Return to Transcripts main page
Laura Coates Live
Trump Trying to Write Check His Party May Not Be Able to Cash; Anthropic Says it Blocked Possible Attempts to Develop Bioweapons; Jimmy Kimmel Moves Talarico Interview to YouTube Over FCC "Threat." Aired 11p-12a ET
Aired September 10, 2026 - 23:00 ET
THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.
[23:00:00]
NOAH ROTHMAN, SENIOR WRITER, NATIONAL REVIEW: He got the polling bump he did in the primary when he started campaigning with Hasan Piker. He apologized for the statement he made where he equivocated about the terrorist attack after the fact. This helped him win the primary. It's helping him lose the general, but all of us are just noticing.
TARA SETMAYER, CO-FOUNDER AND CEO, THE SENECA PROJECT: Of course, again, to your point, every minute they're talking about Hasan Piker is time that they're not talking about how they're going to improve people's lives and not talking about what Donald Trump was supposed to do and has not done. He's betrayed the American people and he is corrupt, and that is why they want to talk about everything but that.
ABBY PHILLIP, CNN ANCHOR AND SENIOR POLITICAL CORRESPONDENT: We'll leave it there. Thank you very much for watching "Newsnight." "Laura Coates Live" starts right now.
LAURA COATES, CNN HOST AND SENIOR LEGAL ANALYST: Tonight, President Trump closes out his midterm convention by dangling what many are calling a bribe to voters. But if past is prologue, it may amount to nothing. Plus, another scary A.I. warning from inside the House. And this one? Potential bio-weapons. Also, James Talarico speaks out after his interview with Jimmy Kimmel is kept off T.V. and says the administration is guilty of what it loves to complain about, cancel culture. Tonight on "Laura Coates Live."
Well, my opening statement tonight, Trump wants to write a check his party may not be able to cash. And with his two-day midterm pep rally now officially over, he's locked in on this message.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
DONALD TRUMP, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: Get out and vote, please. Get out and vote.
I'm not on the ticket. You got to pretend I'm not on the ticket. You got to do me a big -- the biggest favor you've ever done me. You've got to do this for me. You've got to pretend I'm on the ticket. I'm on the ticket. I'm on the ticket. He's on the ticket. Pretend I'm on the ticket because this is going to turn out to be one of the most important elections. (END VIDEO CLIP)
COATES: He's not on the ticket. But then in comes Vice President J.D. Vance, who spent his time trying to frame the opposition, not just as political rivals, but as an existential threat to your family.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
J.D. VANCE, VICE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: This fall, the Democrats are running candidates who will tell your children what they're allowed to say, how they're allowed to live, and importantly, who they ought to hate, because that's what the Democrat Party is about in 2026. It's not about you. It's about foreign fraudsters and it's about who they hate. And we got to send their asses packing in November.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
COATES: And while the vice president insists the Democrats message is not about you, a brand-new poll shows this election is absolutely about the Trump administration. The president is in deep water and the tide is rising. I mean, look at the staple issues his political brand is built on, the economy, immigration, and the crisis unfolding on his very watch, the Iran war. On every single one of them, voters are giving him a failing grade. And that can only mean one thing, a very high hill to climb come November.
Now, we've all heard the saying, if it looks like a duck and swims like a duck and quacks like a duck, then it probably is a duck. Well, in politics, sometimes, it's a desperate, wobbling pass thrown deep into the end zone when the clock is ticking down. So, when the playbook is completely empty, what do you do? You throw a Hail Mary. And that is exactly what the president is trying to do. He is promising a $5,000 check for you. But here's a catch. Republicans must win the midterms.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
LAURA INGRAHAM, FOX NEWS HOST: Why don't you just give the money now? If you have the money, why don't you give it now?
TRUMP: Because they can't. I'll tell you what. Because the Democrats can't do it. Because with them, it's negative growth. With us, it's so positive.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
COATES: That didn't answer the question, did it? But you'll have at least 54 days to wait to catch that Hail Mary. And even then, Congress, with that power of the purse, they'd have to approve it. But if the president thinks he can circumvent them, he actually cannot. Now, he insists tariff revenue will actually pay for this trillion- dollar plan. And let's be honest, we've heard this before. The president has floated two grand tariff rebates and five grand dose checks. And spoiler alert, those checks have not arrived in the mail yet. So, if this one feels sus to you, as the kids are saying, you're not alone. Democrats and even plenty of Republicans, well, they're not buying it.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
WILMA MAY, REPUBLICAN MIDTERM CONVENTION ATTENDEE: I'm not into free stuff. I would prefer him to give $5,000 to us, paying down the deficit.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
CHARLIE DENT, CNN POLITICAL COMMENTATOR, FORMER PENNSYLVANIA REPRESENTATIVE: There was a time when Republicans would have scoffed at an idea like this. Why don't we just try to lower costs for Americans rather than try to buy their votes?
(END VIDEO CLIP)
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
MARC SHORT, FORMER CHIEF OF STAFF TO FORMER VICE PRESIDENT MIKE PENCE (voice-over): It's harder and harder, I think, for us to draw a sharp contrast with what we're saying is the far-left Democrat socialists on economic issues.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
GOV. SARAH HUCKABEE SANDERS (R), ARKANSAS: You do not build a strong economy by giving things away.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
[23:05:00]
COATES: Let's talk with my political A-team tonight. White House correspondent for "The Hill," Julia Manchester, Washington Post editorial board member, Carine Hajjar, Former DNC deputy communications director, Hannah Muldavin, And CNN senior political commentator Scott Jennings.
Scott, I'll begin with you, since you're not in the room where it's happening right now, but some other room. Trump promised to send Americans a dividend check from the tariffs though it never came. He promised checks from the DOGE cuts. They also did not arrive. And now, he's promising another dividend. So, why make this promise if people can just point to all the times it did not come to fruition and this might not either come November?
SCOTT JENNINGS, CNN SENIOR POLITICAL COMMENTATOR, FORMER SPECIAL ASSISTANT TO PRESIDENT GEORGE W. BUSH, SALEM RADIO HOST: Well, the president's instinct is to want to do this. I think the political reality is it would be difficult to pass. What might be easier to do is some targeted tax relief, make this in the form of a tax rebate or some sort of tax relief that was specifically targeted at the middle class or working class in America.
What the president has been able to deliver, though, was a big tax cut last summer. He has been able to deliver manufacturing jobs. He has been able to deliver rising payrolls on the private side with a shrinking federal headcount. These are all things that Republicans asked for when he got elected in 2024. So, he's not empty-handed when it comes to arguments.
On this specific idea, I think the reality is it would be difficult to pass it. I was in the arena yesterday and today. I heard some people liked it and some people that were skeptical of it. I interviewed from my radio show today Senator Bernie Mareno of Ohio. He liked it. In fact, he said he was going to write legislation to go ahead and get the ball rolling on it. So, if he does that, I guess we'll see up on the Hill how people react to it when they go back to Congress next week.
COATES: I mean, the spoiler alert, ladies, to me, who's not going to want a five thousand-dollar check? I mean, that sounds wonderful. But the reality, as Scott is talking about, is where the details and the power of the purse come hand in hand.
I mean, the idea that he's going to promise this, knowing that maybe he could try to run on exactly what Scott is talking about, the successes he feels he has. But this smacks in many parts of a desperation to now say, how about this? Is this going to get you to come to the polls and pretend that I'm on there? Does it seem like it's politically desperate because there is fear?
HANNAH MULDAVIN, FORMER DEPUTY COMMUNICATIONS DIRECTOR, DNC: Well, it seems like he is throwing everything at the wall or trying to throw things at the wall and trying to see what sticks ultimately in his message to voters. And you have to remember the purpose of this Republican convention. It is to galvanize the Republican base at a time when they're, number one, facing historic headwinds, but also President Trump's approval rating is low.
So, he's really trying to excite those low propensity voters, which normally don't typically turn out in large numbers during midterm election years. And I think there is a thought that this talking point or this idea could do that.
And at the end of the day, we're talking about it right now. It's getting traction. People are being asked about it. So, it is sort of, I think, you know, in some ways energizing, waking up that base in the final stretch of the campaign.
COATES: I mean, people are talking about it, but maybe for all the wrong reasons because they don't think it's a reality. It's more of a pipe dream. But, also, I think people look at this and say, kind of like I would, oh, you got money for this? Well, hold on. I give you a list of the things that actually need to be spent. And they are in line with many of what his own voters have said they want money spent on. And so, whenever there's a pot of gold found, what is the political risk when you've already seen the debts in this country and beyond?
JULIA MANCHESTER, WHITE HOUSE CORRESPONDENT, THE HILL: Yeah, I think when you take a step back and look at why he even proposed this, it's exactly what you said, Laura, the Republicans are in trouble. They're in trouble because Donald Trump has a very low approval rating. And from the Democratic perspective, we love that he's trying to nationalize this election.
He's saying, make this all about me, I'm going to throw spaghetti at the wall, see what sticks, these $5,000 checks that I will mention J.D. Vance didn't even talk about in his speech tonight. So, I don't think the entire administration is even on board with that.
But Democrats love this because we want to nationalize this election for Republicans. Things are going bad. People are going to the grocery store. They're going to the gas pump. And prices are up. And they can directly draw a line to Donald Trump's policies. So, the more he wants to say, focus on me, focus on me, we say fantastic, you should take a trip to every district and do the same.
COATES: That was obviously predictable. He would obviously anticipate that, right, that people would be able to point and draw a clear line from his promises in the past and what people have talked about. And even last night's speech, why do you think J.D. Vance did not speak about it to this larger point?
CARINE HAJJAR, EDITORIAL BOARD MEMBER AT THE WASHINGTON POST, FELLOW AT STEAMBOAT INSTITUTE: It's incredibly hard to defend. And, look, one of Republicans' strongest talking points against Democrats right now is that they are trending towards socialism in their policies. They are proposing policies that they just don't have the money to carry out. That's exactly what President Trump is doing with these dividends.
And then there's another problem. These are built on one of President Trump's most unpopular economic policies, tariffs. And if the president's goal is to help Republicans going into midterms, then I would suggest he might consider slashing those tariffs because if you look at key battleground states right now, races where Republicans have a shot but are really struggling, might be uphill races, I'm thinking about Maine, I'm thinking about New Hampshire, I'm thinking about other northern states that have a lot of trade with Canada, they are really -- Republicans are really struggling to explain how these tariffs are hurting their local economy to their constituents.
[23:10:12]
COATES: Scott, explain why this would not be socialism if you're the president.
JENNINGS: How would giving a rebate or a dividend not be socialism? Well, I mean, it's -- I mean, it's another form of returning money to taxpayers. We return money to taxpayers in this country all the time in the form of programs or other checks. We did stimulus checks, for instance, during COVID. So, it's not terribly unprecedented to do that.
If I might respond to my Democratic friend on the panel tonight, she said they want to nationalize the elections. They also want to nationalize everything else. They want to nationalize entire industries. That's the whole point of the Democratic program right now, nationalization of things, because the socialists are in charge.
And when you were in the arena the last two days, that was the contrast that you actually heard from the Republicans, is that we actually believe in you, the American people, we believe in the American system, and the Democrats are now being run by these radicals who are socialists, communists. They would like to nationalize entire industries and socialize the entire country.
So, not only did you hear these policy ideas, some of which could pass and some of which could be difficult, but you also heard a bright-line contrast between people who I think are playing within the traditional American system as we know it versus a political party that has been taken over by people who fundamentally hate this country, want to change the country, want to rip it out, root and branch.
COATES: Scott, you know that's hyperbolic, that either party is so controlled by a particular extreme. But I'm going to play this game for a second. I want to bring you into this again, Julia, because that is the line that people are trying to portray, that there is an either-or. Either you love the country and will vote for whatever Trump says or you hate the country and, therefore, you are derided and disparaged as a party that does not care for democracy.
Voters, though, I think, appreciate the nuance. And I think it is dangerous territory when you play to either extreme. Do you agree?
MULDAVIN: I would agree. And, you know, tactically, we'll see how that strategy ends up working, you know, when you see Republicans or Democrats in some cases really trying to get those persuadable voters that they need to win. I think those strategies really appeal to the base at the end of the day. But, you know, I think if you're a Republican, the strategy is to get those low-propensity voters to turn out as much as possible, but I'm skeptical that strategy works for voters beyond that group.
COATES: An important segue because Vice President J.D. Vance gave the keynote address tonight, and he made a direct appeal to independents who, I think, are where they're trying to find that nuance. Listen.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
VANCE: I know there are a lot of people who are watching on T.V., who aren't always sold, and I want to speak directly to them. Compare it to the Democrats who want to allow open borders, allow pharma companies to experiment on your kids. They want to raise your taxes, and they want to abolish their family in their own words. We just want common sense, and we want you to have a better life.
(END VIDEO CLIP) COATES: What do you make of that particular message? And again, obviously, the audience that they're speaking to is one in which it is the choir, right? They're hoping. But they also need to bring in independents. Does that strategy appeal?
MANCHESTER: J.D. Vance is trying to do this right now. But what I would posit is everything they're trying to do is take focus away from costs and prices, the messaging that Democrats are actually really united on right now and are focusing on. Right now, when J.D. Vance was making that speech and Donald Trump was making that speech, Hakeem Jeffries had an ad up on the first NFL game of the year. And I might add that it's very weird that the Republicans would decide to hold this big convention on the first game of the year. It doesn't make a lot of sense. I think --
COATES: Well, they think it's either the NFL decided to hold it or their convention.
MANCHESTER: Yes.
COATES: They have a different idea. Go ahead.
MANCHESTER: They have a different idea. But I think that Hakeem Jeffries' ad talked about costs. And it talked about costs and also had a very hopeful message that, I think, is very appealing to a Democrat or a Republican or an independent who just doesn't like how things are going right now. And who's leading right now? It's Republicans in the House, Senate, and the White House.
COATES: And yet, Carine, I mean, people are dissatisfied with incumbents. They don't like the way the system is working right now. And so, that actually is kind of a fox on both houses, so to speak. When you think about this convention, unprecedented, really weeks before the midterm elections, do Democrats have the tools available to combat this in a way that will drive voters?
HAJJAR: Look, Democrats are going to talk about affordability. That's what I've been hearing all across the country going to campaigns. Whether or not they have the policies to back that up and actually genuinely address affordability, I'm more doubtful of.
But, again, one of Republicans' strongest critiques is that Democrats are turning towards socialist policies that we know don't work, policies that are inflationary, policies that hamper the growth of our economy. And it really doesn't help when the leader of the Republican movement, all of a sudden, who ran on combating the inflation that happened under the Biden administration from Biden administration stimulus, is proposing his own type of stimulus.
[23:15:04]
COATES: Scott, let me ask you, because the economic indicators, I mean, they ain't great, as you know. I mean, you've got a 30-year fixed mortgage just topped 7 percent today. You've got Brent crude oil is above $100 a barrel again. The inflation rate is still above the Fed's target. I mean, Laura Ingraham asked this question earlier today, I believe, as well. I mean, Americans are hurting now. So, why condition these checks if they are a winning message on Republicans winning later?
JENNINGS: Well, I assume it's because he wants to give voters an incentive to understand what a governance under a Republican majority could look like. I mean, it does beg the question, if you could get them to do it then, why couldn't you get the Republican majority to do it now? I think that's a perfectly valid criticism of this. I know that --
COATES: But there is a majority now.
JENNINGS: I know. That's what I'm saying. If you could do it then, it's a valid criticism. Why couldn't you try to do it now? I guess the majorities are slim. So, that would make it difficult.
I noticed you left out of your numbers, though, the jobs report. Hundred and sixty-two thousand jobs last month. In the last two months, revised upward, 55,000 jobs. Manufacturing jobs are up. And public payrolls, government payrolls are down. Look, there's going to be a debate over the economy. Every election I've ever worked in is about the economy.
The Republicans are not without arguments here. I interviewed a number of Republican office holders over the last two days. They were happy to have this convention because it felt like it gave them a chance to get on the front foot in arguing about what they're doing and why it's working.
The working families tax credit, the tax cut that was passed last summer, I expect that to be big in the midterm messaging for a lot of Republican campaigns. The truth is, every Republican voted to cut taxes. Every Democrat voted for what would have amounted or what would have amounted to the largest tax increase in American history. I think you're going to hear that on the campaign trail this fall.
COATES: It's funny you didn't hear it from the president immediately. They're talking about what you said, but we'll see. Thank you, everyone.
Hey, still ahead, Vice President Vance tiptoeing around the Iran war in his speech tonight. I don't know how you tiptoe around a war, but it happened. And a new report about what he is doing in private may explain why. Plus, Trump suggesting he is prepared to lose control of Congress and is now revealing his plan if that happens, next.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[23:20:00]
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
COATES: Well, President Trump is promising Republicans will win in November. And if it doesn't happen, he'll make sure Democrats in Congress can't pass their agenda. But he left the door open for compromise. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
TRUMP: I'll end up being a blocker. I'll block all their bad stuff for two years. It won't be the same, but I'll be a blocker. What can I tell you? And probably be able to make deals with them. You know, they're going to want some stuff, and we'll get it. You make deals. I mean, it's one of those things. So, it's not as dire.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
COATES: So, let's bring in one of those Democrats, California Congresswoman Sydney Kamlager-Dove, who sits on the judiciary and foreign affairs committees and is joining us from Dallas where she has been countering the GOP's convention. Good to see you, congresswoman. Thank you for taking the time. I wonder if Democrats will be willing to work with the president if Democrats do retake control of Congress. What do you think?
REP. SYDNEY KAMLAGER-DOVE (D), CALIFORNIA: Well, A, we're focused on winning in November and taking back the majority so that we can have the power of the purse and the power of the gavel. The power of the gavel will allow us to hold this administration accountable and, obviously, the power of the purse is going to be about making America more affordable.
And, well, you know what? He's got it right. As Congress, the budget is our responsibility. So, obviously, you know, then Speaker Jeffries, I'm going to claim it, will be talking along with the leader of the Senate to the president to try to figure out how they can get a budget that will be passed. But understand, we're going to be coming to the table with legislation that's really focused on driving down the costs of groceries, gas, housing, and health care because we know that the American people are exhausted, they are tired of the false promises coming from this administration, they're broke, and they need relief.
COATES: Let's talk about a promise that some are calling false and maybe giving a little bit of a bribe-y feel, some of your colleagues have said. I mean, he has said that he doesn't need congressional approval to send those $5,000 checks that he's proposing if -- if Republicans win in November. You're on the judiciary committee. Do you consider this offer to be akin to a bribe? And, obviously, he would need your approval because you have the power of the purse. So, why do you think he believes he does not?
KAMLAGER-DOVE: Well, I think it's interesting that the National Review came out and A, called it a socialist proposal, and B, called it bribery. I know that if I were to say those kinds of words, I would be stuck with an ethics violation because it screams as quid pro quo.
But, ultimately, this is the president of false promises. He promised a great economy. The economy is in the toilet, and gas and groceries are really expensive. He promised an end to endless wars, and we've been in a war with Iran now for far too long. He promised the release of the Epstein files, still blocked, OK?
So, this is a guy -- and he has promised all kinds of refund checks, and he has not delivered on them. If he cared enough about the American people's financial circumstances, he would send out the money right now, but he doesn't. And he has put strings attached with this promise that says, if we win the Senate and the House, then maybe I'll send out these checks. Well, how about focusing policies that will help the American people in their pocketbooks right now instead of holding out hope and stringing folks along?
[23:25:03]
COATES: I mean, he will obviously argue that it's not bribery. He is making a campaign promise. But, as you rightly point out, you can see that through line to other campaign promises and the end result, but we shall see.
I do want to talk about the Iran war because in public, the vice president, J.D. Vance, he is giving a positive assessment. Again, that's in public. But, you know, "The New York Times," congresswoman, is reporting that military leaders are giving Vance a more candid view behind closed doors and saying -- quote -- "Mr. Vance came away from some of his conversations with deep concerns about the overall strategy and the prospects for success." When you hear that reporting, do you believe the vice president is misleading Americans about the state of the war?
KAMLAGER-DOVE: Well, I believe this war is unnecessary and unauthorized. Congress is the only entity that can authorize or declare war, and so it's a president that just went into this with no conversation with the American people.
I thought it was interesting, listening to J.D. Vance. He talked a lot about culture wars, he sorts of tiptoed over this Iran thing, and he talked not a lick about the economy. And, ultimately, we have military that are demoralized. We have the top brass in the military echoing a lot of concerns. We know that our munitions are low, and it will take years, years, years to recover from that depletion, and we're spending over a billion dollars a day. Servicemen and women have died. No one knows when this thing is going to end.
And, ultimately, you know, the Strait of Hormuz was open before all of these shenanigans started, and now we have a closed strait, we have diesel prices up, fertilizer up, we have the heartland hurting just like urban cities are hurting, and J.D. Vance really had no response for the American people about why we were in this war and how we were going to get out of it.
COATES: Well, congresswoman, if Democrats retake the House and, obviously, become the majority of Congress as well, you're going to have to go from, as a party, critic to creator in terms of the problem-solving. Do you think that the party is unified enough and has the right strategy and substance in place to hit the ground running if they do?
KAMLAGER-DOVE: Well, Laura, absolutely. I mean, you'd ask about these $5,000 checks in judiciary. Obviously, in many of those committees, we are going to drag these officials, we're going to drag them into the committee and ask them questions, and hold them accountable to the American people.
But this is an administration that has broken this government into a number of pieces. And after November 3rd, we are going to pick those pieces up. We are going to share with the American people why those pieces are so important, pieces like USAID, Obamacare, Medicare, SNAP, WIC, vouchers for housing, and we are going to put those pieces back together in a way that can hold all of the American people.
I do believe that Democrats are unified because we are hearing the pain in the voices of our constituents who are treading water. They are financially exhausted, and they are tired of being told that their pain doesn't matter.
COATES: Is the result or goal of dragging into committee and the exposure of the issues you talk about, is the goal impeachment or something else?
KAMLAGER-DOVE: Well, some of these people will have to be impeached. I mean, I've introduced articles of impeachment against Russell Vought, the proprietor of Project 2025. He has been working incredibly illegally. And there are a number of undersecretaries and assistant secretaries and secretaries that have been doing the dirty work for this president.
Is there a capacity to impeach Donald Trump for a third time? I do not know. But, ultimately, I think it is our responsibility to paint a picture for the American people and expose all of the corruption that has been happening, and reminding them about the power and the possibility of this government, hoping that we can infuse some new integrity into the system and build something that makes sense for everyone, that can hold everyone, and that can support the possibility and the promise of a brighter tomorrow. That's what we have to do because we will have presidential elections coming up in '28, and we've got to get this country back on track.
COATES: Congresswoman Sydney Kamlager-Dove, thank you for joining.
KAMLAGER-DOVE: Thanks for having me.
COATES: Up next, I know you've seen them, these terrifying A.I. headlines. Well, they just keep getting worse. Now, we are learning that A.I. may have been used to build biological weapons. My next guest testified right next to Sam Altman in the Senate, and he says the time has come for you at home to take matters into your own hands. Gary Marcus will join to explain what that might mean, next.
[23:30:00]
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
COATES: Well, right when you thought that you would see the worst of the headlines about A.I., you come across something like this: Anthropic says it blocked possible attempts to use A.I. to develop bioweapons. The company put out a new report that shows multiple incidents and instances of users trying to evade safeguards that prevent the support of potential bioweapons development. It includes the big, bold headline, sophisticated attacks no longer require sophisticated attackers.
[23:34:58]
In other words, you need not be some state-sponsored expert hacker to do some serious damage. You can just be some guy in a basement with enough time, a decent internet connection, and bad intentions.
And look, I know this deluge of A.I. warnings is disorienting and frightening. Yesterday, we were talking about researchers saying that A.I. could kill all humans within a decade. Now, we're talking about humans using A.I. that could trigger some kind of catastrophic harm. So, if all this goes off the rails, will it be like this?
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
UNKNOWN: No!
(END VIDEO CLIP)
COATES: Or more like this?
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
UNKNOWN: Baymax, destroy.
UNKNOWN: My programming prevents me from injuring a human being.
UNKNOWN: Not anymore.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
COATES: Joining me now, scientist and author Gary Marcus, also a professor emeritus at New York University and the mind behind "Marcus on AI," on Substack. Thank you so much for being here. Look, we are bombarded with all sorts of scenarios that become increasingly scarier by the hour, if not post. But what is more realistic here? I mean, A.I. going full-on terminator or humans using A.I. and triggering some kind of catastrophic harm?
GARY MARCUS, SCIENTIST, AUTHOR, PROFESSOR EMERITUS AT NEW YORK UNIVERSITY, CREATOR OF A SUBSTACK PUBLICATION: I wouldn't worry about the terminator scenario.
COATES: Good.
MARCUS: It makes for good science fiction. I don't think it's plausible. I know there was a guest last night on a different CNN show who was, you know, saying all humans might, you know, be killed in the next few years. That's not going to happen.
We are very resourceful. The people who tell these ghost stories don't really recognize how resourceful humans are. You know, if they started killing some of us, we would fight back, we would shut down the data centers. All of these things are kind of like idealized science fiction stories. That said, there is plenty to worry about. So, for example, it is true that these tools can help people with bioweapons. It's not going to help someone who doesn't have training in biology. But someone who has training in biology can get some help from this just like someone who has talent in math can get some help from these systems.
So, you know, these systems do amplify the powers of human beings. I don't think the systems are going to be malicious on their own, but we should worry about what, you know, malicious human beings do with them. Let's not panic here, but there are a lot of things to worry about. We want to try to make legal regulation around the things that might actually happen without focusing too much on the stuff in science fiction.
COATES: I mean, my mind goes to malicious humans, right? We have a nation of laws. We've got a body of laws because we expect that there will be some who are not the best of us, right? We try to regulate against that and guard against it. But we know that there is a possibility of wrongdoers, and we try to account for that, which is why I think people are so honed in on the potential for it being used and falling into the wrong hands.
But, as you point out, one of the hardest things for people to understand is why these companies keep building these models. If they say they're dangerous, if they truly believe that they have that potential to do so, not just the human nature, but the potential to do so, why not just stop? Is it because of ambition? Is it because of something else?
MARCUS: Some of it is about ambition and egomania. Some of it is about not really trusting other people. Some of these folks have talked themselves into saying, I'm the only one who can save us. They have a sort of messiah complex. Some of these people may be more talented than others but, you know, some of it comes from a kind of place of ego.
In a proper world, I think we would pause for a second or at least we would pause, especially these things called A.I. agents, which are very difficult to control. So, you know, the A.I. behind your GPS navigation system, we don't need to pause that. It never causes any serious harm. Web search never causes any serious harm.
But these agents, when you have -- you send out thousands of agents to try to solve some problem, we don't really know how to control it yet. In an ideal world, we would pause that until these people figure out how to make them safe, which I would say they haven't yet.
COATES: Let me know when you find that ideal world because I would like to have a train ticket there. We're not there, as you can imagine, but let me just eliminate that because there's the A.I. arms race with China. Senator Ted Cruz said this about slowing down A.I. in this country with that race going on.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
SEN. TED CRUZ (R), TEXAS: That is an impossible endeavor because you know who's not pausing? China. They are not going to stop. If they're going to be killer robots, I'd rather they be American killer robots than Chinese killer robots.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
COATES: So, if Cruz is right and China isn't going to stop, I mean, what does slowing down actually accomplish? Are we just behind the eight ball and naive?
[23:40:01]
MARCUS: So, nobody is going to stop building killer robots. I think that's right. But there are lots of other things where I think China would actually be open to making a deal. They don't want all of their banks to be shut down by this A.I., for example, or their power grids. They don't want disinformation to change their country. I mean, maybe they participate in their own. We could argue about that. But nobody wants third-party governments to destroy their own government. China has given various indications that they're open to international agreements around some of this.
We're not going to get agreements on everything. You know that's unrealistic. There's always going to be a competitive side. There's always going to be an adversarial side. But we might actually try to have a collaborative side, and we might collaborate, for example, on the risks that some of these systems are posing to cybercrime.
COATES: I'm going to still watch "Terminator" this weekend. Gary Marcus, thank you.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
REP. JAMES TALARICO (D), TEXAS: I think it's the most dangerous form of cancel culture.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
COATES: James Talarico is speaking out after Jimmy Kimmel's show says they won't air his interview on ABC. Why? Because of threats from the FCC. Well, tonight, we ask, is Trump winning the war on late night? Roy Wood Jr., Eric Deggans live with me on that, next.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[23:45:00]
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
JIMMY KIMMEL, TELEVISION HOST, COMEDIAN: This is not the first time you've been demoted to YouTube. When you were on Stephen Colbert's show --
TALARICO: That's right.
KIMMEL: -- this same, very same thing happened. Why are they so scared of you?
TALARICO: Well, they're worried that we're going to win this race in Texas.
(APPLAUSE)
KIMMEL: It tickles me that they're terrified of you. I mean, no offense, but you look like Richie Cunningham. It's like --
(APPLAUSE)
TALARICO: I'm not very scary.
KIMMEL: You look like you're running for student council.
(LAUGHTER)
TALARICO: That's right. I don't know what about this Boy Scout scares them so much.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
COATES: Jimmy Kimmel just sat down with Democratic Senate candidate James Talarico. But the clip you saw didn't air on the actual ABC broadcast. It was on YouTube. Why? Well, Kimmel says he and the network were threatened by Trump's FCC chair, Brendan Carr, for potentially violating the FCC's equal time rule. That rule would require the network to give Talarico's opponent, Ken Paxton, equal time. Now, historically, it has actually not been applied to entertainment talk shows, but the FCC in recent months has taken a tough approach with media outlets like ABC and Kimmel's show in particular.
Today, a White House spokesperson denied Kimmel's story, telling "USA Today" -- quote -- "Jimmy Kimmel is playacting -- as he often does -- to create a false narrative about this administration's policies. Chairman Carr has not threatened him regarding interviewing James Talarico, or any other candidate."
Joining me now is critic-at-large for NPR, Eric Deggans, along with comedian and the host of CNN's "Have I Got News for You," Roy Wood Jr., who is already laughing about it. Let me go to you first, Eric, on this, because --
ROY WOOD JR., CNN HOST, COMEDIAN, ACTOR: We never threat. No, no. We never say nothing to Jimmy Kimmel. Never. I'm sorry.
COATES: No, no, no. I want you to keep going. Eric -- Eric, you hear the sarcasm. It is slipping. What do you think? Is this -- is this somehow truthful, that they would never have threatened, that they just said, let's just go to YouTube?
ERIC DEGGANS, CRITIC-AT-LARGE, NPR: I think it's obvious that the FCC has already, you know, laid down a marker with shows like "The View," for example. "The View" has cut down on the political guests that it has had because it's been put on notice, it has been investigated. There is a great concern about what the FCC will do because, frankly, there's no precedent for how they have been handling these issues, and they can decide at any moment to try and review the licenses of stations or try to fine them. Disney is already at a point where it's fighting this fight where the licenses for several stations that it owns are being given an early review by the FCC, and there is some sense that there's some punishment attached to that.
Now, I don't blame Jimmy Kimmel and ABC for deciding not to take a chance and air an interview that might draw the ire of the FCC because they've already proven that they're willing to go after them.
COATES: Well, Roy, first of all, did you not get the "we're wearing yellow" memo tonight with me?
WOOD: You all didn't tell me.
COATES: OK. I'm sorry about that.
WOOD: You all didn't tell me. You all kicked me out the Black people group chat. You kicked me out.
COATES: You can still come to the picnic (ph). I don't know. But let me ask you this. I mean, the idea that this was demoted to YouTube, this is irony because, now, more people are going to see it on YouTube than they would have maybe seen it live. That same thing happened with nine and a half million views when it came to -- at one point, when it happened before.
WOOD: Yes. When you -- when you mess around and you also look at what happened with Colbert and Trump, and then you take them off the air --
COATES: Right.
WOOD: -- Colbert has probably got something up his sleeve between now and 2028 when it comes to independent media. So, the idea that you're stopping them, you're only adding fuel to the fire.
I just want to know, if you're ABC, though, like in a lot of these networks, I feel like CBS was kind of like the example that the administration tried to make by winning that lawsuit against CBS for whatever reasons that weren't one-to-one, but the idea that they're not afraid to go after the networks.
Maybe the networks want to keep their head down, but why not give the opponent equal time? Why not just -- if he doesn't -- if the issue is equal time, you don't have to put them on Kimmel. That's the other thing with equal time. It just has to be on the network. Put them on the phone in the morning.
COATES: Well, let me ask you. I mean, I'm not Eric. On that point, if you are -- the real issue here is being forced to have to do so in a way that they normally did not have to for an entertainment talk show. I don't even know if Ken Paxton would like to go on Kimmel. Has anyone asked Ken Paxton to go on Kimmel?
[23:50:00]
I'd like to see that actual conversation. But what do you say to Roy's point?
DEGGANS: Well, I think part of the issue is late-night shows were always exempted from these rules. So, number one, applying them to late-night shows seems to be, you know, kind of an anomaly.
I also think that these Republicans don't want to go on these shows. If Ken Paxton goes on Kimmel, Kimmel is going to carve him up. It doesn't make any sense for him to do it. And, also, it makes more sense for Ken Paxton to refuse to go on the show so that they will be afraid to have his opponent on.
And so, what's happening is that the Republican candidates have veto power over their opponents going on their shows by refusing to go on and give them equal time.
You know, you alluded to something that I think was important. I looked up the numbers for Talarico's appearance on Stephen Colbert and, as you said, it happened about six months ago. There are 9.5 million views on that video. I looked at the Talarico interview for Jimmy Kimmel. It has only been up for less than a half an hour, and it already has something like 40,000 views.
So, you're right, more people are going to see this interview than probably would have watched it on "Jimmy Kimmel Live," which does, you know, around two million viewers a night.
COATES: So, if you're Talarico, Roy, that's --
DEGGANS: So, what happens -- what happens is that the hosts are benefiting from it.
COATES: Yes. And this host will benefit with this last question to Roy. When you ask about it -- I think about that. Eric makes a really good point about the idea of the benefit. It's playing them at their own game. And so, is Trump really winning this late-night war there after all?
WOOD: No, but you get somebody to do what you want them to do. So, that feels like a win. If Talarico want to come on "Have I Got News for You," swing on by. We'll put you on YouTube, too.
(LAUGHTER)
COATES: You want that nine and a half million? You already got lots of views. Eric Deggans, thank you so much. Roy, we're going to come back in a moment because I want to talk all about your new show this season because you got plenty of material to work with, my friend. We'll be right back.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[23:55:00]
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
COATES: "Have I Got News for You" is back with a new season of the comedy quiz show. Coming to CNN this Saturday. You'll get the same edgy humor and the same great takes that only hosts Roy Wood Jr., Amber Ruffin, and Michael Ian Black can bring. This week's guests will be podcaster and comedian Jon Lovett and journalist Julia Ioffe. Roy Wood Jr., he is back with me now.
WOOD: Yes.
COATES: OK, what can I expect? I love this show.
WOOD: First and foremost, this is my mom's favorite show. Shout out to my mama who's right now watching.
COATES: Hi, mom!
WOOD: Yes, my mom will be watching.
COATES: Well, you're my favorite comedian. So, there you go.
WOOD: Thank you.
COATES: That's how that works.
WOOD: Thank you.
COATES: I'm getting mom points.
WOOD: With the first week back, the first episode back is always hard because we don't know how much we need to unpack from the last three months --
COATES: Or just three days.
WOOD: -- versus the last three days. If you go to the last three months, there has been a lot of -- a little bit of gerrymandering going on. Did the rockets in Hormuz still? How's the peace treaty going? Vivek Ramaswamy can't hit a baseball. Angie Nixon is fighting Democrats, Republicans, and the media. Where's Mitch McConnell? Did somebody call Hakeem Jeffries a slur? On top of all of that.
And then you have the freedom midterm rally, whatever this was, that just happened this week in Texas, where Trump got people pledging allegiance to him, not the flag. To him. Do you pledge allegiance to me? Yeah, we do. So, it's very hard to figure out what. I'm sure somewhere between now and Friday night when we take for Saturday air, three more things will happen, and I can't wait.
COATES: At the very least. And yet, I don't know how you do it all because -- you think about it. It's so easy to look at the news and just have a stiff upper lip and be down about it. But you present it in a way, and the whole show does, in a way that makes people lean in but think about it differently.
WOOD: Well, see, the difference between my show and yours, Laura, is that my show is not in the building where the bosses are.
(LAUGHTER)
So, I can just say what I want and just leave and not have to look people in the eye in the break room after making a terrible joke.
(LAUGHTER)
And then you also have the $5,000 thing. So, it's, like, where do you go? The president promised us all $5,000 if the Republicans win in November.
COATES: Yes.
WOOD: And get the check. Let me ask you a question. If Trump gave you half the money up front --
COATES: Half up front.
WOOD: If every American got $2,500 right now as like a down payment for the $5,000, what would you do with that check that don't clear?
COATES: That's half my hair budget for every two weeks. So, I don't know.
WOOD: No. It's not what will happen.
COATES: I'm kidding. That check clears.
WOOD: Yes. It's just a fun time. I'm happy that we're back on the air. I'm happy that we still get to make sense of everything that's going on.
COATES: Yes. Wait, wait, wait. Then make sense of this for me because there is an obsession that Trump has about somebody I think should be on your show, and that's Ken Paxton. Listen to this.
WOOD: Oh, yeah, Ken Paxton.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
TRUMP: I said, I don't really like the way he looks. I don't like it. I don't like anything. But you know what I do like? He was the greatest attorney general in the history of Texas.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
TRUMP: I said, I'm not sure if I like your look, I'm not sure if I like the way you dress, I don't like the way you talk, but you're the greatest attorney general.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) TRUMP: So, Ken Paxton, you might not like the way he dresses. And I say this. It's so insulting to him, but I might as well say it. You might not like the way he looks. You might not love his look. He was one of the best in the entire country. And that speaks a lot louder than the suit he's wearing that doesn't look so great.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
COATES: Damn.
WOOD: Didn't you like Trump more when he just had like a wrestling match and an IndyCar race?
[00:00:01]
Wasn't that a much easier --
COATES: Maybe Ken Paxton did.
(LAUGHTER)
I mean, everyone is Googling now. Does he look that bad? They've got to figure out his suits at this moment.
WOOD: You just got to take it. That's the president. It's still an endorsement. It's an insult endorsement. You ugly, but yes, man, you do your job. I don't know how that runs.
COATES: I can't wait for the show on Saturday. As always, love that you're here. Thank you, Roy Wood Jr.
WOOD: Good to see you again.
COATES: And be sure to tune in. The new season of "Have I Got News for You" premieres this Saturday at 9 p.m. on CNN and the next day on the CNN app.
Thank you all for watching. Here comes Elex Michaelson.
