Return to Transcripts main page

Amanpour

Interview with Former Administrator of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and Former White House National Climate Adviser Gina McCarthy; Interview with "Eureka Day" Actress Jessica Hecht; Interview with "Eureka Day" Actor Bill Irwin; Interview with Cyber and Emerging Tech Former Deputy National Adviser Anne Neuberger. Aired 1-2p ET

Aired January 30, 2025 - 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.

Authorities say there are no survivors after a midair collision over Washington's Reagan National Airport. We have the latest.

Then, as President Trump's cabinet picks face their confirmation hearings, a shakeup at the Environmental Protection Agency sparks fears amongst

climate activists. The former EPA chief Gina McCarthy joins me on how Trump's policies will impact a fiery and flooded America and beyond.

Plus, what RFK Jr. anti-vaxxer and conspiracy theorist will mean for the health of the United States. Life imitates art in a Broadway play on the

dangers of health misinformation. And the stars of "Eureka Day," Jessica Hecht and Bill Irwin join me.

Also, ahead, Spy vs. A.I. Cyber security expert Anne Neuberger talks to Walter Isaacson about China's deep seek breakthrough and how artificial

intelligence will remake espionage.

Welcome to the program everyone. I'm Christiane Amanpour in London.

A massive recovery operation is underway in Washington's Potomac River after a passenger aircraft carrying 64 people collided midair with an army

Black Hawk helicopter carrying three soldiers. Authorities say there are no survivors.

The collision happened near Reagan National Airport and more than 300 first responders have been working around the clock. As those desperate efforts

to find the bodies of the victims continue, President Trump addressed the nation and without any evidence laid the blame on Democrats and DEI.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

DONALD TRUMP, U.S. PRESIDENT: I put safety first. Obama, Biden, and the Democrats put policy first. And they put politics at a level that nobody's

ever seen, because this was the lowest level. The initiative is part of the FAA's diversity and inclusion hiring plan, which says diversity is integral

to achieving FAA's mission of ensuring safe and efficient travel. I don't think so. I don't think so.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

AMANPOUR: We're joined now by our CNN and PBS colleague, Miles O'Brien, an aviation expert. Miles, you know, you have covered so many of these

terrible tragedies. The truth is there hasn't been a midair collision or a collision in Washington for many, many, many years. What do you make of the

president immediately blaming it, I mean, literally bodies are still in the river, on politics?

MILES O'BRIEN, CNN AVIATION ANALYST: Well, I can only imagine what it's like to be a family member of a loved one who was lost. It just -- it's not

only incorrect, premature, and not paying any deference to the good, hardworking investigators, much less first responders who are trying to

deal with this right now to summarily assign blame to something which there's no data for.

It's -- I can imagine it not landing well on the ears of those who've lost their loved ones, and it's not constructive, ultimately, to the real

mission here, which is to figure out what happened and try to fix the system so it doesn't happen again.

AMANPOUR: I'm going to get to that in a second, but I do want to just push because this seems to be a pattern now. This is what Trump and his people

are going to be saying about anything that goes wrong. They've already started this on the most incredible of days and incredible tragedies.

So, he basically said that, you know, the FAA is riddled with the acceptance of employees, including with intellectual and psychological

disabilities. This program has been in place in terms of, you know, getting as many people represented in the FAA as possible since 2013. And the FAA

says, only fully qualified people will be put in the roles that require full and hard, you know, factual qualification for these kinds of roles. In

all your coverage, has this ever been an issue?

[13:05:00]

O'BRIEN: No. And I got to say, Christiane, as a personal note, I'm a disabled American. I'm missing an arm and I fly an airplane under great

scrutiny with the Federal Aviation Administration. This did not happen without me going through all kinds of hoops. And anybody who might have a

disability inside the FAA is going to have to meet any safety standard that the FAA has for whatever position they might be in.

To assume that air traffic control is somehow inhibited because of people who are disabled, it's really a horrible comment. Number one, it is simply

not true. And it takes away from the very important work of finding out what really happened here.

AMANPOUR: So, in that regard then, let's turn to that, and that is -- let's turn to what the new transportation secretary, Sean Duffy, said about

communications between these two aircraft with the control tower. This is what he said.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

SEAN DUFFY, U.S. TRANSPORTATION SECRETARY: There was communication. It was, I would say standard communication. So, there was not a breakdown, if

that's your question, in communication between the military helicopter and the American Airline flight. There was communication between the aircraft

and the tower.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

AMANPOUR: So, Miles, what does that say to you? I mean, here is an aircraft, a passenger craft, coming in, I think, to land, and there was a

training mission with a, you know, Black Hawk helicopter, an army helicopter. What are you hearing from your sources about what could have

led to this?

O'BRIEN: Well, you have to understand sort of the architecture of air traffic in Washington. You have Washington National Airport right along the

Potomac River. It also happens to be the helicopter corridor up and down Potomac River. Some of that has to do with noise abatement, but a lot of it

has to do with the highly restricted and prohibited airspace all around Washington, which forces those helicopters onto the river and alongside

national airport.

Now, to have low level helicopters essentially flying underneath aircraft that are on approach to national airport is not a good design. You -- on a

good day the amount of separation between an aircraft trying to land on that runway and that helicopter corridor is a matter of a couple of 100

feet.

So, put yourself in the position of nighttime visual conditions. The helicopter is supposed to see and avoid other traffic. It is their

responsibility to do that. And you're in a city that is -- it's nighttime. It's a moonless night, but it's also lit by thousands of lights. It's very

difficult to spot air traffic. It's very difficult to spot landmarks on the ground at night when you're flying under visual flight rules.

So, air traffic control told that helicopter to look for that CRJ, that regional jet, and fly behind it. But it's quite possible that they had a

difficult time identifying it in those circumstances, and might have tried to -- might have been focused on another object, another aircraft, or maybe

even some light on the ground, which might have distracted them. The human eye is limited at night.

AMANPOUR: Miles, you know, with all these political accusations and confusion being sown now, there's also got to be an actual physical fact-

based investigation. Presumably the NTSB will lead that, as it normally does. You can correct me if I'm wrong.

But I want to ask you also, there has been an increase around the United States of reports of near misses. Is this sort of an accident waiting to

happen? Can you fill me in on that?

O'BRIEN: Absolutely. This is the accident we have been dreading. The system, Christiane, has been blinking red for years in the United States.

Air traffic has increased dramatically post-pandemic. It's not as if that we're pouring new concrete for runways. So, there's these choke points

around airports with increased traffic. Matter of fact, Reagan National has had a recent increase in traffic as it allowed longer distance flights in

and out.

And so, eventually the system is bursting at the seams, couple that with the fact that the air traffic control system is still recovering from the

pandemic. Many air controllers retired in the midst of that, they have not been able to restaff completely. So, you've got air traffic control

stretched and fatigued. You also had the same situation in the cockpits. There's a lot of new, less experienced pilots flying post-pandemic and a

lot of traffic.

[13:10:00]

AMANPOUR: Yes. OK.

O'BRIEN: All those combine to blink red.

AMANPOUR: Then it's definitely blinking red. Listen, Miles, it's always good to get your expertise. Thank you so much indeed.

Now, on Capitol Hill, President Trump's controversial cabinet picks face their Senate hearings before officially entering the halls of power. Today,

lawmakers are grilling Tulsi Gabbard and Kash Patel. And RFK Jr. is also under scrutiny for a second day. He's the anti-vax conspiracy theorist who

Trump has picked to protect the health of America.

His pick to lead the Environmental Protection Agency was confirmed yesterday, where a reset apparently is afoot. Like last time, trump has

served notice that he's pulling out of the Paris Climate Accord, and he's also declared a national emergency to turbocharge oil production, while

wildfires, floods, and hurricanes wreak havoc, all exacerbated by climate change and soaring temperatures, according to the science.

Gina McCarthy is the former EPA administrator and she was also President Biden's top climate adviser, and she's joining us now from Boston. Gina

McCarthy, welcome back to the program. You know, here we have a real live crisis, obviously climate is one, but we have a real live air crash, and

the first thing we hear from the White House is that it's all about, you know, finger pointing at people like yourself in terms of administrations

and Democrats and others and DEI.

What's going to happen, let's say, on the climate crisis, if this is the environment that we now live in, that immediately it's about DEI instead of

about anything else?

GINA MCCARTHY, FORMER ADMINISTRATOR OF THE U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY AND FORMER WHITE HOUSE NATIONAL CLIMATE ADVISER: Well, first of

all, Christiane, thanks for having me back again. You know, I simply cannot explain the ignorance of this administration. I simply cannot understand

how they can sit there and blame diversity, equity, and inclusion for this type of human toll.

We saw the president standing up there and he said two minutes of condolences and then went into a rampage of why this is the problem for the

Democrats and politicians and others. You know, he just can't seem to have a coherent thought that he can sort of articulate to the American people

about both the tragedy of that problem and how he's going to work for the people in the United States of America and beyond. He's just a bitter man

that can't seem to get out of his own way.

AMANPOUR: Except --

MCCARTHY: And it's not just sad, it's frankly frightening.

AMANPOUR: But he was elected. And you say that he is -- you describe it, but maybe it is a policy. Maybe this is an actual policy, for whatever

reason, for this administration to blame things like DEI. They've come in and they've just started from the top. He even went to California, and this

is in your lane, and talked about DEI being amongst the problems that exacerbated or caused the fires.

I guess my question still is, so how does that improve, fix, or mitigate these real dangers that America faces, whether it's overcrowding in the

skies, whether it's climate and the results?

MCCARTHY: Yes, these are not solutions that he's offering. He's trying to place blame where he wants to put it. And diversity, equity, and inclusion

is not about hiring incompetent human beings to do really critical jobs. It's exactly the opposite. It's giving everybody a fair shake to actually

have the kind of job that they're good at.

So, this is all -- you know, I really can't explain it. You know, where I'm living in an administration whose disdain for the law is simply being

overshadowed by their ignorance of the law. And so, we all have to step up here, Christiane, in the United States. We have to stand up and recognize

that our country is about law and honor. Our importance in the world is being diminished by a single human being who doesn't want to address any

challenge, he simply wants to lay blame for everything that he sees is wrong in the world today.

We have to step back. We have to start working. If the federal government doesn't want to work for us, we got to grab states and cities and move,

which is exactly what we're trying to do now.

[13:15:00]

AMANPOUR: You know, yes, I hear what you're saying, but he does have a raison d'etre, that is to get elected. And he promised a lot of things. And

I'm talking about now in your climate, you know, realm. He -- apparently, according to some reports, he persuaded or tried to persuade fossil fuelers

to -- you know, to vote for him, to raise, as he said, a billion because he would, you know, help them out and, you know, advance their cause.

So, what now does this mean? He's in office. We know that there's a climate crisis. And he's decided there's a national emergency, therefore, it needs

more oil drilling, more fossil fuels into the atmosphere. What do you think -- and he's already in his first week eliminated more than 70 climate and

green energy initiatives. What does the appointment of Lee Zeldin, to run your old agency, the EPA, what does that mean, factually and

scientifically, for the cause of trying to make America cleaner?

MCCARTHY: Well, Lee Zeldin is at least has some experience in these issues when he was in New York and Congress there. So, my hope is that he'll do

his best to mitigate the challenges that we face on climate and energy, our energy crisis. But I also have to recognize that he's beholden to President

Trump.

And as you indicated, you know, President Trump's only interested in advancing fossil fuels. And, Christiane, one of the interesting points

about that is that the fossil fuel industry is actually doing very well. And they're afraid that his push for more fossil fuels is actually going to

diminish their return because there's going to be too much of it out there.

So, honestly, he is making things up as he goes along. And clearly, he's beholding to the fossil fuel industry. But in the United States of America,

the federal government isn't the only actor here. And so, if you remember the last time the Trump administration, America is all in, that was funded

by Bloomberg, stepped up and started moving forward at the local and state level, which in the United States has significant authority so that we

could keep moving forward in the absence of federal leadership. That is happening again.

Bloomberg is already going to cover all of the expenses that are necessary for international participation of the United States in the UNFCCC. We are

going to keep moving forward together.

AMANPOUR: Yes. And Bloomberg also is a business person and knows the value, I guess, of green technology and the jobs and things that it

promotes. So, let me ask you this then. Is there a possibility with these policies of the Trump administration that, for instance, China could

overtake the U.S., whether it's on EVs, whether it's on -- whatever it might be, because he's just also said that he's scrapping the targets for

electric vehicles in the United States? And his main goal, he says, is to boost the economy of the U.S. How will these policies help that?

MCCARTHY: Actually, they will do just the opposite. Look, clean energy is the clear winner in the United States. It's cheaper. It's better for

families. It's cleaning up our air pollution. It's maintaining health in a way that we've never been able to maintain it before. So, we clearly have a

big misunderstanding at the federal level about what we need to do to grow our economy and to move forward. And that is all about advancing clean

energy.

And so, if the federal government, again, doesn't want to look at the reality of the world today, and what are the winners and what are the

losers, then we still have an ability in the United States to act. That's what we're organizing now. We are talking about 5,000 leaders across the

United States who are pledging to stand up against this president and his basically enamored ability to grab as if that were our savior.

The savior of the United States is the same as the savior for every country, which is to do what's right for its people, and that's what we're

going to do with Bloomberg. We're going to spend money. We're going to organize and we're going to keep moving forward no matter what (INAUDIBLE)

wants to throw at.

AMANPOUR: So, let me ask you, because a scientific study by World Weather Attribution, basically, and it's globally recognized for their studies

linking extreme weather to climate change, found that climate change fueled by fossil fuel burning made the recent L.A. fires 35 percent more likely.

That's a huge number.

[13:20:00]

But the reason I'm saying that is because it appears that the American people, or at least a good chunk of them, haven't bought this story. They

have other concerns, they think it's changing their lifestyles, they think it's making things too expensive.

And earlier this week, we spoke to a conservative environmentalist, Benjie Backer. He thinks the way climate is discussed, including by your former

administration, is all wrong. Take a listen.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

BENJIE BACKER, PRESIDENT AND FOUNDER, AMERICAN CONSERVATION COALITION: The topic around climate has been super elitist and out of touch with the

majority of Americans. There's a reason why only 37 percent of Americans self-identify as environmentalists, when over 80 percent did in 1990. It's

because the conversation is very top down. It's saying, you people are bad, you're the problem, you need to change your livelihoods, we're going to

change all the energy sources, and we're going to do all these things. And I don't think President Biden really helped with that. He didn't work

across the aisle.

I mean, we have -- and I'm not saying President Trump's doing that either. I just think that neither side has been incentivized to do that. And

President Biden put people against each other when it was talking about climate change. I don't think the climate community has voices that really

resonate with the other side. It's just people in coastal America talking down to rural America. We've got to bridge that chasm. I think it can

happen.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

AMANPOUR: I know you're listening, I'm sure you don't agree with everything, but the fact is that the narrative is not fully out there.

America used to be bipartisan belief in the need for environmentalism decades ago, and it just isn't anymore.

MCCARTHY: Well, I don't know. If you look at where the money is being spent, it is across Democratic and Republican districts. There is no

question that people are beginning to see the value of clean energy. I think that there's many challenges in our country now, but not least of

which is the misinformation that's being tossed out there. And it's being tossed out at the behest of this president and the behest of the tech and

the fossil fuel industry.

And so, it's just really important for us. And they're right. to work at the community level, to get people to understand what's good and what's

valuable to them and how we can make their lives better. That is what governing is all about. But that is not the interest of this

administration. The interest of this administration is to pit people against one another.

And the important thing we need to recognize is that we are all in this same boat, whether it's the United States or internationally. And we -- to

be sort of pitted against one another and begin to work together for the things that are most important for human beings and our lives and our

livelihood.

So, I don't disagree that we have work to do, but let's not diminish the fact that this president has done everything humanly possible to basically

diminish people's ability to feel good about themselves, the work they have, he has done nothing but try to divide and conquer. And frankly, way

too successful at it.

AMANPOUR: Gina McCarthy, thank you for that. And we will check in with you. Thank you very much for joining us.

As we mentioned, talking about misinformation, RFK Jr. is facing more questions from senators today. He's trying to become the next U.S. health

secretary, and it looks like he's on track, though he's faced intense criticism for his past statements on vaccines fueled, as I said, by

misinformation and conspiracy theories.

But that is no longer fringe. He has a considerable number of followers in the United States. Take a listen to this fiery exchange with Senator Ron

Wyden yesterday.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

ROBERT F. KENNEDY JR., U.S. HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES SECRETARY NOMINEE: I support the measles vaccine, I support the polio vaccine. I will do nothing

as HHS secretary that makes it difficult or discourages people from taking either of those vaccines.

SEN. RON WYDEN (D-OR), RANKING MEMBER, FINANCE COMMITTEE: Anybody who believes that ought to look at the measles book you wrote saying parents

have been misled into believing that measles is a deadly disease. That's not true.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

AMANPOUR: And these types of public health issues are at the heart of a new hit Broadway play, "Eureka Day." It explores the tension and the humor

of a school in California grappling with a mumps outbreak.

I'm joined now by its stars, Jessica Hecht and Bill Irwin in New York. Welcome to the program. Nice to see you. And I -- look, let me just start

by asking you, Jessica, I've seen the play, did you ever imagine that it would be in full flourish, this play, as this real-life drama is going on

in the halls of power?

JESSICA HECHT, ACTRESS "EUREKA DAY": Absolutely not. We just felt -- we, of course, feel that somebody out there is looking out for us, but we had

no thought we would collide with such a dangerous moment in history. Yes.

[13:25:00]

AMANPOUR: And, Irwin, you what is your reaction to how it's how it's landing right now?

BILL IRWIN, ACTOR, "EUREKA DAY": Our concern in the rehearsal room and leading up to rehearsal was that history might have passed this play by.

And that we were maybe working on something that was slightly behind the curve, only to find that, as you say, Ms. Amanpour, we're dealing with a

really, really current conversation every night on Broadway.

AMANPOUR: And when you -- so let -- talk to me a little bit about it. I mean, I gave a little bit of the sort of shape of the play. But, Jessica,

you tell me about your character, because it's a very, you know, holier than thou, self-satisfied, you know, DEI kind of, you know, let everybody

have the -- you know, have their say, et cetera.

HECHT: Yes. But you know, I think at the heart of what's going on with her, she's somebody who's crafted all of these agendas, which are

supposedly for everyone's benefit because she had a terrible moment in her own life that she had no control over.

And I think, of course, all of these characters that -- all of these characters, all of these people that we're engaging with, that we see only

their behavior and their supposed personal agendas, you know, at the core of that, I think, unfortunately, there is often some sort of, for lack of a

better word, trauma.

But my character is very, very happy to have any power in -- and that -- and she misuses it, perhaps, but I think she's motivated by -- definitely

by something really, really personal and really painful.

So, it's -- I mean, it -- the play hopefully opens your mind to that reality that people are narcissistic in the worst and the best ways, I

guess, for lack of a better word to use.

AMANPOUR: The worst and the best ways, that's good, narcissism. Bill Irwin, best ways, yes, tell me about the fact that this play was in fact

written, you know, before COVID, before the height of this, at least, public demonstration of conspiracy theories over the diseases, vaccines, et

cetera. I mean, I think it was written, what, back in 2016 by Jonathan Spector.

IRWIN: Yes.

HECHT: Yes. Yes.

IRWIN: Yes. And it reveals itself to be a very shrewd bit of playwriting irrespective of what's going on, but it also, as we've been talking about,

we've hit the curve of history so that since the play was written, the pandemic gripped the world, the social justice reckoning moment when George

Floyd was killed, and election results, things that, like I said earlier, were a little -- we were a little fearful we might fall behind the curve of

history. It's actually a very current conversation.

And the play was also written, by the way, before the Zoom era, before our lives were all about distance communication. And there's one scene in the

play which very, very shrewdly takes that on and it is a delight to play it.

AMANPOUR: OK. I am going to play it actually now. I hope I'm going to get to the -- I'm going to play part of it because it is really, really funny.

Essentially, you're gathered for a virtual town hall. You, Bill Irwin, play head of school, right?

IRWIN: Yes.

AMANPOUR: And you, Jessica, play a teacher on the board of the school, yes? And you're gathered to speak to parents, and as you say, before the

Zoom era, which I didn't realize. Here's what we see.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

IRWIN: Now, the Health Department has recommended that you get the mumps vaccine if you haven't already. But just to be clear, you needed to have

had it prior to September 14th to be included in the category of people who, well, do not be affected by the quarantine. So --

HECHT: I think it's worth amplifying that point, yes.

IRWIN: I'm sorry, which point?

HECHT: That even if they do get the vaccine --

(END VIDEO CLIP)

AMANPOUR: Honestly, it still makes me laugh. I hope our viewers can understand that essentially, it's the screen and the comments outside the

room that are provoking the hilarity. It's just really very funny. And you guys, who are in the room, are just blathering on, sort of, earnestly.

IRWIN: Yes, yes.

AMANPOUR: And the real action --

HECHT: But we don't feel it's blathering.

AMANPOUR: No, but tell me, because I think the director or the scriptwriter said to you all, don't wait for the laughter to subside.

You've got to keep going. Tell me how difficult that was.

IRWIN: It runs against your craft as an actor often, but what we've found is that it gets to the deep comedy of people taking themselves very

seriously, and speaking in a way in their assumption is that people are watching them like we used to watch television in the 1950s.

[13:30:00]

We didn't -- you know, we didn't look to the side, we didn't -- people now are watching while chatting about what the guy's hair looks like. And it is

a conversation for our moment and it is a very funny scene. I'm so glad you saw it, Ms. Amanpour.

AMANPOUR: Yes, no, I loved it.

HECHT: And it's also like --

AMANPOUR: Yes, go ahead. Christiane is fine, by the way.

HECHT: No, I was going to say it plays into the reality that we are constantly dealing with, that if you are not in the room with someone, you

feel this tremendous freedom to say whatever you feel agency to say, and it's -- and it -- and yet -- and so, of course, the play actually takes us

to where we are saying whatever we want to say, whether we're in the room or not, well, actually yes.

IRWIN: Yes. The lid comes off the human id in a really fascinating way in this play.

HECHT: That's beautifully said.

AMANPOUR: It's so good to hear you agreeing because it was a little different in the play with your character.

HECHT: Well, she sort of agrees with him.

AMANPOUR: Listen, I was really -- I laughed because, you know, the New York Magazine into Alia with his praise of the play calls it essentially

your terrified dance of the well intentioned. And, Bill Irwin, as head of school, at the heart of this conflict over the vaccine and mumps and this

and that, your character writes on the whiteboard during a brainstorming session, all POV equals valid. You know, lovely, but hardly practical.

And again, it's targeting the idea of woke dialogue. Woke has suddenly become a major, you know, political issue. And I want to listen to a --

play a scene from the play, which you, of course, know, characters debating whether to include the term transracial adoptee on the school's online

application. Here we go.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: I mean, I can just say as a black --

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Oh, sorry to cut you off. But I wonder --

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: No, no.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: I wonder if there is a better frame for this conversation, which is who is the drop-down menu for?

IRWIN: For families applying to our school?

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: No, no, no. OK.

HECHT: So, maybe a way to think about it. Eli is -- if you are pulled over by the police, they don't --

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Obviously.

HECHT: They don't ask if you are a Dutch.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Sure.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

AMANPOUR: I mean, it is funny. What do you make of the backlash though that we're seeing right now to this whole sort of language?

HECHT: Yes, there was such a worry that we had as a cast that we would be considered just a satire of woke values and behavior. And I think certainly

the kind of simplistic reflections on how the -- you know, if it's -- if these conversations that these characters are having are taken without the

depth of what they actually are trying to do, which is make the world a place where everybody can coexist, it seems incredibly trite and

superficial.

And that is -- so it's a -- I mean, the play really gets into the heart of what we're dealing with right now, that everything can seem to be very sort

of limited in -- and as I said before, narcissistic in the worst of ways. And sort of playing upon a very flimsy idea for how the world should

operate.

But our characters, I hope, for most people who live in Berkeley that we're absolutely real. So, I don't know if that's good or bad.

IRWIN: I hope so. Yes.

HECHT: And I hope in general, for people not living in Berkeley, but people just trying to engage in an -- you know, sort of expansive hope for

the world find us pretty honest.

IRWIN: I hope so. The play is a very savvy bit of playwriting. And it's five different, really incisive character portraits. If it was only topical

jokes, it would last 20 minutes, but the 95-minute play every night really takes each of these characters through an arc. Each of us grows up in a

sense.

AMANPOUR: And listen --

HECHT: Oh, beautifully --

AMANPOUR: Bill, you know, I saw you playing around with your earpiece and it just reminded me that, you know, you were also a clown and probably did

mime in your career. How did it help you in this regard? And particularly, you said 95 minutes. It is a play that kind of needs to be seen without an

intermission, right, Bill?

IRWIN: I Think so. The playwright wrote it with an intermission, but he in -- maybe 10 to 15 minutes of dialogue. So, now it's a very incisive evening

and it doesn't -- it wouldn't brook any wandering. And I think we've got the right shape for the play now.

[13:35:00]

AMANPOUR: And, Jessica, just to, you know, take a hard left or right or wherever we want to go, you've also done a lot of TV work and you talk, at

least I read a lot, about you being in "Friends" for, you know, several -- you know, a period -- a good period of time. What -- how -- I don't know,

how did -- that was such a resonant sitcom that lasts through the ages, really. What did you take away from that?

HECHT: Well, that everything is subject to scrutiny because I think now "Friends," although it was supposedly in the moment I did it at the height

of, you know, sophistication and representation now is considered perhaps falling a bit short in some respects. So, I think that the reflection on

how we're seeing people and what -- and the kind of naturalism we want from representations on television is constantly evolving.

And it was very -- you know, and I think at the bottom -- at the end -- the bottom line about that show is it's actually made a lot of people

experience joy or some sort of -- you know, kind of -- they're able to escape their own lives for a moment, and for whatever -- you know, that's

worth, I think it's worth a lot.

AMANPOUR: I think that's a great way to end, because what you do is really focus on what's going on in the world, but in a way, in your case, this

play is humorous, and it allows us to escape a little bit, while also paying close attention.

Anyway, Jessica Hecht, Bill Irwin, thank you so much indeed. "Eureka Day" - -

HECHT: Thank you.

AMANPOUR: -- everybody should see it.

HECHT: Thank you.

AMANPOUR: The battle for supremacy in the field of A.I. is well and truly on. The recent bombshell about China's breakthrough technology DeepSeek had

an immediate and negative effect on America's tech world. Cheaper and faster than U.S. technology, Trump called it a wakeup call for the American

industry.

But how far ahead is China in this A.I. race? Former top cyber security official, Anne Neuberger, joins Walter Isaacson to discuss the competition

and its impact.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

WALTER ISAACSON, CO-HOST, AMANPOUR AND CO.: Thank you, Christiane. And, Anne Neuberger, welcome to the show.

ANNE NEUBERGER, FORMER DEPUTY NATIONAL ADVISER, CYBER AND EMERGING TECH: Thank you, Walter. It's great to be here with you.

ISAACSON: The big news this week is the Chinese company's release of something called DeepSeek, an A.I. system that is like Grok A.I. or ChatGPT

but much, much more efficient, it uses less electricity, was able to get around the restrictions we put on microchips and microprocessors.]

I just downloaded it on my phone. And one of the things it said was, the personal information we collect from you may be stored on a server located

outside of the country where you live. What does that mean for Chinese espionage and intelligence gathering?

NEUBERGER: You know, DeepSeek did highlight that, it's not enough to be better in A.I., it also matters the cost, the efficiencies of running those

models. A.I. will be a game changer for intelligence because it allows for more faster and better intelligence.

I'll give you three practical examples. One in the area of missile defense, a second in the area of counterterrorism, and a third, that goes exactly to

the question you raised, with regard to gathering personal information and making sense of that for an intelligence agency.

So, in the area of missile defense, you know, missile launchers are often mobile. So, it makes it hard to rapidly detect the potential for a missile

launch in time to warn missile defense systems. A.I. could be a game changer in allowing for bringing together images, for example, those

captured by satellites of known or suspected missile launch sites, along with signals of people who work in those programs to rapidly detect the

potential for a launch and tip the defender.

Similarly, in the area of language, A.I. is trained on multiple languages, could know the nuance between dialects, and also potentially determine

which are coded words or cultural words to help identify plots.

And then, finally, in the area in the question you asked, when you think about a government like China collects vast amount of data sets, whether

that's off models running on your phone or off the millions of cameras deployed in China and around the world, China can make sense of that in

order to drive surveillance. If they're interested in a particular individual, if they're interested in a particular individual because of

their role, because of the knowledge they play, or because key data sets like research and development in drug industries are interesting to train

models for their own advancements.

ISAACSON: Marc Andreessen, the venture capitalist who's backed a whole lot of these companies and actually was one of the founders of Netscape, said,

this is a Sputnik moment for American A.I., referring to the Russian satellite that went up in 1957. What do you think about that? Is this a

wakeup call for all of us?

[13:40:00]

NEUBERGER: It is indeed. It's a wakeup call for America that A.I. is a race we can lose. We have the innovation engine today. We have the edge.

But it's not enough to produce the best A.I. technology. The key is also to produce the most efficient, the cheapest to deploy in fields from drug

discovery to quantum error correction.

ISAACSON: Biden had an executive order on A.I. and then some guardrails around A.I. more than 100 pages that explain what could be done and not

done, what intelligence could be gathered. Did that slow the U.S. down and give China the advantage to leap ahead this way?

NEUBERGER: You know, that's a point was a great deal of nuance. What it likely did was make it harder for the Chinese and force them to innovate in

the way they did with DeepSeek. Indeed, the CEO of DeepSeek noted that the Biden administration's compute controls actually was a challenge for them.

But as a result, they innovated. They integrated across the hardware, the algorithms, the architecture, as well as figuring out ways to more

efficiently run these models, which is key.

ISAACSON: Well, wait, doesn't that mean it was a bad idea for us to do that? Because now they've innovated and become much more efficient.

NEUBERGER: Compute does make a difference. It's just not the be all or end all. So, certainly, the controls did slow down the Chinese, but as a

result, they had to innovate, had to come up with ways. And frankly, this is a call to action for our A.I. companies to also do the same innovation.

So, in addition to compute data, high value data matters a great deal and letting 1,000 flowers bloom in terms of different ways to innovate on A.I.

When I talk about high value data, you know, there are some, for example, who believe that DeepSeek may have generated high value data to train their

model using U.S. A.I. models, and that matters a great deal.

So, as we think about the future, thinking about protecting high value data sets and building that into the U.S. approaches on A.I. will be important.

ISAACSON: The Chinese have done it with an open-source model. Did that give them an advantage?

NEUBERGER: It certainly gives an advantage because open-source, the model weights are open, the data sets they trained on are not, but by having

cheaper models available, more of an ecosystem can be built on it.

So, think about Meta's Llama, also an open-source model. Why that matters is app developers who then use that model, whether they're using it to

develop customized ways for kids to learn or whether they're using it to train models on particularly different kinds of languages or sensitive data

sets.

So, open-source, because it's cheaper, does allow more users to build on it. That's a good thing. There's a lot of positive applications. It's also

a concern, because these powerful A.I. capabilities could be in the hands of potentially malicious users.

You know, Walter, one of the toughest issues I dealt with when I was at the White House were cyber criminals developing, locking up American hospitals,

developing cyber capabilities to lock up those hospitals for ransoms. Certainly, A.I. can make it easier to build longer lasting and more focused

offensive cyber capabilities by a range of users.

ISAACSON: When we talk about open-source, we mean, of course, that the source code is public. People can change it and build upon it as opposed

to, let's say OpenAI, which was supposed to be open-source, but now is closed with its ChatGPT. Is there something the U.S. should try to do in

regulating open and close, or is that something that can't be regulated?

NEUBERGER: You know, Walter, the way we win is on having the best tech. And as we've seen the lessons learned from DeepSeek, the cheapest tech to

run. And, you know, by regulating that becomes a whack-a-mole, you regulate this and something else pops up, as you know.

So, generally, our approach should be to learn from this, to figure out how do we best innovate and to see that it's not enough to build potentially

the best A.I. tech, it really does matter what it costs for users to use it and the compute power to actually run those models in their applications.

ISAACSON: One of the things where it really crops up and we can all feel it is facial recognition, which is if I walked around here in New Orleans,

there are all sorts of cameras and doorbell cameras and cameras on the streets, and it wouldn't usually matter. But in China now, they can

recognize individuals and use that facial recognition as part of their espionage on their own citizens. Is that something that could be and should

be done in the United States?

[13:45:00]

NEUBERGER: So, first, your point's well taken that China uses their millions of cameras deployed in China and, frankly, around the world to

train very sophisticated facial recognition models. And that's a real concern, as you asked me earlier, regarding the race between intelligence

of authoritarian and democracy -- democratic countries, China's ability to do that will make U.S. intelligence operations harder. It puts U.S.

military officers and others at greater risks.

In the United States, the challenge for us is deploying artificial intelligence in a way that's in line with the values and laws of a

democracy. You know, Walter, I saw this firsthand. I led at the National Security Agency. I served as NSA's first chief risk officer following the

Snowden revelations, and I saw the loss of trust by citizens in our democracy, in intelligence services, our citizens, our allies, and the

divisiveness between government and the tech sector that developed after that. That must be avoided for the U.S. in terms of how the U.S. government

uses A.I. in sensitive national security applications, and it can be avoided.

ISAACSON: How do we overcome that, or should we? Should we be a little bit resistant to overcoming that lack of trust?

NEUBERGER: We overcome it through transparency, through talking about how A.I. is being used in sensitive national security applications, and in

talking about how the laws and values of the country are being implemented.

The challenge is technology moves far faster than law and policy. So, we need to ensure that as the Intelligence Community, as the military is

deploying A.I., they are explicit, they explain with transparency about how they're doing so, how they keep a human in the loop for certain kinds of

decisions, how they validate the data sets that are being used, where the protections of American civil liberties and privacy and others are baked in

when data sets are created. All of that is key to how A.I. is deployed for sensitive national security applications.

ISAACSON: You talk about all the restraints and the civil liberties constraints that need to be in a democracy, transparent and put on it. To

what extent does that handicap us in competing against China, which does not have those restraints?

NEUBERGER: It certainly makes it harder and potentially makes us slower in deploying A.I. applications for sensitive uses. But I would argue that who

we are as a democracy, our citizens' confidence that their civil liberties and privacy are protected is an important consideration in deploying

artificial intelligence, and we can both use A.I. in military applications.

Some of those, for example, that I talked about while also retaining the confidence of our citizens and our allies that we're doing so in line with

our laws and our values.

ISAACSON: In your Foreign Affairs piece, how A.I. will remake espionage, let me read you a quote. You say, with an A.I. race underway, the United

States must challenge itself to be first, to benefit from A.I., first to protect from enemies who might use the technology for ill, and first to use

A.I. in line with the laws and values of democracy.

Do you think that A.I. will help defend democracy, or is it a real threat to us?

NEUBERGER: A.I. has tremendous promise, helping intelligence services make sense of the vast amounts of intelligence collected, the vast amounts of

data collected and make sense of that more quickly and in a way that's more relevant for policymakers.

A.I. will also be major benefit economically. It also represents a risk for the quote you just said, because our adversaries will use it as well. Both

adversaries, authoritarian countries like China, aggressive countries like Iran, but also a whole host of potentially terror groups and cyber

criminals, and that's why we want to do both, deploy, to protect our country and also protect ourselves from potential adversaries using the

technology for ill.

We must do both. Keep an eye on how we quickly deploy and also keep an eye on what adversaries are doing and ensure we're protected, including

protecting the sensitive A.I. models that could be driving, for example, how we control large numbers of unmanned drones, how we control large

numbers of unmanned ships in, for example, a crisis or conflict scenario.

ISAACSON: If we use A.I. to command the drones, as you said, or command the ships, there's always been a rule in the military that there's a human

in the loop. Does that disadvantage us in not being as fast as our adversaries could be?

[13:50:00]

NEUBERGER: A.I. is really key in that it will allow us to be more precise. For example, when we think about a potential conflict in the South China

Sea of a vast Pacific Ocean and being able to detect ships, being able to detect a particular aggregation of ships approaching saying, what are those

ships? What kind of ships? What is the pattern analysis to say is this an offensive or is this a surveillance mission or is this a potential

defensive mission?

So, A.I. will be critical in informing humans and in making humans more effective in military and intelligence operations. And that's a decision

that the national security community has made to ensure that A.I. informs humans, makes humans faster in making decisions, more accurate in making

decisions in those kinds of sensitive scenarios.

ISAACSON: You point out that a major distinction between what's happening in China with DeepSeek and other things versus what's happening in the U.S.

is that China both has government run programs and the companies in China have to share things with the government.

You were on all sides -- looking at all sides of that issue before. U.S. companies, such as Google, such as Meta, sometimes share data with the U.S.

and sometimes resist it. Do we need to change the way we operate so that the U.S. government can have a better partnership with the private

companies developing A.I. here?

NEUBERGER: The private sector is the engine of American innovation, particularly in artificial intelligence. And when we think about how the

U.S., as the competition between our democracy and authoritarian governments like China heats up in terms of competing for the future of the

world order, we know that the U.S. is world class private sector and innovation is a part of how we compete on that global stage.

What that partnership looks like will need to evolve. For example, how the Intelligence Community uses Private sector A.I. models to leverage what

they know and then further train them with classified information to ensure that the insights the Intelligence Community is providing really integrates

across both.

ISAACSON: When you were in government and the Edward Snowden revelations came along, it was companies like Google and Amazon and Meta had been

cooperating with the U.S. government. There was some outrage that maybe some of that data was secretly given. to the U.S. government, and then that

stopped.

At the inauguration of President Trump, we saw the leaders of these companies, whether it be Mark Zuckerberg at Meta or Jeff Bezos, really

trying to forge a, say, partnership with the Trump administration. Do you think that will affect how big corporations use data when the United States

Intelligence Community wants it?

NEUBERGER: So, first, there are real value in A.I. in terms of our economic strength, our economic growth, and deploying A.I. across a range

of industries to drive American innovation and advancements, separate and apart.

Coming to your question, the laws that govern how those companies share information with the U.S. Intelligence Community, with law enforcement, are

clear. There was a great deal of increased transparency, as you mentioned, post-Snowden, to help the average American citizen understand those laws.

And there's a real lesson there. Because until the Snowden revelations, U.S. intelligence operations were a black box. The average citizen, the

average ally, did not understand how American tech companies, what information they were providing, and in response to what standards of law

and civil liberties and privacy protections. So, there was a lot of work done following Snowden to rebuild that trust.

The lesson there is that one cannot allow this partnership between this critical engine of this country's innovation and the U.S. government to be

in a black box. As the U.S. national security community deploys A.I. in sensitive national security applications, in intelligence, and military

applications, explaining that transparently, ensuring the tech companies understand that, ensuring the average American citizen understands that

will be key to avoid that breakdown.

And even more importantly, to ensure that as we seek to compete with authoritarian models where that tie is very clear and unconstrained by law

-- by democratic laws and values, we also compete on who we are in that way.

ISAACSON: Anne Neuberger, thank you so much for joining us.

NEUBERGER: Thank you for having me, Walter.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

AMANPOUR: Such a fascinating conversation. Finally, tonight, batting for hope, the Afghan women's cricket team has reunited in Melbourne, Australia

for the first time since they fled the Taliban comeback three years ago.

[13:55:00]

In this charity match, these refugee cricketers are not playing for a trophy, but for the dream of equality and women's rights in their country.

Under draconian Taliban rulers we know, Afghan women are banned from playing sports, singing in public, and even getting educated.

The International Criminal Court is currently seeking arrest warrants for the top fundamentalist leaders there who they accuse of gender-based

crimes. So, these brave young women say together they're building not just a team but a movement for hope and change.

That's it for now. Thank you for watching. Bye-bye from London.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[14:00:00]

END