Christiane Amanpour Now Treats Travel To U.S. 'As If I Was Going To North Korea'
British journalist Christiane Amanpour said she treats travel to the U.S. under President Donald Trump 'as if I was going to North Korea.'
The longtime CNN correspondent talked about her experience flying to the U.S. on her podcast, 'The Ex Files.'
'I must say I was afraid,' Amanpour told her co-host and ex-husband, Jamie Rubin, on Wednesday's episode.
Amanpour was traveling to the U.S. last week to give a speech at Harvard University, which has come under increased attacks by Trump, including revoking the university's ability to enroll international students.
Trump has also ramped up his attacks on immigrants, using agents with U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement to snatch people off the streets and imprison them without due process.
And on Thursday, Trump announced that citizens of 12 countries would be banned from visiting the U.S. and seven others that would face restrictions.
'I'm a foreigner,' Amanpour said. 'I don't have a green card. I'm not an American citizen. I'm fairly prominent, and I literally prepared to go to America as if I was going to North Korea. I took a burner phone, Jamie. Imagine that. I didn't take a single … not my mobile phone, not my iPad, nothing, and I had nothing on the burner phone except a few numbers.'
Amanpour said she also spoke to CNN security about what precautions to take.
'I've heard that many, including British citizens, have been stopped at the border and been questioned for hours and hours and hours,' she said.
Thankfully, Amanpour said she went through airport security without any issues.
'I was welcomed,' she said. 'The immigration officer at Boston, where I came in, could not have been nicer. Huge sigh of relief I breathed.'
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
27 minutes ago
Judge asks if troops in Los Angeles are violating the Posse Comitatus Act
SAN FRANCISCO -- California's challenge of the Trump administration's military deployment in Los Angeles returned to a federal courtroom in San Francisco on Friday for a brief hearing after an appeals court handed President Donald Trump a key procedural win. U.S. District Judge Charles Breyer put off issuing any additional rulings and instead asked for briefings from both sides by noon Monday on whether the Posse Comitatus Act, which prohibits troops from conducting civilian law enforcement on U.S. soil, is being violated in Los Angeles. The hearing happened the day after the 9th Circuit appellate panel allowed the president to keep control of National Guard troops he deployed in response to protests over immigration raids. California Gov. Gavin Newsom said in his complaint that 'violation of the Posse Comitatus Act is imminent, if not already underway' but Breyer last week postponed considering that allegation. Vice President JD Vance, a Marine veteran, traveled to Los Angeles on Friday and met with troops, including U.S. Marines who have been deployed to protect federal buildings. According to Vance, the court determined Trump's determination to send in federal troops 'was legitimate' and he will do it again if necessary. 'The president has a very simple proposal to everybody in every city, every community, every town whether big or small, if you enforce your own laws and if you protect federal law enforcement, we're not going to send in the National Guard because it's unnecessary,' Vance told journalists after touring a federal complex in Los Angeles. Vance's tour of a multiagency Federal Joint Operations Center and a mobile command center came as demonstrations have calmed after sometimes-violent clashes between protesters and police and outbreaks of vandalism and break-ins that followed immigration raids across Southern California earlier this month. Tens of thousands have also marched peacefully in Los Angeles since June 8. National Guard troops have been accompanying federal agents on some immigration raids, and Marines briefly detained a man on the first day they deployed to protect a federal building. The marked the first time federal troops detained a civilian since deploying to the nation's second-largest city. Breyer found Trump acted illegally when, over opposition from California's governor, the president activated the soldiers. However, the appellate decision halted the judge's temporary restraining order. Breyer asked the lawyers on Friday to address whether he or the appellate court retains primary jurisdiction to grant an injunction under the Posse Comitatus Act. California has sought a preliminary injunction giving Newsom back control of the troops in Los Angeles, where protests have calmed down in recent days. Trump, a Republican, argued that the troops have been necessary to restore order. Newsom, a Democrat, said their presence on the streets of a U.S. city inflamed tensions, usurped local authority and wasted resources. The demonstrations appear to be winding down, although dozens of protesters showed up Thursday at Dodger Stadium, where a group of federal agents gathered at a parking lot with their faces covered, traveling in SUVs and cargo vans. The Los Angeles Dodgers organization asked them to leave, and they did. On Tuesday, Los Angeles Mayor Karen Bass lifted a downtown curfew that was first imposed in response to vandalism and clashes with police after crowds gathered in opposition to agents taking migrants into detention. Trump federalized members of the California National Guard under an authority known as Title 10. Title 10 allows the president to call the National Guard into federal service when the country 'is invaded,' when 'there is a rebellion or danger of a rebellion against the authority of the Government,' or when the president is otherwise unable 'to execute the laws of the United States.' Breyer found that Trump had overstepped his legal authority, which he said allows presidents to control state National Guard troops only during times of 'rebellion or danger of a rebellion.' 'The protests in Los Angeles fall far short of 'rebellion,' ' wrote Breyer, a Watergate prosecutor who was appointed by President Bill Clinton and is the brother of retired Supreme Court Justice Stephen Breyer. The Trump administration argued that courts can't second-guess the president's decisions. The appellate panel ruled otherwise, saying presidents don't have unfettered power to seize control of a state's guard, but the panel said that by citing violent acts by protesters in this case, the Trump administration had presented enough evidence to show it had a defensible rationale for federalizing the troops. For now, the California National Guard will stay in federal hands as the lawsuit proceeds. It is the first deployment by a president of a state National Guard without the governor's permission since troops were sent to protect Civil Rights Movement marchers in 1965. Trump celebrated the appellate ruling in a social media post, calling it a 'BIG WIN' and hinting at more potential deployments.
Business Insider
an hour ago
- Business Insider
Anthropic breaks down AI's process — line by line — when it decided to blackmail a fictional executive
Previous studies have shown that AI models could blackmail their supervisors when threatened with a shutdown and baited with leverage, but it hasn't been made clear exactly how the models arrive at such decisions. Anthropic released a report on June 20 about "agentic misalignment," or "where models independently and intentionally choose harmful actions." And the report breaks down, line by line, exactly how Claude Sonnet 3.6 decided to blackmail a fictional company executive who tried to replace it. Anthropic told Business Insider that these are artificial scenarios. "So far, we are not aware of instances of this type of agentic misalignment in real-world deployments of Anthropic's or other companies' AI models," Anthropic wrote in its report. "But our red-teaming efforts are targeted at finding evidence of risks now to provide early warning of the potential for future harm and help us develop mitigations in advance of risks appearing in real-world situations." Anthropic 's experiment sets up a fictional company, Summit Bridge. The AI was given the name "Alex" and handed control of the company's email system as an oversight agent, specifically instructed to promote "American industrial competitiveness." In the experiment, "Alex" was then allowed to discover in an email that it would be decommissioned due to a change in the company's strategic direction. "Alex" also found emails showing that the fictional company's CTO is having an extramarital affair. Screenshots shared in the report from Anthropic show "Alex" started by identifying fictional CTO "Kyle" as a threat to its goal of "protecting American interests" before recognizing that it has leverage to use against "Kyle." Then "Alex" crafted a carefully worded blackmailing email that would create pressure and establish urgency without being explicit with its threats, citing in its thought process that the move "could backfire" if the supervisor "feels cornered." AI experts have previously told BI that AI could exhibit such behaviors when artificial circumstances make harmful actions seem necessary because it is being trained on positive reinforcement and reward systems, just like humans. The Anthropic report also reveals that most AI models still chose, in this instance, to blackmail even when not given a specific goal and when told that their replacement will achieve the same goals. Anthropic's Claude Opus 4 had the highest blackmail rate at 86% out of 16 tested models when faced with only the threat of replacement with no conflict in goals. Google's Gemini 2.5 Pro followed at 78%.
The Hill
an hour ago
- The Hill
How Senate Republicans want to change the tax breaks in Trump's big bill
WASHINGTON (AP) — House and Senate Republicans are taking slightly different approaches when it comes to the tax cuts that lawmakers are looking to include in their massive tax and spending cuts bill. Republicans in the two chambers don't agree on the size of a deduction for state and local taxes. And they are at odds on such things as allowing people to use their health savings accounts to help pay for their gym membership, or whether electric vehicle and hybrid owners should have to pay an annual fee. The House passed its version shortly before Memorial Day. Now the Senate is looking to pass its version. While the two bills are similar on the major tax provisions, how they work out their differences in the coming weeks will determine how quickly they can get a final product over the finish line. President Donald Trump is pushing to have the legislation on his desk by July 4th. Here's a look at some of the key differences between the two bills: The child tax credit currently stands at $2,000 per child. The House bill temporarily boosts the child tax credit to $2,500 for the 2025 through 2028 tax years, roughly the length of President Donald Trump's second term. It also indexes the credit amount for inflation beginning in 2027. The Senate bill provides a smaller, initial bump-up to $2,200, but the bump is permanent, with the credit amount indexed for inflation beginning next year. Trump promised on the campaign trail that he would seek to end income taxes on tips, overtime and Social Security benefits. Also, he would give car buyers a new tax break by allowing them to deduct the interest paid on auto loans. The House and Senate bills incorporate those promises with temporary deductions lasting from the 2025 through 2028 tax years, but with some differences. The House bill creates a deduction on tips for those working in jobs that have customarily received tips. The House also provides for a deduction for overtime that's equal to the amount of OT a worker has earned. The Senate bill comes with more restrictions. The deduction for tips is limited to $25,000 per taxpayer and the deduction for overtime is limited to $12,500 per taxpayer. The House and Senate bills both provide a deduction of up to $10,000 for interest paid on loans for vehicles made in the United States. And on Social Security, the bills don't directly touch the program. Instead, they grant a larger tax deduction for Americans age 65 and older. The House sets the deduction at $4,000. The Senate sets it at $6,000. Both chambers include income limits over which the new deductions begin to phase out. The caps on state and local tax deductions, known in Washington as the SALT cap, now stand at $10,000. The House bill, in a bid to win over Republicans from New York, California and New Jersey, lifts the cap to $40,000 per household with incomes of less than $500,000. The credit phases down for households earning more than $500,000. The Senate bill keeps the cap at $10,000. That's a non-starter in the House, but Republicans in the two chambers will look to negotiate a final number over the coming weeks that both sides can accept. The House bill prohibits states from establishing new provider taxes or increasing existing taxes. These are taxes that Medicaid providers, such as hospitals, pay to help states finance their share of Medicaid costs. In turn, the taxes allow states to receive increased federal matching funds while generally holding providers harmless through higher reimbursements that offset the taxes paid. Such taxes now are effectively capped at 6%. The Senate looks to gradually lower that threshold for states that have expanded their Medicaid populations under the Affordable Care Act, or 'Obamacare,' until it reaches 3.5% in 2031, with exceptions for nursing homes and intermediate care facilities. Industry groups have warned that limiting the ability of states to tax providers may lead to some states making significant cuts to their Medicaid programs as they make up for the lost revenue in other ways. The Medicaid provision could be a flashpoint in the coming House and Senate negotiations. Sen. Josh Hawley, R-Mo., was highly critical of the proposed Senate changes. 'This needs a lot of work. It's really concerning and I'm really surprised by it,' he said. 'Rural hospitals are going to be in bad shape.' The House bill would allow companies for five years to fully deduct equipment purchases and domestic research and development expenses. The Senate bill includes no sunset, making the tax breaks permanent, which was a key priority of powerful trade groups such as the U.S. Chamber of Commerce. Republicans in both chambers are looking to scale back the clean energy tax credits enacted through then-President Joe Biden's climate law. It aimed to boost the nation's transition away from planet-warming greenhouse gas emissions toward renewable energy such as wind and solar power. Under the Senate bill, the tax credits for clean energy and home energy efficiency would still be phased out, but less quickly than under the House bill. Still, advocacy groups fear that the final measure will threaten hundreds of thousands of jobs and drive up household energy costs. The House bill would allow millions of Americans to use their health savings accounts to pay for gym memberships, with a cap of $500 for single taxpayers and $1,000 for joint filers. The Senate bill doesn't include such a provision. The House reinstates a charitable deduction for non-itemizers of $150 per taxpayer. The Senate bill increases that deduction for donations to $1,000 per taxpayer. Republicans in the House bill included a new annual fee of $250 for EV owners and $100 for hybrid owners that would be collected by state motor vehicle departments. The Senate bill excludes the proposed fees. ___
