Return to Transcripts main page
One World with Zain Asher
Soon: White House Correspondents' Dinner Shooting Suspect In Court; White House To Meet With Secret Service And DHS This Week To Review Security Protocols For Trump; Trump To O'Donnell: "You Should Be Ashamed Of Yourself"; King's Visit Comes As U.S.-U.K. Relations Are On Shaky Ground; Tech Giants Set To Face Off In Court Over OpenAI; Aired 12-1p ET
Aired April 27, 2026 - 12:00 ET
THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[12:00:38]
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: This is CNN Breaking News.
BIANNA GOLODRYGA, CNN ANCHOR: Hello, everyone. Live from New York, I'm Bianna Golodryga. Zain is off today. You are watching "One World."
The suspect in the shooting at the White House Correspondents' Dinner will make his first court appearance this afternoon. 31-year-old Cole Tomas
Allen, a part-time teacher from California, faces federal gun and assault charges.
Investigators are examining a message that he allegedly sent to family members just before the attack.
This was the moment on Saturday evening that he sprinted through a security checkpoint and fired off a couple of shots. Agents then quickly subdued
him.
President Trump was whisked out of the crowded ballroom by his Secret Service detail. Hundreds of politicians, journalists, and their guests
ducked under tables. The White House plans to review security protocols involving the president.
CNN's Kevin Liptak is at the White House, but let's begin with crime and justice correspondent Katelyn Polantz in Washington, D.C.
Katelyn, what are we expecting to hear and see from this arraignment, which is scheduled to happen in the next few hours?
KATELYN POLANTZ, CNN CRIME AND JUSTICE CORRESPONDENT: Well, Bianna, this would be the first time that Cole Allen would appear in court to face, at
least initial charges, for that incident on Saturday night at the White House Correspondents' Dinner at the Washington Hilton.
What happened so far in court is nothing. There has been nothing filed, but we do expect the Justice Department to not only file initial charges, but
to also very likely ask for him to remain behind bars as further proceedings in court would be scheduled for the time out, as he would await
trial and other court proceedings.
Right now, though, we only know what Justice Department officials have said in public appearances since the dinner on Saturday night. The U.S.
attorney, Jeanine Pirro, she said that the U.S. attorney's office, at least initially, is looking at charging him with using a firearm during a crime
of violence and assault on a federal officer using a dangerous weapon.
At that court appearance today, he would potentially be read his charges and then enter an initial pleading, very likely of not guilty. That's how
these things almost always proceed in the very first initial hearing in court.
We also heard from the acting attorney general, Todd Blanche, over the weekend. He spoke to Dana Bash about where this investigation could
potentially go. Here's from that interview on CNN on Sunday morning.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
TODD BLANCHE, ACTING UNITED STATES ATTORNEY GENERAL: I expect he'll be charged tomorrow morning in federal court with two counts in a complaint.
We are not viewing him as -- as cooperating necessarily right now, although -- although we'll -- we'll see what happens going forward.
DANA BASH, CNN ANCHOR: So it's possible that later he could be charged with trying to assassinate the president.?
BLANCHE: Well, absolutely. I mean, the -- the way that these charges work, a lot of the charges that he could be charged with depends on us
understanding his motive, his premeditation, what -- what he wanted to do. And -- and that requires us to go through the evidence and develop a case
which the FBI is working on now.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
POLANTZ: So, there's Blanche discussing about what is possible to come, but that will have to be done after the evidence is reviewed and the Justice
Department gets their ducks in a row on what to do with this case, how they want to charge it.
If Cole Allen -- Allen were to face an attempted assassination of a federal official charge or something like that, it could carry very, very
potentially steep penalties if he were to be convicted.
But that is something that the evidence will have to dictate. And they are looking at quite a lot of things as law enforcement investigate this,
including a manifesto that Allen is alleged to have sent to family members saying that he wanted to call himself a friendly federal assassin.
And that he was looking to potentially shoot and kill members of the Trump administration. Back to you.
GOLODRYGA: And he was also heavily armed with guns and knives. And that is a question, Kevin Liptak, that a lot of people are asking how he could come
so close to the vicinity of not only the president of the United States, obviously, but all a number of his high-ranking cabinet officials, other
dignitaries there at the Hilton Hotel in Washington, D.C.
The president throwing his support behind the Secret Service and how they handled. Yet, this would be a third assassination attempt if that indeed
was the target, the president of the United States here.
[12:05:02]
What more is the president saying some more than 24 hours later now?
KEVIN LIPTAK, CNN SENIOR WHITE HOUSE REPORTER: Yes. And you hear the president voicing, you know, a degree of sang-froid about this whole thing,
saying that he expects that this comes as part of the job that, in his view, assassination attempts only occur on people who have a degree of
consequence in their lives.
And that he believes the Secret Service has done everything possible to keep him safe. And he did an interview in "60 Minutes" when he was asked
why, for example, it seems to take the Secret Service some time to get him off the dais.
And when you watch the video, it was clear, know, the Vice President, J.D. Vance, was bundled off very quickly. President Trump remained on the stage
for a few moments afterwards before finally disappearing into the wings. And he said that that was essentially his fault, that he was interested in
seeing what was going on, that he was holding up the agents who are getting him backstage.
I think now, you know, two days after the fact, as officials here are beginning to digest and absorb some of what happened, you do start to hear
some questions about the security that was in place inside of the Washington Hilton.
You know, the security perimeter was around the ballroom itself, but it didn't extend to the entirety of the hotel, which is part of why the
suspect was able to book a room on the 10th floor and stay overnight before descending into the hotel and making a run for the security perimeter.
When you talk to Secret Service officials, they say that, in fact, this is how the security was supposed to work, that he was intercepted well before
he made it into the ballroom and anywhere near President Trump.
But nonetheless, there will be conversations this week about some of the protocols going forward. And we heard from a White House official earlier
today that that Susie Wiles, who's the White House Chief of Staff, would convene these discussions with Secret Service, the Department of Homeland
Security, and operational officials here at the White House to discuss, quote, processes and procedures that worked to stop Saturday's attempt
while exploring additional options to ensure all relevant components are doing everything possible to secure the many major events planned for
President Trump.
And it is true that there are a number of events coming up that will, I think, require a rethink of sorts, starting today with the visit of King
Charles III. You know, Buckingham Palace said yesterday that they were in conversations with the White House to talk about any changes that would or
will not have to be made to his four-day visit to the United States.
Ultimately, we understand that all of those will be going ahead, all of the planned events. If there are any changes, they will be kind of at the
operational level. And you can hear the band warming up just now for when Charles arrives later today.
The other big sort of occasion that is coming up that the White House is now re-looking at is the 250th anniversary celebrations, the 250th
anniversary of American independence.
A number of large events that President Trump will be at that will place him in relatively large crowds. And they're going to want to ensure that
those can proceed safely and securely and trying to think through whether any of that needs to be rethought.
And so, you know, even as President Trump comes out and voices the confidence in the Secret Service director, I think underneath the surface
you are starting to hear murmurs of potential changes that might need to be put in place going forward, Bianna.
GOLODRYGA: All right. Kevin Liptak at the White House for us. Our thanks to Katelyn Polantz as well.
Well, let's take a closer look at the security protocol with retired Secret Service agent Jeffrey James. He's the president and owner of Capital
Security Consultants. Jeffrey, welcome to the program. Good to have you on.
So, we heard the president there doubling down and publicly weighing in, supporting the Secret Service and how it handled yet another potential
assassination attempt here.
In your view, from everything you've seen thus far, did the Secret Service act accordingly?
JEFFREY JAMES, RETIRED SECRET SERVICE AGENT: They did. And I will tell you, I'm not a Kool-Aid drinker for the Secret Service. After what happened in
Butler, I was very critical of the things that happened there.
But I will tell you what happened at the Correspondents' Dinner exactly what was supposed to happen. The bad guy never got through the perimeter.
He never even got onto the same floor as the president. The communications went out immediately. The shots were fired and -- and the details, the
separate details for all the people in the room, acted quickly to -- to move their protectees to a -- to a safe place.
GOLODRYGA: Can you talk about how you view the extraction protocols changing and shifting from what we saw in the Butler assassination attempt?
Because the president is offering his views as to why the vice president was ushered out much quicker than the president was.
[12:10:00]
And he was saying that he was to blame because he wanted to get a sense of what was happening. I mean, for Secret Service protocol, we saw the same
thing happen in Butler as well. The president was adamant and raising his hand in that fight moment that became such a symbol around the world, but
for his own safety.
Is the president allowed to call the shots here in these types of situations?
JAMES: Well, he shouldn't b. And -- but I will tell you, what -- what happened in butler was egregious, I -- I believe with him standing upright
on the stage, and we all know. We all saw the picture.
What happened the other night though, I do want to temper that a little bit because I keep hearing -- you know, the vice president was ushered out so
much quicker than the president. It was really only about a four-second gap.
And one of the things that happened, not only did the president admit that he was kind of holding back, the other thing that was in play there was
like the first lady had thrown herself onto the floor and the president said, hey, let's stop and get the first lady.
But it was really only about a four-second difference before the president was evacuated after the vice president.
So, I don't -- I don't think it was as large of a gap as people are -- are making it out to be. But, yes, it -- it has to be explained to everyone we
protect -- protect.
And I remember having this conversation during my career with people, especially when they were new to protection, that, hey, we're going to grab
you and move you. You just listen to us and keep your feet moving.
GOLODRYGA: I want to talk about the venue itself, because considering the state of the union level concentration of government officials here, high
ranking cabinet members, the president, the vice president. Is it a viable security protocol to host an event like this?
Yes, maybe the ballroom itself was cordoned off and secure, but the fact that you still had a hotel that was open to the general public, people
allowed to come and go, I think of this suspect, he's armed with knives and guns, was able to check into this hotel room.
What would have happened if he checked in with explosive devices?
JAMES: Yes. You know, it's -- it's tough. We can't shut down commercial places. Like if the president decides to go to the Super Bowl, we can't
tell the other 100,000 people they can't come.
So, what we do is we cordon off the area where the president's going to be and we secure -- we look where he's going to be and we secure from there
out and we cordon that off.
To -- to close an entire hotel the size of the Washington Hilton would be - - frankly would be unmanageable. To screen everyone who came in would be unmanageable.
Now, I had times in my career where the president was at a restaurant and maybe it only sat 150, 200 people. And that was easy. We would screen
everyone as they came and went.
But a venue as large as the -- as the Hilton, and again, what if it's someone who checked in three days ago? Are we going to go and search room
to room and look for -- look at every room for contraband or weapons? You know, the -- and the answer is no. It would be unmanageable.
So, what is manageable is to like the places the president goes all the time, Mar-a-Lago and Bedminster, still allow commerce to work and cordon
off the area where the president is and keep that secure.
GOLODRYGA: Well, Super Bowl is one thing, and obviously that the president is the highest-ranking official that would attend a Super Bowl, but the
fact that you had so many members of his own cabinet there as well, I mean, each of them had their security detail.
Is there anything, as the chief of staff will now be assessing and going over protocol and what could and should have been done if it wasn't
already? Are there any suggestions that you may offer at this point in terms of lessons learned and what to avoid going forward as the White House
is gearing up for this big 250th anniversary celebration?
JAMES: Yes. I know it sounds, you know, something that would seem like an easy fix, but I think you're going to see wider perimeters, more standoff,
that way, there's more standoff distance.
So, In case someone does manage to get by the metal detectors, now, there's a -- a longer time of -- of -- to be able to react before they actually get
to anywhere a protectee would be. So I -- I think you're going to see that.
For outdoor events, you're going to continue to see everything you always see, the snipers. The anti-drone technology is going to be -- be in use.
But I think the biggest thing you're going to see in interior and exterior events is going to be perimeters getting pushed out.
GOLODRYGA: Yes. I have to say it was quite impressive to see the first lady. I think she -- she talked before anyone else did under the table,
sort of an instinctive move on her part. But the president making it clear that he wanted to make sure she was safe and escorted out with him at the
same time as well.
Quite a frightening weekend. Thankfully no one was killed and only one brave Secret Service agent was injured. I believe he is now out of the
hospital as well.
Jeffrey James, thank you so much. Appreciate the time.
JAMES: Thank you.
GOLODRYGA: Well, one day after the shooting, President Trump spoke to CBS and said that he wasn't worried even as the chaos was unfolding.
[12:15:01]
But Trump told "60 Minutes" host, Norah O'Donnell, that once the gunshots rang out, he didn't react as quickly as his Secret Service agents probably
would have liked because, as we mentioned earlier, he wanted to see what was happening.
The president has called for the dinner to be rescheduled within 30 days with tighter security.
Well, the White House Correspondents' Dinner is an annual event held to celebrate freedom of the press. But during that same interview, President
Trump became defensive and slammed O'Donnell for asking a question about the suspected gunman's manifesto.
Brian Stelter has details.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
BRIAN STELTER, CNN CHIEF MEDIA CORRESPONDENT: "Axios" put it really well this morning. It said, one uncomfortable question was all it took for
President Trump to resume hostilities with the media.
Here is that exchange with CBS' Norah O'Donnell from last night.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
NORAH O'DONNELL, CBS NEWS SENIOR CORRESPONDENT: He writes this, quote, administration officials, they are targets. And he also wrote this, I'm no
longer willing to permit a pedophile, rapist and traitor to coat my hands with his crimes. What's your reaction?
DONALD TRUMP, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: Well, I was waiting for you to read that because I knew you would because you're -- you're -- you're
horrible people, horrible people.
Yes, he did write that. I'm not a rapist. I didn't rape anybody. I'm not a pedophile.
O'DONNELL: Oh, you think -- you think he was referring to you?
TRUMP: Excuse me. Excuse me. I'm not a pedophile. You read that crap from some sick person. You should be ashamed of yourself reading that because
I'm not any of those things.
O'DONNELL: Mr. President, these are the --
TRUMP: And I was never -- excuse me. Excuse me. You shouldn't be reading that on "60 Minutes." You're a disgrace.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
STELTER: I want to tell you two things about that. Number one, this is President Trump as we've always known him. This is not surprising. What was
surprising was that on Saturday night, he was calm and respectful. He showed, you know, a different demeanor toward the press corps. People
wondered if that was going to last. Now we know it's not going to last.
His final post on Truth Social before the dinner was attacking "The New York Times," and now he's mad at CBS.
I also want to note that CBS is owned by Paramount, which is trying to buy WBD, the parent company of CNN.
On Thursday night in Washington, Paramount had a dinner honoring the Trump White House. The president was there. Norah O'Donnell was reportedly there
as well. I don't know that for a fact, but it was reported that she was there.
So, there was this report about schmoozing between CBS and Trump. And yet, on Sunday night, a tough, important, fair interview by CBS of the president
on the president bristled at, just want viewers to notice that as you read about Paramount trying to take over CNN.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
GOLODRYGA: All right. Still to come for us, King Charles is expected to land in Washington in just a few hours. We'll preview the state visit,
ahead.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[12:20:06]
GOLODRYGA: Well, in just a few hours King Charles and Queen Camilla will arrive in Washington for a four-day state visit. The trip will mark the
250th anniversary of U.S. independence. King Charles will also address the U.S. Congress.
Buckingham Palace says that it allowed the trip to continue after security discussions following the Correspondents' Dinner shooting over the weekend.
King Charles has an unusually complicated relationship to smooth out on this week's visit. Our royal correspondent Max Foster explains.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
TRUMP: U.K. has been very, very uncooperative.
MAX FOSTER, CNN ROYAL CORRESPONDENT (voice-over): The U.K.-U.S. special relationship isn't feeling that special right now.
TRUMP: The U.K., which we sort of considered the Rolls Royce of allies, right? Wouldn't you say?
FOSTER (voice-over): Terse words from the U.S. president aimed at the British government, its military.
TRUMP: I said, you have two old broken down aircraft carriers. You think you could send them over? Oh, I'll have to ask my team.
FOSTER (voice-over): And especially the prime minister.
TRUMP: You know, unfortunately, Keir is not Winston Churchill.
FOSTER (voice-over): In contrast to the warm words for the King.
TRUMP: The King is coming over here in two weeks. He's a nice guy. King Charles.
FOSTER (voice-over): What's mainly in the King's favor is that Trump has an affinity with the U.K. and the royals, something the U.K. government seems
ready to leverage to emphasize historic links between traditional allies.
Having met Trump several times on the president's trips to the UK, the King knows how careful words and thoughtful actions can diffuse wide attentions.
In 2025, Charles presented the president with a bespoke copy of the Declaration of Independence.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: The princess on American soil for the first time --
FOSTER (voice-over): While Elizabeth II enjoyed largely smooth relations during her seven visits as queen to the United States, welcomed by
presidents from Eisenhower to Bush, Charles is stepping into a far more complicated landscape.
Charles has been playing the diplomatic game for decades now. And what he really takes to Washington is the monarchy's greatest diplomatic asset,
soft power.
CNN understands he'll reach out directly to the American people, showing the special relationship transcends any single occupant of the White House.
PETER WESTMACOTT, FORMER U.K. AMBASSADOR TO THE U.S.: The King will not be having the kind of conversation with the president or with senior senators
and so on that the prime minister would, but he's extremely well informed.
And it provides an opportunity for private conversations on some really important issues. And on top of that, there is the celebration of the
relationship between the two countries, great deal of trade, of investment, a defense relationship, which is extraordinarily important, intelligence,
which is this cooperation, second to none.
FOSTER (voice-over): The King knows that the greatest rupture between the U.S. and U.K. happened 250 years ago, when America walked away from British
rule.
Now, he'll be determined to show the world by making sure he meets a cross- section of American society, that the relationship goes far deeper than the current dip in government relations.
FOSTER: The key message for this visit from the U.K. side at least is to show that the U.K. is still America's key ally on the global stage,
standing shoulder to shoulder.
And the determination to make sure this visit carried on after Saturday night's events is really testament to that.
Max Foster, CNN, Washington, D.C.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
GOLODRYGA: Our thanks to Max for that preview.
A source tells CNN that Iran has made a new proposal that would reopen the Strait of Hormuz but leaves status of key U.S. demands unclear.
President Trump plans to meet with his advisers today to review the Iranian offer. Meanwhile, Iran's foreign minister has been in Russia today, meeting
with President Vladimir Putin as the deadlock with the U.S. drags on.
Lebanese officials say Israeli strikes killed 14 people on Sunday. It was the deadliest day since a temporary ceasefire was announced between Israel
and the Iranian-backed Hezbollah.
Meantime, Hezbollah says that it launched five attacks on the Israeli military in Lebanon, one of which killed an Israeli soldier.
And in Gaza on Saturday, the first elections in more than 20 years after 70,000 people, that's less than five percent of the population, were
eligible to vote. And only one city, Deir al-Balah, took part.
The elections were organized by the Palestinian Authority and Hamas was officially excluded. Preliminary results show a list backed by the Fatah
Party secured six of 15 seats that were contested.
Well, Hersh Goldberg-Polin was just 23 years old when Hamas killed him after more than 300 days in captivity.
In a new book called "When We See You Again," Hersh's mother, Rachel, shares her unimaginable trauma. She tells me in this new book that it's not
a new book actually, it's not a memoir, but rather it is a painful story, quote, doused in love.
[12:25:08]
RACHEL GOLDBERG-POLIN, AUTHOR, "WHEN WE SEE YOU AGAIN": The real origin of this was simply that my soul was buckling from the weight of the pain of
this loss that is very universal.
All of us are going to suffer loss and suffering and grief and mourning at different points in our lives. This is part of the human -- human
enterprise when we come to this. This world, this strange, mysterious, messy place that's also full of beautiful joy and blessing.
And there are going to be points that are challenging for all of us. And I was having a real -- a real crisis of shouldering the weight of this loss
of my only son, Hersh. And it started to pour out in these packages of words.
And I thought actually this morning about how effective giving over our words can be in alleviating tremendous suffering. I don't think this is a
memoir. It's certainly not a tell-all. It's not a, he said this and she did that.
It is, I think a love story that is swaddled in pain or perhaps a pain story that is doused in love.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
GOLODRYGA: And you can watch my full interview with Rachel Goldberg-Polin on "Amanpour."
We'll be right back with more.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[12:30:59]
GOLODRYGA: All right. Welcome back to "One World." I'm Bianna Golodryga.
Our top story this hour, the man accused of opening fire at the White House Correspondents' Dinner is expected to appear in federal court for
arraignment soon.
Authorities say 31-year-old Cole Tomas Allen sent a note to family members just before the attack, expressing political anger and plans to target
members of the administration.
The part-time teacher from California is expected to face at least two charges for assault and use of weapons.
Time now for The Exchange. Our next writer -- our next guest, Jeremi Suri writes, "Assassination has become a pervasive American fear because
violence has been normalized. Every leader must reject this and advocate non-violence."
And Jeremi joins me now. He's a history professor at the University of Texas, my alma mater, and author and writes the daily substack, Democracy
of Hope. Jeremy Suri, welcome to the program.
It sounds simple enough to just renounce violence and in any form for both parties in their extreme sides. Why is that proven to be so difficult?
JEREMI SURI, HISTORY PROFESSOR, UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS AT AUSTIN: It's proven difficult, Bianna, because our rhetoric today encourages demonizing
enemies. And it encourages motivating people by claiming your enemies deserve to die.
And so that language, which most people use on social media, even in speeches, that language -- most people don't seriously mean what they're
saying, but it encourages people to think in those terms and it legitimizes violence.
GOLODRYGA: You write that assassination is now a pervasive American fear because we've normalized this level of violence. And you compare it to the
1960s days of rage, but note that the multiplication of threats makes today's uniquely dangerous.
What specifically makes today's form of political rhetoric and violence more dangerous than that that we saw a number of decades ago?
SURI: Well, the late 1960s were a very dangerous time as -- as some of your watchers will remember.
But what makes this moment uniquely difficult is three sets of things. First, social media, which I already referred to. I think it creates a
premium for the most extreme language, the most extreme videos.
Second, we're a country that's been at war continuously for the last few years. Some of that is not our doing, but some of that reflects the choices
we've made.
And just as the Vietnam War brought the war home in the late 1960s, we're fighting a series of wars, starting, of course, with Iraq and Afghanistan.
But what we're doing in Iran right now, that brings the war home as well. And that makes violence more of the normal currency of politics, especially
when our leaders are valorizing and glorifying bombing people and killing people.
And then the third thing is just the inequality in our society, Bianna. So many people feel not only that they're behind economically, they feel they
don't have a voice. They feel they're not represented.
And when people don't have an outlet for at least believing that they're heard, they often turn to violence to make themselves heard. That does not
justify violence at all, but it explains it and it explains an issue we have to deal with.
And the fact that this would, I think, be the third assassination attempt for President Trump. Obviously, we've had other attempts of Democratic
leaders and figureheads as well.
Are you concerned at all that this has somehow become, I don't want to say normalized, but that the public has become desensitized to this.
SURI: I'm very concerned about that. And I was very concerned in President Trump's "60 minutes" interview. That he talked about this as if it was
normal. He said this always happens and maybe we need to increase security, move the security perimeter out, but this doesn't always happen.
Presidents have had to be concerned about security for a long time, but there are moments when we see more of this and moments when we see less of
it. We're seeing more of it today because it has become normalized because we have become desensitized to it.
And if I might say so, because leaders and I mean, leaders on both sides of the aisle have at times not stepped forward to condemn this. It's not
enough to condemn violence against your own side. You have to condemn the use of violence in all ways.
So we needed more Republicans to speak out when Nancy Pelosi was attacked and when her husband was -- was -- was -- was injured in the way he was.
And just as we need Democrats to speak out now against any kind of violence toward presidents or cabinet officials.
GOLODRYGA: You also highlight the fact that this hasn't just been increasing, but it's been glorified as well.
We look at Luigi Mangione, I mean, the fact that social media turns these would-be assassins and murderers into some sort of social justice heroes.
What can be done to address that?
SURI: Well, there's a long tradition in our society of valorizing vigilante figures, Bonnie and Clyde.
And it's a myth of the frontier that's become imbibed in our society, even though we're not really a frontier society any longer.
[12:35:00]
Historically, what has worked is when leaders, I mean business, cultural, political, and various other leaders, step forward to explain that there's
a difference between the cowboy, between the innovator, and others who are individualists, and what we expect from citizens in a social and political
environment.
And that requires that we model that behavior. And it certainly requires that we don't glorify vigilantes when they're on our side.
And so January 6th was really harmful because, first of all, we saw human beings and citizens going in and destroying the Capitol. And then we had
people apologizing for that. And now -- now many of those individuals have been pardoned.
So, it sends a message that that kind of behavior, that vigilantism, that insurrectionary behavior is acceptable. And we have to go the other way.
In the moments we've made that unacceptable with a bipartisan consensus, those have been the moments when we've seen less of that kind of vigilante
violence.
GOLODRYGA: So, January 6, obviously you're referring to members of the president's party, the president himself seemingly defending some of these
rioters and protesters.
But when I mentioned Luigi Mangione, I mean, there is a significant number of voices, prominent voices on the left, progressive figures who have not
condoned, obviously, the murder of this executive, but have followed up with, well, you know, but you do understand that the healthcare system
isn't where it should be, that they charge and they gouge prices.
But have you just -- any sort of justification perhaps for a motive. How much responsibility lies there?
SURI: Quite a lot. Oh, absolutely. And we shouldn't fool ourselves. There's a long tradition of radical violence on the left as there is on the
right.
In the late 1960s, there was a lot on the left, whether underground and other organizations. And there's a tendency for people who have progressive
ideas to believe that violence is justified in the pursuit of those ideas.
And we were hearing that and still are hearing that around people who valorized Mangione and -- and -- and others. And -- and that requires
people to speak out against that. It also requires all of us to really push that and -- and ask why -- what -- how is that going to achieve what you
think you're going to -- to -- to want and pursue?
What we have to educate people about is that for the left and the right, violence has rarely produced the outcomes that they want. There is a long
tradition of political violence on both sides in our society.
And when we've seen that on the left and when we've seen it on the right, those organizations that have pursued this have rarely achieved their aids.
I don't think people understand that, and that's where we as educators, but also as political leaders and social leaders and business leaders need to
make that point clear to people.
And then we have to punish people for their violence. So, Mangione if he is indeed guilty of what he is accused of, he should be tried and he should be
in prison and he should be penalized and all those who have supported violence of that kind should be penalized.
The same must apply on the right. If you give people a pass, then you encourage more of the same.
GOLODRYGA: Such an important point to make. You describe this environment that we're in as an escalation ladder and things are escalating quite
quickly and dangerously.
Are we past the point of de-escalating of safely stepping off that ladder? I mean, where -- where do you look for reassurances at this point?
SURI: So, Bianna, I wrote the piece that -- that you're kindly citing because I do think we're at a moment where the scholarship would tell us we
can start to de-escalate.
At a moment when we see something like an assassination attempt, again on a president, that horrifies the vast majority of people.
This is a time to step back and look at what's happening, not to point fingers, but to look at what we've done to our politics over the last 10 to
20 years and to say, time out, that's -- that's enough. That's enough.
We need leaders to step forward and we need them to model that. I want to see more members of Congress from both sides of the aisle, more figures in
our society, not only talking about bringing down violence, but actually coming together and modeling the kind of compromise, the kind of give and
take, the kind of peaceful disagreement.
And in their own media feeds and in their own rhetoric, really taking things down a level. That's really important.
And I think that has to start with the president, but it includes everyone in our society.
GOLODRYGA: Yes. All of us have our part to fulfill here.
Jeremi Suri, thank you so much for writing such a thoughtful piece. Thank you for joining us today on "One World."
SURI: Thank you.
GOLODRYGA: And still to come on the program, two tech titans are set to battle in court. And the outcome of the case could impact the future of
artificial intelligence. Stay with us.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[12:40:35]
GOLODRYGA: All right. Let's get a check on how U.S. markets are doing right now right across the board, but just basically breaking even. The Dow down
less than or a little over one tenth of a percent. The S&P 500 just turned green. And the Nasdaq also just fractionally lower today. This is your
business breakout.
Oil prices are back on the rise after U.S. officials cancelled a planned trip to Pakistan over the weekend for peace talks. Brent Crude the global
benchmark is sitting at its highest levels in three weeks. WTI, also up.
Oprah Winfrey is going to Amazon. The tech giant has signed an exclusive multi-year deal with the former talk show host that moves the Oprah podcast
to Amazon's One Dream. The -- the deal also includes rights to the 25th season Oprah Winfrey show library and her franchises like Favorite Things
and Oprah's Book Club.
China's A.I. startup, DeepSeek, has unveiled a preview of its highly anticipated new model called V4. The company says it includes major
upgrades in its reasoning and coding abilities, promising to rival models from OpenAI, Anthropic, and Google.
Well, two of the biggest names in tech, Elon Musk and OpenAI's Sam Altman, are going head-to-head in court in a case that may have major ramifications
for the future of artificial intelligence.
Musk co-founded and helped fund ChatGPT maker OpenAI as a nonprofit. Now, he's accusing the company of abandoning its core mission and suing over it.
Let's go to CNN's Hadas Gold who's in Oakland, California where the federal trial is taking place.
So -- so, Hadas, really -- Hadas, set this up for us what is at stake here in this case?
HADAS GOLD, CNN A.I. CORRESPONDENT: Yes. So OpenAI, C.O. Sam Altman actually just walked into the building behind me where he is going to be
watching the jury selection process that will come out today.
And this is really a battle of the billionaires that could also really set the tone and set the pace for OpenAI in the future. Because if Musk gets
what he wants, OpenAI will completely change and Sam Altman might even be out of a job.
So as you say, Elon Musk alleges that he was essentially duped when he co- founded and helped fund OpenAI back in 2015, which he says he believe was for a non-profit mission to make A.I. for the good of humanity.
He left after a power struggle in 2018. And then since then, OpenAI now has a for-profit subsidiary.
So, he is alleging that that nearly 38 or more million dollars that he gave, over the years, that -- that now is worth nearly $130 billion if he
wants to go back into OpenAI's non-profit.
[12:45:12]
OpenAI says that Musk himself pushed for OpenAI to have a for-profit arm, to be able to compete with the likes of Google.
And that this trial is just all about Elon Musk trying to take down a competitor. Because along with that $130 billion that Elon Musk says his
initial investment is worth, he wants Sam Altman and Greg Brockman to lose their positions on the board and for OpenAI to shift back to its non-profit
structure.
And think about how OpenAI, they want to go public this year. They want to have an IPO. You can't really go public if you're backed to a non-profit
structure.
But this will be a journey of regular citizens who will decide this. We are in Silicon Valley, so there -- maybe jurors selected, who have some
knowledge of this case. But it's just going to be regular citizen. The jury of nine, who will then give an advisory verdict to the judge and the judge
will be the one who ends up deciding on the remedies.
So today, we have jury selection. Tomorrow, we are expecting opening statements possibly also, the first witness in this case, who may actually
be Elon Musk himself.
In addition to Elon Musk taking the stand, we're also expecting some of the biggest names in tech along with Sam Altman, OpenAI president, Greg
Brockman, and Microsoft CEO Satya Nadella.
So, over the next few weeks, we're going to see a lot of these big names taking the stand. And also the evidence in this includes some really
personal messages, emails, text messages, even personal diary entries of some of these figures.
So it'll be fascinating to see how this all plays out here in court. But also really important because this could set what will happen in the A.I.
industry. OpenAI, the ChatGPT maker is really considered one of, if not, the leaders in the A.I. space and if Elon Musk's has his way, they will
completely change as a company as a result of this trial. Bianna.
GOLODRYGA: Yes. And it's so fascinating. I mean, you -- you touched on this just a moment ago. These tech CEOs, these A.I. company CEOs and founders go
back many of them many, many years, decades in their relationship.
Just talk about that from a personal level on what started as a partnership friendship really then grew into rivalry and now a court case that could
potentially change the direction of at least one of these major A.I. players in the future.
GOLD: Yes, Sam Altman has referred to Elon Musk as one of his heroes and they worked very closely to help found this.
I mean, Elon Musk was personally involved in recruiting some of the other co-founders and some of the researchers who started in OpenAI. So, this is
really personal.
And you see that in the evidence and in the diary entries and the text messages. You even see text messages in the evidence of Sam Altman texting
Elon and talking about how he's disappointed in him when he was going public in 2023 and denigrating OpenAI.
So you really get the sense here that this is really personal. We're also going to see text messages between Elon Musk and Meta CEO Mark Zuckerberg
when they were discussing potentially going into try and buy OpenAI.
So, this is going to be really fascinating to see how all of these people who are, know, such big figures in this industry. It is really a small
world when you think about the people who are, you know, in charge of these companies who are really setting the tone and the pace for the A.I.
industry.
They all run in the same circles. They all know each other and we're going to see all of that play out in the evidence that we'll see at trial.
GOLODRYGA: Yes, which is why discovery that's going to play such a fascinating role in all of this.
Hadas Gold in Oakland for us covering it all. Thank you so much.
We'll be right back with more.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[12:50:02]
GOLODRYGA: Kenyan runner, Sebastian Sawe, became the first athlete in history to run a competitive marathon in under two hours. He crossed the
finish line in London in one hour, 59 seconds -- 59 minutes and 30 seconds.
And the women's winner Tigst Assefa of Ethiopia also set a new world record. She finished in a time of two hours, 15 minutes and 41 seconds,
beating her own previous record.
Here with more is CNN World Sports' Don Riddell. Don, as a marathoner myself, I mean, I look at these records and they are incredible. Both of
them coming in well over an hour after my finish time.
DON RIDDELL, CNN WORLD SPORT: Yes.
GOLODRYGA: But the fact that we continue to make new records, set new records when these marathons are becoming hotter and hotter, not just from
the turnout, but the record heat as well, is quite notable and impressive.
RIDDELL: Absolutely, I've also run a couple of marathons. I did the London Marathon a few years ago in twice the amount of time it took these guys
yesterday. So, it's -- it's absolutely breathtaking.
And the speed is extraordinary. And it's kind of hard to wrap your head around just how fast these guys are going, but I heard it described this
way. Imagine running a hundred meters in 17 seconds and then keeping up that speed for another 26 miles.
I mean, it is literally breathtaking. And you've mentioned the winners of the men's and women's race. We haven't even mentioned the guy who came in
second in the men's race, also breaking the two-hour mark. And that was seen as kind of like this almost impossible barrier that there was just no
way a human being could run that fast over 26.2 miles.
And a bit like London buses, you wait ages for one and then two come along at once. Yomif Kejelcha coming in just 10 or 11 seconds after Sawe. So
hugely impressive.
What do they all have in common? Well, they all wear Adidas shoes. I think there's going to be a lot of interest in that shoe. It's not cheap. I think
it retails for about $450, so well over five, maybe even $600.
And these things are so light. They weigh less than 100 grams, so that's less than a bar of soap or a banana or an apple. And, of course, the
technology within those shoes enables these guys to just kind of like spring along like gazelles for all this distance.
And of course, you know, improvements in nutrition and -- and diet and training and all the rest of it. That is why we've got to this kind of
seemingly impossible mark.
And it reminds me of what Roger Bannister did back in 1954 when he became the first man to break the four minute mile. And at that point, nobody
thought that was possible either. But once he'd done it, His record was broken the very next month.
So, I feel like we are now in a new frontier. We finally got below the two hour mark and let's just see what these guys can do from here.
GOLODRYGA: Yes. And just to be clear, I mean, I also rotate and train in Adidas and Nike and I still don't come close to these record breaking
times, but it does help. And it is revolutionary, Don, just to see um what these two companies in particular, Adidas and Nike, had sort of fallen
behind some of their competitors over the past few years, only to come back now and really double down on investment in this type of new technology for
these super shoes.
RIDDELL: Yes. I mean, you mentioned Adidas and Nike. I think Adidas are -- are the clear winners here.
But it's, know, that's the technology and -- and huge, huge enhancements there. It's particularly interesting with Sebastian Sawe because I think
whenever you're able to run this fast, inevitably there are suspicious minds out there and how could you possibly be doing these kinds of speeds.
Maybe you're doing something that you shouldn't be.
So, before he ran the Berlin Marathon last year, he underwent 25 independent drug tests funded by Adidas, his sponsor, just to prove that
he wasn't cheating because he -- he knows that's what people are going to be thinking.
[12:55:09]
So, he remains one of the most tested athletes out there, because he wants to prove that he's doing this legitimately and -- and it's all fair and
square. So, it's just incredible and just a fascinating subject in so many ways.
GOLODRYGA: It is. And when in -- when this world in particular do you have strangers, thousands of strangers cheering on other strangers? You know,
that's the beauty of marathons and we always love setting new records and watching them. Watching them fly.
RIDDELL: Yes.
GOLODRYGA: Don Riddell, nice to talk to another runner.
RIDDELL: Yes.
GOLODRYGA: Appreciate it. You get it.
RIDDELL: All right.
GOLODRYGA: All right. That does it for "One World" this hour. I'm Bianna Golodryga. I'll be back with "Amanpour" after a quick break.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
END
END
