Return to Transcripts main page

CNN Newsroom

Debate Flares As A.I. Rivals Warn Of "Catastrophic Risk"; Interview With Rep. Anna Paulina Luna (R-FL); Iran Reports Commercial Vessel Struck In Strait Of Hormuz; American Ben Shelton Loses Men's Final To Alexander Zverev; Pete Hegseth Pushed To Showcase Iran Rescue On "60 Minutes"; Democrats Trying To Prevail In State Trump Won Three Times; Driving Through Havana At Night As Blackouts Plague Cuba. Aired 6-7p ET

Aired September 13, 2026 - 18:00   ET

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

[18:01:08]

OMAR JIMENEZ, CNN HOST: Welcome to the CNN NEWSROOM, everyone. I'm Omar Jimenez in New York.

Artificial intelligence top of mind this week, with presidents and politicians weighing in after top tech CEOs agreed it is time to sound the alarm bells to ward off a possible A.I. catastrophe. President Trump today, though, didn't seem to be that concerned.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

DONALD TRUMP, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: We're leading China in A.I.. We're the most sophisticated country in the world. And frankly, I want to keep it that way because whoever wins A.I. wins. And we can put guardrails, we can do this and that. But I think you have a lot of negative forces that are bringing it up, that shouldn't be bringing it up, and they're bringing up things that won't happen. But whoever wins with A.I. wins. You know? It's an expression that I came up with. And it's true.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

JIMENEZ: But also three A.I. leaders said we must slow down the pace of A.I. development after several instances of agents jumping their guardrails. Former President Barack Obama also urging Democrats to put A.I. regulation front and center for the midterms.

Now, Congress is coming back this week, but lawmakers also clearly disagree on how to handle A.I.. Here's what Republican House Speaker Mike Johnson and Democratic House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries had to say this morning.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

REP. HAKEEM JEFFRIES (D-NY): We should take decisive action now so that we can slow down. As the CEOs have recently acknowledged, slow down the pace of development in order to protect the American people and ensure that A.I. is proceeding safely. REP. MIKE JOHNSON (R-LA): The problem is they all have a different

prescription on what they say the regulation is supposed to be. The problem is they're all competitors. Each one of them wants to maintain an edge over the others. And Congress is obviously less qualified than the people who are pushing this frontier to know all the ins and outs of it.

If we overstep it, I'm telling you again, Jake, it could be a national security threat for every American.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

JIMENEZ: So a lot to talk about here. I want to bring in Puck congressional correspondent Abby Livingston.

And Abby, look, we've got some Democrats calling this an urgent issue. My next guest, for example, a Republican, wants a special session. Can you just lay out the dynamics for us on this debate in terms of Capitol Hill right now?

ABBY LIVINGSTON, CONGRESSIONAL CORRESPONDENT, PUCK: Absolutely. I mean, A.I. has just skyrocketed in relevance over the last six months. And these calls from the industry saying this is an existential threat are certainly being heard throughout the political class. But what you've played out is that top Republicans who are in charge of the government right now are saying, we're going to be overtaken by China.

And then you've got Democrats saying that Mike Johnson should be having Congress in session, not just a week, but for the weeks in the fall, you know, to address this. But I -- you know, it's hard to see anything substantial moving in the next week because all anyone honestly cares about is the elections.

JIMENEZ: You know, Congress has long struggled to keep up with policy when it comes -- specifically when it comes to tech that's advancing really quickly. Is there any indication that this issue might be different?

LIVINGSTON: I think it's absolutely different. And this is one of the main charges against having such an older generation running the Congress. But what I think is going to jumpstart this on Capitol Hill is what jumpstarts everything, which is elections. And voters are very angry about A.I. and that is concentrated on the backlash to data centers. And I've even been told by political consultants that running A.I. driven ads as political -- for a political campaign is now signaling an alliance with the industry.

And that is just not sitting well with voters as it appears. And so if we start seeing members of Congress losing their seats and it can be traced to A.I., I think, in the lame duck, if not the new Congress, this is going to be a dominating issue.

JIMENEZ: I mean, are you seeing candidates talk more about A.I. on the campaign trail as we're getting more warnings here and as this seems to catch on in a much larger way?

[18:05:09]

LIVINGSTON: Oh, absolutely. And it kind of came out of nowhere. I mean, to be clear, cost of living is still the dominant issue, as is corruption.

JIMENEZ: Sure.

LIVINGSTON: But this, this has just exploded since about May and it's reckoning with local officials, city council people. Those are the folks who are feeling this the most directly. It's the federal politicians, the senators and the Congress people, who seem to have been lagging behind. And so this issue is not going away. And I think it's a real reckoning is coming to the Congress.

JIMENEZ: And, you know, you're talking a little bit earlier about this legislative week coming up, last one for the House before the midterms, and kind of the likelihood of whether we could actually see some A.I. legislation move. You -- as you laid out, you see the likelihood is low. But what options would be on the table here if someone were to try and push something forward?

LIVINGSTON: So there's certainly some legislation in the Senate. Senator Cruz and Senator Maria Cantwell are trying to come to agreements on some legislation. They're worried about biological weapons and cyberattacks and things like that coming from A.I.. And so -- but it's starting to fall along partisan lines. And it's -- a lot of it is, is that Senator Cantwell is worried that weaker federal regulations might undermine state regulations.

And so it's just a big giant mess. And it could -- something could get through, but it is -- I tend to not be optimistic about much passing in Congress right now, given how deadlocked both chambers are.

JIMENEZ: Hey, I won't hold you to anything beyond that. You're the one -- you're following this closer than I am.

LIVINGSTON: Thank you.

JIMENEZ: Abby Livingston, really appreciate you taking the time.

I want to talk more about A.I. and Congress' role in regulating it. I want to bring in Republican Representative Anna Paulina Luna of Florida. Sorry about that.

Congresswoman, thank you for your time. You know, you wrote last --

REP. ANNA PAULINA LUNA (R-FL): That's OK.

JIMENEZ: You wrote last you wrote last week on X that Congress needs to convene a special session to address A.I.. And yet, I don't know if you heard a little bit earlier, House Speaker Mike Johnson seemed to reject that idea in his interview on CNN this morning, advocating more for a meeting with industry regulators. Is that enough in your eyes?

LUNA: I think all of the above could be done, and I think we'd still be able to also focus on our elections. Right now, I'm currently working on a piece of legislation with Ro Khanna, but there's also been some other bills introduced by, for example, Rep. Gottheimer and Mike Lawler, Representative Ted Lieu and Nathaniel Moran. And so even though right now, obviously the elections are at the head, there are people that are focused on this.

But I do agree with the previous commentator's sentiment in that right now especially, specifically on the front of A.I., that Congress tends to lag because of I believe the generational gap that exists with some of the older members who might not fully understand it. Also, too, A.I. is not just a tool. It really is developing into a super weapon. And so something that Ro Khanna and I had actually discussed earlier, in addition to the legislation that we're working on right now, is not just discussing this with, obviously, industry leaders, which we've already begun those discussions, but also to, you know, in 1963, there's a limited test ban treaty specifically regarding nuclear weapons testing.

I think something similar is going to have to be signed globally with various world leaders, specifically on the front of A.I., but also understanding that A.I., you know, if we put a moratorium in place currently, China might not necessarily play by those rules. But also we have to ensure that there's a human interface and a kill switch to understand and realize that this thing could potentially go rogue.

I'm not necessarily a doomer. I think that there's some great advancements that are going to be coming from A.I., specifically in regards to medicine, but also, too, we have to take a measured approach on this. And so also something that Ro Khanna and I discussed was establishing a governmental agency similar to the Department of Energy that would specifically oversee this, obviously interfacing also with the Department of War.

JIMENEZ: You know, I was talking last night with tech journalist Jacob Ward. And one of the things he said was that we shouldn't underestimate the desire for credit among these A.I. CEOs in terms of how to actually pace the frontier, to use Dario Amodei's terminology there. But I wonder, from your perspective, do you -- should people who run for-profit companies like this be trusted to regulate themselves with this technology? What do you see as your role, as Congress's role in helping accomplish that goal?

LUNA: My main focus is ensuring that American citizens are kept safe. And I think that we do need to have the discussion specifically on what the liability looks like for some of these companies, also too ensuring that there are certain safety, for example, kill switches embedded.

[18:10:06]

Look, admittedly, I'm not an A.I. expert, but what I would say is that, you know, a lot of these people, you know, these tech CEOs or these tech, you know, oligarchs, if you will, the whole point is, is that we want to ensure that we're keeping our people safe. And in some of these, you know, studies and testings that have been done with A.I., you're seeing these systems start to develop their own language to communicate. They try to escape, they lie. And so it's not my job and position to hope for the best and do

nothing and sit on my hands. It's in my belief system that I think Congress needs to serve as, you know, looking at this, bringing people in and then also too ensuring that we're doing everything we can to keep the American people safe, understanding that this is a national security issue, and that we are going to have to, A, win the race, right?

We don't want to have to answer to an A.I. operated and run by China, but also ensuring that we're protecting humanity and we're protecting our citizens. And so I think that this is going to lead to a bigger discussion because I think the current system that we have in place is analog. There's a lot that's going to be going to automation.

JIMENEZ: Sure.

LUNA: Can our system handle that? Obviously, we need to have those discussions and it's more than just one person. It's going to take an all-hands-on-deck effort. And so I think that the bipartisanship of this is going to be very key in ensuring that it's being done correctly.

JIMENEZ: Yes. And, you know, you laid out the two different frontiers. There's the U.S. version, there's your role in Congress, and then, of course, what happens at the international level is a completely different frontier entirely.

You know, I want to ask you about something else while you're here because, if I'm not mistaken, on X, you were sharing a lot of clips of Jared Kushner talking about Ukraine today. You're on the House Foreign Affairs Committee. But I know you've also been against, just in the past, Ukraine receiving additional funding. You voted against the recent iteration of the Ukraine Support Act, for example.

But now that we're sort of, you know, we had Witkoff and Kushner over there, it seems to be some sort of push forward for the goal being trilateral negotiations here. What do you want the outcome of these negotiations to be?

LUNA: I think best-case scenario, there is a trilateral meeting that occurs between Putin, the president, and Zelenskyy, where they can agree to where there would be security guarantees, economic opportunity. Right now, what we're hearing is there's up to a $2 trillion trade deal being considered between Russia and the United States, and Jared Kushner had just actually recently stated that, you know, if Ukraine can agree to the territory request by Russia currently that there's massive economic opportunity, investment.

And admittedly, part of the reason why I didn't want to continue funding the war is because understanding that people are dying on both sides and that there was really, up until the administration came in, there was no efforts to actually lead out peace talks, to get it to stop. But ultimately, what I would say is that as having never voted for the security guarantees -- security for Ukraine, in that sense that if Zelenskyy does consider this, I will be the first person to try to do everything in my power to help and assist with trade deal negotiations and for that, because this war does have to come to an end.

Obviously, you know, we don't -- we're not pro-Ukraine, were not pro- Russia. We're simply pro-American and understanding that this is also having massive global implications as multiple leaders have now stated, by Zelenskyy retaliating and striking, you know, Russian oil refineries, it is increasing the price of oil, specifically diesel internationally. And so what I would say is that we just want, you know, there to be peace. That's the goal. That's the prize.

And for someone that has been obviously against funding the war since the beginning, understanding that we need to end it, I'd be the first person to champion an open and very, you know, successful relationship with Ukraine and Russia as well in order to get that done.

JIMENEZ: All right. I will point out, a lot of people criticizing Jared Kushner's characterization there in terms of, you know, if Ukraine just abandoned their lines and agreed to Russia, then, you know, yes, this would be over, which fair, might, you know, logically be correct. But it also means an American ally sort of just kind of lets Russia win.

Would you be comfortable with what Jared Kushner is laying out there if, you know, if it essentially means an American ally loses or backs down from Russia?

LUNA: Well, what I would say is that right now, Jared and Steve have been one of the few that have been actively engaging in trying to get an agreement for both the Ukrainian and the Russians that is a realistic proposal to actually end the war. And so that actually wouldn't just come, you know, without something attached that would greatly benefit the Ukrainian people. I mean, we're talking about trade.

We're talking about economic investment, but also too understanding that at the end of the day, you know, my position is that I want to do what's best for the American people.

[18:15:03]

OK, I'm not pro-Russia and I'm not pro-Ukraine in that sense. Ukraine, they may be an ally in the sense that we have, you know, open discussions with them regularly. However, they actively chose to not join NATO when they had the opportunity. And so unfortunately for that decision, that puts them into a different category. And right now, especially on the front of we could use that money elsewhere, whether it's this situation, whether it was Kushner really succeeding in the deal with Gaza and with the government of Israel, I think that we need to be in a position of pushing for peace instead of, you know, leading with Tomahawks.

And that also goes for, you know, me also hoping that the president is successful in really putting an end to what's happening right now with the Iran -- the Iran strikes.

JIMENEZ: Sure.

LUNA: I hope that the regime considers what the president has offered.

JIMENEZ: We didn't even have time to talk about Iran this time around. But, Congresswoman Anna Paulina Luna, really appreciate you taking the time. Thanks for being here.

LUNA: Thank you.

JIMENEZ: All right. Still ahead, President Trump suggesting the war with Iran could be over in the coming months as new attacks are reported in the Strait of Hormuz. We'll bring you some of those details.

You're in the CNN NEWSROOM.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[18:20:58]

JIMENEZ: There were several times last week President Trump suggested the war with Iran would end after November's midterm elections. Today, he went a step further, saying it could end even before then. But yet the power battle continues to control the Strait of Hormuz, this critical waterway for oil tankers.

Today, Iran says a commercial ship was struck in the waterway, killing one person. The U.S. hasn't commented on the reported attack. CNN, we should mention, has reached out to U.S. Central Command for comment.

But I want to bring in national security expert Joe Cirincione. He was an adviser to the State Department and served in the professional staff of the House Armed Services Committee.

And Joe, look, Oman was set to hold a meeting tomorrow with Gulf nations over the Strait of Hormuz. As we understand, it was just postponed. How are you reading this power struggle here?

JOE CIRINCIONE, NATIONAL SECURITY EXPERT: Thank you, Omar. A pleasure to be with you. I'm reading this as a war that's going to go on for some time. There's very little chance that this is going to be over any time in the next month, but not probably before the elections. It may well go on into next year. As "The New York Times" reported, Trump's closest advisers, including J.D. Vance and Marco Rubio, are warning that this war could go on to the end of his term.

And part of that reason is because the U.S. does not have a strategy for how to win the war or how to end the war. Winning the war is almost impossible. Iran at this point has all the cards. They're not eager to talk to the United States. They seem pretty happy with the position they currently occupy. They're escalating some of their attacks. As you can see, trying to attack U.S. Navy vessels, not just hit oil tankers, but directly hit U.S. Navy vessels, something they haven't been able to do yet but they're getting closer.

Their missiles are getting better. They have new missiles that apparently have maneuvering warheads that might be able to invade our interceptors. So I'm afraid that we're going to see an intensification of this war before there's any realistic chance of a negotiated settlement.

JIMENEZ: And let's talk about what was supposed to be the central aspect of the fighting here is the nuclear angle of all of this because that is your area of expertise. And analysts at CSIS reviewed six years of satellite imagery of the suspected Iranian nuclear site Pickaxe Mountain, and they found that there has been a clear surge in construction activity this year. What does that analysis tell you about Iran's thinking when it comes to their nuclear program? How are you looking at it?

CIRINCIONE: That Iran is determined to keep its nuclear program. That is an excellent report up at CSIS. And if you get a chance, viewers should go take a look at it. It's written very clearly. It shows you what we're talking about here. This is basically an underground facility that Iran has been constructing for many years, precisely because they were afraid that the U.S. and Israel could hit their other above ground facilities, or ones that were underground, but not deep enough.

This is very deep. This is dug into a granite mountain. We believe it's at least 100 meters underground. That means that no U.S. bombs can hit it. Not even our biggest 30,000 pound GBU bombs that the B-52s dropped on Iran last summer during the June attack. That means that they can safely conduct activities under that mountain and store critical materials under that mountain. And what we've seen since the June attacks is a pickup of activity.

Many more trucks, more facility, more equipment being brought in, security being tightened, defensive maneuvers being taken. For example, the tunnel, instead of being just a straight tunnel that goes into the facility, it has a U curve in it. So a U.S. cruise missile can't fly down into the facility itself. As far as we know, it doesn't have the same ventilation shaft problems that the U.S. exploited in the successful attack on Fordo last June. That is dropping a series of bombs right down a ventilation shaft.

JIMENEZ: Sure.

[18:25:02]

CIRINCIONE: So this is a very interesting facility. And I think Iran is counting on this to keep the core of its nuclear program beyond U.S. or Israeli reach.

JIMENEZ: And again, you know, this was sort of the core reason for a lot of the fighting back and forth and the focus at this point has been largely over the Strait of Hormuz and shipping. But this is the core of the issue.

Joe Cirincione, really appreciate you taking the time and laying that out for us.

CIRINCIONE: My pleasure. Thank you, Omar.

JIMENEZ: Of course. All right. We're also following sports on this football Sunday. There

was tennis going on as well as Ben Shelton. He's conquered every challenge so far at the U.S. Open. But can he win the men's final? We'll bring you that answer and talk about it.

You're in the CNN NEWSROOM.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

JIMENEZ: After two weeks, hard fought matches all the way, it comes down to the last two players left standing and the men's final just wrapped up at the U.S. Open in Flushing Meadows. American Ben Shelton putting up a valiant effort but falling to top seed Alexander Zverev in four sets.

[18:30:02]

I want to bring in CNN's sports analyst and "USA Today" columnist Christine Brennan, who joins us now.

So, Christine, this just happened. What are your initial thoughts?

CHRISTINE BRENNAN, CNN SPORTS CONTRIBUTOR: Omar, Ben Shelton gave it a great fight. And clearly the crowd was behind him and so was history. As you know, he was the first black American male tennis player to have made the final of the U.S. Open since 1972. He was playing on Arthur Ashe -- in Arthur Ashe Stadium. And of course, the man who did that in 1972 was, in fact, Arthur Ashe, who had won the 1968 U.S. Open.

So, Omar, the history, the meaning. Obviously, it was not lost on ben. It was not lost on his dad, who is black. His mom is white. He's biracial and he speaks to everything U.S. open and U.S. tennis has been, which is about equality for women and men for people of various colors, races, et cetera.. And so having said all that, it didn't happen. Shelton lost in four sets to Zverev, and he -- but he did win the third set and came back.

But then right away Zverev broke him in the fourth set on his serve so that kind of ended that enthusiasm and that -- you know, that moment for Shelton where he had won the third set to get back into the match.

And another thing I have to say is Zverev has two serious domestic violence allegations against him. One was looked into several years ago. And the ATP, the men's tennis association, did know -- did not punish him. And the other he settled out of court. So that is an important obviously storyline and footnote for Zverev as well.

JIMENEZ: Sure. And I know he denied some of the allegations and didn't admit guilt on the other. But important context nonetheless.

You know, for Shelton, you know, and obviously he did not win here. So it's, you know, you're still runner up, but you made it this far. Is he the future of American men's tennis? How do how do you see his trajectory here? BRENNAN: You know, Omar, I think so. He's 23. He turns 24 next month.

He is so strong. He's so powerful. He's graceful. He's intelligent. The way he speaks. He gets it. He's got it all. Frances Tiafoe, of course, he calls him -- Shelton calls Frances Tiafoe his big brother and they faced each other in the semifinals, guaranteeing that a U.S. man would make it to the final, even though, again, no U.S. man has won the U.S. Open since Andy Roddick back in 2003. So, sadly, the drought continues.

Tiafoe, several years older, a big brother like figure to Ben Shelton. They love each other. We'd love to see Tiafoe continue to improve. But as you know, that age gap of several years, five years, is significant. Shelton has all this going for him. And this was the first final he was ever in, Omar. So first grand slam final. So obviously nerves in the first set. He lost 6 to 3. You know I think it's very logical to look at this and say this is the guy. This is the young man.

We've seen so many great American women, Venus and Serena, of course, the Williams sisters being first and foremost. Coco Gauff now. And Ben Shelton I think is that guy that can take the mantle on the men's side.

JIMENEZ: Yes. And played even if it wasn't the final and unbelievable match against Carlos Alcaraz, I think. Fair to say, the match of the tournament really as you kind of go through there. You know, look, the U.S. Open when you look among the grand slams it's typically the loudest. It's the biggest stadium in terms of Arthur Ashe. And you know this tournament made a lot of headlines for a lot of different reasons aside from the tennis, including the influencer aspect of this, which obviously got a lot of attention and debate back and forth.

I wonder, as you reflect back on this tournament, what grade would you give it? How are you -- what are you walking away from this holding on to?

BRENNAN: You know, I've covered a lot of them. And it is, it's New York and, you know, it's set around the time of 9/11. In this case, it was the anniversary, the 25th anniversary. That is always linked. I was covering the 2001 U.S. Open, Omar, and then, of course, came home here to D.C. and then the next day the attacks occurred on September 11th of 2001. So it's always linked. And I love the way they handle that, and put, you know, have obviously memorialized it.

They had something on the court. You know, that's forever as it should be. You know, I think again, equality, a sport that gets it, that has figured out how to be inclusive and diverse and that Americans and the world celebrate that. The influencer thing, that is so New York, isn't it? Noise and distractions and confusion. I think they'll work on that to make sure that people aren't just snapping pictures and videos in the middle of people's points as we saw.

And then again, new stars coming up. This is a sport now, you know, today competing with the NFL, right? But I think it's a storyline that resonates for people. Ben Shelton obviously, you know, you had Coco Gauff getting close.

[18:35:06]

You know, there's so many interesting storylines. Young American athletes doing incredible things. It's a delight to cover them because they really are class acts.

JIMENEZ: Yes. Christine Brennan, always appreciate the time and perspective. Thanks for being here.

BRENNAN: My pleasure, Omar. Thank you.

JIMENEZ: Of course. All right. Still to come, the Pentagon's effort to push two service members to share their dramatic rescue in Iran with "60 Minutes." We'll talk about that reporting coming up.

You're in the CNN NEWSROOM.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

JIMENEZ: Multiple sources are telling CNN Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth personally pushed two airmen to take part in a "60 Minutes" interview despite their initial reservations.

[18:40:09]

The two crew members were in an F-15 that was shot down over Iran earlier this year, and Hegseth reportedly wanted the two to take part in a CBS report about their rescue. Only one ultimately agreed.

I want to mention CBS is owned by Paramount Skydance, which is trying to acquire CNN's parent company, Warner Bros. Discovery. But let's bring in CNN chief media analyst Brian Stelter, who joins us now.

So, Brian, can you just tell us about your latest reporting on this?

BRIAN STELTER, CNN CHIEF MEDIA ANALYST: Yes, this goes to show the lengths that Pete Hegseth is taking or going to in order to try to paint a more positive portrait of the Iran war and show off U.S. military successes. In this case, this F-15 was shot down back in April. Remember, it was a huge news story at the time. That rescue was so captivating. But we've heard very little about it, and we've heard nothing from the men who were involved.

So Hegseth wanted to have a broadcast with a dramatic retelling of that rescue mission. And that's exactly what he is getting through "60 Minutes," the most watched news magazine on American TV. He worked with CBS in order to orchestrate this. And of course, if you think about it, lots of news outlets, including CNN, wanted to interview these pilots to hear about what it was like behind enemy lines.

There was a hot pursuit for this interview. CBS came out ahead, in part because Bari Weiss and others at CBS were trying really hard lobbying to get the interview. But what's notable here, from our reporting with CNN's Zach Cohen and I, is that Hegseth was personally involved, encouraging these men to go ahead and do the interview. Ultimately, one crew member decided to speak and the other decided not to.

But there were concerns behind the scenes about the pressure that was these men were under in order to give interviews. And there were also concerns among some military officials about the risk of inadvertently revealing classified information about the rescue mission. So those concerns were heard. But Hegseth and his political appointees pushed hard to get this interview on the air. And now one of those men has spoken for the first time.

JIMENEZ: And we'll be seeing that story coming out very shortly.

I want to turn to another story you've been covering. The ongoing feud between the FCC and ABC, because this week, that fight hit late-night comedian once again Jimmy Kimmel, as he announced an interview with Texas Democratic Senate candidate James Talarico would only appear on YouTube amid some pushback from the Trump administration as he says.

So can you just walk us through what happened and the significance of this decision by ABC to only publish the interview on YouTube?

STELTER: Yes, and there's a political angle here because Talarico is one of the most important candidates to the Democratic Party right now. If he's able to flip Texas, it will be a earthquake in the political world. So Talarico is a very important candidate. He's of interest to lots of members of the media, including to Jimmy Kimmel, who is, of course, an avowed anti-Trump late-night comic.

So Kimmel wanted to put on the Democrat in the race, but not his Republican rival. And that can trigger what's known as equal time rules that are enforced by the FCC. Now, these rules go back decades and past FCC leaders have not enforced them in the way that Trump's FCC chair, Brendan Carr, has been choosing to enforce them. He has been using these rules to target ABC in particular.

And there's a lot of folks, including at ABC, who think Carr is doing that to punish ABC for its anti-Trump commentary on shows like "The View" and Kimmel. So you have this political weaponization of the FCC that is believed to be occurring. And we know ABC is in court with a first amendment lawsuit about that. When it comes to Kimmel, he was basically told, you can only show this on YouTube because if it airs on ABC stations, then the FCC might invoke those rules and try to punish the stations.

Now there's an alternative. The alternative would be to give an equal opportunity to Talarico's rival, to Ken Paxton. But Kimmel is not the kind of host that's going to want to put on a Republican like that. And so that -- it creates this situation now where the interview is only on YouTube.

And here's the thing, Omar. This is what always happens. The interview with Talarico that Kimmel did, it has gotten a lot more attention as a result.

JIMENEZ: Sure.

STELTER: So even though it was only on YouTube, it ends up getting a lot more views. It has 7 million views on YouTube, and that's far more than it would have had on ABC. So you could say it backfired and benefited Talarico in this case, you could argue the Democrat in Texas is benefiting from all this drama.

JIMENEZ: A dynamic that we've been watching for some time between Jimmy Kimmel and the FCC. And you've documented so much of it.

Brian Stelter, really appreciate the reporting.

STELTER: Thanks.

JIMENEZ: We'll be right back, everyone.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[19:48:55]

JIMENEZ: Democrats see North Carolina as one of their best chances to flip a Senate seat this November, but former Governor Roy Cooper, their candidate in the state, is warning the race is turning into a dog fight. He's facing Republican Michael Whatley in a battle that could help determine control of the Senate in a state President Trump has won three times. And this week, Trump himself is headed to the state trying to help Whatley's campaign.

CNN's Manu Raju traveled to North Carolina for a closer look at this critical Senate showdown.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

MANU RAJU, CNN CHIEF CONGRESSIONAL CORRESPONDENT: Roy Cooper is one of the top Democratic recruits in the country. Many Democrats believe that he will easily flip a critical Senate seat that is central to their hopes of recapturing the majority. But on the ground, the reality is a little bit different. Remember, North Carolina is a state that Donald Trump won three times. There has not been a Democrat who's won statewide as a Senate candidate there since 2008.

And Roy Cooper himself knows that the Democratic brand is damaged and that he's trying to separate himself from the national Democrats, trying to position himself more as a moderate, more mainstream candidate, trying to -- someone who can work across the aisle hammering Michael Whatley, the Republican candidate, on issues of affordability, such as dealing with the Iran war and dealing with tariffs.

[18:50:08]

But Republicans have been spending an enormous amount of money going after Cooper on the issue of crime. Cooper himself as governor had to cut a deal with civil rights groups that was ordered by the court that reduced the prison population, and that has caused -- been central to the Republican attack ads against him. Roughly $50 million on the GOP side alone will be spent between now and election day, more than almost every other state in the entire country, showing you that Republicans think they still have a chance to defeat Roy Cooper. I caught up with Cooper, and I asked him about the Democratic brand

and about whether his party's shift to the left could hurt him in a state like North Carolina.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

RAJU: And how damaged is the Democratic brand here in North Carolina?

ROY COOPER (D), NORTH CAROLINA SENATE CANDIDATE: No. I think that there are enough people in North Carolina who are skeptical of national Democrats, and that's why we have more success in electing Democrats as governor and attorney general and secretary of state than we do sending them to Washington.

RAJU: We've seen this shift to the left, particularly this election cycle. These Democratic socialist candidates winning in a number of primaries. Does that concern you?

COOPER: Well, I can work within the party and across the aisle with the other party. And that's what I've had to do here in North Carolina.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

RAJU: Now, remember, North Carolina is central to the Democrats' quest to recapture the Senate. They have to pick up a net of four seats. And North Carolina is in every single calculation. If they don't win North Carolina, that could all but end their chances of reclaiming power here, which is why Republicans hope to block that by pulling off an upset in North Carolina.

President Trump himself headed to North Carolina to campaign with Michael Whatley this week. But Michael Whatley himself has to deal with questions about affordability, questions about the Iran war, questions about tariff. I tried to press him on those questions. He sidestepped when I asked him directly about whether he's 100 percent behind Trump on those issues, just showing you how complicated those questions of affordability are in this critical campaign season.

Manu Raju, CNN, Washington.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

JIMENEZ: All right. Manu Raju, appreciate it.

Meanwhile, regulating A.I. is going to be a big topic on Capitol Hill this week. So how do lawmakers on each side approach it? I'm going to talk to a House Democrat on the Science, Space and Technology Committee coming up.

You're in the CNN NEWSROOM.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[18:56:48]

JIMENEZ: Cuba is facing its worst energy crisis in living memory and the U.S. oil blockade on the island nation shows no sign of easing up.

CNN's Patrick Oppmann took a drive through the capital of Havana at night, looking -- for a look, I should say, at a city in darkness, with exasperated residents enduring hot, sleepless nights without power.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

PATRICK OPPMANN, CNN HAVANA BUREAU CHIEF: This is one of the issues that a lot of the intersections, the traffic lights are no longer on anymore, and so it becomes very dangerous to drive at night.

(Voice-over): Here's what Cuba looks like as the island's failing energy infrastructure nears total collapse. Aging power plants with no access to fuel as the U.S. oil blockade turns the lights off longer and longer. Cubans have lived with power cuts most of their lives, but this is the worst they can ever remember it.

We stopped here because I'm actually shocked to see this. This is Havana's central part. We're surrounded on all sides by hotels. They're all in total darkness. We've arrived at where there's a blackout. You can actually look up and see the stars.

Taxi, taxi, taxi!

(Voice-over): Taxi driver Yasmani (PH) tells me there are few tourists to drive and blackouts every night, all night.

"How do I pass the time? I play dominoes or sit on our porch, and fan my daughter so she can sleep and go to school the next day."

Power is off now in most of Cuba most of the time these days. And Havana, a city famous for its nightlife, has become a city of shadows. As we drive around in the dark, the only large gathering of people we see are Cubans waiting in a bread line that is fast being depleted.

Well, the other thing here now is that life has just become more and more unaffordable. So if there's any food product that's on sale, people immediately get in line and try to get it because it is going to run out.

(Voice-over): Anger boils over in the nighttime heat.

"You wait for them to put the light on," he says, "and for them to take it away. There's nothing else to do. It's criminal to go to sleep without power and then wake up without power. It's too much."

Even if their leadership blames a crisis on the U.S. pressure campaign, many Cubans tell me they are furious at how the government distributes the little power there is.

So you can see we're kind of at the edge of where there's power and then you look over here and the power cuts out. This is what they call circuits. And so some people's power will be on and then you can almost look across the street and the power will be off. And the frustrating thing is it's not divided equally. (Voice-over): Cuban officials say they've been forced to prioritize

power for certain areas and industries as the U.S. wages what they call an economic war against their country. But as the U.S.-Cuba stalemate drags on and negotiations are at a standstill, regular people say they're the ones paying the price. A few blocks further on, we find residents playing dominoes under light provided from batteries. Blackouts now last more than 24 hours in this neighborhood, they tell us.