Return to Transcripts main page

Inside Politics

Meta's Zuckerberg To Testify In Social Media Addiction Trial; Meta Whistleblower: Instagram Is "Hooking Kids" On Social Media; Sources: Growing Indications Of Potential Joint U.S.-Israel Attack On Iran; Vance: Iran Hasn't Accepted U.S. "Red Lines" In Nuclear Talks; Lawmakers Questions Ex-Victoria's Secret Owner Over Epstein Ties. Aired 12-12:30p ET

Aired February 18, 2026 - 12:00   ET

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

[12:00:05]

DANA BASH, CNN HOST, INSIDE POLITICS: Welcome to Inside Politics. I'm Dana Bash.

We start with the landmark social media addiction trial, where the man who helped create social media is about to take the stand and defend the very products that he created. Mark Zuckerberg, the Meta CEO and co-founder, arrived in Los Angeles at a courthouse.

Moments ago, when you see the images there, he was crowded by people, some saying things to him about the substance of the case, which is a 20-year-old woman and her mother suing Meta and YouTube, accusing the companies of intentionally getting her hooked on social media and trialed at the expense of her mental health, all in order to turn a profit. It is part of a series of lawsuits challenging the social media companies.

I want to get straight to Clare Duffy on this. Clare, why is this so significant? This trial in particular, other than the fact that Mark Zuckerberg himself is there.

CLARE DUFFY, CNN BUSINESS TECH REPORTER: Yeah, Dana. This is really going to be a test case of whether these social media companies can be held accountable for the claims that we've heard for years that they have intentionally designed their products, their platforms, to be addictive to young people, and that that's harmed young people's mental health.

And we've heard from Zuckerberg before on this topic in Congress, but this is the first time that he's going to be testifying before a jury about these claims, and because this is a jury trial, his performance on the stand today is going to be very important. Do they find him likable and trustworthy?

Now we expect that he will get asked about the reasonableness of the actions that Meta says it's taken to protect young users. The company has talked throughout this trial about the safety features that it's invested in, things like parental oversight tools, default safety and content restrictions for team users. And Zuckerberg is going to be asked what he and others at Meta knew about the risks to children from this -- these platforms, and whether those efforts were really enough to mitigate those risks. And he'll likely be asked about internal documents that have been produced in discovery in this litigation that raised some tough questions about how effective these measures really were.

Now, Meta has strongly denied the claims in this case. A spokesperson for the company bringing up the fact that this 20-year-old woman, Kaley, suffered from a difficult childhood growing up, and Meta has said that that is responsible for her mental health challenges, not platforms like Instagram.

Spokesperson telling me, quote, the question for the jury in Los Angeles is whether Instagram was a substantial factor in the plaintiff's mental health struggles. The evidence will show she faced many significant, difficult challenges well before she ever used social media. But of course, Mark Zuckerberg today is going to face tough questions, essentially about whether the company put profits ahead of kids' safety, Dana?

BASH: And what are the stakes financially, if Meta and YouTube lose the case?

DUFFY: If they lose this case, there are 1500 similar cases that this could set a precedent for. So, these companies could potentially be on the hook for billions of dollars in damages and also be required to make changes to how their platforms operate. I've also spoken with parents, who are -- many of them planning to be in the audience today, and they're hoping that Congress will be watching this closely and potentially be motivated by the evidence that's raised in this trial to finally pass more meaningful online safety legislation.

BASH: Clare, thank you so much. Appreciate your reporting on this. And as the courts grapple with social media, the elected branches of the U.S. government have been conspicuously absent. I spoke with Scott Galloway, co-host of the business and tech podcast Pivot, about the possibility of Congress doing something to regulate social media.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

SCOTT GALLOWAY, CO-HOST, "PIVOT": There is more regulation in that screen and that desk behind it in front of you than there is in big tech. But I'm hopeful that we're starting to see movement. These externalities have been greater here, and it might take a little bit longer because of the money involved, but I'm hopeful eventually we're going to regulate this technology as we've regulated other sectors.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

BASH: I'm joined by a terrific group of reporters here to talk about this. Sara Fischer, I'm going to start with you. First on the trial. What do you see as the stakes here?

SARA FISCHER, MEDIA CORRESPONDENT, AXIOS: So, Clare had mentioned there's 15 other -- 1500 of. If you know, if they're found guilty and they have to pay up, what's in some bringing a case forward, that's the reason, by the way, that Meta and YouTube are trying to bring this like Snapchat and TikTok. For them, they think it's better to actually win a court case and stop others from trying to bring forth lawsuits than to potentially settle and then have to settle every single case coming down the line.

[12:05:00]

So, this is a huge, huge, huge thing. And then to Scott Galloway's point about regulation, we haven't seen Mark Zuckerberg in Congress in a long time. So, this is his first big public performance, not just for parents, but also for lawmakers who are watching this. If they don't like the way that he performs, what's stopping them from hauling him in and bringing forth big tech regulation to the floor again?

BASH: Well, let's actually take a look at the last time he was before Congress, or really the most memorable time, it was 2024, which I actually thought this was a longer. It was earlier, but it was really only a couple of years ago. And he was asked to apologize to the thing.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: You're on national television. Would you like now to apologize to the victims who have been harmed by your product. Show them the pictures. Would you like to apologize for what you've done to these good people?

MARK ZUCKERBERG, META FOUNDER & CEO: I'm sorry (inaudible), it's terrible in knowing that to go through the things that your families have suffered.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

FISCHER: It was a very powerful moment, but Congress has done nothing since. Now to Scott Galloway's point about whether or not he thinks regulation could come about. I'm actually optimistic too. Right now, Congress has been so distracted. We have government shutdowns. We have lot of international things that we're dealing with.

I think one day it's possible that we could have a tech regulation bill similar to the telecom bill that we had in the 90s, where you basically just throw everything in together, because at this point, the sounds are getting too much louder, the voices are getting much louder, the pressure is getting much louder, and if the courts finally take action against tech and Congress does nothing, I think that's going to look --

STEPHEN COLLINSON, CNN SENIOR POLITICS REPORTER: It's really interesting because I think this case is coming up against the zeitgeist. Many more parents looking at their kids, seeing them scrolling all the time. There's a backlash against social media. It's also occurring at the same time as people have started to ask really big questions about AI. It's the same question that's fundamental to both. Are profits being put above safety? So, there's not been a great deal of incentive so far for the politics on this change, because it's so hard to make this kind of big legislation go through Congress now, because it's so politicized, it's so complex with First Amendment issues and everything else.

But if politicians start to see, OK, the people in my districts are getting very worried about social media and the impact of AI coming after their jobs as much as their kids. That's a powerful political message.

BASH: And just a reminder, almost five years ago, there was a whistle blower from Facebook, Frances Haugen, who testified that all of this was going on behind the scenes. And by this, I mean, making a profit and turning a profit much more of an issue than the safety of kids. Watch?

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

FRANCES HAUGEN, DATA ENGINEER: Facebook understands that if they want to continue to grow, they have to find new users. They have to make sure that that the next generation is just as engaged with Instagram as the current one. And the way they'll do that is by making sure that children establish habits before they have good self-regulation --

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: By hooking kids?

HAUGEN: By hooking kids.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

PRISCILLA ALVAREZ, CNN CORRESPONDENT: Well, and that was testimony from 2021 there have been years now where you have these cases that come up. You have the powerful stories of the families, the children who have also lost their lives and starting to see how this has manifested on the platform and users of the platform.

But I think Stephen also makes a great point with AI. Clearly, when you hear from these parents and observers, there's been a lag time between social media coming out, becoming popular, and Congress acting and they haven't acted yet, but then now comes AI.

So, as we're moving into the next frontier here, there is a look back on the social media platforms and their notoriety. So, I do think it's a really interesting inflection point in that we are looking down the next pike. The administration certainly is. Those in tech certainly are, and we're also, at the same time reflecting on the other platforms that already live on our devices.

BASH: Talk about lag time, Shawn? Check this out. I want you to look at a timeline that our great team put together here. Trevor, put this together starting -- this is about tobacco, because Scott Galloway and others make the analogy between the regulation of social media and how long it took for tobacco.

It was a long time. I didn't even realize this. The first study linking tobacco and cancer was in 1928, and Congress didn't pass a law giving FDA power to regulate tobacco and advertising to kids until 2009.

SHAWN MCCREESH, WHITE HOUSE CORRESPONDENT, THE NEW YORK TIMES: Yeah. I was thinking that if Congress does manage to get its act together and regulate this, it will only be because the Congress is getting younger. So, the people who are coming in and have a full understanding of the sort of poisonous effects these social media platforms have on their children.

[12:10:00]

I think for the older people in Congress who are still holding on to power, they come from a prehistoric age. I mean, the world before social media, the atmosphere was different. The air that you breathe was different. So, they just don't really get how bad it is.

FISCHER: One thing I will say, though that's different and that the jury is going to have to really evaluate is the clinical definition of addiction. That is what is on trial here in L.A. and in New Mexico. Meta is now facing trial there as well. To say that kids are addicted is a clinical definition that obviously Meta has pushed back on, but it's actually very hard to prove, whereas things like cigarettes, it's a lot easier to prove a physical addiction, also akin to alcohol or drugs. So that's what I think Meta has in its favor in terms of this trial in L.A.

COLLINSON: Yeah. And the administration is all in on tech, AI, social media. If you are running in a suburban district, if you're a Democrat or Independent or whatever, you can make an argument, maybe not in this election, but in 2028 that the social media, that the tech guys that ruin your kids are now coming after your jobs. They're all aligned with Donald Trump, the president and the oligarchs together. That is going to be interesting to see if any Democrats adopt that populist message going forward.

BASH: It is interesting that clearly what is on trial right now, before this court, and perhaps others, is the question of addiction and kids. We're not even talking about what is done to society and to politics and everything else, but that's for a different conversation, maybe. All right, thank you so much for being here.

Don't go anywhere. Coming up. New reporting from CNN, suggesting we may may be inching closer to a war with Iran. Plus, a Democratic candidate gets a major money bump. Thanks to an ongoing fight involving Stephen Colbert, CBS and the FCC.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[12:15:00]

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

BASH: Israeli sources tell CNN that a joint U.S.-Israeli war on Iran could begin. And I want to emphasize could in the coming days. Also, that Israel is raising its alert level and stepping up military and defensive preparations. This comes after a major buildup of U.S. warships and fighters in the region. And there was this report in Axios from CNN contributor Barak Ravid. The headline, Trump moves closer to a major war with Iran. Quote, the Trump administration is closer to a major war in the Middle East that most Americans realize it could begin very soon.

Our national security correspondent Natasha Bertrand joins the panel now. Natasha, what are you hearing?

NATASHA BERTRAND, CNN NATIONAL SECURITY CORRESPONDENT: Look, the amount of military hardware that's moving into the region right now. It really belies any possibility of a diplomatic solution to this. The president, we're told, has been getting very frustrated with the fact that it seems like Iran is just talking to buy time, something that they have been doing for the last year or so now.

And even though they kind of had an optimistic tone coming out of the talks yesterday, saying that there was some progress made, that there are still some details to be worked out, that the Iranians are going to come back in two weeks. The movement of military assets that we have seen just suggests, pretty much beyond a reasonable doubt, that there is at least planning underway to conduct some kind of major military operation.

The question though, is, what would the objective of that operation be? No one seems to know at this point. You have heard President Trump say regime change might actually be the best possible solution here, something that Marco Rubio has also echoed. But it's not like Venezuela. This is not a quick in and out where you can just depose the supreme leader and hope that something better comes along.

In fact, we're told that intelligence reports recently suggested that the IRGC, Iran's Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps, an extremely hardline entity, would likely be the ones that step up in any power vacuum in that instance. And so, you could be left with something that's actually even worse. And that is, I think, what the administration is trying to grapple with right now.

Another part of this delay, of course, last month, President Trump, he was, you know, threatening military action. Now they actually have all the equipment they need to do something and do something for a sustained campaign alongside Israel. But again, the question is, what are they trying to get out of it?

BASH: Yeah. And Shawn, I want everybody to listen to what the vice president said on Fox News yesterday, followed by the president earlier this week.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

JD VANCE, VICE PRESIDENT: In some ways it went well. They agreed to meet afterwards, but in other ways, it was very clear that the president has set some red lines that the Iranians are not yet willing to actually acknowledge and work through.

DONALD TRUMP, PRESIDENT OF UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: I think they want the consequences of not making a deal. (END VIDEO CLIP)

BASH: So, what the president said is, I think they want to make a deal. And this is about the talks that Natasha was just discussing that have been going on in fits and starts, maybe more fits than starts in recent weeks and even more than that.

MCCREESH: When I look at this saber rattling and this escalation, I just can't help but think about the hundred Trump rallies I spent a year going to as a political reporter for the New York Times, no new wars was more than a campaign slogan. It was like a call and repeat with the crowd. I mean, people had t-shirts that said, no new wars. So, I just continue to marvel at, you know, one year in, this guy who ran as a peacenik has turned out to be Dick Cheney and I -- it's, I can't stop my head spitting.

[12:20:00]

BASH: Yeah. Well, you're not the only one on that. Stephen, I want our viewers to see part of what you wrote about this morning, and specifically about the two lead negotiators, Jared Kushner, his son- in-law, and Steve Witkoff, who is the president's envoy for everything. The two super rich, well connected American deal makers are charged with ending one vicious war and preventing one that might be about to erupt. Success in either case would be a huge achievement, but both goals seem intractable.

COLLINSON: Yeah. We're talking about the Iran issue on one side and the Ukraine issue on the other. What's happening here is that they're coming up against existential issues for the other side, the deal that the president is prepared to offer to Iran is not one that the regime probably can accept, because that would involve ballistic missiles and proxies in the region, which the regime sees as necessary to keep itself in existence.

On the Ukraine file, which they're also deep into after the talks in Geneva yesterday. You know Russia is not going to give up until it gets more of the Donbas region in the east. That is something for sovereignty and the existence of the country that Ukraine cannot give up. So, you can see now the administration running into these brick walls.

On the case of Iran, as you were saying, they do have a lot more leverage, but it's a huge risk. Look at all the polls to your point, Shawn, all the polls, massive majorities of Americans are against the war, but this is now, I think, a president who's not just playing for political stakes, he's playing for legacy. And he could be the leader that destroys the Iranian regime that has dogged the United States for 50 years, notwithstanding the fact that who knows what comes next?

BASH: Yeah. I mean, it's exactly right. It's to be careful what you wish for. Yes, it seems though, as though regime change would be the stated goal or maybe the unstated goal. But then what?

ALVAREZ: But then what. And, you know, I think that he obviously was very, you know, proud of the Venezuela operation, and that gave him a lot of confidence. And he gave the people around him confidence that perhaps that could be replicated in Iran. But every analyst, every military expert, says that it's just not going to be the case.

BASH: And even Marco Rubio, in explaining Venezuela afterwards. Said over and over again, Venezuela and the -- and South America, the Western Hemisphere, is not the same as the Middle East.

All right, everybody, we're going to sneak in a quick break. Up next. He was Epstein -- Jeffrey Epstein's biggest financial benefactor now ex-Victoria's Secret owner, Les Wexner, is telling Congress, he was just another victim of Epstein's lies.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[12:25:00]

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

BASH: A new twist in the Epstein files is playing out as we speak. Les Wexner, the billionaire former owner of Victoria's Secret, is giving congressional testimony, a deposition in Ohio about his connections to Jeffrey Epstein.

Just a short time ago, Wexner told lawmakers, quote, I was conned, I have done nothing wrong, and I have nothing to hide. Wexner went on to say that Epstein stole hundreds of millions of dollars from his family. The 88-year-old has been connected to Jeffrey Epstein as far back as the 1980s and says he cut off communications with Epstein in 2007.

We go straight CNN's Kara Scannell. Kara, you've been doing some terrific reporting on Les Wexner, separate and apart from what's happening in this deposition. What can you tell us?

KARA SCANNELL, CNN CORRESPONDENT: Well, Dana, I mean, the Republicans and the Democrats want to know from Wexner what his relationship was with Jeffrey Epstein, particularly as it relates to the money. And at CNN, we have reviewed the Epstein files, and had found records that show that Wexner's attorneys told lawmakers -- told investigators in 2019 that they believe that Wexner had initially gotten together with Epstein in the 1980s when he was recommended by other sophisticated financiers, and that Epstein had managed his money then, until there was that initial state investigation in Florida into Jeffrey Epstein.

And it was at that point that Epstein had turned the reins of the business or his personal financials back over to Wexner. And Wexner's lawyers told investigators then that they had -- Wexner's wife had then taken over control of the finances and discovered that Epstein had stolen hundreds of millions of dollars from them.

That is something that is of interest here. And it was from that point that Wexner said that he cut off ties with him. The lawmakers who from the House Oversight Committee who are sitting with Wexner today have said that they want to follow the money because it was the money that gave Wexner -- that gave, excuse me, Epstein, the ability to know the rich and powerful and his entree into that whole world. One of the members who actually traveled to Ohio, representative, Robert Garcia, was on CNN this morning, and here's what he said he wanted to learn today.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

REP. ROBERT GARCIA (D-CA): Most important information for us is really about the money. We know that Wexner was Jeffrey Epstein's single largest benefactor. Wexner, of course, is incredibly wealthy billionaire, obviously very well known, not just here in Ohio, but across the country. And when you think about Epstein's wealth, whether it was the plane, the island, the amount of money he had, his homes, much of that came directly from Wexner.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

[12:30:00]