Loading summary
Transcript120 lines
- [00:04]
A
Hello, everyone, and welcome to Amanpour. Here's what's coming up.
- [00:08]
B
I've put it off for a little while, hopefully maybe forever, but possibly for a little while because we've had very big discussions with Iran.
- [00:17]
A
President Trump holds fire at the request of Gulf states, and negotiations grind on. Is the war with Iran nearly over? And what happens next? Christian asks Egypt's foreign minister in an exclusive interview. Then the Trump administration pays $1.776 billion to its allies. I speak with Robert Mueller's chief prosecutor, Andrew Weissman, about what the move means for the strength of America's institutions.
- [00:47]
C
And the tech can do a lot of things for us. We just have to mentally wrap our heads around what it can do and
- [00:53]
A
how it can do it AI for good. Walter Isaacson speaks to author Josh Tiringel about how artificial intelligence is saving lives. Welcome to the program, everyone. I'm Bianna Godriga, New York, sitting in for Christiane Amanpour. The Middle east remains entrapped in limbo as President Trump threatens to unleash overwhelming force on Iran, only to pull out last minute again. Speaking from a construction site at the east wing of the White House, Trump said that he was on the brink of giving the green light for an attack on Iran today, but called it off at the request of Gulf states. Take a listen.
- [01:47]
B
I was an hour away. We were all set to go. You were talking about yesterday. Yes, we were going to be striking very. It would have been happening right now. Yeah, it was all done. The boats, the ships, all loaded. They're loaded to the brim and we're all set to start.
- [02:04]
A
The president said Gulf nations are reporting a lot of progress toward negotiations with Iran. But Tehran is still not conceding on Washington's major red lines, its nuclear ambitions. In its latest proposal, Iran insisted on its right to enrich uranium, also calling for the lifting of sanctions, the end of the US Naval blockade and the release of frozen funds. So how close is the end of the war? For regional countries, that's becoming a nearly existential question. One of those nations, Egypt, has been grappling with the economic blows of the conflict and has been involved in trying to stop the fighting. Last week, Foreign Minister Badr Abdeladi met with his Iranian counterpart in India. He joined Christian in London for an exclusive conversation about what comes next for the Middle East.
- [02:53]
D
Foreign Minister, welcome to our program. You, Egypt are right in the middle of attempting to mediate an end to the Iran U. S. Israel war. President Trump's latest is that he is responding he says to appeals from his Gulf state allies to not launch another hot war right now, but who knows what in the future. Where do you stand on that? What do you think is going on in the state of mediation?
- [03:19]
E
Well, first of all, we commend President Trump wise policies and decisions in order to give more time for dialogue, for de escalation. That's highly appreciated and it's indeed very, very important to exert our maximum efforts to push for dialogue and for de escalation. And I believe that things are moving in the right direction, maybe slowly but.
- [03:52]
D
And what do you think? Because Trump said in his post about this that actually he's been told that there might be some, some opportunity for at least some de escalation. Others have suggested it might involve removing sanctions on Iranian oil, parts of it. What can you tell us about the details?
- [04:09]
E
Well, we hope that things will move in the right direction and what we are talking about now is hopefully to sign an MOU of a memorandum of understanding. Yes. And hopefully. And that could lead the way for setting the parameters, the principles and that would be subject to negotiations later on for a specific period of time and to tackle the different files, including of course the nuclear file.
- [04:39]
D
So to be fair, we've heard this before, a one page document, maybe figure out the hard things a bit later, open the straight of hormones first, etc. And it never goes anywhere. From what we hear certainly from the American side, it's really sort of 180 degrees on any different day. It's one ask one day and another declaration another day. What's going on? Are the goalposts shifting from Iran or from the United States?
- [05:06]
E
Well, again we are pushing for dialogue and there is no military solution. And always Egypt is with Arab Gulf countries, you know, preferring dialogue and de escalation. And we hope that this time it will work, hopefully. And we've been quite clear to condemn all attacks on the Gulf countries because you know, their security is of our security and there is no justification for attacking them. So let's hope that it will work. And we are coordinating with regional countries, including Pakistan, including Turkey, including of course our brothers and sisters in the gcc. So we have to do more and we are in full contact with the Americans as well and we hope that could produce deliverables through negotiations.
- [06:13]
D
Right. So okay, I'm not going to get any more detail on this out of you obviously, but you have an open channel, for instance, to your Iranian counterpart, Abbas Arakchi. What does he say to you in general about this? And I'VE noticed and we've all noticed that, you know, uae, one of your closest allies and Saudi Arabia have actually struck Iran. They have actually got themselves into this war as well. It seems to be expanding.
- [06:41]
E
Well now what we are focusing on, first of all to reach an understanding on the principles which will guide the negotiations. Also we have to talk about the future of the security regional regime in the region. And of course we must restore confidence between Iran and the Gulf countries after the attacks and the aggressions on the Gulf countries. You know, there is missing confidence between the two sides. So we need to restore it. We need confidence building measures based on non aggressions. And of course let's focus on a sort of security regime.
- [07:34]
D
Tell me what that would look like because we've heard that that is obviously something that needs to happen. What would a new security regime for that region look like? Because it would presumably have to include Iran where up until now Iran has stood on one side of the whole Arab, Muslim regional world and you all have stood on another side trying to isolate Iran and do all those other things. So what would a post war regional security system look like?
- [08:04]
E
Well, the foreign ministers of the Arab states, they took a bold decision last September in their meeting in Cairo with regard setting specific parameters which will guide any future security regime in the region. And it's open for everybody, for Arab and non Arab, so Israel, everybody, short of accepting the parameters, like you know, respecting the sovereignty, territorial integrity, non interference in the internal affairs of any country in the region, universality of the principle of non proliferation, and also of course supporting the state institutions and refraining from supporting the non state actors, you know, those bunch of parameters or principles which should guide any kind of effective future security regime. And as I mentioned, everybody is welcome to join. But short of honoring and accepting those parameters.
- [09:16]
D
Okay, but do you think Iran will agree to stop supporting non state actors, Hezbollah, Hamas, all the others that it has so far?
- [09:24]
E
I mean this, as I mentioned, this is general parameters and the principles. If any country would like to play the game, you have to abide by the rules of the game.
- [09:38]
D
Okay, and if they don't, where are we in this situation? I mean, for instance, the UAE is one of the most hawkish. Again, it's one of your closest allies in the region. But it has emerged as very hawkish against Iran. As I said, it struck Iran, nobody has denied it and it intends to quote, double down on relations with Israel and it received the beneficiary of Israel's military, defensive or maybe even offensive assistance during this war. How does that play? And also the UAE is pulled out of opec. Is GCC breaking down? Is there going to be a sort of an Israel axis and a non Israel axis?
- [10:18]
E
I don't buy it. I don't think so. And I mean, there is a very strong relationship among the Gulf Cooperation Council states. And what we are focusing on now is to end this war as soon as possible and to preserve the territorial integrity and the sovereignty of each Gulf countries. So this is what we are focusing on. And I believe that we have agreement on that. We have mutual understanding on the importance of ending the war and the importance of moving ahead with specific parameters which will be binding for all countries in the region.
- [11:04]
D
So it's clearly affected the global economy, not just regional. Iran's economy is on its knees. Your economy has been severely disrupted just after you were getting back to sort of normal after the Suez crisis. How bad? And this, you know, let's face it, the uk, Europe, Asia, it's affecting everybody. How bad is it for you? And how long do you think Egypt and the Gulf region will take to recover economically? Qatar has been hit very, very strongly
- [11:36]
E
economically, as you correctly mentioned. Everybody's suffering, you know, not only the regional countries, but also the global economy. Because the issue of the principle of freedom of navigation is extremely important for, for the wool and the Strait of Hormuz, you have at least 30% of the oil and gases and as well as fertilizers are passing through this important strait. So we believe that we have to tackle this matter as soon as possible. We have to ensure the principle of freedom of navigation. We have to reach an agreement as soon as possible which will guarantee the reopening of the Strait of Hormuz.
- [12:27]
D
Is Iran open to that and making it a freedom of navigation? Because it keeps saying it wants to control the strait.
- [12:34]
E
It's part of the understanding and of course the issue of opening of the Strait of Hormuz is an integral part of any future agreement. And as for us in Egypt, the implications was negative not only in Egypt, but on the countries of the region. But the Egyptian economy proved resilience and because it's based on very solid and diversified basis. And don't forget the fact that the structural economic reform programs were extremely important for the resilience of the economy. So the economy is doing well. Of course, we've been hit hard by this crisis, especially the surging prices of oil and gas, because we projected our budget based on price of barrel by around 65 to $70. And now it's skyrocketing you know, reaching or hitting 110, 120, but double. Yeah, that's right.
- [13:48]
D
So let me hard pivot to Israel again, because you are one of only two Arab countries that actually has a peace accord with Israel. A senior Egyptian source recently told the national newspaper that the number one enemy in the Egyptian military doctrine is Israel and that that constitutes the strong bond between Cairo and Tehran. Is that the basis of your relationship with Iran and is Israel? It's an extraordinary thing for you to say, you know, given that you have a peace accord, is Israel your number one enemy according to military doctrine?
- [14:19]
E
As you correctly mentioned, of course, we have a peace treaty with Israel since 1979, and we are abiding by our commitments and we have normal relationship with Israel according to the peace treaty. Of course, this relationship has been affected with is aggressive policies, especially in the west bank and in Gaza, in Lebanon, in attacking the different Arab countries. But again, we have a peace treaty and we are abiding by our commitments as long as the Israeli side is abiding by their commitments.
- [15:01]
D
But it seems that they're not. According to the ceasefire agreement for Gaza, as you mentioned, the separate but very, very heightened attacks against Palestinians in the west bank, there seems to be an absolute commitment to no Palestinian state, which is something that Saudi Arabia, Egypt, all of you involved in this say has to happen. And clearly things are not going according to the original plan in Gaza. So what do you say about A, Hamas not yet disarming, B, Hamas saying that A, disarmament is contingent on a pledge for a Palestinian state, and C, sorry to lump them all together, Israel increasing its occupation zone inside Gaza, moving from a yellow line to an orange line.
- [15:46]
E
Well, we have to stick to the Trump peace plan, but apparently they approve
- [15:51]
D
all of this stuff.
- [15:52]
E
Yes, but we have to, again to go back to the first phase, and we have to implement all the parts and the commitments of the Israelis and the Palestinians according to phase one of the Trump peace plan and of course, the flow of humanitarian assistance. According to the first phase, at least 600 trucks should enter into Gaza in order to allow the accessibility of sufficient humanitarian and medical assistance.
- [16:29]
D
But it's not.
- [16:30]
E
It's not. And that's why we have not to allow the focus on Iran to divert our attention from what's happening in the west bank and Gaza. And that's why we have to push for completing the implementation of the first phase as well as moving ahead with the implementation of the second phase, which include the decommissioning of weapons as well as Israeli withdrawal from Gaza.
- [17:01]
D
Okay, but the person who's in charge of the so called peace board, Board of Peace, Nikolai Mladenov from. Yes, he has basically said just this month that the entire ceasefire accord might be, quote, null and void. If Hamas doesn't accept disarmament, Israel's obligations under the ceasefire would be null and void. So they're putting the onus on Hamas. And do you not agree that Hamas needs to decommission, dissolve or whatever?
- [17:33]
E
They have to.
- [17:34]
D
Why are they not doing it?
- [17:35]
E
The agreement, and we host them and the others three, four times in the last month. And we are pushing very hard.
- [17:44]
D
Why are they not doing it?
- [17:45]
E
But again, again, because, you know, for them, they asked for specific policies to be taken by the Israelis, especially stopping targeted assassination against the elements of Hamad. They asked also for completing the elements of the first phase, especially with regard to the rehabilitation of hospitals, clinics, schools and so on. So again, you have the whole Trump peace plan based on mutual commitments and responsibilities from the two sides. So we have to focus on that and we have to push for that.
- [18:25]
D
Okay, so both sides are not meeting their obligations. And how do you do it? I mean, you are the Arab state. I mean, Egypt has been the leader of the Arab world for so, so long. And by and large, most of the analysis suggests that Israel is winning and doing what it wants. It's doing it, as you said, in Lebanon, it's doing it in Syria, it's doing it on the west bank, and it's doing it in Gaza, and it's doing it in Iran. When does the Arab world, Egypt, use its voice and its might and its peace treaty to say enough already.
- [18:58]
E
We are, of course, using our voice, our influence day by night to push for Israel to abide by its commitments. And again, it's all about the policies of the whole international regime. And look to what happened in Gaza. Two years of bombardment killing more than 75,000 innocent Palestinians and injuring 170,000, and nobody gave a damn to that. And so again, we are doing our best efforts, but it takes two to tango. We need the international community, the European Union, the United States and others. And we delivered in Sharm El Sheikh. And it was Egypt who pushed very hard for reaching this ceasefire in October last year. But we have to follow up. And unfortunately, this escalation with Iran diverted the attention from focusing on the Palestinian issue.
- [20:08]
D
Or maybe not, because it's clear that Prime Minister Netanyahu, and he stated over and again, and it's part of the new election campaign, no Palestinian state.
- [20:16]
E
State.
- [20:16]
D
Right. So that's what they say. And they're also saying that they're going to do to Gaza, at least the defense minister, literally they're going to do to Lebanon what he says in accordance with the Rafah and Beit Annun model in Gaza. That is gazification in parts of Lebanon as well. Where does this end and what leverage do you have?
- [20:35]
E
It will. I mean, it will, I can assure you it will not bring peace and stability and security for Israel because the core of the conflict in the region is the Palestinian cause. And without giving them, the Palestinians their own legitimate rights, including the right of self determination, I can assure you that Israel will not enjoy sustainable peace and stability because this is the core of the conflict. And that's why Mighty Power will not bring full security and stability. So we have to give back the legitimate rights to the people in Gaza, in the west bank, to have their own independent state with eastern Jerusalem as its capital, a part of that. There is no peace and stability in the region without addressing the hardcore of the conflict in the region.
- [21:30]
D
Foreign Minister Abdulati, thank you very much indeed for joining us.
- [21:33]
E
Thank you so much, Christian, for hosting me.
- [21:36]
C
Thank you.
- [21:36]
E
It's a great pleasure.
- [21:38]
A
And you stay with cnn. We'll be right back after the break.
- [21:46]
C
When you finally find your thing, you want the whole world to know about that thing. So you use a thing called Canva to make it an even bigger and better thing. Whether you want to create flyers for that thing, make presentations for that thing or design merch for that thing, you can do anything so people can see your thing, feel your thing, love your thing. The next thing you know, it's a thing. Canva, the thing that makes anything a thing.
- [22:17]
A
As the crispy chicken sandwich from 7 11. People always call me loud and I'm like, yeah, I know I'm crispy. Did you expect me to whisper? If you want quiet, go eat some soup and reflect. Like I know I'm a handful. I'm bold, I'm juicy. Throw some pickles and barbecue sauce on me and baby, I'm a whole meal. And with seven rewards I'm just $4. Quiet no crispy, saucy. And $4 very only at 7 Eleven Valley, 362326 participating stores only. While supplies last the app for full terms. Now a 1.77. The $6 billion fund, financed by taxpayer dollars is raising questions and eyebrows. The Justice Department says the fund compensates Donald Trump supporters who claim they were unfairly targeted by the Biden administration. Here's how President Trump describes it.
- [23:11]
B
This is reimbursing people that were horribly treated. Horribly treated. It's anti weaponization. They've been weaponized. They've been in some cases imprisoned wrongly. They paid legal fees that they didn't have. They've gone bankrupt. Their lives have been destroyed.
- [23:27]
A
Trump says there's nothing new about the fund, but allowing the president carte blanche to enrich his allies is unprecedented. Here to discuss is Andrew Weissman, a former assistant U.S. attorney, and he was Robert Mueller's lead prosecutor. His new book is called Liars how to Stop Trump's Deceit and Save America. And Andrew Weissman, welcome to the program. We'll get to your book in just a moment because these two issues, so much of it is really related and tied to the themes that you delve into in this book. But let's talk about the news of day. The administration diverting $1.776 billion of taxpayer money to what the president described as an anti weaponization fund to settle his own lawsuit with his own irs. As a veteran federal prosecutor yourself, have you ever seen the judgment fund utilized in such a manner?
- [24:22]
F
No. That is a very easy question because the answer is no. Two points to make on that is in terms of the settlement, it's worth noting that this is a point made to the federal judge overseeing that case, that currently there are people who are similarly situated to Donald Trump, and this administration is taking the position that their claims should all be denied because they're without legal or factual merit. And so having a settlement for close to $1.8 billion based on the same or similar set of facts as other people who are not getting a dime tells you how pretextual this is. And then there's just simply the facts here, which is giving money to people who were convicted by a jury after due process or who pleaded guilty to what they did on January 6th, which we all saw around the globe, is something that is preposterous and sends a really awful message in terms of the rule of law law, because not only have their cases been dismissed, but now they're going to be paid money for engaging in truly horrific crimes that went to the heart of our democracy.
- [25:45]
A
Right? And the Capitol Police officers who were beaten that day while they were doing their jobs and protecting the Capitol behind them, they get nothing from this fund. We should just point that out as well. Can you explain to our viewers what a judgment fund fund is, what its
- [26:00]
F
purpose serves to be sure, a judgment fund is for true victims. And so let's assume that the FBI, I used to be the general counsel there, wrongly searched an apartment. They broke into an apartment, but they didn't have the correct search warrant. And there was damage to the building. There was an invasion of their privacy. That person might seek compensation and could get paid for that. Wrong. And so that would come from a fund. There has to be some source of funds, but that is all adjudicated and it's overseen. And that's one where facts and law matter. Here it's just so collusive because you have Donald Trump judging his own case case, and he has done somethingtheir administration, as I said, does something completely different in similarly situated cases. So forit's really the antithesis of the rule of law when you don't apply it in an evenhanded way.
- [27:07]
A
The distribution of this money will be controlled by a group selected by Acting Attorney General Todd Blanche. He was testifying for the Senate Appropriations Subcommittee to, and he was asked, as one would imagine, a great deal about this fund. Here's what he said about it. How he described
- [27:26]
C
is true that this is unusual. That is true, but it is not unprecedented.
- [27:31]
F
And it was done to address something
- [27:34]
C
that had never happened again either.
- [27:38]
A
So I just, I'm curious to get your response and reaction to those words from Todd Blanche. His description of it that it is unusual, but at the same time that it is very much warranted.
- [27:50]
F
So it is fair to say it is extremely unusual. One of the ironies here is that in the first Trump administration, the Attorney General, the very first Attorney General for Donald Trump, Attorney General Sessions deplored exactly what we're seeing here. He said that it should not be possible to give money sort of third parties for causes that you just approve of, that this fund is to be given to plaintiffs who can prove they were harmed and for victimsdirect victims of a harm here. Donald Trump has claimed that the concern is that his tax returns were leaked. That has nothing to do with with people who committed crimes on January 6. Their tax returns weren't leaked. And so this is really apples and oranges, and it's exactly what the first Trump administration said should not be happening.
- [28:55]
A
I don't know how well you know Todd Blanche. He served as the president's own personal attorney as well, but he has a traditional pedigree in the Southern District of New York here as well. So I'm just wondering, are you surprised at all by the actions that he's taken, as he has been now the President's acting Attorney General in the second term?
- [29:18]
F
So I Do not know him personally. I have, like everyone, seen his conduct in office. I did go to the trial where he was a defense lawyer for Donald Trump. I am surprised, given his background and his training as a federal prosecutor, to see what he is doing. And I do think it is a model of sort of what we have to be concerned about because there will always be bad actors in every walk of life, including in politics. But what makes them particularly pernicious is complicity by people who know better. And particularly when you're talking about the Department of Justice, where you count on people taking their oath of office. I should say that the federal judge who oversees this case, the one that was Donald Trump v. The irs, made a point of that, that she did not see how any sort of, quote, unquote, settlement fund would be consistent with the oath of office to protect the public fisc.
- [30:22]
A
So, so that leads me to our next question. Is the settlement fund legally sound? And if not, does Congress have any oversight here to intervene?
- [30:32]
F
Yes. So there could be court action. But the thing that is clearly the case, if we had Congress willing to do it, is that Congress can step in under our Constitution, of course, the power of the purse belongs to Congress and they control how they money gets allocated. So they clearly could put a stop to this. I would suspect that we will see Democrats and maybe even some Republicans, depending on how vociferous the public is about what's going on, proposing a bill to put a stop to this, saying that they did not intend $1.776 billion with a B dollars to go to people who, who were convicted after due process of crimes.
- [31:19]
A
Yeah. The president noting this coinciding with the 250th anniversary of the country. Speaking of Republicans, Senate Majority Leader John Thune said this morning that he's, quote, not a big fan of this fund. Do you expect to see other Republicans follow suit and speak out against this, perhaps even in harsher terms?
- [31:41]
F
So I don't know. This is. I try and stay in my legal lane. I'm really not a political analyst, but I am aware enough to know that people will be looking at the polling and people will be looking to see how much the public is outraged or not by what is going on. I do know for people like me who worked for over 20 years in the Department of Justice to say that Todd Blanche's comments that this is unusual, Isis putting it mildly, this is something that is so antithetical to your obligation as a public servant to be doing this.
- [32:19]
A
Well, within hours of the fund's announcement. We know the Treasury's general counsel, Brian Morrissey, stepped down. He didn't issue a statement and connect the two. But given the timing, it is suspect. The White House administration just put out a statement thanking him for his service. I do want to turn to the president's market activity as well as it relates to stocks and trading of stocks. First quarter disclosures show that he executed between $211 million to $687 million in trades involving companies such as Nvidia, Boeing, intel, companies that he's actually actively negotiating with on a global stage, as we recently just saw with his trip to China last week. The immediate question for viewers when they hear this is, is this legal?
- [33:07]
F
Well, there is a law against insider trading. And you know, the Senate has been toying with sort of banning members of Congress from engaging in stock trades because they get a lot of inside information. And this is one where, having been a public servant for over 20 years, you do not do it to get rich. If you want to get rich, stay in the private sector. This is one where it's so fraught because your obligation here is not to your wallet. Your obligation is to everyone in the public who you serve. So the allegations and the facts that are getting reported now are deeply, deeply concerning in terms of the abuse of a position of power for profit.
- [33:57]
A
We should note the Trump Organization claims that neither the president nor his family has any role in these trades. They say that the trading is executed entirely by a third party financial institution through fully discretionary accounts. But that leads me now to your own book, Liars Kingdom, because these are some of the vulnerabilities that you explore in your book as well. You argue that America's susceptibility to this level of political deceit stems from a specific fixable flaw in our legal system. So what is this flaw that is fixable?
- [34:30]
F
So one of the things that I looked at is what do other countries do when you have a politician who lies? Let's assume you have a politician who lies and says there was material fraud in an election. What happens in the United States and what happens overseas? Because in the United States, we prosecute criminally and subject to civil lawsuits, all sorts of lies. If you're a leader of a public company and you lie about your company, you can be criminally liable and sued for tens of millions of dollars. In Brazil, for instance, if you lie about an election, which Bolsonaro, the former president, was found to have done, you can be barred from running for office again for a set term. And there are laws in France and England that relate to this. Even in our states here in the United States, there are laws that pertain to this. But we do not have this in the federal system where you can lie about ballots and have no legal repercussions, but if you lie about stock, there can be severe repercussions. So that anomaly is what I'm addressing in this book.
- [35:44]
A
And do you think this is a law that could, I know you say you don't delve into the political lane. You're here just for the legal discussion. But do you think that this is an issue, a law that could gain bipartisan support today?
- [35:58]
F
Today, under no circumstances what I am doing you mentioned that this is the 250th anniversary of our country is if we are to get out of the situation we're in, we have to figure out, in my view, how to strengthen our checks and balances, that norms are not enough. We've seen them be broken over and over again. And so I'm looking to the future to figure out, given how wonderful our Constitution is, we nevertheless can see where it is not working and to get people to start thinking about bold and innovative ideas to try and strengthen our checks and balances. Our system works with a divided power of divided government where you have the executive, the Congress and the courts and it is not functioning as envisaged.
- [36:50]
A
Yeah, all co equal branches in theory, but as you said, maybe not functioning that way today. Liars Kingdom outside today. Thank you so much, Andrew Weissman. Appreciate the time.
- [37:02]
F
You're welcome.
- [37:03]
A
We'll be right back after this short break.
- [37:11]
C
Comedian Craig Ferguson is going coast to
- [37:13]
D
coast to unpack what it really means to be an American today.
- [37:16]
C
What could possibly go wrong?
- [37:17]
D
Craig Ferguson, American on Purpose new series
- [37:21]
F
premieres May 30 at 9 on CNN.
- [37:22]
C
And next day on the CNN app.
- [37:30]
A
From the rise of chatbots to the push for automated warfare by the White House, artificial intelligence is becoming increasingly pervasive in our lives. With little regulation, many fear its impact, including Pope Leo, who has teamed up with Anthropic to issue a document highlighting the need to protect jobs and truth amid this AI boom. On the flip side, some believe the technology is being harnessed for good. Author Josh Tierengel joins Walter Isaacson to share some examples.
- [37:58]
B
Josh Tierengel, welcome to the show.
- [38:02]
C
Thanks so much.
- [38:03]
B
So you've got this new book out, AI For Good. And I want to read you something from the introduction that struck me. It said we are living through a moment in history that often feels cataclysmic climate change extremism, institutional collapse, furious inequality. It's natural, even rational, to assume a protective crouch against the future. Yet my defenses were disabled by a glimpse into a completely different way in which we may live as citizens. What did you mean by that?
- [38:36]
C
Well, I'll take the first part first, which is the cataclysmic part. Right. I think AI has arrived in a very particular context, which is people are just drenched in existential risk and existential dread. And the people who are running these labs are not helping matters. They come in and they talk about, you know, AI is either going to cure cancer or mitigate climate change, which is great, but hard to believe, or it's going to doom human existence. And so that gets people to tune out right away. So that's not helpful. The positive part is that when you separate the tech from the tech companies and you actually look at the ways in which it can help us solve meaningful problems, particularly in things like government and healthcare and education, it's dazzling. Not always, and it's not always easy. But the solutions that are available to us are completely different. And so what I found through the reporting is the tech can do a lot of things for us. We just have to mentally wrap our heads around what it can do and how it can do it. And it's going to take some work, but wow, when, when you apply it to certain problems, it really does make an impact, a huge difference.
- [39:44]
B
Well, you say it could be dazzling applied to certain problems. Give me an example. I'm not sure we solved anything yet.
- [39:50]
C
Yeah. So I want to separate the tech from the hype. So I went to the Cleveland Clinic, right? And they were kind enough to just let me wander around, which I'm very grateful for. And they have a lot of AI pilot programs going on, and they're all led by doctors. And again, none of them are easy. They have 100 years of established systems. They have patients with their various symptoms, they have doctors who hate changing their workflow.
- [40:15]
E
Right.
- [40:16]
C
And yet they've made a lot of progress. So a big example is sepsis. Right. Sepsis is one of the worst things that can happen inside a human body. It's an out of control reaction to infection. And each year it kills about 350,000Americans, more than breast cancer, prostate cancer, opioid addiction combined. It's very hard to detect because in its early phases, it actually just sort of presents like a cold or dehydration. And then before you know it, it races away and it can kill you. So they Did a pilot program, and there was a human element to the pilot program, which is making sure that their clinicians are all much more aware of sepsis than they were. And then they did an AI pilot. And the AI pilot is software that is hooked up to every patient that comes in. And all it does is remind doctors, through a prediction and detection engineering, that sepsis might be present. And it separates sepsis risk into three levels. And then it beeps. That's all it does. The doctors are the ones who intercede. And yet, over the course of a year, using this sepsis prediction software, they reduced deaths in the hospital due to sepsis by 41%. So that is 1,000 lives saved, in part through the partnership of AI and doctors working together. So that's one example, Right? Another. You know, we all know that healthcare is a terrible business for everyone but the insurers, right? And for a hospital system, part of the problem is that hospitals are basically hotels. So they have patients, they have rooms, they have staff, food, linens, beds. And the key difference, the difference between profitability and hemorrhaging money, is that hotels know when the customer is showing up and when they're leaving, and hospitals don't. And so what they did at the Cleveland Clinic is they worked with Palantir, very controversial company in some realms, but basically an enterprise software company, and they created a system to actually know when people are coming and going. And so what this software does is it hooks up to every data set inside the hospital, including electronic health records. And so when a doctor just makes a verbal note saying, this patient is likely to be released tomorrow, the software knows it. And all of a sudden, the hospital administrator can play the hospital like a video game. She knows when people are coming, she knows when they might be released. They've increased their transfer volume tremendously. They've cut down on emergency room wait times by 90 minutes. And I don't know if you've watched the Pit, but that's a different show if you cut down on the wait times by 90 minutes. And so these are things that are just showing up, and they're not revolutionary. They're more evolutionary. But that's just one example. They're.
- [42:59]
B
Wait, wait, wait, Josh, what you're saying. Actually, I agree with. They're not revolutionary. Those are evolutionary. It's something my Hilton Hotel could put in. Tell me. It seems somewhat disappointing that we've only gotten to that. I read in your book about the digital twin of a heart, that type of thing. Seems that's a revolutionary leap.
- [43:19]
C
What we're talking about as far as digital twins of hearts. There's a pair of doctors at Cleveland Clinic who are working on the ability to do AI assisted cardiac scan. And the idea here is that as opposed to every doctor starting fresh, doing their scans and knowing where you are, you basically walk around with a twin of your heart and everything that's happening to it. And at any given moment we could run tests on that digital twin as opposed to having to run tests on you. So an AI model can run a test on an AI model, saving you a lot of heartbreak. Customizing medicine. Now, they started this work about seven years ago. It's taken time to work out bugs because as you would expect with AI, you know, you can do amazing things, but you got to tweak it. You've got to actually work with the patient, establish their comfort. But they have made a tremendous amount of progress. And so it's these little evolutionary steps we're seeing that are going to get us to the revolutionary stuff. And it's not that far away.
- [44:19]
B
You talk about Palantir. You mentioned it earlier in the interview. It's in your Cleveland Clinic chapter. And you say the very mention of Palantir causes people's blood to curdle.
- [44:33]
C
Why so Palantir on the left, Palantir was founded or co founded by Peter Thiel. And Peter Thiel obviously is a very vociferous Trump supporter. He is in Silicon Valley, he's a co founder of PayPal. He's very good friends with Elon Musk. I could go on about the reasons that the left hates him. The right doesn't like Palantir because it really came in and challenged everything about the military industrial complex. And so Peter Thiel's co founder is a guy named Alex Karp. He's half black, he's half Jewish, he's a self described socialist, a Kamala supporter. How the two of them are friends is a little bit of a mystery to me. But the combination has really freaked out just about everybody everywhere. And it does not help that the company is named after the mysterious stones in the Lord of the Rings. They cultivate a mystique. Okay, now the truth about Palantir is that what they do is almost comically dull. Okay, I just mentioned all the need to keep data clean and keep its infrastructure. Right. The chief architect of Palantir said, we are the mole people of Silicon Valley. We're basically plumbers. We go in, we straighten out all the data pipelines, we clean all the data and then we present the data on very clear dashboards so that someone running a company or a federal agency or a military operation can actually see what they're dealing with and organize it and make decisions based on this data. And so I understand completely how Palantir has become a very political hot topic. What they do is very important and they do it very well.
- [46:13]
B
Yeah, but in New Orleans, for example, they were taking all the cameras all over town, doing facial recognition, putting that in the data set, being able to follow people. Is that something that causes people to push back against AI?
- [46:29]
C
Absolutely. Because if they are not brought into the process, if they're not told why this might be good for society and why it might be good for themselves, the natural and completely understandable reaction is, I don't want any of this. And so what we're really talking about is we have a crisis of trust that we have earned in our society. If we are going to get the best out of this material, we have to trust our institutions. Now, there's a little bit of a Mobius strip in the logic here, right? Well, how can I trust institutions that are distrustful and use AI against me? And the answer is we better figure out how to stop it somewhere. Now, I happen to be a big fan of government. I've really enjoyed the last 70 years of peace and prosperity. And I do think that AI has a role to play in strengthening government and strengthening people's trust in government. But two caveats. The first is, it's hard. It takes a lot of work. And the second is, no matter how good the tech, you still actually have to want to have a government for this stuff to work. Otherwise, AI can be just as destructive as it can be productive.
- [47:34]
B
Let me ask you the big question. Is AI going to create more jobs or is it going to reduce the number of jobs that humans do?
- [47:42]
C
So it's a great question. A couple of months ago, I wrote a big cover story for the Atlantic about AI and the future of employment. And I'll tell you what the economists mostly say. They say AI is a general purpose technology. And they compare it to previous general purpose tech like electricity.
- [48:00]
F
Right.
- [48:01]
C
Electricity came in, everybody knew it was great. It took about 40 years for the benefits to be felt across society. It changed a lot of jobs, but it increased productivity in America so much that it was worth it. Right now the divide among economists tends to be, and a lot of Nobel winning economists hold to that. Younger economists I spoke with said they don't think that their elders are misunderstanding the data. They think they're misunderstanding the tech. And that AI by its nature is smart machinery. And smart machinery can help roll itself out. So if the AI revolution in American life takes 10, 20, 30 years, we will have time, with a natural rate of adjustment in labor, to figure out where jobs move. There'll be natural attrition as companies come online, and we'll probably be okay. If it takes three to five years, the disruption will be significant. And the younger economists say it might be three to five years and we might have a real crisis on our hands. With unemployment rates rapidly going up, up to 10%, 15%.
- [49:06]
B
Wait, let me push back on that. I've heard them say that for the past three to five years. And you see it in all the press releases, all the anecdotes, meta's laying off this, that and the other. You look at the jobs numbers, is that there most recent job numbers, more employment. So if that's supposed to be happening in the short term, where's the data saying so?
- [49:26]
C
Exactly. And even the skeptics about the future will say it's not yet showing up in the data. What they will tell you is that it is inevitable that by the time we get to the end of the year, they expect to see significant changes. When I spoke to Fortune 100 CEOs who are the people who employ most of America, they were also concerned. And they were concerned for different reasons. They obviously report to Wall street, they've made these huge investments in AI and they're worried that they aren't yet able to show growth as a result of that implementation. Because as we've discussed, it takes a little time, it's not as easy as people say. It's not a silver bullet to just flip a switch and AI comes on. And so they're concerned that what they will have to do to satisfy Wall street is cut jobs. And so they think a bit of a self fulfilling prophecy has come along where if they don't cut those jobs, it'll be their job that gets cut. And then what they're saying is, quietly, we wouldn't mind it if Congress helped us here, if Congress regulated AI, if Congress put in more money for job retraining. Because if we lay these people off and all of us do simultaneously, there's going to be a convulsion in society.
- [50:42]
B
In the history of the digital revolution, there's really been two strands. One of them you could call the Ada Lovelace strand, which he talks about the symbiosis, the partnership of humans and machines. You see that with Doug Engelbart when he Invents the mouse and the easy to use interfaces. Steve Jobs is part of that strand. The other strand is sort of the computers will go off without us. The Alan Turing machines will be able to think on their own strength. And you get a lot of people these days talking about the singularity. What is your view? Will this proceed as a partnership of humans and machines, or will the machines eventually leave us behind?
- [51:23]
C
We have to dictate which way we want it to go. If we crouch in a defensive position because AI seems hard, because there's lots of other existential risk out there in the world and we let the makers of the technology tell us how to use it, we are likely to get lots and lots of automation with lots of profits rolling up to those companies. If, however, we do get involved and we insist on uses that we care about that are collaborative, everything that we've talked about today involved a machine either alerting someone or helping someone see something. But it was always a human in the loop. It was always collaborative. If we can insist that that's a best case use, then I think we may really well get gains. But this is going to be contested territory. And what I would say is most important is that if you don't want to get involved, if you don't want to make those decisions, there are plenty of people who will make them for us. And the last time that happened was the social media age, and we saw how that ended. AI is so much more powerful than anything social media has to offer. The benefits are so much greater. So I would really encourage people to use the tools and begin to insist that this is the way they want them to be produced and they want them to exist in the world. Otherwise it could go completely the other way.
- [52:44]
B
Josh Tiringle, thank you so much for joining us.
- [52:47]
C
Thank you, Walter.
- [52:50]
A
And finally, after more than six decades, one of the greatest tennis players of all time has got her degree. Billie Jean King graduated with a history diploma from Cal State Los Angeles on Monday. The star Left College in 1964 to pursue her tennis career, where she went on to win 39 Grand Slam titles, received a Presidential Medal of Freedom, and became a fierce advocate for gender and pay equality. As the 82 year old stood on stage, she offered her fellow graduates a few few words of wisdom. Everything you do, winning or losing, good or bad, it's feedback, not failure. It's feedback.
- [53:32]
C
Don't take things personally.
- [53:34]
A
Ooh, that's really important. Don't take things personally. Don't let others define you. You define yourself. Sage advice from a trailblazing tennis icon. And congratulations to the class of 2026. All right. That is it for us for now. Thank you so much for watching and goodbye. From New York, I'm Eva Longoria, and I'm setting out to really experience France, to savor its world celebrated cuisine and explore the country's rich history.
- [54:12]
C
EVA longoria, Searching for France now streaming on the CNN app.
- [54:18]
A
I'm CNN tech reporter Claire Duffy. This week on the podcast Terms of Service, what do we know about how much AI is contributing to energy consumption, energy demand right now? And how does that compare with other industries?
- [54:32]
E
The best resource for that is the International Energy Agency, which is sort of the global energy think tank that collects
- [54:38]
D
data on all of this.
- [54:39]
E
And what they predict is that about 8% of the additional electricity that we' a need by 2,030 that will be for data centers. The other 92% is for other things, industry, electrification, electric vehicles.
- [54:54]
D
And AI is really only driving part
- [54:56]
C
of that increase in demand.
- [54:58]
A
Listen to CNN's terms of service. Wherever you get your podcasts.