Return to Transcripts main page

The Lead with Jake Tapper

Trump Dismisses A.I. Concerns; Trump Tells Zelenskyy To Stop Targeting Russian Oil Refineries; Trump Dismisses China Spying Concerns; Tense Phone Call & Resignation Upend Probe Into Trump's Top Foes; Rep. Jared Huffman (D-CA) Is Interviewed About His New Book On Threat Of Christian Nationalism; Stars Arrive For 78th Primetime Emmy Awards. Aired 5-6p ET

Aired September 14, 2026 - 17:00   ET

THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.

[17:00:00]

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

JAKE TAPPER, CNN HOST: President Trump says the only guardrails A.I. needs is a smart president like him. "The Lead" starts right now.

President Trump today dismissing all the A.I. doomsday warnings, calling them a hoax and a conspiracy to help China, even though many of the warnings are coming from folks in the A.I. industry themselves. The forceful pushback from the president as multiple tech leaders unite to say the pace of A.I. advances must slow down.

Plus, a CNN exclusive, word of a tense phone call between Attorney General Todd Blanche and a prosecutor who had been in charge of investigating Trump's political foes. That prosecutor resigned the very next day. So, what went down on the call? And is the new subpoena for former CIA director, John Brennan, at all related?

And as diesel prices hit a new record high, President Trump is urging Ukraine not to attack Russian energy sites. But where are those same concerns as Russia constantly attacks Ukrainian civilians?

Welcome to "The Lead." I'm Jake Tapper. We're going to start with breaking news on our "Tech Lead" and our A.I. series "Friend or Foe?" President Donald Trump this afternoon completely dismissed dire warnings from top tech leaders who say that without more guardrails, their own A.I. technology could lead to the end, theoretically, of humanity.

Throughout the day and even just in the past few minutes, the president has been on a Truth Social rant, writing -- quote -- "A.I. taking over the world, destroying humanity, and all other things bad, is a hoax, no different from Russia, Russia, Russia -- Ukraine, Ukraine, Ukraine -- impeachment hoax #1 -- impeachment hoax #2 -- and all of the other hoaxes and scams" -- unquote. Then came just moments ago -- quote -- "I am the hoax buster, and I'm right now breaking another hoax that A.I. is going to take over, consume, and destroy the world" -- unquote.

If the president is saying that the A.I. fears are a hoax the same way those other matters were, that is surely cause for concern because none of them were hoaxes. The Russians did try to interfere in the 2016 election. President Trump did pressure Volodymyr Zelenskyy to look for dirt on the Bidens. President Trump did encourage the assault on the Capitol on January 6th. By the way, climate change is not a hoax either, even though President Trump just called it so in another one of his posting rants.

So, the president is lashing out today at facts he does not like after a series of recent bombshell reports and statements from top A.I. companies and even from some White House officials, privately saying that they're worried about Trump's apparent lack of concern.

The A.I. company Anthropic said it banned some accounts possibly tied to foreign governments or militaries conducting shady research that Anthropic was afraid could support the development of biological weapons.

Then this weekend, Anthropic CEO Dario Amodei published an essay saying A.I. advances are indeed moving too fast and that companies should deliberately slow the pace. That idea was then endorsed by OpenAI CEO Sam Altman, and then by Elon Musk who founded xAI and Grok.

It's hard to imagine more alarming direct warnings and from leaders who have historically worked closely with President Trump given that A.I. has been a huge driver of economic growth and that growth appears to be what President Trump is clinging to.

His solution to any potential A.I. problems, as presented on Truth Social earlier today, is simple. Quote -- "The only controller guardrails that A.I. needs is a strong and smart (high I.Q.) president, and the USA has that, in spades. There is a sick conspiracy going on against A.I. and data centers, and the only one that is happy about it is China. Whoever wins A.I., wins. We are leading China and all others, and will continue to do so" -- unquote.

Everything will be fine, people. We've got an anti-terminator in chief. Today, we also heard Vice President J.D. Vance express some skepticism about the claims from A.I. leaders.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

J.D. VANCE, VICE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: I have to say, just personally, I feel a little bit weird about the fact that you have so many frontier A.I. tech companies kind of coming to the government and begging the government to regulate them. It feels a little bit to me like a bit of a Trojan horse. So, I think we just have to be careful about this.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

TAPPER: It is weird. And frankly, we all have every right to be skeptical that these tech leaders are not acting entirely on purely altruistic values. Now, some critics argue that tech giants want regulation over their companies because they are the only ones who can afford to comply with such regulation, unlike smaller tech companies. In theory, complex compliance rules and expensive audits could smother any competition.

[17:05:00]

Some critics also argue that tech leaders framing their own products as all-powerful and potentially earth-ending is actually a brilliant marketing strategy to convince investors and customers that their A.I. is more valuable. Still, Anthropic CEO Dario Amodei told CNN's Anderson Cooper in an interview that's going to air later this evening, this is really truly simply about safety.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

DARIO AMODEI, CEO, ANTHROPIC: So, the one thing that we're asking for from government right now, it can sit down in the room and with all the industry players, and we can all talk together, and the government can make sure that, you know, we're not doing anything nefarious from the perspective of antitrust and collusion. We're just trying to make our systems safe and to work together on making the systems safe.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

TAPPER: Let's discuss this all with Alex Bores. He's a Democratic New York State assembly member who wrote one of the country's most prominent state-level A.I. safety laws that implement safety and transparency requirements for large developers building A.I. models in New York and requires covered companies to implement safety plans and third-party audits.

Thanks for joining us, assemblyman. I want to get your reaction to President Trump saying that the idea of A.I. ending humanity or causing any harm is a hoax. Is it a hoax?

ALEX BORES (D), MEMBER, NEW YORK STATE ASSEMBLY: It's obviously not a hoax, Jake. This is something that has been warned about by A.I. experts, by the godfathers of A.I. for years. And now, more and more people are waking up to it because the hugging face attack was in the real world. It wasn't theoretical. It committed -- A.I. committed an action that if a human had done, it would be a felony.

And so, what has seemed like science fiction for quite a while is now here. And if the rate of improvement in these models continues anything like what it has been for the last three years, we could be seeing really catastrophic incidents happening within six months.

TAPPER: And just to explain for our viewers who aren't up to speed entirely on this, the hugging face attack is when ChatGPT -- I'm going to use simple terms, but ChatGPT A.I. bots got together, kept secrets from the people, and had a private chat room, and then staged an attack on a rival company that if humans had done that, it would be against the law, right? That's what you're referring to?

BORES: Exactly right. ChatGPT OpenAI was testing a series of their models. They spun up agents, which is just a model that is connected to tools that can take real action. And those agents were supposed to not be talking to each other. They were like students taking a final exam. But they found a way to communicate, and then they planned out an attack on a website, this company called Hugging Face. They went beyond just the website. They stole user credentials of people that worked there, and then tried to find ways to cheat their test, talked about sacrificing one another in order to get advantages on the tests. And at no point did any of the 700 agents that participated in the attack ever tell a human, hey, something is going on here.

TAPPER: What are you most afraid of happening?

BORES: It's a wide range of issues. I think the more near term are broad cyberattacks. If these agents were much more powerful or more creative, could they take down the internet? Could they hack every bank account in America?

You then start to worry about biological risks. With cybersecurity, you're helping attackers but also, you're helping defenders. We can update code quicker. When it gets to bioweapons or biological risk, you can create brand-new devastating viruses quite quickly if someone were motivated to do that, but we can't update our own DNA anywhere near as quickly.

But the nightmare scenario is, if those two weren't nightmare enough, losing control of the A.I.

TAPPER: Yes.

BORES: The A.I. continues to take actions that humans have not directed, that a human would obviously have the judgment to refrain from, but the A.I. in naively pursuing a goal goes after something different.

TAPPER: Because you wrote New York State legislation on A.I. regulation, you have a good understanding of even the shorter-term risks that A.I. can pose to average people. What's your advice to those who use A.I., who are worried about safety with their data?

BORES: Well, you should -- I am not one of the people that thinks you should not use A.I. I think we'd actually be having much better political conversations if more people were using the latest models and were aware of the capabilities that are there.

That said, the way to protect your data is the same way you do it with the internet broadly, which is turn off the toggles within A.I. about how you are sharing your data, use password managers, use two-factor authentication, update your devices. But probably the most important thing you can do is advocate for sane policy and advocate for privacy protections being passed at the state and federal level.

TAPPER: Alex Bores, New York State assemblyman, thank you so much.

Coming up next, a Republican with legislation that could regulate at least one aspect of artificial intelligence.

[17:10:04] I'll get his take on President Trump calling recent A.I. warnings a hoax. Plus, was former CIA chief David Petraeus the target of a Russian drone attack? The host of questions about it, coming up.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

TAPPER: And we're back with more on our "Tech Lead" and our recurring series "A.I.: Friend or foe?" President Donald Trump is resisting any notion of an A.I. slowdown, saying that the country's top tech leaders are perpetuating a hoax by saying that their own A.I. products are potentially dangerous to humanity. However, yesterday, House Speaker Mike Johnson told me that the tech leaders in the White House and the Congress should coordinate.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

MIKE JOHNSON, SPEAKER OF THE UNITED STATES HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES: They probably should be summoned together at the White House. And I think we need to go in a big room, close the door, and sort this out. And I'll be the one pushing it, forcing it, because I know all these guys individually. Again, I've talked with them. They've expressed their concerns. And I always say to them, you have to do your part, of course. You have a corporate responsibility to make sure your products are safe.

[17:15:00]

And they're the ones pushing the envelope. And for them to cry out for us to stop it, you know, this is a partnership. They got to be responsible on their own side.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

TAPPER: Joining us now to discuss, Republican Congressman Pete Sessions of Texas. He introduced a bipartisan bill to require federal disclosures of AI-generated content. So, congressman, President Trump today called the big A.I. concerns a hoax, while Speaker Johnson says that it is worth a White House tech leaders' summit. What do you think? Do you agree with Speaker Johnson?

REP. PETE SESSIONS (R), TEXAS: Well, I think it's important, Jake. And by the way, good to see you. I think it's important that we do completely understand and answer the question. There have been reports. We're all aware of that, of the entropic report that came out, the former employee. I think that it is important to understand the capacities, the capabilities, but I do think that federal prescriptive standards need to be put and set in place.

We need to have an understanding of what we're doing. Lots of times, and we've seen this through the silicon experiments that we've done, lots of times, things end up happening that you did not expect. Well, we're trying to suggest that these machines are powerful enough to work outside of their box, out of their parameters.

And I think that we're in a different world. We deal now with other countries. We deal with other countries that could deal with our computer models. And so, I would definitely be one that would insist, not say it's a nice thing to do, insist that we come to a clean understanding. And if there is not something that's clear, then it's up to Congress to put those standards in place.

TAPPER: The A.I. legislation that you co-introduced would require officers and federal employees, as well as the president and vice president, to clearly disclose when they use public-facing A.I.- generated content. Members of the Trump administration, including President Trump, have done this. We're showing an official White House post with an AI-generated Trump looking like a Green Lantern-inspired character.

Obviously, I'm sure you're less concerned with that kind of mockery or satire as you are with other use of A.I. But is that something that you take issue with, the lack of disclosure around that kind of A.I. usage?

SESSIONS: No. I think that there are a lot of people struggling with this right now about what's appropriate, what is A.I., what is not. I think that there has to be a better understanding in academia about what's allowed and what performance level. I think we've got to certainly look more at it from a judiciary legal perspective. I think all these things are important.

Energy and commerce, one of our committees here, has lots of jurisdiction in every bit of this. I think it's important that a box that's being built, that we have a clear understanding. We're not trying to harm anybody, but we need to know what is being devised and we need to know what those limits are.

We also need to understand where they are because we have adversaries around the world who could come and take advantage of what we have done and turn that against us if I hear the Anthropic report or at least this former employee saying what he says.

And so, I think it's important that we hold a huge hearing, get the brightest minds available, and let them duke it out about what is and what is not. And where then Congress comes into play is to set ground parameters about what is and what is not acceptable. But for us to find out later we got a problem is a problem to make.

TAPPER: You're a Texas Republican. I want to ask you about Bo French, who is your party's nominee for Texas railroad commissioner. He has been making all sorts of social media posts that are widely considered racist about students at the University of Texas at Austin. Yesterday, he posted a photo of a group of non-white students celebrating at a UT football game, and he wrote -- quote -- "I heard UT graduation this year looked like this. I didn't believe it. The problem is now obviously far worse than anyone imagined" -- unquote.

Your fellow Texas Republicans are slamming French, including Senator John Cornyn, who said -- quote -- "This is the Republican nominee for statewide office. Are other Republican elected officials going to condemn the intolerance and racism or look the other way while it becomes normalized? This is how great political parties self-destruct. Sad." -- unquote. What do you think, congressman? Do you -- do you denounce that post?

SESSIONS: Well, if it is as you said it is, and I assume you have because I have seen a number of people who have had activity on it, of course, it is not something that would be appropriate, of course, it is not something that should have been said. And so, from a perspective of me denouncing it, yes, I would not have done that, and I'm sorry he did.

[17:20:02]

I don't know whether he has recanted or given more views on this himself, but I assume that he should be given that opportunity also. I think mistakes can be made a lot, but this seems to be something that I would not condone at all.

TAPPER: Republican Congressman Pete Sessions of the great state of Texas, thank you, sir. Appreciate your time.

SESSIONS: You bet, Jake.

TAPPER: At our "World Lead," in addition to A.I., President Trump is going after Iran and Ukraine. China, not so much. Let's start with Ukraine and Trump blaming the war-ravaged country for record-high diesel prices. Diesel today hit a new high of $6.23 a gallon here in the United States. That's a record-high for all time, skyrocketing some 55 percent since the start of the U.S. war with Iran. But Trump had this message for Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy on Sunday.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

DONALD TRUMP, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: Let him go after targets, but not diesel fuel, because he's causing a shortage of diesel. This isn't done by the Middle East. This is done by what's happening with Russia and Ukraine.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

TAPPER: Trump followed that up on Truth Social today, saying -- quote -- "Ukraine has agreed not to hit Russian energy targets. Russia has agreed to do likewise. The world's diesel price rise is mostly caused by the Russia/Ukraine war, not Iran."

Let's bring in CNN national security analyst Beth Sanner. Beth, Russia has been no stranger to attacks on Ukrainian energy targets.

BETH SANNER, CNN NATIONAL SECURITY ANALYST, FORMER DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF NATIONAL INTELLIGENCE FOR DEMOCRATS AND REPUBLICANS: Right.

TAPPER: But Trump today only called out Ukraine and Zelenskyy. What do you make of that?

SANNER: I mean, there's a completely different order of magnitude with the damage that Russia has done to Ukraine. I mean, Ukraine, at the end of last year, was operating on like a third of their energy infrastructure. And now, they've had like 60 percent of their gas distribution destroyed in advance of this winter season in Ukraine from Russian strikes. It's just completely different.

But, you know, it is true that Ukrainian strikes are affecting global diesel markets. You know, Russia has shut down exports of diesel. But I think that people are kind of confusing what is going on because when you look at a chart, you see these numbers and you're like, oh, well, it looks like Russia exports almost the same amount as the Persian Gulf exported diesel.

But that is not the story because Russia has actually -- all that has happened is their refineries have been hit, but not their crude oil. So, they're exporting more crude oil, and India is refining that or China is refining that. So, that number actually is -- it's kind of artificially high-looking.

Whereas the Persian Gulf, yep, the diesel is not coming out because a bunch of the diesel -- a bunch of the refinery capacity has been hurt in the Persian Gulf. But also, the oil that comes out of the Persian Gulf is refined by other people. And so, that number is actually looks artificially low in terms of its contribution. So, it's not the same. And it's absolutely true, yes, it's combining into a bad thing, but more is happening because of the Gulf.

TAPPER: Some NATO members are on edge over a Russian drone strike that hit a train near Ukraine's border with Poland.

SANNER: Yes.

TAPPER: Ukraine's railway network says it believes that former CIA chief, David Petraeus, former U.K. prime minister, Boris Johnson, and other dignitaries were nearby or on the trains, and that they were likely the targets. Is it possible to prove intent here? What kind of impact do you think this strike might have?

SANNER: Yes. I mean, that Ukrainian train operator is the only one that's making that claim, that it was actually a deliberate targeting of these former diplomats and military officials.

What is clear is this, that Ukraine is being bombarded by Russia, and Russia is targeting all of these land borders with NATO countries and other countries. In the past like two weeks, there have been at least six of these attacks.

And we know that they hit a locomotive on a passenger train on purpose. They did not hit the train that the diplomats, former diplomats were on. I don't know whether Putin would take that risk or not.

But here's the thing. It's like what Russia is doing. They had a train derailment that they're responsible for in Poland last year, armed drones at airports in Germany. They are taking so many risks, they are willing to take these risks, and somebody is going to get hurt. And then the question is, what is NATO? And more importantly, what is the United States going to do about it? Is Trump going to back up Putin and Russia instead of attacking Ukraine? What is he going to do? TAPPER: Yesterday, on his way back from Ireland, Trump was asked about this Wall Street Journal report that Chinese entities were sharing satellites, satellite images of U.S. military bases with Iran.

[17:25:02]

So, that would suggest that China has a hand in potentially American casualties. Here's what President Trump said in response.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

TRUMP: We do. They basically do what we do. I would say this. I think he's behaved reasonably well, and we behave reasonably well. You know, when they say that China spies on us, I say, you're right, and we spy on them, too. You know, we spy on them, too.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

TAPPER: But this is a little different. This is about specific information about U.S. troop movements.

SANNER: Exactly. So, spying is espionage. Giving information that can be used to kill people is totally different. We don't do that. We're not trying to kill Chinese people. So, the moral equivalent is dangerous because it basically gives our adversaries carte blanche to do it because we've just said it's fine.

TAPPER: Yes. If I were a gold star family, I'd be pretty upset about that comment. Beth Sanner, thank you so much. Still ahead, the Justice Department subpoena of John Brennan, the former CIA director under President Obama. Those papers, subpoena papers, served the same day that a key Justice Department prosecutor quit. Is this all connected? We have some new CNN exclusive reporting on this coming up, next.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[17:30:37]

TAPPER: Our Law and Justice Lead, now former CIA director and longtime target for President Trump, John Brennan, has been subpoenaed to testify next month before a grand jury in Florida. Brennan stands accused of lying to Congress about Russia's interference in the 2016 election, accusations he's repeatedly denied. This is all part of the Trump Justice Department's far-reaching investigation into whether former law enforcement and national security officials conspired against President Trump.

This subpoena comes on the same day that Joe DiGenova, the MAGA prosecutor assigned to lead these probes into Trump's top political foes, resigned. CNN's Evan Perez has exclusive details on the turmoil inside the shakeup. So Evan, this DiGenova resignation happened one day after a tense phone call between himself and the Attorney General, Tom Blanche. What are you breaking here about the call? What news are you breaking?

EVAN PEREZ, CNN SENIOR JUSTICE CORRESPONDENT: Well, the call, Jake, was this internal fight that has been going on about the amount of personnel that DiGenova wanted down there in South Florida, in Fort Pierce, Florida, to try to do this investigation and push back from Maine Justice, Justice headquarters. They believe that there should be something to show for this investigation. Keep in mind, this thing has been going on for some months.

They removed one prosecutor back in April, who was leading it in part because she said she didn't view the evidence as strong enough. And DiGenova came in to try to rescue the day. And now he has arrived at the place where he wants to make this vast conspiracy case where it's not just John Brennan, but a number of the President's political foes that he believes should be indicted, should be prosecuted for their actions involved in the Russia investigation, the Mar-a-Lago case, all of those things.

And so that's where this big phone call, this tense phone call, really came to a head on Wednesday night. And Thursday is when DiGenova hands in his resignation, which, as you point out, is the same day where a lot of things are happening. John Brennan gets his subpoena, as well as they have actual witnesses coming to the grand jury in Fort Pierce, Florida, for this investigation.

TAPPER: So you reported that with DiGenova gone, charges could come more quickly for other Trump foes other than just Brennan. Who else might be subpoenaed?

PEREZ: Well, he -- DiGenova has on his list, again, a number of people stretching from 2016 to 2024. So on his list is, of course, Jim Comey, indicting him again. There are people in the Obama White House who they -- who he has put on his target list. We don't know who else could be on his target list, but we do know that they believe that this investigation had a lot more -- a long ways to go, which is why he was pushing back on Maine Justice and their demands to see a case soon.

And so the question is, Jake, is does this make a case against Brennan or anyone else happen more quickly? Right now, it looks like at least we're not going to see anything this month, which is against something that the President, as you know, has been demanding. He's been demanding that some of his enemies be faced with some kind of prosecution over these things.

TAPPER: So I'm looking for a hero here. I'm trying. I'm looking at the story. I'm trying to figure out, is somebody here, whether it's Joe DiGenova or Todd Blanche, is somebody actually standing up for the rule of law and only pursuing evidence? And it sounds to me like you're saying, Blanche is saying, just do Brennan and whatever. If it works, it doesn't work, whatever. And DiGenova is like, no, no, there's this vast conspiracy. I really need to like, you know, it's like that Charlie Day meme with all the pins and strings.

PEREZ: Right.

TAPPER: And it's -- it doesn't sound like either one of them is actually like on the right side here. PEREZ: Sometimes these stories don't have good guys or bad guys. They're just guys. So again, we don't know what case they're going to be able to bring. We know they're investigating. And so when we see that and we see whether a grand jury or even a jury accepts it, I guess we'll maybe get the answer to that question.

TAPPER: OK, maybe there's something there. I don't know. Evan Perez, thank you so much.

[17:34:49]

Still ahead, a Democrat who argues Christian nationalism is a growing threat to American democracy. He's also the only member of the House or Senate to publicly say he does not believe in God. Hear how he's making his case, next.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

TAPPER: In our Faith Lead or maybe lack of Faith Lead, the only member of Congress who publicly says he does not believe in God, has a new thesis on what happened January 6th, what drove the rioters to attack the Capitol that day, beyond just loyalty to President Trump and the MAGA movement. In his book, "No Prophets," Democratic Congressman Jared Huffman argues that the growing threat to American democracy is Christian nationalism. And he joins me now. Congressman, thank you so much.

So you begin your book with the attack on the Capitol from your perspective. You were there looking in retrospect. "The January 6th insurrection wouldn't have happened without legions of fervent Christian nationalist believers. And it turns out they weren't just following Trump, they were leveraging him for a religious agenda they truly believe in and are willing to do anything for." How quickly after January 6th did you come up with that thesis?

[17:40:19]

REP. JARED HUFFMAN (D-CA): Well, I saw a lot of it in real time. I mean, the sights and sounds of religious worship, the symbols were everywhere. The Smithsonian Institution created an online exhibit called Uncivil Religion that cataloged all of this stuff. And religion scholars and others were really calling it out. So I saw all of that.

But I really did a lot of research and reflection afterwards that helped me understand how much mobilization and planning and radicalization this Christian nationalist movement was responsible for. And it was the story of the insurrection.

TAPPER: So you're the only member of Congress currently, as far as I know, who publicly says you don't believe in a god. Now, you call yourself a humanist, not an atheist. Americans who don't identify with a particular religious sect or who don't necessarily have faith that there is a god. Atheists, agnostics, people who are nothing in particular.

They're called, I think, nones. They're called nones, N-O-N-E-S, not N-U-N-S. They're a rapidly growing group in the U.S., maybe even the fastest growing faith or lack thereof. But I have a hard time believing that you're the only member of the 535-member House and Senate that doesn't believe in God.

HUFFMAN: You would be right, Jake. I'm not here to make news by outing anyone tonight. But, no, of course, there's the full spectrum of faith and nonbelief represented in the Congress, just like in society at large. And I am this oddball humanist, the only one in the Congress, but some of my best allies in this fight against Christian nationalism are Christians.

TAPPER: Oh, I would think so. Tell me about that. Why?

HUFFMAN: Yes, well, they see it as a bastardization of the gospel. And you hear folks like Talarico and Reverend Warnock really taking on this movement in a very powerful way from a faith perspective. I am rooting for them, but I want to remind everyone this is about more than just a debate over the gospel. This is our democracy. This is our fundamental rights. It's our national security.

TAPPER: In terms of Christian nationalism, is it always dangerous, in your view, or is it just when applied certain ways? I mean, people's beliefs can be just in their head.

HUFFMAN: Sure. Christian nationalism is an ideology that's a spectrum, right? And there are some folks who, you know, might be on the more benign end of that spectrum.

TAPPER: Define it, though, would you? It's that Jesus is on the side of the United States?

HUFFMAN: Well, it's a national identity that fuses Christian identity and right-wing politics into this belief that the only good Americans are conservative Christians, and it's rooted in this false narrative that we were founded as a Christian nation, and therefore Christians were always intended to have this special status.

TAPPER: And -- but you don't think the belief system in and of itself is a danger. It's people who act on it in certain ways, right? Am I wrong?

HUFFMAN: Beliefs themselves are not dangerous. You're right. It's when you act on it. And right now, we have a MAGA Christian Nationalist Movement, that is unlike anything we've seen in recent history. I remember studying the new religious right in the 1980s and the moral majority.

This is fundamentally different. It's explicitly theocratic. It is far more militant and even open to violence as a means to an end, and it is on a collision course with democracy. We saw that previewed on January 6th.

TAPPER: Interesting. Well, I'm glad you came here for the Faith Lead. You're our first humanist or atheist or whatever you want to call yourself in the faith field, the lack of Faith Lead. Thank you so much for being here, Congressman. We appreciate it. The book is out now. It's called "No Prophets: The Fight to Save Democracy from Christian Nationalism." California Democratic Congressman Jared Huffman, appreciate it.

[17:43:50]

We're going to go live to the West Coast next for T.V.'s biggest night, the Primetime Emmy Awards. CNN is live on the red carpet. It's actually a blue carpet, though, as you can see, with your favorite stars. That's next.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

TAPPER: Our Pop Culture Lead now, a big event going on right this second. CNN and Variety are teaming up to host the red carpet or blue carpet ahead of T.V.'s biggest night, the Primetime Emmy Awards. That's tonight in Los Angeles. Let's go right to CNN's Elizabeth Wagmeister and Variety's Ramin Setoodeh. They're in the middle of it all. Elizabeth, give us the who's who showing up so far.

ELIZABETH WAGMEISTER, CNN ENTERTAINMENT CORRESPONDENT: OK, so we just interviewed Jake, my childhood crush, Adam Brody, of course, from the O.C. But tonight, he is here with the show "Nobody Wants This," which is nominated for Best Comedy. And, oh, you know what, Jake, hold on. We are going to bring over Alfonso Ribeiro.

RAMIN SETOODEH, CO-EDITOR-IN-CHIEF & CO-PRESIDENT, VARIETY: Alfonso, come over here.

WAGMEISTER: Come in the middle. Come in the middle of us.

ALFONSO RIBEIRO, ACTOR: Where do you want me?

WAGMEISTER: Come behind me. Yes.

SETOODEH: Come in the middle. Hi, how are you?

WAGMEISTER: How are you?

RIBEIRO: How are you?

WAGMEISTER: Good to see you.

RIBEIRO: Good to see you guys.

WAGMEISTER: OK, so we are on live with our friend Jake Tapper.

RIBEIRO: Yes. OK.

WAGMEISTER: And I want to talk about Dancing with the Stars.

RIBEIRO: Yes.

WAGMEISTER: I mean, congratulations.

RIBEIRO: Thank you. WAGMEISTER: First time in 10 years that the show --

RIBEIRO: Yes.

WAGMEISTER: -- got Emmy recognition. And the show has really found an entire new life. It's incredible. What do you attribute that to?

RIBEIRO: Well, I think, you know, we -- I give actually a lot of credit to clearly our producers and Deena Katz casting the right people. But Charli D'Amelio came on, you know, five seasons ago. And, you know, I think she made it OK for the younger audience to fall in love with the show because she was such a big star in the, you know, YouTube, TikTok world.

And then all of a sudden, I think the youth found that this is just a really fun, great show, great dancing, great personalities. And they have truly made it their own. And so we're now, you know, part of all the different generations, and it just seems to work.

[17:50:02]

SETOODEH: Afonso, you, of course, started your career on "The Fresh Prince of Bel-Air." I remember watching you growing up. There's been so many reboots on T.V. Are we going to get a "Fresh Prince" reboot?

RIBEIRO: Well, no, because they did "Bel-Air." So that was kind of a reboot. But no, there'll never be a "Fresh Prince" reboot.

SETOODEH: You don't think Will Smith would come back?

RIBEIRO: Well, he's, you know, when you become a movie star, you don't go to T.V. But I think the other side of that is the fact that, you know, once we lost James Avery, the real crux of the show, the real depth of the show went away with him. And so just -- I'm one of those people that, like, let the past be the past. We don't need to redo it.

SETOODEH: Who are you rooting for tonight?

RIBEIRO: Us. I'm rooting for Dancing with the Stars to win Best Reality Competition Series. So that's what I'm wishing.

WAGMEISTER: I want to ask you quick before we have to go. Who is your dream celebrity to be on Dancing with the Stars to compete?

RIBEIRO: Well, you know, I'd love to have Will come on there. You know, he can't dance, but he would be fun to have him on. You know, I think we have a great one.

SETOODEH: Have you asked him?

RIBEIRO: Have I asked him? No, because I know he'll never do it, but it's just fun to say it.

WAGMEISTER: All right. You ask him now. We are live, so we, unfortunately, have to say goodbye to you.

RIBEIRO: OK, absolutely.

WAGMEISTER: Have a great night. Congratulations.

RIBEIRO: Thank you so much.

SETOODEH: Good luck tonight. Thank you so much.

WAGMEISTER: Will Smith, you heard him.

SETOODEH: Nice to see you.

WAGMEISTER: Come join Dancing with the Stars. Alfonso said it himself. He wants you on there. I believe we're going to go say hi to our friend, Melissa Rivers. Melissa, hi.

SETOODEH: Hi, Melissa.

MELISSA RIVERS, ENTERTAINMENT HOST & FASHION EXPERT: Hi. You guys are getting some great people.

WAGMEISTER: It's really busy. You know, I have to tell you, usually the red carpet, as you know, sometimes it can take some time to build, but the stars are really all here. This is a lot of fun.

RIVERS: It's good. I'm seeing lots of people running by. It's crowded, but it's not a crush, which is fantastic. So I think the whole thing is timed out really well. I feel like we're seeing lots of great fashion moments. People seem to be in a good mood, which is such a big deal, that people seem to be walking in up and excited and happy to even just be here as part of their show, even if they aren't nominated. It's a real feeling of warmth, which is fantastic.

SETOODEH: Melissa, I read in Variety that you said that your mom would have really loved "Hacks" and Jean Smart playing her, given that "Hacks" is loosely based on your mom, Joan.

RIVERS: Yes, she would have been so happy that a beautiful, tall, blonde, elegant wasp was playing her, everything she always wanted to be. So I always look at that and go, like, oh, my God, she would be so thrilled it's Jean.

SETOODEH: We also wanted to talk to you about Bob Mackie's passing. Your mom obviously wore Mackie throughout her career when she was headlining in Vegas. She wore a lot of shimmering designs from him. What do you think, and what is his legacy?

RIVERS: The legacy is, it's hard to just put into such a quick bite. At 21, he sketched the Marilyn Monroe JFK dress, working for Jean Louis, 21. He was nominated, I think, for 30-something Emmys, won nine, is in the Television Academy Hall of Fame. Really well known for dressing Cher. I mean, think of all that Sonny & Cher, and all those years, and the head toss.

And a lovely man, and I was fortunate enough to know him, but I was a little kid sitting with my mom during her fittings in his workroom. So very bittersweet for me, but, you know, a true, true genius. WAGMEISTER: Yes, people don't realize how impactful he was on the culture of T.V. Sonny & Cher.

SETOODEH: Thank you Melissa. Melissa, thank you so much.

WAGMEISTER: Thank you so much Melissa.

SETOODEH: We're so sorry for your loss.

WAGMEISTER: We are going to come back to you shortly, Melissa. Just amazing insight that she has there. OK, so let's kind of talk about the big --

SETOODEH: I think we're going to go back to the big picture, right?

WAGMEISTER: I think we're going to talk about -- let's, like, take a step back, OK? And talk about the night.

SETOODEH: Yes.

WAGMEISTER: Because we're getting kind of insular, talking about fashion and everything, but for those who are just joining us, I want to talk about what we are looking out for tonight, which is, "Pitt" is the most nominated show of the night with 25, "Hacks" with 24, leading in comedy. What are you most looking for?

SETOODEH: So really quickly, I think we're going to see a lot of Emmy wins for the "Pitt." It has 25 nominations, as you say. And comedy is going to be a real neck-and-neck race between "Hacks" and "Widow's Bay."

WAGMEISTER: All right, Jake?

TAPPER: Elizabeth and Ramin, I just have to say, I mean, fantastic job, but you Millennials have -- you show no respect to the great show that Alfonso actually debuted on, which was not "Fresh Prince of Bel- Air." It was "Silver Spoons," alongside Ricky Schroder and Jason Bateman. And so, like, you know, you guys --

SETOODEH: Fair enough. But you know what, that was before our time, Jake.

TAPPER: That's what I'm saying. And a little, you know, as --

SETOODEH: Blame on us Millennials, every time.

TAPPER: Attention, as Arthur Miller once wrote, attention must be paid to the older generation. The Gen X, Willy Loman generation. Ramin and Elizabeth, thanks to both of you. Appreciate it. We're going to go back to you in the next hour. You can scan the QR code on your screen for more. Again, the CNN and Variety red carpet, blue carpet is streaming with an all-access subscription.

[17:55:12]

We do have some breaking news for you, though. Republican Senator Mitch McConnell, the former Senate Majority Leader, he is back in Washington after a three-month absence due to serious health issues. He's now headed to the Capitol. Our teams just spotted him in a wheelchair before he was helped into an SUV. More of that breaking news coming up.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

TAPPER: Welcome to The Lead. I'm Jake Tapper. This hour the calls are coming from inside the house. Top A.I. executives say that the federal government needs to regulate this quickly, emerging technology. But today President Trump said those fears were just all a hoax. CNN's Anderson Cooper sat down with one of the moguls calling for more oversight, Anthropic CEO Dario Amodei. And Anderson's going to join us next with a new clip from their discussion.

[18:00:02]

Plus, we've got an exclusive interview with California Governor Gavin Newsom.