Return to Transcripts main page

Fareed Zakaria GPS

Interview with Jake Sullivan. Supreme Court Limits Judges' Power To Rein In Trump; Are Extinct Animals Really Being Brought Back? Aired 10-11 ET

Aired June 29, 2025 - 10:00   ET

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

[10:00:43]

FAREED ZAKARIA, CNN ANCHOR: This is GPS, THE GLOBAL PUBLIC SQUARE. Welcome to all of you in the United States and around the world. I'm Fareed Zakaria coming to you from the Aspen Ideas Festival.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

ZAKARIA: Today on the program, as the ceasefire between Iran and Israel holds and as Russia continues to pummel Ukraine with missiles and drones, I talked to President Biden's national security adviser, Jake Sullivan, about Donald Trump's foreign policy and how the world is taking it.

Also, the White House versus the courts. I talked to former attorney general Alberto Gonzales and former acting attorney general Sally Yates about this administration's norm shattering stances on court rulings, the Department of Justice and more.

Finally, the world was shocked in April when a company called Colossal Biosciences announced it had brought back the dire wolf after more than 12,000 years of extinction. Now the company wants to do the same for wooly mammoths. I asked CEO Ben Lamm whether they really are de- extincting these animals and whether that's a good idea.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

ZAKARIA: But first, here's "My Take."

The debate about the military effectiveness of America's airstrikes against Iran misses a more profound point. Brilliant battlefield success by itself will not ensure a nuclear-free Iran. The U.S. attacks capped a year plus long Israeli campaign that utterly exposed that Iran's axis of resistance was a paper tiger.

My own guess is that the American strikes were highly effective. Uranium enrichment facilities rely on elaborate machinery, steady power supply and structurally sturdy environments. All that is likely to have been compromised by the 14 bunker buster bombs that landed at precise targets. But even assuming the damage was severe, most experts I've spoken to estimate that the strikes would have set back Iran's nuclear program by one to two years. By contrast, the Iran nuclear deal, finalized in 2015, placed Iran's

nuclear program in check for 10 to 15 years. The Israeli attacks might actually have done more to delay Iran's nuclear program than the bunker buster bombs. In less than two weeks, Israel killed at least 14 of Iran's top nuclear scientists, even more high-ranking military officials, and destroyed around half of all its missile launchers, according to Benjamin Netanyahu.

Iran's air defenses are close to neutralized, which means it is now vulnerable to an Israeli or American strike at any time. But as the head of the International Atomic Energy Agency, Rafael Mariano Grossi, pointed out, Iran has the know how to rebuild. It appears to have moved large quantities of enriched uranium that if intact could easily be weaponized. That uranium cannot be bombed without potentially causing massive casualties, which means that the only way to ensure that Iran will not be a nuclear weapon state would be through negotiations and inspections. In other words, by signing another Iran nuclear deal.

Sometimes the pen really is mightier than the sword. For all his bluster about the American strikes, Donald Trump seems to understand this, and he is now calling for diplomacy. He's in a pivotal position. He has the political capital in America and Israel to make a deal. Iran can and should be asked to do more than was asked by the Obama administration in 2015. The Islamic Republic is in a much weaker position than it was then. In fact, than it's been in decades.

The demands should include real curbs on a nuclear program that currently provides only about 2 percent of Iran's electricity, but also curbs on supporting militias in the Middle East that promote violence and instability.

[10:05:06]

Iranians would benefit greatly if their government had to focus on bolstering its own people, rather than its revolutionary credentials. The crucial issue will be uranium enrichment. Iran, based on the nonproliferation treaty, says it has a right to enrichment for peaceful purposes. Israel wants them to have no enrichment whatsoever.

The Trump administration had initially proposed a regional consortium that could enrich uranium while being monitored and provide Iranians with the uranium that is too low grade to be used for weapons. But once Trump saw the success of Israel's attacks on Iran, he decided to harden his position. He should consider going back to his previous stand. Most experts I've consulted say that the regional consortium would be workable and safe.

Diplomacy that ended with a deal would have another major advantage. Whatever one speculates about Iran's future intentions, it did not have a weaponized nuclear program. U.S. intelligence has been clear on this time and again, and I've seen no contrary evidence. So the U.S. launched an unprovoked attack against a sovereign state without U.N. or even congressional sanction. That kind of unilateral military action should not be undertaken lightly.

It's easy to cheer when Washington does it, but how will we feel when China does it? How do we feel about Russia doing just that in Ukraine?

The rules-based international order is a mouthful. A strange abstraction that most people never think about. But we are living through the longest period of peace and stability in modern history among the world's major countries. That peace is what has allowed for the building of a global economy, of trade and travel, and a world in which nationalistic rivalries do not end up in a nuclear war.

Military action against Iran, even though it was unprovoked and unilateral, could be justified if it leads to a strengthening of nuclear nonproliferation. A warning to those who might cross the line. But that requires a political settlement of the issue in a way that is stable and acceptable to both sides, or else we merely have a ceasefire and America's unilateral military attacks could push further the emerging chaos of international life, in which other powerful states also decide to break the rules, always for what they believe are good and urgent reasons.

They will all justify their actions by saying what the soldier in Vietnam said, standing amidst smoldering ruins, that in order to save the village, he had to destroy it.

Go to CNN.com/Fareed for a link to my "Washington Post" column this week, and let's get started.

After the U.S. bombing of three Iranian nuclear facilities last week, a shaky ceasefire now prevails between Israel and Iran. There are conflicting reports on the extent of the damage done to Iran's nuclear program. Also unclear is whether recent events will compel Iran to take its nuclear program underground.

Here at the Aspen Ideas Festival, I sat down with a man who managed these problems for the last administration, Jake Sullivan, the National Security adviser under President Biden.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

ZAKARIA: Jake Sullivan, pleasure to have you.

JAKE SULLIVAN, FORMER U.S. NATIONAL SECURITY ADVISER: Thanks for having me.

ZAKARIA: What was your reaction to Donald Trump deciding to use American military power in the way he did over the last few days?

SULLIVAN: My main reaction coming out of these strikes is the question that gets asked so often in foreign policy. OK, then what? And the then what for me is that sitting here today after American military pilots conducted an operation with skill and effectiveness, we still need a deal because Iran still has, it appears, stockpiles of enriched uranium, still has centrifuge capacity, even if the installed centrifuge capacity has been destroyed or damaged or who knows what, and still has know-how and therefore still has the possibility of reconstituting its program.

And let me add also, Iran right now is not allowing the International Atomic Energy Agency to go to any of these sites, so the verification we had before, or we'd have under a deal we don't currently have.

ZAKARIA: Wouldn't it be fair to say that we were all surprised by how weak Iran and its proxies were?

SULLIVAN: You know, one thing that I've reflected on over the course of my four years as National Security adviser is there's been more than one instance where I think we've overestimated the military capacity of our adversaries.

[10:10:06]

ZAKARIA: Soviet Union, Saddam Hussein.

SULLIVAN: Russia, just before Ukraine.

ZAKARIA: Right.

SULLIVAN: We thought Kyiv had fallen a week because of the Russian military juggernaut, and Russia was exposed as having basically a corrupt and ineffectual army. And yes, I think the view from across the professional class of national security decision-makers, including intelligence and uniformed military professionals, was that Iran and its proxies had more juice than it turns out that they had.

ZAKARIA: So let me ask you very simply on the basis of having looked at this intelligence very carefully over the last four years, could Iran build nuclear weapons on a relatively fast timeline underground over the next year?

SULLIVAN: So I'm going to start with the caveat because any good intelligence person will always start with a caveat. And my caveat is that we still need to get the full battle damage assessment of what happened, and we need it to be unfiltered from political interference. We just need the straight dope from the American intelligence community and frankly from the Israeli intelligence community.

But based on what I've seen so far, it is probable that Iran still retains on its territory some stockpiles of enriched uranium, still retains centrifuges and the capacity to build more of them. Much of that was destroyed, but probably not all of it, and still retains the know-how. So if they woke up tomorrow and said we are going for it, it's not implausible to me that a crash military program could be conducted in as little as a year.

I've heard from some Israelis who say two or three years. You heard -- you saw this one DIA report that said as short as six months, but it's going to be in that zone if they went for it.

ZAKARIA: Let me ask you about Gaza but starting with something you know -- that you must get asked a lot and controversy swirls. The Biden administration is accused by many people of not having done enough to end a really horrific war in Gaza, in which thousands and thousands of innocent Palestinians seem to have died. What is your answer to that criticism?

SULLIVAN: Well, first, what is happening in Gaza today and what has happened since October 7th has been a God-awful tragedy. It was a tragedy on October 7th when we witnessed, the world witnessed the worst massacre of the Jewish people since the Holocaust. And it's been a tragedy every day since. A tragedy of innocent people in Gaza, innocent Palestinians being killed, a tragedy of people being denied basic food and medicine, a tragedy of hostages being held and their families not knowing whether they're going to ever see them again.

And that's -- if you work on these issues as a human being, as someone who has a beating heart, you have to feel the weight of that. And I felt the weight of that every day in office, I feel and carry the weight of that still. And I asked the question, what else? What more could we have done? And I'm open to a robust and good faith debate with people who have different views. One of the main arguments people made was, you should cut off weapons to Israel.

We did stop sending them 2,000 pound bombs, which we regarded as especially destructive of civilians, without being proportional in terms of their military targets. But one of the challenges we faced last year in cutting off arms generally to Israel was Israel wasn't just fighting in Gaza, it was being attacked by Hezbollah, by Syrian militias, by Iraqi militias, by the Houthis, and by Iran itself.

And so when you're sitting in the situation room, you have to contend with that and thinking, are we going to essentially end or sever or suspend our military relationship with Israel, or stop providing them the means to defend themselves? I worked every day as National Security adviser alongside our team, with Secretary Blinken and others, to push, cajole and demand from the Israelis the opening of crossings, the movement of humanitarian assistance.

And it was never enough. But I do believe that we staved off a famine that had long been predicted. And the difference between that and what we saw the last few months is the difference between an administration that actually was trying to work to improve the lives of the Palestinian people, even in these God-awful and horrific circumstances.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

ZAKARIA: We'll be back with Jake Sullivan for more. I will ask him whether Russia really is winning on the battleground in Ukraine.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[20:19:15]

ZAKARIA: We're back for the second part of my conversation with Jake Sullivan, who was the National Security adviser under President Biden.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

ZAKARIA: Let me ask you about another theater, which you were deeply involved in Russia, Ukraine. Does it look to you like the Russians have been gaining ground over the last few months in Ukraine?

SULLIVAN: They have been gaining ground very incrementally at unbelievable cost. But they have been chipping away at that front line in the east day by day, hour by hour, week by week. And President Putin seems determined to try to continue to do that.

Now, the Ukrainians have been brilliant in figuring out how to adapt their defenses to really slow that Russian advance to an absolute grind and a costly grind at that.

[10:20:07]

And they've done so with this combination of just sheer grit and technical brilliance. But President Putin, sitting there right now and saying, I don't really have an American president who's fully supporting the Ukrainians. I don't have an American president who's turning up the heat on me economically. And I'm prepared to continue to pay this cost in lives because I don't care about how many Russians die.

So he seems determined to continue this war. And I think the right answer for the United States is to surge more support to the Ukrainians and to dial up the pressure on the Russians, and that if we did that, it would send a powerful signal to Putin that time is ultimately not on his side. And that could get a better deal at the negotiating table. That could lead to a just and sustainable peace. That is what I believe President Trump should do.

ZAKARIA: Do you think under President Trump you are seeing a real withdrawal of America's support for its closest allies? I ask this because I now read in Australia, people are worried that the deal that you guys negotiated for nuclear subs, they're not going to get because somehow it's not going to quite happen. You know, that the Europeans, the Germans are worried that the Americans will not protect Germany so maybe they need British and French nuclear weapons.

To what extent? Because of the, you know, the chaos that Trump kind of creates and the, as you say, the various things he says, depending on whether it's Monday or Tuesday or Wednesday. How much of that is real and worrisome and how much of that is noise that we should look through?

SULLIVAN: When I was National Security adviser, we worked tirelessly with our allies in Europe and in Asia to come up with a common strategy to de-risk from China, to not be overly strategically dependent on China in critical areas, to push back together on China's economic abuses, and to be sure that we had a common strategy in that competition.

De-risking from China became the watchword of the U.S., of Europe, of Japan, Korea, Australia, others. Today, the main conversation happening in Europe and in parts of Asia, as well as we need to de- risk from the United States, and this is just a terrible tragedy. It is an absolute strategic own goal. It is something that we have done to ourselves, and it points up to me a deeper problem which you've actually written about extremely compellingly, which is if you think about the core strategic advantages of the United States, what are the things that really give us the capacity to lead, to solve problems and to deliver for our people? It's a few things. It's the ability to attract talent from around the

world. Lee Kuan Yew famously said China can count on one billion people. The United States can count on the talents of seven billion people, because we can get the best and the brightest from everywhere. It is a unique innovation ecosystem. That's a three-legged stool of government funded basic research, higher education and the private sector. And he's kicking out two legs of that stool.

It is confidence in our capital markets and our dollar. And he's throwing up questions about that. It's our alliances which Russia and China would kill for. And the Chinese are looking at how we're playing our alliances and saying, hey, you're doing our work for us. And then, of course, underneath it all is the basic bedrock of rule of law in our Constitution. So we can talk about Iran policy or China policy or Russia policy or anything else.

But at the end of the day, my real concern with where we are going is the way in which America's core advantages are being eroded by choice. And I think that we will end up paying the price for this if we don't do something to reverse course very fast. And that's the clarion call I think that we all need to make on behalf of this country that we all love, that we need to stand by these fundamental attributes because they are what truly make us great.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

ZAKARIA: Next on GPS, I'll ask two former leaders of the Department of Justice about the Trump administration's clash with America's courts. It's a clash that got much deeper this week.

Back in a moment.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[10:28:54]

ZAKARIA: Welcome back to this special edition of GPS from Aspen, Colorado. This week, the Supreme Court handed a major win to President Trump. In a case about birthright citizenship, a majority of the court ruled to limit federal judges' power to issue nationwide injunctions on executive orders.

Injunctions are a powerful legal tool that keep White House powers in check. Here's my conversation with two former heads of the Department of Justice, Alberto Gonzales, a Republican, and Sally Yates, a Democrat.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

ZAKARIA: Welcome, Sally Yates, Alberto Gonzales, pleasure to have you.

It feels to me like we have to start with what seems like a blockbuster Supreme Court ruling. The birthright citizenship case. And I just want to lay out, as I understand why it's so significant, and then hear from both of you, your reactions. What it seems the court decided to do was to take this case and rule

specifically on the procedural aspect of it, which is actually in some ways as important as the substantive one. The substantive issue was, can somebody born in this country be given citizenship automatically? Is that a birthright from -- because you were born in this country?

The procedural issue is, can a district court judge issue an injunction, a kind of stay order, across the nation? And what the court said was, no, you can only provide specific remedies for the person who sued.

What strikes me, Sally, is nationwide injunctions have been for -- you tell me. But for decades and decades, I think, a very important part of the way courts limited executive power. Am I right? What do you think is going on here?

SALLY YATES, FORMER ACTING U.S. ATTORNEY GENERAL: Yes. Nationwide injunctions are nothing new. Now, to be honest, presidents have always hated them, whether you're a Democratic president or a Republican, because they are used as an effort to rein in actions of the executive.

But nationwide injunctions also make sense. If you think about this, if a court has determined that the action of the executive is unconstitutional or unlawful, which is what the courts, all three courts to have considered this matter did, it really doesn't make a whole lot of sense that it's only unconstitutional as to the particular litigants who brought this.

So, that's been sort of the basis for this. It's not that the district court opinion lives on forever. There is an appeal -- an appeal process after that to the circuit courts and ultimately to the Supreme Court to decide the substantive issue. But that nationwide injunctions are nothing new.

Now, you can talk a little bit about Justice Barrett and her determination that they didn't exist back in the 1700s, and that was the reason why they -- it was not going to be permitted today. But it's not a new thing.

ZAKARIA: Alberto, what is your reaction to that ruling?

ALBERTO GONZALES, FORMER U.S. ATTORNEY GENERAL: Sally is right. All presidents, recent presidents, certainly have really chafed over the issue of nationwide injunctions. And I think for the layman, it does seem kind of weird that some judge, district judge in Pecos, Texas, issues a ruling and binds the United States of America.

So, in that sense, that's -- you know, to me, it seems a little weird, quite frankly. I think this decision does not affect the substantive issue of birthright citizenship, which I suspect we'll talk about. You know, I think this is -- this was a way for the court to look at the issue presented only on the issue. As a judge, I learned that you're only on the issue before you. You get in, you get out. And I think that's what the court has done here. I think the bottom line is it really is going to enhance executive power. This current administration is really taking advantage of executive power. But honestly, we've had recent presidents, both Republican and Democrats, that have expanded or certainly expanded the use of executive power.

ZAKARIA: I want to ask you about the politics of this. When Biden was president, there were several nationwide injunctions against him on core issues of his agenda. The court never seemed to mind.

In fact, in one case, as I recall, I think the student loan one, they reaffirmed the nationwide injunction. So, they suddenly discover when a Republican president is in office, that the presidency has much greater powers than they thought it did three years ago.

GONZALES: Let me give you a possible scenario. And I have no basis whatsoever to reach. It is possible that the court took this case to decide the substantive issue. And as they negotiate what the opinion should read, they discover they don't have five votes either way. And so, as a result of that, they decide to punt the substantive issue and deal only with the nationwide injunction.

ZAKARIA: That means you think the court is deadlocked as to whether the 14th Amendment grants citizenship? It seems pretty obvious --

(CROSSTALK)

GONZALES: Well, it seems obvious to me. I don't know if it's obvious to Sally, but it seems pretty obvious to me. And I think that there are at least five votes to affirm that. And perhaps the only way to get this opinion out was to -- was to carve away the substantive issue and deal only with the nationwide --

ZAKARIA: Let's talk --

YATES: If we don't have five votes on this, we're all in really big trouble.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

ZAKARIA: And we'll be back with more of my interview with Alberto Gonzales and Sally Yates.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[10:39:28]

ZAKARIA: Back now with more of my conversation with former attorneys general Alberto Gonzales and Sally Yates.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

ZAKARIA: Judge, I want to give you the chance to talk about what is behind this in a sense. Because the -- there are core members of the, you know, the kind of Project 2025. And it's been true with some federalist society people believe in something called the unitary executive. Believe the executive should be much stronger. And I think -- specifically think that post-Watergate, the executive branch has been constrained and that this is an effort to kind of unshackle the executive branch.

[10:40:07]

Is that -- you know, do you think these are legitimate moves in that direction?

GONZALES: I think that there are a group of individuals, who I respect, who believe that the executive power of Article II is invested in the president of the United States, and it is the president of United States who decides what the law is for the executive branch, not for the government. Certainly, not overruling the Supreme Court.

But the president of the United States -- you know, traditionally -- a traditional White House, you have 20,000 lawyers, roughly 20,000 lawyers that work within the executive branch. And, you know, they advise the president. And that's the way it normally works.

This administration has brought that legal decision making into the White House. And honestly, I think you can do that under this theory. And so, he surrounded himself with people that are loyalists. And so, all the people that might oppose him and tell him no are gone.

And again -- but if you believe in the unitary theory, the president of the United States can decide what the law is for the executive branch, and he can tell the solicitor general what brief -- you know, what the brief should say when it goes up to the Supreme Court.

ZAKARIA: So, you sound like you're uncomfortable with a lot of the things going on, but you don't seem like you're agitated. Is this -- is it because you view this as a two-alarm fire, or is it a five-alarm fire?

GONZALES: Well, it's certainly very different than the president that I worked with and the Department of Justice that I led, and I know that Sally also worked in. And, you know, it's -- it makes me uncomfortable. In the hands of a person with integrity, I have a lot less concern.

The main concern I have -- the main concern I have is that I don't believe that Donald Trump has the integrity necessary to effectively govern fairly this country.

ZAKARIA: But in a sense, that is the genius of the Constitution, right? Madison says, if men were angels, no government would be necessary.

GONZALES: Absolutely.

ZAKARIA: Right? So, we're -- we're planning for self-interested people and power-hungry people. And that's why the checks are so important.

GONZALES: But talking about checks, if I can just -- Sally say this. I'm most disappointed -- well, maybe not most disappointed. Equally disappointed in the Congress. They have the power over appointments. They have the power over funding. And they're doing nothing. And so, I don't understand it.

When we worked in the White House, we respected -- because we were forced to accept respect, the authority of Congress. They would always tell us, this is our prerogative. You can't do this.

ZAKARIA: You know, it is striking what Alberto says that Congress -- the administration seems to be deliberately flouting Congress. So, for example, when they fired the inspectors general, the law which Congress had written, merely said that he had to -- the president -- six months notice and a valid reason.

The Trump administration almost defiantly fired them all instantly, with no reason. And Congress didn't say anything, didn't say, can you just at least follow the damn procedures? And, you know, six months later, all these people will be gone.

But it's almost as though, as I say, as a point -- they're trying to make a point that, you know, post-Watergate, this executive branch has been shackled and we are unshackling it.

YATES: Yes, I wouldn't say it's almost defiantly. I think it was defiantly and that seems to be the mode that this president has been operating in particularly here in his second term, which is almost, I dare you to do anything to try to check my power.

And unfortunately, it seems like most everybody is cowering in that, whether it's Congress, as you were pointing out, or businesses, or universities sometimes, or others. And so, once you get that power of intimidation you don't even have to tell people what to do anymore because they are obeying in advance. They know what you want, what he wants them to do, and they do it.

So, I think this is all part of a diabolically brilliant scheme to be able to concentrate power in the presidency. And I totally understand your point, Judge, about Article II vesting in the president, the power and the responsibility to take care that the laws are faithfully executed. And so constitutionally, may the president tell the department what to do?

[10:45:02]

Yes, but I would say the same thing that I used to say to brand new prosecutors who would come to our office, and that is, just because you can that doesn't mean you should. And for over 50 years since Watergate, Republican and Democratic presidents alike, and attorneys general alike, have recognized that the rule of law requires that the White House -- that the president not be reaching in to try to determine individual cases and prosecutions.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

ZAKARIA: Next on GPS, could Jurassic Park really happen? Well, one company is trying to bring back extinct animals, and they say they are already succeeding. I'll talk to its CEO about what this could mean for the future of science and our planet.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[10:50:32]

ZAKARIA: The woolly mammoth, the dodo, the Tasmanian tiger, all these animals have gone extinct. And one company says it's bringing them back.

Colossal Biosciences shocked the scientific community and the world when it announced in April that it had brought back the dire wolf, an animal that has been extinct for over 12,000 years. They plan to bring back many more.

The announcement was immediately met with skepticism and fear. I asked CEO Ben Lamm whether they really are de-extincting these animals.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

ZAKARIA: All right. We know how it's meant to be done, Ben. You're meant to find a fossil with a mosquito in it that has the DNA of an extinct species, like a dinosaur, and that's how Steven Spielberg taught us this is meant to be done. Why did you choose a different scientific route? And what is the science behind this?

BEN LAMM, CO-FOUNDER AND CEO, COLOSSAL BIOSCIENCES: So, I thought that Jurassic Park may come up. But what's interesting is that Jurassic Park didn't have it that wrong. Where they got it right is we have to take ancient DNA. So, we use a combination of like, teeth and bones and petrous bones.

We've gone all the way back to about 1.5 million years, so not 65 million years. And we've actually taken DNA, and we have to use computer models to reassemble it, and then compare it to its closest living relative, use A.I. to do all the comparison, and then use CRISPR and all these other tools, including DNA synthesis, to identify these genes and put them into it.

And then we use a step called, you know, somatic cell nuclear transfer, which is cloning, like Dolly, and we transfer the nucleus. And then we put it in a surrogate. And if everything goes well you get three beautiful dire wolves.

ZAKARIA: So, you know, the criticism people have made about what you're doing is -- you're calling it, bringing back to life the dire wolf or --

LAMM: We've never -- criticism.

ZAKARIA: But what you're really doing is taking a gray wolf. You're genetically editing the gray wolf.

LAMM: Yes.

ZAKARIA: You know, a few turns.

LAMM: Yes.

ZAKARIA: But it's still -- there's still thousands of genetic differences between that and a dire wolf.

LAMM: Yes.

ZAKARIA: So, why do you get to call it a dire wolf other than to get on the cover of "Time" magazine?

LAMM: So, anything -- and to get on stage with people like you. You know, any time that you do anything big and bold, you're going to get feedback.

But you know, what's interesting for us is that there's about 30 different ways to define a species, right? And that's something -- that's a human construct that we try to put onto evolution.

And what's interesting about like a mammoth or a dodo -- like a dodo is just a genetically modified pigeon. It just did it very inefficiently over millions of years, right? And so, for us we want to be very, very thoughtful and very, very precise.

And so, if we made another thousand edits to the dire wolf, it wouldn't make it more dire wolf. And so, we just don't want to take unnecessary risk. And so, we spent a lot of time in A.I. and in the computational biology to understand the genes that drive the core phenotypes. And so, from --

ZAKARIA: So, that's the key. You're saying to yourself, what are the genetic modifications that will get you to the core phenotype --

LAMM: Right.

ZAKARIA: -- that resembles a dire wolf?

LAMM: Exactly. I mean, very, very thoughtful in the computational biology to understand specifically, you know, what made a dire wolf a dire wolf. And so dire wolves were about 20 percent, 25 percent bigger than gray wolves. Ours are tracking a little bit larger than that right now, which is pretty exciting.

But we only took the necessary edits that we knew would drive a healthy animal. And for us, that's more important than making 10 more edits. You know, we've made hundreds of edits in some of our other species that we haven't taken a term yet, so it's not really a function of the multiplex editing. It's more a function of just like where we think the line needs to draw. And, you know, for us, you know, that's animal welfare.

ZAKARIA: So, the woolly mammoth is next?

LAMM: So, woolly mammoth I will say that I don't know if it's the next species. I don't want to -- we're not going to announce the next species, but we have three flagship species, the woolly mammoth, the Tasmanian tiger, and the dodo. We are on track, so we're in the editing phase specifically for the mammoth. That means that we've actually -- we have about -- we have over 100 mammoth genomes ranging from about 4,000 years to about 1.2 million years, is about as old as we're currently working with.

ZAKARIA: Does it look like what the illustrations --

(CROSSTALK)

LAMM: Yes. So, every -- so -- yes, every single illustration is like just a mammoth, like posing and it's like frozen in ice. And I think people think that we just take like core samples and revive cells and just do cloning. That would be so awesome and easier if we did that.

No, it's actually disgusting and gross. And we take like these terrible samples that smell like the worst dentist like procedure you've ever imagined.

[10:55:03]

And then we take that and then -- and we have to go to the library prep and whatnot. So, it's a little bit grosser from a process perspective. But now we've -- we also created the reference genome for all the major species of elephants and open sourced that for the conservation community. And we're in the editing phase.

So, we created stem cells around the elephants. We are now editing those stem cells, those Asian elephants, which are about 99.6 percent the same as a mammoth. And we have about 85 gene targets.

We're not going to make 4 million edits. We're going to probably make a couple hundred edits in about 85 different regions of the genome, and up from about 60 when we started. And we're -- we've already completed 25 of those. So, we're in those tests. I won't announce anything, but I think that it's going to be exciting to share some of those results soon.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

ZAKARIA: Thanks for being part of my show this week from the Aspen Ideas Festival. I'll see you next week.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)