Return to Transcripts main page

Laura Coates Live

Trump Stumps In Red States Amid GOP Fears Of Midterm Defeat; Active Criminal Investigation Into Cornell Case; DOJ Asks Court To Let Trump Reinstate White House Press Ban; A.I. Leaders Agree To Self- Police As Calls For Guardrails Grow. Aired 11p-12a ET

Aired October 02, 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]

ABBY PHILLIP, CNN HOST: You can catch the all-new episode tomorrow at 9 p.m. on CNN and streaming the next day with an All Access subscription. Thank you very much for watching "NewsNight." Tomorrow, be sure to catch "Table for Five" at 10 a.m. Eastern right here on CNN. "Laura Coates Live" starts right now.

OMAR JIMENEZ, CNN HOST: Tonight, President Trump hits the trail with 32 days to go, stumping in red states, as Republicans warn the midterm map just got even harder to defend. Plus, the criminal investigation into the alleged rape at Cornell now underway as new reporting comes out about additional evidence the D.A.'s office reportedly declined to review. And the administration's new filing in defense of President Trump's ban against the press is in. So, how are they defending it now? Tonight, on "Laura Coates Live."

Good evening, everyone. I'm Omar Jimenez, in for Laura on this Friday night. We're going to start with the president navigating some new warning signs just 32 days before the November midterms. The map his party is trying to defend appears to be expanding. Just tonight, the president was in Mobile, Alabama trying to rally Republicans in a state he won three times. He has Ohio on the schedule tomorrow, where both the Senate and governor's races appear to be a toss-up, and a state he won by double digits last time around, by the way. And he already hit Texas and Oklahoma yesterday. The president admitted tonight that he went to Texas because he's worried about Texas and Ken Paxton. But why Alabama? Here's what he said.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

DONALD TRUMP, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: In the case of Oklahoma and Alabama, I'm here to say hello, I love you, and I'm coming really as a sign of respect.

(APPLAUSE)

(END VIDEO CLIP)

JIMENEZ: Now, in his speech, the president claimed prices are going down, and he continued to paint the economy as booming despite evidence otherwise, including today's jobs report, which complicates that message. For example, the jobs market added 29,000 jobs, but that is way off the expected 90,000 jobs. And if you check the date, it's the last jobs report before voters make up their minds with these midterm elections.

Another warning sign came from North Carolina, where polls keep showing Democrat Roy Cooper with an advantage in the Senate race, so much so that sources tell CNN that the top Republican super PAC in the Senate has actually paused funding there, and sources tell us the party is now moving resources to Kansas. So, for some Republicans, it sounds a little bit like deja vu.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

SEN. STEVE DAINES (R), MONTANA: There arguably could be some similarities between the '06 cycle and the 2026 cycle. Think about the condition of the country back in '06, an unpopular war. Six in 10 Americans opposed the Iraq war at that point. Gas prices had doubled. Does this sound familiar? And we ended up losing six seats. That was a night, by the way, we lost some redder states.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

JIMENEZ: We will see this time around. I want to start, though, with the Democrat who is running to be the next governor of Alabama, former senator, Doug Jones. And look, senator, I appreciate you taking the time. President Trump took direct aim at you tonight. He called you a -- quote -- "radical lunatic" -- end quote. I just want to give you a chance to respond to that.

DOUG JONES, ALABAMA GUBERNATORIAL NOMINEE, FORMER ALABAMA U.S. SENATOR: How do you respond to be calling a radical lunatic? I mean, it just shows you that they're pretty desperate, when they're just resorting to name calling. I mean, notice he didn't say anything about the positions I'm taking, the fact that we were out there campaigning with Alabama folks, talking about the issues, talking about expanding Medicaid, talking about all of the things that I think Alabama folks care about, including those high gas prices that Donald Trump called. So, you know, look, that's the best they got, is to call names. I think we're in pretty good shape.

JIMENEZ: You know, we're talking about some of the stops that the president is making. He'll be in Ohio tomorrow. You also said this week that the president is visiting Alabama because he knows Tommy Tuberville is in trouble. He just announced he'll be back next weekend for a college football game. Some see it as sort of rallying the troops. I mean, he won Alabama pretty handily. But I wonder, for you, do you also want to see President Trump in Alabama and that you think it hurts Tuberville by being there?

JONES: You know, I don't know if it hurts Tuberville, although he is underwater in Alabama. Every legitimate poll that we have been seeing and talking to folks about shows that he is underwater.

[23:05:00]

Donald Trump does not have the same kind of popularity in Alabama, anywhere close to it than he had. But I want to tell you, Omar, that here's the interesting thing about this rally tonight. I've been saying this now for a couple of days after I first heard that he was coming. But the real reason that Donald Trump came has nothing to do with Alabama. It has nothing to do with Tommy Tuberville. It had everything to do with him wanting another vanity project and getting the new Mobile Bay Bridge named after him. He said that tonight.

That's all this was about. He doesn't care about any folks in Alabama and the fact that they're hurting, farmers are hurting, people are hurting. He doesn't care. Tuberville doesn't care. This was all about a bridge naming.

JIMENEZ: And, you know, even whether, you know, that's the reason he's there or not, you still have a race to try and claw back and win. And, you know, it's a steep hill to climb. I don't think anyone is saying that. A steep path for you there in Alabama. And in many respects, your path to victory relies on some big turnout from Alabama's Black voters. But you look at the recent Supreme Court ruling, it reduced Alabama back to a single majority Black district this election. And I just wonder, more generally, how do you think that ruling will impact this election and your chances, quite frankly?

JONES: You know, Omar, I'm glad you mentioned it. Maybe by the numbers. But I'm going to tell you what. People are energized. Shomari Figures is going to win that second congressional district. There is no doubt in my mind about that. He is doing well. People are energized. You know, when people -- you know, after a long time, when people kind of take their vote for granted, they now see that they cannot take that vote for granted. People are energized.

And I'm going to tell you something else in Alabama. Watch out for the first congressional district because they've changed some demographics there, too. We've got a really good candidate running in that district. And look out for the fifth congressional district up north. I'm telling you, this is a changed election. People are looking for change in Alabama like they are in the rest of the country.

I know what the historical numbers say. But you can throw out the history votes. It's just like Alabama-Auburn game. You just throw out the history books and go with what you've got. This is where we are, and I am thinking that people are looking for a change.

JIMENEZ: I was wondering if we were going to get through an interview with an Alabama person before the Iron Bull came up, in some way or another, but, hey, we got there in the end.

Look, you talk about sort of this being a change for Alabama voters, a change for one across the country as well. You know, say Democrats take back at least the House here, which trends show that they typically would on an off-power cycle from the president. Some Democrats are already demanding the impeachment of the president and members of his administration. And I just wonder, in your opinion, should impeachment really be the focus if Democrats take back Congress? What should priority number one be, in your belief?

JONES: The priority of the Democrats in the House, the Senate, and governors across the country should be the people of America and the people in the states. That doesn't necessarily have anything to do with the impeachment of the president or anybody else.

We got to get gas prices down. We got to get affordability issues under control so the people of America and the people in Alabama can relax, people can get back to their regular order of business when it comes to their families so that they're not in a strain every month to try to go paycheck to paycheck. That needs to be the priority of Democrats.

We are running, everybody in America, including every Democrat that's running with me in Alabama, is running to try to help the working people of this state, the working people of this country. That has got to be the focus. Now, Congress has got a lot of things to juggle. A lot of things will be on their plate.

JIMENEZ: Sure.

JONES: But I hope that everyone will focus on the affordability issues and the families of America.

JIMENEZ: Only one Iron Bull reference. Former Senator Doug Jones, really appreciate you being here. A lot to talk about here.

I want to turn to former George W. Bush White House spokesman, Pete Seat, and former Republican congressman turned Democrat, Joe Walsh. Good to see you both. So, Pete, I just want to start with you because, look, we got the last jobs report before the election. It shows, look, jobs were gained, but lower than the forecast was predicting here. President Trump, though, is still out there telling voters this is a hot economy. And, you know, you can look at certain indicators here and there. But do you believe that messaging is a mistake?

PETE SEAT, FORMER WHITE HOUSE SPOKESMAN FOR FORMER PRESIDENT GEORGE W. BUSH: I don't think it's the message that we should be running on. No. This is the same trap that the Biden administration fell into.

[23:09:58]

I've been saying it consistently here on CNN and elsewhere for probably a year now, that Americans are feeling what they feel, they're seeing what they see, and we need to be honest about that.

Yes, there are macroeconomic indicators that look good, the stock market is doing well, but unless you're selling stocks and withdrawing money, you probably don't care all that much.

Yes, there's a lot of investment that's coming into this country, factories are being built, data centers are being built, infrastructure is being built across the country, but you probably don't care all that much unless you are actually one of the construction workers that's helping to build those projects.

Most people care about whether or not they have a job right now and whether they are able to make ends meet. That's what the president needs to focus his messaging on, that's what Republicans need to focus their messaging on if we're going to be able to mitigate losses here in November. JIMENEZ: And, congressman, some of what Pete was talking about, those Biden-era mistakes, former Biden White House Press Secretary, Karine Jean-Pierre, has actually talked about that very thing, saying, you know, as part of "The New York Times" op-ed, that once people believe their government is not speaking to their reality, it becomes incredibly difficult to earn that trust back. Has the ship already sailed?

JOE WALSH, PODCAST HOST, FORMER ILLINOIS REPRESENTATIVE: Gone. Omar, that ship is -- you can no longer see that ship. And part of Trump's problem is he lies as he breathes, so people are no longer listening to him.

Look, I'm older than you two. I'm not a kid. I never, ever have remembered a president who has had such an impact on the economy, and not in a good way. Like, this is easy. Trump has single-handedly messed up this economy. And voters know it. His stupid illegal tariffs, his stupid illegal war, his cruel illegal mass deportations, Americans know these and they feel these. And Omar, this is all on him. I never -- I've never -- I can't think of a situation like this where one president has single-handedly caused such economic damage. That ship has sailed.

JIMENEZ: Well, and Pete, you and I have talked on air about this before, where it seems that we're in a situation where some Democrats want to see the president out on the campaign trail given his approval, and then some Republicans are looking at his power within the party to try and drive some voter enthusiasm.

And, you know, we're learning that the biggest Republican Senate super PAC is diverting its resources away from the North Carolina Senate race, for example, to Kansas, where Democrats haven't won a race, a Senate race, in 94 years.

And Pete, I just wonder, how do you assess that move? Is it more to make sure that Republicans don't lose Kansas or do you believe that Democrats actually have a chance here?

SEAT: This is the time in the cycle where you have to make -- when you have to make difficult funding and resource decisions. So, if they're looking at the polling and North Carolina is no longer within reach for Republicans, then move those resources. I fully support that. You don't want to continue throwing good money after bad money. You want to put those dollars, you want to put those volunteers in states where we can either defend vulnerable Republicans or potentially pick up Democrat-held seats.

So, I'm not surprised to see this move. Michael Whatley has been behind against Roy Cooper since almost the very beginning. This was probably going to happen eventually. So, I'm glad they're making this decision, moving those resources where they can be more effective.

JIMENEZ: Joe, were you surprised to see the move?

WALSH: No, because, Omar, again, this is unprecedented. Damn near every state is in play. Damn near every House race is in play. And I always tell Democrats, Omar, this is not because of you. It's not like voters are in love with Democrats. They're not. This is all on Trump. This is 19 months of utter chaos and incompetence and economic angst. It's all about Trump. So, every state is in play. Republicans have to do what they can to defend states they'd normally have in the back.

JIMENEZ: Pete Seat, Joe Walsh, appreciate you both. Thanks for being here.

Just ahead, Jane Doe's attorney accusing Cornell University of a cover-up as new reporting says the D.A.'s office turned down a chance to review additional evidence. We'll talk about it. Plus, as the president rails against the press, the DOJ tries once again to defend his ban. We've got the newest filing just in tonight. We'll take you through those details, coming up.

[23:15:00]

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

JIMENEZ: The alleged gang rape at Cornell University is now an active criminal investigation. That's according to New York Attorney General Letitia James, who Governor Kathy Hochul appointed as special prosecutor after she says she lost faith in the local D.A.

And tonight, we have new details about how that D.A. handled the initial allegations. "The New York Times" says they obtained records showing the D.A.'s office declined to review additional evidence Cornell police gathered outside of the six-page statement signed by Jane Doe. The Times reports the D.A.'s office did not express interest, saying they agreed that based on the woman's statement, criminal charges would not be pursued.

In a separate statement supporting the special prosecutor decision, the D.A. blamed the university, saying -- quote -- "It has become clear that we are not provided the full picture by the university. The focus has been and should continue to be on the victims."

[23:20:00]

Now, initially, Cornell said it shared all of its investigative information with the D.A.'s office. But today, the university edited its FAQ page on the case to say it only shared -- quote -- "the victim's sworn statement and the Snapchat screenshot with the D.A." Cornell says it supports the appointment of a special prosecutor and is committed to an independent, external review of the case.

But a lot to talk about here. Let's bring in -- let's talk about the legal path forward, including what might come with charges, with former New York prosecutor, Deanna Paul. Really appreciate you being here. So, the special prosecutor says this is a criminal investigation and that they will pursue prosecutions if warranted. Is that just laying the groundwork for charges here? How do you see this playing out?

DEANNA PAUL, PARTNER AT GERAGOS & GERAGOS, FORMER NEW YORK PROSECUTOR: I don't think this is just laying the groundwork for charges. Given all of the questions that have surfaced with regard to the original investigation, I think it definitely does value to bring in a prosecutor that has fresh eyes.

But an independent prosecutor doesn't mean that there's automatically going to be a different result than we already saw. Independence here means that they're independent from a public pressure to reverse the original decision, but they're also independent from the original decision.

And so, Tish James' role here is really going to be starting from scratch, going over every witness interview, every piece of forensic evidence, digital evidence, all the communications, and letting the evidence lead where it's going to lead.

JIMENEZ: And, you know, as you look through, as you look ahead really here, Jane Doe told campus police that the encounter started off as consensual before she said no. But now, Jane Doe's attorney says she was in no condition to consent to anything. I just want you to take a quick listen to what he told CNN's Pamela Brown today.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

THOMAS GIUFFRA, JANE DOE'S ATTORNEY: I don't think it was ever consensual. She showed up at the Chi Phi house heavily intoxicated. There was testimony not just from the people involved in the assault, but there was a lot of testimony from people who were around that time, saw her that day. And by all accounts, she was completely, completely intoxicated. She couldn't consent to anything.

So, I don't think she ever consented and was incapable of consenting because of the level of intoxication. And the fact that she was plied with drugs, she couldn't consent to anything.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

JIMENEZ: Could that change or impact how this case is handled and viewed by a grand jury?

PAUL: So, if she was actually incapacitated and unable to consent because somebody else gave her alcohol or drugs, that's a different situation. I think we've heard a lot about this loophole. The governor today talked about wanting to change the law. But in New York, New York handles sex crimes a little bit differently.

And so, when you're looking at a sex crime, you have to prove lack of consent, so non-consent, and you can do that in a couple of different ways. But a prosecutor has to prove that element beyond a reasonable doubt. And the way that you would prove it, the relevant portion here is mental capacity. And what New York says is if you voluntarily intoxicated yourself versus involuntarily intoxicated, those are two completely different things. And if someone voluntarily consumed drugs or alcohol, their mental incapacity isn't something that prosecutors are going to have an easy time proving.

JIMENEZ: All right. Deanna Paul, really appreciate being here. Thank you. Governor Hochul stopped short of calling for the resignation of Cornell's president today. But back on campus, a protest has been scheduled for Monday, and students are demanding accountability. In a new op-ed for the campus newspaper, one Cornell student argues that -- quote --"We are all complicit in what happened."

Adrian Belmonte joins me now. Adrian, I really appreciate you taking the time. Look, we mentioned that protest that is supposed to happen on Monday. But just more generally, how would you say students are coping with the events of this last week?

ADRIAN BELMONTE, STUDENT, CORNELL UNIVERSITY: Yes, I can speak to what I've seen and personally feel. The alleged sexual assault of Jane Doe has rocked this university and the world, frankly. I think partly because of how disturbing the allegations and the reporting have been, and also because it has altered the way that people rely on institutions for protection. It presented itself in almost every conversation I've had on campus this week, and the feeling I'm getting is somber.

We're just devastated for Jane Doe, and our hearts go out for her. We're devastated as a community and we're also angry at the same time. You know, there's this real sense of frustration with how the institutions involved responded.

And I just want to say, in the past couple of days, there has been this shift in conversation on campus about not the amount of press, but the quality and direction it's taking. Let me be very clear that Cornell students, and especially women here, from what I've seen, like at the leadership in the Sun and multiple other fantastic student-run organizations, they're focused on changing systems that are oppressive.

[23:25:01]

And, you know, the social media buzz has at times misdirected the movement of justice for Jane Doe, and it has led to doxing of unrelated Cornell students and faculty or allegedly threatening the life of student-run organizations.

So, my article speaks about complicity on a cultural level, but complicity must be followed by action, and I think that Cornell students are acting.

JIMENEZ: So, just to your article a little bit, to your op-ed, when you say we are all complicit in what happened in terms of speaking to your campus there, what do you mean by that exactly?

BELMONTE: Well, you know, I think I mean in the sense that there's this sort of criticism that we all get for being complicit. You know, when we don't stand up to things, when we hear the certain comment that a man has made, and we don't get up and discipline that man, I think that's the complicity I'm talking about.

There's the culture of rape. That, AOC pins it, is something that we need to dismember by being vocal and by speaking to women and understanding their story, and as men evaluating what accountability and complicity looks like in our life. You know, like this very conversation, Omar, is two men speaking about sexual assault and misconduct, and that's the first step to getting to not be complicit.

JIMENEZ: Sure, sure. You know, the university, as you were also talking about, whether it's on social media or otherwise, but from an investigative standpoint as well, it has come under fierce criticism, the university overall, over how it has handled this investigation. And I wonder, either from yourself or from what you've heard on campus, what do you believe students want to see from Cornell leadership here?

BELMONTE: Well, you know, firstly, I'm not a woman, so I can only begin to understand what disappointments women across campus might be feeling regarding the administration's conduct process and every time I feel like it's a violation of this tacit agreement students and administrations have to make students feel safe on campus, to make them feel safe at home, you know?

And Cornell is this window into this much larger systemic issue, and I think that's the reason it has been getting so much press here and this hypocrisy here, right? There are allegations that have forced people to confront the idea that education and privilege are no safeguard against violence or complicity, you know?

And I think students at Cornell have really been organizing protests. They've been attending assemblies. Hopefully, transparency and action from the administration will follow. It's just disheartening, you know, that these communities of support weren't provided for Jane Doe at the time.

JIMENEZ: Adrian Belmonte, really appreciate you taking the time with everything going on there at Cornell. Thanks for being here.

BELMONTE: Of course. Thank you.

JIMENEZ: The Trump administration insisting again that it has the right to ban journalists from the White House. We're going to have details from their brand-new filing just ahead.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[23:30:00]

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

JIMENEZ: Breaking tonight, the Justice Department is asking a federal judge to reinstate President Trump's White House ban on CNN, MS NOW, and Politico. In a brand-new filing, the DOJ argues that -- quote -- "The president determined that plaintiff news networks had published stories that adversely affect national security, including publishing possibly classified or sensitive information." It goes on to say, "Restricting access to the White House removes one avenue for these outlets to obtain such harmful information."

Now, the judge is currently considering whether to extend a two-week order set to expire next week, restoring the outlet's access to the White House.

But a lot to talk about here. So, I want to bring in CNN chief media analyst Brian Stelter along with senior attorney at the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression, Adam Steinbaugh. Adam, I just want to start with you because what is your impression of the arguments the administration is making tonight?

ADAM STEINBAUGH, SENIOR ATTORNEY, FOUNDATION FOR INDIVIDUAL RIGHTS AND EXPRESSION: I don't think a court is going to buy this at all. I think, in particular, you have the DOJ admitting that there is precedent binding this court from granting the relief that the White House wants here. So, really, the White House is focused not on this court, but on a court above it.

And on top of that, I just don't see a court, even an appellate court, buying the arguments that the White House is selling here. You have the White House stepping in and saying this is really about national security, yet just this week, you have Donald Trump going to Time magazine and giving a very lengthy interview, never mentioning national security at all. He's entirely talking about these being bad, negative stories. So, I don't think a court is going to buy this at all.

JIMENEZ: And Brian, I mean, to that point, I mean, the Time magazine interview was released yesterday. Trump saying, again, the reason for the ban is, well, it's just bad story after bad story, I don't think anyone should be forced to bear fake news, constantly bad stories, goes without saying negative story does not mean fake news. But do these attacks undermine the administration's argument that this is all about national security and not retaliation here?

BRIAN STELTER, CNN CHIEF MEDIA ANALYST, AUTHOR, SPECIAL CORRESPONDENT FOR VANITY FAIR: Certainly. Last week, the judge was skeptical of those national security arguments. There's reason to believe he'll be skeptical again next week when he holds a hearing about this next Thursday.

[23:35:02]

And all these security arguments are really a smokescreen for what's going on. We've all heard and read and seen the president's own words. He has made clear what this is really about.

But if folks haven't read that Time magazine interview, it's really worth reading the transcript, because you get inside his head a little bit and you see just how consumed the president is with the media coverage of his presidency. It's a little bit something out of "The Truman Show." It is not a healthy relationship, and that comes through very clearly in the Time interview.

These arguments tonight, though, from the Justice Department, they are striking to me for the following reason, Omar. They assert that President Trump can be the journalism police, that he can decide what the standards of professionalism are for the journalism industry. That is a little bit hilarious, a leader who routinely lies and calls fake stories real and real stories fake, and he's saying that he can determine what is professional and what is not.

For example, one of the arguments here says the White House should be able to say that news outlets have to rely on on-the-record sources, not anonymous sources, and yet the White House insists on the (INAUDIBLE) all the time, holding background briefings with officials and insisting that they're on background, meaning anonymous, meaning not quoted. So, the hypocrisy here is layered and very thick, and I suspect a judge will see through it, Omar.

JIMENEZ: And Adam, I want to get your take on a little bit more of what the DOJ wrote in their filing, saying -- quote -- "The president's actions were not retaliatory because the mere denial of special access is not an adverse action that would objectively chill a reasonable reporter nor do plaintiffs allege that they have been chilled in their speech criticizing the president." Is that a remake of that claim? Is that a fair assessment?

STEINBAUGH: Well, they're relying on a Fourth Circuit case, and I just don't think this is going to fly in the D.C. Circuit. Certainly, the White House's intent here is to chill speech, it is to chill reporting. They're removing people from the White House. Of course, that's going to deter reporters from continuing to criticize the president and continuing to publish stories that the president labels as fake news. So, again, I don't see a court buying this, and there's a reason why they're diverting to precedent from a different court of appeal.

JIMENEZ: Brian, you know, the administration is trying to make it seem like the ban isn't retaliatory because other outlets weren't banned, saying -- quote -- "Indeed, the president has not revoked access to other outlets that have equally criticized the president." But then you hear the president just threatened "The New York Times," saying maybe they'll be next after slamming their coverage of the Iran war.

I mean, obviously, you've been covering the moves in this case, but also following the moves of the press as they try to cover this president. What would you say is the state right now of the press trying to do their jobs here?

STELTER: And this has been going on for two weeks. Since the judge ruled last week, the White House has tried new tactics by keeping CNN off of Air Force One because there's some ongoing litigation involving the Associated Press about whether the Trump White House can do that.

Trump is going to continue to try to find any way he can to replace real reporters with propagandists because that's really what this is all about, and I think most people can see that. I was at a journalism conference today in Ohio, and folks were coming up to me asking me about this situation and saying they don't think this is about CNN or MS Now or Politico at all. They think it's about a chilling effect on the media much more broadly, trying to send a message to other news outlets.

But Omar, there's a lot of evidence this is backfiring. You know, a week ago, we started to see that incredible show of solidarity from normal rivals like Fox News and CBS and ABC and NBC. Well, the show of solidarity is getting more and more intense. Last week, 49 news outlets signed on to a friend-of-the-court brief. This week, another one of those briefs came out from the Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press. Now, it's 77 media outlets that have signed on backing up the three that were banned. So, the actual solidarity is growing here, and that's because all those news outlets, they know they could be next.

That comment from Trump about "The New York Times" signals this is still front and center on his mind. He would like to ban other news outlets if he can. And so far, a court is telling him he can't.

JIMENEZ: Brian Stelter, Adam Steinbaugh, I appreciate you both. Thank you for being here.

Meanwhile, tech insiders are sounding the alarm about the so-called A.I. apocalypse. So, how worried should you be? My next guest says now is not the time to panic. We'll explain why just ahead.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[23:40:00]

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

JIMENEZ: It was a huge week in the debate over the future of AI. The White House gathered all the major players in the same room to address some of the very big concerns. Everyone from Elon Musk to Jeff Bezos, Anthropic's Dario Amodei, Mark Zuckerberg, Nvidia's Jensen Huang took part in the conversation.

But was it enough to calm all the panic? Look at some of these other headlines from just the last week. Anthropic says its A.I. models pose existential risk to humanity. Bill Gates warns A.I. is powerful enough to cause a billion deaths. OpenAI ignored employees who warned it wasn't doing enough about security.

Now, despite all these alarm bells, the outcome of the White House A.I. summit was a commitment by these companies to self-police.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

TRUMP: Well, I think I'm seeing tremendous self-policing. And they understand that they have to self-police.

[23:44:59]

It is very hard for somebody to come out and say, get into these models. These models are very complex. And again, I believe they're going to be used for the good. And when they're not, we're going to be able to nab them. But there's going to be a tremendous self-policing aspect.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

JIMENEZ: So, I want to bring in New York Times opinion columnist and science writer, David Wallace Wells. So, after all the panic, calls for guardrails, etcetera. Is self-policing the most significant response we're likely going to see from the government here?

DAVID WALLACE WELLS, SCIENCE WRITER AND OPINION COLUMNIST, THE NEW YORK TIMES: I think for the time being, it is. That's a disappointment because it's basically just an affirmation of the status quo, which is the thing that has left so many Americans scared and so many politicians desperate to find some additional solution.

JIMENEZ: David, we lost your signal for one second there. But I can hear you. I can hear you now. So, just pick back up from your first thought and keep going.

WALLACE WELLS: Well, I think it's basically just an affirmation of the status quo (INAUDIBLE) even though we're not likely to get much more under Trump administration.

JIMENEZ: All right, David, we're going to take a quick break while we work on your audio so we can get the rest of this interview in. We're going to take a quick break. We'll work on that. We'll be right back.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[23:50:00]

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

JIMENEZ: Back now with New York Times opinion columnist and science writer David Wallace Wells on the phone. So, David, look, you were saying after all of this in terms of A.I. maybe self-policing, like what we've heard from the president, is likely going to be the most we see from the government right now. But sources are also telling CNN the president plans to name his director of national intelligence, Jay Clayton, as his new A.I. czar. He's also expected to remain in his role as DNI. Does this signal that Trump is approaching this through a national security lens, do you think?

WALLACE WELLS: I think that's where we're heading. I think that's a little bit worrying because the logic of the national security approach to A.I. is to move faster rather than more safely, and to be concerned with beating China more than making sure that the products that Americans are using are safe at the level of the consumer and at the level of, you know, the society as a whole. So, I think it's a somewhat dangerous path to be heading down.

JIMENEZ: And, you know, you recently took aim at all of the apocalyptic warnings over A.I., and you actually drew some comparisons to how people felt during COVID. I want to read a little bit of what you wrote. You wrote -- quote -- "The early days of the pandemic are a familiar point of comparison with A.I. panic, presumably because they remind us of the vertigo of exponential growth. Perhaps we forget, looking back, that COVID didn't actually continue to grow exponentially for very long." Why do you believe we're getting ahead of ourselves with the doomer rhetoric that's out there over A.I.?

WALLACE WELLS: Well, I think it's based on the drawing of these linear or exponential curves out into the future, which allow us to say that the technological capacity will improve dramatically over the next few years and that it will be enormously disruptive to our society because of how powerful the technology will be.

But, of course, in order to change the world, it has to interact with the world. That's where you need people, you need human complexities, you need politics, you need resistance like we're seeing in the sort of data center backlash, and now this growing national anxiety about A.I. itself.

And to even change the way that businesses do business, it takes an awful lot beyond what the tool itself is capable of. It requires everyone in the organization to change their structure, their data, and the way they approach their work. It forces the transformation of the organization. That takes a long time.

And then, if we're talking about whether it's going to produce something like mass unemployment or, you know, eliminate the need for higher education or many other more positive scenarios that many A.I. forecasters have been talking about, there's just much, much more to that question of whether that will happen than whether the tool is capable of solving an advanced math problem.

I think that, you know, the tools are improving dramatically. That is inspiring, exciting in many ways, also unnerving in some profound ways. But if we think just about the capacity of these models, we're forgetting that most of what happens in the world is messy and human and complex, and we can't assume that simple technological progress will be, you know, single-handedly transforming everything about the world that we know and love.

JIMENEZ: Sure. David, just before we go, you know, a related storyline in terms of data centers here. Amazon announced plans to invest an additional billion dollars into communities where it operates data centers. Do you think incentives like these will actually win over opponents, and do you think more companies will follow suit?

WALLACE WELLS: If I had been looking at this issue in a vacuum six months ago or nine months ago, I would have said that incentives like these are enormous draws to the public to bring them on to the side for data center side. But what we've seen over those last six months is that even when companies have tried to basically buy off local communities, they failed.

[23:55:00]

It's a sign of just how intense that backlash really is. Doubling your tax revenue or allowing local property taxes to be cut while also giving new schools, new hospitals, these things that have actually happened because of data center construction in certain communities, it's not enough to win over the support of people on the ground.

And so, I think we should think of this as a sign of just how strong the backlash really is and how much anxiety is out there about A.I., and I think the numbers are going to have to get quite a bit higher before the public --

JIMENEZ: And it's something that it feels like no one has fully figured out yet in terms of the political landing spot for data centers. We will see. David Wallace Wells, really appreciate you being here. Now, it's time for Laura's star witness.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

(MUSIC PLAYING)

LAURA COATES, CNN HOST AND SENIOR LEGAL ANALYST: The next time you hear a D.J. take two songs, blend their beats, and turn them into something entirely new, you're hearing the fingerprints of Grandmaster Flash. You see, long before DJing became a global art form, a young Flash was in the Bronx experimenting with turntables and discovering ways to make them do things nobody had imagined. He wasn't following a blueprint, he was writing one.

Well, now, the Rock & Roll Hall of Fame inductee is telling that story in the new book, "Birth of a Culture," a first-hand account of the creativity and movement that helped give birth to hip-hop.

I had a chance to sit down with legendary hip-hop pioneer Joseph Saddler, better known as Grandmaster Flash, and he was my star witness that night.

So happy that you are here.

JOSEPH ROBERT SADDLER, DISC JOCKEY, AUTHOR: Thank you for having me.

COATES: I love the book. Really, really interesting.

SADDLER: Thank you so much.

COATES: I'm so glad you wrote it. But take me back to when you developed your quick mix theory and you thought, you know what, I may have just figured out something that nobody else has figured out yet.

SADDLER: Here's the formula. Four bars forward is equal to six counter-clockwise revolutions, which is the full loop. And the quick mix theory is responsible for making the D.J. an artist as he plays the turntable like an instrument.

The quick mix theory also made the backbeat for the human being known as the rapper having a beat to speak on. The quick mix theory also made the seamless loop that's now called the sample. This formula is based on math, science, and kinetics. This is how I did it.

COATES: That's amazing, to think about just how the math, the science, the way you thought it out, and just sort of the strategic way, and then to know that you didn't know where it was going to go. And look where we are right now, 2026, and it has become a global phenomenon. You talk about the sample. I mean, your work is constantly being used in reference. And you've written a book about the birth of a culture and a culture it is.

SADDLER: Yes, ma'am.

COATES: You know, writing this book meant turning your lived experience into history, into -- for the world to see. So, I'm curious, what memory was the hardest for you to put into words? SADDLER: I would probably -- turning my thoughts into this formula was probably one of the most difficult. But then also, Laura, when I was in mom's apartment as a teenager, the music I grew up on is pop, rock, jazz, blues, funk, disco, R&B, alternative, Caribbean, and Latin. So, for me, all these things helped me to become what I became.

COATES: So, when you reflect on the early days when, frankly, the music faced a lot of mainstream resistance, it wasn't universally embraced, it wasn't treated as an art form, it now is looked at in that way by so many people. You're a Hall of Fame inductee, but does the way that your success and the way that hip-hop has succeeded surprise you?

SADDLER: I've got to say, that's a great question, Laura. I was saying to myself as we were doing these block parties, I hope this thing goes to Brooklyn, Queens, Long Island, Manhattan.

(LAUGHTER)

I was hoping.

COATES: You just want (INAUDIBLE).

(LAUGHTER)

SADDLER: But I was also hoping it would go to Philadelphia, Washington, D.C. And I would -- I hope it would go there.

COATES: Let's talk about A.I., can we, for second because this is what everyone has been talking about. I am really curious about your views when it comes to A.I. and music. Do you view A.I. as an extension of the art form that could be used? Is it the new conversation on sampling? What do you think?

SADDLER: I think A.I. could be helpful if it's used in a hybrid form. To me, the way that I listen to music, what makes a great composition, especially the ones that make people dance, is the imperfections.

[00:00:04]

Like some of the greatest bands in the world and some of the greatest artists in the world, I can hear where things are not quite exact, but that's what makes it beautiful.

COATES: The book, again, is called "Birth of a Culture." Grandmaster Flash, thank you so much.

SADDLER: I had a good time, and I appreciate you bringing me in. Thank you so much.

(END VIDEOTAPE)