Return to Transcripts main page
What We Know with Max Foster
Trump And A.I. Executives Meet At The White House; Premier League Finds Man City Guilty of Financial Breaches; Rubio And Trump Weigh In On Suspected U.K. Terror Plot; Large Protests In Madrid After Elderly Woman's Eviction; Smith Stands By Decision To Bring Charges Against Trump; Clancy Back In Court For First Time Since Murder Case Mistrial; Accused Cornell Student Releases Statement On Alleged Rape. Aired 3-4p ET
Aired September 29, 2026 - 15:00 ET
THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.
[15:00:24]
CHRISTINA MACFARLANE, CNN HOST: U.S. President Donald Trump meets with the tech giants to chart the future of A.I.
This is WHAT WE KNOW.
Amid dire warnings that A.I. could present a catastrophic or existential risk to humanity, the leaders behind the technology are huddling with U.S.
President Donald Trump at the White House right now. Front and center, the concern that the capabilities of artificial intelligence are expanding so
quickly that humans may soon be unable to control the tool they've created.
And some industry leaders are calling for governments to provide guardrails, something President Trump has pushed back on.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
DONALD TRUMP, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: Well, there's a belief that there should be tremendous self-regulation, and we automatically have
regulation with the Department of Justice, the FBI, all of that. But the self-regulation is very important.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
MACFARLANE: Well, among the heavy hitters at the meeting, Meta's Mark Zuckerberg, Anthropic's Dario Amodei, Greg Brockman of OpenAI, Alex Karp,
the CEO of Palantir, and Nvidia's Jensen Huang.
CNN's Kristen Holmes is joining us now from Washington has been following this.
So as we were saying there, Kristen, I mean, there's a huge gulf here really between where the president sits on the need for regulation and
guardrails and where the A.I. leaders in that room and what they've been calling from. A short while ago, we had a brief announcement from the
president from that meeting. What did he say?
KRISTEN HOLMES, CNN SENIOR WHITE HOUSE CORRESPONDENT: Well, one, he said that he's going to rename artificial intelligence super intelligence, which
is something that he's been trying to do to try and rebrand artificial intelligence. But the other part of this is he said that there was a lot of
agreement in the room and he was asked specifically and this is what he was answering in that question, whether or not everybody agreed with him that
there should be no guardrails. And he went into this idea of everyone agreeing that there should be an enormous amount of self regulation.
Well, one of the things to keep in mind here is that there already is self regulation. That's part of what we have seen from these leaders like Dario
Amodei of Anthropic as well as OpenAI. They're the ones raising in the flag in some of these cases saying we need more guardrails. This is getting to
be out of control. There are a lot of hazards here and they are self regulating, but they were looking for more of a kind of universal
regulation.
And now it does seem as though things are going in a positive direction. At least the president did bring the press in there. They were going to
immediately be brought in. There was originally billed as a closed meeting, meaning that he at some point wanted to say something to the cameras again
saying that things were moving in a positive direction.
I do want to point out one thing that he put out the seating chart for this lunch. And on either side of him, Elon Musk, who has had obviously a
complicated relationship but is back in the fold with, but he has raised concerns about A.I. needing guardrails. On the other side, Jensen Huang,
who mentioned was going to be there. This is somebody who President Trump has been consulting on a pretty near regular basis about his talking points
when it comes to A.I.
And of course, we know that those talking points are essentially there can't be guardrails or else the United States is going to lose the race to
China in artificial intelligence. And I do have to read you one thing, because this is all coming at a point in which polling in America is
really, really down for A.I. Seventy-five percent of Americans say their feelings about A.I. are closer to fear and concern than hope and
excitement. Only 25 lean towards hope and excitement. And on top of that, 71 percent of Americans say the federal government is not doing enough to
regulate A.I.
So you have President Trump on one hand saying there's already some guardrails, people are going to self-regulate, and the other hand of the
American people saying more needs to be done here on this kind of new frontier.
MACFARLANE: Yeah, and the reason for those concerns obviously came into sharp focus today when we had not one but two announcements on safety
concerns, one from OpenAI, of course, and the other from that leaked Anthropic IPO filing. Kristen will continue to follow the action from the
room there and check back in with you later this hour. Thank you.
Well, here in the U.K., a billion dollar sham at the top of English football. The Premier League faces perhaps the biggest crisis in its
history as Manchester City are officially found guilty of huge financial misconduct. The Premier League has found that City, one of the giants of
English football, have been arranging sham contracts for years, misstating their accounts and hiding the true state of their finances to the tune of
$1.1 billion.
[15:05:06]
This coincides with a period of enormous success all bankrolled by its owners from the United Arab Emirates. Man City have denied any wrongdoing
and say they will appeal.
CNN's Don Riddell is joining me now.
And, Don, this is really a bombshell announcement today. Just walk us through if you will, the detail here of that verdict.
DON RIDDELL, CNN WORLD SPORT: Yeah, Christina, we knew that Manchester City were in trouble. This investigation has been bubbling along for quite
some time. We got sort of leaked details on Friday, and now we have the Premier League announcement really laying a lot of this out. And the
details really are not a great look for Manchester City, and it would seem to suggest they are in really serious trouble.
The transgressions will take your breath away. After all those blue sky days in Manchester, the future for one of the Premier League's most
successful clubs now looks to be increasingly dark. The league announced earlier today that it had found this club guilty of more than 100 breaches
of its financial regulations. City have always denied any wrongdoing. As you say, they have said they will appeal, but the penalties could be so
serious, possibly even expulsion from the league, and if so, that would mean they'd be banned from the Champions League as well.
This is what we're dealing with, an eight-year period between 2009 and 2018. That's when City broke through with their first Premier League title,
winning the league twice more and a total of eight trophies in that period. The independent commission found that the club arranged, as you say, sham
contracts with a number of its commercial partners to artificially inflate their income by over a billion dollars. City filed misstated accounts and
concealed the true state of their finances from auditors and regulators, and they haven't exactly helped their case since. They're also accused of
failing to cooperate with the investigation.
So the next move, the ball is now in Manchester City's court. They say they will appeal. They have until Friday, this Friday, October the 2nd to do so.
But I mean, this is it's hard to imagine a bigger or more consequential story in the game of football at the moment, or frankly ever, because this
club is one of the most successful in the Premier League. They have dominated this game for the last decade or so.
So what happens to them now? What happens to all the titles that they've won? Will they be redistributed and given to other teams? Will they be
looking at a points deduction? Will they be looking at a fine?
A lot of people who've been speaking about this, including even people who are loyal to Manchester City are saying, well, a fine is not going to cut
it because they've clearly got plenty of money, so that would be kind of meaningless. So does that mean they could be looking at expulsion from the
Premier League? And that is a reality that is sinking in today for a lot of the club's fans who've just been on this extraordinary joyful ride over the
last decade or so. And now they could be looking at the end of all of that and then some.
MACFARLANE: Yeah, it's really sobering, isn't it? I've been watching the reaction come in today. There is a lot of anger around, understandably so.
Don, we appreciate it. Thank you.
RIDDELL: All right.
MACFARLANE: Well, the Trump administration is questioning the U.K.'s handling of a possible terror plot at a British air base from where U.S.
bombers fly missions against Iran. It's unclear what happened exactly over the weekend, but British authorities released five men on bail Monday, just
a day after their arrest near a base in Fairfax -- sorry, Fairford. Police confirmed a short time ago that no explosives were found at the scene, and
while the top U.S. diplomat insists a foreign actor was involved without providing any details.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
MARCO RUBIO, U.S. SECRETARY OF STATE: Suffice it to say that what happened, what almost happened, what could have happened in the U.K. over
the weekend is a very serious situation. It's one that clearly involves the hands of a foreign actor. I won't get into great detail about that yet.
(END VIDOE CLIP)
MACFARLANE: Rubio's claims come after U.S. President Donald Trump said the men had been surveyed for a long time by British and U.S. authorities. and
that he disagreed with the decision to release them on bail. Speaking to me on Monday's program, one former U.K. police officer said he was stunned by
the behavior of U.S. officials.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
DAL BABU, FORMER CHIEF SUPERINTENDENT, METROPOLITAN POLICE: With all due respect to President Trump, he's not a police officer. He doesn't
understand how investigations work. He wouldn't be aware of what the intelligence is that police have.
So for him to make a comment on an operational policing decision is quite flabbergasting, if I'm perfectly honest.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
[15:10:00]
MACFARLANE: (AUDIO GAP) case is speaking out. Just ahead, his account of what's happened as he's accused of sexual assault.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
MACFARLANE: The district attorney in the Lindsay Clancy murder trial is something we'll come to in just a moment.
But we're turning to Spain now, where the eviction of an 87-year-old woman from her home has been sparking widespread protests, drawing attention to a
pressing issue, access to housing.
Joining me now from the group is Pau Mosquera, where people are taking to the streets in protest.
Pau, I believe the Spanish government are now proposing new bans on evictions. What are people telling you there?
PAU MOSQUERA, CNN CORRESPONDENT: Well, I can tell you, Christina, that people that are camping out here at Madrid's Porto del Sol were a little
bit surprised after learning that the government has decided to go ahead with some measures to tackle the housing prices in the country, not just
with one single decree, but with two because they were expecting to get all the proposals in one single text.
I've been talking to some of them over the day and they told me that they wanted to get all these proposals in one text because then it would be
easier to ratify all of them at the parliament because it's necessary that the members of the parliament approve give the green light to all of those.
So we have in one side one text with the bulk of measures with amongst others like the ban in on evicting vulnerable families until 2030 or for
example restrictions on the purchase of homes for speculative purposes.
The other text has the proposal to make rental contracts indefinite. So the general understanding, Christina, is that the government has decided to
split the measures in those two decrees because then it's going to be easier to get the approval of the one getting the bulk of the measures and
then the other one which has this other measure that could be a bit controversial, they could get ahead without that measure.
[15:15:21]
So now what they told me earlier, Christina, is that they will study both of the decrees and then decide what will be the next moves, meaning if they
will extend their encampment for several days, if they will move out, whatever they decide, there's one clear point that this is -- that they
will continue to mobilize and they will continue to call for demonstrations over the next few days -- Christina.
MACFARLANE: And, Pau, can you just remind our viewers how it was the eviction here of an 87-year-old woman from her home that initially sparked
these widespread protests?
MOSQUERA: This actually happened a week ago. It was on Wednesday when the police evicted Maricarmen. Maricarmen Abascal is a neighbor, an 87-year-old
woman that was living in Madrid's Retiro District. She lived there for around seven decades, but the investment fund that got your property
actually won the legal battle to put an end to the rental contract that she had inherited from her parents and because of that she was then removed
from that apartment.
But the latest we know, we learned, Christina, is that after some talks that took place between Maricarmen's lawyer the representatives of this
investment fund, they finally reached an agreement and Maricarmen will be able to get back to that apartment. So, in what conditions? Well,
Maricarmen will have to pay something very similar to what she was paying until she was evicted, which is around $600 or so.
It's difficult for Maricarmen was paying any higher rent because the pension she's getting from the state is of around $1,500. And she couldn't
make any much effort to pay what the owners of the apartment were asking, Christina.
MACFARLANE: All right. Pau Mosquera there from Madrid on the streets, as you can see. Thank you very much for now, Pau.
A special counsel who twice brought charges against President Donald Trump faced blistering attacks today from Senate Republicans. Jack Smith insisted
he had plenty of evidence against Mr. Trump, and that he and his prosecutors have been unfairly targeted by the president and his Department
of Justice. But Republican senators blasted Smith as a partisan, saying he used his position to go after Republicans.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
SEN. JOHN KENNEDY (R-LA): You saw just the records of the Republicans. And you knew that violated the speech and debate clause, didn't you?
JACK SMITH, FORMER SPECIAL COUNSEL: That is incorrect. We sought to comply with that.
KENNEDY: Did you take common law?
SMITH: I'm sorry, Senator.
KENNEDY: Were you in the quad playing frisbee during common law at Harvard Law School?
SMITH: I did take constitutional law, yes.
KENNEDY: Well, then you had to know it violated the Speech and Debate Clause. In fact, when you went to Judge Boasberg, you didn't even tell me
you were seeking the phone records of members of Congress, did you? Because you knew he wouldn't agree. He would say, hey, counselor, anybody who knows
a law book from a J.Crew catalog knows that this violates the Constitution. But you didn't tell him, did you?
SMITH: We sought non-disclosure orders from.
KENNEDY: You didn't tell him, did you?
SMITH: In seeking non-disclosure orders, we did not disclose.
KENNEDY: You didn't tell him, but you're unbiased. You have no personal feelings. You make me want to throw up in my mouth.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
MACFARLANE: Evan Perez has been monitoring this story all day and joins me now.
Evan, I mean, that was one of many testy exchanges that we heard there today with Republican lawmakers. Just walk us through what we heard and how
Jack Smith defended himself.
EVAN PEREZ, CNN SENIOR JUSTICE CORRESPONDENT: You know, one of the interesting things about this hearing is the fact that it was even
occurring. We're talking about maybe just over a month before the midterm elections, which is an election dominated by issues about affordability
about -- about the Iran war. And here we have members of Congress who were focusing on an investigation into Donald Trump during before the Iran war.
And here we have members of Congress who were focusing on a an investigation into Donald Trump during before he won the election in 2024
and they were trying to focus on whether Jack Smith, the special counsel, was carrying out a partisan enterprise, essentially by seeking some of
these records belonging to members of Congress.
[15:20:15]
Some of them are senators.
I should make clear that just because there is a constitutional speech or debate clause doesn't mean that members of Congress are completely
protected or shielded from having their records taken. It happens all the time when there is a criminal investigation. That's how it works.
But what we saw today was Smith was very prepared. He seemed to know exactly where Republicans were going to go after him, and he had very good
answers, very prepared answers for some of those exchanges with Republican members. I don't think we learned a lot about this investigation or about
anything else going on going in during the Jack Smith special counsel investigation.
But we did see Republicans, I think, trying to reframe what happened back in 2020 and 2021 and the attack on the U.S. Capitol by the mob of Trump
supporters. They were trying to reframe it as Jack Smith essentially carrying out a partisan investigation. Not sure that they got very far in
that, in part because Smith was so prepared with some of those responses, as you saw just now, Christina.
MACFARLANE: Yeah, and more of this coming five weeks ahead of the midterms. It's interesting timing, isn't it, Evan? We appreciate it. Thank
you.
PEREZ: Thanks.
MACFARLANE: Now, the district attorney in the Lindsay Clancy murder trial has not yet made a decision about retrying the case. Both sides appeared
for a hearing with the judge today in Massachusetts. The defense wants Clancy cleared in the deaths of her three children. Her attorney says the
state did not prove she was responsible for their murders. A lone juror holdout resulted in the case being declared a mistrial. The next hearing
has been set for November 2nd.
Joining me now is Brynn Gingras.
And, Brynn, I mean, still unclear then at this stage whether a retrial will go ahead.
BRYNN GINGRAS, CNN U.S. NATIONAL CORRESPONDENT: Yeah, I mean, that's exactly right. I think a lot of people were waiting to see what this means.
Is the D.A. going to file charges again? Is there going to be a retrial? What's the next trial date set?
None of that actually happened. Instead, all of the motions that were presented to the court leading up to today from since the trial ended a few
weeks ago really are just tabled until November. That is discussing the lone juror that is discussing whether or not that person is going to go in
front of the court, whether or not some of the jury notes, you know, the surveillance video from the deliberation process, is that going to be made
public? In addition to the fact, is Lindsay Clancy just going to be cleared of these charges to which her attorney is asking for and argued for in
court today?
So that was really the crux of it today was that the judge heard on this one motion is. Kevin Reddington, her attorney, asking that she really
should not be facing this trial or these charges, again, saying that in the trial, the state failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that she is
guilty of these crimes and that there is grounds for a double jeopardy here.
And of course, the D.A.'s office, the Commonwealth essentially said, you know, that is just ludicrous. They said they had plenty of information to
prove that she was responsible, that she knew what she was doing, that she should be charged with first degree murder, except not going as far to say
that that is exactly what they're going to move forward with is those charges of first degree murder.
So again, it's still unclear exactly where this is going to go from here. We certainly are going to learn more in November, November 2nd for that
next hearing date. a lot of unanswered questions, the biggest one being is, will she be tried again?
MACFARLANE: Yeah, and understandably still high -- high interest in this story. We'll continue to follow it. Brynn, thank you very much.
GINGRAS: All right.
Well, one of the fraternity members of Cornell University accused of sexual assault is speaking out. In a statement to ABC, he says, I did not
participate in any sexual activity or drug use. I was not found responsible by Cornell for any of the accusations involving sexual activity and drug
use for which others received serious consequences. I thoughtlessly engaged in Snapchat and briefly stopped in the room where misconduct happened, but
not when it happened.
Well, the statement comes after the accuser in a civil lawsuit alleging that seven fraternity brothers raped and drugged her, prompting prosecutors
to reopen the 2024 case. The original investigation did not result in criminal charges.
CNN's Gloria Pazmino has been following this.
And, Gloria, really a significant development here is the reopening of this investigation by the New York A.G. and the reviewing here of Cornell
University's response.
[15:25:05]
GLORIA PAZMINO, CNN CORRESPONDENT: Yeah, the state attorney general has confirmed to CNN just a little while ago that her office is starting a
review of exactly what happened in this situation. And they're doing that because they're trying to decide whether an investigation is warranted.
They're not there yet, but it's important to say that in the past, the state attorney general here in New York, Letitia James, has conducted
investigations into how educational institutions, most recently Columbia University, have responded to allegations of sexual misconduct on their
campus.
So that's the most significant development of the last hour, the attorney general doing a review and her office in the early stages of trying to
decide if there is more to do here. In the meantime, we have heard throughout the day from attorneys who are presenting some of the accused
students, but also from the district attorney who is reopening the investigation, presenting evidence to a grand jury and hoping to bring
criminal charges.
I think both the district attorney, and the university, Cornell University, are really facing a lot of scrutiny and. focus on the fact that they
responded how they did back in 2024. The university conducted an internal investigation that resulted in two suspensions, some disciplinary actions
against the students, and a district attorney who decided not to file charges.
Now that Jane Doe, the alleged victim, has filed a civil lawsuit against Cornell, the fraternity, and several other people that are named in the
lawsuit, The district attorney is considering, as I said, once again bringing this new evidence, presenting it to a grand jury in the hopes of
bringing charges. You know, the question here is the sort of what happens next, right? The district attorney has made it clear he wants to convene a
grand jury.
Jane Doe's attorney has told us that they are willing to cooperate and perhaps appear before that grand jury. And the question is going to be,
will that grand jury vote to indict? That's going to be the next significant step on this case. We're not anywhere near that yet. The grand
jury still has to convene. Evidence has to be presented that certainly takes a lot of time.
But in the meantime, Cornell University is defending its actions. They are defending their internal investigation, which they did back in 2024. And we
have a statement from them in part, you know, sort of opposing this public discourse that we're having now about how the students were disciplined.
They said to us in part, quote, any suggestion that the university did not impose consequential punishments for those involved is false. A
continuation of the false narrative that there were minimal consequences in this case is irresponsible, will make survivors feel less safe and
supported, and will perpetuate the underreporting of sexual assault. They are referring to the fact that as part of their disciplinary action, some
of the students that were accused were made to participate in workshops and write assignments that had to be submitted. Again, according to the
lawsuit, there were also two students that were expelled from the university.
So, you know, I think this is really going to come down to serious legal questions. The question of consent is going to come up because we have a
written statement from Jane Doe, the victim that was submitted back in 2024 when the incident happened, where she details a lot of the activity that
allegedly went on. And it's based on that statement that the district attorney said that her actions in all of this had been consensual.
MACFARLANE: Yeah. Well, we, as you say, will pay very close attention to the next steps in this investigation to come.
Gloria Pazmino, thanks. Thanks for the update. Thank you.
Okay. Still to come, with the intense debate over A.I. regulation goes to the White House. We'll have much more on President Donald Trump's meeting
with top tech leaders ahead.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[15:32:56]
MACFARLANE: Returning now to one of our top stories, English football could be heading for years of lawsuits and years of rewriting history after
Manchester City were found guilty of huge financial misconduct. All kinds of punishments could be on the table, including fines, point deductions, or
being kicked out of the league. Man City could even be stripped of the multiple titles that they won in recent years, that is if their lawyers
don't succeed in their plans to appeal.
So what we want to know is how damaging will the Man City scandal be for English football?
Joining me now is Ben Jacobs, the senior football correspondent at GiveMeSport.
Ben, thank you so much for joining us.
I want to start by saying that you, I think, are in Copenhagen for the European Football Club's General Assembly, where Manchester City's CEO
Ferran Soriano is right now and is no doubt being hounded by journalists. Has he had any response to you or to anyone yet about all of this?
BEN JACOBS, SENIOR FOOTBALL CORRESPONDENT, GIVEMESPORT: Yeah, we approached Ferran Soriano because he sits on the executive committee of the
European football clubs. And it's interesting because he's the sole representative of the Premier League rather than just Manchester City. And
Nasser Al-Khelaifi was asked, does that make his position untenable? But he backed Ferran Soriano.
And although the Manchester City CEO was not giving too much away during the day, he sent a video to Manchester City club staff saying that this
whole thing is based on one, quote, single false accusation, namely that the owner or a subsidiary on behalf of Manchester City by the name of Abu
Dhabi United Group Investment and Development put money into the club under these so-called sham sponsorship deals to inflate revenue.
So City deny the entire premise, but the independent panel have found them guilty on all of the material charges and most of the charges of non-
cooperation as well.
MACFARLANE: Yeah, which is what we expected they would do, of course.
[15:35:02]
I mean, this offense period covers, I think, nine seasons during which City won, I think, three Premier League titles among other trophies. I mean,
there is likely to be a long legal battle here. But what punishments do you think the Premier League might impose to address this sort of alleged
sporting advantage accumulated here, let's remember, over a decade.
JACOBS: Yeah, it's worth noting that there's a 2nd of October deadline if city choose to specifically appeal the verdict and that would delay a
sanctions hearing. If they don't, we move straight on to the punishment and then Premier League are prosecutor and my understanding is they will push
for an extremely severe sanction. You've got easier charges to put punishments against because there's precedent such as a PSR breach if it's
lots more than Everton Nottingham Forest.
The points deduction will be huge. And then you have grayer areas where there isn't precedent for points deductions, and we wait and see whether
the Premier League will choose to lobby for that. But remember, it's an independent panel that make the final decision. And at the severe end,
points deductions that could near automatically or entirely relegate Manchester City, really anything above 60, then you have expulsion from the
league.
And my understanding is the EFL are reviewing this verdict to determine if they would side with the Premier League and try and block Manchester City
if it's expulsion from dropping down. And then some less severe punishments, fines, City have still got plenty of money, suspended
punishments, transfer bans seem bad on paper, but City have already spent a lot in previous windows. Some have argued because they're preparing for
this eventuality, and then at the most lenient extreme you just have a warning.
But expectation is the Premier League acting as prosecutor will try and recommend to the independent panel that City are punished in some of the
more severe terms.
MACFARLANE: I mean, that's before you even get to the idea of, you know, moves by other clubs to seek compensation or what this is going to do to
tarnish the sort of historical reputation of the club.
Ben, we're going to have to leave it there, unfortunately. But thank you very much for jumping in for us and giving us your perspective from the
ground there. Thank you.
And we just want to take our viewers to Mike Johnson, House Speaker, who is speaking right now in Washington, flanked by tech leaders. Let's take a
listen.
REP. MIKE JOHNSON (R-LA), SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE: They expressed their desire to take accountability and ownership. And we have just formally
signed a new document that you'll all be seeing circulated today. It is entitled the White House Accord on Super Intelligence, A Joint Commitment
on Frontier S.I. Responsibilities.
This is a statement of principles that you'll see a statement of standards commitments that are voluntary on behalf of the industry. It sets forth
expectations. It's in short summary, robust internal controls and layers of internal and external review. That's important because you need people to
be providing oversight and transparency, and that's what these leaders are going to do.
The White House and Congress will continue to guide the industry's development in a safe manner because we owe that to the American people and
we will do it. Congress is going to keep steady hands at the wheel on this and will continue to assess and further deliberate in the days ahead.
This technology is advancing quickly and that is an exciting thing. We talked about advancements in medical technology and in every facet of our
work and in our culture and society in very positive ways. But we can do innovation. We can keep America's edge over our competitors if we do that
in a safe way.
And everyone here will have their hands on the wheel to ensure that that happens. That's from the President of the United States, leadership in
Congress, and from the industry leaders standing behind me.
So I want to thank these leaders again for being here, for committing their time, and for doing what they're doing to make sure America remains the
great superpower on the planet. Thank you all so much.
(CROSSTALK)
REPORTER: What do you mean by external reveal?
MACFARLANE: Well, this is very timely. Let's go to Jacob Ward, who is a technology journalist and CNN contributor. He also is the founder of the
Rip Current. He's joining me now.
And look, Jacob, I just want to get your sort of first thoughts, really, on what we've been seeing the past hour, like why this meeting has been taking
place in Washington and the optics that we saw there of these moguls standing alongside the House Speaker and a little earlier alongside
President Donald Trump.
JACOB WARD, CNN CONTRIBUTOR: Well, Christina, yeah -- you and I experiencing this live together. You know, I think that -- I mean, we don't
know what they talked about, right? There's no input that the American people have had, much less the rest of the world.
[15:40:04]
All of us will be affected by the decisions made inside that room, but there's no, nobody seems to have any input other than the folks that were
in that room. Speaker Johnson there says he's going to be handing out a document. Okay, great. Who got to write that? Who got to put it into words,
you know?
And he mentioned voluntary commitments. I mean, you know, the road to hell is paved with voluntary commitments. The history of self-regulation by
companies is not a very pretty one. And so, we're at a very strange, weird turn in the road here, not least because in that room, As you know,
Christina, was this wide variety of tech people from Mark Zuckerberg and Nvidia head and Jensen Huang, who both say that they don't think we should
have any regulation, to people like Dario Amodei and --
MACFARLANE: Just stand by, Jacob. Sorry to interrupt. We have we -- have President Donald Trump speaking, so we better listen in.
REPORTER: It requires more than love, doesn't it, sir?
DONALD TRUMP, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: No, it requires this and the smartest people in the world. And we had a great meeting today, every one
of them. We had a great, really a great, great meeting. It was something very, very special. We had the top. I'd say it looked like a group of about
40, but whatever it was, here's one of them right here, Jensen and Nvidia.
And they -- they love our country. They love the world. And they came together and they did something that few people really, it's almost like a
constitution in a way. And the biggest and the biggest people in the world signed that. And I signed it as president, and it really is a form of
protection.
(CROSSTALK)
REPORTER: Mr. President, Mr. President --
REPORTER: Sorry, who should be held accountable when the A.I. agents committed a crime like that?
TRUMP: It's not A.I., it's S.I. That's the other thing. We've changed the name officially today. We've changed the name, Steve, officially to S.I.
Okay? Si, like S.I., S.I., instead of A.I. You know what that means? Super intelligence.
So -- the name, I guess that's really quite an announcement because, but the name has been officially changed by the biggest, the smartest, the
greatest people anywhere in the world at this.
And I was with President Xi a few days ago and he would admit, he said, these are the smartest people in the world at what they do. And it's a big,
it's a big thing, but it's been officially changed to super intelligence or S.I.
REPORTER: Mr. President, it's more than about a name in there.
TRUMP: Please go ahead.
REPORTER: Is this a core that everybody signed, is it binding in any way?
TRUMP: I think it's morally binding, yeah.
REPORTER: Mr. President, what could a bad actor do with this technology, from what you hear from your intelligence --
TRUMP: Well, I tell you, a good actor can do tremendous in terms of medical. It's already taking place. They're finding solutions to problems
that they've never thought even possible. And they're coming up with medical solutions that are incredible. A lot of other things very positive.
And a bad actor is going to get caught. And that's why we have the DOJ. That's why we have the FBI. That's why we have the CIA. A bad actor is
going to get caught.
But the -- what they signed today means something very, you know, we had the biggest. That was a who's who. I don't know if that's ever going to be
assembled again, but that was a who's who of that world. And I think it's a very special day.
You know, they almost viewed it as a separate kind of a constitution. And I think when they signed that, it meant a lot.
REPORTER: Mr. President, did anything that you heard today -- did anything change your mind given the fact that you've said you don't want to see
guardrails, you don't want to see a slow down anything that you heard today change your mind on that?
TRUMP: Well, I think I'm seeing tremendous self-policing and they understand that they have to self-police and it's very hard for somebody to
come outside get into these -- these models are very complex and again I believe they're going to be used for the good and when they're not we're
going to be able to nab them but there's going to be a tremendous self- policing aspect. We're also thinking about forming a committee of sorts where we put maybe 10 people on that committee. It could be from that group
so that we can, so the committee can watch over the whole enterprise.
REPORTER: Democrats are talking about concerns about A.I. as a hoax. Do you believe that after meeting with all these?
TRUMP: Yeah, I do. I think they would love to see it shut down, just like it was a hoax to 12 years for global warming, which they train -- it's
changed right now to climate change.
REPORTER: Even though Bill Gates says that A.I. could kill up to a billion.
TRUMP: Well, now he's not saying that anymore.
REPORTER: He said that this Sunday.
TRUMP: Well, I don't know what he said Sunday because I can tell you yesterday he didn't say that at all.
He actually went the opposite. Look, it's one voice. He actually went the opposite.
[15:45:00]
No, we're looking at this for good. It's also maybe the biggest industry -- they say bigger than the Industrial Revolution. Think of it.
You know what? We're leading by a lot, and we're going to keep it there.
REPORTER: You're someone who always talks about growth when speaking with this.
TRUMP: Yeah.
REPORTER: After this meeting, meeting with all these incredible minds, how much growth can we see in the upcoming years with all of your growth?
TRUMP: Growth like nobody's ever seen before. And I see it with these statements. Statements came out. You opened a company, and if it does
reasonably well, it goes a little bit like this.
These companies are opening and going like a rocket ship. This is unbelievable growth for our country. And we have all of them.
REPORTER: Mr. President --
TRUMP: In all due respect, Europe has none. They have none. They have to count on us to help. But we have all of them. And it's amazing.
Second is China. But as President Xi would say, you know, they're quite a ways back. And we have to keep it there.
Remember this, whoever wins S.I., because now we're calling it again super. We're using the word super because the other word is a fake word. It's just
not a -- it's not a good -- it's not an appropriate word. Whoever wins S.I. is going to win.
REPORTER: What do you tell Americans, sir, about data centers going up in their communities?
TRUMP: Well, that's another thing we discussed, and I think the companies would be very generous to them, both financially and otherwise. I think
they'll help with their schools, they'll help with their teachers, they'll help with pay of the teachers and the people that are good to them.
And I see that happening, and I think the companies will be very generous to these communities. And if you look at most -- almost in all cases, the
data centers have tremendously -- the money being brought in. Their taxes have gone down, their incomes have gone up, their value of their housing
has gone up.
But I think that the companies, here's one of the greatest in the world. There's two of the greatest in the world. They're going to be very generous
with communities. And I think, in a way, they're going to be forming partnerships with communities when they open up data centers.
And they're going to benefit both financially, morally. Every single way, they're going to be benefiting. And I think that's taking place.
REPORTER: Mr. President, what is the importance of super intelligence in the next 10 years?
TRUMP: Well, it's the biggest thing there is, and nobody even can answer that question because it is the biggest thing there is, maybe the biggest
thing there's ever been. It's much bigger than the Internet. Now, that's already been broken.
The Internet was a big thing when it happened. This blows it away, I think, Jensen. Would you say something about that? Go ahead.
JENSEN HUANG, CEO, NVIDIA: Yes, sir. Absolutely. Well, this is the largest industrial revolution in history, and we're going through the single
largest infrastructure build-out in human history.
And so it's creating a million jobs here in the United States. We have chip plants coming up, computer plants coming up, A.I. factories coming up. And
so it's creating just an enormous amount of jobs.
On top of this infrastructure, several hundred billion dollars of venture capital has gone into creating new companies. And all of those ten -- those
thousands of companies are creating lots and lots of jobs. And so --
TRUMP: As an example, Nvidia.
So he's still a young guy, handsome guy -- look at him, he's a very handsome guy. But as an example in a fairly short period of time, he's
built I think the most valuable, right, like in the stock market and it's very easy to value the most valuable company anywhere in the world and it's
basically new technology. It's not oil and gas and all the other things that you associate with, also a lot of money, it's technology and this man
has done a great job.
That man right there has done a great job you know what he's doing too same thing And Greg, do you have anything to say?
GREG BROCKMAN, PRESIDENT OF OPENAI: So we build artificial intelligence.
TRUMP: This is OpenAI.
BROCKMAN: OpenAI, thank you, Mr. President. We build artificial intelligence to benefit everyone. We think it can lift it run up. We see a
whole renaissance of small businesses, scientific discoveries really starting to happen, drug development, really being able to improve
everyone's lives.
And we think that these accords and under President Trump's leadership, everyone coming together to agree on how to move forward safely. I think
it's just so important because we're doing this in order to benefit people.
REPORTER: Do you agree with the president? Do you all agree with the president that no guardrails are necessary, that you can self regulate and
that this existential threat that you've all talked about can actually be managed? That's a question for you all. Actually, I don't know who to
focus.
TRUMP: I mean, I can tell you the answer is yes, so we discussed it with the top, about 40 people. But somebody who answered it very well is Jensen.
He answered it before. Jensen, go ahead.
HUANG: There's no conflict between innovation, technology, and safety. We are going to have to create new technologies to advance the capabilities of
A.I., but we're also creating new technologies to advance the safety of A.I. All of this technology is being developed by the industry today.
[15:50:02]
And you see behind me just an incredible number of leaders in our industry moving together as one. And we're going to advance this technology that is
so consequential to humanity and so consequential to the future prosperity of our nation, and we're going to do it responsibly and safely.
(CROSSTALK)
REPORTER: Mr. President! Mr. President! Mr. President!
REPORTER: Mr. President, are you concerned at all that your continued support of data centers could hurt Republicans in the midterms?
TRUMP: I just have to do what's right. All I can tell you is that these big, powerful, very rich, very smart companies are going to be making
massive contributions to communities, individual people within the community. And it's going to be really partnership. We talked about it.
They're going to be forming partnerships with communities. They're going to have -- they're going to take something that people don't understand and
they're going to let them understand it. but they're going to form partnerships within the communities that's going to be so good for the
people.
(CROSSTALK)
JOHNSON: In terms of the midterms, you talked about that our candidates for Congress right now, the Republicans in the House, our candidates and
our incumbents are out in their communities right now as we speak communicating on this. They're saying we cannot lose the race to China. We
cannot lose America's edge because it's important for every American worker, every American family for their safety, security, the future, the
economy.
So -- but it has to be a balance. You have to take the community concerns in hand. That's what all of these folks agreed to. That's what the
president articulated in the room today, that you have to heed those concerns and you have to make commitments to them just as they're making as
an industry. They will make it to the local communities.
For example, we just codified about three weeks ago in the House. We passed with almost no dissenting voice votes their Ratepayer Protection Act. That
is a codification of President Trump's Ratepayer Protection Pledge.
They're guaranteeing that when they need energy resources for these A.I. infrastructure, super intelligence infrastructure systems that they will
produce it themselves, put the power back onto the grid, in most cases, they're going to take care of the local communities.
Trust is earned. It's not automatic, and they understand that they're earning the trust.
(CROSSTALK)
TRUMP: What Mike is saying, that means financially as well. You know, in Louisiana, you probably heard they're having a big trouble, big problem
with teacher pay, et cetera, et cetera. A company went in. I believe it's Meta in this case, and they're paying every teacher virtually in that
either area or actually far beyond that area into -- into the parish.
They're paying every single teacher over $50,000 apiece. This is more money than they've ever seen.
(CROSSTALK)
REPORTER: Mr. President, to the FBI and the DOJ, as you suggested, isn't it too late then to prevent any damage?
TRUMP: No, I have it very well assessed. We also remember this. We have the smartest people in the world watching over each other. And we've done
that.
You had the smartest people -- look, I guess you could say different industries. But these are seriously high I.Q. people. You know, we used to
deal with a lot of low I.Q. These are seriously high I.Q. people, and they're really watching over each other.
REPORTER: You mentioned that you have all found some common ground, but the leaders standing behind you have had some very serious concerns about
A.I. Even after meeting with them today, you are still calling this a hoax. So why should the American --
TRUMP: They're not a hoax. That's why I changed their name.
REPORTER: Okay.
TRUMP: A hoax sounds like, you know, when you're using the former name, but this name is now super intelligence. That's not a hoax. In fact, it's
the exact opposite.
What I am calling a hoax is what the Democrats do, because they don't want to see it be successful, because they think that's bad for Republicans.
Okay? So they don't want to see this tremendous surge of growth.
We have growth. And, by the way, we have a lot of car factories opening. We have all the medical companies, all the pharmaceutical companies. Pfizer
just announced. Merck just announced. They're all announcing. Everyone, they're all building massive plans, not just the S.I.
What has happened and what's taking place right now is we have a level of growth that no country has ever seen before. We're going to have jobs like
nobody's ever seen before. And you know, the numbers just came out. We have now the best poverty numbers, meaning the lowest number in terms of
poverty, the best poverty numbers we've ever had.
We have the best individual income numbers in the history of our country. We have the best crime numbers. We have the best crime numbers in the
history of our country.
And that's despite allowing 25 million people into our country through an open border of the Biden policy that could have destroyed the country. And
we got the murderers out, large numbers. We're getting the rest of them out. We've done a great job.
We have the most successful country in history. A piece of it is this, not all of it, because the car companies are doing better than they've ever
done. The pharmaceutical companies, they're all building factories.
[15:55:02]
You take a look at Eli Lilly. They're spending billion -- tens of billions of dollars building plants for pharmaceuticals.
Nobody's ever seen what's happened to our country. And what the Democrats are trying to do is stop it, because they think it's bad politically for
them. And on that, they're probably right.
(CROSSTALK)
MACFARLANE: You have been listening to President Donald Trump there standing, as you can see, among tech A.I. moguls talking about the progress
that they have made on S.I. and the change of name, of course, from A.I. to S.I. There are a number of questions, of course, being thrown at him about
the safety concerns and the calls for regulations. But there didn't appear to be much substance offered up in this moment.
But we'll continue to follow it in "QUEST MEANS BUSINESS" in a few minutes. Stay with us for that. We'll be right back.
END
TO ORDER VIDEOTAPES AND TRANSCRIPTS OF CNN INTERNATIONAL PROGRAMMING, PLEASE CALL 800-CNN-NEWS
