Return to Transcripts main page
Laura Coates Live
Embattled Trump Lashes Out As Midterm Setbacks Pile Up; Democrats Accuse Trump Of Holding The Kennedy Center Hostage; War On A.I. Continues; Sydney Sweeney Faces Backlash For Suggestive Sports Betting Ad. Aired 11p-12a ET
Aired September 15, 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]
LYDIA MOYNIHAN, CORRESPONDENT, "NEW YORK POST": Everyone knows Trump likes putting his name on buildings, I don't think that's -- I've been seeing it on social media. People are astonished.
ABBY PHILLIP, CNN ANCHOR AND SENIOR POLITICAL CORRESPONDENT: All right. Another viewer says, If Jesse and Adam can't agree on politics, at least they can agree on fashion.
ADAM MOCKLER, YOUTUBE HOST: Hey, you took my suit. I was going to wear the suit.
JESSE ARM, VICE PRESIDENT AND POLLSTER, MANHATTAN INSTITUTE: Oh, you know, I didn't even -- I have so not an eye for this, I didn't even notice.
CORNELL WEST, FORMER PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE, AUTHOR, DIETRICH BONHOEFFER CHAIRMAN AT UNION THEOLOGICAL SEMINARY: That's interesting.
ARM: But we agreed on a lot. We were hanging out.
MOCKLER: We also coordinated suits before we came here.
PHILLIP: Got it. All right, guys. Everyone, thank you very much.
Tomorrow at 7pm, join me with John Berman and Harry Enten for CNN's official "Office Hours." We're going to answer your questions about the upcoming elections. Share those questions right now at cnn.com/officehours via the CNN All Access subscription.
And thank you for watching "NewsNight." "Laura Coates Live" starts right now.
LAURA COATES, CNN HOST AND SENIOR LEGAL ANALYST: Breaking tonight, a record seven House Republicans joined Democrats in a vote to stop Trump's war in Iran as the president now lashes out in the face of widespread political pressure. Plus, Democrats accusing Trump of holding the Kennedy Center hostage after he makes a dramatic demand to get his name on the building. And new tonight, Mark Zuckerberg stepping into the A.I. debate and taking a swipe at his rivals. Why he says their approach may be misguided. Tonight on "Laura Coates Live." My opening statement tonight, you've heard the phrase the walls are closing in, right? When it comes to President Trump's midterm squeeze, it's not just the walls. It's looking like the walls, the ceiling, and the floor are all caving in around him. The breaking news just moments ago, seven Republicans in the House, seven Republicans in the House joined Democrats in voting to rein in Trump's war with Iran, the latest rebuke of an unpopular conflict that has dragged down his presidency.
And if you wanted another example of just how intense the pressure is getting, well, look at the voters. A new poll shows they trust Democrats more than Republicans on issue after issue. And look at the margins as well. Health care, Democrats by 24 points. The Israeli- Palestinian conflict by 11. The budget deficit, well, that's by 10. The cost of living by eight. On the economy, immigration, and foreign wars, Democrats have a seven-point edge.
And speaking of foreign wars and the economy, here's another price tag Republicans are going to have to explain, the Iran war's cost. The Congressional Budget Office puts it at an eye-watering $38 billion. Oh, I should probably mention the CBO says it expects the war to spike inflation into next year, and it found U.S. munitions have been significantly depleted.
Not exactly the kind of headline Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth wants to see. And I can't imagine he envisioned what happened on Capitol Hill today either. A big (INAUDIBLE) surprise right on the House floor. Articles of impeachment against Hegseth.
But they weren't brought by a Democrat, nope, by a Republican, a perpetual thorn in Trump's side, outgoing Congressman Thomas Massie, the same Massie who helped force the release of the Epstein files. Let's call it one final parting white elephant gift to Trump before he leaves Capitol Hill. And this time, he planned it all in secret.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
REP. THOMAS MASSIE (R), KENTUCKY: I didn't give anybody heads up because when they found out I was doing the Epstein discharge petition, they canceled two weeks of Congress. And I think if they found out I was going to do this, they might have canceled even more days.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
COATES: Now, Massie's push to get Hegseth booted from the Pentagon, it's a long shot. But it's definitely not a headache Republicans want to deal with right before the midterms because they're already dealing with one, well, another one, and that gets us to the next piece of evidence in the GOP midterm squeeze, Trump's anger.
He is angry at the Supreme Court after it rejected his push to restrict mail-in voting. But more specifically, he went after the very justices he appointed. He says the people he -- quote -- "interviewed to serve on the Supreme Court are merely a shell of their original selves." But Trump's anger today, it did not end there. Wait until you hear what happened over at the Kennedy Center. The board just voted to shut it down for renovations. But Trump is now making a demand. Put his name on the building or the renovations won't happen. Here's what board member and congresswoman, Joyce Beatty, says Trump told her during the board meeting.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
REP. JOYCE BEATTY (D), OHIO: The president threw a tantrum. I was not going to let him tell me that he thought I was incompetent.
[23:05:00]
So, I responded by telling him I knew he was incompetent. He wanted to blame me if someone died, if something happened, if the ceiling fell in. And I reminded him, he has us at war and people are dying.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
COATES: With me now, Democratic congressman from New York, Dan Goldman, who is a member of the house judiciary and homeland security committees. Congressman, thank you for joining. Look, you just voted in support of this War Powers Resolution. Seven Republicans joined Democrats. But we have seen previous measures passed and go nowhere. Can your party build momentum after this one?
REP. DANIEL GOLDMAN (D-NY): Well, we're going to keep bringing them, and we're going to keep putting the pressure on, and that's why we're doing this. It's also why even a Republican, Thomas Massie, introduced articles of impeachment against Pete Hegseth today that are directly focused on the administration and Hegseth's refusal to abide by a War Powers Resolution under the law to restrict and close, stop all hostilities in Iran that this administration is just flouting.
It's yet another law, another requirement by Congress, by the Constitution, by the Supreme Court, that this administration is ignoring. And so, we're going to keep hammering, and you're seeing more and more Republicans coming on board now because this war is so disastrous.
COATES: We know there has been a time when impeachments were so rare, so few and far between. In the past several years, it has been far more frequent than perhaps anyone had anticipated. You've actually built an impeachment case before and recently. Do you think what Massie is alleging does raise the level of an impeachable offense? And if so, where will it go?
GOLDMAN: Well, look, I am a firm believer that you must do an investigation before you bring articles of impeachment. In 2019, when I led the Ukraine impeachment investigation, it was a serial investigation with many witnesses, with facts, with evidence that ultimately led to the impeachment.
I don't generally support articles of impeachment that are dropped on the House floor to be voted on. I bring up Thomas Massie's articles of impeachment. I think there are some aspects of it that go way too far from a real technical legal perspective. But yes, if you completely flout Congress's war powers, one of the two most important powers that Congress has under our separation of powers, that is an impeachable offense.
COATES: Let's talk about the Supreme Court, shall we? Because the president lashed out at the justices after they rejected the administration's mail voting restrictions for this year's midterms. And he says -- quote -- "These are not the people I interviewed. They are merely a shell of their original selves."
Now, you've been a federal prosecutor. What is the impact on judicial independence and, of course, the public's trust in democracy when the president is openly vilifying, frankly, the Supreme Court justices in this way?
GOLDMAN: Well, look, we've had 10 years of this president, and we know that he likes people who agree with him and he dislikes people who don't agree with him, and his view of everyone changes with the wind and according to whether or not they agree with him.
I think it's implausible that any judge, any justice would think twice about comments from Donald Trump. First of all, they have life tenure. And second of all, he is notorious for believing that the law is whatever he wants it to be.
And it is part of the reason why our democracy is on the brink, is that he is attacking every single lever of law, whether it be the Supreme Court, the Constitution, Congress's legislative powers, to co- opt it, to do whatever he wants to do, regardless of whether it may be legal or not.
It is something that the Supreme Court needs to much more aggressively stand up against, but it is something that we've seen lower courts around the country realized and be quite bold in standing up to Donald Trump's actions, including this absurd mail-in ballot ban and prohibition by executive order.
COATES: I want to turn to reports, congressman, that a Russian billionaire paid for parts of Donald Trump Jr.'s wedding party. You know, earlier today, the attorney general, Todd Blanche, he was pressed on whether the Department of Justice will investigate. Listen to what he said.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
TODD BLANCHE, ACTING ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE UNITED STATES: The president doesn't know who this person is. I think other members of the family don't know who this person is.
[23:10:00]
The president's son has said that he's a very close friend. I'm not sure what -- when you say, am I investigating, am I investigating what? And when you say, this person is a friend of Putin, I don't even know if that's true or not. So, I like that it's fun to talk about this issue and the rhetoric around it, but I think all the relevant people involved, the president and his kids, have already addressed it.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
COATES: I mean, congressman, I find it laughable to think that in any world of the Department of Justice, you just take someone's word for it, right? That doesn't happen normally. If there is an investigation and you draw conclusions based on what you have seen and evaluated, then you can essentially determine what was or was not. But he is saying nothing to see here, but only taking someone's word for it. Is he actively trying not to know?
GOLDMAN: Of course. I mean, it's even worse than that, Laura, because what he's basically saying is, I don't really know anything, so why would I investigate? Well, that's the point of an investigation. When you have a Russian oligarch paying tons of money, we don't know how much, for the president's son to celebrate his wedding, it doesn't take a rocket scientist to understand that he may be seeking something in return for that, which would be corruption. That is a federal public corruption charge. It's not complicated for Attorney General Blanche.
COATES: Even though Don Jr. is not in office. Just clarify.
GOLDMAN: Well, I mean, look, you would have to investigate it, right? You'd have to figure out what the connection is, whether there was actually an official act that was taken. I mean, all of this would have to be investigated.
I'm not saying as I sit here right now that the fact that he paid for it is a crime, but it's preposterous to say, why would I investigate? What are you, too busy investigating James Comey taking pictures with seashells on the beach? Is that what is taking up so much of your time, that you can't investigate a Russian oligarch, who he barely knew?
Blanche is wrong. He has said that he met him recently. Now, they're trying to embellish how close they were, of course, but that he just paid for a whole wedding celebration on a private island in the Bahamas, and he did that because he's such close friends with Donald Trump. No. He is trying to get something in return. Whether or not he does remains to be seen or whether or not this is a repayment for something.
But this is the most corrupt administration. This is the most corrupt family in government in history. They have made billions of dollars corruptly off of their business ventures and using government. And that's Don Jr. just as much as it's Donald Trump. So, yes, this has to be investigated, and I can assure you that the Democratic Congress will investigate this in the next term.
COATES: I mean, newsflash, sometimes, you investigate to exonerate, not just to implicate.
GOLDMAN: Exactly.
COATES: Congressman Dan Goldman, thank you so much.
GOLDMAN: Thank you.
COATES: Look, the president is facing hurricane-force political headwinds. And here to discuss, Washington Post editorial board member Carine Hajjar, former Democratic congressman from New York, Max Rose, and White House correspondent for Bloomberg, Jeff Mason. Glad to have all of you here. Let's start with the now third time that they have passed an Iran War Powers Resolution.
Look, voters are angry about the cost of living. The CBO report talking about a cost of $38 billion just so far. Inflation spiking as a warning. This seems pretty untenable now that you've got three new House Republicans joining in.
CARINE HAJJAR, EDITORIAL BOARD MEMBER AT THE WASHINGTON POST, FELLOW AT STEAMBOAT INSTITUTE: I think House Republicans and Republicans more broadly are starting to realize that loyalty to the president is not a political strategy anymore with much longevity. I mean, if you're looking to the midterms, certainly to 2028, war is unpopular, the economy is unpopular.
And it's not just on the war. I think that this is notable that Republicans joined Democrats in this. But it was also notable that there were certain Republicans facing extremely competitive Senate races that weren't at the Republicans' convention in Dallas last week.
So, people are reading the tea leaves, and they're understanding that loyalty to Donald Trump is not going to be enough to answer the hard questions that their constituents and voters have.
COATES: You seem skeptical.
MAX ROSE, FORMER NEW YORK REPRESENTATIVE: No, no, I'm not skeptical, but I do think that there's a lot of talk of this being 2018 all over again, right? Like, I won my election in 2018, I love people talking about it, but that's not the analogy. This is 2006 all over again. And we can talk about this issue, this issue, this issue.
It is about the war. It is about the war that should have never been conducted, that has been conducted with tremendous flaws to great cost, and that has catalyzed and perpetuated and exacerbated a horrific economic crisis. After the 2006 Republican route, Donald Rumsfeld resigned. We will see Pete Hegseth resign after the Republican route in this upcoming election.
[23:15:02]
COATES: There are already calls for him to be impeached. You see that. Thomas Massie had this secret plan that he didn't even want to share because he didn't want there to be some, you know, sort of hijinks to go on.
But, you know, there's new polling, I think, that's really fascinating here, Jeff, because it shows that voters now trust Democrats more on immigration and also the economy. These were the issues that delivered the White House to Trump recently, whether -- you can go back as far as we were talking about. Is there panic setting in the White House for that realization or is there still confidence that they can turn it around?
JEFF MASON, WHITE HOUSE CORRESPONDENT, BLOOMBERG: There's still confidence. And whether that confidence is rooted in anything that will actually lead to electoral success is TBD. But I think if you talk to people in the White House, they are not freaking out. I think they're not happy about the president's polling. The president is not happy about his polling, even if he's dismissive of it.
But you talk to Republicans at the convention. I was at the convention last week. I would be careful of saying -- as a reporter, anyway, my reporting does not suggest that Republicans writ large have decided that they want to distance themselves from Trump. They did in Dallas.
COATES: Well, some did not go.
MASON: Obviously, there are some who did not go.
COATES: Right.
MASON: But I can tell you from being in the room that night, that even when the president was saying things that were demonstrably not true such as this stadium is completely full, it wasn't completely full. And the only person who makes that a story is the president because he says it is when it's not. The people in the crowd were happy to hear that from him, and they were happy to hear everything else that he said.
HAJJAR: Look, I think Trump is still going to be a very important voice in the GOP. He continues to be a very important voice in the GOP. I mean on the policy level, the Iran war, the economic toll that it's causing, the inflation that CBO projects is going to go into next year. And on tariffs in particular, tariffs are becoming a huge issue in extremely competitive Senate races, especially in these northern states with a lot of trade with Canada.
So, I think, obviously, Donald Trump continues to be the center of the GOP, but a lot of his policies is creating this awkward situation where when Republicans are running, they can't just look to their voters and say, you know, I'm going to side with everything the president is doing because, in fact, even some of the president's core base, white working-class voters, are souring on his economy and on his leadership.
COATES: I mean, actually, CNN also learned that the vice president, J.D. Vance, told House Republicans in a closed-door meeting today that -- forget Trump for this. I mean, it's about your opponents. And he said, if their opponents are not -- quote -- "that crazy, then just talk about Abdul El-Sayed. He's got enough material for the whole country."
So, that suggests to me, given the polling and his closed-door statement, I mean, is that the winning message, pure deflection, when you could run on what he says are successes?
ROSE: Well, if J.D. Vance says so, of course, it must be true. What's fascinating here is that even when they come out and talk about their strategy, which they know is going to be ineffective because you can't distract from this inflation, it's fascinating that he says he does not say, make it about Hakeem Jeffries, right?
Now, that's the incoming head of the Democratic Party when he becomes speaker. And you would think that they would say, put his face on negative commercials. He's going to be the guy in charge, not in any way, shape or form. So, they need to establish some other evil person that won't actually be in charge of the House Democrats as speaker. They're grasping, and it's not going to work.
COATES: Quickly, is the boogeyman that they've identified the correct one or indicative of their think that they're going to lose in November?
MASON: Oh, I can't. It's not for me to say if they're choosing the right boogeyman. But I can say that the confidence is still there and that even when the polling suggests that the Republicans are going to certainly lose the House and possibly the Senate, they still see a pathway to maintaining control in both chambers.
COATES: Well, we will see if that happens about 50 days from now. Thank you so much, everyone. Still ahead, Trump's ultimatum for the Kennedy Center. Put his name on the building or he won't allow it to be fixed. A former Kennedy Center insider joins me as we learn just how far the president is willing to go on this. That's next.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[23:20:00]
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
COATES: America's leading cultural center is closed indefinitely, and there's no sign when it's going to reopen. The Kennedy Center board, packed with Trump loyalists, voted today to close the Performing Arts Center. It came after a judge again blocked Trump's name from being added to it. Sources tell CNN Trump called into the meeting and began yelling at people. As one source put it, it was effing crazy.
The DOJ immediately appealed the ruling, and Trump warned -- quote -- "If the ruling is a negative one, which it should not be, and is not overturned by the U.S. Supreme Court, the reconstruction and the renovation of the Kennedy Center will not take place."
Ohio Democratic Congresswoman Joyce Beatty is on the board, and she sued to stop Trump from renaming the center. Well, now, she says Trump is trying to bend the institution to his will.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
BEATTY: I think he's trying to hold the board hostage. It's not that what a prudent board chair would do. They would say, I'm making the donations to make it healthy, to pay the employees. What he is saying, I will do this if my name is on the Kennedy Center. If it's not, I'm not doing anything. I'll let it close down.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
COATES: I want to bring in artist Josef Palermo. He was the center's first visual arts curator, but was fired earlier this year. Also here, CNN legal analyst, a former federal prosecutor, Elliot Williams. Glad to have both of you here. I mean, it's disorienting to think that this is happening. And we knew that it was coming, and yet it's here. I mean, Yosef, the congresswoman believes that Trump is holding the Kennedy Center hostage. Does she have a point?
[23:25:00]
JOSEF PALERMO, FORMER CURATOR OF VISUAL ARTS, KENNEDY CENTER: Well, I think what he's certainly doing is using his whims and ego to determine the direction of the center, especially in the context of its renovations. I'm certainly not here to debate the merit of whether the renovations need to occur but, you know, I'm asking the question as to why, you know, the renovations are dependent on one man getting his name engraved into another man's memorial.
COATES: Can I ask? I mean, you worked at the Kennedy Center. You wrote in "The Atlantic" that the center did need repairs. In your view, does it need to close indefinitely to handle the repairs that you saw?
PALERMO: I think that, certainly, when the renovations were announced and when the money was appropriated from Congress last summer, July, they should have prioritized the roof repairs. Instead, in August, late August of 2025, the president himself came to tour the latest -- sorry, the first set of renovations that they did, which included gilding the presidential box of the opera house.
So, I really question their priorities in terms of these renovations and, you know, I don't think that their argument of needing a full closure for two years to fix the roof holds water when they could have taken care of this roof much earlier than now.
COATES: And based on his statements, Elliot, it seems pretextual because his -- whether the renovations are needed or not, he is not leading with that. He's talking about his name as a priority. And Congress holds the power to name the building. So, how is Trump going to try to argue around that in court?
ELLIOT WILLIAMS, CNN LEGAL ANALYST, FORMER FEDERAL PROSECUTOR: I don't know how he's going to try to argue around it in court, Laura. And you use the word pretext, and I think that's the big one here. Look, if this were truly about repairing the Kennedy Center, if it were truly about leaky roofs or seats that were creaky or whatever else, there would be no need to put the president's name on it.
And just by way of example, take -- I believe it was 2011. There was an earthquake here in Washington, D.C. The Washington Monument suffered some very significant damage, had scaffolding around it for years, did not get Barack Obama's name on it despite the fact, you know, Obama was the president at the time that that happened because those repairs could happen independent of who the president was.
The idea that this institution that, number one, was conceived by Dwight D. Eisenhower, funded by President Kennedy, opened by Congress, and then opened as a memorial in 1971 on Kennedy's behalf, as a living memorial to a slain president, somehow needs another individual's name on it is just outside of any notion of what needs to be done to fix the building. So, yeah, the president is certainly free to try, but it is a very odd exercise and a weird thing to dig in on at this point.
COATES: I'm glad you brought up the idea of different presidents having a hand in the construction and oversight of what was happening in Washington, D.C. because one of the claims he has been trying to make -- I mean, in his quote, he says that he alone has the ability to raise money and the ability to construct. That might be an ego argument, not one for court.
WILLIAMS: Well, he's certainly a successful builder in the private sector but no, he's not the only one who alone who has the --
COATES: It also wouldn't be a legal argument.
WILLIAMS: It would not be a legal argument. Congress has the ability to -- well, so, for instance, just look at the Kennedy Center's funding up until this point. It was funded both by Congress and by the funds of members like my family. We were members of the Kennedy Center for quite some time. That sustained the Kennedy Center for some time. Now, certainly, the place's finances could always be repaired and thought about and improved in some way, but the idea that only the president can fix it is just a fiction.
COATES: Tell me what it was like working at the Kennedy Center during this Trump era knowing how invested he was in the renaming and the really, I guess, public ownership, in a way, of the building. I mean, what concerned you most about his role here?
PALERMO: I think what concerned me the most was as the board chair, he certainly didn't have much to say in the way of oversight. You know, the name change didn't occur until the end of 2025. He didn't really seem to take as hands-on of an approach to the oversight of the Kennedy Center until it was revealed to him at the end of January that they had actually -- Rick Grenell had actually bankrupted the Kennedy Center.
So, I think, for me, what I found most unsettling was that his involvement in the Kennedy Center seemed to be when they were selling access to him. For example, there were the Les Miserables preview performances where tickets went for $2 million for the opportunity to --
COATES: What?
PALERMO: Yes, ma'am. I wrote about this in "The Atlantic." They were selling seats near him at the Les Miserables performance for $2 million, which also included access to a private reception. Seats that were in the orchestra at the same performance that he was in the building were six figures, a hundred thousand dollars.
[23:30:00]
So, you know, his involvement in the Kennedy Center for a long time was mostly related to the selling of access to him.
WILLIAMS: Really -- really quick, Laura. Perhaps the biggest step here is the one that happened behind the scenes, which was restructuring the board and taking the votes away from a number of board members of the Kennedy Center. Now, the people who are able to cast votes about the Kennedy Center's future are loyalists to the president. And that changed the structure, certainly, the Kennedy Center had up until -- I think it was last year or something like that.
More than any of these other actions, all these questions of finance and what's happening, are they going to knock the building down, seemed to be made by people that are close to the president, not the board that Congress sort of conceived of.
PALERMO: If I may just add to the point about the board, you know, I think one of the most incompetent things that this current leadership have done at the Kennedy Center was to unceremoniously fire David Rubenstein as the chairman of the board. He was cutting checks at the end of every year to fill the holes for the finances.
COATES: Joseph, Elliot, thank you both so much.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
SEN. BERNIE SANDERS (I), VERMONT: The big tech oligarchs must no longer be allowed to determine the future of humanity.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
STEVE BANNON, FORMER WHITE HOUSE CHIEF STRATEGIST: They want you to be afraid of it. We're not going to be afraid. We're going to take this on.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
COATES: An unlikely duo, Bernie Sanders and Steve Bannon, teaming up to take on A.I. as Mark Zuckerberg now enters the chat with a very different point of view. My next guest appeared on the same stage as Sanders and Bannon today. Alex Bores joins me to explain where the A.I. fight goes from here.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[23:35:00]
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
COATES: The calls to reign in A.I. are now uniting people that you never imagined. Progressive Senator Bernie Sanders and Trump's former White House chief strategist, Steve Bannon. Now, these two are polar opposites politically. But today, they took the stage just moments apart at a pro-human event to call for A.I. guardrails. Now, their approach is pretty different, but they struck the same tone when warning about the risks.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
SANDERS: If you are concerned about what is happening today, take a deep breath and try to imagine where A.I. will be five years from now, 10 years from now, 20 years from now.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
BANNON: This is a hinge in history. We have to handle this right, correctly. To handle it correctly, number one, we can never trust what an oligarch says because all they do -- they're disingenuous and they lie. This has to be the American people.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
COATES: My next guest made regulating A.I. a centerpiece of his campaign when he ran for Congress. A few months ago, he launched a brand-new initiative to unify Democrats on A.I. policy. The New York Times tonight says, "With Democrats divided on how best to regulate A.I. and how much to emphasize it, one New York state lawmaker wants to position himself as a kingmaker on the topic once primary season begins."
Well, New York State Assemblyman Alex Bores joins me now. Assemblyman, thank you for being with us. You actually spoke at the same event today. I'm not overstating. These were strange bedfellows to even see on the same stage, but they're both pro-humans, so there you go. But when those two are agreeing on the need to rein in A.I., shouldn't that be enough to spur Congress into action?
ALEX BORES (D), MEMBER, NEW YORK STATE ASSEMBLY: You would hope. And it's weird to our eyes because we're used to every issue being polarized. I point out it wasn't just them. It was also CPC Chair Congressman Greg Casar and Congressman Chip Roy. You had a lot of people that disagree on everything except that it's the American people that should have a say in where A.I. goes from here.
I'll add in, we heard not just from elected officials, but from parents who had lost a kid to an A.I. chatbot. We heard from labor representatives, from artists. We heard from a broad swath of society because that's who A.I. is affecting. And this is not a polarized issue when you talk to Americans. So, it shouldn't be polarized when you're talking to elected officials.
COATES: You know, Mark Zuckerberg, who has made many appearances now on the Hill, controversial in terms of Congress's inability to truly regulate social media and add to the liability context of it, he's weighing in tonight. He's saying that Meta delayed shipping their A.I. agent, Muse, for several months to focus on safety. And they didn't call for everyone else to do it before they did. They just did it as part of their day-to-day work.
I mean, a little bit of shade. Is this a jab at companies who are calling for regulations? Does he doubt why they want it?
BORES: Maybe it's a jab. I'm going to give him credit for saying that it's self-reflection and improvement from previously. They released models that they claimed had guardrails built in, that, actually, you could remove those guardrails for about $20 worth of compute. So, maybe they're learning from past mistakes and improving.
COATES: But do you trust self-regulation?
BORES: No. Of course not. It's going to be an important piece going forward. I'm glad that there are safety standards that all of these labs have put forward, but that is not sufficient. We need government action ideally at the federal level, ideally with an international treaty. So far, the only level of government that has operated with the speed that's required has been state government.
COATES: And yet, the federal government is well aware that some of these companies are saying, you know, regulate us, regulate us, we want you to regulate us. People have been questioning the motivation for that and also the capacity of Congress to be able to keep pace with what would be needed to have regulation.
[23:40:02]
Every red tape strand is years behind development.
BORES: Of course. But Congress regulates plenty of industries that move fast. I mean, we have a nuclear arsenal. That's pretty complicated. Most people don't know how to deal with that. We regulate pharmaceuticals. We regulate banking. We regulate the internet broadly. Like, government has to be able to react. They can talk to experts.
But we need a Congress that is coming together, especially on an issue that 80 percent of Americans agree upon. We just need to hand the mic to the American people. They're speaking with one voice that they want regulation.
COATES: I mean, I agree, you don't just throw up your hands and say, well, we probably can't keep up, so you can go ahead and run laps around us. But your point raises another one to me, and that's the former FTC chair, Biden's former FTC chair. Lina Khan says that there are current laws that can already be used to hold A.I. companies and, of course, the CEOs accountable for dangerous, unvetted products. Do you believe the existing laws that we have on the books, not just the fact that we regulate other industries but the existing laws we have, are sufficient?
BORES: Lina Khan is a legal genius, and I'm not a lawyer, so I'm not going to analyze her legal theory. But I will say that, for the American people, if we're being told the laws are sufficient, why is no one being prosecuted for the OpenAI agents hacking Hugging Face? These agents, these A.I. models, hacked another website. They schemed and talked to each other and committed an action that, if a human had done it, is a clear federal felony.
And everyone is looking around saying, well, is OpenAI responsible? Is the company that set up the test responsible? Is an individual developer responsible? Maybe there's a theory that tells you what it is. But, absolutely, no one believes there's going to be a prosecution. So, theoretically, are the laws good enough? Maybe. But in the real world, no, and we need to change them.
COATES: Do you think these companies are exploiting the ignorance surrounding how A.I. works and responsibility-wise?
BORES: I think there's a general trend to say this is too complicated for normal people to understand. But we have entered a scale of impact in society that it has gone from a niche technical aspect to a discussion about values, a discussion about what we want society to look like, what jobs we want to be protected, what we want our kids to be exposed to. Those aren't technical questions. Those are deep questions about our democracy and our society. And the only way to answer them is actually by talking to voters.
COATES: Is any of it fruitful without international agreement?
BORES: Yes. An international agreement would be great and the incentives actually align far more than people realize. Yesterday, the intelligence chief in China said that A.I. is a huge risk to the CCP control of the state. So, they have an incentive to come to the table.
But people underestimate how much of Chinese advances are based on distilling American frontier models. If we were to slow down and base in America, even if China didn't change anything, that would also slow down what's happening there. It's a time for American leadership.
COATES: Assemblyman Alex Bores, thank you so much for joining.
BORES: Thanks for having me.
COATES: Up next, Sydney Sweeney at the center of another controversy as women athletes accuse her of setting them back. Rachel Nichols live with me tonight on this and more, next.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[23:45:00]
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
COATES: Is the internet perhaps going to lose its mind every time that Sydney Sweeney joins a new P.R. campaign? Well, maybe if there's a good reason, yes. First, it was the American Eagle "good jeans" ad that became a culture war. And now, she's facing a ton of backlash for something else.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) SYDNEY SWEENEY, ACTRESS: Think you know sports? Prove it. Novig is just sports. So, they wanted to show just sports. You can't trade the sport and the sport (ph).
(END VIDEO CLIP)
COATES: Yes, thanks. I've seen it. Take it off. Thanks so much. You played enough of it. That ad is for the sports prediction market Novig, and Sweeney has come under fire from several female athletes for reducing their abilities on the court and on the film of the suggestive ad.
A Chilean swimmer and four-time Olympic gold medalist Ariarne Titmus writing -- quote -- "Not only is it a kick in the face to every woman who had dedicated her life to perfecting her craft, but every woman who enjoys sports for what it really is -- teamwork, friendship, dedication, excellence, unity. How do we live in a world where monetizing a woman's body and sexualizing women's sport is still a thing?"
Sweeney's response to the blowback? Well, she posted a series of nude photo shoots that athletes did for ESPN's body issue, including Serena Williams, Megan Rapinoe, Ronda Rousey, and she seems to have been implying the outrage only has to do with her.
Joining me now, sports journalist and analyst for Fox Sports, Rachel Nichols. Rachel, I'm glad you're here. I mean, the blowback she has been getting is fierce. It is widespread. Is it fair?
RACHEL NICHOLS, SPORTS JOURNALIST AND ANALYST, FOX SPORTS: I think it is fair, but in a different way than some of these athletes are portraying it. And, by the way, they're right to feel any way they feel. They've worked so hard to be treated a certain way. But the CEO of the company came out when all of this became controversial. He said, we weren't even thinking about women's athletes which, by the way, is, A, part of the problem, and B --
COATES: They had a sports company that wasn't thinking about women's sports.
NICHOLS: Women's sports at all. But it really just, to me, it is more of an underlying of American society where we are now. I think she's right in some way this doesn't have anything to do with her because it really is a bigger picture. You know, I worked here at CNN for a long time and people would say, oh, you're a sports person. Why are you working in a news network?
[23:49:58]
And I would always say it's because sport is still maybe the only great tent in America that we all go into. Nobody goes to the same churches anymore. We don't watch the same newscasts, we don't watch the same movies and T.V., but we all watch sports. And so. sport is often a reflection of where society is right now.
And there's just no arguing that women have been sexualized, particularly in sports. There was a recent sort of examination of advertising and the sexualization of women, and it showed that 50 percent of advertising sexualizes women. But when it's in the man's space, men's magazines, places where men often go like sports broadcast, it's 72 percent of any woman shown is being sexualized. The Dallas Cowboys cheerleaders, the Laker Girls, we take these things as just, oh, yes, they've been that way for decades.
But I go to a lot of Lakers games, I live in Los Angeles, and I'm watching practically naked women writhing on the floor and moving their hips. You know, I know some of those women, and I don't begrudge them their job, but it is setting a tone that is, hey, women are to be looked at, women aren't to do anything.
COATES: Well, some of the women who are participants in that way, they don't feel as though they're being objectified. They oftentimes will feel as though they are empowered. They will say they're sex positive. They will say they're dancers and that they are dancing in a way that may be provocative to others, but is their art form. And yet we know that that undercurrent of the tone of sex selling was exactly what was being tapped into by this ad.
NICHOLS: The purpose.
COATES: And I want to play because you mentioned the CEO of Novig addressing it today. He actually defended Sweeney. Listen.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
JACOB FORTINSKY, CEO, NOVIG: And as a company, we're hugely supportive of women's sports. I think it's a huge component of our platform. I think there are a lot of people who have feelings about Sydney as a person that sort of predate this campaign. And so, working with her, we obviously expected the people who already hate her would, you know, be sort of loud and vocal but, ultimately, I think she did a great job at sort of conveying the essence of our company. You know, we've been very happy with how positive the feedback has been overall.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
COATES: So, they rage baited and it worked.
NICHOLS: It worked.
COATES: We're talking about it.
NICHOLS: Yes.
COATES: That's the summation of that.
NICHOLS: But think about it. These prediction markets, which have sprung up over the last five years or so, they're in a fierce battle for money. And the way this one that nobody had ever heard of before this ad decided to distinguish itself was with sex and sports. You can't bet on wars, you can't bet on politics, that kind of thing.
And Sydney Sweeney has equity in this company. So, she is -- this was very purposeful. She has decided she is going to use her body to make money. And she has a lingerie company now. And the ad for that is her crawling on a table in lingerie and heels because she knows that that will sell and that is, too, in service of a product that she is getting money from. And people have made that decision.
I certainly appreciate her making the money as opposed to someone making the money off her. But I also know, as the mother of two teenage girls, the messaging this sends out all the time is difficult because there's just a direct link between seeing all this hyper- sexualization of women and what teenage girls think of themselves. And so, it's just -- it's just one more step for, I think, parents of girls to feel like, man, I wish this wasn't the way this was going.
COATES: Spoken like a mother of a daughter, like myself. Rachel Nichols, thank you so much. Up next, we remember one of the darkest days in the civil rights movement 63 years (INAUDIBLE).
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
REP. TERRI SEWELL (D), ALABAMA: Their sacrifice helped galvanize a movement that changed the course of our nation.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[23:55:00]
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
COATES: While some people are trying to rewrite our nation's history, one community is acknowledging one of its darkest chapters 63 years ago today. That's when the KKK bombed a church full of children in Birmingham, Alabama to try to derail the civil rights movement.
They ignited sticks of dynamite inside the 16th Street Baptist Church. And in an instant, a sanctuary was desecrated by an act of terror. Four little girls were killed, 11-year-olds Denise McNair and Cynthia Wesley, and 14-year-olds Carole Robertson and Addie Mae Collins. Three Klansmen were eventually charged and convicted.
Today, the church commemorated that tragedy by opening a new visitor center. Instead of running from their history, they're choosing to reflect and learn from it.
But 63 years after the bombing, the lone survivor is still fighting for justice. Sarah Collins Rudolph escaped the blast and tried to rescue her sister, Addie Mae, who was killed. Sarah was left with glass in her eye that's still there to this day along with trauma that has lingered for decades.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
SARAH COLLINS RUDOLPH, 16TH STREET BAPTIST CHURCH BOMBING SURVIVOR: It changed my life so much until I was -- like I say, I was nervous, I was fearful. And every time I would hear a loud sound, I would jump, you know? Because the bombing, it was so loud. But that bomb, boo-hoo- hoo, it shook me. It shook my body, you know? And I had to go through this until I was in my 40s. Then I got a prayer from a preacher. And when I got prayer, it really changed me.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
[23:59:55]
COATES: After years of pleas, Alabama Governor Kay Ivey issued the first formal apology from the state in 2020, acknowledged that segregationists like former Governor George Wallace helped fuel the racist violence. But she did not promise to pay any restitution that Sarah's attorneys had requested. Instead, she directed the state legislature to begin those discussions. Well, six years later, 75- year-old Sarah Collins Rudolph, she is still waiting for those discussions to begin.
Thank you all for watching. "The Story Is with Elex Michaelson" is next.
