March 7, 2023

>>> HELLO, EVERYONE, AND WELCOME TO AMANPOUR AND COMPANY.

HERE'S WHAT'S COMING UP.

>> THE WORLD SEES OUR SYSTEM.

WE SEE OUR SYSTEM AS COMPLETELY BROKEN.

>> AMERICA'S IMMIGRATION SYSTEM NEEDS FIXING, SAYS THE U.S.

HOMELAND SECURITY SECRETARY.

OUR CONVERSATION ABOUT THE NATIONAL SECURITY CHALLENGES FACING THIS COUNTRY.

>>> ALSO AHEAD, MY INTERVIEW WITH THE LITHUANIAN FOREIGN MINISTER.

HOW IT'S CHALLENGING CHINA'S MIND.

>>> AND THEN -- >> WE NEED UNIFIED MEMBERSHIP IN THIS COUNTRY AGAINST POLITICAL VIOLENCE FOR EVERY PARTY TO SAY, THIS IS NOT ACCEPTABLE IN AMERICA.

>> THE NEW AGE OF ANARCHY.

SHE TALKED TO WALTER ISAACSON ABOUT THE HISTORY OF ANARCHY IN THIS COUNTRY AND WHAT IT WILL TAKE TO END POLITICAL VIOLENCE.

>>> AMANPOUR AND COMPANY IS MADE POSSIBLE BY THE ANDERSON FAMILY FUND, SUE AND EDGAR WALKENHIEM III.

JIM ATWOOD AND LESLIE WILLIAMS.

MARK J.BLESHNER, BERNARD AND DENISE SCHWARTZ, KOU AND PATRICIA EWEN.

BARBARA HOPE ZUCKERBERG.

AT MUTUAL OF AMERICA, WE BELIEVE TAKING CARE OF TOMORROW CAN HELP YOU MAKE THE MOST OF TODAY.

MUTUAL OF AMERICA FINANCIAL GROUP, RETIREMENT SERVICES AND INVESTMENTS.

ADDITIONAL SUPPORT PROVIDED BY THESE FUNDERS AND BY CONTRIBUTIONS TO YOUR PBS STATION FROM VIEWERS LIKE YOU.

THANK YOU.

>>> WELCOME TO THE PROGRAM, EVERYONE.

I'M CHRISTIANE AMANPOUR FROM CAPITOL HILL TONIGHT WHERE THE PERENNIAL ISSUE REMAINS ONE MUCH OF THE WORLD GRAPPLES WITH, AND THAT IS MIGRATION.

PRESIDENT BIDEN HAS RESORTED TO TOUGH MEASURES.

AMID REPORTS THAT HE'S MULLYING A POLICY OF DETAINING MIGRANT FAMILIES WHO ENTER THE COUNTRY ILLEGALLY.

IT WOULD BE A MAJOR REVERSAL BY THE PRESIDENT WHO INITIALLY STOPPED THIS PRACTICE SPEAKING A MORE HUMAN APPROACH.

THAT PLUS RISING CHALLENGES TO NATIONAL SECURITY FROM ABROAD AND THIS FALLS SCARILY ON THE DESK OF THE SECRETARY OF HOMELAND SECURITY.

WHEN WE SAT DOWN ON THE DEPARTMENT'S SPRAWLING CAMPUS EARLIER TODAY HERE IN D.C. TO DISCUSS ALL THIS, AND ALSO HIS OWN EXPERIENCE AS THE CHILD OF REFUGEES.

SECRETARY, WELCOME TO THE PROGRAM.

>> THANK YOU SO MUCH FOR HAVING ME.

>> SO YOU HAVE JUST CELEBRATED -- IF THAT'S THE RIGHT WORD -- THE 20th YEAR OF THE DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY, AND PRESIDENT BIDEN SAID IT WAS BORN OF THE TRAGEDY OF 9/11, BUT IT'S AS IMPORTANT IF NOT MORE IMPORTANT THAN EVER.

WHY?

AND IS THE THREAT STILL THE SAME?

>> I BELIEVE CELEBRATION IS INDEED THE RIGHT WORD BECAUSE WE'RE CELEBRATING OUR PEOPLE, THE GREATEST ASSET WE HAVE, PAST AND PRESENT.

THE THREATS ARE NOT THE SAME, THEY HAVE ONLY GROWN IN DIVERSITY, IN COMPLEXITY, AND FOOD PRINT AS WELL.

I SPEAK OFTEN ABOUT THE FACT THAT HOMELAND SECURITY IS NOW CONVERGED WITH NATIONAL SECURITY.

WE'RE IN AN INTERCONNECTED WORLD IN THE CYBER REALM, IN CYBER SPACE, BORDERS ARE IRRELEVANT.

FOREIGN NATION STATES ATTACK US THROUGH DISINFORMATION BY WAY OF RANSOM WARE AND OTHER MEANS, IRRESPECTIVE OF BORDERS.

THE CHALLENGE OF EXTREME WEATHER EVENTS, THE GRAVITY IN FREQUENCY, NOT JUST HERE IN THE UNITED STATES, BUT INTERNATIONALLY, AND THERE ARE CONSEQUENCES OF TRIGGERING MY MIGRATION.

>> I WANT TO GET TO MIGRATION BECAUSE OBVIOUSLY EVERYBODY IN THE WORLD KNOWS THAT IN THE UNITED STATES FOR DECADES AND DECADES, AS WE KNOW, REAL PROPER MIGRATION LAWS AND PROCESSES THAT COULD MAKE IT RUN SMOOTHER.

FIRST I WANT TO ASK YOU ABOUT NATIONAL SECURITY.

YOU PROBABLY KNOW THE CHINESE ARE HAVING THEIR ANNUAL FOREIGN CONFERENCE, AND THE NEW FOREIGN MINISTER WAS QUITE AGGRESSIVE AND SAID, IF THE U.S. CONTINUES LIKE THIS, HELPING TAIWAN, FOR INSTANCE, EVEN WITH DEFENSIVE WEAPONS, THEN IT COULD LEAD TO CONFLICT AND MAYBE THE GUARDRAILS MAY NOT STOP THIS TRAIN FROM GOING OFF INTO A COLLISION.

WHAT'S THE DIFFERENCE WITH THE U.S.

GIVING DEFENSIVE WEAPONS TO TAIWAN AND WE POTENTIALLY GIVING THEM TO RUSSIA FOR THE UKRAINE WAR?

HOW DO YOU SEE ALL THIS RIGHT NOW?

ARE YOU WORRIED AT THIS DEPARTMENT?

>> I THINK THE UNITED STATES HAS SENT A VERY IMPORTANT MESSAGE TO THE WORLD IN COORDINATION AND COLLABORATION WITH OUR ALLIES.

THAT THE SOVEREIGNTY OF NATIONS, OF DEMOCRATIC INSTITUTIONS, WILL BE PROTECTED, AND WE WILL BE SAFEGUARDED.

WE SHOT DOWN A CHINESE DEVICE THAT INVADED OUR SOVEREIGNTY, AND THAT WAS AN IMPORTANT MESSAGE.

THE ALLIES HAVE STOOD BY UKRAINE, AND THAT IS AN IMPORTANT MESSAGE TO THE WORLD.

AND SO, WE SEND MESSAGES OF OUR OWN IN CLOSE WORK WITH OUR FOREIGN ALLIES.

>> SO THE FOREIGN MINISTER OF CHINA SAID THAT WAS AN OVERREACTION.

THAT IS THEIR POSITION ON THAT.

HOW MUCH DAMAGE IN TERMS OF NATIONAL SECURITY AND PROTECTING THE HOMELAND, DID THAT BALLOON DO, THE SPY BALLOON, THE FIRST ONE YOU SHOT DOWN?

>> WELL, OUR STRONGLY HELD VIEW IS THAT IT WAS NOT AN INNOCENT DEVICE TO MEASURE WEATHER PATTERNS.

AND OF COURSE THE ASSESSMENT IS STILL UNDERWAY, AND WE HAVE RECOVERED A GREAT DEAL, AND WE'LL LEARN A GREAT DEAL FROM THAT.

>> OBVIOUSLY, THE OTHER BIG ISSUE IS YOUR BORDER.

MANY OF YOUR OPPONENTS CALL IT A BORDER CRISIS.

DO YOU CONSIDER IT A CRISIS IN THE BIDEN ADMINISTRATION?

>> THE ISSUES THAT WE HAVE ARE EXTRAORDINARILY DIVERSE.

I SPOKE ABOUT EXTREME WEATHER EVENTS.

I SPOKE ABOUT CYBER SECURITY.

YOU AND I HAVE NOW EXCHANGED ABOUT THE THREAT OF ADVERSE NATION STATES THAT SEEK TO INFRINGE ON OUR AND OTHER COUNTRIES' SOVEREIGNTY.

20 YEARS AGO WHEN OUR DEPARTMENT WAS CREATED, IT WAS THE FOREIGN TERRORISTS.

WE NOW HAVE THE CHALLENGE OF DOMESTIC VIOLENCE EXTREMISTS.

WE NOW HAVE THE CHALLENGE OF A DOMESTIC TO PUT IT IN CONTEXT THAT THIS IS NOT A CHALLENGE AND IT IS INDEED A CHALLENGE.

NOT A CHALLENGE EXCLUSIVE TO THE UNITED STATES.

YOU KNOW, CHILE JUST DEPLOYED ITS MILITARY TO ITS BORDER.

COLUMBIA HAS 2.5 MILLION VENEZUELANS WITHIN ITS BORDERS.

COSTA RICA'S POPULATION IS INCREASINGLY NICK RAG WAN.

WE ARE SEEING PEOPLE MOVING THROUGHOUT THE HEMISPHERE AND QUITE FRANKLY THROUGHOUT THE WORLD THAT IS HISTORIC.

IT IS FOR US, NO QUESTION ABOUT IT, A VERY SERIOUS CHALLENGE, AND A CHALLENGE THAT WE ARE ADDRESSING WITH POLICIES THAT STAY TRUE TO OUR VALUE AS A NATION OF LAWS AND A NATION OF IMMIGRANTS.

>> SO HOW DO YOU DO THAT?

BECAUSE IT HAS CONFOUNDED SUCCESSIVE ADMINISTRATIONS, AND IT IS THE SUBJECT OF MASSIVE POLITICAL DISCORD, AND ACTUALLY POLITICAL CRISIS IN THIS COUNTRY.

MAYBE IT IS IN OTHER COUNTRIES AS WELL, BUT IT'S ALMOST THIS COUNTRY IS DEFINED TO AN EXTENT ABOUT THE INABILITY TO GET A MIGRATION, ASYLUM, AND THAT KIND OF SYSTEM IN PLACE.

I WANT TO KNOW FROM YOUR PERSPECTIVE, IS IT TRUE THAT THIS BIDEN ADMINISTRATION IS ABOUT TO REINSTATE THE DETENTION OF FAMILIES POLICY THAT WE SAW UNDER THE TRUMP ADMINISTRATION AND THAT THE BIDEN ADMINISTRATION STOPPED THAT AND THE SEPARATION OF FAMILIES ON NOW THERE ARE REPORTS IT COULD HAPPEN AGAIN.

>> LET ME BE CLEAR BECAUSE THOSE ARE TWO VERY DIFFERENT LINES OF WORK.

WE DID END FAMILY DETENTION IN MARCH OF 2021.

FAMILY SEPARATION IS SOMETHING THAT WE CONDEMNED, AND THAT WE PROMISED NOT TO DO AGAIN, AND WE HAVE INSTITUTED REFORMS WITHIN THIS DEPARTMENT TO MAKE SURE THAT THAT CRUEL PROGRAM OF THE PRIOR ADMINISTRATION IS NOT REPEATED.

IN OUR ADMINISTRATION, OR IN SUBSEQUENT ADMINISTRATIONS, NO DECISION HAS BEEN MADE.

>> DO YOU THINK IT MIGHT?

DO YOU THINK IT'S A GOOD IDEA?

>> ONE THING THAT I PROMOTE IN THIS DEPARTMENT IS TO PUT ALL OPTIONS ON THE TABLE.

GREAT, GOOD, BAD, TERRIBLE, LET US DISCUSS THEM, AND MANY WILL BE LEFT ON THE CUTTING ROOM FLOOR, BUT THE BEST IDEAS BLOSSOM FROM OPEN AND CANDID DIALOGUE AND REALLY JUST A ROBUST DISCUSSION OF ALTERNATIVES.

WE HAVEN'T MADE A DECISION YET.

>> CAN YOU TELL ME ABOUT THE NUMBERS -- BECAUSE AGAIN, THERE ARE REPORTS THAT ACTUALLY THE NUMBERS COMING INTO THE COUNTRY HAVE DECREASED QUITE SIGNIFICANTLY.

>> QUITE SIGNIFICANTLY.

>> WHY?

HOW?

>> SO ON JANUARY 5th, WE ANNOUNCED A PROGRAM THAT IS EMBLEMATIC OF OUR APPROACH TO THE CHALLENGE OF UNPRECEDENTED MIGRATION, AND THAT IS TO BUILD LAWFUL PATHWAYS FOR PEOPLE TO REACH THE UNITED STATES, AND THEN DELIVER A CONSEQUENCE FOR INDIVIDUALS WHO DO NOT AVAIL THEMSELVES OF THOSE PATHWAYS.

AND WE CREATED PATHWAYS FOR INDIVIDUALS FROM CUBA, HAITI, NICARAGUA, AND VENEZUELA, AND THE POPULATION OF THOSE COUNTRIES, THE INDIVIDUALS COMING FROM THOSE COUNTRIES WHOM WE ENCOUNTER AT OUR SOUTHERN BORDER HAS DROPPED MORE THAN 95%.

REMARKABLY, BY THE WAY, THAT SUCCESSFUL PROGRAM IS BEING CHALLENGED IN THE COURTS IN TEXAS AND ELSEWHERE, AND IT MYSTIFIES ME WHY, IF THERE'S A COMPLAINT ABOUT THE NUMBER OF ENCOUNTERS, WHY SOMEONE WOULD ATTACK A SOLUTION THAT IS PROVING SO SUCCESSFUL.

>> WELL, AND IT'S ACTUALLY EVEN COMING DIRECTLY AT YOU.

YOUR OPPONENTS IN CONGRESS TALKING ABOUT POTENTIALLY IMPEACHING YOU BECAUSE OF ALL THESE NUMBERS.

>> WELL, WHAT I -- >> HOW DO YOU REACT TO THAT?

>> MY REACTION IS I WOULD -- I AM EAGER TO WORK WITH THEM TO FIX WHAT YOU HAVE REFERENCED AS A BROKEN IMMIGRATION SYSTEM.

THE WORLD SEES OUR SYSTEM, WE SEE OUR SYSTEM, AS COMPLETELY BROKEN.

WE CANNOT JOIN TOGETHER TO FIX IT.

NOT JUST FROM A HUMANITARIAN PERSPECTIVE, BUT ALSO IN TERMS OF CONTRIBUTING TO OUR ECONOMIC PROSPERITY.

>> MEANING, YOU NEED IMMIGRATION.

>> WE NEED IMMIGRATION, AND THERE IS BIPARTISAN AGREEMENT ON THAT FUNDAMENTAL FACT.

YOU KNOW, I'VE ENGAGED EXTENSIVELY WITH THE BUSINESS COMMUNITY.

THERE ARE 10 MILLION OPEN JOBS.

THERE'S A CLAMORING FOR INDIVIDUALS TO FILL THEM THAT DOMESTIC WORKERS DO NOT.

AND SO, WE SEE OTHER COUNTRIES DRAWING ON FOREIGN-BORN TALENT, EVEN SEASONALLY, EVEN TEMPORARILY TO FILL THOSE NEEDS, AND WE DON'T SEEM TO BE CAPABLE OF FIXING THAT SYSTEM, BUT I AM UNRELENTINGLY OPTIMISTIC AND EAGER TO WORK WITH CONGRESS ON BOTH SIDES OF THE AISLE.

>> DO YOU THINK THE END OF TITLE 42, WHICH WAS PANDEMIC RELATED, IS GOING CAUSE A MASSIVE INFLUGS OR WHAT?

>> I THINK THERE'S A POTENTIAL FOR THAT, AND WE HAVE BEEN PREPARING FOR THAT SINCE SEPTEMBER OF 2021.

WE HAVE TO BE MINDFUL OF THE FACT THAT THE EXPULSIONS ACTUALLY CREATES AN ENVIRONMENT PERMISSIVE TO REPEAT ENCOUNTERS OF THE SAME INDIVIDUAL BECAUSE THERE'S NO CONSEQUENCE.

THERE'S NO FORMAL ENFORCEMENT ACTION OR REMOVAL, SO PEOPLE TRY AGAIN AND AGAIN.

SO THE NUMBER OF ENCOUNTERS IS NOT SYNONYMOUS WITH THE NUMBER OF UNIQUE INDIVIDUALS WHOM WE ENCOUNTER.

>> CAN I ASK YOU, YOU TALKED ABOUT SPECIAL DEALS YOU'VE MADE WITH CERTAIN COUNTRIES, INCLUDING CUBA.

YOU YOURSELF ARE THE SON OF REFUGEES AND IMMIGRANTS.

YOUR FAMILY, AT LEAST YOUR MOTHER'S FAMILY, ESCAPED THE NAZIS AND ENDED UP IN CUBA WHERE YOU WERE BORN.

TELL ME ABOUT THAT REPEATED EXPERIENCE OF BEING REFUGEES, IMMIGRANTS, AND HOW IT INFORMS YOUR WORK NOW.

>> I MYSELF AM A POLITICAL REFUGEE.

MY SISTER AND I WERE BORN IN CUBA.

WE LEFT WITH OUR PARENTS.

MY MOTHER, AS YOU REFERENCED, WAS TWICE DISPLACED.

MY FATHER LOST HIS -- THE COUNTRY OF HIS BIRTH.

>> CUBA.

>> HIS BUSINESS -- YES.

HE WAS BORN IN CUBA.

LOST THE COUNTRY OF HIS BIRTH.

HE WOULD SAY THAT IT WAS TAKEN FROM HIM, LOST HIS BUSINESS.

LOST WHAT HE HAD DESIGNED FOR HIS FUTURE.

UNDERSTANDING THE PHENOMENON OF DISPLACEMENT, WHAT IT MEANS FOR INDIVIDUALS TO LEAVE THEIR HOMES, OFTEN BY FORCE, WHAT WE, THE UNITED STATES, REPRESENT TO THOSE PEOPLE AS A COUNTRY OF REFUGE IS PROFOUNDLY MEANINGFUL TO ME.

>> AND YOU KNOW, THOUGH, EVEN ON YOUR SIDE OF THE AISLE, THERE ARE MANY, MANY PEOPLE IN THIS COUNTRY WHO THINK THAT EVEN THIS ADMINISTRATION IS BEING TOO HARSH AND TOO HARD ON PEOPLE WHO YOU JUST DESCRIBED, WHO NEED TO FIND SAFE HAVEN SOMEWHERE.

AND I JUST WONDER WHAT YOU THINK ABOUT THAT BECAUSE CERTAINLY WHEN IT COMES TO POLITICS AND ELECTIONS, EVERYBODY'S TRYING THEIR HARDEST TO SHOW THAT, I'M NOT SOFT ON IMMIGRATION, SO I'M JUST GOING TO KEEP BASHING AWAY.

DO YOU SEE IT AS THAT KIND OF RELENTLESS CYCLE OF PROBLEM BUT INABILITY TO ESCAPE IT BECAUSE YOU'RE TRYING TO PROVE SOMETHING?

>> WE'RE NOT TRYING TO PROVE SOMETHING OTHER THAN THE FACT THAT WE ARE A NATION OF IMMIGRANTS, AND WE ARE A NATION OF LAWS.

AND YES, I AM ATTACKED FROM THE RIGHT.

WE ARE ATTACKED FROM THE RIGHT JUST TO USE SHORT-CUT LANGUAGE, AND WE ARE ATTACKED FROM THE LEFT.

FUNDAMENTALLY, WE AS A COUNTRY HAVE TO COME TOGETHER TO FIX THIS SYSTEM.

>> ON THE ISSUE OF CYBER SECURITY, WHICH YOU MENTIONED AT THE BEGINNING, DURING RUSSIA'S WAR IN UKRAINE, THERE WAS A FEAR HERE AND ELSEWHERE THAT THERE WOULD BE CYBER ATTACKS FROM RUSSIA, THAT THAT'S THE ASYMMETRIC WAY IT MIGHT SEEK TO RESPOND TO AMERICA'S HELP WITH UKRAINE.

IT DOESN'T SEEM TO HAVE HAPPENED UNLESS YOU KNOW A LOT MORE THAN THE PUBLIC DOES.

WHY DO YOU THINK THAT IS, AND ARE YOU CONCERNED THAT CHINA MAY REALLY START CYBER WARS AGAINST THE UNITED STATES?

>> SO OUR VIGILANCE IS UNRELENTING.

AND AS A MATTER OF FACT, BECAUSE WE WERE CONCERNED THAT RUSSIA WOULD ATTACK ASYMMETRICALLY, WE INSTITUTED REALLY REMARKABLE UNPRECEDENTED PROGRAM CALLED SHIELDS UP, WHERE WE DROVE THE VIGILANCE OF THE PRIVATE SECTOR -- WE HAVE TO REMEMBER, MANY THIS COUNTRY, THE MAJORITY OF OUR CRITICAL INFRASTRUCTURE RESTS IN THE HANDS OF THE PRIVATE SECTOR.

SO WE HAD TO ENGENDER THAT VIGILANCE ALERTNESS TO THE POTENTIAL FOR A RETALIATORY CYBER DESCRIBE.

IT HAS NOT MATERIALIZED, AND I THINK THAT IS A FUNCTION OF THE VIGILANCE AS WELL AS OUR OWN CAPABILITIES.

>> THESE DAYS, IT SEEMS THAT ELECTION SECURITY IS THE MOST REPETITIVE CONCERN, AND NOW PEOPLE -- AND THERE'S A NEW POLL WHICH SUGGESTS THAT PEOPLE ARE CONCERNED THEY MAY BE NOT JUST -- WELL, MAY BE VIOLENCE AT THE NEXT FLEXION 2024, POLITICAL-RELATED.

WHAT ARE YOU SEEING DOWN THE LINE, AND HOW ARE YOU PREPARING TO DEFEND THAT AND TO PREPARE?

>> SO THE RIGHT TO VOTE AND THE FREEDOM TO EXERCISE THAT RIGHT IS SACROSANCT.

THAT'S A VITAL ELEMENT OF OUR DEMOCRACY, AND WE WORK VERY, VERY CLOSELY WITH STATE AND LOCAL JURISDICTIONS TO ENSURE THE SAFETY AND INTEGRITY OF THE ELECTIONS SYSTEM.

WE PROVIDE ADVICE WITH RESPECT TO PHYSICAL SECURITY.

WE ASSESS THE CYBER SECURITY OF POLLING PLACES.

WE ENSURE THAT THEY HAVE A BACKUP SYSTEMS THAT SHOULD ONE THING OCCUR, THEY HAVE REDUNDANCIES IN PLACE.

SO WE WORK VERY CLOSELY WITH SECRETARIES OF STATE.

I ACTUALLY ENGAGE WITH THEM BEFORE THE LAST ELECTION CYCLE OF THE MIDTERMS TO MAKE SURE OF THEIR READINESS AND ALERTNESS.

WE HAVE A VERY CLOSE PARTNERSHIP.

THAT'S A PERFECT EXAMPLE OF WHY WE IN THE DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY TERM OURSELVES THE DEPARTMENT OF PARTNERSHIPS.

WE HAVE TO DO THESE THINGS TOGETHER.

>> SO YOU FEEL CONFIDENT THAT THE NEXT ELECTION WILL BE AS PEACEFUL AS THE MIDTERMS?

>> I AM CONFIDENT IN THE SECURITY OF THE NEXT ELECTION.

THAT DOES NOT MEAN WE WILL NOT CONFRONT CHALLENGES.

>> OF THE POLITICAL VARIETY.

>> OF DISINFORMATION, OF INTIMIDATION.

THESE ARE THINGS WE HAVE OBSERVED, SEEN, GUARDED AGAINST, AND ADDRESSED.

>> THANK YOU VERY MUCH FOR JOINING US.

>> THANK YOU SO MUCH FOR HAVING ME.

>> SO THERE YOU HAVE IT, THE SECRETARY LAYING OUT THE CHALLENGES.

AND RIGHT NOW THE WEST, INCLUDING THE UNITED STATES, IS ABSORBING AN INFLUX ON UKRAINIAN REFUGEES ESCAPING RUSSIA'S BRUTAL WAR.

THERE ARE ALSO CONCERNS THAT PUTIN IS WEAPONIZING MIGRANTS IN AN EFFORT TO STABILIZE EUROPE.

MY NEXT GUEST IS THE LITHUANIAN FOREIGN MINISTER.

HIS BALTIC NATION IS IN A VERY DIFFICULT SPOT BETWEEN RUSSIAN TERRITORY AND RUSSIA'S ALLY, BELARUS.

BUT THEY ARE A DAVID FACING TWO GOLIATHS.

AFTER MEETING WITH HIS U.S.

COUNTERPART, THE SECRETARY OF STATE, WELCOME TO THE PROGRAM.

I DON'T KNOW WHETHER THIS WIND IS A LITTLE BIT SORT OF METAPHOR KL FOR THE TURBULENCE GOING ON.

SO YOU HAVE JUST BEEN MEETING WITH SECRETARY OF STATE BLINKEN.

THE WHITE HOUSE TALKS A VERY GOOD GAME AND PROVIDES A HUGE AMOUNT OF WEAPONS TO UKRAINE.

DO YOU THINK IT'S GOOD ENOUGH?

>> FIRST OF ALL, I HAD A CHANCE TO THANK SECRETARY BLINKEN FOR WHAT WE'VE SEEN THE U.S.

DOING OVER THE PAST YEAR.

MANY OF US FEARED THAT.

NOW THE U.S. IS ALMOST BACK AND GUARANTEEING NOT JUST A SAFETY OF EASTERN FLANK COUNTRIES OF NATO BUT ALSO ASSISTING UKRAINE, FIRST OF ALL TO DEFEND KYIV, FRIEND OFF THE FIRST ATTACKS AND SUSTAIN THE WAR EFFORT THROUGHOUT THE YEAR.

>> WHAT DO YOU THINK IT WILL TAKE?

WE'RE INTO THE SECOND YEAR, YOU ALL DISCUSSED, EVERYBODY MET TO PRESUMABLY DISCUSS HOW YOU TAKE THIS FORWARD FOR ANOTHER YEAR IF PUTIN DOESN'T DECIDE TO REMOVE HIS TROOPS.

YOU SEE THE REALLY DIFFICULT TIME UKRAINE IS HAVING.

HOW DO YOU ASSESS THE BATTLEFIELD RIGHT NOW?

>> MY POINT IS OUR STRATEGY SHOULD NOT BE DRIVEN JUST BY THE TACTICS OF THE BATTLEFIELD.

IT MIGHT BE VERY DIFFICULT ONE DAY, LAST AUTUMN THE, WE'VE SEEN SOME VERY SUCCESSFUL MOVES BY UKRAINIANS TAKING BACK TWO MAJOR CITIES IN THE EAST AND SOUTH.

I WOULD LIKE TO SEE MORE DISCUSSION ABOUT THE END GAME.

WE'RE SAYING WE'RE COMMITTED TO UKRAINE AND DEAL WITH WHATEVER IT TAKES UNTIL THE VERY END, AND I'M ASKING THE QUESTION, SO WHAT IS THAT END.

>> SO YOU DON'T KNOW EITHER, BECAUSE WE ASK THAT QUESTION ALL THE TIME.

>> WE KNOW THE AND PRESIDENT ZELENSKYY KNOWS VERY WELL.

>> WHICH IS?

>> HE PRESENTED A VERY CLEAR TEN-POINT PEACE PLAN, WHICH IS TAKING ALL THE TERRITORIES BACK, SO FULL WITHDRAWAL OF RUSSIA FROM THE OCCUPIED TERRITORIES, AND EVEN THESE THREE POINTS STATE OUT VERY CLEARLY WHAT IT MEANS TO SECURE THE EUROPEAN CONTINENT FOR ALL SO THAT IT WILL BE BACK AGAIN INTO THE FRAMEWORK OF SECURITY.

>> DO YOU BELIEVE THAT YOUR FELLOW NATO, MAYBE SLIGHTLY WESTERN EUROPEANS, CERTAINLY THE UNITED STATES HERE IS EVEN FURTHER AWAY, DO YOU BELIEVE THERE IS A GROWING OR A DIMINISHING ATTEMPT TO GET UKRAINE TO THE NEGOTIATING TABLE?

>> I THINK THERE ARE SEVERAL WORRIES.

ONE OF THOSE WORRIES AND ONE MIGHT CALL THEM MYTHS EVEN ABOUT WHETHER IT'S WISE OR POSSIBLE FOR RUSSIA TO FAIL AND LOSE.

AND I'VE HEARD THAT A NUMBER OF TIMES IN CLOSED ROOMS OR OPEN ROOMS WHERE PEOPLE SAY, RUSSIA CANNOT FAIL.

PUTIN HAS TO HAVE SOME KIND OF VICTORY OUT OF THIS.

MY POINT IS IF HE'S GOING TO HAVE ANY KIND OF VICTORY, WE HAVE NOT SEEN THE LAST OF IT.

THE NEXT IS UKRAINE IS UNABLE TO WIN.

WE HEARD THAT FROM THE BEGINNING OF THE WAR.

WE HEARD THEY WILL NOT BE ABLE TO USE ROCKET LAUNCHING SYSTEMS, AND THEY WERE AND THEY PUSHED RUSSIA OUT.

SO I HAVE FULL CONFIDENCE THAT IF WE PUT ENOUGH BELIEF INTO UKRAINIAN SOLDIERS, THEY ACTUALLY CAN DO THIS.

>> AND QUICKLY, RIGHT?

>> THAT'S NOT NECESSARILY WHAT WE SHOULD BE AIMING AT.

QUICKLY, IT PUTS A LOT OF PRESSURE, A LOT OF PRESSURE.

I DON'T THINK THAT IT'S ALWAYS POSSIBLE TO WITHHOLD THAT.

SO THAT MEANS THAT WE NEED TO GIVE THEM SPACE AND TIME.

OBVIOUSLY, NOW EVERYBODY'S WAITING AND EXPECTING THE COUNTEROFFENSIVE.

UKRAINIANS ARE TALKING OPENLY ABOUT NAMING DIRECTIONS AS TO WHERE THAT MIGHT HAPPEN.

MY POINT IS LET'S COMMIT TO THE SECOND COUNTEROFFENSIVE.

THERE MIGHT BE NEED FOR SECOND AND THIRD, AND LET'S STICK WITH THEM.

>> DO YOU THINK PLANES WILL BE PART OF A SECOND OR THIRD COUNTEROFFENSIVE?

BECAUSE NOW WE'RE HEARING MORE AND MORE THAT IT'S BOUND TO HAPPEN.

QUESTION IS WHEN.

>> I THINK IT'S AN IMPORTANT STEP FORWARD.

WE HAVE ALWAYS BEEN OF THE OPINION THAT ALL THE WEAPONS SHOULD BE MADE AVAILABLE TO UKRAINIANS.

APART FROM THAT, I THINK IT'S VERY IMPORTANT ALSO NOT TO LOSE SIGHT OF WHAT THEY NEED CURRENTLY.

THEY NEED MORE TANKS, MORE AMMUNITION, AND ALL THE OTHER SYSTEMS THAT MAYBE DO NOT SOUND SO FLASHING IN THE HEADLINES.

BUT THIS IS WHAT THEIR SOLDIERS NEED RIGHT NOW.

>> YOU WERE STARTING TO DESCRIBE A NUMBER OF MYTHS THAT YOU'VE ACTUALLY TWEETED ABOUT.

YOU GOT TO TWO OR THREE.

MYTH FIVE, IF I COULD JUST READ IT FOR YOU, YOUR WORDS, WE CAN GO BACK TO BUSINESS AS USUAL WITH PUTIN, THAT'S FIFTH FIVE.

REALITY, PUTIN IS FAR TOO HEAVILY VESTED IN THE CREW SAID AGAINST THE WEST.

HE CANNOT TURN BACK.

HE SEES OUR PEACE OFFERINGS AS WEAKNESS AND USES THEM AGAINST US.

HE SHOULD BE IN COURT, NOT IN POWER.

HOW DO YOU SEE THAT HAPPENING?

>> I THINK THE MAJOR DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE NARRATIVES IS IF SOMEBODY SUGGESTS WE SHOULD BE NEGOTIATING WITH PUTIN, AND I THINK, HOW DO WE RECONCILE THAT?

YOU CANNOT HAVE BOTH.

YOU CANNOT HAVE SOMEBODY WHO IS ACTUALLY GUILTY FOR ACTIVE AGGRESSION FOR ORDERING HIS GENERALS AND TROOPS COMMIT WAR CRIMES AND SITTING AT THE SAME TABLE TO NEGOTIATE CEASE-FIRE OR CEASING OF TERRITORIES.

YOU HAVE TO DECIDE.

AGAIN, IF WE SHOW THAT WE'RE NOT SURE WHETHER THERE HAS TO BE A SPECIAL TROOP OR THERE HAS TO COME A POINT IN TIME WHERE JUSTICE WILL BE SERVED TO ALL THE OFFICIALS WHO ARE RESPONSIBLE FOR THIS WAR, THEN IT IS TAKEN AS A SIGN OF WEAKNESS, THAT WE ARE INDECISIVE, THAT THERE ARE OPTIONS AND WAYS OUT OF IT.

>> IT IS SAID THAT YOUR STATES, THE BALTIC STATES, YOU'RE AND ESTONIA AND BERLIN HAVE THE KIND OF RELATIONSHIP THAT SETS YOU APART FROM OTHER COUNTRIES IN THE WEST.

DO YOU SOMETIMES FEEL ALONE?

>> WE HAVE THAT FEELING IN 2000s.

WE HAD THAT FEELING WHEN RESTART WAS OFFERED TO RUSSIA.

WHEN WE SAID, LOOK, IT'S STILL THE SAME IMPERIALISTIC STATE OR EMPIRES I MIGHT EVEN CALL WHICH MORE RESEMBLES EMPIRES OF THE 19th CENTURY THAN THE MODERN EUROPEAN COUNTRY.

THEY HAVE THIS ATTITUDE TOWARDS THEIR NEIGHBORHOOD, WHICH IS NOT PEACEFUL.

THEY SEE FEARS OF INFLUENCE.

THEY WANT TO STOP COUNTRIES JOINING NATO BECAUSE IT SOMEHOW AFFECTS THEIR SECURITY WHEN WE'RE JUST TALKING ABOUT OUR SECURITY.

NOW I BELIEVE THERE'S A LOT MORE CONVERGENCE TOWARDS TO UNDERSTANDING OF WHAT RUSSIA ACTUALLY IS.

I DON'T THINK THAT WE'RE THERE YET, COMPLETELY GRASPING WHAT IS RUSSIA AND HOW BALTIC STATES FROM POLAND SEES RUSSIA.

TO GIVE YOU AN EXAMPLE, THE MAIN POINT WE ARE ALWAYS DISCUSSING IS, IS IT POLITICS FOR YOU, AND WE SAY, IT'S NOT A POLITICAL POINT, IT'S A VITAL POINT.

WE ARE WORRIED WHEN WE SEE CIVILIAN BUILDINGS DESTROYED, WE THINK ABOUT OUR CITIES AND OUR PEOPLE, AND THIS IS WHAT WE WANT TO DEFEND.

SO THERE IS THIS DIFFERENCE.

>> TALKING OF YOUR OWN SECURITY, NEVER SEPARATE FROM WHAT'S HAPPENING RIGHT NOW, BUT EVEN BEFORE THIS WAR, YOU HAD CALLED FOR MORE DEFENSIVE IMPLACEMENTS BY NATO ALONG THE EASTERN FLANK, AND YOU KEEP CALLING FOR IT AT THE LAST NATO MEETING IN MADRID, IT SEEMED TO HAVE BEEN PLEDGED.

I'M NOT SURE IT HAPPENED.

BUT AT THIS CONFERENCE WITH THE SECRETARY, WHAT HAS PUT THE FORCES IN A DETERRENT POSTURE?

THIS IS WHAT HE TOLD ME.

>> WHAT WE HAVE DECIDED IS THE BALTIC COUNTRIES AND EAST ALLIED COUNTRIES, THEN WE ARE NOW IN THE PROCESS OF MAKING THEM SCALEABLE TO HAVE AIR MARKED FORCES, BRIGADES THAT WILL TRAIN, HAVE PRECISION EQUIPMENT AND CAN BE QUICKLY DEPLOYED.

BUT EVEN MORE IMPORTANT IS OF COURSE THAT WE HAVE HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS OF TROOPS THAT WILL BE AVAILABLE FOR REENFORCEMENT.

IF THERE'S ANYTHING WE LEARNED FROM UKRAINE, IT'S THAT YOU NEED TO BE ABLE TO MOVE YOUR FORCES QUICKLY TO WHERE THEY'RE NEEDED SO WE DON'T HAVE TO DEPLOY EVERYONE IN ONE SPECIFIC PLACE, AND THEN THESE TROOPS WE HAVE IN THE BALTIC COUNTRIES ARE BACKED BY SUBSTANTIAL NAVAL AND AIR FORCES.

>> SO YOU'RE HOSTING THE NEXT NATO SUMMIT THIS SUMMER.

WHAT DO YOU MAKE OF THAT?

>> OUR POINT REMAINS UNCHANGED.

A YEAR AGO AND EVEN BEFORE THAT, I WOULD SAY THAT SINCE 2014, ALL THE BALTIC STATES HAVE BEEN ASKING FOR ADDITIONAL TROOPS ON THE GROUND.

AFTER 2014, IT HAPPENED.

WE RECEIVED WHAT IS CALLED THE ENHANCED FOREIGN PRESENCE, A BATTALION SIZED ATTACHMENTS IN ALL THREE COUNTRIES.

WE HOUSE A GERMAN ATTACHMENT IN LITHUANIA.

AFTER LAST YEAR'S INVASION, WE SAID, WE NEED MORE, TROOPS THAT COULD BE ABLE TO FIGHT ALONGSIDE OUR TROOPS.

>> DO YOU HAVE IT?

>> NO, WE DON'T.

IT HAS TO BE ADMITTED WE HAVE NOT MOVED TO THAT DIRECTION.

>> DO YOU KNOW WHY?

>> IT'S DIFFICULT TO TELL.

WITH WHAT I'VE SAID, WE ACTUALLY IMAGINE OUR TROOPS FIGHTING FROM THE -- FOR THE ACTUAL FIRST INCH AS THEY SAY -- >> OF THE NATO TERRITORY?

>> OF THE NATO TERRITORY.

WHEN THEY SAID, WE WILL BE ABLE TO ARRIVE IN LITHUANIA IN TEN DAYS.

>> NATO SAID THAT, YOUR ALLIANCE.

THEY COULD GET YOU IN TEN DAYS, AND THAT'S TOO LATE.

>> WE'VE SEEN IN BUCCA WHAT CAN HAPPEN IN THOSE TEN DAYS AND WHAT'S LEFT WHEN YOU RECONQUER THE TERRITORY WITH ALL THE MASS GRAVES AND HORRIBLE SITUATIONS.

WE WOULD EXPECT WHEN WE SAY 1 INCH, AND FOR A SECOND, THIS IS EXACTLY WHAT HAPPENS.

THEREFORE, WE ARE CONTINUING TO TALK ABOUT THE ACTUAL DETERRENTS WITH TROOPS ON THE GROUND, SENDING A VERY CLEAR MESSAGE TO BELARUS AND RUSSIA, DO NOT STEP OVER.

>> SO YOU'VE TALKED ABOUT YOUR ALLIANCE AND RUSSIA DEMONSTRATING IMPERIALIST TENDENCIES.

THEY ARE ALSO CREATING NEW AND STRONGER ALLIANCES, NOTABLY OBVIOUSLY WITH CHINA, BUT IN THE COURSE OF THIS WAR, STRENGTHENING EVEN THEIR MILITARY ALLIANCE WITH IRAN, APPARENTLY GETTING CERTAIN THINGS OR PLEDGES FROM NORTH KOREA.

YOU HAVE A LITTLE BIT OF A TESTY RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN LITHUANIA AND CHINA, PRETTY MUCH OVER TAIWAN.

HAVE YOU HAD DISCUSSIONS WITH THE CHINESE LEADERSHIP OVER POTENTIALLY PROVIDING -- WHAT IT'S DOING WITH RUSSIA?

>> I THINK WHEN IT COMES TO CHINESE DIPLOMACY, THEY DON'T BELIEVE SMALL COUNTRIES SHOULD HAVE A SAY.

>> THEY DON'T BELIEVE THAT.

>> NO.

THEIR MULTILATERAL WORLD SYSTEM BLONGS ONLY TO BIG POWERS, SO WE WERE NEVER ASKED OR CONSULTED OR ANYTHING ABOUT -- WE WERE JUST TAUGHT TO LISTEN.

WE WITHSTOOD THE PRESSURE.

>> WHAT WAS THE PRESSURE?

>> IT WAS A FULL HAND RAKE ON TRADE WITH CHINA.

>> THAT'S RIGHT.

BECAUSE YOU RECOGNIZED TIE -- >> WE'VE ALLOWED TAIWAN TO OPEN THE REPRESENTATIVE OFFICE, NOT A DIPLOMATIC OFFICE, BUT STILL, THEY DID NOT LIKE THE NAME, SO THEY DECIDED THEY WILL TAKE THE STEP.

TAIWAN STILL HAS A REPRESENTATIVE OFFICE IN LITHUANIA, AND THEY WILL CONTINUE TO HAVE IT.

WE WITHSTOOD THE PRESSURE.

THE TRADE IS RETURNING BECAUSE THERE IS A WUTO PANEL STARTED WHERE CHINA HAD TO ANSWER THE QUESTIONS WHY DID THEY TAKE THESE STANDS.

THEY'RE A MEMBER OF WUTO, AS WE ARE.

IT WAS A TOUGH CHALLENGE, BUT I THINK A LOT OF LESSONS WERE LEARNED FROM THIS, AND SINCE I'M OF BELIEF THAT THIS IS DEFINITELY NOT THE LAST CASE, WE WERE NOT THE FIRST ONE, AND I DON'T THINK WE'LL BE THE LAST.

THE LESSONS LEARNED COULD BE USED ELSEWHERE.

>> WELL, YEAH.

IN THAT REGARD, I WANT TO PLAY A LITTLE BIT OF SOME FAIRLY STRONG COMMENTS FROM THE NEW FOREIGN MINISTER IN CHINA ABOUT BEIJING, AND HE TRIED TO DRAW COMPARISONS WITH WHAT MIGHT HAPPEN IN TAIWAN.

>> Translator: IF THE UNITED STATES DOES NOT HIT THE BRAKE BUT CONTINUE TO SPEED DOWN THE WRONG PATH, NO AMOUNT OF GUARDRAILS CAN PREVENT DERAILING, AND THERE WILL SURELY BE CONFLICT AND CONFRONTATION.

>> SO WHAT DO YOU MAKE OF THAT?

SPEEDING DOWN THE WRONG PATH, HE SAYS, THE U.S. AND ITS ALLIES.

>> WELL, AFTER WE'VE SEEN CHINA PRESENTING ITS SO-CALLED PEACE PLAN, WHICH HAS ON ONE HAND DEFENDING -- SUGGESTING THAT UKRAINE SHOULD DEFEND ITS SOVEREIGNTY OR ON THE OTHER HAND HAS TO GIVE UP THE TERRITORIES, WHICH HOW DOES IT WORK TOGETHER IN THE SAME PLAN?

I THINK THERE IS A BIT MORE TO THIS, AND THESE COMMENTS ALSO PLAY INTO THE SAME TUNE IS THAT CHINA IS TRYING TO OFFER ITSELF AS ALTERNATIVE LEADER TO WHAT IS A WORLD-RULED BASED ORDER AFTER THE SECOND WORLD WAR.

THEY SEE THEMSELVES NOW AS A COUNTRY WHICH CAN OFFER SOMETHING TO GLOBAL SOUTH.

DIFFERENT REALITY THAT HAS NOT COME FROM THE U.S. OR FROM THE WEST.

>> AND FINALLY, YOU'VE JUST MADE A VISIT TO ISRAEL.

NOW, PRESIDENT ZELENSKYY HAS BEEN VERY EXCEPTIONALLY FORTH RIGHT IN CRITICIZING AND WISHING THAT ISRAEL WOULD ALSO JOIN THE CONSENSUS OF ALLIES SENDING WEAPONS.

I KNOW AMERICANS ARE DISAPPOINTED.

WHAT DID YOU TELL THEM?

WHAT DID YOU TELL THE OFFICIALS THERE ABOUT THIS?

>> MY MAY NOT POINT IN ISRAEL WAS THAT OUR SECURITIES ARE CONNECTED.

YOU KNOW, AS THE CLICHE GOES, NO COUNTRY IS AN ISLAND WHEN IT COMES TO SECURITY, BUT NOW IT FEELS EVEN MORE SO.

IRAN IS PROVIDING DRONES TO RUSSIA SO RUSSIA CAN ATTACK CIVILIAN INFRASTRUCTURE IN UKRAINE.

IT'S SO CLOSE TO US.

SO WE ARE CONNECTED TO MIDDLE EAST VIA THIS TRACK.

SO HELPING UKRAINE WIN THIS WAR WILL ALSO INCREASE ISRAELI SECURITY WHEN IT COMES TO IRAN.

I THINK THERE'S A CLEAR TRACK HOW LITHUANIA, UKRAINE, AND ISRAEL ARE IN THIS TOGETHER.

>> VERY QUICKLY BECAUSE WE HAVE TO END IT, IS THE EU GOING TO CATEGORIZE THE IRAN REVOLUTIONARY GUARD CORE AS A TERRORIST ASSOCIATION?

>> WE STILL HAVE NOT REACHED THE CONSENSUS.

>> THANK YOU FOR JOINING US.

>>> NOW, AS SECRETARY TOLD ME EARLIER, THE DHS HAS FOCUSED ON A RANGE OF ISSUES.

LAST YEAR, TRACES POLITICAL VIOLENCE HERE IN THE UNITED STATES OVER THE PAST CENTURY IN HER LATEST ARTICLE, AND SHE NOW JOINS WALTER ISAACSON TO DISCUSS WHAT'S DIFFERENT ABOUT THE NEW ANARCHY.

>> THANK YOU, AND ADRIENNE, WELCOME TO THE SHOW.

>> THANK YOU FOR HAVING ME.

>> SO YOU'VE GOT THIS COVER STORY IN THE ATLANTIC, THE NEW ANARCHY.

AND ONE REASON YOU SAY IT'S NEW IS THAT IT'S A LITTLE BIT SLOW MOTION.

WHAT DO YOU MEAN BY SLOW MOTION?

DOES THAT MAKE IT BETTER OR WORSE?

>> YOU KNOW, I THINK BOTH WOULD BE BAD FRANKLY.

I THINK ONE OF THE THEMES IN MY REPORTING IS THAT PEOPLE HAVE A TENDENCY TO EXPECT POLITICAL VIOLENCE TO MANIFEST MAYBE IN THE FORM OF CIVIL WAR.

OBVIOUSLY, THE CIVIL WAR LOOMS REALLY LARGE IN OUR NATIONAL MEMORY.

WHAT I'M ARGUING AND WHAT I'M CONCERNED ABOUT IS THAT REALLY BLADDER POLITICAL VIOLENCE IS ALREADY HERE, AND IT'S JUST NOT TAKING THE FORM WE'RE USED TO.

SO YOU MIGHT BE ABLE TO COMPARTMENTALIZE ONE EVENT AS RANDOM WHEN IN FACT IT'S PART OF A LARGER PART EARN.

>> WELL, A LOT OF THEM DO SEEM RANDOM.

WE HAVE WHAT HAPPENED IN PORTLAND ON BOTH SIDES, BUT ALSO AN ATTACK ON PAUL PELOSI OR JUSTICE CAVANAUGH.

IT SEEMS MISFITS AND WHERE PEOPLE ARE DOING THINGS.

WHY DO YOU SAY IT'S ALL CONNECTED?

>> I THINK THE ONE WAY TO THINK ABOUT IT -- AND THIS IS A TERM LAW ENFORCEMENT USES -- IS SALAD BAR EXTREMISM.

SO THERE'S THIS EMERGING PATTERN OF RATHER THAN A COHESIVE IDEOLOGY WHERE YOU HAVE A GROUP CARRYING OUT ACTS OF VIOLENCE, NOW WE HAVE THESE SORT OF LOOSE, SOMETIMES OVERLAPPING IDEOLOGIES, SOMETIMES DRIVEN BY HATE, SOMETIMES SEEMINGLY RANDOM, CERTAINLY CARRIED OUT BY PEOPLE OF DIFFERENT PROFILES OR BELIEFS OR AFFILIATIONS, POLITICAL AFFILIATIONS.

BUT THE LARGER PATTERN IS INCREASED THREATS AGAINST THE PUBLIC, AGAINST MEMBERS OF CONGRESS, AGAINST JOURNALISTS, AND THE PACE OF VIOLENCE IS INCREASING AS WELL.

TO LOOK AT IT AS IT EXISTS IN CULTURE, YOU HAVE TO SEE IT'S PART OF THIS LARGER SORT OF TREND THAT'S GOING ON.

>> YOU START THE PIECE IN PORTLAND, OREGON IN 2020 WHEN ALL ON BOTH SIDES WERE HAPPENING.

TELL ME WHAT SPARKED THAT, AND WHAT ARE THE PEOPLE WHO ARE MAKING UP THAT -- THAT POLITICAL VIOLENCE THERE?

>> I WAS INTERESTED IN PORTLAND BECAUSE IT DID SEEM FROM AFAR TO HAVE GOTTEN REALLY BAD.

AND I WAS LOOKING FOR THE CONTEMPORARY EXAMPLE OF SORT OF HOW CLOSE WE'VE GOTTEN TO BREAKING THE SOCIAL CONTRACT, AND I ALSO WAS DRAWN TO PORTLAND BECAUSE THERE WAS SO MUCH, IT SEEMED, DISCONNECT AMONG PEOPLE IN TERMS OF WHO WAS RESPONSIBLE FOR WHAT WAS GOING ON THERE IN THIS STREET VIOLENCE, ONGOING FIGHTING.

YOU MENTIONED THE TERM BOTH SIDES, I THINK THERE WAS VIOLENCE ACROSS MANY DIFFERENT GROUPS, BUT WE HAVE TO BE REALLY CAREFUL ABOUT WEIGHTING IT EQUALLY.

SO THE SORT OF FASCINATING AND DIFFERENT DYNAMIC THAT PLAYED OUT IN PORTLAND WAS TWO THINGS.

ONE WAS THAT A LOT OF PEOPLE SORT OF ASSUMED THAT THIS ALL JUST CAME OUT OF THE PROTEST RELATED TO THE MURDER OF GEORGE FLOYD.

IN FACT, THE VIOLENCE THAT PLAYED OUT IN PORTLAND WAS BREWING FOR MANY YEARS AND REALLY STARTED AFTER TRUMP'S ELECTION WHEN YOU HAD RIGHT WING PROVOK TORS COMING OUT AND TRYING TO PROVOKE A LOT OF THE LEFT WING PEOPLE IN PORTLAND, AND THEY DID SO EFFECTIVELY.

SO THEN YOU HAD LEFT WING FOLKS WHO WERE PRONE TO VIOLENCE AS WELCOMING OUT AND FIGHTING, AND THE POLICE AND THE FRAY AS WELL.

SO YOU REALLY HAD -- IN SOME WAYS WE HAD THREE CONTINGENCIES BETWEEN THE POLICE AND LEFT AND RIGHT WING EXTREMISTS.

I THINK WHEN YOU TALK TO A LOT OF PORTLANDERS, MOST DIDN'T GO OUT IN THE STREETS FIGHTING, AND MOST WOULD SAY ALL OF THOSE WHO DID MADE A BAD CHOICE TO DO SO.

>> ONE OF THE THEMES?

YOUR PIECE WHICH GOES BACK A CENTURY IS ANARCHY AND ANARCHISTS.

WHAT DO YOU MEAN BY ANARCHISTS?

>> IF YOU LOOK AT THE EARLY 20th CENTURY IN THE UNITED STATES, ANARCHISTS WERE ANTI-GOVERNMENT, ANTI-STATE MAYBE COMMUNIST MARKET.

WHEN I TALK ABOUT THE NEW ANARCHY, I DON'T MEAN AN IDEOLOGY AS MUCH AS A FORM OF RADICALISM WHILE BEING IDEA LOGICALLY MORE LIKELY TO BE RIGHT WING.

BACK TO YOUR QUESTION ABOUT BOTH SIDES IS WHEN YOU TALK TO THE SCHOLARS WHO FOCUS MOST ON POLITICAL VIOLENCE TODAY, THE DATA SHOWS AGAIN AND AGAIN THAT THE BIGGEST THREAT COMES FROM THE RIGHT WING.

WE CERTAINLY HAVE INCIDENTS OF POLITICAL VIOLENCE CARRIED OUT BY PEOPLE WHO HAVE LEFT WING BELIEFS.

BUT THE ANARCHY TODAY IS NOT TRADITIONALLY WHAT IT WAS 100 YEARS AGO.

>> WHAT ABOUT THE ANTIFASCIST PROTESTORS?

CERTAINLY PEOPLE POINT TO THEM AS THE ONES THAT WERE ORIGINALLY IN THE STREETS.

>> AND SOME ANTIFASCISTS DO SELF-IDENTIFY AS ANARCHISTS IN THE SENSE.

I DON'T THINK IT'S FASCIST TO SAY THEY WERE ORIGINALLY IN THE STREET.

IF YOU GO BACK TO THE ROOT OF THIS FIGHT, IN PORTLAND, YOU SEE PEOPLE FROM THE RIGHT WING PROVOK TORS COMES AND PROTESTING AND DRAWING OUT THE LEFT WING RESPONSE.

>> WHEN I WAS A REPORTER COVERING THINGS IN LOUISIANA LIKE THE VARIOUS KLU KLUX CLAN GROUPS, HOW DO THEY USE SOCIAL MEDIA AND THE INTERNET TO SPREAD IT DIFFERENTLY?

>> THE VERY ARCHITECTURE OF THE SOCIAL WEB IS DESIGNED FOR MASSIVE GLOBAL SCALE, MEANING IF YOU PUT YOUR BELIEFS IN FRONT OF THE RIGHT AUDIENCE OR FACEBOOK GROUP OR TELEGRAM CHANNEL, IT CAN INSTANTLY REACH JUST A MASSIVE NUMBER OF PEOPLE EVERYWHERE.

SO THAT'S DIFFERENT.

YOU'RE NOT OUT ON THE STREET CORNER HANDING OUT A PHYSICAL PIECE OF PAPER.

AND THE GEOGRAPHIC DESEGREGATION IS IMPORTANT TOO BECAUSE IT MEANS IT'S NOT CONTAINED TO JUST ONE TOWN OR ONE PLACE, AND SO THE THREAT IS EVERYWHERE POTENTIALLY.

YOU CAN KIND OF THINK OF THESE PLATFORMS OF BEING ANGER MACHINES THAT THERE WAS THIS FEEDBACK LOOP OF HATEFUL CONTENT SPREAD AT A GLOBAL SCALE INSTANTANEOUSLY.

>> LET ME READ A PIECE OF YOUR PIECE THAT STRUCK ME.

YOU SAID, PEOPLE BUILD THEIR POLITICAL IDENTITIES NOT AROUND SHARED VALUES -- YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT THESE DAYS -- BUT AROUND A HATRED FOR THEIR FOES.

I THINK YOU PUT THE LABEL ON IT WHICH WAS NEGATIVE PAR SANSHIP.

IS THAT DIFFERENT NOW?

>> IT IS.

YOU MIGHT PREVIOUSLY -- LOOK, WE SHOULD ACKNOWLEDGE THAT POLITICAL VIOLENCE HAS BEEN PART OF AMERICAN POLITICS SINCE THE BEGINNING, AND THERE HAVE ALWAYS BEEN FIGHTS.

BUT AT THE SAME TIME, EVEN IN PAST ERAS OF UPS AND DOWNS OF VIOLENCE, YOU KNOW, PEOPLE WOULD HOPEFULLY COME TOGETHER AROUND WHAT THEIR BELIEFS WERE.

SO ASSERTING HERE'S WHAT I BELIEVE, HERE'S WHAT I BELIEVE THE WORLD SHOULD LOOK LIKE, NOW YOU SEE MORE AND MORE PEOPLE SAYING, NOT ASSERTING THE POLICIES THEY BELIEVE IN OR THE VISION OF THE WORLD THEY WANT TO REALIZE, BUT MORE, WHATEVER IT TAKES SO THAT THE OTHER GUY DOESN'T GET WHAT HE WANTS.

AND SO WE'RE SEEING A REALLY DRAMATIC RISE IN THE WAY PEOPLE ARE ORIENTED POLITICALLY BEING SOLELY AROUND HATRED FOR THE OTHER OR MAKING SURE THAT, YOU KNOW, WHATEVER IT TAKES TO DEFEAT THE POLITICAL OPPONENT RATHER THAN REALIZE THE VISION OF THE WORLD THAT SOMEONE MIGHT OTHERWISE WANT POLITICALLY.

>> YOU SAY THAT POLITICAL VIOLENCE IS LIKE AN ICEBERG.

EXPLAIN THAT TO ME.

>> THIS WAS A REALLY HELPFUL VISUAL THAT A RESEARCHER AT THE UNIVERSITY OF MARYLAND TERRORISM DATA BASE GAVE TO ME.

AND THE WAY SHE PUT IT WAS, YOU HAVE THIS ICEBERG, AND AT THE TIP, THE PART THAT YOU CAN SEE, ARE THESE AWFUL ACTS OF VIOLENCE THAT ARE ACTUALLY CARRIED OUT WHETHER IT'S A MASS SHOOTING OR STREET VIOLENCE OR THE ATTACK ON SPEAKER PELOSI'S HUSBAND, AND SO THERE'S A SMALLER GROUP OF PEOPLE WHO ACTUALLY ARE WILLING TO COMMIT ACTS OF VIOLENCE, BUT THE REST OF THE ICEBERG IS THE CULTURE IN WHICH THIS BECOMES MORE PERMISSIBLE.

THIS GOES BACK TO THE SOCIAL WEB, YOU HAVE THE SPREADING OF THESE IDEAS AT MASS GLOBAL SCALE, AND ONLY SOME PEOPLE ARE GOING TO SEE THOSE IDEAS AND RUN WITH THEM, FORTUNATELY.

UNFORTUNATELY, IT ONLY TAKES VERY FEW AFTERS TO EXERT TREMENDOUS DAMAGE AND HARM ON SOCIETY.

SO THE TIP OF THE ICEBERG IS THE VIOLENCE ITSELF.

THE REST OF THE ICEBERG IS SORT OF THE CONDITIONS THAT MAKE IT POSSIBLE.

>> YOU TALK ABOUT THE NEW ANARCHISTS, BUT YOU GO BACK 100 YEARS TO THE OLD ANARCHISTS FROM AROUND 1910 TO 1920, WHICH IS A REALLY BAD PARODY IN THE UNITED STATES.

EXPLAIN THE OLD ANARCHISM.

>> THIS GOBLE MOVEMENT THAT WAS ANTIBLICHMENT, ANTI-GOVERNMENT, THE DYNAMITING TEAR IT DOWN MENTALITY, THE TRUE ANARCHY IN THE TRUE SENSE OF THE WORD, IT WAS MOTIVATED BY SOME REAL ISSUES IN SOCIETY, INCLUDING TERRIBLE WORKING CONDITIONS FOR WORKERS, AND SO, YOU KNOW, IT'S -- WE SEE SOME OF THIS -- IF YOU LOOK THROUGHOUT HISTORY, YOU DO SEE SORT OF ECHOS IN THE SOCIAL CONDITIONS THAT PROMPT PEOPLE TO DECIDE THAT THEY DON'T WANT TO WORK WITHIN THE SYSTEM TO SOLVE SOME REAL SYSTEMIC PROBLEMS BUT RATHER WANT TO BURN THE SYSTEM DOWN.

THAT'S WHAT YOU SAW AMONG ANARCHISTS IN THE EARLY DAYS.

>> WHEN YOU TALK ABOUT THE ANARCHISTS OF THE EARLY 20th CENTURY.

THEY WERE PUT DOWN AROUND 1920.

ATTORNEY GENERAL MITCHELL PALMER DID IN A WAY INFAMOUS.

I THINK 10,000 PEOPLE AT A TIME WERE ARRESTED.

LET ME READ A SENTENCE FROM YOUR ARTICLE.

ENFORCEMENT HELPED PUT AN END TO A GENERATION OF ANARCHIST ATTACKS.

THEN YOU SAY HOLDING PERPETRATORS ACCOUNTABLE IS CRUCIAL.

DO YOU THINK WE NEED TO BE DOING MORE OF THAT NOW?

>> IT GETS REALLY UNCOMFORTABLE FRANKLY BECAUSE TO YOUR POINT, THEY WERE UNCONSTITUTIONAL.

WE SHOULD DEFINITELY NOT REPEAT THAT.

IT'S AN EXAMPLE OF AN OVERREACTION IN LAW ENFORCEMENT.

AT THE SAME TIME, SOCIETY HAD REACHED A POINT WHERE YOU CAN'T LIVE WITH DOMESTIC TERRORISTS TRYING TO ASSASSINATE POLITICAL LEADERS ALL THE TIME AND ACTUALLY ASSASSINATING THEM.

SO A LOT OF THE LESSONS OF POLITICAL VIOLENCE LEAD TO VERY UNCOMFORTABLE PLACES.

WE VERY FREQUENTLY SEE THAT WITH NECESSARY LAW ENFORCEMENT, YOU HAVE OVERREACH AND ENCROACHMENT OF CIVIL LIBERTIES.

THE LESSON FOR US TOED IS WE ABSOLUTELY NEED STRONG, SWIFT LAW ENFORCEMENT.

I THINK THE REACTION AND INDICTMENTS AFTER JANUARY 6th ARE AN EXAMPLE OF WHAT'S NEEDED.

BUT AT THE SAME TIME, WE AS CITIZENS HAVE TO BE REALLY COG ANY SANT FOR THE CHANCE OF POLITICAL OVERREACH.

>> IN ORDER TO HAVE IT STOPPED, YOU WOULD THOUGHT WE NEED SOME BIG EVENT THAT WAS SO HORRIBLE WE WOULD ALL SAY, OKAY, ENOUGH OF THIS.

WELL, WE HAD THAT.

WE HAD JANUARY 6th.

WHAT HAPPENED?

>> ONE OF THE THINGS I WAS THINKING ABOUT AS I WAS REPORTING THIS WAS THE PATRIOT MOVEMENT OF THE 1990s.

YOU HAD THIS MILITIA MOVEMENT AND THIS SURGE OF MILITIA MOVEMENT, EXTREME ONE AS WELL.

THINKING BACK TO THAT TIME, I WAS REFLECTING ON HOW THAT SORT OF WENT AWAY AND MAYBE THERE WAS A LESSON FOR US THERE.

WHAT DID WE DO RIGHT IN THAT ERA THAT WE COULD REPLICATE TODAY.

WHAT SOMEONE REMINDED ME OF WAS THAT IT WAS THE OKLAHOMA CITY BOMBING HAPPENED, AND THAT EVENT AND THE LAW ENFORCEMENT THAT FOLLOWED PUSHED EXTREMISM UNDERGROUND.

I THINK THAT'S AN IMPORTANT POINT BECAUSE THESE MOVEMENTS LAST FOR GENERATIONS, SOMETIMES GENERATIONS OR LONGER, AND SO WITH REGARD TO JANUARY 6th, AND EVEN WITH TRUMP HAVING LOST THE ELECTION, I THINK THERE WAS AN EXPECTATION AMONG SOME PEOPLE THAT SORT OF PERHAPS THE FEVER WOULD BREAK, THE -- JUST THE TENNER OF POLITICAL DISCOURSE, AND OBVIOUSLY A HOPE THAT AFTER JANUARY 6th THAT THE NATION' LEADERS WOULD COME TOGETHER AND SAY, THIS IS NOT ACCEPTABLE, THIS IS NOT WHAT WE'RE ABOUT.

AND YOU HAD THAT FOR MAYBE 24-48 HOURS.

BUT WE'VE SEEN THAT REPUBLICANS VERY QUICKLY WENT BACK TO DEFENDING TRUMP AND TRUMPISM.

AND SO IT'S REALLY -- I MEAN, THIS IS ONE OF THE BIG CONCLUSIONS OF MY STORY IS THAT WE NEED UNIFIED LEADERSHIP IN THIS COUNTRY AGAINST POLITICAL VIOLENCE FOR LEADERS OF ANY BACKGROUND AND PARTY TO SAY THIS IS NOT ACCEPTABLE IN AMERICA.

>> YOU JUST MENTIONED TRUMP AND TRUMPISM AS BEING A CAUSE HERE.

TO WHAT EXTENT IS THAT A MOTIVATING FORCE BEHIND THIS POLITICAL VIOLENCE?

>> IT IS ABSOLUTELY A FACTOR, BUT THE POLITICAL VIOLENCE WE'RE EXPERIENCING NOW PREDATES.

I THINK IN SOME WAYS, HIS PRESIDENCY HELPED GIVE PERMISSION TO THE MAIN STREAMS OF A LOT OF THESE EXTREMIST VIEWS.

SOME WILL REMEMBER HIM ADDRESSING THE PROUD BOYS AND SAYING STAND BACK AND STAND BY.

SOME EXAMPLES OF POLITICAL MAIN STREAM VIOLENCE.

OF COURSE THE STOP THE STEAL RHETORIC LEADING UP TO JANUARY 6th IS AN EXAMPLE.

I WOULD CATEGORIZE TRUMP AS AN AXEL RANT BUT NOT THE ROOT CAUSE.

>> LOOKING AT WHAT'S THE SAME AND WHAT'S NEW ABOUT THE POLITICAL VIOLENCE NOW.

WHAT DO YOU THINK WE AS A NATION SHOULD BE DOING?

>> THE TWO MOST DISTRESSING THINGS THAT I COME AWAY WITH ARE WHAT'S NEW AND WHAT'S DIFFERENT BECAUSE THOSE ARE THE THINGS THAT WE HAVE TO NEWLY ACCOUNT FOR IN TRYING TO ADDRESS THIS.

SO I THINK THE SOCIAL WEB WE TALKED ABOUT.

THE OTHER PIECE, WHICH WE TALKED A LITTLE BIT ABOUT IS WE HAVEN'T BEFORE IN AMERICA HAD SUCH A MOVEMENT OF PEOPLE DENYING THE ACCURATE OUTCOME OF ELECTIONS, AND THAT'S NEW FOR US IN AMERICA AND VERY DANGEROUS.

SO I THINK AS WE THINK ABOUT WHAT WE NEED TO DO TO STOP POLITICAL VIOLENCE IN OUR COUNTRY, WE NEED TO FOCUS OUR ENERGIES LARGELY ON THOSE TWO NEW DYNAMIC SORT OF REALLY DANGEROUS PHENOMENON.

BUT THERE'S ALSO SORT OF, YOU KNOW, WHAT I MIGHT CALL THE BORING WORK OF DEMOCRACY, MAKING SURE WE'RE ENCOURAGING PEOPLE WHO SHOULD BE IN LEADERSHIP POSITIONS TO RUN FOR OFFICE, MAKE SURE WE'RE PROTECTING FREE AND FAIR ACCESS TO ELECTIONS.

AND DEMANDING THAT THE LEADERSHIP OF THIS COUNTRY, NOT JUST ON THE NATIONAL LEVEL BUT ON EVERY LEVEL OF ELECTED OFFICE, THAT THERE ARE PEOPLE WHO REJECT POLITICAL VIOLENCE AS ACCEPTABLE.

IF VOTERS IN AMERICA TREATED STOPPING POLITICAL VIOLENCE AS THEIR SINGLE ISSUE, THE MOST IMPORTANT THING WE CAN DO IN A WORLD OF MANY, MANY OTHER IMPORTANT ISSUES, WE WOULD ULTIMATELY END UP DEMANDING I THINK STRONGER LEADERSHIP THAT COULD GET US THROUGH THIS.

>> THANK YOU SO MUCH FOR JOINING US.

>> THANK YOU FOR HAVING ME.

>> AND FINALLY TONIGHT, OF COURSE WE DID DISCUSS THE IDEA OF POLITICAL VIOLENCE EARLIER IN MY CONVERSATION WITH THE SECRETARY IN HIS OFFICE, OF COURSE, WE ALSO SPOKE ABOUT THE MOMENTS IN HIS CAREER THAT HAVE LEFT THEIR MARK ON HIM.

TAKE A LISTEN.

>> IN 2010, I WAS THE DIRECTOR OF U.S.

CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION SERVICES, AND THERE WAS A DEVASTATING EARTHQUAKE IN HAITI, AND WE DEVELOPED AN EMERGENCY HUMANITARIAN PAROL PROGRAM TO BRING ORPHAN CHILDREN TO THE UNITED STATES.

THIS IS A YOUNG HAITIAN BOY WHO LOST HIS PARENTS WHO IS RUNNING THROUGH MIAMI AIRPORT WITH, AS YOU CAN SEE, A BEAMING SMILE, TO MEET HIS NEW ADOPTED PARENTS FROM THE UNITED STATES.

THIS SPEAKS OF THE RESILIENCE OF THE HUMAN SPIRIT.

IT'S A -- >> AND THE IMPORTANCE OF GETTING A CHANCE TO HAVE A NEW LIFE.

>> AND THAT IS WHAT OUR COUNTRY REPRESENTS.