Return to Transcripts main page
One World with Zain Asher
Pentagon: U.S. Spent $25B On War In Iran So Far; King Charles To Visit 9/11 Memorial In New York Today; Lebanese News Agency: Fresh Israeli Airstrikes Kill At Least Five; Former FBI Director Charged With Threatening Trump; Tornado Rips Through Texas Town; Second Day Of Elon Musk Testimony In His Suit Against OpenAI; Young Girl Sets Records In Competitive Chess In Britain; Aired 12-1p ET
Aired April 29, 2026 - 12:00 ET
THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[12:00:42]
BIANNA GOLODRYGA, CNN ANCHOR: Hello, everyone. Live from New York, I'm Bianna Golodryga. You are watching the second hour of "One World."
And we begin with a contentious hearing on Capitol Hill. U.S. Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth and Joint Chiefs Chairman Dan Caine are appearing
for Congress for the first time since President Trump launched the Iran war two months ago.
In his opening remarks, Hegseth said that lawmakers who criticized the conduct of the war are the biggest adversary the U.S. is currently facing.
He declined to answer a question from one top Democrat on when the conflict will end.
The Pentagon, meantime, says that so far the Iran War has cost $25 billion.
CNN's Brian Todd joins me now live in Washington. I don't know if that's -- we have Oren or Brian, OK. Brian Todd, good to see you. You and I spoke in
the last hour. We heard the opening remarks, prepared remarks from the defense secretary, chairman of the joint chiefs, obviously, the focus is on
this $1.5 trillion budget proposal as well.
But what have you been focused on over the last hour since we heard those opening remarks and the cost of this war thus far?
BRIAN TODD, CNN CORRESPONDENT: Right, Bianna. The cost of the war is a big subject of this. But I was focused on just kind of how Democrats were
grilling Pete Hegseth on his messaging of the war.
One congressman, a Democrat from California, John Garamendi, flat out accused Hegseth of lying about the war, of misleading the American public
about the war. They -- they didn't get into it directly because Hegseth came back at him later and rebutted him.
But there was one, I think, pretty good exchange between Congressman Adam Smith, a Democrat from Washington State. He is the ranking member of the
House Armed Services Committee.
He got into it with Hegseth over Hegseth's claim that Iran's nuclear -- nuclear arsenal had been obliterated in Operation Midnight Hammer. That was
the U.S. and Israel led effort against Iran back last summer in June, where they bombed Iran's nuclear facilities.
Hegseth had claimed that Iran's nuclear capabilities had been -- had been obliterated by that. Representative Adam Smith kind of got into him about
that. And they kind of sparred a little bit over the messaging there. Take a listen.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
PETE HEGSETH, U.S. SECRETARY OF DEFENSE: Their nuclear facilities have been obliterated. Underground, they're buried and we're watching them 24/7.
REP. ADAM SMITH (D-WA): Whoa, whoa, whoa, whoa, whoa.
HEGSETH: So we know where any nuclear material might be.
SMITH: Reclaiming me for a second here. We had to start this war, you just said, 60 days ago, because the nuclear weapon was an imminent threat.
Now, you're saying that it was completely obliterated?
HEGSETH: They had not given up their nuclear ambitions, and they had a conventional shield of thousands of --
SMITH: So Operation Midnight Hammer accomplished nothing of substance and left us exactly the same place we were before. So much so (INAUDIBLE).
HEGSETH: Their -- their facility has bombed and obliterated. Their -- their ambitions continued. And they're building a conventional shield --
SMITH: All right. Let me try again.
HEGSETH: It's the North Korea strategy. You know this very well. The North Korea strategy was used conventional missiles to prevent anybody from
challenging them so they can slow walk their way to a weapon.
President Trump saw Iran at its weakest moment, took an action to ensure in a way that only the United States of America could do with our Israeli
partners --
SMITH: And yet, they haven't given up their nuclear.
HEGSETH: -- to ensure their conventional shield was -- was brought --
SMITH: All right. And one other question we've done.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
TODD: So, that's sparring over the central messaging of this war. President Trump claiming, at the beginning of the war, that they could not let Iran
have a nuclear weapon, that this really was kind of about all of that.
Hegseth then, you know, claiming in this hearing and previously that Iran's nuclear program had been obliterated last summer. And then he got into it
right there with Adam Smith over whether Iran's nuclear program has, in fact, been obliterated or not.
That is a central message of President Trump and Pete Hegseth for starting this war that -- claiming that Iran just cannot be allowed to have a
nuclear weapon. So, he's being challenged over that messaging as well.
Also, Bianna, the -- the likely will be challenged over the cost of the war, a top official next to him, basically said that the war has cost $25
billion so far. They're asking for a $1.5 trillion budget request overall.
And they will be asking for more money to fund the production of new weapons. Because as our colleagues, Zachary Cohen and Natasha Bertrand have
reported in recent days, citing military experts and also three people with knowledge of the Defense Department's assessment of stockpiles that the
U.S. military has depleted much of its crucial munitions during the Iran war over the past 60 or so days, including the stockpile of precision
strike missiles, THAAD missiles, and Patriot Air Defense. Those are not completely depleted, but they have been really reduced to the point where
they may not be able to be ramped up for another few years. That's raising the concerns of a lot of experts. Bianna?
[12:05:23]
GOLODRYGA: All right. Brian Todd, thanks so much.
Well, with no signs of the war on Iran ending any time soon, President Trump's patience appears to be wearing thin. The president posted this
image on social media saying Iran better get smart soon. Right now, mediators in Pakistan are waiting for Iran to make a revised peace
proposal.
In the next hour, meantime, Britain's King Charles and Queen Camilla are expected to visit the 9/11 memorial in New York.
On Tuesday night, the royals toasted the longstanding U.S.-U.K. relationship at a state dinner with President and Mrs. Trump.
But at one point, a breach in protocol. The president revealed what he said were the British monarch's views regarding Iran's nuclear capabilities.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
DONALD TRUMP, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: We have militarily defeated that particular opponent. And we're never going to let that opponent ever,
Charles, agrees with me even more than I do. We're never going to let that opponent have a nuclear weapon.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
GOLODRYGA: CNN's royal correspondent Max Foster is following the royal visit for us.
So all in all, breach in protocol aside, this does seem to be a rather successful visit for the monarchs. And as they leave Washington and are in
New York today, commemorating the 9/11 memorial at a time when we're just a few months away from the 25th anniversary of those attacks, what can we
expect to see in here from the King and Queen?
MAX FOSTER, CNN ROYAL CORRESPONDENT: Well, I think you'll see them meeting families of victims and remembering that moment and how it shocked the
world.
And you'll also note that yesterday in the speech, the King spoke about Britain's role in Afghanistan. I think that that's also something notable
here, showing how Britain came to America's defense by standing shoulder to shoulder in the fight in Afghanistan, which was in response to 9/11.
There was a -- this whole visit was almost called off at one point or certainly delayed because so many M.P.s were so offended by something the
President Trump said previously, which was that British troops held back in Afghanistan. They didn't contribute properly, suggesting they didn't stand
shoulder to shoulder.
I think the King is making the message that certainly today, remembering that moment, remembering Britain's role in Afghanistan, that the U.K.
always stands shoulder to shoulder with the United States.
The overarching message really from this whole visit that these this is an alliance that cannot be broken despite current disagreements, if you like.
Interesting, you know, hearing that soundbite as well from the president of Iran, obviously that was meant to be a private conversation. It got out.
And the palace had to respond to it confirming it happened, but it was in line with government policy because they didn't want the idea developing
that the King believed that the war on Iran was something that the U.K. supported when the British government has been pretty clear that they --
they have offered some support but they're not fully supportive of it.
GOLODRYGA: All right. Max Foster, you'll be covering the King and Queen's trip to New York as well throughout the week.
Max Foster, thank you so much.
Well, fresh Israeli airstrikes on southern Lebanon have killed at least five people. That is according to the Lebanese National News Agency. One
attack killed a mother, father and child. The Israeli Defense Forces released this video showing a series of strikes from Tuesday, also hitting
targets in southern Lebanon.
Lebanon's president has condemned the attacks, which come despite a ceasefire being in place.
CNN's Oren Lieberman is live in Jerusalem at this hour.
And, Oren, it is important to reiterate that while the ceasefire technically is between Israel and Lebanon, it's really Hezbollah who the
fighting is being conducted with in the IDF.
And to that point, where is Hezbollah and all of this? And there's growing concern about back and forth tension between the Lebanese government in
Hezbollah as well.
OREN LIEBERMANN, CNN JERUSALEM BUREAU CHIEF: That's exactly right. The ceasefire agreement that was brokered by the United States is between
Israel and the Lebanese government.
In fact, President Donald Trump extended that ceasefire to make it more than a month and made clear that he wants to host Israeli Prime Minister
Benjamin Netanyahu and Lebanese President Joseph Aoun for what would be a landmark meeting at the White House.
But very much, it looks like a ceasefire in name only. And that's because the war is between Israel and Iran's proxy, Hezbollah. And we have seen
Israel carry out continued strikes in southern Lebanon. Strikes Israel says, are in coordination and cooperation with the United States and the
U.S. understands these fall under the ceasefire agreement, but those strikes have a growing toll.
[12:10:04]
According to Lebanese authorities, more than 2,500 people have been killed in Lebanon since the beginning of the war with Iran some two months ago.
And that includes, as you pointed out, five people who Lebanese authorities and state news say were killed today, including a family of three.
Israel says it's targeting Hezbollah and military infrastructure, but again, you see the toll of these strikes in southern Lebanon.
Meanwhile, Hezbollah has continued to launch against Israel. At least four times today, the Israeli military says there have been interceptions over
and around southern Lebanon. That includes both drones and rockets.
So, Hezbollah continues to launch at Israel, accusing Israel of violating the ceasefire. Meanwhile, Israel continues to carry out strikes across
southern Lebanon, accusing Hezbollah of violating the ceasefire.
And that leaves the key question of where does diplomacy stand and is the ceasefire itself falling apart? Right now, it looks like it's -- it's
hanging on by a thread.
Secretary of State Marco Rubio said in an interview earlier this week that he understands and sees what's happening here and that the U.S. has urged
Israel to maintain and keep the strikes proportional.
He says the U.S. believes that's happening. The bigger question is over what happens long-term. Some ministers in Israel's government have said the
occupation of much of southern Lebanon, some 10 kilometers in some places, they want to see that become a buffer zone, but it was Rubio who said that
Israel has no long-term territorial ambitions in southern Lebanon.
All of that makes the diplomacy here very difficult while the Lebanese president has signaled he's not really open to a meeting with Israel, a
direct meeting until there is a true ceasefire in place, Bianna.
GOLODRYGA: Yes. This about a week after President Trump had mentioned inviting and hoping to see the leaders of both countries of Lebanon and
Israel in Washington for some sort of longer term peace agreement.
Oren Liebermann, you've been covering it all for us in Jerusalem. Thank you so much.
Well, former FBI director James Comey is expected to turn himself in at a federal court today after being indicted once again.
This case stems from a photo Comey posted on social media nearly a year ago. It shows the number 86, 47 spelled out in seashells.
The Justice Department says that it amounts to a threat to Trump, who is the 47th president. Comey deleted the post saying he didn't realize that
some people associated the numbers with violence.
One Republican Congressman says prosecuting Comey is an overreach.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
REP. DON BACON (R-NE): I don't defend Director Comey for putting that post out. I thought it was foolish in his own right for doing it. He took it off
right away.
But to prosecute a guy for putting that post out also seems foolish to me. It's overreach. And I think most Americans, we don't like seeing a lawfare
going after people's opponents.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
GOLODRYGA: Crime and justice correspondent Katelyn Polantz joins us now from outside the federal court in Virginia where Comey is expected to
appear. He's expected to turn himself in.
But the case itself will be heard in North Carolina, Katelyn. Explain why.
KATELYN POLANTZ, CNN CRIME AND JUSTICE CORRESPONDENT: Bianna, it is a case based on that photo Comey took a year ago in May of 2025 of seashells on
the beach in the sand. That's the beaches of North Carolina. And that's where the case was charged yesterday, approved by a grand jury two counts
against James Comey, the former FBI director, because of this post.
One of the counts, it charges Comey with threatening the life of the president of the United States, Donald Trump, that would be the 47th
president. That's 47 in that photo.
And then also a charge of making a threat over interstate commerce, so posting it online so that people all over the United States and the world
could see it.
Comey has said previously, even when he did a voluntary interview months ago with the FBI, that he intended no harm, and that this was, he thought,
political speech.
That's what a lot of First Amendment groups are also saying today after we have seen this indictment. Still, it is a criminal charge. It's filed in
court. It was approved by a grand jury in North Carolina. So that means today, James Comey has to come to court to face the charge for the first
time.
He's coming here in the Eastern District of Virginia, expected this afternoon, because this is the area he lives. That's just how it works in
federal court. That's where you go first, where you may be at the time of your charge.
They'll have an initial appearance in this courthouse. That's expected before a magistrate judge, where he'll hear the charges. There may be a
little bit other discussion about the very initial stages of this case, some planning, perhaps. And then the case moves in earnest to the Eastern
District of North Carolina, a courthouse in New Bern, North Carolina, close to the beach, a little outside of Wilmington. And that's where the bulk of
the case will take place.
A judge there will be looking at whether it has merit, whether Comey will be able to get rid of these charges before a trial. And then ultimately, if
he isn't able to do that, a jury in that state will be able to look at the case.
[12:15:13]
Bianna, a long road ahead and a second time around for Jim Comey after months of investigation for various things by the Trump administration back
in this court in Virginia where he previously faced a different indictment that has now been dismissed several months ago.
Back to you.
GOLODRYGA: Comey saying he is prepared to fight this case as well.
Katelyn Polantz, thank you so much.
Let's take a closer look at this case with former federal prosecutor Paul Rosenzweig. He's also a former Homeland Security Deputy Assistant Secretary
for Policy. Paul, good to have you on the program.
So, Acting Attorney General Todd Blanche says that they will prove intent through, quote, witnesses, documents, and the defendant himself.
As a former prosecutor, how high is the bar to prove criminal intent over these charges?
PAUL ROSENZWEIG, FORMER HOMELAND SECURITY DEPARTMENT ASSISTANT SECRETARY FOR POLICY: Well, these charges are particularly difficult to prove
because, of course, they involve First Amendment adjacent speech.
Normally, intent is difficult enough to prove in the average criminal case, my intent to murder someone, for example, or my intent to rob a store. But
it often is inferable from the actions itself.
Here, there's an added layer of protection for what is clearly also political speech. There's a -- a long-standing doctrine in the Supreme
Court from a case called Brandenburg, which is why the indictment says that it would -- that any reasonable observer would have to determine that this
was a serious intent to do harm to the president. And that's a very much higher bar than the average intent standard generally.
GOLODRYGA: Is there case law to back up that argument though that the DOJ is asserting that there is a reasonable standard here to an interpret harm?
ROSENZWEIG: Well, there are a number of cases that have tried to prosecute people for expressing intent to harm political figures. Almost all of them
have resulted in victories for the -- for the political speakers.
Brandenburg is the most famous case, which clearly involved more violent advocacy. There's a case involving a gentleman who said, if I'm drafted,
you know, the first person I'm going to go after with a gun is LBJ, Lyndon Baines Johnson, who was then president of the United States. And that was
deemed protected political speech. And it seems to me is clearly closer to the line than a -- than a photograph of some seashells with an ambiguous
phrase, 8647, than -- than that standard.
So, yes, there's a possibility that you can make the case, but no, this case is not going to be made, at least not on the evidence that we've seen
so far.
GOLODRYGA: And does the fact that Comey immediately sat for Secret Service interview and denied violent intent, does that complicate the DOJ case at
all here?
ROSENZWEIG: Well, it certainly makes it much more difficult. His contemporaneous statements denying the intent will need to be negated by
some extraneous proof.
Yes. If hypothetically he went home and wrote a note to -- to his wife, hey, I just lied to the FBI about my intent. I really wanted to kill Trump,
then, you know, that would be something.
But I'm sure there's no such evidence in existence. It seems highly unlikely that -- that there's any indication of an actual intent to do harm
to the president. It's a -- it's a phrase that has been used in political speech for a long time.
Jack Posobiec, one of Trump's key supporters on the internet said 8646 about Biden and nobody went after him, thinking he really meant to kill
President Biden.
GOLODRYGA: And this -- that's a -- that's a good point. And this is, we should also note, the DOJ's second attempt to indict James Comey in just
under a year.
From a legal standpoint, how viable is his vindictive prosecution defense argument, which is likely going to be?
ROSENZWEIG: Well, it was pretty viable the first time around. The case was decided on -- on different grounds, the grounds that -- that the U.S.
attorney there, Lindsey Halligan, had been illegally appointed.
But the case that was pretty persuasive and it's mostly out of President Trump's own mouth. The fact that they coming -- come back to him a second
time with the case that is arguably weaker than the first one kind of only heightens the perception that this case is nothing more than, yes, the
concept in -- in T.V. shows is fan service, where you're giving the fans what they want.
This is fan service for Donald Trump by Todd Blanche. And really, I think the courts are likely to see it that way.
GOLODRYGA: Yes. Regardless how this ends up, even if this is a weak case, as most legal experts say, it does have a chilling effect. And perhaps that
is the intent here as well. And this costs a lot of financial capital, of human capital, as well here for any defendant to have to go through not
once but -- but twice, now at this point in James Comey's case.
[12:20:21]
Yes, go ahead.
ROSENZWEIG: I -- I think that's exactly right. This is -- this is not about winning. It's about Trump trying to use the mechanisms of justice to
threaten and cow people who are opposed to him.
It's all the peace with a host of -- with his prosecution attempt to prosecution of Letitia James, the attorney general in New York with his
threats of treason trials against the -- the senators and congressmen who spoke out against illegal orders with as recently as yesterday the
indictment of one of Anthony Fauci's close personal aides for the crime, and I put that in air quotes, of evading record keeping obligations.
It's all of which is intended to use the mechanisms of justice to threaten and silence his opposition.
GOLODRYGA: Yes. The case against Jerome Powell as well. I don't think he'd describe himself as an opposition --
ROSENZWEIG: Oh, yes. Sorry. That one.
GOLODRYGA: -- to the president of the United States but there's a case too. Exactly.
Paul Rosenzweig, good to see you. Thank you so much.
ROSENZWEIG: Thank you for having me.
GOLODRYGA: And still to come for us, homes and businesses destroyed when a tornado tore through a small town in Texas. We'll have a live report from
the scene, just ahead.
And Elon Musk is back on the witness stand talking about the future of A.I. and why he says his former partners betrayed him. We'll have details after
the break.
And celebrated American gymnast, Simone Biles, sits down with Amanda Davies asking her the big question, will she compete at the 2028 Olympics?
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: You all pray for everybody in Mineral Wells, Texas, guys. It's crazy out here right now.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
GOLODRYGA: Utter devastation. This is from a tornado that ripped through Mineral Wells, Texas on Tuesday. The town lies about 129 kilometers or 80
miles west of Dallas. Roofs are ripped off, buildings, and homes demolished. And other parts of the town are completely flattened. Twister
is the latest and days of severe weather slamming central and Midwestern states.
[12:25:02]
CNN's Ed Lavandera is in Texas with the very latest.
And as always, with these types of twisters, the devastation is horrific. Tell us more about the aftermath behind you there, Ed.
ED LAVANDERA, CNN SENIOR U.S. NATIONAL CORRESPONDENT: Yes. Well, this was an intense afternoon of storms that rolled through this part of Texas
yesterday afternoon into the evening.
And we're in the town of Mineral Wells, which is just west of the Dallas Fort Worth area. And these are the grounds of something that was called
Fort Wortley (PH), which was an old military installation that dates back to the World War II era.
So kind of one of these historic places that I think kind of a lot of people in this community have a soft spot for. People did not live here.
These were the abandoned barracks, but this was used back during the World War II era.
You can just see this, the -- the level of destruction as the -- the storm ripped through here. There are a couple of subdivisions and neighborhoods
that are still very difficult to reach into as emergency crews are keeping most people out as they try to repair the power lines. But this was an
intense line of storms that blew through here yesterday afternoon.
City officials now tell us that the preliminary -- preliminary indication is that indeed it was a tornado that ripped through Mineral Wells here
yesterday afternoon. They have increased the number of people injured from two to five. One person possibly suffered a hip fracture. So, those are the
kinds of injuries that they're dealing with.
But considering how intense this storm was, the fact that there was no loss of life and no really critical major injuries, that is extremely good news.
But, you know, you can just take a moment to kind of take in these scenes.
One moment here in particular, Bianna, that kind of stands out to me, is you see this often, but I don't see this particular often strip of sheet
metal ripped off of a roof, but wrapped around that tree over there almost twice. And that is something that you don't often see.
You often see the sheet metal kind of bending around the tree as the winds blew -- blow through here.
But, you know, these storms, they pack an intense punch, incredibly dangerous and terrifying for the people who live here in Mineral Wells.
Bianna?
GOLODRYGA: Terrifying is an understatement. Ed Lavandera, thank you so much.
And coming up for us, Britain's best female chess player has an impressive record.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
NEVIL CHAN, PRESIDENT, HARROW CHESS CLUB: She's just broken every record and every barrier there was.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
GOLODRYGA: Especially considering that she's only 11 years old. You'll meet this incredible young girl a little later in the show.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[12:30:30]
GOLODRYGA: All right. Welcome back to "One World." I'm Bianna Golodryga.
Day two of Elon Musk's testimony is underway in Oakland, California. He's suing his former partners in OpenAI, Sam Altman and Greg Brockman for $130
billion.
Musk says they betrayed the original nonprofit mission of the company when they saw how lucrative it could be. OpenAI's lawyer say Musk is just upset
because he was denied complete control.
Let's bring in CNN's A.I. correspondent Hadas Gold outside of the courthouse in Oakland, California.
So, Hadas, we heard from -- we heard from Elon Musk yesterday when he took the stand. He's expected to do the same today. What stood out from his
testimony yesterday?
HADAS GOLD, CNN A.I. CORRESPONDENT: Yes. Elon Musk has actually been on the stand out for about an hour behind me in the court. And also watching him,
while he's giving his testimony, his OpenAI CEO Sam Altman, OpenAI president Greg Brockman. And even super-agent Ari Emanuel is actually there
as well. He is a close friend of Elon Musk and he has been helping Elon Musk throughout his trial.
But yesterday is when things kicked off and he gave the jury a bit of his biography and sort of his history, his version of how he got involved with
OpenAI and why he founded it. He said that he thought -- he's been concerned for a long time that A.I. could kill us all, worried about a
Terminator-style outcome.
And he wanted to create an open source, nonprofit research foundation that would help A.I. be, excuse me, good for humanity and saying that he would
have started it whether he had paired up with Sam Altman or Greg Brockman. He would have started it on his own, but he was happy to do so with them
when things got started.
And remember, he also gave tens of millions of dollars to OpenAI when it first started. He was the one that was paying the rent for OpenAI's first
offices.
So now, we've had about an hour of Musk's second day of testimony. It is still direct examination.
Today, it's been a lot of questions about that shift from the nonprofit to the for-profit. Lots of emails being brought up as evidence where you can
see Musk saying that he wasn't necessarily opposed to having a for-profit aspect of a nonprofit, but he was worried that -- that, you know, the for-
profit aspect would far exceed the nonprofit.
And then he says at one point, I was a fool. I believe them. I gave them free-friending to essentially create a startup. And so that's where they
are right now. There's going to be a lot of back and forth on these emails because it's a -- it might be a bit confusing actually for the jurors
because there's -- are lots of conversations about potentially having a for-profit element of the OpenAI nonprofit when it first started. And Musk
seems to be in favor of some aspects, not in favor of others.
And I think that's what you're really going to hear from OpenAI when they get their chance to question Elon Musk likely later today. They're going to
try and paint the picture to the jury of Elon Musk was in favor of a for- profit structure in some way in order to be able to help fund what's very expensive in A.I. All of that compute all of those chips, all of those very
expensive researchers who command high salaries in order to be able to compete. That's what you have to put in a lot of money for.
And there are -- and the OpenAI attorneys are also likely going to point out the timing of all this. They're going to say, you know, this was all
happening years ago. Why didn't Elon Musk, you know, bring up this lawsuit when he could have back in 2020? He's only doing this now.
They're going to argue because he has his own competing A.I. company, xAI. And they're going to argue that he is jealous of OpenAI's success, ChatGPT,
one of the most popular A.I. apps out there. And they're saying he's just bringing this to try to bring a competitor down a few notches.
His testimony is going to continue for another few hours. Next up, we are expecting the head of Elon Musk's family office, Jared Birchall.
And later on, we might hear from people like Microsoft CEO Satya Nadella as well. So, a lot of big names we're going to be hearing from in this trial.
Sam Altman, we won't hear from him though until likely the end of next week.
GOLODRYGA: Yes. So many billionaires, so much bad blood here between them. The judge actually yesterday forcing Musk and Altman to keep their
agreements, their grievances off of social media throughout this case as well as it's playing out.
GOLD: Yes.
GOLODRYGA: Hadas Gold, thank you.
All right. Time now for The Exchange. Our next guest, Gary Marcus writes that this is "A trial about whether OpenAI should be held to its promises
to be a nonprofit working for the benefit of humanity, which it clearly no longer is."
Gary Marcus joins us now live. He's an author and founder of Geometric A.I. and professor emeritus at NYU. Good to have you back -- good to have you on
the program, Gary.
You also posted that this too is a battle of egos. And, listen, it's hard to root for either side here, though most legal experts view Elon Musk's
case as sort of the underdog of the two actors.
Does he actually have a valid argument that that's charity was stolen? Or do you think that this is an elaborate strategy to slow the growth of
OpenAI as a company?
[12:35:11]
GARY MARCUS, FOUNDER, GEOMETRIC A.I.: It's probably both. I mean, I think Musk has every commercial reason to want to win this lawsuit, but he's also
right that Altman and Brockman basically stole a non-profit and are trying to turn it into a for-profit. And that's really what the case is about.
Obviously, you know, each side benefits to gain if they win, but it is true that this company was founded as a non-profit. It recruited talent based on
a non-profit that avoided tax on its non-profit status.
And now, they're trying to turn it into a for-profit. So Musk is actually right about that. Whatever you might think of him as a person. I'm not a
fan of his as a person, but the world would be better off, I think, if he did win the suit and forced OpenAI to be the non-profit for the benefit of
humanity, that they always promise that they would be.
GOLODRYGA: But OpenAI's defense is now claiming their original non-profit board still oversees the commercial operation and is redistributing
billions of dollars.
So, does the current governance structure legally shield them from Musk's demands now for $150 billion?
MARCUS: Well, I mean, Musk's biggest demand is to actually stop the transition to for-profit. And the question is whether that's a legitimate
transition, whether the circumstances around it. So it's partly about money.
Musk has pledged to give the money if he wins to the non-profit part of the foundation. But there are a lot of questions about governance and whether
the company is really doing things in accordance with its charter.
Its charter still says, do things for the benefit of humanity, but that doesn't really look like what the company is doing.
GOLODRYGA: Well, the company is now valued at some $730 billion. It's tying a historic IPO. It's unwinding a commercial giant of the scale now
practically impossible.
I understand your ethical concerns. But just from a practicality standpoint, how feasible would be to unwind all of this now?
MARCUS: Well, most of it isn't actually wound yet or is only recently wound, so to speak, in the -- in the last, I guess, few months or a year or
something like that.
There's a very complicated cap structure, capitalization table for OpenAI that I think nobody in the public really has full access to.
So, we don't really understand what the structure is now. But if the courts said you will remain as a non-profit, the non-profit will remain in
control, and here's this other thing, then that's what they will do.
GOLODRYGA: In court, we also heard OpenAI's attorney showing data proving that other donors had actually outweighed Musk's contributions from 2016 to
2020.
Does that play any significance here in the argument and the depiction that Elon Musk -- Musk has created about his contribution to this company, the -
- the sweat equity as it's been called?
MARCUS: I mean, I think that's a really complicated question to judge. You know, how much did it trade on his reputation, his money, capital that came
from people later and so forth?
But I don't think that's the actually of the essence of the argument. There are a lot of things that OpenAI can say that are true about limitations of
Elon Musk who, as I said, I don't think is a perfect person or even close.
But the real question is they pledged to be a non-profit and for the benefit of humanity. They're not really doing that.
Now, how much Elon personally contributed to the company? He probably thinks the company wouldn't exist without him. He's made that argument.
Maybe it's true. Maybe it's not, but I don't think that's the real question here.
The real question is, should this company be forced to work for the benefit of humanity like it promised? Or is it OK that they changed midstream?
GOLODRYGA: Is this based on any legal documentation between the founders here? Or is this just sort of taking their -- their word at the time of the
creation of the company, that it would be a -- a non-profit?
MARCUS: Well, there's lots of documentation that it would be a non-profit, including, for example, the filings they did with the state of California
every year for many years, public statements that Altman has made and so forth.
In terms of the agreements between the founders, I've seen some stuff. I haven't seen everything that I don't know (INAUDIBLE).
GOLODRYGA: Yes, that's what I meant between the founders themselves. That's what I meant between Brockman, Sam Altman and Elon Musk.
MARCUS: I think a lot of that was done on handshakes and emails and stuff like that. And the courts and the jury would have -- has -- has to decide
what they think of those kinds of documents.
GOLODRYGA: So, how much are the other, the -- the major A.I. players, Anthropic and Perplexity -- I mean, how much are they or how closely are
they following the outcome of this case here?
MARCUS: I would assume everybody's following it incredibly closely because if they are forced into being a non-profit, that would really change the
state of play.
If it's just money, maybe that doesn't, although one has to remember that OpenAI is actually losing a lot of money.
[12:40:07]
And so even a judgment of $100 billion might actually be catastrophic for that company. And so everybody in the industry wants to know how this is
going to turn out. It might turn out to be nothing. Musk might lose, there might be no effect. But if he wins, it will radically change the -- the --
the playing field.
GOLODRYGA: Though I would imagine if he wins, then OpenAI would just -- would just appeal that decision too. So that wouldn't be the end result.
MARCUS: Sure. I mean, if he wins in the long run --
GOLODRYGA: Ultimately. Right.
MARCUS: -- sure, there would be an appeal. No doubt about that.
GOLODRYGA: All right. Gary Marcus, thank you so much. Great to have you on the program. Come back soon.
Well, U.S. Special Forces soldier has pleaded not guilty to misusing classified information to make more than $400,000 on a prediction market.
Prosecutors say Gannon Ken Van Dyke was involved in the capture of Venezuelan president, Nicolas Maduro in January. The 38-year-old soldiers
accused of placing a $32,000 bet on the raid ahead of the military operation.
Afterward, Van Dyke allegedly funneled his winnings through a foreign cryptocurrency vault and asked to Polymarket to delete his account. His
lawyer claim -- his lawyer claims Van Dyke has been charged with something that is not a crime.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
MARK GERAGOS, GANNON KEN VAN DYKE'S ATTORNEY: He has spent virtually 98 percent of his adult life serving this country in an exemplary manner. He's
reached the apex of that service.
And with any luck, we will return him quickly to where he belongs, which is protecting the world, frankly, from all kinds of threats.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
GOLODRYGA: Van Dyke is expected back in court in June.
The State Department says that it is starting this summer, some U.S. -- starting this summer, some U.S. passports will feature President Trump's
image on the inside cover.
The new design is meant to commemorate the 250th anniversary of America's independence. The change applies only to passports issued in Washington,
D.C. President Trump's likeness has appeared on several new government- issued items, including a coin and a national park pass.
We'll be right back with more.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
GOLODRYGA: All right. Now to our Inside Africa segment, which introduces you to innovations and ideas shaping the continent.
[12:45:01]
Kenya's informal sector contributes about a third of its GDP, but there are challenges over how to tap into the potential of this market.
Now, big corporations are using technology to help.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
LUCK OCHIENG, MANAGING DIRECTOR, UNILEVER EAST AFRICA: If you check the Kenyan context, over 80 percent of our people are employed in the informal
sector.
The challenge we have is, how do you then get to the most rural of markets or the informal sectors? Markets such as Kibera into (INAUDIBLE) and places
like that.
We cannot go in there with a big truck doing delivery. We have to develop new models that allow us to actually get to the consumer wherever they are.
For example, 2,000 customers have actually come on to our value chain to be able to sell our products and, of course, then benefit from -- from that
opportunity.
ANUJ TANNA, FOUNDER, MESH: We've been called at times linked in for the informal economy.
Think kiosk, owner, operators, freelancers, farmers. What we do is begin to connect them to their peers, back-and-look like suppliers of goods and
services, partners, customers, sort of a marketplace.
We then connect them to bite-sized, practical, contextualized training material. In local language, highly relevant for the businesses that they
operate.
And then we additionally link them to opportunities like with Unilever and other corporate partners which could be a -- a gig or access to a value
chain or a new product or service in the formal world.
OCHIENG: What MESH has done is that they've created this platform whereby these entrepreneurs register onto the platform. Their details are then
taken in, they create a profile for -- for themselves.
On the one hand, that helps us also too then develop a bit of trust. Because here, you have somebody who's, you know, who's known. Technology
helps and solutions such as (INAUDIBLE) money then help us to digitize the exchange of money and also create another level of trust in that whole
process.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
(SINGING)
(END VIDEO CLIP)
GOLODRYGA: It was an unplanned mic drop moment at the Buffalo Sabres NHL playoff game against Boston Tuesday when the audio literally dropped out
during the Anthem singer's performance of "O Canada."
[12:50:09]
But once fans realized what was going on, they didn't miss a beat. And instead jumped in and finished the words themselves.
Mind you, this is in Buffalo, New York. Some true fans coming together, putting politics aside and singing the Canadian national anthem. A lovely
moment there.
All right. Well, Simone Biles saying there is a 50-50 chance that she'll be competing in the 2028 Olympics in Los Angeles.
Biles has shared her struggles since the twisties forced her to withdraw from events at the Tokyo Olympics. CNN's Amanda Davies caught up with
Biles.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
AMANDA DAVIES, CNN WORLD SPORT: I know you've said you feel you will be at LA '28 in some capacity.
SIMONE BILES, 11-TIME OLYMPIC MEDALIST: Exactly.
DAVIES: Do you have any more indication which capacity yet?
BILES: I feel like we're still out of 50-50. I meant we're still on a time crunch here now. It's almost half of 2026. So we're going to have to make
these decisions pretty quickly, so.
DAVIES: What will it depend on? What are the considerations?
BILES: I think mental health plays a big role in it, because again, physically, my coaches will get me in shape. I can get myself in shape. We
believe in that ability. We're really thankful that I'm still healthy but mental is a huge thing.
And -- and it's a lot of dedication on that because the road is not easy. It's long, but it's still work.
DAVIES: Yes. The risk versus the reward.
BILES: Exactly.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
GOLODRYGA: The 11-time Olympic medalist also discussed her husband, Indianapolis Colts player Jonathan Owens.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
DAVIES: How do you describe yourself as an -- as an American football -- is WAG a term in the -- in the States?
BILES: Yes. WAG is a term in the States. Actually, I feel like -- OK, if I had to grade myself as a WAG for showing up like outfits and everything 100
percent. Like I'm definitely down in the -- in the mud and not.
As far as football knowledge, I'm still probably at a 50 percent, because yesterday, I thought I was being so cute on my Instagram story. And I was
like, oh, my husband's going off to training camp.
And he calls me. He's like, babe it's not training camp. It's OTAs but that is very cute of you.
And I was going to correct myself but I was like, they know what I'm talking about.
DAVIES: Do you -- are you an angry supporter? Or are you a calm voice of reason on the sidelines?
BILES: I would say I'm a calm voice of reason because I feel like I'm still at that 50 percent scale. I'm not really sure exactly what's going on the
whole entire time.
But I would say I am dedicated in watching my husband achieve his dreams. And so when -- I would say in playoffs, if they were to lose or close to
losing before advancing, like, I'm really nervous because I know the pressure that he feels.
And so I just feel for him. But other than that, I'm just there for a good time. Watch my husband. He looks pretty good in pads and stuff, so it's
good.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
GOLODRYGA: Just like a normal couple.
All right. Well, most 11-year-olds are hanging out with friends or glued to social media. But one girl in Britain spends her time competing at the
highest levels of chess.
CNN's Don Riddell has her story.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
DON RIDDELL, CNN WORLD SPORT: Bodhana Sivanandan is Britain's highest ranked women's chess player and she's only 11. She learned to play the game
at age five by accident after an old chess set was left with her family to be donated.
Bodhana tried to use the knights and the rooks and the pawns as toys.
BODHANA SIVANANDAN, BRITAIN'S BEST WOMEN'S CHESS PLAYER: My dad told me that if I did that, then the next person who gets the chessboard, they
won't be able to play proper chess.
So, instead, he taught me the basics and then I started playing from there.
RIDDELL: Bodhana is not only the highest ranked women's chess player in Britain, she's also currently ranked number 72 in the world.
And last year at the age of 10, she became the youngest female player to defeat a grandmaster, beating a 60-year-old at the British Chess
Championships.
CHAN: Well, quite simply, she is a prodigy and the real sense of the word. Her learning of the game has just been unbelievable. And since we met her
back in 2020, she's just broken every record and every barrier there was.
RIDDELL: This might all seem like a bit of a distraction, but Bodhana says, chess has actually helped her with schoolwork.
SIVANANDAN: Because I go to school with links to so many school subjects like math, it helps in calculation. And music, it helps in pattern
recognition. And I play the violin and I play a bit of piano.
And in art, it helps with creativity, so it links with that.
RIDDELL: Chess prodigy began by travelling to tournaments with her father, who has encouraged her from the very beginning.
SIVA VELAYUTHAM, BODHANA'S FATHER: You just want to keep playing the best and keep going with one of them. That would be she's reaching, as long as
she's enjoying and playing chess. We want to support it and keep going.
RIDDELL: She is fearless. And experts say that children are now the most feared opponents in tournament chess. Players are getting better and
younger.
SIVANANDAN: I want to be one of the best chess players in the world. And that's like my main long-term aim. And, yes, for now, I just want to keep
improving and doing my best.
[12:55:09]
Don Riddell, CNN.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
GOLODRYGA: What an incredible chess genius.
All right. That does it for this hour of "One World." I'm Bianna Golodryga. Thanks so much for watching. "Amanpour" is up next.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[13:00:00]
END
