Return to Transcripts main page
Amanpour
Interview with Russia and Eurasia Program, Carnegie Endowment for International Peace Senior Fellow Dara Massicot; Interview with Former U.S. Director of the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency Chris Krebs; Interview with Puck News Financial Journalist William Cohan. Aired 1-2p ET
Aired August 03, 2026 - 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.
Ukraine keeps up its attacks inside Russia while it struggles to defend against missiles from Moscow. I'll speak to expert Dara Massicot, just back
from Kyiv.
And Israel strikes Gaza as questions remain over Hamas's agreement to give up arms. Jeremy Diamond joins us with more from Tel Aviv.
Then, sweeping cyber-attacks hit America's water systems. Why the evidence so far is pointing to Iran.
Plus, are we in an A.I. bubble? Walter Isaacson asks financial journalist William Cohan.
Welcome to the program, everyone. I'm Bianna Golodryga in New York, in for Christiane Amanpour.
A surprise attack on a Black Sea beach. A warning, this video may be disturbing to some viewers. Russia says Ukraine deliberately targeted
civilians, firing a drone at a busy beach on Monday. Local authorities say 40 people were injured and seven people were killed, including three
children. Ukraine has not yet commented on the deadly event.
Kyiv has been stepping up its long-range attacks inside Russia. Over the weekend, it once again launched drones at a warehouse belonging to
Wildberries, a company known as the Russian Amazon.
Meanwhile, Moscow continues to pound Kyiv with a massive missile attack over the weekend. President Zelenskyy said that his country managed to
intercept only one of the dozens of missiles targeting it due to a shortage of Patriot interceptors.
Dara Massicot is a senior fellow in Russia and Eurasia program at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace. She has just returned from a
research trip to Ukraine and joins us now from Washington. Dara, welcome back to the program.
I'm so curious to hear your insights following your recent trip to Ukraine. So, we'll get to that in just a moment. We'll also get to that image that
we saw of what appears to be Ukrainian strikes at a Russian beach there where there are a number of casualties.
I do want to begin, though, with what we saw over the weekend because there does appear to be consistency here with these ongoing long-range strikes,
the ballistic missiles that Russia keeps targeting towards Kyiv, other civilian populated areas. One of the 27 from President Zelenskyy says that
they were intercepted. And in President Zelenskyy's words, he says that is because there are no interceptors for the Patriots.
From your perspective, how does Moscow view this particular vulnerability, not what's happening on the battlefield, but this as it relates to air
defense for Ukraine?
DARA MASSICOT, SENIOR FELLOW, RUSSIA AND EURASIA PROGRAM, CARNEGIE ENDOWMENT FOR INTERNATIONAL PEACE: Well, this is a vulnerability that
we've been warning about for some time as global Patriot interceptor stockpiles have been treading over time. Moscow has unfortunately over the
last few months started using more ballistic missiles and hypersonic missiles against Kyiv and defense industrial targets.
At first, I thought they didn't quite believe some of the statements that were coming out of Kyiv that they were running low on interceptors. And so,
they did smaller scale test salvos, essentially. And now, we're seeing them execute 30, 20 ballistic missiles against Kyiv and its neighborhoods every
night. This problem doesn't have a solution that involves additional Patriot stocks. And I think it's time to consider other ways to reduce
Russia's launch capacity.
GOLODRYGA: So, then do you expect to see Russia take advantage of this shortage from Ukraine and continue these types of launches? And how many
ballistic missiles does Russia really have? Do we know in its arsenal?
MASSICOT: Yes. So, estimates range of monthly production from 50 to 65 or so per month. And Kyiv, unfortunately, is not receiving that type of
interceptor in return. And they've become very efficient over time at hitting Russian missiles, potentially even more efficient than the United
States military is in some cases. But the math is just not favorable when only relying on Patriot to intercept what Russia is increasingly going to
turn to.
GOLODRYGA: And Ukraine, President Zelenskyy has been adamant about one thing, and that is the need for more missile defense weaponry for years
now. And his most recent visit at the White House only reinforced that.
[13:05:00]
I'm curious, though, to get your thoughts on the sort of backtracking that we saw from President Trump really surprising many, perhaps even his own
defense companies here in the United States when he said that the United States would allow Ukraine to have the rights to make their own Patriots.
And he said, quote, "We'll show them how to do it." Then on Friday, when he was asked about that, he said, quote, "We have not agreed to this."
So, take out the politics. But is there really any other substitute for the PAC-3s at this point? Is there something that Europe could perhaps step in
and help Ukraine with?
MASSICOT: Well, the -- I think what was being discussed for Ukraine was the PAC-2, which works, but just slightly less efficiently. There is no
direct substitute that the United States has to provide to Ukraine that can substitute for Patriot. I think probably Ukraine's best bet, and this is
something they're working towards, is their own indigenous air defense capacity. That's still a ways off. Europe, I think, could fill a role in
the market that is is needing additional competitors to come into it at this point.
But none of these things, I think, are going to be available in time for what could prove to be a very difficult winter. Ukraine is considering
other options to try to degrade this capacity of Russia's, such as going after the launchers themselves to limit the number of ballistic missiles in
particular that are coming in. The cruise missiles and drones are mostly handled pretty efficiently.
GOLODRYGA: And I believe it's Raytheon that is the U.S. defense company that has been making the produces these PAC-2s and PAC-3s. Is there any
scenario where they could actually help provide the IP to Ukraine without the president's official sign off?
MASSICOT: I'm not sure about that. I think that they would probably -- because that is such a sensitive technology and there have been issues
other where -- excuse me, in other places of the globe where we can't do that. I think that would probably be too tricky for them at this point.
GOLODRYGA: Let's get to the images that we began this program with. And that is what appears to be a Ukrainian strike, though we haven't heard any
official announcement or response from Ukraine at a Black Sea beach resort there. A number are reported to have been -- a number of Russians are
reported to have been injured and killed.
You and Michael Kaufman, who is also a regular on this program, argued last month that Ukraine has now put Russia on the back foot because of these
types of longer-range strikes into Russian territory, Russian claim territory. Over the weekend, Ukraine struck a major oil refinery and
airfield housing Russian strategic aviation. And as we noted, the warehouse of Russia's biggest online retailer, their version of Amazon.
Ukraine's defense ministry says that this is something they're going to continue to do. Striking several logistic hubs as well in Crimea that we
have been talking about now for months. The sort of chokehold that Ukraine has amassed around that illegally annexed territory. President Zelenskyy
said previously that we are quite literally bringing the war back home to Russia.
Is that how Vladimir Putin is feeling it? And do you think he interprets this as perhaps an opportunity to really settle this war in earnest when he
has that kind of pressure on him?
MASSICOT: Well, I think there's two campaigns going on. One is the Ukrainian middle strike, which is covering all of occupied Ukraine up into
the Russian border and Crimea. And that's -- that campaign has been quite successful. It has really reduced Russia's ability to move freely along the
land corridor to Crimea. Logistics are impacted and will increasingly be impacted.
We do see that Russia is moving to develop countermeasures to that. So, it's on their radar. It is causing problems in the Crimea for electricity,
water, fuel, food. So, that that is an issue, I think, that has his attention.
The Ukrainian deep strike into Russia proper. This is the explosions that we're seeing on the refineries and wild berries. It is a young campaign. It
hasn't been going on for that long. A lot of those drones are intercepted, but some have very successful impacts. It is making the war visible and
palpable for Russian citizens.
But as far as I can tell, on the front line, the Kremlin believes that it can still achieve its objectives. And it is very comfortable with surging
forces, even though they're experiencing remarkable casualty rates right now, very high Russian casualty rates. The operations, unfortunately, do
continue in the Donbas.
GOLODRYGA: Yes. And your colleagues at Carnegie, Sasha Gabuev and others, report that Russia is losing some 30,000 men a month, recruiting some
27,000, and are preparing for perhaps a quiet mobilization by electronic draft notice in the weeks and months to come.
Can Putin actually pull that off this time around? There was a lot of reporting and speculation following the outrage that began following the
initial mobilization when this war just started. Has anything changed internally?
[13:10:00]
MASSICOT: Well, I think there's a couple of different considerations for him. I don't think mobilization ever officially ended. They've just been
doing it in a very quiet way, grabbing people and taking people in low numbers so that it's not noticed. Their recruiting campaign is still mostly
giving them the numbers that they need.
So, I'm seeing a few indicators that the Kremlin is asking the military to prepare some assessments. How much would you need? What would it take to
get all of these Ukrainian territories? But that a decision has not yet been made. So, it's on my radar. It's on Ukraine's radar.
I think a very large mobilization at this point, like we saw a few years ago, is not a requirement. The Russian front line doesn't have any gaping
wounds in it that it can't compensate for at this time. It would be a Kremlin choice to try to take more decisive action. And so, far, I think
everyone is holding and preparing for a decision that could come later this year, but it hasn't been determined at this point that I can tell.
GOLODRYGA: And the manpower advantage that Russia still has in this war, that's ultimately led to more and more pressure on President Zelenskyy, in
part leading to the upheaval that we saw with regards to leadership in his defense over the last few weeks, where he fired his top general, fired his
defense minister. That led to mass protests on the streets, probably the largest we've seen since the larger-scale invasion of 2022.
Talk to us about who Drapatyi is right now, as now the third top commander of this war, how he differs from his predecessors and what you learned
about him from your most recent trip.
MASSICOT: So, we were there in Ukraine and moving along the front during a very dynamic time in this leadership shift. I think we arrived the day that
former Minister Fedorov was relieved. Rumors were swirling on whether or not General Syrskyi would remain in his job and potentially take
retribution. But then towards the end of our time there, it was clear that he was going to be replaced and his replacements were being interviewed.
My understanding is that there is a sense of relief that General Drapatyi has the job. I've had the fortune to meet him before, and I find him to be
very impressive, both in terms of his previous battlefield successes. He has a great reputation among the soldiers. And most crucially, I think he
has a very good understanding and hands-on understanding of the role of new technology in warfare, like drones and A.I., but how you still need very
classical applications of power like infantry and artillery to hold ground. So, I think he's an excellent choice for this moment for Ukraine, and I
wish him luck.
GOLODRYGA: Part of what doomed Syrskyi was not only how he and many interpreted him as viewing too many of these soldiers as expendable. Again,
there are a lot of accolades and achievements that he deserves as well for handling this war. And he has many of his supporters. But those who were
hoping to see this change right now point to that. They point to allegations of scandals, torture in training camps, dozens of noncombatant
deaths. Does any of that change now? Can you actually make those changes mid-war?
MASSICOT: I think so, and I think it's important to talk about the cultural shift that's ongoing within the Ukrainian military as they try to
and are largely succeeding, I think, in my opinion, moving away from that Russian past and that Russian command style, which is often known for its
brutality and draconian control.
Syrskyi, of course, had many operational successes. He's had a long military career that he can be proud of. But there was a sense that he was
more in that old school type of model and that Drapatyi actively works towards a different model of trust up and down the command chain, mission
command, and increased empathy. And it's really having a positive effect on trust. It's helping reduce AWOL under his command in particular. So, I
think there is a cultural shift going on in the Ukrainian military, and I think he's on the side of moving towards a distinctly Ukrainian model.
GOLODRYGA: What surprised many was this sort of own goal that has been placed on the blame for President Zelenskyy for not foreseeing all of this
buildup over time within leadership in the military, that when the wind seemed to be at Ukraine's back and the world, including President Trump,
had been noticing it, that he was not on top of the scandals that were brewing and the tension within his own ranks.
[13:15:00]
You were just there in Ukraine. He is someone who typically has a pulse on everything involved in the country. What did he miss out on here, and is
that a sign of perhaps waning support for his own leadership at home?
MASSICOT: I think the use of own goal is exactly right with this one. This was a head-scratcher for me being there as an outsider. I think it was a
head-scratcher for many. Minister Fedorov was making headway in many different areas, improving procurement, developing relationships, even
enhancing relationships, for example, with Elon Musk.
So, it was just a very curious timing that it came to the head right now, and then within a few weeks, President Zelenskyy was in Washington asking
for support for Starlink extension over Russia. The timing was not advantageous. And I think, to me, as an outsider present in the country, it
seemed to me that it caught the authorities by surprise that so many people came out to the streets, initially in defense of Minister Fedorov, but then
over time, over the course of that week, the protests almost turned into more of an anti-Syrskyi type of protest.
I do think the authorities were caught off guard. They thought they understood a situation, and then the people in Ukraine weighed in on that.
And so, it's a tricky moment for Zelenskyy. Fedorov wants to return to his old position.
Politically, I don't think that Zelenskyy will be able to return him, but stranger things have happened. But right now, I think the acting defense
minister and General Drapatyi will be able to do a good job until this political matter is sorted in Kyiv.
GOLODRYGA: How important is the decision from Elon Musk on whether or not to honor that request about offering continued use of Starlink?
MASSICOT: Well, what it would do, it would give a little bit more accuracy and specificity to Ukrainian drones and other missiles that are going into
Russia. So, instead of essentially pre-programming things, they would have a little bit more control about where they're landing.
In my view, I think the biggest help for Ukraine to survive this winter is reducing the number of missiles that Russia can launch, specifically the
ballistic missiles. So, I think that probably was, I'm just speculating, but that was probably what was underneath the request.
GOLODRYGA: Yes, and the need for more interceptors as soon as possible. Dara Massicot, really appreciate your analysis. Thank you.
MASSICOT: Thank you.
GOLODRYGA: And do stay with CNN. We'll be right back after the break.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
GOLODRYGA: And now, Israel struck Gaza over the weekend. Airstrikes Saturday caused the highest daily death toll in weeks, according to
Palestinian health officials. Now, this comes as President Trump continues to push a breakthrough in the implementation of last year's ceasefire
agreement. On Thursday, Trump said Hamas militants agreed to disarm. But many questions remain.
Let's go to Jeremy Diamond in Tel Aviv. So, Jeremy, Hamas says that it agrees to the roadmap that was laid out on Friday but won't implement a
single step until Israel withdraws. It is tying now maintaining its heavy weaponry until there is any guarantee or path forward to a Palestinian
State. Israeli government says they will never accept that. Is there any version of a deal, of this deal, right now that both sides seem open to
agreeing to?
[13:20:00]
JEREMY DIAMOND, CNN JERUSALEM CORRESPONDENT: Well, I think one of the important things to keep in mind here is that a lot of the steps that the
Board of Peace, that the United States and Hamas are asking Israel to take at this very moment in order to allow the rest of this plan to move forward
are steps that Israel actually agreed to as part of the October ceasefire agreement.
And that has been why in all of these statements, whether it's from Nikolay Mladenov, the high representative for Gaza for the Board of Peace, from
U.S. officials on, you know, background calls with reporters, they are all talking about Israel coming into compliance with the Sharm el-Sheikh
protocol. That's where that October ceasefire agreement was actually signed. President Trump visited with much fanfare when that ceasefire
agreement was reached.
And one of the key things in that ceasefire agreement is the notion of ceasing fire. And over the course of the last nearly 10 months since this
agreement came into effect, we've seen near daily Israeli strikes in Gaza. The Israeli military sometimes says that it is thwarting imminent threats
towards its troops or towards Israeli civilians. Sometimes it says that it is going after terrorists who carried out the October 7th attack in Israel.
But the bottom line is that at this moment, what we saw over the weekend was an increase actually in Israeli strikes. And that's why we saw today
Nickolay Mladenov, the high representative for Gaza, meeting with the Israeli prime minister and urging him to stop those strikes, to come back
into compliance with that October ceasefire agreement, and to try and find a path forward for this deal to actually be implemented, one that would
lead to the steps of Hamas handing over its weapons.
But, again, that's another layer of complication, because the reaction we've seen in Israel, really across the political spectrum, is a sense that
this deal doesn't go far enough towards disarming Hamas, in part because you're talking about Hamas storing many of these weapons under a new
Palestinian transitional authority, with the supervision of this international security force and the Board of Peace. But many in Israel are
saying it doesn't go far enough.
GOLODRYGA: Yes, and who was actually stepping up to be part of this international security force? There are not many countries that have come
out and guaranteed that they would be part of this, and many of them said they won't do it until Hamas is disarmed. They will not be the ones that
will be coming in to disarm Hamas. Nevertheless, that was viewed as perhaps a road to some sort of agreement, and that's why there was optimism on
Friday about this.
Also, over the weekend, there appeared to be some optimism and another whiplash from President Trump, when he seemed to be just moments, hours
away from perhaps conducting what he himself described as the largest attack since World War II against Iran, only then to backtrack and say that
after being consulted by a number of Gulf countries, that it did appear that Iran was ready to come back to the negotiating table. Iran is speaking
a different version right now, saying there are no negotiations happening. President Trump is calling them duplicitous. Jeremy, what is going on?
DIAMOND: What's going on is a repeat of what we've seen several times before already over the course of this start and stop negotiations. We have
seen repeatedly times when President Trump has threatened massive strikes on Iran, only to ultimately call off those plans at the last minute because
of some purported movements on the diplomatic track. And then, what we later find out is that that movement on the diplomatic track simply wasn't
actually in the offing.
Instead, what seems to have happened is that the Saudis, in this case, and other Gulf allies convinced President Trump to walk back, maybe offering
him the promise of some movement on the diplomatic track. And then today, once again, President Trump is now complaining about the duplicity of the
Iranians, saying that he had received assurances about progress here and that now the Iranians are backtracking.
So, there are different versions of reality here in which the president and everybody else seems to be operating. And the result of that is that we are
stuck, it seems, in this cycle of threats to carry out big strikes, of diplomatic off-ramps that never actually materialize. And it's very
difficult to see how a path is actually found out of this repetitious cycle.
For the time being, the Pakistanis say that they are once again reaching out to Iranian officials, trying to get them to come to Pakistan for a new
round of negotiations. We will see whether or not that is fruitful. But for the time being, these two sides still seem very much just as deadlocked as
last week. And just because I'm here in Israel, it's also important to note that it seems like the Israelis were also preparing to join in on these
latest strikes.
[13:25:00]
And there have been some complaints in the Israeli media over the last couple of days about the fact that this is not the first time this has
happened and that it's impacting Israeli military readiness to kind of ramp up preparations for a big attack like this, only to have those plans called
off by the President of the United States at the last moment.
GOLODRYGA: Yes. And all the while, the Strait of Hormuz does not remain open for free traffic, as it had prior to February 28th. Jeremy Diamond in
Tel Aviv for us. Thank you.
Well, state and federal officials in the United States suspect that Iran may be behind multiple cyber-attacks on water systems. At least seven
states have been impacted so far. President Trump, for his part, cast doubt on Iranian involvement and blamed officials in one of the impacted states,
Minnesota, for the cyber-attacks there.
So, far, water supplies remain safe after automated operations were switched to manual mode, but concerns remain high. For more on this, let's
bring in Chris Krebs, who served as director of the U.S. Cyber Security and Infrastructure Security Agency until 2020. Chris, it's been a while.
Welcome back to the program. Good to see you.
CHRIS KREBS, FORMER U.S. DIRECTOR OF THE CYBERSECURITY AND INFRASTRUCTURE SECURITY AGENCY: Thank you.
GOLODRYGA: So, here we have the president saying that he does not think that Iran was behind these attacks. He specifically laid blame on officials
in Minnesota, though, that we know this targeted seven states, not just Minnesota. He said, quote, "I don't think there was an Iranian cyber-
attack."
You ran the agency that oversees this type of operation. What happens when the president contradicts or even questions ongoing investigations
conducted by his own intelligence agencies?
KREBS: It creates some complications for sure. And to be clear, all the evidence suggests that this is Iran. It's entirely consistent with prior
attacks the Iranians have launched. In 2023, they hit a water facility in Pennsylvania. In 2020, they conducted operations against Israeli water
facilities. And even going back to 2013, where they went after a dam in upstate New York.
So, it's entirely within their range of capabilities. It fits their fact pattern. My understanding is the Intelligence Community is fairly certain
that this is Iran, and that is what they're privately briefing to state and local election officials. Again, not a surprise. And in fact, FBI, CISA and
others released a report in April of this year that suggested that Iran was going to conduct and was, in fact, conducting operations like this.
But to your larger point, it creates some confidence challenges in the Intelligence Community. But, you know, at the same time, I do believe that
there's an ulterior motive here, perhaps, for the president as well. And that is he is creating -- or preserving, rather, his own decision space as
he's negotiating, if that's the right term, with Iran.
If he says this is Iran, then he has a much narrower set of options. In fact, he has political accountability and military accountability to go
after the Iranians and make them pay for it.
GOLODRYGA: So, that's quite an interesting charge. So, if that is the case, who ultimately benefits from that vagueness?
KREBS: Well, right now, I think the Iranians have established that they have an effective operation in place. What are they doing? They're
conducting a very low-cost, low-risk-to-them operation that is very noisy, highly visible in the United States, and reminding the American people that
this is not just a war over there. It's not just in the Strait of Hormuz. It's not just in the desert. In fact, the Iranians can reach out and touch
American citizens in their homes when they try to turn the tap on, and there may be a boil water advisory or they may lose service briefly.
So, the Iranians have some leverage here, and I think it's up to the American leadership to both remind municipal utilities what best practices
are, and that's taking these systems that the Iranians very easily hacked, I'll say, take them offline, update passwords, but also go after the
hackers for Iran and their Ministry of Information and Intelligence. Go after them, hold them accountable, and make sure that they can't keep doing
it, because in the meantime, they're going to keep doing it.
GOLODRYGA: You said that they were able to do this quite easily. I know that there has been war gaming going on for this type of scenario for
years. You oversaw something similar to this as well and have prepared for it. Why was it then so easy for Iran, if it is Iran, to accomplish?
KREBS: Yes. OK. We'll keep using the caveat, but yes, it's pretty clear it's Iran nonetheless. So, remember that in the United States, we're
talking about 50,000-plus community water systems, and many of them serve communities of fewer than 3,000 people.
[13:30:00]
So, in some cases, these are rural or not particularly developed communities, and they are, in some cases, rate-limited. They cannot charge
high rates, but then again, they're providing a critical service to their citizens.
And technology is something that requires a specific skill set to deploy, configure, and manage on a regular basis in a secure way. And so, there are
some competing tensions here, getting that service to the citizens, but doing it in a way that's efficient and that's cost-effective. Sometimes
cybersecurity, sometimes adequately deploying these things doesn't really come in in the cost-effective bucket. So, we do need to work on that, I
think, with federal grant programs out to these communities.
But the basics here were that these systems were deployed in a way that had these technologies, these components called programmable logic controllers,
and it's just a little device that can turn a valve on and off, as an example. They are connected to the internet because they're easy to access.
So, you want to be able to remote into these facilities, check on the status, maybe make some adjustments from a remote position, and that
contributes to making things a little bit more efficient, lowering the cost.
But sometimes they are deployed and configured in a way that uses the default password or keeps the default password in place, and as long as you
can identify what the brand and model of that device is via the internet and you have the manual with the default password, then bang, you're in.
So, that's all the Iranians did here. They scanned, they tested it, it worked, they locked them up. That's the attack. It's not complicated. It's
not high cost, very low risk. They're sitting there in Iran, probably smiling.
GOLODRYGA: Well, so to answer the question of why in 2026 is a small U.S. town facing foreign intelligence services alone, EPA Administrator Lee
Zeldin said that, quote, "There's a lot of individual responsibility on local water systems to protect themselves." Here's more of what he said.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
LEE ZELDIN, EPA ADMINISTRATOR: Cybersecurity is something that's not a new issue. It's been out there for a long time, and there's a lot of individual
responsibility, responsibility on part of companies of local water systems and infrastructure of local municipalities and also state governments. You
know, this is something that it's not just fought through our, you know, national military or our national intelligence network.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
GOLODRYGA: And in response to that, the mayor of a small town in Minnesota says that upgrades are just unaffordable for his community. Is that a
sufficient answer?
KREBS: It's certainly part of the solution. But to kind of give you the inverse of what Administrator Zeldin was saying, at the same time, you have
a geopolitical conflict that has municipal level impacts. And so, why are we as national leadership leaving it up to a small community in Minnesota,
Michigan or wherever else, the full responsibility of defending against Iranian attackers?
Now, I do think that there's more that we could do, again, at the state level, the local level to improve the security of these facilities. But the
feds have to be involved, particularly if you're poking, you know, kicking the hornet's nest over there. You've got to expect blowback. We've expected
that for years, that when you raise the temperature in the Gulf, the Iranians are going to try to hit us here.
So, we need to be doing more. And we're not. We're actually stepping back at the federal level on cybersecurity. The agency that I used to run, we've
cut headcount personnel counts by somewhere along the lines of 36 percent. The budget has been slashed. The authorities enabling CISA to share
information is on life support.
So, we've got to do more on the federal side to give the folks on the front lines that may be cash strapped, give them some advantage. It's not going
to be the silver bullet here. But again, this is a community fight. It's one of those all of nation efforts. And we're just not doing enough right
now.
GOLODRYGA: Yes. And it's important to note there's no permanent CISA director since January of 2025 at this point.
KREBS: Correct.
GOLODRYGA: Now, in response to those cuts, the administration is now touting some 600 new CISA hires and the House Republicans are boosting the
budget. Part of what's driving this is A.I. and concerns about that technology. So, A, do you view this as a win for CISA to finally be getting
more employees, even though they're officially leaderless? And what role does A.I. have here in terms of what concerns we should be looking towards
going forward?
KREBS: Yes, look, this is a recapitalization. This is not a boost to the top line. This is getting CISA back closer to where it was in January of
2025.
[13:35:00]
So, we should actually be well beyond those numbers right now, exactly for the reason you just mentioned, the fact that we do have cyber threats that
are increasing as a result of A.I. What A.I. is doing, open weight models that are coming out of China and elsewhere are going into the hands of
cyber criminals that have been reliant upon human powered attacks for years.
And many of them, it's English as a second at best language. And a lot of the tells in the phishing emails and the text messages you might get,
you'll notice that there are grammatical errors, there's syntax errors, things like that. A.I. fixes that.
So, what we've got to do is put people in a position to understand the threat, get information into the hands of the American people and what they
can do to defend themselves. But also, most importantly, work with our critical infrastructure providers, the vendors that are making the A.I.
tools and ensure that they're fully aware and they've got the right mechanisms, the right safety guardrails and guidelines in place so that
this doesn't become a more chaotic environment than it already is and no doubt will be.
GOLODRYGA: So, while water systems are under attack and A.I. hacking looms and it is only going to continue likely in the years to come, what lessons
are our adversaries learning in 2026, given that the president of the United States still seems so fixated on the election that you yourself said
was the safest and most secure in U.S. history in 2020 and the fact that you were fired over that. I know this is very personal for you, but just
from a security standpoint, what lessons does that leave our adversaries to take away from this?
KREBS: Every aspect of our society is susceptible to a cyber campaign of some kind, whether it's truly disruptive like what we're seeing with the
water facilities in Minnesota, or it's for more espionage purposes.
Just last week, Microsoft and ReliaQuest, another cybersecurity company, released a report about the Russian intelligence service, the SVR, that was
responsible for the SolarWinds campaign of about six years ago. They released a report that the Russians are back at it and they've compromised
hotel Wi-Fi networks, conference center Wi-Fi networks, and they're putting info stealers on devices and they're stealing information.
So, look, this is -- cyber is -- it's the ball game now. Every conflict for the rest of our lives will begin with some kind of cyber-enabled campaign.
Espionage campaigns will only proliferate. They will be further empowered, sped up. The scale, the scope of these things are going to be -- you know,
only going forward again because of A.I.
So, we have to be thinking much more deeply as a nation strategically about the investments we're making in cyber defense, the investments we're making
in software development, make sure it's secure by design and by default. But at the leadership levels, you can't cut your best assets in your
agencies.
GOLODRYGA: Right.
KREBS: It's happening at the FBI and the Intelligence Community as well. So, we've got to get right back to putting those people into a position
where cyber is a priority.
GOLODRYGA: Chris Krebs, great to have you on.
KREBS: Good to see you.
GOLODRYGA: Thanks so much for that important analysis. And we'll be right back after this short break.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[13:40:00]
GOLODRYGA: Well, artificial intelligence continues to dominate Wall Street. From concerns of whether big tech spending sprees will pay off, to
how a new reliance on A.I. in the workplace will affect the job market. Questions remain around whether A.I. is going to take away job
opportunities or create new ones.
But financial journalist William Cohan says that it may still be too early to tell. He joins Walter Isaacson to discuss.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
WALTER ISAACSON, CO-HOST, AMANPOUR AND CO.: Thank you, Biana and William Cohan. Welcome back to the show.
WILLIAM COHAN, FINANCIAL JOURNALIST, PUCK NEWS: Thank you, Walter. Nice to be here.
ISAACSON: One of the big questions of our time is whether A.I. is going to kill jobs. The A.I. apocalypse is coming. It's been four years since the
LLMs were first released and everybody said it was going to destroy it. And I kept thinking, well, technology always adds jobs faster than it kills
jobs.
The latest jobs numbers seem pretty good. Unemployment hasn't gone up much. 57,000 jobs added in June. What's really happening with A.I. and jobs?
COHAN: There's a very big debate going on, frankly, about whether or not it will eliminate jobs or create new ones. And you're right again that each
sort of technological innovation that has occurred in pretty much all of human history has resulted in some jobs being lost, but even more jobs
being created. I was recently in Antwerp at the printing press museum and that supposedly was going to ruin a lot of jobs, the printing press. And
next thing you know, it created a lot of jobs.
It may be a little too early in the A.I. game to know whether -- because adoption is, you know, happening, but not across enterprises quite as
quickly as you would assume. And therefore, jobs haven't been eliminated as much as might happen or new ones created. I think people are still trying
to figure out in enterprises how to use A.I. and incorporate it into their daily work lives as opposed to, oh, well, now we've done this so quickly we
don't need people anymore. I don't think we're quite there yet.
ISAACSON: One of the things I've noticed from my students I teach at Tulane and other young people, is that one place it has affected is entry-
level white-collar jobs, the ability of young people to get jobs. Is that reflected in the numbers?
COHAN: Well, I don't know if it's reflected in the numbers yet. I think like say, for instance, in Wall Street and law firms are still going great
guns. They are still hiring plenty of people. And yet, you know, I'm well aware of A.I. firms that cater directly to Wall Street firms. How can we do
what the junior people in Wall Street firms used to take them a week to do by hand or with computers, implementing numbers into spreadsheets? How can
we do that more quickly? And next thing you know, it turns out that can be done more quickly. It can take, you know, hours instead of days.
And then the question is, is what do you do? You need to check those numbers because guess what? A.I. makes mistakes. So, you always have to
check your work, Walter. Now, you have to check A.I.'s work if you're doing it that way. And then that potentially could leave more time for some of
the nuances and subtleties of some of these professional services businesses, like learning how to give good advice, learning what, you know,
legal niceties that clients need to hear or the subtleties of giving good advice. That takes a long time. Those are apprenticeship businesses.
And if you -- but to get to that point, to become like the Felix Rohatyn of investment banking again, you have to master the basics of spreadsheets and
financial analysis and valuation work that maybe A.I. will help you do more quickly and that you -- and let you get to the next level, which is where
all the, quote/unquote, "value is added and the big fees are made."
ISAACSON: Are we in an A.I. bubble?
COHAN: Well, what we're in is an A.I. valuation bubble, and we're in a capital expenditure bubble. So, there's way too much money being invested
in A.I. and A.I.-related things, whether it's chips or data centers, so at way too high valuations.
I mean, again, just look at SpaceX as one example. I mean, it was a $3 trillion company. You know, three weeks later, it's a $1.5 trillion
company. So, it was overpriced, you know, by 100 percent for a little while there.
[13:45:00]
And I'm sure privately, OpenAI and Anthropic and some of these others are also overvalued. So, the combination of those two things is not going to be
great for investors in the long run.
Now, do we need the infrastructure of A.I.? Do we need the data centers, perhaps? What are the effects? We opened this conversation by wondering
about the effects on the job and employment markets and the job market and what jobs will be created, what jobs will be lost. I think, again, we're
too early to know the effects of that.
But, you know, we probably do need the infrastructure. It reminds me, Walter, of the telecom buildout for the internet in the late 90s and early
2000s. Pretty much every company that went public and raised capital and spent that money on building out the infrastructure to build the Internet
went bankrupt. And investors lost a ton of money.
But we need the infrastructure. It's in the ground. We still use it today, and we're glad to have it. So, you know, there probably will be a shakeout
in evaluations, and money will probably be lost, just as it was in SpaceX, unfortunately. But the infrastructure, the technology, the advancements,
the way people are using it, all will be -- end up being pretty valuable and we'll take it for granted as essential, just like I think we do today
with the internet that didn't even exist, you know, much before 1996.
So, you know, technology has to advance. It has to be done in a safe way, hopefully, that doesn't hurt people and doesn't hurt to lose too many jobs,
creates more jobs than are lost. But there's no question that investors are going to lose their shirts to some extent because the valuations are just
completely out of control and too much capital is going towards it because of those high valuations.
ISAACSON: There's been a whole lot of tariffs slapped on. It's almost hard for me to keep up with it. But the past couple of weeks, major tariffs. Why
hasn't there been more inflation, or do you think that's coming?
COHAN: Well, I think there is persistent inflation. It's, you know, with the oil prices rising, the price of gasoline at the pump, tariffs are a tax
on American consumers, despite what President Trump may say differently. It literally is causing us to pay more for goods and services.
And so, I think inflation is persistently higher. And that's why I think three Fed governors at the meeting this past week said that they wanted to
raise interest rates. And it was a nine to three vote, which is very unusual, frankly. Usually there's some unanimity on this. And this is all
happening at the time when, of course, President Trump chose Kevin Warsh to be the new Fed chairman because he wants rates lowered.
Well, that doesn't seem to be happening. In fact, between the bond vigilantes and the dissenters on the Fed decision in this past week, I'd
say rates are going higher. And Wall Street is predicting that there'll be one short term interest rate hike before the end of the year.
ISAACSON: Some people have called this 2026 is going to be a year of the IPO. And we already saw the SpaceX one come about. I think you used a
technical term for the SpaceX IPO. You called it pure bonkers. What did you mean by that?
COHAN: Well, you have to look at it from different perspectives, from the company's perspective, from Elon Musk's perspective, it was, you know, a
bonanza, right? It wasn't bonkers at all. It raised $86 billion, the most ever raised in equity for a single IPO. And it was great for the Wall
Street underwriters, the 23 of them who split $555 million in fees, literally half a billion dollars, including Goldman Sachs and Morgan
Stanley, who each, Walter, got paid $111 million, which has to be, you know, one of the largest fees ever paid on Wall Street.
And so, from the company's perspective, the underwriter's perspective, all great. From their friends who are institutional investors who got their
hands on that stock at $135 a share when it was priced and watched it go to $225 a share after four days, they probably got out, they probably made
money. Who got left holding the bag? The same people that always get left holding the bag in these Wall Street IPOs that are overhyped.
[13:50:00]
Retail investors who finally probably got in at close to $225 or at the top or near $225 or at $225. And now, the stock is at $115. So, who got --
who's suffering those losses? Not the underwriters, not the company, not the institutional investors, but it's the people like you and me who bought
the SpaceX IPO, bought in all the hype. And now, we're holding it at $115 a share, half of what it was when they bought it. Ouch.
ISAACSON: In a recent column, you talked about all this and you said that the IPO process is designed to enrich Wall Street bankers. How come and how
can that continue to survive? Shouldn't that system be disrupted?
COHAN: There have been people who've tried to disrupt this for years, Walter. But Wall Street's a cartel and they like it just the way it is.
They are the ultimate interstitial men. They are there between the companies and the investors. And they, you know, design the IPO process.
They write the prospectuses, although A.I. might be helping. And they figure out where the demand is and they price the IPOs.
So, they are defending their turf and they love it. Why not? They're making --
ISAACSON: And wait. Explain how they get all that money out of an IPO.
COHAN: Well, they're the interstitial men. OK. So, they deal with the company. They write the prospectus with A.I. help. They, you know, shepherd
the process through a roadshow. And then, on the other side, they've got salesmen who are talking to institutional investors to find out how many
shares they want, at what price. And they then it goes into this black box that no one can ever see. And next thing, lo and behold, SpaceX will be
priced at $135 a share.
Well, the reason is probably priced at $135 a share instead of, say, $200 a share is so those institutional investors who are big clients of Goldman
Sachs and Morgan Stanley and the other big underwriters can get that first day pop. And it did. The stock went from $135 to $150 before the first
trade and then close to, you know, $200 at the end of that first day.
So, who benefits from that? The people who they can give that stock to at $135 a share while it rise up during that first day pop. And that's by
design. That's not an accident. That's not coincidence. That's basically how the IPOs are designed to perform. But that doesn't really do anything
except for the underwriters and the institutional investors who are their big clients. So, that's who benefits from IPOs.
Yes, companies get to often raise the money they want. But actually, they probably could have sold the stock at a higher price had they priced that
stock at not at $135 a share. And of course, retail investors who can't get it at $135 a share and have to wait till it starts trading and then buy it
at 200 are now holding on to something worth 115.
ISAACSON: President Trump's social media group, Truth Social and others, has come out with a plan that they're going to charge certain businesses
$100,000 per month in order to get early access to Trump's postings. And it seems to be part of a sort of transactional, almost pay for play type
mentality. What do you make of that? Do you think that that hurts the American economy in the long run, this type of transactional and some would
say almost, well, self-dealing?
COHAN: Yes. I find this extremely disappointing. If there were real -- if there was a real SEC and real SEC enforcement, this thing would have been
killed in the cradle because this is extremely offensive. It's -- you know, I'm not a lawyer, but it strikes me as downright criminal that the
president of the United States would be selling early for $100,000 subscription to investors who want early access to his information, which,
by the way, a lot of people have been telling me not that he's been charging for it, but that people have been trading on this -- his musings
early who people around him who have access to what he's thinking and what he's going to write, some of those trades have been showing up in the
futures pits.
I guess I get emails all the time from people telling me about these trades that are going on. They can't believe they're making people a lot of money.
And this is sort of making, you know, de facto what was already the door that, you know, people are trading on this information anyway, somehow. And
I guess now Trump's decided he wants to get paid for it.
We can only hope, Walter, that traders will be as disgusted by this as I am and won't do it or that they will pay for it and they'll lose money making
these trades.
[13:55:00]
Because, of course, you can never be sure which way things will go. And therefore, it'll be a product that will die on the vine.
ISAACSON: William Cohan, thank you so much for joining us again.
COHAN: Thank you, Walter.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
GOLODRYGA: And finally, a message of love in the face of hate. Over the weekend, the German city of Hamburg held its annual pride parade. But with
these celebrations came an extra level of security. It took place just one week after tragedy unfolded in Berlin, where an extremist attack left one
woman dead and dozens injured during the city's pride party.
In the face of it all, 300,000 people came together to unite as a community, all under one clear motto. Queer and solidarity take a stand for
a future without fear.
All right. Well, that is it for now. Thank you so much for watching, and goodbye from New York.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[14:00:00]
END
