Return to Transcripts main page
The Lead with Jake Tapper
Trump Says He Is Banning CNN, Politico & MS NOW From White House; Rep. Don Beyer (D-VA), Is Interviewed About Source: A.I.- Assisted False U.S. Intel Report "Almost Started A War"; Newsom Signs Executive Order In Effort To Govern Technology; U.N. Report: U.S. Strike On Iranian School May Be A War Crime. Aired 5-6p ET
Aired September 18, 2026 - 17:00 ET
THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.
TIM NAFTALI, CNN CONTRIBUTOR: And we are facing this respect deficit. And a cynic, I would argue, like the current president of the United States can take advantage of that cynicism and drive us apart. And that's what's happening.
KASIE HUNT, CNN HOST: Really important point to end on here, trying to press back against the cynicism and figure out a way to trust each other again.
All right, Tim Naftali, thank you. Thanks to my panel as well. "The Lead with Jake Tapper" starts right now.
[17:00:34]
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: This is CNN Breaking News.
JAKE TAPPER, CNN HOST: Welcome to The Lead. I'm Jake Tapper. Newsmakers never like being subjects of the news. People who bring you the news never like being subjects of the news. But we start with breaking news and our Politics Lead.
President Trump this afternoon in a social media post announced that he is going to ban CNN, MS NOW, and Politico from the White House, quote, "As a result of their constant reporting fake news," unquote. Moments ago, the president spoke about this ban from the Oval Office.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: How is this action legal and constitutional considering the First Amendment?
DONALD TRUMP, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: I don't think somebody should be allowed to come in and write fake stories. They're fake news, and that's why they have no credibility. I won the election like, nobody's ever seen anything like it. I get no -- they never write a good story.
I'll get one from him. I'll get one from him. I'll get a few of them. But it's sick. I mean, there's something wrong with a country that can allow people to write purposely negative stories. Now, if they want to write them, that's fine, but I don't have to let them into my -- into the People's House.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
TAPPER: Listen to that quote, there's something wrong with a country that allows people to write purposely negative stories. There's something wrong with a country that allows people to write purposely negative stories. Allows people to write negative stories.
In a statement, CNN said, quote, "CNN stands fully behind our White House team and their fair and accurate reporting. We have a right under the U.S. Constitution to do that reporting without hindrance or interference from the government. Should the ban, which President Trump threatened go ahead, it would be an illegal assault on that fundamental and constitutionally-protected right," unquote.
The Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press President Bruce D. Brown, released this statement, quote, "A ban like this would be flatly unconstitutional. The First Amendment is clear that once the White House invites in some journalists, it can't ban others because it doesn't like their reporting. This is textbook viewpoint discrimination and will be quickly struck down by the courts if challenged," unquote.
Now the president accused CNN, MS NOW and Politico of fake news. President Trump's definition of what is fake has been pretty clearly established as any stories he does not like. Today he praised Breitbart and Fox as the two media organizations that he thinks are fair. Those are two media organizations who others might call charitably supportive of the president.
One suspects that the real issue is not CNN or how CNN covers the news. One suspects the issue is the facts he does not like. Facts, stubborn things that are leading to rough forecasts for the president's party for November. Facts such as record high diesel prices. Facts such as voters in expressing concerns with their ability to afford to live in the United States.
Facts such as the president's abysmal approval, disapproval ratings. Facts such as Republicans on the campaign trail starting to publicly break with him. The president noted that this ban is only starting with CNN, MS NOW and Politico and could soon include other news media organizations. He also attacked the New York Times and the Washington Post as, quote, "fake" and quote, "disgusting." They are neither.
If there is any strategy to this, and it's not clear that there is, it is that the president would rather today's focus be about this unconstitutional tantrum than about any of the facts that we cover every day, prices, polls, the ongoing war, that is not going to happen. No matter how hard he tries, he cannot ban what I'm saying to your right now.
Now, face with coverage he did not like, Trump's Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth took steps to oust any non-sycophantic news media from the Pentagon. And the coverage did not change because the facts are what they are. A stalemate in Iran. At least 18 service members killed in the Iran action, if not more depleted munitions, unanswered questions about Iranian civilians, most horrifically, children killed. The Pentagon ban did not work.
This one will not either. So whether we're working inside or outside the White House, no matter who is elected and is in that White House, we're going to keep covering all of it.
[17:05:00]
And just to highlight how these petulant bans don't work, today on the show we will detail exclusive CNN reporting that says a U.S. intel report generated by artificial intelligence that turned out to be false nearly led to a military operation against China, one that thankfully did not actually happen. That's a story that the White House doesn't like. It's a story the White House doesn't want you to know. We're going to tell you all about it in a moment.
Now, the president did say that the ban can be lifted if we CNN, MS NOW, Politico, if we straighten ourselves out, if that means covering the president without adulation, that's not our job. And straighten, when you think about it, it's not really the term he wants. He doesn't want straighten. He wants the news to bend. He wants the news to warp around his views, his desires, what he wants covered about his desire for everything to be covered positively.
Straight is not what he wants. A term for what he wants in terms of news coverage. What's the opposite of straight? Crooked?
The president says CNN is banned from the White House. CNN teams as of now are still there, still reporting. So let's go to CNN Senior White House Correspondent Kristen Holmes. She's at the CNN media position on the north lawn.
Kristen, your badge still works. The president was complaining that we weren't covering positive stories like the states, all 50 states being able to get lower drug prices through Medicaid. I seem to recall you doing a piece just on that like in the 2:00, right?
KRISTEN HOLMES, CNN SENIOR WHITE HOUSE CORRESPONDENT: We did. And we outlined in straight facts of what it was. The fact that governors would be there, the fact that this was a participation program for Medicaid that was going to, according to the White House, lower drugs for people around the country. So and that again, like what we do here, as you said, is straightforward.
I do want to note, we still don't have a deeper understanding of what this means when the president says that he is banning CNN from the White House. He was asked very specific question about whether this meant that their badges would be taken away, our badges would be taken away. Would we not be part of the pool? The pool is the rotating networks or the rotation of the networks that go into the Oval, that travel with the president. He seemed to not quite understand the question.
He said the ban is it'll go as far as it can go. I don't want them here. I don't want them in my office. And then, as you noted, he said if they can straighten themselves out, he would love that.
He lamented what he said was negative press coverage, saying that Biden got better press coverage. He, in multiple ways said that this could be justified or constitutional, saying that he didn't believe that someone should be able to come in and write what he called fake news. Again, we still don't have a deeper understanding from White House officials or from President Trump as to what this ban looks like.
I will note we were not pooled today. We were never going to be pooled today. We are not pool over the weekend. We were never going to be pool over the weekend. So obviously, we are still waiting to see what this means, but we will be here until we do.
TAPPER: And if you don't report from there, Kristen, you will do an amazing job reporting from across the street or from right here in the studio. In fact, it's nice to have you here when we're able to get you.
Kristen Holmes, keep up the great reporting as always.
I want to bring in Conor Fitzpatrick. He's the chief supervisory attorney with the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression, or FIRE.
For people not familiar with FIRE, you guys get a lot of heat from the left and the right. You stand up for the principle of free speech, no matter whose speech it is.
Is this even constitutional? Is this going to pass even one judge, two judges, the U.S. Supreme Court?
CONOR FITZPATRICK, CHIEF SUPERVISING ATTORNEY, FOUNDATION FOR INDIVIDUAL RIGHTS AND EXPRESSION: It is flatly unconstitutional and it violates the First Amendment. You know, this is America's 250th anniversary. And one of the reasons we split from Britain is that they would not allow the press to criticize the king. But given today's statement from President Trump, it certainly seems like he has a lot more affinity for King George III than he does for Thomas Jefferson and James Madison.
TAPPER: Could you believe that statement he said? I mean, he has a knack for actually saying what he thinks. But like, we live in a country that allows people to report things that are negative. Yes, we do.
FITZPATRICK: And isn't it wonderful? How terrible would it be to live in a country where every newspaper and every reporter has to parrot what the government says? That might be fine in China and Russia, but it is not how we do things here in America.
TAPPER: I want to play this exchange because this was really important. A reporter asked the president about the chances of his ban succeeding when it is challenged in court, when it certainly -- it certainly will be. Take a listen.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: In the first administration, you tried a similar ban against CNN and it didn't survive a court challenge. What makes you think that this will?
[17:10:01]
TRUMP: Well, we'll see. I mean, it didn't -- we didn't have to take it too far because the reporter that you're talking about discredited himself. He became a joke. So he no longer was very effective. So it didn't matter.
No, but I think it's good. I think it's good to point it out, whether it survives or doesn't. I mean, I don't think a court should allow. Depends on the judge you get. To be honest with you, I don't think that a court should allow fake news to be written day after day after day.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
TAPPER: So first of all, let's remember that earlier he defined fake news as purposely negative stories. That's fake news to him. He wasn't talking about stories that are inaccurate. He started talking about stories that are not positive. Second of all, it depend -- he said it depends upon the judge, and he thinks it should be up to a judge what's reported. What's your take on that?
FITZPATRICK: Well, it is up to the First Amendment. And then, of course, ultimately the courts on the bounds of the First Amendment. But the bounds of the First Amendment are very clear. And this comes from a case from the D.C. Circuit just last year written by two of the more conservative judges on the D.C. Circuit, where they were very clear in the Associated Press case that in generally open areas to the press at the White House, the president cannot engage in viewpoint discrimination. And that's exactly what's happening here.
He is kicking out press organizations because he doesn't like what they have to say. And that is against the spirit and the letter of the First Amendment.
TAPPER: The president also suggested more to come. And he talked about the Washington Post and the New York Times, both of them, of course, fine newspapers. Before you respond to that, I think it's interesting, just as an object lesson, Jeff Bezos took over the Washington Post. Jeff Bezos made changes to the Washington Post, we believe, although it's never been, you know, established as clear fact to curry more favor with the president. It doesn't matter how much you kowtow to the president, whether you're ABC writing the check for $16 million or, I get all the figures confused, or CBS writing the check for $16 million or Jeff Bezos doing it, unless you are 100 percent positive, you know, the bill is going to come due.
FITZPATRICK: That's absolutely right. And there is historical pedigree for this, and it is a very shameful one. John Adams passed the Sedition Act in 1798, which tried to make it a crime to criticize him or his government. And it -- TAPPER: Locked up one of my favorite Founding Fathers, Benjamin
Franklin Bache.
FITZPATRICK: That's exactly right. The editor of the Aurora newspaper in Philadelphia.
TAPPER: Yes.
FITZPATRICK: And the passage of that act and the backlash to it led to the extinction of the Federalist Party. It's one of the most shameful episodes in the history of the United States of America. The freedom of the press and the First Amendment will stand tall because the First Amendment will be there to protect it.
TAPPER: I remember when I was a White House correspondent back in the Stone Age, during the first Obama term, the Obama White House said that Fox was not a legitimate news organization and they didn't ban them, but they tried to get them excluded from a pool interview with a -- with a newsmaker who was part of the administration. The White House Correspondents Association and all the networks said, no, you can't do that. It doesn't matter if you don't like what they report. We might not like what they report or say or whatever, but that's not what's going on. It will be interesting to see if Fox repeats that same kind of affirmation.
FITZPATRICK: One hopes that there will be solidarity within the news corps pushing back on these unconstitutional infringements of freedom of the press. Because if you allow it under one party and under one president, the next president is going to come in and do the same thing. The First Amendment mandates neutrality from the government towards the press. The government isn't supposed to like the press. The press isn't there to make the government happy.
It is there to inform the people.
TAPPER: Yes. Conor Fitzpatrick from FIRE, thanks so much.
And let me just also note, I know you guys get so much heat from the left and the right, and I just admire the job you do. Just keep doing what you're doing. Even when I don't like the speech you're defending, it's important to defend it. So thank you and thank everybody at FIRE for us.
FITZPATRICK: Thank you.
TAPPER: Appreciate it.
Much more of this breaking news, President Trump saying he's going to ban CNN and other news outlets from the White House. We're also going to have that brand new exclusive reporting that probably did not go over well with the Trump administration today when we learned that AI chatbots gave the U.S. military bad intelligence that led to a close call with China. We're back in a moment.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[17:18:12]
TAPPER: We're back with the breaking shocking news, President Trump saying he's going to ban CNN, MS NOW and Politico from the White House. And that's just to start. Let's bring in former CNN anchor and Washington bureau chief Frank Sesno. He's now director of Strategic Initiatives at the GW, George Washington, University School of Media and Public Affairs.
Frank, I can't remember any president that's ever liked us in the news media, but what's your reaction to this declaration today from President Trump?
FRANK SESNO, FORMER CNN WASHINGTON BUREAU CHIEF AND ANCHOR: It's dangerous. It's perilous, and it's an outrage. You know, as you said, presidents don't like what journalists do. But LBJ did not kick out the press corps during Vietnam. Ronald Reagan did not kick out the press corps during Iran Contra.
Bill Clinton did not kick out the press corps and very critical voices during the Monica Lewinsky scandal. Every one of these presidents understands that there is a contentious, difficult relationship, but this is fundamentally about accountability.
The difference is, I think, Jake, that this president looks at it completely differently and that this president doesn't need the press. He goes directly to the people through his social media and all the rest. So we've now got what essentially is open warfare, not just on the press, but on a free press and on the First Amendment.
TAPPER: You worked in Washington for years as D.C. bureau chief here in CNN. You were a White House correspondent. You had run ins, pardon me, with the White House over reporting. How were they handled in the past?
SESNO: Completely differently. You know, we had a remarkable and very dramatic call the day after 9/11 by Ari Fleischer, who was then the press secretary. He called all the bureau chiefs of all the networks and he started the conversation by saying, I understand that there's a Constitution here. We have constitutional right to free press and free expression, all the rest, and then made a request of the bureaus and the networks to not report on the whereabouts of the president, vice president, cabinet assembled, as he said, because of national security concerns. We had that conversation.
[17:20:11]
But it started with an acknowledgement that there was a constitutional guarantee to free speech and a free press during Ronald Reagan's presidency, which I covered as a very young reporter at CNN. Then Press Secretary Larry Speakes said flat out, look, you don't tell me how to manage the news. I won't tell you how to report the news.
It's a contentious relationship that's built into the system. Your previous guest talked about that. But there has been in the past a recognition that what goes with the territory is access and accountability. And that's what's changed and that's what's dangerous here.
TAPPER: This ban is going to go to court, obviously. How do you see that playing out?
SESNO: It's unconstitutional. And we've heard this from constitutional experts already. The White House is a public place. It's also known as the People's House. And just as Jim Acosta's, when he -- the White House tried to ban Jim Acosta, CNN correspond, in the first term, the judge said, no, you can't do that.
And so this will end up back there again if it goes to that point. And I would expect, certainly hope, that any judge who knows how to do their job and read the Constitution is going to end up in the same place. You can't ban coverage for viewpoints. That's been established previously. And I expect that will be held up in the future.
TAPPER: Frank Sesno, thank you so much. Appreciate it.
Now let's go to CNN's exclusive breaking reporting in our Tech Lead, reporting that may have played a role in President Trump's announcement today. We don't know. He said it was cumulative, but certainly he doesn't like this story. The U.S. military, the Pentagon had planes in the air ready to take action against China because of an AI generated intelligence report that turned out to be false. That's according to sources who exclusively detailed this alarming incident to CNN.
One source saying that the false AI report, quote, "almost started a war." Here is what we know about how this unfolded. This spring in the midst of the war with Iran, the U.S. intelligence report that turned out to be false claimed that a Chinese ship in the Middle East was transporting components of a nuclear weapons program. Sources say the U.S. military quickly made plans to intercept this Chinese ship and armed members of the U.S. military were preparing to board the ship while military planes circled in the air. It was only just before this operation that officials dug deeper into the report put together by a Special Operations Command analyst and found that the AI chatbot that the analyst had used inaccurately identified the material the Chinese ship was carrying.
This nearly averted disaster for the U.S. military falls on the heels of other dire AI warnings in recent weeks, with many AI creators and technicians and safety engineers saying that without a slowdown in this technology, AI could quickly spiral out of human control. Some believe it could even potentially lead to human extinction.
I want to bring in CNN Senior Reporter Katie Bo Lillis, who broke this story today. Everything I just said is because she learned it, not me, along with CNN's Zachary Cohen.
Katie Bo, first of all, congratulations on the scoop. It's terrifying. What more did your sources tell you about how close a call this was and what went wrong in this report generation process?
KATIE BO LILLIS, CNN SENIOR REPORTER: Look, extremely close, Jake, right? Like this was the word you just used. Terrifying is exactly the same word that one of the sources who described this episode to me used.
Look, this is exactly the kind of strategic miscalculation that critics of widespread AI adoption across the military have been warning that this technology could potentially augur, right?
TAPPER: AI hallucinates.
LILLIS: It is not always completely reliable. How do you determine that the information that it is providing you, that you are making decisions on is actually accurate? So set aside the concerns that we've been kind of consumed with here in Washington for the last couple of weeks, that AI is going to sort of jump the bounds of human control and become a killer robot and kill us all, right? The more immediate and pressing concern for military and intelligence officials that I spoke to in the course of reporting this story is that AI tools already in use across the government are going to provide information that for whatever reason isn't accurate, it's based on bad data, it's based on corrupted data, it hallucinates entirely the tool, hallucinates entirely. The analysts up and down the chain don't have the subject matter expertise to vet the information that they are being given by, you know, the AI tool, for example, and that the human being in the decision making chain is then going to make a catastrophically bad decision or potentially incredibly risky decision based on bad information.
That's the immediate concern.
TAPPER: Was this false report an isolated incident?
LILLIS: Not according to at least one of the sources that we spoke to. Look, part of the dynamic here, Jake, is that the federal government, across the government, but in particular the military and the intelligence community under Trump are really pushing the deployment of AI, right? Like, and if you're the military, the argument in favor of this is you want to be able to make better battlefield decisions faster, right, particularly if you do one day find yourself in a shooting war with a country like China, a near peer adversary, right?
[17:25:09]
The reality, though, is that according to a number of analysts, operators, officials that we spoke to, right, is that this is a really decentralized approach to deploying this technology inside the military and inside the intelligence community right now, right? There's no sort of one set of guidelines or principles, right, in terms of like, here's how we're going to use this, here's the tools we're going to use, here's the safety guards that are going to be put on them, right? That creates opportunity for advancement, for innovation. It also creates risk.
TAPPER: So I use AI just casually, not for any other reason. But it's interesting that, you know, if I'm doing a search for some topic, AI will say something and provide a link. And I hit the link and the original article, the source material does not say what AI said. Do they not know this? Do they not know that this technology isn't baked yet? LILLIS: Well, look, the way that this sort of ultimately got caught, right, like the way that this mistake was corrected was that you had analysts who have subject matter expertise in this area who ultimately looked at the underlying material that the -- that this lower level analyst, right, had used to generate this report that the chatbot had given to them. And they had the fuller context. They, with their human brains --
TAPPER: Yes.
LILLIS: -- our poor little puny human brains said, no, wait a minute, this isn't right.
TAPPER: Katie Bo Lillis, amazing reporting. Thank you so much. And welcome back from maternity leave and congratulations on your baby.
LILLIS: Thanks, Jake.
TAPPER: Joining us now, Democratic Congressman Don Beyer of Virginia. He's chair of the House Artificial Intelligence Caucus. Let's start with what we just heard from Katie Bo, because it's terrifying. What's your reaction to that story?
REP. DON BEYER (D-VA), CHAIR, ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE CAUCUS: Where were the adults in the room? I can't help but think that all the top generals, admirals that Trump has forced out over the last -- had an effect on this. If you purge the military of your best and brightest, this could be what happens. But also what Katie had said, too, that when you do widespread dissemination of people that don't know how to use it and don't -- and don't know that they can't trust it, that they need to look for secondary and tertiary confirmations of it, dangerous things can happen.
TAPPER: So I know Speaker Johnson disbanded Congress for the rest of the year because there's a lot of campaigning to be done, especially for his members given the headwinds, what can Congress do realistically about all of these AI tech experts and even the moguls saying there need to be a set of rules here, there need to be guidelines. Everything needs to slow down.
BEYER: Well, I think we can do is create that legislative body that brings it all together. We need something like the FDA or NHTSA or the SEC. You know, the tech experts are saying we should do it -- they should do it self-regulating. And they do make the point that they can bring in more people faster, pay them better. But without overall federal guidelines, you just need one to say they're not going to do it.
Right now Anthropic, Gemini, OpenAI and even Elon Musk say they would like to do this. But matters outside on the -- and we also have the open weight models, the ones that aren't like that.
TAPPER: Yes.
BEYER: You need to have some kind of governmental, U.S. government oversight and enforcement of the things we need like testing. TAPPER: So we know of some of these incidents that have happened. We know about the hugging face incident. We know about the six other incidents that I think it was ChatGPT just acknowledged. We know about Anthropic working on its next level. But let's say that there are 10, I'm making up the number, but it's like 10 or under incidents that are alarming.
How many do you think there actually are?
BEYER: Oh, many, many more. And I think your -- little by little OpenAI and Anthropic are reporting on the others. Maybe they didn't want to scare --
TAPPER: But they're not -- they're not legally required to though.
BEYER: No, but they should be.
TAPPER: Right.
BEYER: And they should -- you know, we have legislation -- there's a bunch of good pieces of legislation on the Hill right now. The challenge has been that Mike Johnson won't bring them to the floor. And of course the bipartisan letter that we led Democrats and Republicans said we need to come back, not go off on a seven week vacation to begin to pass this legislation, put it in place.
TAPPER: Before you go, I do want to ask you about your reaction to President Trump announcing that he's going to ban CNN, MS NOW and Politico.
BEYER: Yes, I just think it's another very dangerous step towards the end of our democracy and it frightens me. You know, I've been trying to encourage our voters that to make sure that these elections are fair. Many people worry this is the last chance they'll have to get to vote come November. But this is a huge step in the right direction.
This is what autocrats, dictators do. And by the way, I very much agree with you that it is tied to high inflation, rising interest rates a terrible war that was very foolish, the fact that so many young people can't afford to buy homes or have babies. You know, the country is a mess right now because of what he's done the last two years, and this is a distraction from that.
TAPPER: All right. Democratic Congressman Don Beyer of Virginia, thank you so much.
[17:30:01]
As these alarming instances of A.I. gone wrong can continue to be learned, the new call today to create a kill switch for A.I. And I'm going to speak with famed Grand Chess Master Garry Kasparov, arguably the first known person to lose their job to A.I. when he lost a chess match to a machine. Stay with us.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK) TAPPER: We're back with the latest in our series A.I.: Friend or Foe. As calls grow louder for regulation, California Governor Gavin Newsom, a Democrat, just signed an executive order that will convene a group of world leading experts to, he says, build a framework to govern A.I. technology.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
[17:35:09]
GOV. GAVIN NEWSOM (D-CA): This nation needs to get in the game. Washington, D.C. needs to do its job. If Congress again won't act, California will.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
TAPPER: Today's move comes as many of the A.I. industry's leaders have recently called for a collective slowdown. Our next guest disagrees and instead argues that we need to the U.S. should not take its foot off the gas, especially as China and Russia remain full steam ahead with their A.I. programs. Garry Kasparov just penned a new piece. It's titled "A Machine Beat Me at Chess. I'm Still Rooting for A.I."
Garry, who happens to be a world chess champion, joins us now. Garry, good to see you right now. So there's a lot of fear right now surrounding our future with artificial intelligence. You don't seem scared. Why not?
GARRY KASPAROV, CHAIRMAN & FOUNDER, RENEW DEMOCRACY INITIATIVE: No, we should be scared. It's a typical risk-reward situation with any new technology. And after I lost my infamous match, some say famous match, against Deep Blue in 1997, I've been arguing that it's not about us competing with machines. It's about cooperation.
It's impossible to rely on machines 100 percent because nothing is 100 percent in this universe. And machines can make mistakes, but humans can make mistakes. And actually, machines making fewer mistakes. And it's very important for us to find the right algorithm. A.I. is not a magic wand, but it's not a terminator. It's not a harbinger of utopia or dystopia.
It doesn't offer you a free pass to heavens, but it doesn't open the gates of hell. It's a tool we have created, and we have to excel on finding best ways to use it. And you point it out. So it's -- we can do whatever we want here in the United States, but China and Russia will not follow the regulations and restrictions that we're going to impose.
TAPPER: In your piece, you write, "We can pursue A.I.'s benefits without giving up the habits of thought that make us capable citizens of a democracy. The democratic world urgently needs a coherent, positive vision for artificial intelligence. That vision should be buoyed by A.I.'s enormous potential to improve the life of every person and grounded in the reality that authoritarian regimes will continue developing this technology even if free societies stop." Now, in this series that we're -- that you're part of right now, A.I.: Friend or Foe, we've covered a lot of the advances, the fantastic work, especially in the world of medicine. But what is the biggest risk you see if the U.S. slows down and China and Russia don't?
KASPAROV: Look, I wish we have another moonshot speech, you know, the famous speech of JFK in 1962 that challenged Americans to lead the way and to go to the moon. So and it's imagine if instead, you know, you would be talking about, you know, slowing down and just calculating risks and the benefits from A.I., they are incompatible to the benefits of moon landing for average person.
You mentioned medicine and countless opportunities for small businesses. Yes, there are risks, but this is, yes, that's a coin, you know, there's no free lunch. But I think the benefits when you look at us as humanity, it's a win-win. You're talking about 8 billion people. Yes, maybe, you know, just some people will suffer, you know, just, OK, I don't want to sound callous. Some jobs could be lost on the automation.
But think about, you know, the advices, medicine advices that we can offer to Africa, to Asia. So humanity always wins, though, again, it's not win-win-win situation. And point out, Russia and China will never, will never abide by the regulations. And it's a competition that as Ukrainian war shows, if you are behind, you are in trouble.
TAPPER: Before you go, sir, I want to get your reaction to President Trump saying he plans to ban CNN, "MSNOW" and "Politico" from the White House and other news organizations might also be banned in the future. It's a stunning move. What's your response?
KASPAROV: I was born and raised in the Soviet Union, the country where any criticism was criminalized. I left. I was forced to leave Russia facing imminent arrest because Vladimir Putin, you know, pushed Russia back to the Soviet days. Again, today you can go in jail for a tweet. And, you know, it's First Amendment, of course. It goes without saying.
And you're connecting it to the topic we're discussing now. I keep repeating that it's no matter what we think about A.I., humanity, humans still have monopoly for evil.
TAPPER: Garry Kasparov, thank you so much. Good to see you as always, sir.
KASPAROV: Thank you for inviting me.
[17:39:16]
TAPPER: Next, a new report from the United Nations says the U.S. may have committed war crimes in Iran and the Iranian regime may have committed crimes against humanity.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
TAPPER: In our World Lead, a new report from the United Nations Fact- Finding Commission concludes that there are reasonable grounds to believe that the U.S. committed war crimes by striking both a school and a sports complex on the very first day of the Iran war, February 28th. Now, The Lead has extensively covered the February 28th strike on the school in the southern Iranian city of Minab, at least 156 people, including 120 children and 26 teachers were killed.
Sources tell CNN it likely was targeted due to outdated intelligence indicating it was still part of a neighboring Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps naval base. The U.N. report also looked at a separate strike on the first day of the war that hit a sports center in the southern Iranian city of Lamerd, killing 22 civilians. It, too, was adjacent to an IRGC compound. In both instances, the report suggests the U.S. committed the war crime of, "Launching an indiscriminate attack resulting in loss of life or injury to civilians or damage to civilian objects."
Both the White House and State Department are dismissing the U.N. report. A White House statement says, in part, "The only party in this conflict that has committed war crimes is the Iranian regime, which has murdered thousands of its own people, killed Americans overseas, executed acts of terrorism in the Strait of Hormuz, and launched indiscriminate attacks against its neighbors in the region."
[17:45:04]
We should note that this same U.N. report also takes issue with the Iranian leadership finding Iran's gross human rights violations during the regime's violent suppression of protests this past January, in which thousands of Iranian civilians were murdered and imprisoned. Amounts to crimes against humanity, the U.N. says.
Let's bring in Karim Sadjadpour. He's a CNN global affairs analyst and senior fellow at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace. So, Karim, nobody really comes off looking good in this report, but the big question, do you think it will make any difference?
KARIM SADJADPOUR, CNN GLOBAL AFFAIRS ANALYST: I don't think so, Jake. What's unfortunate is that in this context, the United States inadvertently killed innocent Iranian civilians in the first day of the war, as you said, hundreds of Iranian civilians. It's a terrible tragedy. And there should be full accountability and transparency.
You know, what distinguishes the United States from other countries, authoritarian countries, is that we do have accountability. At the same time, Iran, the Iranian regime deliberately killed many thousands of its own citizens. So there's no equivalence there.
But as the United States, we open ourselves up to charges of hypocrisy when we don't acknowledge our own errors, but we cite the human rights abuses of others.
TAPPER: Yes, I mean, you're making a reference to the fact that the Pentagon has yet to release its report six, more than six months after the fact, about the strike on the school and how much more it would help the credibility of the United States if we just acknowledge this horrific accident. SADJADPOUR: Hundred percent. You know, there was a time in which, you know, America's interests were -- American values were considered American interests. And I'm reminded of Ronald Reagan. He used to say that the greatest force in the universe is the human heart's desire for freedom.
And I think we've really forsaken American values, certainly over the last few years. And that's a mistake, because I think ultimately, human beings everywhere want to live under governments that are accountable, transparent. And, you know, when we don't exhibit that ourselves, we are less of an example to the world.
TAPPER: Speaking of the human heart's desire for freedom, this report also goes into great detail about the Iranian regime's slaughter of freedom-seeking protesters last January, as well as the follow-up mass arrests, torture, executions of surviving protesters. We're now at nearly seven months into the war. What are you hearing from your sources in Iran?
SADJADPOUR: I think inside Iran, there's just been enormous demoralization. As you said, last January, when people took to the streets en masse, they were slaughtered. Potentially tens of thousands were killed. Many of those same people hoped that President Trump would make good on his promise that help is on the way.
But six, seven months into this war, it's really been a debacle for the people of Iran. It's strengthened the most authoritarian forces within that system. And the cause of freedom and democracy is much further away now than it even was before the war began.
TAPPER: Karim Sadjadpour, good to see you. Thank you so much, as always, for being here.
Back to our breaking news in the Politics Lead, President Trump says he's banning news organizations, specifically CNN, "Politico," and "MS NOW" from the White House. This was the President's explanation a short while ago as to what that ban might mean.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: What does that mean in practice? Are you taking away their badges? Are you banning them from the pool? Are you banning them from the Oval Office? What does that mean?
DONALD TRUMP, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: I still don't know what that means.
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: What do you envision the bans would like in prime media outlets?
TRUMP: Oh, the ban on the free press, right? A very simple ban. I don't want them in my office. I don't want them here. I would say the ban would go as far as you can.
(END VIDEO CLIP) TAPPER: The ban on the free press, he said. Let's discuss with Republican strategist Ashley Davis and Charles Booker, a Democrat running for Senate in Kentucky, who's, I think you're making your lead debut today. Is that right? This is your first time on The Lead.
CHARLES BOOKER (D), KANSAS SENATE CANDIDATE: It is.
TAPPER: Welcome to The Lead. Charles, did you ever think we'd hit a point where the President of the United States was banning news media organizations?
BOOKER: I wish I could say I would be surprised, but there is no bottom. I mean this is -- it's an attack on democracy. It is an infringement on the Constitution. And this administration has shown a disregard for the Constitution, the Second Amendment as well. And so they're avoiding accountability. They don't want to answer tough questions.
And people in Kentucky are tired of that, where I'm from. I'm seeing it in my own race, where my opponent doesn't want to debate me, doesn't want to speak about the issues that are impacting Kentuckians and why he's OK with the endless war, why Andy Barr is OK with tariffs breaking the backs of people. They're looking for results. They're looking for relief. They're not looking for a ban on CNN.
[17:49:59]
TAPPER: Yes, and we should note, I mean, I'm sure, Ashley, you heard the quote. I know you don't support banning the press, so I'm not even going to put you in the position of defending it. But he said in a, I wouldn't call it a rare moment of candor, he tends to say what he actually means, and people then try to, his defenders then try to pretend that he didn't just say what he means. But he said there's something wrong with a country when people are allowed to write purposely negative stories.
ASHLEY DAVIS, FORMER BUSH HOMELAND SECURITY OFFICIAL: Right. I mean obviously --
TAPPER: Do you think there's something wrong with a country that allows people to write purposely?
DAVIS: No, on both sides. And by the way, I do think there's a lot of talk of like, is the administration trying to not have accessibility? I mean, we all have to agree that the President talks to the press more than anyone we know.
TAPPER: Sure, of course.
DAVIS: But --
TAPPER: By the way, we've acknowledged that a billion times.
DAVIS: I think he texts you, right?
TAPPER: We've acknowledged it a million times. Yes, he does. I mean, just like he claimed that we didn't cover the drug prices deal, and we did.
DAVIS: Yes, and I'm not sticking up for this, but there's two things I want to say about this. One, it's going to bring out the base on the Republican side. It's going to like, they're like, yes, we don't like "MSNBC." We don't like CNN. And it's going to bring the base out on the Democrat side the same. But also, I don't understand why we continue to fall for this. There is a huge meeting at Camp David tomorrow about what the fate of the war in Iran with gas prices and everything else, Hormuz, like, let's go through everything else. The gas prices are so high, and we're talking about this.
And so I'm not saying we shouldn't be talking about it, but he's a brilliant at changing the conversation. So it's Friday at 3 o'clock. What's he do? He throws things against the wall that are like, super controversial.
TAPPER: OK, but let me let me play devil's advocate with you on that, Ashley, because the event, Charles, was about the president getting all 50 states as part of a deal to lower drug prices through Medicaid. And it's not that we're not talking about the Iran war. We're talking about this. It's we're not talking about that achievement, which is worth being covered. We're talking about this. And that, I think, would mean more to your people. You want to vote for you.
BOOKER: And that's absolutely right. Ultimately, it seems like with this administration, everything is a game. We are dealing with real issues. And when there are opportunities to find progress and work together, we need to celebrate them. And the challenges that we're facing, we need to talk about the rising gas prices. We're seeing gas prices in Kentucky over 58 percent since the start of the war. And diesel is more and more unaffordable.
We need to talk about those things as well. And that's a big reason why I'm seeing in my campaign so much more support from people who voted for Trump, because I'm actually speaking to the challenges they face and lighting, a lighting a path for a vision where we can all have more money in our pockets and be healthy. But this administration is showing a disregard that is really frustrating.
TAPPER: I mean, you have heard President Trump talk more about the structures he wants to build. Not you. All of us have heard more about President Trump talk about more, but the structures he wants to build, the ballroom and the arch and this and that and other Kennedy Center instead of no tax on tips, right? I mean, wouldn't you rather he be talking about that?
DAVIS: Well, absolutely. And no tax on tips, no tax on Social Security. I mean, yes, I'm on the symphony board, you know, for the Kennedy Center. I witnessed the meeting this week. I mean, yes, well, that's not what we should be talking about. But I don't know how, I mean, if you're a Senate Republican, if you're a House Republican, you see the frustration. It's not bubbling out maybe in the in the media.
But, yes, there's frustration that we have done some good things that aren't getting out there. But at the end of the day, I think that the gas prices and the diesel prices are taking the air out of the room. But now, you know, now we're talking about something else.
TAPPER: Speaking, you're running for the Senate from Kentucky. The retiring senator from Kentucky, Mitch McConnell, showed up on Capitol Hill this week. He didn't look that great. I mean, I'm glad he's alive. I'm glad he's functioning as he is. I don't know how well he actually is functioning. I mean, they weren't allowing video to be, you know, they didn't allow reporters to film it. What do you think about this whole situation?
BOOKER: Mitch McConnell needs to step down. I was the first in my state to call for transparency in what was going on with him. And none of this is about politics. Dealing with the medical health emergency is a real issue. I'm a type one diabetic, and I know how important it is to tend to your health.
But what we're seeing out of Mitch McConnell is a disregard for the responsibility he has as a senator. And it's clear he does not have the capability to do his job. And what we're needing is leadership that can show up for us, that can be accountable to us and not run from us and certainly not run from the issues.
And what's clear in Kentucky is people are frustrated with that status quo. Mitch McConnell is underwater 80 percent in Kentucky. Donald Trump is underwater in Kentucky. And recent polling shows that when people hear my message and my opponent, Andy Barr, who is the spawn of Mitch McConnell, we're tied in the polls. So people are looking for real change.
[17:55:05]
TAPPER: Not the literal spawn of McConnell. Just to be just to clarify, because we've had some issues in the past with the U.S. Senate. Anyway, thanks to both of you. Really appreciate it.
We're going to go back live to the White House where CNN teams are remaining right now, still reporting despite whatever ban the President put on Truth Social unconstitutionally. What is coming from that announcement? Well, we're all going to find out in real time back in after this.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[18:00:02]
TAPPER: The Lead tonight, in a stunning move this afternoon, the President made a sharp rebuke of the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.
