Return to Transcripts main page
Amanpour
President Trump Holds Fire At The Request Of Gulf States And Negotiations Grind On; The Trump Administration Pays $1.776b To Its Allies; Artificial Intelligence Is Becoming Increasingly Pervasive In Our Lives; Aired 12-1p ET
Aired May 19, 2026 - 12:00 ET
THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[12:00:36]
BIANNA GOLODRYGA, CNN ANCHOR: Hello, everyone and welcome to "Amanpour." Here's what's coming up.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
DONALD TRUMP, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: I put an offer, little while. Hopefully maybe forever, but possibly for a little while.
Plus, we've had the very big discussions with Iran.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
GOLODRYGA: President Trump holds fire at the request of Gulf States and negotiations grind on.
Is the war with Iran nearly over and what happens next? Christiane asks Egypt foreign minister in an exclusive interview.
Then the Trump administration pays $1.776B to its allies. I speak with Robert Mueller's chief prosecutor, Andrew Weissmann, about what the move
means for the strength of America's institutions.
And.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
JOSH TYRANGIEL, AUTHOR "AI FOR GOOD": The tech can do a lot of things for us. We just have to mentally wrap our heads around what it can do and how
it can do it.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
GOLODRYGA: A.I. for good. Walter Isaacson speaks to author Josh Tyrangiel about how artificial intelligence is saving lives.
Welcome to the program, everyone. I'm Bianna Golodryga in New York, sitting in for Christiane Amanpour.
The Middle East remains entrapped in limbo, as President Trump threatens to unleash overwhelming force on Iran, only to pull out last-minute again.
Speaking from a construction site at the east wing of the White House, Trump said that he was on the brink of giving the green light for an attack
on Iran today, but called it off at the request of Gulf States. Take a listen.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
TRUMP: I was -- I was an hour away. We're all set to go. You're talking about yesterday?
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Yes.
TRUMP: We were going to be striking very -- it would have been happening right now. Yes, it was all done. Like the -- the boats, the ships were all
loaded. They're loaded to the brim. And we're all set to start.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
GOLODRYGA: The president said Gulf nations are reporting a lot of progress toward negotiations with Iran. But Tehran is still not conceding on
Washington's major red lines, its nuclear ambitions.
In its latest proposal, Iran insisted on its right to enrich uranium, also calling for the lifting of sanctions, the end of the U.S. naval blockade,
and the release of frozen funds.
So, how close is the end of the war? For regional countries, that's becoming a nearly existential question.
One of those nations, Egypt, has been grappling with the economic blows of the conflict and has been involved in trying to stop the fighting.
Last week, Foreign Minister Badr Abdelatty, met with his Iranian counterpart in India. He joined Christiane in London for an exclusive
conversation about what comes next for the Middle East.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
CHRISTIANE AMANPOUR, CNN ANCHOR: Foreign Minister, welcome to our program.
You, Egypt, are right in the middle of attempting to mediate an end to the Iran-U.S.-Israel war. President Trump's latest is that he is responding, he
says, to appeals from his Gulf state allies, to not launch another hot war right now. But who knows what in the future?
Where do you stand on that? What do you think is going on in the state of mediation?
BADR ABDELATTY, EGYPTIAN FOREIGN MINISTER: Well, first of all, we commend President Trump wise policies and decisions in order to give more time for
dialogue for the de-escalation. That's highly appreciated. And it's indeed very, very important to exert our maximum efforts to push for dialogue and
for the escalation. And I -- I believe that things are moving in the right direction, maybe slowly but steadily.
AMANPOUR: And what do you think, because Trump said in his post about this, that actually he's been told that there might be some -- some opportunity
for at least some de-escalation. Others have suggested it might involve removing sanctions on Iranian oil, well, parts of it. What can you tell us
about the details?
ABDELATTY: Well, we hope that things will move in the right direction. And what we are talking about now is hopefully to sign an MOU of one thing.
AMANPOUR: A memorandum of understanding?
ABDELATTY: Yes. And hopefully and that could lead the way for setting the parameters, the principles. And that would be subject to negotiations later
on for a specific period of time and to tackle the different files including, of course, the nuclear file.
[12:05:12]
AMANPOUR: So to be fair, we've heard this before. A one-page document, maybe figure out the hard things a bit later, open the Strait of Hormuz
first, et cetera. And it never goes anywhere.
ABDELATTY: Yes.
AMANPOUR: From what we hear, certainly from the American side, it's really sort of 180 degrees on any different day.
ABDELATTY: Yes, yes.
AMANPOUR: It's one ask one day and another decoration another day.
ABDELATTY: Yes.
AMANPOUR: What's going on? Are the -- are the goalposts shifting from Iran or from the United States?
ABDELATTY: Well, again, we are pushing for dialogue. And there is no military solution, and always Egypt as with Arab Gulf countries, you know,
preferring dialogue and de-escalation.
And we -- we hope that -- that this time it will work, hopefully. And we've been quite clear to condemn all attacks on the Gulf countries, because, you
know, their security is of our security. And there is no justification for attacking them.
So let's hope that it will work. And we are coordinating with regional countries, including Pakistan, including Turkey and including, of course,
our brothers and sisters in the GCC.
So, we -- we -- we have to do more. And we are in full contact with the Americans as well. And we hope that could produce deliverables through
negotiations.
AMANPOUR: Mm-hmm. Right. So OK. I'm not going to get any more detail on this out of you, obviously.
But you have an open channel, for instance, to Iranian counterpart, Abbas Araghchi. What does he say to you in general about -- about this? And I've
noticed -- and we've all noticed that, you know, UAE, one of your closest allies, and Saudi Arabia have actually struck Iran. They have actually got
themselves into this war as well. It seems to be expanding.
ABDELATTY: Well, now what we are focusing on, first of all, to reach an understanding on the principles which will guide their negotiations.
Also, we have to talk about the future of the security regional --
AMANPOUR: Right.
ABDELATTY: -- regime in -- in the region. And, of course, we must restore confidence between Iran and the Gulf countries after the attacks and the --
the aggressions on the Gulf countries.
You know, there is missing confidence between the two sides. So we need to restore it. We need the confidence-building measures based on non-
aggressions. And, of course, let's focus on a sort of security regime.
AMANPOUR: Tell me what that would look like, because we've heard that that is obviously something that needs to happen. What would a new security
regime for -- for that region look like?
Because it would presumably have to include Iran, where up until now, Iran has stood on one side of the whole Arab-Muslim regional world and you all
have stood on another side, trying to isolate Iran and do all those other things. So, what would a post-war regional security system look like?
ABDELATTY: Well, the -- the foreign ministers of the Arab states, they took a bold decision in last September in their meeting in Cairo with regard to
setting specific parameters which will guide the -- any future security regime in the region. And it's open for everybody, for Arab and non-Arab --
AMANPOUR: So Israel?
ABDELATTY: Everybody. Short of accepting the parameters like, you know, respecting the sovereignty, territorial integrity, non-interference in the
internal affairs of any country in the region, universality of the principle of non-proliferation.
And also, of course, supporting the state institutions and refraining from supporting the non-state actors.
You know, those bunch of parameters or principles which should guide any kind of effective future security regime. And as I mentioned, everybody is
welcome to -- to join, but short of honoring and accepting those parameters.
AMANPOUR: OK. But do you think Iran will agree to stop supporting non-state actors, Hezbollah, Hamas, all the others that it has so far?
ABDELATTY: I mean, this, as I mentioned, that this is a general parameters --
[12:10:02]
AMANPOUR: Right.
ABDELATTY: -- and the principles. And if any country would like to play the game, you'll have to abide by the rules of the game.
AMANPOUR: OK. OK. And if they don't, where are we in this situation? I mean, for instance, the UAE is one of the most hawkish, again, it's one of
your closest allies in the region, but it has emerged as very hawkish against Iran. As I said, it struck Iran. Nobody's denied it.
And it intends to, quote, double down on relations with Israel. And it received the beneficiary of Israel's military defensive or maybe even
offensive assistance during this war. How does that play?
And also, the UAE has pulled out of OPEC. Is -- is GCC breaking down? Is there going to be sort of an Israel access and a non-Israel access?
ABDELATTY: I -- I don't buy it. I don't think so. And I mean, there is a very strong relationship among the Gulf Cooperation Council states.
And what we are focusing on now is to end this war as soon as possible and to preserve the territorial integrity and the sovereignty of each Gulf
countries.
So this is what we are focusing on. And I believe that we have agreement on that. We have mutual understanding on the importance of ending the war and
the importance of moving ahead with specific parameters which will be binding for all countries in the region.
AMANPOUR: So, it's clearly affected the global economy, not just regional. Iran's economy is on its knees. Your economy has been severely disrupted
just after you were getting back to sort of normal after the Suez Crisis.
How bad -- and this, you know, let's face it, the U.K., Europe, Asia, it's affecting everybody. How bad is it for you and how long do you think Egypt
and the Gulf region will take to recover economically? Qatar has been hit very, very strongly economically.
ABDELATTY: As you correctly mentioned, everybody's suffering, you know, not only the regional countries, but also the global economy, because the issue
of the principle of freedom of navigation is extremely important for the world.
And the Strait of Hormuz, you have at least 30 percent of the oil and the gases, and as well as fertilizers are passing through this important
Strait.
So, we believe that we have to tackle this matter as soon as possible. We have to ensure the principle of freedom of navigation. We have to reach an
agreement as soon as possible, which will guarantee the reopening of the Strait of Hormuz.
AMANPOUR: Is Iran open to that? And -- and -- and making it a freedom of navigation, because it keeps saying it wants to control the Strait?
ABDELATTY: It's -- it's part of the understanding. And, of course, the issue of opening of the Strait of Hormuz is an integral part of any future
agreement.
And as for us in Egypt, the implications was negative, not only in Egypt, but on the countries of the region. But the Egyptian economy proved the
resilience, and because it based on very solid and diversified bases.
And don't forget the fact that the structural economic reform programs were extremely important for the resilience of the economy. So the -- the
economy is -- is doing well. Of course, we've been hit hard by this crisis, especially the surging prices of oil and the gas, because we projected our
budget based on price of barrel by around 65 to $70. And now it's skyrocketing, you know, reaching or hitting 110, 120.
But --
AMANPOUR: Double.
ABDELATTY: Yes. That's right.
AMANPOUR: So let me hard pivot to Israel again, because you are one of only two Arab countries that actually has a peace accord with Israel.
A senior Egyptian source recently told the national newspaper that the number one enemy in the Egyptian military doctrine is Israel. And that that
constitutes the strong bond between Cairo and Tehran.
Is that the basis of your relationship with Iran? And is Israel, it's an extraordinary thing for you to say, you know, given that you have a peace
accord, is Israel your number one enemy according to military doctrine?
ABDELATTY: As you correctly mentioned, of course, we have a peace treaty with Israel since 1979. And we are abiding by our commitments. And we have
a normal relationship with Israel, according to the peace treaty.
[12:15:07]
ABDELATTY: Of course, this relationship is being affected with the Israeli aggressive policies, especially in the West Bank and in Gaza, in Lebanon,
in attacking the different Arab countries.
But again, we have peace treaty and we are abiding by our commitments as long as the Israeli side is abiding by their commitments.
AMANPOUR: But it seems that they're not, according to the ceasefire agreement for Gaza. As you mentioned, these separate but very, very
heightened attacks against Palestinians in the West Bank. There seems to be an absolute commitment to no Palestinian state, which is something that
Saudi Arabia, Egypt, all of you involved in this say has to happen.
And clearly, things are not going according to the original plan in Gaza. So, what do you say about A, Hamas not yet disarming? B, Hamas saying that
a disarmament is contingent on a pledge for a Palestinian state, and C, sorry to lump them all together, Israel increasing its occupation zone
inside Gaza, moving from a yellow line to an orange line.
ABDELATTY: Well, we have to stick to the Trump peace plan.
AMANPOUR: But apparently they approve all of this stuff.
ABDELATTY: Yes. But we have to again, to go back to the first phase. And we have to implement all the parts and the commitments of the Israelis and the
Palestinians according to phase one of the Trump peace plan.
And, of course, the flow of humanitarian assistance, according to the first phase, at least 600 trucks should enter into Gaza in order to allow the
accessibility of sufficient humanitarian and the medical assistance.
AMANPOUR: But it's not.
ABDELATTY: It's not. And that's why we have not to allow the focus on Iran to divert our attention from what's happening in the West Bank and the
Gaza. And that's why we have to push for completing the implementation of the first phase, as well as moving ahead with the implementation of the
second phase, which include the decommissioning of weapons as well as Israeli withdrawal from Gaza.
AMANPOUR: OK. But the person who's in charge of the so-called Peace Board, Board of Peace, Nickolay Mladenov from --
ABDELATTY: Mladenov.
AMANPOUR: Yes. He has basically said, just this month, that the entire ceasefire accord might be called null and void if Hamas doesn't accept
disarmament. Israel's obligations under the ceasefire would be null and void. So they're putting the onus on Hamas.
And do you not agree that Hamas needs to decommission, disarm or whatever?
ABDELATTY: They have to. They have to.
AMANPOUR: Yes. So, why are they not doing it?
ABDELATTY: And this is part of the agreement. And we host them and the others three, four times in the last month.
AMANPOUR: Exactly.
ABDELATTY: And we are pushing very hard for them.
AMANPOUR: Why are they not doing it?
ABDELATTY: But again, again, because, you know, for them, they ask it for specific policies to be taken by the Israelis, especially stopping targeted
assassination, again, the elements of Hamas. They ask it also for completing the elements of the first phase, especially with regard to the
rehabilitation of hospitals, clinics, schools, and so on.
So, again, you have the whole Trump peace plan based on mutual commitments and responsibilities from the two sides. So, we have to focus on that and
we have to push for that.
AMANPOUR: OK. So both sides are not meeting their obligations.
ABDELATTY: Sure. Yes.
AMANPOUR: And how do you do it? I mean, you are the Arab state. I mean, Egypt has been the leader of the Arab world for so, so long.
And by and large, most of the analysis suggests that Israel is winning and doing what it wants. It's doing it, as you said, in Lebanon. It's doing it
in Syria. It's doing it on the West Bank. And it's doing it in Gaza and it's doing it in Iran.
When does the Arab world, Egypt, use its voice and its might and its peace treaty to say, enough already?
ABDELATTY: We are, of course, using our voice, our influence day by night to push for Israel to abide by its commitments. And again, it's all about
the -- the policies of the -- the whole international regime and look to what happened in Gaza two years of bombardment killing more than 75,000
innocent Palestinians and injuring 170,000. And nobody gave a damn to that.
[12:20:07]
And so again, we are doing our -- our -- our best efforts, but it takes two to tango. We need the -- the -- the international community, the European
Union, the United States and others and we delivered in (INAUDIBLE).
And it was Egypt who pushed very hard for reaching this ceasefire in October last year. But we have to follow up. And unfortunately, this
escalation with Iran diverted the attention from focusing on the Palestinian issue.
AMANPOUR: Or maybe not, because it's clear that Prime Minister Netanyahu, and he's stated over and again, and it's part of the new election campaign,
no Palestinian state, right? So that's what they say.
ABDELATTY: But, you know --
AMANPOUR: And they're also saying that they're going to do to Gaza, at least the defense minister, literally, they're going to do to Lebanon what
he says, in accordance with the Rafah and Beit Hanoun model in Gaza, i.e. Gaza-ification in parts of Lebanon as well.
Where does this end and what leverage do you have?
ABDELATTY: It will -- I mean, it will -- I can assure you it will not bring peace and stability and security for Israel, because the -- the core of the
conflict in the region in the Palestinian coast, and without giving them the Palestinian their own legitimate rights, including the right of civil
determination, I can assure you that Israel will not enjoy a sustainable peace and stability because this is the -- the core of the conflict.
And that's why mighty power will not bring full security and stability. So, we have to give back the legitimate rights to the people in Gaza, in the
West Bank, to have their own independent state with East Jerusalem as its capital.
Apart of that, there is no peace and stability in the region without addressing the hardcore of the conflict in the region.
AMANPOUR: Foreign Minister Abdelatty, thank you very much indeed for joining us.
ABDELATTY: Thank you so much, Christiane, for hosting me.
AMANPOUR: Thank you.
ABDELATTY: It's a great pleasure.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
GOLODRYGA: And do stay with CNN. We'll be right back after the break.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
GOLODRYGA: Now, a $1.776 billion fund financed by taxpayer dollars is raising questions and eyebrows.
The Justice Department says the fund compensates Donald Trump's supporters who claim they were unfairly targeted by the Biden administration. Here's
how President Trump describes it.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
TRUMP: This is reimbursing people that were horribly treated, horribly treated. It's anti-weaponization. They've been weaponized. They've been, in
some cases, imprisoned wrongly. They paid legal fees that they didn't have. They've gone bankrupt. Their lives have been destroyed.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
GOLODRYGA: Trump says there's nothing new about the fund, but allowing the president carte blanche to enrich his allies is unprecedented.
Here to discuss is Andrew Weissmann, a former assistant U.S. attorney, and he was Robert Mueller's lead prosecutor. His new book is called "Liars
Kingdom: How the -- How to Stop Trump's Deceit and Save America."
Andrew Weissmann, welcome to the program. We'll get to your book in just a moment because these two issues, so much of it, is really related and tied
to the themes that you delve into in this book.
But let's talk about the news of day, the administration diverting $1.776 billion of taxpayer money to what the president described as an anti-
weaponization fund to settle his own lawsuit with his own IRS.
[12:25:13]
As a veteran federal prosecutor yourself, have you ever seen the Judgment Fund utilized in such a manner?
ANDREW WEISSMANN, FORMER U.S. ATTORNEY: No. That is a very easy question because the answer is no. Two points to make on that is in terms of the
settlement, it's worth noting that this is a point made to the federal judge overseeing that case that currently there are people who are
similarly situated to Donald Trump and this administration is taking the position that their claims should all be denied because they're without
legal or factual merit.
And so having a settlement for close to $1.8 billion based on the same similar set of facts as other people who are not getting a dime tells you
how protectoral this is.
And then there's just simply the facts here, which is giving money to the people who are convicted by a jury after due process or who pleaded guilty
to what they did on January 6th, which we all saw around the globe is something that is preposterous and sends a really awful message in terms of
the rule of law, because not only have their cases been dismissed, but now they're going to be paid money for engaging in truly horrific crimes that
went to the heart of our democracy.
GOLODRYGA: Right. And the Capitol police officers who were beaten that day, while they were doing their jobs and protecting the Capitol behind them,
they get nothing from this fund. We should just point that out as well.
Can you explain to our viewers what a judgment fund is, what its purpose serves to be?
WEISSMANN: Sure. A judgment fund is for true victims. And so let's assume that the FBI, I used to be the general counsel there, wrongly searched an
apartment. They -- they broke into an apartment, but they didn't have a correct search warrant. And there was damage to the building. There was an
invasion of their privacy. That person might seek compensation and could get paid for that wrong.
And so that would come from a fund. There has to be some source of funds, but that is all adjudicated and it's overseen. And that's one where facts
and law matter.
Here, it's just so collusive because you have Donald Trump judging his own case and they -- he has done something -- their administration, as I said,
does something completely different in similarly situated cases. So for, it's really the antithesis of the rule of law when you don't apply it in an
even handed way.
GOLODRYGA: The distribution of this money will be controlled by a group selected by acting attorney general Todd Blanche. He was testifying for the
Senate Appropriations subcommittee today and he was asked, as one would imagine, a great deal about this fund.
Here's what he said about it, how he described it.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
TODD BLANCHE, U.S. ACTING ATTORNEY GENERAL: It is true that this is unusual. That is true, but it is not unprecedented. And it was done to
address something that had never happened again either.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
GOLODRYGA: So I just -- I'm curious to get your response and reaction to those -- those words from Todd Blanche, his description of it, that it is
unusual, but at the same time that it is very much warranted.
WEISSMANN: So it is fair to say it is extremely unusual. One of the ironies here is that in the first Trump administration, the attorney general, the
very first attorney general for Donald Trump, Attorney General Sessions, deplored exactly what we're seeing here.
He said that it should not be possible to give money to sort of third parties for causes that you just approve of. That this fund is to be given
to plaintiffs who can prove they were harmed and for victims, direct victims of a harm.
Here, Donald Trump has claimed that the concern is that his tax returns leaked. That has nothing to do with people who committed crimes on January
6th, their tax returns weren't leaked. And so this is really apples and oranges and it's exactly what the first Trump administration said should
not be happening.
GOLODRYGA: I don't know how well you know Todd Blanche. He served as the president's own personal attorney as well, but he has a traditional
pedigree in the Southern District of New York here as well.
[12:30:06]
So, I'm just wondering, are you surprised at all by the actions that he's taken as he has been now, the president's acting attorney general in the
second term?
WEISSMANN: So, I do not know him personally. I have, like everyone seen his conduct in office. I did go to the trial where he was a defense lawyer for
Donald Trump.
I am surprised, given his background and his training as a federal prosecutor, to see what he is doing. And I do think it is a model of sort
of what we have to be concerned about.
Because there will always be bad actors in every walk of life including in politics. But what makes them particularly pernicious is complicity by
people who know better. And particularly when you're talking about the Department of Justice where you count on people taking their oath of
office.
I should say that the federal judge who oversees this case, the one that was Donald Trump versus the IRS, made a point of that that she did not see
how any sort of, quote-unquote, settlement fund would be consistent with the oath of office to protect the public fisc.
GOLODRYGA: So, that -- that leads me to our next question. Is the settlement fund legally sound? And if not, does Congress have any oversight
here to intervene?
WEISSMANN: Yes. So, there could be court action. But the thing that is clearly the case if we had Congress willing to do it, is that Congress can
step in.
Under our Constitution, of course, the power of the purse belongs to Congress and they control how money gets allocated. So, they clearly could
put a stop to this.
I would suspect that we will see Democrats and maybe even some Republicans, depending on -- on how vociferous the public is about what's going on,
proposing a bill to put a stop to this saying that they did not intend 1.776 billion, with a B, dollars, to go to people who were convicted after
due process of crimes.
GOLODRYGA: Yes. The president noting this coinciding with the -- the 250th anniversary of the country.
Speaking of Republicans Senate Majority Leader John Thune said this morning that he's, quote, not a big fan of this fund. Do you expect to see other
Republicans follow suit and speak out to get this, perhaps even in harsher terms?
WEISSMANN: So, I don't know. This is -- I try and stay in my legal lane. I'm not really not a political analyst, but I -- I am aware enough to know
that people will be looking at the polling and people will be looking to see how much the public is outraged or not by what is going on.
I do know for people like me who worked for over 20 years in the Department of Justice to say that Todd Blanche's comments that this is unusual is --
is putting it mildly. This is something that is so antithetical to your obligation as a public servant to be doing this.
GOLODRYGA: Well, within hours of the funds announcement, we know the Treasury's General Counsel Brian Morrissey stepped down. He didn't issue a
statement and connect the two. But given the timing, it is suspect to the White House administration just put out a statement thanking him for his
service.
I do want to turn to the president's market activity as well as it relates to stock -- stocks and trading of stocks. First quarter disclosure so --
show that the he executed between 211 million to $687 million in trades involving companies such as NVIDIA, Boeing, Intel, companies that he's
actually actively negotiating with on a global stage, as we recently just saw with his trip to China last week.
The immediate question for viewers when they hear this is, is this legal?
WEISSMANN: Well, there is a law against insider trading. And, you know, the Senate has been toying with sort of banning members of Congress from
engaging in stock trades because they get a lot of inside information.
And this is one where having been a public servant for over 20 years, you do not do it to get rich. If you want to get rich, stay in the private
sector. It is -- this is one where it's so fraught because your obligation here is not to your wallet. Your obligation is to everyone in the public
who you serve.
So, the allegations and the facts that are getting reported now are deeply, deeply concerning in terms of the abuse of a position of power for profit.
GOLODRYGA: I wish you'd note the Trump Organization claims that neither the president nor his family has any role in these trades. They say that the
trading is executed entirely by a third-party financial institution through fully discretionary accounts.
[12:35:09]
But that leads me now to your own book "Liars Kingdom," because these are some of the vulnerabilities that you explore in your book as well. You
argue that America's susceptibility to this level of political deceit stems from a specific fixable flaw in our legal system.
So, what is this flaw that is fixable?
WEISSMANN: So, one of the things that I looked at is what do other countries do when you have a politician who lies?
Let's assume you have a politician who lies and says there was material fraud in an election, what happens in the United States and what happens
overseas?
Because in the United States, we prosecute criminally and subject to civil lawsuits, all sorts of lies. If you're a leader of a public company and you
lie about your company, you can be criminally liable and sued for tens of millions of dollars.
In Brazil, for instance, if you lie about an election, which Bolsonaro, the former president, was found to have done, you can be barred for running for
office again for a set term. And there are laws in France and England that relate to this.
Even in our states here in the United States, there are laws that pertain to this.
But we do not have this in the federal system where you can lie about ballots and have no legal repercussions. But if you lie about stock, there
can be severe repercussions. So that anomaly is what I'm addressing in this book.
GOLODRYGA: And you think this is a law that could -- I know you say you don't delve into the political lane, you're here just for the legal
discussion, but do you think that this is an issue, a law that could gain bipartisan support today?
WEISSMANN: Today, under no circumstances. What I am doing, and you mentioned that this is the 250th anniversary of our country, is if we are
to get out of the situation we're in, we have to figure out, in my view, how to strengthen our checks and balances that norms are not enough.
We've seen them be broken over and over again. And so I'm looking to the future to figure out, given how wonderful our constitution is, we
nevertheless can see where it is not working. And to get people to start thinking about bold and innovative ideas to try and strengthen our checks
and balances.
Our system works with a divided power, of divided government where you have the executive, the Congress, and the courts. And it is not functioning as
envisaged.
GOLODRYGA: Yes. All co-equal branches in theory. But as you said, maybe not functioning that way today.
"Liars Kingdom" out today, thank you so much. Andrew Weissmann, appreciate the time.
WEISSMANN: You're welcome.
GOLODRYGA: We'll be right back after this short break.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
GOLODRYGA: From the rise of chatbots to the push for automated warfare by the White House, artificial intelligence is becoming increasingly pervasive
in our lives.
With little regulation, many fear its impact, including Pope Leo, who has teamed up with Anthropic to issue a document highlighting the need to
protect jobs and truth amid this A.I. boom.
On the flip side, some believe the technology is being harnessed for good.
Author Josh Tyrangiel joins Walter Isaacson to share some examples.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
[12:40:09]
WALTER ISAACSON, CO-HOST, AMANPOUR AND COMPANY: Josh Tyrangiel, welcome to the show.
TYRANGIEL: Thanks so much.
ISAACSON: So you've got this new book out, "AI for Good." And I want to read you something from the introduction that struck me. It said, "We are
living through a moment in history that often feels cataclysmic-climate change, extremism, institutional collapse, furious inequality. It's
natural, even rational, to assume a protective crouch against the future. Yet my defenses were disabled by a glimpse into a completely different way
in which we may live as citizens."
What do you mean by that?
TYRANGIEL: Well, I'll take the first part first, which is the -- the cataclysmic part, right? I think A.I. has arrived in a very particular
context, which is people are just drenched in existential risk and existential dread.
And the people who are running these labs are not helping matters. They come in and they talk about, you know, A.I. is either going to cure cancer
or mitigate climate change, which is great but hard to believe, or it's going to doom human existence. And so that gets people to tune out right
away. So that's not helpful.
The positive part is that when you separate the tech from the tech companies. And you actually look at the ways in which it can help us solve
meaningful problems, particularly in things like government and healthcare and education, it's dazzling.
Not always, and it's not always easy, but the solutions that are available to us are completely different. And so what I found through the reporting
is the tech can do a lot of things for us. We just have to mentally wrap our heads around what it can do and how it can do it. And it's going to
take some work. But wow, when -- when you apply it to certain problems, it really does make a huge difference.
ISAACSON: Well, you say it could be dazzling, apply it to certain problems. Give me an example. I'm not sure we solved anything yet.
TYRANGIEL: Yes. So, I want to separate the tech from the hype. So, I went to the Cleveland Clinic, right? And they were kind enough to just let me
wander around, which I'm very grateful for.
And they have a lot of A.I. pilot programs going on. And they're all led by doctors. And again, none of them are easy. They have 100 years of
established systems. They have patients with their various symptoms. They have doctors who hate changing their workflow, right? And yet, they made a
lot of progress.
So a big example, sepsis, right? Sepsis is one of the worst things that can happen inside a human body. It's an out-of-control reaction to infection.
And each year, it kills about 350,000 Americans. More than breast cancer, prostate cancer, opioid addiction combined.
It's very hard to detect, because in its early phases, it actually just sort of presents like a cold or dehydration. And then before you know it,
it races away, and it can kill you.
So they did a pilot program. And there was a human element to the pilot program, which is making sure that their clinicians are all much more aware
of sepsis than they were.
And then they did an A.I. pilot. And the A.I. pilot is software that is hooked up to every patient that comes in. And all it does is remind
doctors, through a prediction and detection engine that sepsis might be present, and it separates sepsis risk into three levels. And then it beeps.
That's all it does.
The doctors are the ones who intercede. And yet, over the course of a year, using this sepsis prediction software, they reduced deaths in the hospital
due to sepsis by 41 percent. So that is 1,000 lives saved, in part, through the partnership of A.I. and doctors working together. So that's one
example, right?
Another, you know, we all know that -- that healthcare is a terrible business for everyone, but the insurers, right? And for a hospital system,
part of the problem is that hospitals are basically hotels.
So they have patients, they have rooms, they have staff, food, linens, beds. And -- and the key difference, the difference between profitability
and hemorrhaging money, is that hotels know when the customer is showing up and when they're leaving, and hospitals don't.
And so what they did at the Cleveland Clinic is they worked with Palantir, their controversial company in some realms, but basically an enterprise
software company. And they created a system that actually know when people are coming and going.
And so what this software does is, it hooks up to every data set inside the hospital, including electronic health records.
And so when a doctor just makes a verbal note, saying, this patient is likely to be released tomorrow, the software knows it.
And all of a sudden, the hospital administrator can play the hospital like a video game. She knows when people are coming, she knows when they might
be released. They've increased their transfer volume tremendously. They've cut down on -- on emergency room wait times by 90 minutes.
And -- and I don't know if you've watched "The Pitt," but that's a different show if you cut down on the wait times by 90 minutes.
[12:45:02]
And so these are things that are just showing up and they're not revolutionary, they're more evolutionary, but that's just one example that
--
ISAACSON: But, Josh, what you're saying actually I agree with, they're not revolutionary. Those are evolutionary. It's something I hope an hotel could
put in.
Tell me -- and it seems somewhat disappointing that we've only gotten to that.
I read in your book about the digital twin of a heart, that type of thing seems that's a revolutionary leap.
TYRANGIEL: When we're talking about as far as digital twins of hearts, there's a pair of doctors at Cleveland Clinic who are working on the
ability to do A.I.-assisted cardiac scan.
And the idea here is that, as opposed to every doctor starting fresh and doing their scans and knowing where you are, you basically walk around with
a twin of your heart and everything that's happening to it.
And at any given moment, we could run tests on that digital twin, as opposed to having to run tests on you. So an A.I. model can run a test on
an A.I. model, saving you a lot of heartbreak, customizing medicine.
Now, they started this work about seven years ago. It's taking time to work out bugs, because as you would expect with A.I., you know, you can do
amazing things, but you've got to tweak it. You've got to actually work with the patient, establish their comfort, but they have made a tremendous
amount of progress.
And so it's these little evolutionary steps we're seeing that are going to get us to the revolutionary stuff. And it's not that far away.
ISAACSON: You talk about Palantir. You mentioned it early in the interview. It's in your Cleveland Clinic chapter. And you say the varying mention of
Palantir, cause of people's blood to kernel. Why?
TYRANGIEL: So Palantir on the left, Palantir was founded or co-founded by Peter Thiel. And Peter Thiel obviously is a very vociferous Trump
supporter. He is in Silicon Valley. He's a co-founder of PayPal. He's very good friends with Elon Musk. I could go on about the reasons that the left
hates him.
The right doesn't like Palantir, because it really came in and challenged everything about the military industrial complex. And so Peter Thiel's co-
founder is a guy named Alex Karp. He's half black. He's half Jewish. He's a self-described socialist, a Kamala supporter.
How the two of them are friends is -- is a little bit of a mystery to me. But the combination has really freaked out just about everybody,
everywhere.
And it does not help that the company is named after the mysterious stones in the Lord of the Rings. They cultivate a mystique. OK?
Now, the truth about Palantir is that what they do is almost comically dull. OK. I just mentioned all the need to keep data clean and keep its
infrastructure right.
The chief architect of Palantir said, we are the mole people of Silicon Valley. We're basically plumbers. We go in. We straighten out all the data
pipelines. We clean all the data. And then we present the data on very clear dashboards so that someone running a company or a federal agency or a
military operation, can actually see what they're dealing with and organize it and make decisions based on this data.
And so I understand completely how -- how Palantir has become a very political hot topic. What they do is very important. And they do it very
well.
ISAACSON: Yes, but in New Orleans, for example, they were taking all the cameras all over town doing facial recognition, putting that in the data
set, being able to follow people.
Is that something that causes people to push back against A.I.?
TYRANGIEL: Absolutely. Because if they are not brought into the process, if they're not told why this might be good for society and why it might be
good for themselves, the natural and completely understandable reaction is, I don't want any of this.
And so what we're really talking about is we have a crisis of trust that we have earned in our society. If we are going to get the best out of this
material, we have to trust our institutions.
Now, there's a little bit of a Mobius strip in the logic here, right? Well, how can I trust institutions that are distrustful and use A.I. against me?
And the answer is we better figure out how to stop it somewhere.
Now, I am having to be a big fan of government. You know, I really enjoyed the last 70 years of peace and prosperity. And I do think that A.I. has a
role to play in strengthening government, and strengthening people's trust in government, but -- but two caveats.
The first is it's hard, it takes a lot of work. And the second is, no matter how good the tech, you still actually have to want to have a
government for this stuff to work. Otherwise, A.I. can be just as destructive as it can be productive.
ISAACSON: Let me ask you the big question. Is A.I. going to create more jobs? Or is it going to reduce the number of jobs that humans do?
TYRANGIEL: So I -- it's a great question. A couple of months ago, I wrote a big cover story for "The Atlantic" about A.I. and the future of employment.
And I'll tell you what the economists mostly say.
[12:50:04]
They say A.I. is a general purpose technology, and they compare it to previous general purpose tech, like electricity, right? Electricity came
in, everybody knew it was great. It took about 40 years for the benefits to be felt across society. It changed a lot of jobs, but it increased
productivity in America so much that it was worth it, right?
Now, the divide among economists tends to be, and -- and a lot of Nobel winning economists hold to that.
Younger economists, I spoke with said, they don't think that their elders are misunderstanding the data. They think they're misunderstanding the
tech. And that A.I., by its nature, is smart machinery, and smart machinery can help to rule itself out.
So, if the A.I. revolution in American life takes 10, 20, 30 years, we will have time with a natural rate of adjustment, in labor, to figure out where
jobs move. There'll be natural attrition as -- as companies come online, and we'll probably be OK.
If it takes three to five years, the disruption will be significant. And the younger economists say, it might be three to five years. And we might
have a real crisis on our hands with unemployment rates, you know, rapidly going up, up to 10 percent, 15 percent.
ISAACSON: Well, wait, let me push back on that. I've heard them say that for the past three to five years. And you see it in all the press releases,
all the anecdotes, matters laying off this and the other.
You look at the job numbers, it's not there. Most recent job numbers, more employment. So if that's supposed to be happening in the short-term,
where's the data saying so?
TYRANGIEL: Exactly. And even the -- even the -- the skeptics about the future will say, it's not yet showing up in the data.
What they will tell you is that it is inevitable that by the time we get to the end of the year, they expect to see significant change.
When I spoke to Fortune 100 CEOs, who the people who, you know, employ most of America, they were also concerned. And they're concerned for different
reasons. They obviously report to Wall Street. They've made these huge investments in A.I.
And they're worried that they don't -- they aren't yet able to show growth as a result of that implementation, because as we've discussed, it takes a
little time. It's not as easy as people say. It's not a silver bullet to just flip a switch and A.I. comes on.
And so they're concerned that what they will have to do to satisfy Wall Street is cut jobs. And so they -- they think a bit of a self-fulfilling
prophecy has come along, where if they don't cut those jobs, it'll be their job that gets cut.
And then what they're saying is, you know, quietly, we wouldn't mind it if Congress helped us here, if Congress regulated A.I., if Congress putting
more money for job retraining, because if we lay these people off, and all of us do simultaneously, there's going to be a convulsion in society.
ISAACSON: In the history of the digital revolution, there's really been two strands. One of them, you could call the Ada Lovelace strand, which he
talks about, the symbiosis, the partnership of humans and machines. You see that with Doug Engelbart, when he invents the mouse and the easy-to-use
interfaces. Steve Jobs is part of that strand.
The other strand is sort of the computers will go off without us. The Alan Turing machine, they'll be able to think on their own strand. And you get a
lot of people these days talking about the singularity.
What is your view? Will this proceed as a partnership of humans and machines? Or will the machines eventually leave us behind?
TYRANGIEL: We have to dictate which way we want it to go. If we crouch in a defensive position, because A.I. seems hard, because there's lots of other
existential risk out there in the world, and we let the makers of the technology tell us how to use it, we are likely to get lots and lots of
automation with lots of profits rolling up to those companies.
If, however, we do get involved, and we insist on uses that we care about, that are collaborative, everything that we've talked about today involved a
machine either alerting someone, or helping someone see something, but it was always a human in the loop. It was always collaborative.
If we can insist that that's a best-case use, then I think we may really well get gains. But it's -- this is going to be contested territory. And
what I would say is most important is that if you don't want to get involved, if you don't want to make those decisions, there are plenty of
people who will make them for us.
And the last time that happened was the social media age, and we saw how that ended. A.I. is so much more powerful than anything social media has to
offer. The benefits are so much greater. So I -- I would really encourage people to use the tools and begin to insist that this is the way they want
them to be produced, and they want them to exist in the world.
Otherwise, it could go completely the other way.
ISAACSON: Josh Tyrangiel, thank you so much for joining us.
TYRANGIEL: Thank you, Walter.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
[12:55:00]
GOLODRYGA: And finally, after more than six decades, one of the greatest tennis players of all-time has got her degree. Billie Jean King graduated
with a history diploma from Cal State, Los Angeles on Monday.
The star left College in 1964 to pursue her tennis career, where she went on to win 39 Grand Slam titles, received a Presidential Medal of Freedom
and became a fierce advocate for gender and pay quality.
As the 82-year-old stood on stage, she offered her fellow graduates a few words of wisdom.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
BILLIE JEAN KING, 39-TIME GRAND SLAM CHAMPION: Everything you do, winning or losing, good or bad, it's feedback, not failure. It's feedback. Don't
take things personally. Ooh, that's really important. Don't take things personally. Don't let others define you. You define yourself.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
GOLODRYGA: Sage advice from a trailblazing tennis icon. And congratulations to the Class of 2026.
All right. That is it for us for now. Thank you so much for watching. And goodbye from New York.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[13:00:00]
END
