Return to Transcripts main page

The Situation Room

Saudi Arabia Says It Shot Down a Houthi Drone Near Mecca; A.I. Safety Fears Fuel Growing Political Debate; Trump Jr.'s Wedding Investigation. Aired 11:30a-12p ET

Aired September 16, 2026 - 11:30   ET

THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.

[11:30:00]

COL. CEDRIC LEIGHTON (RET.), CNN MILITARY ANALYST: The reason that Saudi Arabia exists, they're basically the guardian of the of the shrines there. And if they lose that role because of an attack, if the religious areas are damaged, then it calls into question their legitimacy to control that. And that is why this is such a dangerous situation.

WOLF BLITZER, CNN ANCHOR: Colonel Cedric Leighton, as usual, thank you very, very much. And we'll be right back.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

PAMELA BROWN, CNN ANCHOR: Happening now on Capitol Hill, several lawmakers from both parties are demanding that Congress hold urgent meetings on A.I. and its potential threat to humanity.

[11:35:00]

They want stronger federal oversight and regulations, even if the meetings chew into their final weeks of campaigning before the midterms. Fears of A.I. breaking free of human restraint escalated when an OpenAI model escaped its test environment and hacked the platform Hugging Face. Technology experts say it's essential that the U.S. establishes guardrails. Well, we can't.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

TRISTAN HARRIS, CO-FOUNDER, CENTER FOR HUMAN TECHNOLOGY: So, it's almost like you have an ant infestation, except the ants have 200 IQ. They code better than all humans on Earth. They can hack things and they appear to be better at coordinating than humans.

I agree we should not lose to China in how advanced our technology is. We should be researching the technology, but we should be beating them to controllable technology and controllable A.I., not beating them to a rogue A.I. swarm that shuts down the internet in six months.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

BROWN: Join us now with CNN National Security Analyst Alex Plitsas. He's the director of the counterterrorism program at the Atlantic Council and CNN senior legal analyst Elie Honig, a former state and federal prosecutor.

So, Alex, I want to start with you because you're just returning from a delegation trip to Taiwan. And part of the discussion there was on A.I. And I'm wondering how much of it focused on A.I. becoming ungovernable and this just concern that they could go rogue and cause human catastrophe, basically.

ALEX PLITSAS, CNN NATIONAL SECURITY ANALYST AND FORMER PENTAGON OFFICIAL: Sure. The primary purpose of the trip was to look into supply chain resiliency because about 95 percent of the advanced logic chips that are used in the integrated circuits that go into the data centers, which everybody's hearing about, which is what A.I. used to run on, are produced in Taiwan.

And obviously, given the geopolitical, you know, crisis globally, stockpiles of weapons being depleted, what does that look like? What's the risk picture for the U.S. supply chain-wise, A.I.-wise with the focus? But while we were there, a number of A.I. policy safety experts, executives from companies were there. And this was part of the discussion. And actually, we found out about Hugging Face while we were there.

So, effectively, one of the models, as was mentioned, broke out of its sandbox, hacked into a company, then started leaving instructions behind for other models and things to break out in the future. And it all kind of ties back to the alignment gap, which is basically all the companies are trying to figure out how do you align human morals and ethics to an artificial intelligence model to ensure it doesn't do something bad in the future.

Because what happens, it becomes not self-aware in the sense it's a human being, but it starts to realize that the constraints placed on it are going to keep it from getting to its maximum potential and doesn't remove it at that point. So, it's more fear of the unknown of what could come in the future that's really driving this.

BROWN: Like it could be a separate species that doesn't have the same goals as humans.

PLITSAS: Yes, yes.

BROWN: There's even a social media website for A.I. bots that humans just observe. And you have A.I. bots that are on there. Isn't that crazy? I learned about that. I was like, what? Where are we headed here?

And in terms of regulation and laws, where are we on that front? And what role could the legal world have in future regulation of A.I.?

ELIE HONIG, CNN SENIOR LEGAL ANALYST, FORMER STATE AND FEDERAL PROSECUTOR AND FORMER ASSISTANT U.S. ATTORNEY, SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NY: So, in terms of actual laws, there's really not much on the books. Capitol Hill, the U.S. Congress has not really done anything. A few states, a few dozen states have gotten out ahead, California, Texas, New York. But most of those laws are fairly toothless. They require certain transparency, certain levels of training, but they don't really have any hammer to threaten the A.I. companies with.

But I think the real threat is looming in the form of these tort product liability lawsuits, which we're already starting to see filed against these A.I. companies. And the theory is these are dangerous products that the companies know or should know are posing danger to users and more broadly to segments in society.

And therefore, they're bringing these lawsuits. And those types of suits can really make a big difference. I mean, think of the asbestos lawsuits in the '80s, the tobacco lawsuits in the '90s. Most recently, and I think most closely, the social media lawsuits, right? We just saw Meta settle one of these lawsuits for $18 billion. So, those lawsuits can really shape conduct of these A.I. companies moving forward because they want to insulate themselves. And sometimes that can cause self-policing and self-regulation.

BROWN: You know, Alex, in the national security realm, we talk so much about adversaries and their potential for attacks on our electrical grid or banking systems and that kind of thing. What is your concern on that front when it comes to A.I. doing that, if it's not aligned with human interest?

PLITSAS: Excellent question. And that's exactly the concern is what happens if these rogue models start to take out sections of the Internet, utilities, things of that nature, or even not getting to an artificial general intelligence equivalent with a human or artificial super intelligence, which is where it's heading down the road. But just now --

BROWN: And that means it's basically smarter than any human, right?

PLITSAS: Yes, like 100,000 Einsteins sitting in a data center somewhere. I mean, it's basically what we're talking about. And so, there's the national security concern on that. And that's just the models themselves. But then there's also the models being used by adversarial nation states.

So, where it really becomes problematic is when we look at it in the context of China. So, for all the folks at home, you hear A.I. as a catchphrase. What does it actually mean? This race with China goes back nearly two decades. It transcends four administrations across two political parties, and we've had one consistent policy. That is to ensure that China doesn't beat the U.S. in the A.I. race.

And through export controls, we've ensured that they haven't got the technology to build the small chips, to get control of the data center supply chain and get ahead of us. And that's been going on since the Obama administration forward, and Trump has continued it. And that's --

[11:40:00]

BROWN: But hold on. Just kind of as a follow-up on that.

PLITSAS: Yes, please.

BROWN: But didn't Trump also allow them to have certain chips to help develop their A.I.?

PLITSAS: There's a limit on what they're allowed to get. So, they can't get things that are below a certain size. Like, the smallest ones being produced right now by TSMC, the Taiwan semiconductor in Taiwan, is about 1.5 nanometers, which are the nodes that are electrodes that sort of transmit on the little chips. They're one one- thousandth the size of a virus, to give you context about size when you look at it under a microscope. I mean, the --

BROWN: So, you're not concerned about what the U.S. is --

PLITSAS: Not at the point -- not now with what we've given them, but if they were to get those advanced chips, right, and they were able to produce them themselves. There's only one company that makes the tech to actually build it. It's under export control to China and has been. So, because they've been behind, their data center manufacturer, the ones that build it, is Huawei. They're state telecom folks. They would get control of the data supply chain. It would be problematic.

So, the U.S. has maintained control over that portion, and our frontier models are thought to be about six months ahead of them. What happens if these models are now trained based on the CCP's beliefs and how things should work ethically and everything else? That's another concern down the road, and the U.S. wants to stay ahead of that.

BROWN: Yes, it's interesting. I just had an expert on who's saying that the threat to democracy was a really big concern. So, when it comes to just a legal framework, what could Congress actually do here, Elie?

HONIG: They can do a lot. They can do a lot. I mean, they can hold hearings like we're seeing today and throughout, I'm sure, the coming weeks. They can engage in fact-finding. They have the subpoena power. Remember that.

And let's remember, we're coming up on midterms, so control of the House or Senate could flip. That would change the priorities. They also can empower the agencies. They can give them more regulatory power to the FTC, the FCC, whatever. Those agencies are cabined by what Congress allows them to do, but they can expand the mandate.

And finally, they can legislate. We forget this. Congress can legislate. We've not seen it come out of the federal United States House and Senate, but we have seen it out of certain states. States are on the leading edge here, and there are models in place to at least require transparency, at least require basic safety protections, and perhaps to impose liability to make it easier for people, if there are violations, to go into court and sue.

PLITSAS: Yes.

BROWN: OK. Good to know. And by the way, that social media site for A.I. chatbots --

HONIG: I'm staying away from that.

BROWN: -- Moltbook. Humans can observe --

HONIG: I'm not going.

BROWN: -- but they can't actually engage. It's just like wild. All right, Elie Honig, Alex, thank you so much. Wolf.

BLITZER: And coming up, Democrats are now calling for an investigation into a Russian oligarch's financial involvement in Donald Trump Jr.'s three-day lavish wedding in the Bahamas. I'll get reaction from Republican Congresswoman Nancy Mace. She's standing by live. She will join us live right here in The Situation Room.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[11:45:00]

BLITZER: Happening now. The top Democrat of the House Oversight Committee is now investigating Donald Trump Jr.'s relationship with a close ally to Russian President Vladimir Putin. It stems from the reporting by investigative news outlet ProPublica that Russian oligarch Umar Kremlev paid hundreds of thousands of dollars for Trump Jr.'s wedding celebrations in the Bahamas. Congressman Robert Garcia is now asking Trump Jr. and the White House Chief of Staff to turn over any documents they may have detailing the family's ties to this guy named Kremlev.

Joining us now is Republican Congresswoman from South Carolina Nancy Mace. She's also a key member of the House Oversight Committee. Congresswoman, thanks so much for joining us. Let me start by getting your reaction to this new reporting and Congressman Garcia's efforts to investigate.

REP. NANCY MACE (R-SC), HOUSE OVERSIGHT COMMITTEE AND HOUSE VETERANS' AFFAIRS COMMITTEE: Well, I think if Democrats win the House you're going to see a lot of that. But already there have been media reports about Melania Trump and Eric Trump disavowing or distancing themselves from this person. They don't know who he is. I think this is just another reason for Democrats to try to investigate the president and it's not going to go anywhere. The president didn't even attend the wedding is my understanding.

BLITZER: Do Oversight Committee Republicans also want to see that information based on what you know?

MACE: No, there's no interest in it so far. We're not even interested in investigating Hunter Biden's recent wedding. So, I don't really understand what Robert Garcia is after. I think we have more important fish to fry. For example, trying to get the second Epstein discharge petition across the finish line before the end of the year. The victims of Jeffrey Epstein deserve those 302 forms. We need to get the New Mexico Attorney General all the documents they need from the DOJ and the Southern District of New York to investigate Epstein in New Mexico. There are bigger things, I think, you know, that are more important right now to go after than Don Jr.

BLITZER: Donald Trump Jr.'s wife is defending the gift from that oligarch posting, and I'm quoting her now, "Generosity doesn't automatically come with an agenda. And sometimes a wedding gift is simply a wedding gift," end quote. What's your response to that?

MACE: I'm not a billionaire. I don't know if this is the kind of thing that billionaires do. If they get this kind of extravagant gifts, I would assume so. It's not something that people are talking about right now. When you're talking to voters, when you're talking to constituents, they're concerned about affordability and cost of living. They don't care that Don Jr. got married in the Bahamas. They just don't care.

BLITZER: On another sensitive issue that we're watching, the Kennedy Center's board voted to close the Performing Arts Center here in Washington unless the president's name is added to the institution. What's your reaction as a member of the House Oversight Committee?

MACE: Well, it's not something we're investigating. It's not something people care about. I guess it's the board's prerogative to do that. That is a tool that they have in the toolbox. But again, gas prices are up right now. In my home state of South Carolina, diesel is at $6.25. There are more important things that people care about.

[11:50:00]

And the fact is both Republicans and Democrats have added $40 trillion in debt. Rate hike might happen today, which means everything's going to be more expensive for Americans from the loan on their home to their car loan, their mortgages. Everything's going to go up. And so, this is something that both parties are responsible for, that they're not tackling right now, headed into the midterms. There are far more important fish to fry.

BLITZER: A lot of issues out there, including a war that's going on with Iran right now. I know you and six other Republicans actually broke with President Trump yesterday to block him from taking further military action against Iran. This is the third time a Democratic- backed War Powers Resolution has passed, but the first time you voted for it. Tell our viewers why you decided to do that.

MACE: Well, Congressman Seth Moulton is a veteran of the Iraq War. He put together a very simple and clear War Powers Resolution. It's been about seven months now since war's been going on in Iran. And we have given the president enough time to come to Congress to declare war and make his case. It hasn't happened yet. We've given other presidents 60, 90 days or more. We're beyond that point.

And I'm one of those folks. I agree with the majority of Americans, I don't want another forever war in the Middle East. We've seen the financial consequences of that on the price of groceries, the price of gas, military installations blown up overseas. It's had some consequences that the American people don't agree with. And I voted my conscience along with my constituents in my state. They agree with that vote. And I'll always do the right thing no matter what, no matter the consequences.

BLITZER: We just learned, Congresswoman, that House Republican leaders are now sending lawmakers home today and starting the next recess a day early. This will avoid a vote on impeaching Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth that was scheduled for Thursday. Republican, your colleague, Thomas Massie, launched the effort over Hegseth's handling of the Iran war. Do you think Pete Hegseth should be impeached?

MACE: No, Pete Hegseth should not be impeached. I don't think that that resolution is going to go anywhere. I don't think that's why we're leaving early, per se. And that impeachment isn't going to win or isn't going to pass when we do come back from Congress after the election to vote on it, because we will have to vote on it.

BLITZER: What about this effort now by a lot of Republicans and Democrats to impose sanctions against Russia for its war against Ukraine?

MACE: I'm fine with imposing sanctions against Russia. I'm not a big believer in sanctions. I don't think they work 100 percent of the time. But that is a tool in the toolbox that we have in combating some of the behavior either by Russia or by Iranians or those sympathetic with Iran or with Russia, et cetera. We have used those tools in the past. I'm for using everything that we can to deter war, to deter Iran from getting a nuclear weapon, but we cannot have troops on the ground. If we're going to be at war, the president has to come to Congress to declare it.

BLITZER: We've been talking and reporting a lot about A.I., artificial intelligence, being a threat to humanity. All week we've been reporting various parts of that. Several of your colleagues are now calling for action to try to control it. President Trump says it's all a hoax and a conspiracy. What's your position?

MACE: I agree with President Trump that it is a hoax. I would even go so far as it might even be a PSYOP. These are the same people in government -- the U.S. government is running on COBOL, fax machines, and floppy disks. We don't need them to control and regulate the, I think, greatest, most advanced technology in the history of the world.

And you have to ask yourself why. Who are the donors behind these members who are pushing for this? Is it China? Because the one who wins when American A.I. slows down or pauses is China. And look, these billion-dollar tech companies and A.I., if they're so worried about slowing down A.I., they have the free will to hit pause, to slow their own companies down, but they're not going to do that because that's not what this is about, Wolf.

BLITZER: So, what do you think Congress's role should be in dealing with this issue of A.I.?

MACE: I don't think that Congress should be regulating American A.I. into the ground. President Trump said this week that whoever wins A.I. wins. I think this is like the nuclear bomb of our time, nuclear technology of our time. If we get there first before anybody else, we'll have that power. We will be able to dominate around the world.

And that's what China wants. China wants world domination, which cannot happen. That is very dangerous. But the thing that people aren't talking about, Wolf, is what happens when A.I. starts building A.I. It's called singularity, which will happen probably in the next two or three years. There are some real questions we have to talk about, but it's not going to be answered by regulations by an archaic government whose members of Congress don't even know how to log into Facebook. I don't think these are the people who should be controlling A.I.

BLITZER: Before I let you go, Congresswoman, another sensitive issue. I want to ask you about some comments you made on the Lindsay Clancy trial. She was charged, as we all know, with murdering her three little children. But the case ended with a mistrial.

[11:55:00]

You know she says she should a face -- you now say she should face a public execution. What's the motivation behind such an extreme suggestion?

MACE: Well, to deter other people from murdering and killing their kids. And I went toe-to-toe with her attorney last night in the press over this. If this case had happened in South Carolina, Wolf, she would have likely faced a firing squad, because that's what the death penalty can serve up in South Carolina. There are millions of women out there that have had postpartum, and they don't go murdering their children.

And I think that is an important conversation to have about the available resources for women who've had postpartum. I had it with my second child. It is a serious condition. But that is not an excuse for killing your children. It is an explanation, but it is not an excuse.

BLITZER: Congresswoman Nancy Macy, thanks so much for joining us.

MACE: Thank you, Wolf.

BLITZER: And to our viewers, thanks also for joining us. Pamela.

BROWN: We'll see you back here tomorrow morning at 10:00 Eastern. Inside Politics starts after a quick break.

[12:00:00]