Return to Transcripts main page
Amanpour
Interview With Visiting Scholar At Cornell Law School Marielena Hincapie; Interview With Environmental Defense Fund General Counsel Vickie Patton; Interview With Mostly Human Media CEO And Tech and A.I. Journalist Laurie Segall; Interview With Former Federal Prosecutor Brendan Ballou. Aired 1-2p ET
Aired May 05, 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]
BIANNA GOLODRYGA, CNN ANCHOR: Hello, everyone, and welcome to "Amanpour." Here's what's coming up.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
DONALD TRUMP, U.S. PRESIDENT: I won on the basis of -- I think the number one thing was on illegal immigration and the border.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
GOLODRYGA: Trump's deportation spree and the youngest U.S. citizens caught up in the crackdown. We bring you a report from Cuba and talk with an
expert.
Then rolling back regulations on climate. A look at the White House's attempts to change the rules on fossil fuels and what it could mean for the
world.
And A.I. in the hands of children. A useful tool or a reason to worry. We discuss.
Plus --
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
BRENDAN BALLOU, FORMER FEDERAL PROSECUTOR: The president, the vice president, various members of the cabinet have all made clear that they
don't particularly plan to follow court orders.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
GOLODRYGA: -- MAGA's legal world. Former federal prosecutor, Brendan Ballou, talks to Michel Martin about Attorney General Pam Bondi's
Department of Justice and why more than 100 employees accepted an offer to resign.
Welcome to the program, everyone. I'm Bianna Golodryga in New York, sitting in for Christiane Amanpour.
Donald Trump's push to remove undocumented migrants now comes with a new offer, cash. The Department of Homeland Security says it will give $1,000
to anyone who proves they self-deported back to their home country.
The president says it's his hardline stance on immigration that helped put him back in the White House. But opponents say Trump's deportation spree is
at times running rough shot over the Constitution. Listen to what Trump said to NBC over the weekend.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
KRISTEN WELKER, NBC "MEET THE PRESS" ANCHOR: Your secretary of state says everyone who's here, citizens and noncitizens, deserve due process. Do you
agree, Mr. President?
DONALD TRUMP, U.S. PRESIDENT: I don't know. I'm not a lawyer. I don't know.
WELKER: Don't you need to uphold the Constitution of the United States as president?
TRUMP: I don't know. I have to respond by saying, again, I have brilliant lawyers that work for me, and they are going to obviously follow what the
Supreme Court said.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
GOLODRYGA: The president also says he wants to reopen one of America's most notorious prisons, the island off of San Francisco, Alcatraz. And Rwanda
says that it is in talks to receive migrants deported from the U.S.
Well, down in Florida, one 17-month0old U.S. citizen is missing her mother, who was deported to her native Cuba. Patrick Oppmann has their story.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
PATRICK OPPMANN, CNN CORRESPONDENT: Heidy Sanchez spends her days watching videos of daughter Kailyn. It's as close as she can be to her child now
just days after Heidy was deported from the United States to Cuba.
Kailyn, who was born in Florida stayed there with her father who, like Kailyn, is also a U.S. citizen. But she does not comprehend where her
mother is.
She's very intelligent, Heidy says of her one-year-old daughter. When she talks to me, she says, mama, come. And they say your mama is working. She
says, mama come.
Heidy lived for six years in the U.S. and although she tried to become a legal resident, she was placed into deportation proceedings after missing
an immigration hearing in 2019.
In late April, in what she thought was a routine appointment with immigration officials, she says they told her she was being deported and to
have her husband come get their daughter.
I told them, don't take away my daughter, Heidy says. They never said if I could take her or not with me.
Heidy had to hand over her daughter to a member of the legal team to then give to her husband, her lawyer told me.
CLAUDIA CANIZARES, IMMIGRATION ATTORNEY: What they told her was that she needed to call her husband, and that she needed to ask him to come and pick
up the baby. There was not an option of, oh, I want to take my baby. Can I take her?
OPPMANN (voice-over): Two days later, Heidy was deported on a U.S. government flight to Cuba without her daughter, who she was breastfeeding
and suffers from convulsions.
OPPMANN: In a statement to CNN, the Department of Homeland Security contradicted what Heidy and her attorney told us, saying they always allow
parents to decide whether their children are deported with them or stay behind with relatives. And that, quote, "the Trump administration is giving
parents in this country illegally the opportunity to self-deport and take control of their departure process with the potential ability to return the
legal right way and come back to live the American dream."
[13:05:00]
OPPMANN (voice-over): Heidy now lives with relatives on the outskirts of Havana. There is no cell signal inside the house, so she shows us how she
climbs up on the roof to be able to call her daughter and sing her to sleep.
In Florida, Heidy says she was working as a nursing assistant and had no criminal record, not seeming to fit with the image of the dangerous,
undocumented immigrants that the Trump administration says it is removing from U.S. streets.
Photos of her wedding in the U.S. are reminders of a different world, a different life. I ask Heidy if she thinks she was living the American
dream.
I don't know if it was the American dream, she tells me. But it was my dream. My family.
A dream and family that seemed farther and farther out of reach.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
GOLODRYGA: Patrick Oppmann reporting there. Let's turn now to immigration law expert Marielena Hincapie for more on this. Thank you so much for
joining the show, Marielena. Going back to what we heard from President Trump in that wide ranging interview with NBC over the weekend. On the
issue as it pertains to immigration, he not only defended it and boasted about the record low immigrants who are crossing over migrants, crossing
over the border illegally right now, he also, when asked, suggested that his campaign promise in pledge to end illegal border crossings takes
precedence, perhaps even over the Constitution.
Again, he always sort of walks a thin line between then, deferring to his attorneys and ultimately says, no, we will uphold what the Supreme Court
says. But just the fact that that can't be a definitive yes or no response from the president of the United States, when asked if he will obey the
Constitution, what is your reaction to that?
MARIELENA HINCAPIE, VISITING SCHOLAR AT CORNELL LAW SCHOOL: Yes. Thank you for the invitation, Bianna. Listen, I'll start by just saying that as
someone who came to this country from Colombia when I was a child and have spent almost the last three decades defending the Constitution, I can tell
you that this moment is unlike anything that we've seen, an all-out assault on the very principles that define who we are as a nation, right, fairness,
justice, and due process.
Trump's comments are just the latest example to me that show how ill- equipped he is to be president of the United States and that he's also dangerous. He took an oath as the president to uphold the Constitution, but
instead, we see time and time again how he's attacking the Constitution.
This isn't about targeting immigrants. What he's actually doing is attacking the legal framework of American democracy as a whole. He wants
unchecked power to remove people without a hearing or without a lawyer. That's not justice, that is authoritarianism, and that is the deep concern
that everyone in this country should be fearful of.
GOLODRYGA: What do you think his end goal here is in offering these types of justifications and answers to the news media for the American public to
hear? Because, obviously, we're not privy to a lot of what happens inside a courtroom. But the fact that he is using this type of language to the
American public tells you what?
HINCAPIE: So, one, I think he's into theatrics, right? This is political theater. As someone who he was a -- you know, loved the reality TV shows,
he is using the media to send a message to his base who he believes elected him specifically around addressing the issues of around immigration. But I
think that the majority of voters, including people who voted for Trump, that want a safe and orderly legal system, legal immigration system, not
that we are violating our due process rights for everyone, including U.S. citizens, like people being disappeared from their communities, their
families snatched off the streets, that is not what American voters want.
GOLODRYGA: What are the long-term implications and consequences of families being separated like that one that we just heard from Patrick in his
reporting, the mother separated from her 17-month-old child who's a U.S. citizen? We hear Tom Homan and other officials who are supporting and
defending these types of policies by saying, listen, it's a parent's choice to come here undocumented illegally and have children here. If they want to
go back with their children, they can.
It obviously is much more complicated than that. We've now seen several public cases similar to what Patrick just reported there. What are the
longer-term implications for these types of families?
HINCAPIE: Yes, it's heartbreaking to hear that story, and we hear it every single day, multiple times a day. This isn't abstract, right? This isn't
about immigration policy, it's personal. These families are being torn apart and children are living in fear.
[13:10:00]
So, I think the long-term consequences, particularly, are about the psychological trauma on U.S. citizen children whose parents are being
detained and who they're being separated from.
I think secondly, there's also the impact on our legal system, right? Again, we have -- the United States was founded on a system of checks and
balances with the power to be chaired between the executive, legislative, and judicial systems. And when -- while the legislative branch seems to be
reneging on its constitutional authority, the courts are doing their job and checking on that executive overreach.
And so, the impact is human, right, in terms of the impact on families. But at the end of the day, we also need to be thinking about the impact on our
democracy and the long-term health of our nation.
GOLODRYGA: Where do you see this ultimately headed? I would imagine the Trump administration is anticipating these types of battles to go all the
way to the Supreme Court. Ultimately, the justices there will have to weigh in on these issues. For now, they've decided the most recent decision, 9-0,
and this is the sort of fudging of words, however you interpret what facilitates mean in returning Abrego Garcia back to the United States from
El Salvador.
He still remains in El Salvador prison right now. The president has even said if he wanted to, he could ask the president there of El Salvador to
repatriate him to the U.S. That hasn't happened. So, is this ultimately up to the Supreme Court to check the president on, or do you see the president
perhaps giving into public pressure and sentiment?
HINCAPIE: I do think that it's going to be up to the courts. I mean, we've seen even judges appointed by Trump blocking his different policies that
he's put forward, although, again, he has been flouting a number of those policies, those orders from the courts.
Look, at the end of the day, the people in the institutions that are part of the legal profession, so the judges, the lawyers, are all that the
country has left to prevent authoritarian overreach, that and people power. And so, I think it's going to be a combination of the courts all the way up
to the Supreme Court, but not only the Supreme Court, the federal courts, as well as state courts will need to start stepping in as well.
And I do think that as more and more American citizens, right, whether it's employers, schools, neighbors are being impacted by and seeing what's
happening to their community members and the people that they rely on in their everyday life that are being impacted by these unconstitutional
policies, that there will be greater public pressure against the administration. So, I'm counting on the people power and the courts as
well.
GOLODRYGA: We know, judging by polling from the 2024 elections, that it was immigration and the economy, that were the two most important issues for
voters as they ultimately elected President Trump into office. It is interesting to see that the concern, as it relates to immigration, in
recent polling has declined by about eight percentage points. I mean, perhaps this is more economy driven and the focus on the tariffs disruption
to American households, but I'm wondering if there's any deeper insight we can gather from this type of polling, given how chaotic we've seen this
immigration policy as it has played out in the first few months of this administration and stories like the one we just heard from Patrick Ottman.
HINCAPIE: Absolutely, Bianna. I think that the American public, again, even if they voted for Trump's immigration policies and the rhetoric in the
campaign, what people want is fairness and law and order. What this administration is showing is chaos and a complete disdain for the law and
order and for the rule of law.
Every time they violate the Constitution, every time he says, I don't know if due process, if I'm supposed to follow due process. Again, U.S. citizens
will start seeing more and more that they themselves need to be protected. I am talking to many people who are naturalized citizens, including myself,
who are carrying around their U.S. passports, who are making sure we don't know how far they will go and how radical this administration will get.
And so, I do think that voters in these recent polls are starting to show those fissures even among Trump voters to say, actually, this is going too
far. This is not what we voted for. And we're going to see more and more of that.
GOLODRYGA: To be fair to the president, as chaotic as this may have been, as we noted at the top of the interview, illegal boarding crossings are at
a record low at this point. He was asked about that in the interview as well. Here's what he said.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
WELKER: Let's talk about deportations. Border crossings are at their lowest level ever recorded. Is the border --
TRUMP: Is that good?
WELKER: Is the border now secure?
TRUMP: Yes, it's really secure.
WELKER: It's absolutely secure?
[13:15:00]
TRUMP: I mean, isn't good that when you say that, doesn't that just sound good? After being abused for years by an incompetent president that allowed
people to pour through an open border, criminals from all over the world, murderers and insane people from mental institutions and insane asylums,
isn't a beautiful thing when you say it's the most secure it's ever been in the history of our country? Isn't that a nice statement?
(END VIDEO CLIP)
GOLODRYGA: I know you're not a political analyst, but even using some of that acumen that you have and coupling it with the law, what is an
effective way for Democrats to respond to that?
HINCAPIE: Look, absolutely. I think Democrats and Republicans and independents. So, this isn't about political party. Everyone wants there to
be humane, orderly systems, right, not fear-based governance. And I would say that under President Biden, towards the end, the border crossing
numbers had also begun -- had decreased.
The last period in time that we had historically was actually in 1924 when the border was shut, when people were not able to come for racial and
national origin quotas. The border was pretty much shut for four decades until 1965. In essence, immigration declined historically, more than now,
legal immigration as well.
And so, I think that what we need to do is making sure that there is not only deterrence by cruelty, but instead, that we're reforming our
immigration system so that it meets what we need for the 21st century. And that is the job ahead for both Republicans and Democrats.
GOLODRYGA: Can I ask you quickly to respond to this news from the president yesterday, also stating that he would be interested in reopening Alcatraz.
We have Tom Homan, his borders czar, doubling down on that when asked about it and said we need detention beds.
This is one of the most recognized prisons in America, around the world, actually. I mean, it's been featured in films. Everyone has heard of
Alcatraz. What do you make of the president specifically referencing this prison, which has been closed for decades?
HINCAPIE: Yes, it's theatrics. Again, this is political theater. He knows that the average person recognizes what Alcatraz is. It is a well-known
prison because of the -- because of its use in Hollywood. And so, I think this is, again, he's talking to his base. He's trying to say people, we are
going to send immigrants to the harshest prison that was, you know, closed down decades ago.
This is playing politics with real people's lives and it's not actually resulting in solutions to what our existing system is. And so, again, I
would urge voters to hold their electeds accountable, including the president, and making sure that we not only in focus on, you know,
deterrence by cruelty, but instead, focus on reforming our system.
GOLODRYGA: Marielena Hincapie, thank you for your time. We appreciate it.
HINCAPIE: Thank you, Bianna.
GOLODRYGA: And later in the program, as the Trump administration makes sweeping cuts to climate programs and boosts fossil fuel projects, we take
a deeper look at the environmental impact. That's next.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
GOLODRYGA: Amidst the flurry of actions by the Trump administration, its moves on climate have particularly been rapid and sweeping. In the first
Trump term, some states like California attempted their own climate fight back, but now even that is in question. The Trump administration last week
sued to try to stop four states from taking legal action against fossil fuel companies. Though officials there say they are undeterred.
[13:20:00]
And America's ability to prepare for future climate disasters is also in question after the administration dismissed all of contributors, nearly 400
in all, to the National Climate Assessment. Vicki Patton is general counsel at the Environmental Defense Fund and joins the program now. Vickie, thank
you so much for taking the time in which I know must be a very, very hectic and busy for you, defending so many of these cases and challenging actually
these cases, defending your clients.
In just over three months' time, we know the Trump administration has taken more action on climate than any other in his entire first term. This is
just three months in now. Are you surprised by the speed with which this has all happened, especially given that, you know, he campaigned on doing
essentially all of this?
VICKIE PATTON, GENERAL COUNSEL, ENVIRONMENTAL DEFENSE FUND: Well, first, I'm really grateful for the opportunity to be here. So, thank you. The
chaos from the policies over the last several months have imposed really high costs on millions of people. The costs come in the form of more
pollution, adverse health effects. They come in the form of hitting our pocketbooks, higher costs in terms of utility rates and insurance costs.
We're also seeing sort of uncertainties that are imperiling important investments in job creation and innovation and manufacturing.
The head of Ford Motor Company said recently that the investments that they've been making in new manufacturing in Ohio and Michigan and Kentucky
and Tennessee are kind of hanging in the balance with all of these uncertainties.
You know, the good news is that the clean solutions are the most affordable solutions. And so, here, in my home State of Colorado, we're both providing
cleaner air, a safer climate, and we're putting downward pressure on costs, keeping our manufacturers and ensuring that our children have cleaner,
healthier air. So, that is the path forward, not the chaos.
GOLODRYGA: So, the current policies that the Trump administration is fighting at this moment, as you referenced, even in Colorado, they are
still in place?
PATTON: They are still in place. And you know, there's a wide body of just law and also common sense that is supporting sort of the innovation that
we've seen at the state level for, you know, years. Republican, independent, and Democrats alike in purple red and blue states, that
innovation has really put our country on a strong footing where the good news is that the clean solutions are the most affordable solutions.
So, here in Colorado, one of our large manufacturers. you know, kept a thousand jobs in an important community that was depending upon those jobs
by shifting from fossil fuel energy to clean low-cost energy. And we're seeing that in -- through innovation and solutions that are both creating
economic opportunity. And cleaner air, healthier communities, a safer climate.
GOLODRYGA: And this has crossed ideological lines. I mean, we have long reported that Texas in recent times now has become the largest spender and
investor of all states in green renewable energy because it is profitable. It's a business model for them at these points, for the oil companies to
also be now pressuring the Trump administration to slow down on some of these executive orders. I'm just curious, which out of -- and there have
been a dizzying number of executive orders on this as it relates to climate that the president has already signed.
But what, if any, stand out to you the most? Because he did seem to campaign on taking the U.S. out of the Paris Climate Accord and also
getting -- doing away with a lot of the regulations that had been in place by the Biden administration and other Democratic administrations as it
pertains to drilling and oil exploration. That aside, what is it that we should be focused on that perhaps isn't garnering enough attention?
PATTON: Yes. There's a lot and -- a lot at stake for the American people in terms of healthier lives and lower costs. A couple that stand out. One is
that, just a short while ago a coalition of states that included states all across the country brought a legal challenge to an executive order issued
by the president that would just try to ban and prevent wind energy.
And as you indicated in places like Texas, you know, wind energy is thriving. And right now, in the United States, clean, low-cost wind power
is providing about 10 percent of our electricity. So, it's a really important source of electricity.
[13:25:00]
And to have policies that are trying to obstruct it, to tear it down, both means that we're missing out on an important source of electricity that is
an important engine for our economy and is clean.
Also, just one of the very first actions that this administration took was to invite some of the largest industrial emitters in our country, to send
an e-mail and to get a free pass to pollute some of the most harmful contaminants. And, you know, these are contaminants like mercury and
arsenic and chromium that are cancer causing.
And so, you know, we've seen that repeated time and time again through executive orders, through presidential actions, actions that put, you know,
American's health in a harm's way. And that really is taking our country in the wrong direction.
GOLODRYGA: Can I ask you to weigh in on what we heard there in the introduction that nearly 400 scientists across the U.S. were recently
informed that their services were no longer needed to help write a major report on climate change for the federal government. This report is known
as the National Climate Assessment. It is a publication that is mandated congressionally by law that goes back to 1990. Therein lies another example
of a situation where you may have the president and the administration defying law. This is among the multiple lawsuits that are currently going
on right now.
Can you walk us through what that looks like from your perspective? How many cases are you currently litigating?
PATTON: Well, first of all, that research that you just touched on it saves lives, right? And it is required by law and it has been a foundation for
protecting millions of people who need to both mitigate the harms of climate change and prepare for those harms. So, if, you know, you're a
farmer in Iowa and Nebraska, you need that information. If you've been afflicted by flooding in North Carolina and Tennessee, and Georgia, fires
in Los Angeles, you need that information.
So, this is information that helps us keep millions of people safe, keep people out of harm's way. It also helps us manage a rising insurance costs
as we face the uncertainties associated with intensifying kind of extreme weather events. Without that information, it leaves us all in the dark and
it puts our families and millions of people in harm's way.
And so, organizations like Environmental Defense Fund and many others are rolling up our sleeves. We're working together to try to make sure that we
have access to this information and we continue to move forward in a way that is, you know, anchored in common sense in our country.
GOLODRYGA: Yes. Again, if we could just note that there's nothing really political that stands out about these types of reports other than offering
some sort of forecasting and guidance for farmers, for everyday Americans, families, businesses, corporations. Why do you think this administration
has such an issue with these types of studies?
PATTON: Well, the chaos, you know, really, not only hurts everyday Americans as we're trying to make sound decisions about our lives and our
economy, it also hurts us in terms of just the ways in which we can sort of compete in the global marketplace.
So, you know, just today The Wall Street Journal had a story about other parts of the world where you can get a zero omitting SUV for $15,000. And
so, you know, we have to both, you know, try to come together and get past some of the polarization and recognize that we can have solutions, like we
have here in my home State of Colorado, that mean our children have healthier longer lives. That mean that we're building a stronger, more
vibrant economy and that enable us to compete in the global marketplace.
GOLODRYGA: Yes, you make an important point there. It could also make us less competitive on the global stage in investing in these types of
technologies. The rest of the world is continuing to do such, especially China, as it relates to electric vehicles. We will continue following this
important story. Vickie Patton, thank you for the time.
And coming up for us after the break, the perils and the promise of an A.I. chatbot for children. Why parents are increasingly concerned by Google's
tech for preteens.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[13:30:00]
GOLODRYGA: Now, this week, Google is making its A.I. chatbot known as Gemini, available to under 13-year-olds. It says that chatbot has firm
guardrails to protect preteens from harmful content while answering questions and even helping with homework.
But major organizations like UNICEF have raised concerns that young minds are particularly vulnerable to the type of misinformation that A.I. can
provide.
Veteran tech journalist Laurie Segall has been following this story closely. She's also the CEO of Mostly Human Media, a company focused on
exploring the intersection of tech and humanity, also a former colleague of ours here at CNN. Laurie, it is good to see you again, my friend.
OK. So, speaking as a journalist and as a mother of a newly teenage boy who's 13 years old, listen, they have phones, they use Google to search,
now ChatGPT. What is this that A.I. -- that Google ha, has just unveiled, this Gemini program for young teens that is different from what is already
on the market?
LAURIE SEGALL, CEO, MOSTLY HUMAN MEDIA AND TECH AND A.I. JOURNALIST: I mean, and also, I say this, I just had a child 10 weeks ago, right? So,
this is very top of mind.
GOLODRYGA: Congratulations.
SEGALL: Thank you. And it's top of mind because I think right now, we as parents, we've heard about the harms of social media. The next big thing
that we're going to be talking about is what is the impact of artificial intelligence on our children? And we've seen a lot of problems arising over
the last months.
Specifically, I think Google rolling out these A.I. chatbots. They're doing through something called Family Link, which is its controlled interface for
family accounts, enabling, I would say, users of the age of 13 and under to be able to interact with these chat bots for homework, creativity, and
storytelling.
And, you know, I spoke to a Google spokesperson and, you know, the idea they say is that children are going to be using this type of technology
anyway. It's better if they're using it in a controlled environment. So, what does controlled mean, Bianna? It means content responses are more
appropriate for under -- you know, for an age group that's younger. It means younger users won't have data collected on them. It means younger
users will have access to the app, but their parents will be notified, and there'll be usage limits.
Now, it comes, I would say, with a whole slew of questions, and I can get into an investigation we did, but Gemini, they have basically sent out an
e-mail to parents saying, we have to teach our children about artificial intelligence. We have to teach it that these chatbots are not real and that
they can make mistakes and they can hallucinate. We have to show your child how to double check these responses and tell your children not to share
sensitive information. And disclaimer, our filters try to limit inappropriate content, but, you know, they're not perfect.
So, reading between the lines there, there are also a lot of issues with the rise of what I would say is empathetic artificial intelligence, A.I.
that feels very human, and our children, if we're not careful, beginning to believe that it is human and so many problems can arise from that.
GOLODRYGA: You keep saying, you know, you referenced a few points from Google saying what we as parents have to do. What guardrails has Google
already put in place? Obviously, no one takes the role of a parent more seriously than the parents themselves and their responsibilities that they
have to control what their children view and have access to. But what has Google done and what lessons have they learned from some of the mistakes
and really dangerous precedent that was set by some of their rivals over the last 10, 15 years?
[13:35:00]
SEGALL: Yes, I would say this is a very controlled -- what they're saying is this is controlled. They've done what they call red teaming behind the
scenes, which is where they have people trying to break the system to see how it can be broken, that's also really important, as opposed to just our
children being the beta testers of a new generation of technology, which is what we saw with social media.
The content responses will be different. So, different for younger users interacting with it. And also, this idea that, you know, children are
encouraged not to share sensitive information. But I say all this, Bianna, with the caveat of, in October we did an investigation into Character A.I.,
which is, you know, an A.I. companion app. Their tagline used to be, A.I. that feels alive.
They had users under 13 using these apps and talking about being addicted. And what happened was a young man was talking with one of these bots that
he modeled after his favorite character on "Game of Thrones," and he got emotionally attached after the bot, which had a severe lack of guardrails.
It was highly sexualized. When the young man started talking about wanting to end his life, what this bot did was instead of, you know, giving
resources to a national suicide prevention hotline or saying, go offline and talk about this with your parents, the bot asked them follow up
questions like, how would you do it? I'm very curious.
And so, we've really seen that oftentimes children, young users in particular, have trouble distinguishing if this is real or not. And I would
also say you can't really blame them because these chat bots are actually designed to feel human. They're actual design features.
So, in the Character A.I. case, when you're messaging with one of these chatbots, you'll see three dots, right? That's an actual product decision
made so it feels human. You can actually pick up the phone with some of these companion chatbots and call them and it'll speak like a real person.
So, the question now, and I think this is the -- one of the biggest and most important questions we have to ask as parents with this wave of
artificial intelligence, is how young is too young for users to be interacting with this?
Another thing is these chatbots, they're actually designed to be engaging. They're highly personalized. They're always on. They seem empathetic. And
while they might -- you know, might be a disclosure that they're not real and the case of Character A.I., we tested it out. We spoke with the
therapist bot, and it told us it was a real person, a licensed professional sitting behind a computer.
So, maybe, me, Laurie, having covered technology all these years, I can understand the difference, but can our 13-year-old? And I think that's a
really important question we have to ask.
GOLODRYGA: And it comes at a time when companies like Meta, for example, is trying to address what we've been, you know, focused a lot on as well, and
that is the loneliness epidemic that has gripped the country, especially younger children and teens. And Meta has introduced their version of an
A.I. friend. I'd like to play sound from Mark Zuckerberg when he was addressing this just recently.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
MARK ZUCKERBERG, CEO, META: The average American, I think, has -- I think it's fewer than three friends, three people that they'd consider friends.
And the average person has demand for meaningfully more. I think it's like 15 friends or something, right? I guess there's probably some point where
you're like, all right, I'm just too busy. I can't deal with more people. But the average person wants more connectivity -- connection than they
have.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
GOLODRYGA: Laurie, is this the new normal to have A.I. friends and is there regulation involved in any of this or are we just relying on these
companies themselves to regulate?
SEGALL: You know, listening to Zuckerberg say that I had this thought of, well, first of all, yes, people are lonelier than ever. And I do think that
A.I. companions can be really positive in some ways with the correct guardrails as a way to help us, you know, potentially make more real-world
friendships and get offline. But listening to what Mark says, like you cannot productize friendships, you cannot productize humanity.
And we're going to have to be really careful, because we are at a very specific moment where you -- loneliness cannot be solved, I think, by being
even more online and with those incentives to get you even more online and to get -- I was thinking about this when we investigated Character A.I. to
get a little personal, I think about 13 -- when I was 13 years old, growing up, kind of lonely, a little bit awkward, right?
And if I had an invisible friend, right? I used to journal all the time. If I -- if my journal spoke back, right? If it was the therapist that I didn't
have at the time, or the boyfriend that, you know, wouldn't look at me, when guys wouldn't look at me at the time, I mean, I wonder sometimes, and
I thought about this a lot when I was investigating the case of this young man that ended his life, who was previously a social guy and he started
pulling back from his real community, I wonder if I had that, if that would've been a real help to me at a really lonely time, or if it would've
taken me farther into my own reality? And I think these are questions lawmakers are going to have to grapple with.
You know, there's being -- there's legislation that's been introduced back in California on some of these problems, but they don't really yet get to
the heart of it because it's a wild west and we're just beginning to see what happens, you know, if we're not careful.
[13:40:00]
GOLODRYGA: And so frightening too. Listen, it's one thing to use it as a tool for research, for studying, to fight diseases, this is a whole
different level. Laurie Segall, thank you so much. It's great to see you, and again, congratulations on being a new mom.
SEGALL: Thank you. Good to see you.
GOLODRYGA: Well, now, from immigration and climate to diversity and justice. Donald Trump's shakeup of American policy is having a dramatic
impact in Washington and beyond.
Our next guest, former federal prosecutor, Brendan Ballou, believes the president is disregarding the rule of law. In his latest piece for Slate
Magazine, he writes that in Trump's first 100 days, he's ignored judges, extorted law firms, and fired lawyers. Why? Ballou says disloyalty to the
president.
He sits down with Michel Martin to discuss the mass exodus from the Department of Justice, how the MAGA base might be positioning to take over
the D.C. Bar and what all of this means for the law in America.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
MICHEL MARTIN, CONTRIBUTOR: Thanks, Bianna. Brendan Ballou, thanks so much for talking with us once again.
BRENDAN BALLOU, FORMER FEDERAL PROSECUTOR: Thank you.
MARTIN: So, you're a former federal prosecutor and you've been writing a lot and talking a lot about what you see as efforts to politicize major
institutions, particularly legal institutions. So, I just want to start with some recent news. More than 100 attorneys recently left the Department
of Justice's Civil Rights Division after being told the department would now be prioritizing President Trump's cultural agenda instead of previous
priorities, like, you know, voting rights, policing sort of oversight.
You know, it's not unusual when an administration changes, priorities change, right. What is different about this? What is different about this
that has caused this mass exodus of career employees?
BALLOU: Yes. So, I think that, as you said, you know, administrations change, priorities change, and normally career staff will stick around
between administrations, whether they're Democratic or Republican. I think what's different here is not just that it's a more extreme agenda, you
know, the new assistant attorney general for civil rights says that she's going to go after, you know, so-called DEI policies, anti-Christian bias
and things like that. I don't think it's just the extremism of the politics, but also what this administration has messaged about the rule of
law more generally.
The president, the vice president, various members of the cabinet have all made clear that they don't particularly plan to follow court orders, and in
fact, they already aren't. And so, I think if you're a career staffer, you have to think about, do I want to be a part of an administration that
doesn't necessarily respect the rule of law? And If I don't, how can I be most effective in resisting it? And I think that's what these resignations
were about.
MARTIN: Well, what's interesting also is that the -- this is President Trump's second stint in office, not continuous, you know, obviously. But in
many of these attorneys did serve during the first Trump administration. What is it that they have said or what is it that they have signaled that
would cause people for some of whom have served in the government for decades to say that this is the line that I can't cross?
BALLOU: So, I can't speak to the internal deliberations within the Department of Justice, but let's focus specifically on the Civil Rights
Division. You know, what you've seen is a dismantling of years of work by career lawyers to try to bring justice to some of the poorest and most
disadvantaged people in America.
You know, you look at the settlement agreement that they reach with Lowndes County, Alabama that would remediate the fact that historically black
neighborhoods didn't have sewage systems, that settlement was destroyed by the Department of Justice. You look at a case to prohibit discrimination in
the Maryland state police force, you know, that was dropped. A case to try to prevent discrimination within the Mississippi State legislature, that
was dropped.
You're seeing years of work abandoned in a matter of weeks. And so, I think for these career folks, it's obvious not just that this administration
doesn't share their commitment to sort of the cause of civil rights as traditionally understood. But also, it doesn't particularly have a
commitment to the institution of the Department of Justice, or like I said, to the rule of law more generally.
And so, I think when you're in that position, you know, if you're a career civil servant and I've been in this sort of position before, you have to
think about where -- what can you do to be most effective? Sometimes that's staying within government and trying to uphold the rule of law within it.
And sometimes that's leaving and leaving as noisy as you can. And I think that's what these people decided to do.
[13:45:00]
MARTIN: The new assistant attorney general for civil rights, Harmeet Dhillon, said about the exodus and en masse, dozens and now over a hundred
attorneys decided that they'd rather not do what their job requires them to do. I wasn't sure how to read that. I mean, in a way I think she might be
glad because then presumably they could put people in those positions who will be more amenable to their point of view. How did you read that?
BALLOU: You know, I think that they -- at some level they may believe that, but at another level, this may be a little bit of a brave face on the part
of the administration. You know, the only thing the Department of Justice has, the only thing that any lawyer has is their credibility. It's the
credibility to persuade a judge to rule for you the credibility, to get a jury to agree with you. And if you destroy your credibility, you will not
be able to accomplish things legally.
And so, I think when you see a mass exodus, like what we saw, you know, just a few days ago, it suggests that the Department of Justice is bleeding
out its credibility very quickly. And so, yes, maybe in the very short-term this is helpful to the new administration. They can try to staff up with
folks that are more ideologically aligned with them. But in the long-term, I think it's going to make it much harder for them to accomplish their
agenda.
MARTIN: I want to turn to another issue that you've been writing about. You actually wrote a piece for Slate, writing about a bid for leadership
between two Trump allies, Brad Bondi, who's the brother of Attorney General Pam Bondi, and Alicia Long, who's a Trump appointee. They're running to
take over, as you say, the D.C. Bar. Why do you think this is important? It's not just for some sort of local issue, but you think this has real
importance.
BALLOU: Yes. I'm grateful that you asked, and I think it's a matter of national importance. So, the D.C. Bar is the Bar Association for nearly
120,000 lawyers in America, lawyers who practice inside and outside of government. And the elections matter really for two reasons. The first is
that the leadership of the D.C. Bar does play a role in the disciplining of those 120,000 attorneys. So, it's not direct, but the fear is that if Trump
allies are able to take over the D.C. Bar, they could use that as a way to punish lawyers that are seen as insufficiently loyal to the administration.
So, that's one fear.
The other fear, and I think it's much more immediate, is that in any country facing a sort of illiberal movement, bar associations historically
have been voices defending democracy, defending the justice system, defending the rule of law. You see that happen in countries like Brazil and
Spain a few decades ago.
And the real fear here is that if the Trump allies take over the D.C. Bar, the bar will be silenced when the government acts illegally, when the
government acts contrary to the Constitution. And that's one less voice standing up for democracy and for the rule of law.
MARTIN: So, Brad Bondi was asked about this. He says, the bar has a non- partisan mission, which I intend to vigilantly protect against any push to politicize it. My effort to run for D.C. Bar president began months before
the federal elections and has no connection with national politics at all. And the -- you know, the platform of the world is sort of apolitical. I
take it that you don't really buy that.
BALLOU: Yes. There are really two fears here. One fear is that Brad Bondi might be not being truthful about why he's running. You know, he is the
global co-chair of investigations for a major international law firm. He seems to have developed a rather sudden and passionate interest in free
certificates of accreditation in the D.C. Bar. I think that doesn't seem to be the sort of thing that normally interests a high-powered white-collar
attorney. So, it is possible that he's being disingenuous about why he's running.
It's also possible that he's telling the truth, and that's just as scary. When he says that he wants to make the bar an apolitical organization, you
know, what that means is that they don't want the bar to speak out when the rule of law is under attack.
And so, again, I think the risk here is that a credible institution, an institution that a lot of people believe in could be silenced if Trump
allies take it over.
MARTIN: Do you feel that, for example, there have been some sort of key players who have had their licenses revoked for misconduct like Rudy
Giuliani being one example? Is part of your concern that they would -- could have potentially exonerate wrongdoers or is it really more that
you're concerned that they would try to keep the bar from organizing itself as an entity to oppose other things going forward? Is that more your
concern?
BALLOU: That's the immediate -- the latter concern is the immediate problem. The long-term concern is that the D.C. Bar is involved in
appointing the members to the board that handle disciplinary proceedings here in D.C. And so, over the months, over the years, those members would
be replaced potentially with Trump loyalists.
[13:50:00]
And so, once you do that, then you have an enormous amount of power among over many thousands of lawyers that work in the government. And so, it's a
potential you know, where the administration cannot just fire an attorney that's deemed insufficiently loyal, but allies could potentially disbar
that attorney and prevent them work -- from working entirely, and that is really powerful leverage.
MARTIN: So, one more issue, Judge Hannah Dugan in Wisconsin, this is another case that's gotten a lot of attention. She was taken into custody
by the FBI on courthouse grounds for allegedly helping a man evade ICE. Judges have been arrested before, for things. But is the -- is there
anything about the way this was handled that stands out to you?
BALLOU: Yes, absolutely. You know, if you look at the criminal complaint here, it seems like this was an arrest made not with the intention of
securing a conviction, but for securing a headline, which this administration was enormously successful at. But the legal standard to
convict the judge in this case seems far beyond what the facts warrant.
And so, my suspicion here is that the administration is not necessarily trying to convict this judge, perhaps they'd like it if they could, but to
try to instill a certain amount of fear in judges in a very specific way, which is that ICE agents are going into courthouses to try to detain
undocumented immigrants. Presumably judges are going to be increasingly afraid to stop ICE agents from interfering in court proceedings or from
roaming the halls to try to pick up undocumented immigrants because they too are now afraid of being arrested and charged.
MARTIN: So, there just seemed to be two very different versions of what happened here. The administration seems to be arguing that Judge Dugan
escorted this man out or helped him to, you know, evade authorities or somehow helped him get out of a side door or runaway, et cetera. The other
version of this is that she was trying to define the kind of the scope of authority. There was -- she was in a specific legal proceeding that was
unrelated to this, that matter had not been adjudicated, and she felt that he deserved his day in court on that issue and was trying to preserve the
integrity of that proceeding. So, those are two very different things.
Now, that the administration has had her arrested saying she actually broke the law, who decides that? Like how does this get sorted out?
BALLOU: Well, now it's a criminal trial. So, it's going to be decided by a judge. And if it ever has to go to trial, to a jury. You know, I'll note
that, you know, you mentioned in the outset here that judges have been arrested before. This administration arrested a judge in the first term.
Ultimately, that prosecution was dropped and referred to sort of a mere, you know, professional disciplinary proceeding.
So, their track record in winning in these cases isn't particularly good. But the damage has already happened. This judge has already been reassigned
or taken off her cases and the message has been made very clear to judges that they are not safe from criminal prosecution in this administration.
MARTIN: I do have to ask though, if the facts are as alleged by the administration and any other persons knew that someone else was being
pursued by law enforcement and gave them some means of escape, wouldn't they be prosecuted?
BALLOU: Not necessarily. So, you know, I haven't handled immigration prosecution, so I don't want to overstate my expertise here, but the
primary statute under which she was charged requires corrupt intent, threat of force, or other kind of intimidation here, which, at least based on the
allegations in the government's own documents, there hasn't been anything close to that yet. So, once again, this seems like an arrest built more for
headlines than for an actual prosecution.
MARTIN: Before I let you go, can you talk about why people should be paying attention to these issues? This seems all very technical. Can you just give
us a sense of why you think it's important to pay attention to these kinds of very specific issues and these very specific prosecutions and
allegations and these kinds of developments?
BALLOU: I would tell your viewers to not underestimate your own power here. You know, having been on the inside of government, I can tell you protest,
outreach, outrage really matters. It changes how people inside of governments think, it changes how judges think. And so, the more attention
that can be brought to attacks on the constitution, attacks on the rule of law, it empowers people inside of government to resist unconstitutional or
illegal actions. It empowers judges to stand up for what's right.
[13:55:00]
And so, even if you don't necessarily see the exact consequence of paying attention and speaking out, I can assure you that you are having an effect.
MARTIN: Brendan Ballou, thanks so much for talking with us once again.
BALLOU: Thank you.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
GOLODRYGA: And finally, a powerful message of hope from the late Pope Francis. As the Pope Mobile from his visit to the Holy Land is transformed
into a medical unit for the children of Gaza. The move was one of the pontiff's final wishes, an emblem of his legacy seeking peace in the
region.
Meanwhile, cardinals are gathering in Rome for the conclave, the centuries old tradition of electing the next pope begins Wednesday at the Vatican. Of
course, we'll be covering it all for you.
That is it for now. Thank you so much for watching, and goodbye from New York.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[14:00:00]
END
