the people in his orbit, I think has to be reckoned with because you have such a large undocumented population United States. Immigration
enforcement actually has a lot of discretion in terms of who the government goes after. And one of the things that you see, particularly from the sort
of second half of the Obama years on, among Democrats, is a desire to exercise much more discretion in who the government targets for arrest if
they're here without legal status.
I think the scariest thing about a Trump administration, particularly a Trump administration 2.0, so to speak, is that there would be no priorities
for who the government targets for arrest. So, it would be a free for all. And I think that's a very scary prospect because it means that anyone could
be targeted. And it certainly means that racial profiling is a key part of what immigration enforcement increasingly looks like.
And so, right now, agencies like ICE have a few kinds of guiding principles, for instance, for places where they can't make immigration
arrests, schools, hospitals, churches. I think that stuff would be thrown right out the window. The idea that there are kind of mitigating factors
for, you know, how to consider someone's immigration case if they've got family that depends on them, if they've been here for a long time, that
stuff would be thrown right out the window.
So, I think the kind of randomness that everyone would have to look over their shoulder because the government would be coming after them kind of
randomly and, you know, in any way is, I think, something to be reckoned with. And among the scariest are some of the plans that you've heard Trump
allies and Trump himself tease about almost -- I mean, I don't know how to describe it, military involvement in the wider region to try to stem the
flow of migration.
I mean, there is a lot of talk in Trump's inner circle about military incursions into Mexico. I don't even know what this looks like. I mean,
this is an outlandish prospect, but it gets talked about enough, I think, for us to actually have to pay heed.
And this is something that came up during the first term. I think it was Mike Pompeo in his memoir, describe it, there wasn't a day that went by
which Trump didn't ask him, you know, how do we fare in a war against Mexico? I mean, that is an absolutely lunatic notion, but that is tied to
this great obsession with immigration enforcement.
SREENIVASAN: Jonathan Blitzer, staff writer for The New Yorker and author of the book, "Everyone Who is Gone is Here," thanks so much for joining us.
BLITZER: Thanks for having me.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
[13:35:00]
AMANPOUR: And next to an extraordinary story of two women who made history in another arena. Tennis stars Chris Evert and Martina Navratilova had one
of the great sports rivalries, each holding the top spot as world number one, each winning 18 major singles titles. Over time, these fierce
competitors became great friends, and that friendship became a crucial system of support as they each were diagnosed almost simultaneously with
different forms of cancer.
Ahead of next week's U.S. Open when they'll both be commentating, I sat down with these two legends to explore their rivalry and their profound
friendship.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
AMANPOUR: Chris Evert, Martina Navratilova, welcome to the program. I want you to take me back just for a moment to the finals of the French Open when
you both presented in a joint capacity, the female trophy. It was to Iga Swiatek as she had won.
CHRIS EVERT, FORMER WORLD NUMBER ONE TENNIS PLAYER: You know, it was an honor. I have to say, I have to be honest, I was not on the roster to
present that trophy on this big 50th for me. Martina was on the roster. And when Martina heard that it was my 50th anniversary, she quickly went to the
French Federation and said no, no, no. Chrissy has to present this with me. It's her day too. So, that's how generous of a friend she was. And we both
got to present it, which was great.
So, it kind of was glorifying, you know, not only the fact that it was my 50th, but also of our rivalry, you know, over all those years. And somehow
some of our most interesting matches were at the French Open. So, it was quite a thrill.
And I'm -- you know, we're so far away from that time period of competing that you feel like kind of a little bit of a stranger when you're walking
on that red clay court.
AMANPOUR: Martina, that's an incredible anecdote that you, you know, suggested that Chrissy join you, but it does talk about your relationship,
your friendship, your rivalry. And I just want to first ask you about the epic battles you fought across a net at Roland-Garros. What stands out to
you about some of those matches?
MARTINA NAVRATILOVA, FORMER WORLD NUMBER ONE TENNIS PLAYER: Oh, my goodness. There's so many. There's a few. But let me just say, for me, it
was more about not a 50 at 40-year anniversary, although, it was that, but it was that we were still both there after our epic battles with cancer.
So, it was more symbolic on that front for me, rather than the anniversaries.
But the matches -- I mean, I lost to Chris in 75 in the finals. And then we played doubles together and we warmed up for the final together because we
were the only people left there and we were such good friends. We're like, OK, we'll just warm up for the final together.
AMANPOUR: OK. So --
NAVRATILOVA: And then she, of course, wiped the court with the --
AMANPOUR: That's amazing because when you hear that, you think, oh, my God, they practice together. They were meeting each other in the final. And
I hear you also had lunch together beforehand. Tell me about how that was. I mean, the two of you, does that even happen now? Do players have that
kind of relationship now?
EVERT: Yes. I mean, in our day, it wasn't big business, Christiane, and there wasn't a lot of prize money, and it was just start -- women's tennis
was just forming, you know. So, we all had camaraderie and we traveled together like in a pack. And now, it's big business. I mean, you're talking
millions and millions and millions of dollars, prize money, endorsements, appearances. And these teams are constructed of like five or six people now
with the physio and the hitting partner and the coach and the psychologist. And, you know, it's just so different. Everyone really sticks to themselves
now. So, it can't be done now. No.
AMANPOUR: So, you mentioned the money. I mean, Martina, you're known for having been the first to win a million dollars in prize money in one year.
By 1986, I think you had won $10 million. You broke all sorts of earnings records.
NAVRATILOVA: Well, the growth wasn't really exponential because I think it was 1971 when Billie Jean won $100,000 in a year, and she won 19 out of
like 31 tournaments that she played in. That's what it took to win $100,000.
So, you know, 15 years later, I won a million. And now, they're getting $3 million for winning one tournament. And on top of that, we were not getting
equal prize money with the men at the majors other than the U.S. Open. So, it's just been an amazing growth, obviously, particularly for the women.
And we've been, you know, leading the way for women to ask for more money, better salaries because of what they see on the tennis tour. So, we've been
kind of paving the way for women everywhere, not just in sports.
AMANPOUR: Yes. And of course, you mentioned Billie Jean, your friend occasionally and more often she played against both of you and she was the
early forerunner for this equal pay. What was it like when you two first met each other?
[13:40:00]
I mean, Chrissy, when you came on the stage, you were a teenager. You had this straight hair pulled in a ponytail. The first with the double handed
backhand. And, you know, lots of young girls looked up to you and I guess were inspired to come into the game. But what was it like sort of blazing
that path?
EVERT: Well, I mean, gosh, I had my first -- I was a top junior player and then I had my first big win over number one in the world, Margaret Court,
when I was 15 years old. And that's probably when it all started. And I think that, you know, Martina and Billie Jean, you know, I was in the era
of two very strong, strong women. But I think if I had one thing that, you know, I can remember the most was that I brought -- I think I helped to
bring a lot of young girls into the sport and say, OK, it's OK. It's -- you know, it's OK to sweat. It's OK to have muscles. It's OK to get mad on the
court. It's OK to be strong.
And, you know, but I went out of my way, Christiane, I have to admit, you know, I wore the pigtails with the ribbons and I wore the ruffles on my
bloomers and I wore nail polish. And I mean, I still wanted to be a teenage girl. So, there's always a little -- a push and pull of, you know, I want
to be a high school girl and I want to go out on dates, but I still want to be this tough competitor on the court.
And now, I think that was -- you know, that was something that I think nowadays, you know, look what's happened now. These women tennis players,
they have the most beautiful, strong, muscular bodies. They're tough on the court, they're smart and this is what it's come to from, you know, the last
50 years of progression.
AMANPOUR: Martina, you're the one who pioneered, right, the tough, strong body, the muscles, the diet, the training, right? No? Yes, for women's
tennis, for sure.
NAVRATILOVA: Well, yes, I took it to a different level, but I mean, Billie Jean and Margaret Court, they were training hard. But I think I took it to
another level off court training, you know, the diet as well. But I think nowadays, some of the players are wearing more mascara than Chris ever did.
But anyhow, but they are definitely in better shape because they have to be. Everybody's hitting the ball bigger, harder. The rackets enable you to
swing bigger and you have to be in better shape. You have to be fast.
But yes, the mascara is still there. Chrissy was the epitome of an athlete that was feminine. I was just an athlete. I was never feminine. Never felt
that way. But, you know, always a woman. And competing the best that I could.
And my mom used to tell me wear long sleeves so I would hide my muscles, but, you know, at the end of the day, I'm like, you know, this is what it
is. And I wore sleeveless. So, here we are.
AMANPOUR: Yes. And of course, because you had come from the -- at that time, the communist bloc, Czechoslovakia, they called you a commie, they
criticized your muscles. You were openly gay where you came out, I think it was in 1981, and you got criticism for that or some backlash at the time.
Can I just ask you to take us back to what it took to defect? What made you decide at that young age, you're a teenager, to leave your home and know
that you couldn't go back except under risk of prison and arrest?
NAVRATILOVA: Yes. Well, that was the hardest and biggest decision of my life. I realized that summer, in 1975, that I was not free to make my own
choices. That I was always going to be at the beck and call of the federation or some guy that would decide whether I can or cannot go to the
U.S. Open or the Wimbledon or wherever. So, that's when I decided I can't be beholden to someone and I needed to be free to pursue my dream. And I
know it was a one-way ticket about from my home country. It was brutal.
But you know, I knew that I would be OK. I knew my family would be OK. And that one day we would hopefully be together again. But I knew that was the
only way for me to move forward and not just disappear into the communist, you know, pimple.
AMANPOUR: And, Chrissy, you talk about when Martina did go back, when you both played in the Fed Cup in Prague. It was the first time Martina had
been back since her defection and the media was banned from talking about her and officials didn't mention her name. What do you remember of that?
EVERT: I remember when Martina called me to ask me to play. And for her to say, I really -- it would mean a lot to me if you were on the team with me,
but I can't guarantee your safety. And I was like, oh, whoa. No, no, no. But I jumped at the chance to be with my friend and I was really curious to
see how they would react.
[13:45:00]
And as soon as we landed, as soon as we got out there on the court before our first match, there was a standing ovation for Martina and women were
crying. Women were crying because Martina did what they always would dream about doing, but were too afraid to do. Martina defected from a country and
found her freedom in America. So, they were very, very, very supportive of Martina, even in the finals when we played Czechoslovakia, ironically, we
play -- at that time it was Czechoslovakia, now it's the Czech Republic. And the crowd was 100 percent for Martina, you know, even against Hana, who
was from that country.
So -- and even the officials, the government officials who were watching, who never uttered her name, and never saw her name in print, at the end,
everybody gave Martina a standing ovation. So, I mean, it really surpassed anything sports. I mean, it went into human life, you know, that
transformed into a whole another area of politics and life and love and the purity of -- you know, of what sports can do.
AMANPOUR: Martina, it must have been really moving and vindicating for you?
NAVRATILOVA: It was amazing. It was so bittersweet, you know, because I missed all those years of my family. I missed all those years of being in
my country. But now, I was showing people what can be done and showing up to the government.
I saw my grandmother for the last time when I was going back to the airport when she passed away about two months later, but at least I got to see her
one more time. And then I cried when the plane took off because I could leave, but 13 million people in the country couldn't leave. So -- but at
the same time, we kind of uplifted the people that did come to see us play. And they did end up writing about me in the newspaper. They just could not
write about it.
AMANPOUR: Your rivalry, your friendship also crystallized and took a whole different turn, I think, when both of you got cancer practically at the
same time. It is an extraordinary story. You've done one major interview about it, and it's incredibly, incredibly moving.
Chris, walk us through a little bit of your part of this story, how you both were diagnosed, what it meant to your friendship.
EVERT: You know, I have to say -- before I start that journey, I have to say that I think the last few years of our rivalry is when we really,
really got tight. Because, Christiane, we were the only ones left in the locker room every Sunday during the finals. And we would look at each other
and we finally figured out, you know, we're not only competitors were people. And Martina had feelings and Martina had a private life and Martina
had emotions and so, did I, and we were very vulnerable with each other those last Sundays that we played in the final.
So, I mean, I think that's what started the ball rolling. And then, ironically, you know, Martina got -- had -- got cancer first. But I mean, I
can only tell you about my journey was having ovarian cancer. My sister, Jeannie, died from it. And I found out that I had the BRCA gene. So, you
know, I went in for preventive surgery to basically get a hysterectomy because I had a 40 percent chance of getting ovarian cancer. And they found
out that I did have ovarian cancer and I didn't -- wasn't feeling anything.
I mean, that's why this ovarian cancer is so insidious and so sneaky because you don't feel anything. But I was stage one. I was lucky. So, I
went in, had the hysterectomy. They had to go in more to see if it had spread. It hadn't spread. So, I had my chemotherapy. And unbeknownst to me,
two years later, Christiane, it returned into my pelvic area. So, I had to go through the whole thing again, the surgery and chemo.
And meanwhile, Martina was fighting her own battles with breast cancer twice, I believe, and throat cancer. And so, we were going through -- you
know, she was going through radiation and chemo, I was going through chemo, but we were staying in touch and just thinking about how ironic our life
has been, where things are happening to us, the same things are happening to us simultaneously and that's really how we got so close.
AMANPOUR: It really is an extraordinary story. And, Martina, you also talk about telling Chris and how Chris called you and told you. What did your
friendship mean in terms of, you know, the support that you needed to get through this?
NAVRATILOVA: Well, you know, Chris was one of those few people, maybe two or three people, that I knew -- and I've said this for decades, she's the
one of the three people that I know I could call at 3:00 in the morning and say, I need you, and she would ask, where are you? And I'm on my way. And I
was obviously the same for her.
[13:50:00]
So, we had this connection for a long time, but this cancer really, in a lousy way, brought us even closer together because we had so much empathy
for each other for such a long time. And now, we were fighting for each other instead of against each other. And so, that support was, I think,
that much more meaningful and strong.
Chris went -- my cancer in 2010 was nothing compared to what Chris went through two years ago and then mine went last year and then Chris returned
again this year. So, she kind of bookended me. And we kind of have that inner radar of when to call or when to text and say, how are you doing?
How's it going? What can I do? It was quite extraordinary. It was almost like twins, you know, like, at my lowest, when I felt the worst, there was
Chris calling or texting and just pick me up right up. And I try to do the same for her.
AMANPOUR: You've both been public about it, which is great for other people who are also trying to figure out how to get through these kinds of
huge trials. But you're also both still working. I mean, you're in your late 60s and you're still working a lot because the TV work that you both
do around all the majors is a lot. It's a lot of work. What does work to you mean today, Chris?
EVERT: I want to keep busy, you know, I want to -- I mean, after that second bout of cancer, I think I realized I better start living the life,
the best life that I could ever live. And at that point, I've been so privileged to be in a sport like tennis where I gained so much that I just
want to give now and I wanted to -- you know, I have my tennis academy. I work for ESPN. I have -- I work for the USDA foundation, the charitable
side of it, and I'm still a mom.
And I think, you know, I just want to keep working and keep busy and keep my mind going because I don't know -- you know, we live day to day by the
way. I mean, Martina and I are getting cat scans every three months. You know, that's the telltale sign. So, we're just trying to make the best of
each day that we have, and that is, I don't want to be one of those women who, you know, has their nails done and has their hair done and just, you
know, walks around the block. I want to be vital and I want, I want to be useful, and I want to tell women -- also, I want to be an advocate to go
out and get genetic testing and take care of your body and know your family history. You know, I think Martina and I are both want to get those
messages out.
AMANPOUR: And on the personal side, Martina, you -- both of you have great personal news because you have, with your wife, adopted I believe, Martina,
two young boys. Chrissy, you've just become a grandmother for the first time. What does that mean to you, Martina? I mean, almost, why now? Why
now?
NAVRATILOVA: I'm just trying to follow in Chris' footsteps. You know, I've been doing that all my life. Our lives are so Carla, but now, she's a
grandma. I'm a mom. Let's see. I need to get my roots done. I haven't had a chance to do that the last couple of weeks because of those two boys, but
it's been an amazing experience.
And yes, and for me working and doing the commentary means, as Chris said, staying current, I like to share my love for this sport and try to give
people something that they can learn watching me comment. And just -- it's nice to be connected to the sport. I -- my checkups are only every six
months. And in fact, I'm doing the (INAUDIBLE), I'll be doing my throat cancer checkup.
So, you're always holding your breath, but, you know, then you get the all clear and you just breathe freely for a while and appreciate every single
day that you have.
AMANPOUR: Fantastic to talk to you, both Martina Navratilova, Chris Evatt, thank you for joining us.
EVERT: Thank you, Christiane.
NAVRATILOVA: Thank you.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
AMANPOUR: Two remarkable women. And the Soviet bloc invasion of Czechoslovakia that Martina was talking about, which eventually caused her
to defect to America, happened exactly this time, 56 years ago, in 1968.
And finally, when Sarajevo met Sally. Meg Ryan made a red-carpet appearance at the city's film festival. The actress was given the honorary heart of
Sarajevo. And she presented a screening of her famed rom-com, "You've Got Mail," at an open-air cinema where it screened exactly 25 years ago. Ryan
paid tribute to the courage of the Bosnian people during the siege.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
MEG RYAN, ACTRESS: I just feel so happy to be able to be here and thank you face-to-face for your example during the siege. Those stories about how
this community came together, how you dodge bullets and risk your lives to go see films, to make music, to dance, to music, to sing, to be together, I
mean, you proved that art and culture are the resistance.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
[13:55:00]
AMANPOUR: The resistance indeed. I witnessed it, reporting that war, and we all see the same thing happening again today in Ukraine.
That's it for now. If you ever miss our show, you can find the latest episode shortly after it airs on our podcast. Remember, you can always
catch us online, on our website, and all-over social media.
Thank you for watching, and goodbye from London.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[14:00:00]
END
