What el-Sayed's Michigan Primary Win Tells Us

Summary

---

Amanpour (CNN Podcasts)

Episode: "What el-Sayed's Michigan Primary Win Tells Us"

Date: August 5, 2026
Host: Bianna Golodryga (sitting in for Christiane Amanpour)

---

Episode Overview

This episode offers in-depth analysis of Abdul El Sayed's narrow Democratic primary win for the Michigan Senate seat, unpacking the intra-party conflict between progressive and centrist Democrats and what this signals for both the upcoming November election and the broader trajectory of the Democratic Party. The show then shifts focus to Kansas voters’ rejection of a proposal to elect state Supreme Court justices, with former chief justice Lawton Nuss on the implications for judicial independence. The latter half explores global threats, featuring a discussion with journalist Annie Jacobson and Walter Isaacson about the growing danger of biological weapons, lab leaks, and AI-enabled bioengineering.

---

Key Discussion Points & Insights

1. Michigan Senate Democratic Primary: Progressive vs. Centrist Showdown

[01:37–15:49]

Main Takeaways:

• Abdul El Sayed, a progressive, narrowly defeated centrist Haley Stevens in a race pundits expected would be an easy progressive win.
• The outcome is seen as both a victory and a challenge for progressives: El Sayed is the most significant left-wing nominee in a competitive state in years, but his general-election prospects are uncertain.
• Discussion centers on Democratic Party divisions between “wine track” (college-educated, young voters) and “beer track” (working-class whites, Black voters, and seniors), and El Sayed’s struggles with important core Democratic constituencies in Michigan.
• AIPAC’s large financial intervention and the role of Israel policy were prominent, but voters' top concerns remained domestic: cost of living, health care, and the economy.

Notable Quotes:

• Abdul El Sayed, on grassroots energy:

  “What we showed is that...if you’re willing to build a movement brick by brick..., you can build a conversation that builds into a movement that defeats Goliath...” ([01:37])

• Ron Brownstein (political analyst), on the result’s significance:

  “El Sayed is going to be the most significant left victory nominee in a state or district that is going to be competitive in November. ...it's both the biggest success so far left, but also the biggest test.” ([03:06])

• Brownstein, on the party divide:

  “This was a pure throwback to a wine track, beer track race.” ([05:15])

• El Sayed, on unity and inclusivity:

  “My commitment to Jewish safety is the same commitment that I have to the safety of my own daughters. ...What would we do if we treated all of our kids like they were all of our kids?” ([07:13])

• Brownstein, on AIPAC’s impact:

  “AIPAC has become a toxic brand in Democratic politics. ...for a lot of Democratic voters, it’s become a symbol of kind of politics as usual.” ([11:23])

Key Insights & Challenges:

• Polling miss: The pre-election polls overestimated support among young and college-educated voters, while Stevens outperformed with Black voters and in working-class areas.
• Party coalition: El Sayed must now focus on mending fences with Black voters, older voters, and non-college white women—constituencies where he underperforms.
• AIPAC factor: Though AIPAC’s spending shaped perceptions, voters remain more concerned about kitchen-table issues.

Upcoming General Election:

• Mike Rogers, a Trump-endorsed but more moderate Republican, will be El Sayed’s opponent.
• The state is likely to have a high number of “double haters”—voters skeptical of both Trump and El Sayed.
• Democratic turnout in the primary was notably high, with over 500,000 more Democratic than Republican voters ([15:30]).

Implications for 2028 and Beyond:

• The Michigan result is viewed as a bellwether for the left-center struggle within the party in upcoming presidential primaries.
• Brownstein:

  “Michigan is the tipping point...left or center can win in Michigan, and I think it is really going to [be]...critical...to the next Democratic nominee.” ([19:09])

---

2. Judicial Independence in Kansas

[21:39–34:00]

Main Takeaways:

• Kansas voters rejected a Republican-backed proposal to move from a merit selection system to direct election of state Supreme Court justices.
• Former Chief Justice Lawton Nuss explains that the amendment was an explicit attempt to influence abortion rights by installing anti-abortion justices.
• The merit system, in place since 1958, is seen as protecting judicial independence and public trust.

Notable Quotes:

• Justice Lawton Nuss, on the rejected amendment’s intent:

  “This was an abortion issue in disguise...they were going to slowly and quietly elect anti-abortion justices to the court.” ([24:42])

• On dangers of judicial elections:

  “If a justice...were elected and they decided to please their campaign donors...there is no place else to go to get that corrected.” ([30:18])

• On public faith:

  “Kansans, by voting down this amendment, basically said we are not going to open the door to that room where...we are going to lose faith in our justice system.” ([31:34])

Key Insights:

• Public polling found the Kansas Supreme Court the most trusted institution in the state.
• Out-of-state money, from both conservative and liberal sides, poured nearly $13 million into the campaign.
• The Kansas result may serve as a model or deterrent for similar efforts in other states.

---

3. New Threats: Biological Weapons and Global Security

[40:03–54:17]

Guest: Annie Jacobson (author, Biological: A Scenario)

Interviewer: Walter Isaacson

Main Takeaways:

• The episode explores the existential risk posed by advances in biological weapons, gain-of-function research, and how emerging tech (especially AI) makes bioengineering threats more accessible and dangerous.
• The discussion is timely, coming shortly after news coverage of COVID-19 lab leak theories and Dr. Anthony Fauci's Senate hearing.

Notable Quotes:

• Annie Jacobson:

  “The release of a genetically modified biological weapon, including by accident, could easily be the final failure of the human imagination.” ([40:09])

• Jacobson, on the core paradox:

  “What defines biological weapons engineering and what defines research for medical countermeasures?” ([43:50])

• On current risk:

  “Biological weapons are illegal...but there's a loophole in that treaty that allows scientific research for prophylactic use...and therein lies the paradox...” ([43:50])

• On AI risk:

  “That is the number one threat right now...computational science is moving at the speed of lightning and the systems...to monitor them are moving at the old pace of analog democracy.” ([49:50])

• On how to face the threat:

  “There is nothing you can do or there is very little you can do regarding homeland defense in the event of a biological incident or attack, only things to mitigate extermination. ...I believe the only solution is diplomacy.” ([52:17])

Key Insights:

• Lack of enforceable global treaties for biological research leaves the door open for misuse.
• AI vastly lowers the barrier for designing bioweapons, making it a unique and rapidly evolving danger.
• Public trust in science and government was badly damaged by the pandemic and hinders coordinated response.
• Jacobson underscores that the solution must be international diplomacy and verifiable treaty enforcement.

---

4. Additional Segments

Brief Highlights:

• Ukraine-Russia Update ([34:09–38:29]):
  A report on Russia’s latest missile attacks on Kyiv and the “black widow” scams—women marrying soldiers to claim death benefits—a sign of the war's corrosive effects on Russian society.

• Quick Mention: Education Tech and Cell Phone Bans ([21:24]):
  Briefly referenced, but not discussed in depth.

---

Notable Quotes & Moments (with Timestamps)

• Abdul El Sayed, on grassroots victories:

  “What we showed is that the power of our many is greater than the power of their money.” ([01:37])

• Ron Brownstein, on progressives' test:

  “Biggest success so far left, but also the biggest test.” ([03:06])

• El Sayed, on unity:

  “My commitment to Jewish safety is the same...as to my own daughters.” ([07:13])

• Brownstein, on AIPAC:

  “AIPAC has become a toxic brand in Democratic politics.” ([11:23])

• Brownstein, on Michigan’s primacy:

  “Michigan is the tipping point...left or center can win in Michigan.” ([19:09])

• Lawton Nuss, on amendment’s real intent:

  “This was an abortion issue in disguise...” ([24:42])

• Annie Jacobson, on biosecurity risk:

  “The weapon system...are the human lungs, that should scare the bejesus out of anybody and scare them into action.” ([48:28])

• Jacobson (citing Colonel Earhart):

  “There is very little you can do regarding homeland defense in the event of a biological incident or attack, only things to mitigate extermination.” ([52:17])

---

Structure & Key Timestamps

| Segment | Timestamp | |----------------------------------|-----------------| | Opening & Michigan Dem Recap | 01:37–12:57 | | General Election Preview | 12:57–16:17 | | Implications for 2028 & Party | 16:17–20:30 | | Kansas Judicial Amendment | 21:39–34:00 | | Ukraine “Black Widow” Report | 34:09–38:29 | | Biological Weapons Threats | 40:03–54:17 | | Closing Anecdote (Capybaras) | 54:23–end |

---

Tone & Style

The episode captures CNN’s signature blend of high-level political analysis and urgent, accessible reporting on global threats. Ron Brownstein delivers clear-eyed, data-driven commentary; Lawton Nuss gives judicial issues a pragmatic and principled voice; Annie Jacobson’s segment is both sober and dramatic, warning of grave, real-world dangers in a journalistic, measured tone.

---

Summary for the Uninitiated

Listeners are given a comprehensive view of how the Democratic Party’s internal rifts are playing out in key battlegrounds like Michigan, the risks such divisions pose heading into the general election, and why issues like judicial independence and emerging global threats deserve heightened vigilance. The expert guests’ analysis is candid and probing, with actionable takeaways for policymakers and the public alike. Whether considering the future shape of the Democratic coalition, the fight for an independent judiciary, or the new technological frontiers of global security, the episode provides a clear roadmap—and stark warnings—about what’s at stake in American and global public life.

---

Transcript

[Bianna Golodriga]

Meet Keith loving dad board game champ bus driving pro. I drive 65,000 miles in my bus each year. If people knew what I know, lives could be saved.

[Christiane Amanpour]

Like how there are some things I

[Annie Jacobson]

simply can't see on my route.

[Justice Lawton Nuss]

The other day a car tried to sneak past me and ends up right

[Bianna Golodriga]

in my blind spot. I turn slowly so accident avoided but no car should be in the blind

[Justice Lawton Nuss]

spot for a 40,000 pound bus.

[Christiane Amanpour]

It's our roads.

[Justice Lawton Nuss]

It's our safety.

[Bianna Golodriga]

Visit www.sharetherodesafely.gov.

[Christiane Amanpour]

Hello everyone and welcome to Amanpour. Here's what's coming up, what American voters want a look at the primary results and what they could mean for November with political analyst Ron Brownstein. And what's the latest with Kansas? Former chief justice of the state Supreme Court joins me on Kansas saying no to electing judges and what we can learn from it. Plus, biological war author Annie Jacobson speaks with Walter Isaacson about what she says is the greatest overall threat we face. Welcome to the program everyone. I'm Bianna Golodriga, New York sitting in for Christiane Amanpour. Michigan Democrats have chosen their Senate candidate after a tight race with moderate Haley Stevens. Progressive Abdul El Sayed is now officially the primary winner.

[Bianna Golodriga]

What we showed is that the power of our many is greater than the power of their money. What we showed is that if you're willing to build a movement brick by brick, if you're willing to go and travel your state and have the conversations in rooms big and small, starting in moments when people aren't even paying attention to an election but are paying attention to the price of gas and the price of groceries and the price of housing and the price of health care, that you can build a conversation that builds into a movement that defeats Goliath. This is what you all showed. And my hope is that our democracy will never be the same.

[Christiane Amanpour]

The 41 year old Dr. Will now go head to head against Trump endorsed Republican Mike Rogers in November. The president feeling optimistic, saying El Sayed's victory is great news for his party. The Michigan contest has been an enormously expensive one with the candidate's stances on Israel central issue in the campaign. But while El Sayed may well score a win for progressives, it's a more mixed picture nationally. Let's bring in political analyst Ron Brownstein for more on this. Ron, good to see you. So El Sayed wins by less than 1 percentage point in a race that most polls said he'd win by double digits. Yes, a win is a win this was a very bruising and heated campaign, as you know, in the fight between the Democratic establishment and the progressive movement. So on that issue between these, these two factions of the party, who won?

[Bianna Golodriga]

Yeah, this race, Bianna, I thought, was a perfect encapsulation of what we've been watching all year, because we have seen in this primary season more systematic conflict between left and center in Democratic primaries than at any point in modern history, certainly in the 40 years that I've been covering American politics. And the bottom line is that neither side has really scored a knockout over the other. Each side has posted significant victories. The center has won the governor race in California, the Senate nomination in Iowa, the Senate relatively centrist Senate nomination in Texas, a number of competitive House races. The left has posted big victories, too. Graham Platner, originally in the main Senate race, obviously those New York candidates that Mayor Mandani backed. What's really significant about Michigan and why it is the biggest win for the left so far is that most of the left gains still have come. Not entirely, but mostly have come in safely blue areas where there really isn't much of a competition in November. El Sayed is going to be the most significant left victory nominee in a state or district that is going to be competitive in November. And so it is both the biggest success so far left, but also the biggest test, because if he doesn't win in November, the party's interpretation of his rise, I think, is going to look very different than it appears this morning.

[Christiane Amanpour]

And he was anything but a flawed candidate. I mean, he's very charismatic, obviously focused on a lot of issues domestically at least, that really resonated with voters. We'll get to the foreign policy angle of it in just a second. But few expected Stevens to get this close. Three of the four final polls had her down, as we noted, by double digits. She won working class counties, lower income areas, and ran strongest with black voters in Detroit. What did the polling miss about her coalition and what is the work that El Sayed has to do now to rectify that within the next two and a half months? Three months?

[Bianna Golodriga]

Yeah, absolutely. You know, about 15 years ago, I described the history of Democratic presidential primaries as usually a contest between the wine track and the beer track. And the wine track candidates were those who relied primarily on college educated voters and young people. And the beer track candidates were those through the party's history who relied on working class whites, black voters and seniors. And those lines have gotten a little scrambled at the presidential level in the last few cycles. But this was a Pure throwback to a wine track, beer track race. With Elsayeed doing best among college educated voters and young people and Haley Stevens relying on that traditional blue collar Democratic coalition, working class whites, black voters and seniors. The polling probably overestimated the number of young people who would vote, maybe overestimated the number of college graduates as well. I was in Michigan over the final days and you know, it's pretty clear that there is a lot of skepticism about El Sayed, his views, his kind of Persona among those traditional Democratic constituencies that have been drifting away from the party. And in the first public polling from an organization called Epic MRA toward the general election, that's exactly where he's struggling. I mean he is significantly underperforming not only Stevens in these tasks, but also the governor candidate Jocelyn Benson, among exactly those groups, older voters, people over 50, black voters, work, non college, white women. That's where he's going. That's where Republicans are going to put their focus and that's where he has the most work to do to knit together the traditional Democratic coalition.

[Christiane Amanpour]

Well, as noted, this was a grueling and heated contest in primary. Stevens vowed that she would support the winner and she stands by that support. El Sayed said today that tomorrow we mend fences that the party now needs to come together. Here's what else he said today.

[Bianna Golodriga]

To all of my sisters and brothers of the Jewish faith, or any faith at all, or no faith at all, I want you to know that my commitment to your safety, my commitment to Jewish safety is the same commitment that I have to the safety of my own daughters. Because if there is one question of a political philosophy that ought to animate us all is what would we build, what would we do if we treated all of our kids like they were all of our kids?

[Christiane Amanpour]

So that brings in the foreign policy concerns and his focus on AIPAC spending, Israel support, funding Israel militarily, and also coupled with concerns of anti Semitism that's risen not only in his state, but nationwide and around the world. He said that he is speaking out in support of the Jewish community, that he would support them and protect them just as he would his own children. But he. There was also an anti Semitic attack, a hate crime at a synagogue, the largest synagogue there in the state. And he responded to that attack in March by saying, quote, hurt people, hurt people. And that is a phrase that he stood by today while also saying that he will fight against anti Semitism. So what does he need to do as it relates to appealing to Jewish Democratic voters?

[Bianna Golodriga]

Yeah. And Look, I think, and the problem goes beyond, way beyond Jewish Democratic voters. First of all, you know, support for Israel in the US has broadly collapsed in the last several years. The actions of the Netanyahu government in the region and the way they have participated in American politics has basically incinerated generations of support in the Democratic party for Israel. 80% of Democratic voters in a recent Pew poll said they have an unfavorable view of the Israeli government. Only 5% have a favorable view of Netanyahu. So this is something that goes way beyond Michigan and ultimately I think is going to lead to a repositioning of most Democratic leaders about the US posture toward Israel. But even within that, you know, El Sayed has been almost monomaniacally focused on the role of aipac. Understandable, they spent a lot of money against him. But again, even this morning in his kind of victory speech, he talked more about him prevailing over AIPAC than he did about what he would do for the average Michigan voter, you know, who was feeling squeezed at the pump and the checkout line. So he does have broad. And it's not only among Jewish voters. I mean, I was in the most striking thing I heard the whole few days I was in Michigan, was in a black church on Saturday afternoon in Detroit where the minister who was the president of Al Sharpton's National Action Network for the state called El Sayed A1 hit wonder who cares more about Palestine than he does about Detroit and cares more about Gaza than he does about the problems of the black community in Detroit. I mean, there are his focus on Israel, though, you know, not out of the bounds of what we are hearing from other Democratic candidates. He certainly emphasizes more, seems more stuck on that issue and it really isn't a concern to as broad an electorate, particularly when you get to a general election.

[Christiane Amanpour]

Yeah, and one of your pieces, you quoted Reverend Charles Williams, who doubted that he can energize black voters. And voters told pollsters that their top concerns were the economy, cost of living and health care. And Trump Israel really barely registered. And yet AIPEC is something that we continue to hear throughout these races, not just in Michigan. $32 million was spent against El Sayed there. He won, though it was much closer than many had expected. But AIPAC also spent $3 million for pro Israel candidate Wesley Bell in Missouri and he won. So same night, opposite results. What is the lesson here about AIPAC's influence?

[Bianna Golodriga]

I think AIPAC has become a toxic brand in Democratic politics. And you know, the money helped Stevens because it really, you know, particularly their ads associating her with Barack Obama. But it also hurt, you know, I think for a lot of Democratic voters, it's become a symbol of kind of politics as usual. And, you know, what is the message of Michigan really? Is it that Democratic voters in the state have dramatically swerved to the left? It's hard to take that interpretation. It's that they have lost faith in the leadership of their own party. They don't believe the leaders who said that Stevens was more electable than El Sayed. After watching the disintegration of the Biden presidency, the failure of the Democratic leadership to stop Trump from coming back, the lack of a more effective opposition to him in his first month. I mean, the dilemma for Democrats is that in this case, the establishment is almost certainly right. It's not that El Sayed can't win, and we can talk about that in a moment, but his path is a lot more complicated for all of the reasons we are discussing. He has a lot more vulnerabilities in a general election. And while he has strengths as a candidate, he has pretty clear weaknesses. There's a lot of me, and not quite enough you in the way that he presents this, talking about his movement and that politics will never be the same because he won a primary where a lot of money was spent against him. There's a certain grandiosity to it that I think that kind of centers him and puts the concerns of voters a little secondary, as we saw in that speech this morning.

[Christiane Amanpour]

And now he'll be facing Mike Rogers, who is a formidable candidate. He's more of an establishment moderate Republican. Trump endorsed and you reported a striking number. Trump's net approval is minus 20. Now, he is not someone who would be seen as a key ally normally in a state where, yes, he won in 2024, but he lost in 2020 with those votes that are up for grabs right now. Just walk us through what you expect to see from both campaigns, Mike Rogers and Republicans and Democrats with El Sayed in the next few months.

[Bianna Golodriga]

Boy, there are going to be a lot of what the political strategists call double haters in Michigan, I bet, people who disapprove of Trump and are skeptical of El Sayed. The backdrop for this is that in Trump's first term in 2018 and 2020, Susan Collins in Maine in 2020 was the only Republican Senate incumbent or challenger who won in a state where more voters disapproved than approved of Trump's job performance, according to the exit polls. And right now in the latest polling, 62, 63% of voters disapprove of Trump's performance in Michigan. By those fundamentals, a Democrat should be able to win the seat. I think there is no chance that El Sayed runs up to those fundamentals. In effect, the question is give him enough cushion to survive anyway. Here's another way of thinking about it. In 2024, when Mike Rogers narrowly lost to Alissa Slotkin In Michigan, 51% of the voters said they had an unfavorable view of Donald Trump. And Mike Rogers won about 10% of him, which is what roughly every Republican Senate candidate in Trump's first term, except Susan Collins, could win. He only won 10% of people who had an unfavorable view of Trump. Well, you know, in this election, probably 60% of Michigan voters are going to have an unfavorable view of Trump. And Mike Rogers, therefore, is going to have to win nearly twice as many, almost 20% of them. That's the task that he faces against El Sayed. It is possible, but it is not guaranteed for Rogers, even against him. So you're going to have a lot of voters, I think, who disapprove of Trump and are dubious of El Sayed. And what do those double haters, as the political strategists call them, do that will decide Michigan and all likelihood and

[Christiane Amanpour]

real focus then on what turnout will look like also for the midterm. So you're looking at two other states.

[Bianna Golodriga]

Can I just jump in there real quick?

[Christiane Amanpour]

Yes.

[Bianna Golodriga]

More than 500,000 more Democrats than Republicans voted last night in Michigan. And that is a reminder that while El Sayed is a flawed candidate, there are some fundamentals here that are working against Republicans. Michigan was just the latest evidence that Democratic voters are a lot more energized than Republican voters heading into this midterm.

[Christiane Amanpour]

And there are two more primaries that I know you're looking at in two different states, Wisconsin, where there's a Democratic socialist that's gained a lot of attention for comments that she's made and really didn't disavow in an interview with Kaitlan Collins this week about past statements on canceling Thanksgiving. She has emerged as a frontrunner for the August 11 primary and also in Minnesota, a high stakes primary as well. What are you looking for there?

[Bianna Golodriga]

Well, look, I mean, the Wisconsin governor's race is the most significant of those two. You know, the clearest pathway back to the White House for Democrats in 2028 is to recapture Michigan, Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, three states Trump dislodged from what I call the blue wall. And, you know, we're going to have a test of what approach works best. You have a centrist Democratic nominee for governor in Michigan. You have this very left candidate for Senate in Michigan who's going to run better in Wisconsin. The path for the center is tougher, I mean, because there are fewer black voters in Wisconsin than in Michigan. And the black voters were kind of a bulwark from moderation. Madison and the kind of the college educated young left nexus is a powerful force in Wisconsin politics. But Hong, I think, is an even. Francesca Hong, the socialist who might be nominated for governor, is an even weaker candidate in the general election than El Sayed, his opponent. Her opponent, though, Tom Tiffany, is a more MAGA identified Republican. It would be quite uphill, I think, though, for her to win if she's nominated. And that would give control of the electoral machinery in Wisconsin in 2028 to an election denier. That's, that's a pretty serious issue for Democrats if it happens. Minnesota, another left center confrontation where Peggy Flanagan, the lieutenant governor, now I think pretty clearly leads. Angie Craig, the centrist, a member of Congress, less risk of losing that seat with Flanagan than with Hong or El Sayed. But again, it continues this fight. It's been a pretty close fight between left and center so far, but the left left is finishing strong. And that, you know, I think carries through to 2028. Although I will say, as I said at the start, what happens in the general election for El Sayed and for Hong, if she's nominated, I think will have a big impact on whether the left comes out of 26 with a real burst of momentum or is significantly deflated heading into the 28 presidential primaries.

[Christiane Amanpour]

And we'll also have to see where we are in terms of the war with Iran, the economy, so many other factors that could impact this race between now and then. You wrote that the new DNC calendar makes Michigan the pivotal early showdown between left and center in 2028. I'm fascinated by this debate, whether we can have a sort of big tent party or whether there is more turmoil that meets the eye now. And if you look at those results from last night in Michigan and you are Gavin Newsom, Kamala Harris, perhaps Josh Shapiro, Andy Besh, aoc, all of these names that are thrown out as potential presidential candidates and those that may be seeking the Democratic candidacy here and nomination for 2028, how do they interpret last night's result? What are they thinking?

[Bianna Golodriga]

You know, I think they're thinking what I wrote, which is that Michigan is the tipping point. In that early calendar, Democrats anointed six states to be the early tests before everybody else can vote. Starting on March 7, 2028, three of those lean, I think, pretty clearly toward the left candidates, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Mexico, they're 2, 3, 4. South Carolina, which leads off, I think, is pretty clearly going to favor a more moderate candidate, but above all, someone who can generate support in the black community. And then the last state on the front six is Virginia, which has a history of electing moderate Democrats like Abigail Spanberger and Mark Warner and Tim Kaine. And that leaves, I think, Michigan as the kind of the genuine tipping point. Bernie Sanders narrowly beat Hillary, Hillary Clinton there in 2016 in the primary. Joe Biden beat Bernie there in 2020 in the primary. And what you saw last night is that in a pretty fair fight, it was almost evenly divided. You know, obviously if Gretchen Whitmer had won, it would have been a very different result. I mean, she probably would have beaten, you know, El, say by 10 or 12 points. But I think what last night tells Gavin Newsom or AOC is that the left or center can win in Michigan. And I think it is really going to be last night just underscored how critical it is going to the next Democratic nominee.

[Christiane Amanpour]

It's going to be fascinating for you, though, professionally to follow it all as it will be for us as journalists. Ron Brownstein, always great to have you on. Thank you so much.

[Bianna Golodriga]

Thanks for having me.

[Christiane Amanpour]

And stay with cnn. We'll be right back after the break. I'm CNN tech reporter Claire Duffy. This week on the podcast Terms of Service, Schools across the country are considering a big shift to their tech no students, cell phones in classrooms. I visited Philippa Schuyler Middle School in Brooklyn during one of the final weeks of the school year. There, students placed their phones in a locked box in their homeroom classroom at the start of the day and retrieved them at the end of the day. I sat down with Principal Janice Bruce as well as a group of 6th through 8th grade students to get their reactions to the phone ban.

[Bianna Golodriga]

Once you get used to the ban for a while, you're actually gonna realize

[Matthew Chance]

how connected you were with your phone and how addictive it was.

[Christiane Amanpour]

What was your first reaction when you heard that this phone ban policy would be going into place this year? I was kind of expecting it.

[Justice Lawton Nuss]

Yes.

[Christiane Amanpour]

Listen to CNN's terms of service wherever you get your podcasts. In Kansas, voters did deliver one decisive result. They overwhelmingly rejected a Republican proposal to direct the state Supreme Court justices. It's a power currently wielded by the governor, an office held by Democrats since 2019. But the GOP proposed making the Supreme Court positions elected. The attempt was particularly closely watched given that the Kansas Supreme Court had ruled in 2019 that the state constitution protected the right to abortion. Lautanus served for years as chief justice at the Kansas Supreme Court and since stepping down has spent much of his time promoting judicial independence and the rule of law. He joins us now from Topeka, Kansas. Justice Nuss, thank you so much for taking the time. For our viewers who are not familiar with this amendment that was voted down, talk about what it actually would have meant if passed.

[Justice Lawton Nuss]

Well, Kansas for the last since 1958 has had a merit selection system for our Supreme Court justices. And this amendment, as you indicated, would change that system. So it would be direct election of justices and it would have been left up to the Kansas legislature to later to determine whether those elections were partisan or nonpartisan. So basically anybody who wanted to try to be on the Supreme Court as long as they were at least 30 years old and had at least 10 years of practice and they were also admitted to practice in Kansas, they could run for this office. And that of course means that they would be out perhaps among our 105 counties trying to raise money, giving campaign speeches, perhaps making campaign promises in hopes that they could then be elected to the Supreme Court for a six year term. And it would have been up to the legislature to decide whether those seven positions on the court would each be for a particular geographic district or whether the elections would have been statewide. And fortunately for us Kansans by over 60% of those voting said no, we don't want that system.

[Christiane Amanpour]

In addition to what would have ended the state nearly 70 year merit system for picking Supreme Court justices, you also point to polling which shows that the state Supreme Court is the most trusted public institution in Kansas more than the legislators that are actually pushing for this change. So which problem is the amendment for those who are pushing, what problem did they think they were solving by doing this?

[Justice Lawton Nuss]

Well, it's important that I give everybody a little bit of background to this. In 2019, the Kansas Supreme Court, when I was chief justice, issued a decision called Hody's. And in there we said there was a right to abortion found in the Kansas Constitution. And there are a number of conservative legislators and other politicians who did not like that ruling and they decided that they wanted to get that changed, which of course is how things are done in a constitutional based system. If you don't like A ruling from the supreme court. You can get the amendment, excuse me, get the constitution changed to comport with what you think it should be. As a result of legislature got a proposed amendment on the ballot in our primary election in August of 2022, and the legislature decided not to put it on the ballot in the general November election, but chose to do it in the primary when of course, there's usually a less of a voter turnout. That amendment, which would have modified our Hodi's decision about abortion, failed by about a 60% to 40% margin. And then about a month or two later, a very prominent Kansas politician was quoted in the newspaper as saying, well, we didn't get what we want, but there's another way to do this and we will change the present Kansas constitution that provides for merit selection of justices, will change it to elective positions. And then I want to read what he had said. He said this would clear a path for the state to, quote, slowly and quietly unquote, place anti abortion judges on the state's high court with the ultimate goal of overturning the Kansas Supreme Court's 2019 Hodes decision that found the state constitution includes the right right to an abortion. So he admitted that's what he was up to. And there's been a similar admission by another prominent state politician. He's a leader in the Kansas legislature. And last November he said basically the same thing to yet another newspaper and made it clear that this was an abortion issue issue, call it in disguise, because they were promoting in their campaign the last few months that this was all about democracy, restoring the right to vote to Kansas when in effect what their plan was. If the amendment had passed, they were going to slowly and quietly elect anti abortion justices to the court. And over time, those justices would then

[Christiane Amanpour]

overturn Hody's and not so quietly. Given the statement that you just read, it appears that the quiet part has now been stated out loud and leading to the question of, you know, do they stop here? This amendment failed. They're clearly not speaking for the majority of Kansans at this point. And yet attorney general Kobach didn't concede this argument. He told supporters that the courts are, quote, an uphill battle, but a battle that I love to fight. So how do you interpret that response?

[Justice Lawton Nuss]

Well, I interpret that as meaning, yes, the battle is not over. Just like he said in September of 2022 after his efforts to amend the constitution failed once again, he is saying, well, we failed again, but there are other ways to do this. I'm not sure what he has in mind other than possibly trying to find secretly, if you will, somebody to apply for the Kansas Supreme Court under our merit selection system who shares his views on abortion but tells that candidate state, please don't tell anybody about this or else there's a chance that, you know, you may not be recommended for appointment to the court. And potentially I suppose that person would keep quiet and in Mr. Kobox hopes that person would be one of the three nominated by the nominating commission, having gone through that application process process and then hopefully would be appointed by the governor. I can't think of any other way where his desires would be accomplished. But he has proven to be resourceful in the past and I suspect he'll try to come up with something else again. It is contrary to the will of Kansas voters twice now. So I'm not sure what he's going to do.

[Christiane Amanpour]

Yeah, that argument is clear. I'm just wondering if you can explain to our viewers what is what's wrong in your view with an elected Supreme Court because we do have elected county judges in this country, for example. So where do you draw the line on that point?

[Justice Lawton Nuss]

Well, a friend of mine explained their difference to me and that is in the the possible event that one of our trial judges who was elected ruled in favor of a campaign donor because they were a campaign donor and that case then got appealed, then the Kansas Supreme Court took could take care of that problem. But if a justice or justice is on the court, court were elected and they decided to please their campaign donors and rule in favor of those donors, there is no place else to go to get that corrected. So that would be one answer.

[Christiane Amanpour]

Let's talk about just the amount of money that's gone in for this particular amendment from from both sides advocates and those who were opposed to it, nearly $13 million. We had Leonard Leo, anti abortion activist groups on one side, aclu, Planned Parenthood, George Soros on the other side. Do you think that's a good thing here?

[Justice Lawton Nuss]

Well, that gets back to the point we discussed a few minutes ago and that is when you are electing justices, as was evidenced by the the Wisconsin Supreme Court race about a year ago. You have some of those same donors involved and their plan is to get their justice on the court to follow their personal agenda. I talked with a former chief justice of a state. She was elected as chief justice. She opposes the election system system because she says even though I never voted in favor of a campaign donor in any case, how am I going to persuade the voters of the state that justice is not for sale, that their courts are not for sale. And, and I would just say Kansans, by voting down this amendment, basically said we are not going to open the door to that room where we're going to suspect what has been going on, whether favors were made, and we are not going to suspect what was going on and we are not going to lose faith in our justice system. So I hope that was a big move on there.

[Christiane Amanpour]

Does that move last night from Kansas, the Kansans, does that give you hope from other states for other state supreme courts and justice on that front?

[Justice Lawton Nuss]

Well, I believe in Kansas voters and when they are provided with the truth and not misrepresentations in campaigns, that they will make a good, sound decision.

[Bianna Golodriga]

Decision.

[Justice Lawton Nuss]

I may not personally agree with the decision, but at least I will know that they considered things, thought about it and then made their decision. And my understanding was that there were a lot of people around the country watching this vote in Kansas because if it were successful, then that would encourage some politicians in other states to get their systems changed as well.

[Christiane Amanpour]

Former Chief Justice Lawton Nuss. Thank you for the time. Thanks for joining us. We appreciate it.

[Justice Lawton Nuss]

Thank you. It was my pleasure.

[Christiane Amanpour]

We turn now to Ukraine where at least 17 people were killed and dozens wounded in Kyiv and its surrounding areas overnight as Russia fired more than two dozen ballistic and anti ship missiles, none of which were intercepted by Ukrainian defenses. The deadly assault underlines the worsening danger for urban civilians far from the front lines as Ukraine grapples with perilously low stocks of missile interceptors. Meanwhile, inside Russia, controversy is growing around so called black widow scams. These are women allegedly entering sham marriages with soldiers to claim death benefits if they are killed. Matthew Chance has the story.

[Matthew Chance]

A mass wedding of Russian soldiers before they're packed off to the front lines.

[Christiane Amanpour]

I want to shake your hand and

[Bianna Golodriga]

thank you for not running away, for not being scared.

[Matthew Chance]

But not all marriages offer love. Russian military wives get thousands of dollars compensation if their husbands are killed in action. And officials say ruthless scammers dubbed black widows are now tricking vulnerable recruits into wedlock. The father of Maria from St. Petersburg died after being shot in Ukraine last year. She told me she only found out her dad had joined the army after he was killed and only then did he had a new wife. How did you feel when you found out that your dad had got married just days before he went off to war?

[Christiane Amanpour]

It felt unreal. When I was being issued the death certificate, they asked if he was married. I said no, but they told Me, he was. I never even managed to contact the woman. I simply didn't know what to say to her because I suspected it was a scam.

[Matthew Chance]

It's just one suspected case in a growing number scandalizing Russia. With the war in Ukraine now in its fifth year and casualty rates at catastrophic highs, it's hard to imagine there are people out there marrying vulnerable men and encouraging them to join the military just so they might financially benefit if they're killed on the front lines. No wonder there's outrage across Russia at the spread of these black widows scams. There are numerous allegations of recruits honey trapped before dying on the front lines, even marrying on their deathbeds in hospital. This woman, who married a soldier 10 days after meeting him, then posted images of herself with other men, was branded a black widow in the Russian media media and denied compensation when her husband was killed. Before their divorce went through, she denied any wrongdoing, saying the allegations had blackened her name. But there's growing public anger at how cynical some Russians have become about the war the Kremlin calls its special military operation. If I want an apartment, where am I supposed to get the money? The host of this podcast asks. It's simple, the guest, who's a real estate agent, responds. Find a man serving in the special military operation, and when he's killed, you get 8 million rubles. She laughs. The podcasters were prosecuted and forced to apologize, a rare intervention by the Russian courts. Back in St. Petersburg, Maria takes us to the block where her dad's old apartment has now been sold off, convinced he was also scammed out of his home. Do you know who the new owner is? How long, how many years did your dad live here? Five years. This is it. It's open. Behind the broken door, the new occupants insist it was a legitimate sex and that they never even met the seller. It means the money and the widow, just like Maria's dad, are now long gone.

[Christiane Amanpour]

Matthew Chance reporting from St. Petersburg, Russia. We'll be right back after this short break.

[Bianna Golodriga]

I'm Dr. Sanjay Gupta, host of the Chasing Life podcast.

[Annie Jacobson]

My guest is Dr. Dhruv Kullar.

[Bianna Golodriga]

He has seen firsthand the effects GLP1s can have on addictive behaviors. Today we're going to talk about how

[Matthew Chance]

GLP1s are changing us, changing us as humans.

[Bianna Golodriga]

And when the cravings go away, sort of trying to figure out, is there something else that we're losing as well? People who had cravings for opioids said that those were being diminished. And so, you know, we thought about these as kind of digestive medications, maybe diabetes medications, but they're actually psychoactive medications, or so it seemed. What was so interesting about that is if you're playing with the reward system, that can have real implications for people's maladaptive behaviors, all sorts of addictions, but also a potential downside. Listen to Chasing Life streaming net wherever you get your podcasts.

[Christiane Amanpour]

Now. Debates around how the COVID 19 pandemic began have been reignited following Anthony Fauci's tense Senate hearing last week. The speculation points to a bigger fear and what our next guest argues could be our greatest overall threat, biological weapons. It's the focus of journalist Annie Jacobson's new book and she joins Walter Isaac to discuss.

[Walter Isaacson]

Thank you. Bianna and Annie Jacobson, welcome to the show.

[Annie Jacobson]

Thanks for having me.

[Walter Isaacson]

Your new book, Biological A Scenario, is sort of like your previous book, Nuclear War A Scenario. Let me read you a sentence from the book. I think it's from the epilogue of the book. You say, quote, the release of a genetically modified biological weapon, including by accident, could easily be the final failure of the human imagination. Explain that to me.

[Annie Jacobson]

Well, that's a quote I'm echoing Nick Bostrom, the sort of existential philosopher's idea about AI that he spoke of. I think it was now 10 years ago. And I find that with bio that is becoming or could become a reality a lot faster than any of us would want to even think. You know, we know from the COVID pandemic that a biological, biological catastrophe is no longer theoretical. And what's interesting in the planning that I referenced, both at the Defense Department and at FEMA and at hhs, they talk about a biological catastrophe as not just being an attack with a biological weapon, but a lab leak, an accident in one of these BSL 3 or BSL 4 facilities that, that populate the world right now.

[Walter Isaacson]

That possibility that Covid was a lab leak was so much in the news this past week when Dr. Anthony Fauci was called upon to testify his diaries were released. I know it's not part of your book, but what do you feel with your expertise, Was Covid a lab leak or was it a natural occurrence?

[Annie Jacobson]

Well, well, thank you for pointing out that in my book, I don't steer readers in one direction or the other. I want people to look at the whole story about what could happen, and they can decide for themselves. Certainly we got a lot of evidence from the Senate about the reality that many, many people understood that a lab leak was a far more plausible situation than a release from a wet market you know, I think most important point of all of that, and of course, the circumstances, the timing is crazy. My book coming out now. But then again, when Nuclear War Scenario came out was right in the middle of Putin making threats that he was gonna use nuclear weapons in Ukraine. So, you know, you could say timing favors my books. Or you could say, wow, this is the world in which we live today, where global capital, catastrophic threats are part and parcel to all of this. So, you know, yes, I write that very dystopian line, and that's kind of a spoiler alert. But in the end of the book, I also say that the point is not panic, it's pressure. And I would hope that what has been revealed about the public being misled about the science behind the lab leak would really make people want to better inform themselves. Like, go out and get information from multiple sources and decide for yourself.

[Walter Isaacson]

If it was a lab leak, it probably was not some intentional biological weapon like the ones you write about. But is that the more plausible scenario that we'll be experimenting with this? That we'll be looking at possible biological weapons, and somehow, just like AI might get out of its sandbox and get out of control, a biological weapon will.

[Annie Jacobson]

Well, I think you've touched upon the real heart of the matter, or rather the dark heart of the matter. Cause this is called dark biology. And, you know, reminder, biological weapons are illegal. Biological war is illegal, unlike nuclear weapons, which are not illegal to those nations that hold them. But there is. And the reason they're illegal is because of a treaty that was signed by all the nations, essentially in 1972. But there's a loophole in that treaty that allows for scientific research for prophylactic use. It's a fancy word for, like, trying to make medical countermeasures to combat dangerous pathogens. And therein lies the paradox about gain of function, about genetic modifications that are going on in these labs. Like, what defines biological weapons engineering and what defines research for medical countermeasures? And I certainly present to readers in the book the, you know, what subject matter experts, what people who have been working to try to keep biological weapons out of the hands of bad guys for decades now. The book points to what they think of about all of this and how dangerous they actually think gain of function research is and needs to really be looked at by all of us, because it does threaten all of us. Covid had a case fatality of 1%. You can give something a case fatality of, you know, upwards of to 100%. And to defeat medical countermeasures Those are all things that can be done under. And it's not even the guise of gain of function. That is actually what you do in gain of function. The argument is, which actually Dr. Fauci himself said, I cite it in a paper back in 2012, that specifically he said that the risks, the rewards outweigh the risks. Now I think a lot of people are coming around to the idea that that concept needs to really be reconsidered.

[Walter Isaacson]

Well, you say that the US now has banned gain of function research, but of course the Wuhan Lab is in China. And even though there may have been some American involvement, China was doing gain of function. Is there any way to stop them?

[Annie Jacobson]

I mean, you're absolutely right. And that is the catch 22. That is the argument about why some scientists will tell you the gain of function is absolutely necessary. Genetic modification. I mean, what I learned in writing nuclear war a scenario. You know, Walter, I was invited to come to the Vatican and talk to the cardinals so that the Pope could understand about nuclear war. I was invited to the United nations to talk to the diplomats about nuclear war and the White House and the Senate. And what this was, was a real eye opening experience for me. And this answers your question about what can be done. Treaties, diplomats. This is part and parcel to the world in which we live. Right now we're out of the all nuclear treaties. Nuclear treaties allow transparency, they allow diplomacy, they allow conversation. Biological war has no treaty for. It has a treaty, but there's no method for enforcement because it's illegal. And so I think this is a brilliant, brilliant opportunity to enter into a new treaty about biological engineering. And then you maybe can get some movement between China and the United States, between Russia and the United States, movement between diplomats and also between scientists. Because what I learned from subject matter experts in this field is that over the decades, it's always the scientists working on kind of what's known as Track 2 that are able to really help the diplomats get these treaties on the table and then ultimately enforce them.

[Walter Isaacson]

But one major difference between biological weapons and nuclear weapons is a normal person couldn't create a nuclear weapon in their basement. In fact, it's very difficult to create nuclear weapons. And it's very hard to hide the fact that you're doing it, as we see with Iraq and other places. But biological weapon, can't that be done totally in secret without huge facilities?

[Annie Jacobson]

It's one of the reasons why the Defense Department, while it lists nuclear weapons as the most dangerous, it lists biological weapons as the greatest Overall threat for precisely the reason you're talking about. There is an incredibly low barrier to entry, unlike nuclear weapons. Not only do you need fissile material, weapons grade uranium, I mean, look how hard it is with Iran, what we're going through now, but you have to have a weapons delivery system. You have to have an ICBM or a submarine or a B2 bomber to deliver a nuclear weapon to a target. A biological weapon is alive. The weapon system, Walter, if it's airborne, which is what all officials are afraid of, are the human lungs, that should scare the bejesus out of anybody and scare them into action.

[Walter Isaacson]

What about artificial intelligence? How much is AI Making it much easier for people to say, here's how I'd modify this pathogen to make it a weapon and show them, even if they try to put guardrails on it, it to show a normal citizen, or for that matter, a bad organization, AI can teach you how to make a biological weapon.

[Annie Jacobson]

I mean, that is the number one threat right now. And that threat is only getting bigger. Literally by the time we get off the air, it will be an even bigger threat than it was before we got on. And this is because computational science is moving at the speed of lightning and the systems that are in place to monitor the them are moving at the old pace of analog democracy. From my conversations with both CEOs of some of the AI companies and DARPA, that's the defense Advanced Research Project Agency, which is really trying to deal with this AI enabled bio threat concept. This is the biggest threat, the immediately biggest threat in terms of AI right now. That's how it is being seen and positioned.

[Walter Isaacson]

What we've seen with Dr. Anthony Fauci testifying and all the once again explosion of controversy around the COVID pandemic was that that pandemic caused people to lose faith, to trust what the government might say. How could that affect a response to a biological attack?

[Annie Jacobson]

I think you're absolutely right. It fractured trust in science, certainly among Americans. But it also showed despite billions and billions and billions of dollars being spent on biodefense. In the book, I like take readers very quickly through the buildup of biodefense after 9, 11 and where we are with it today. So despite all of this money and effort, we were completely unprepared for Covid. So those two components together, fractured tract with lack of preparedness, none of which is sort of impacted by the amount of money spent, indicate that if you're gonna spend a lot of money, let's spend it in an area where the public benefits.

[Walter Isaacson]

Whenever we talk about nuclear scenarios, we also talk about the defense against them. Likewise, AI, we talk about, well, what we could do to prevent an AI attack. What ways are there to prevent the spread of a biological weapon are we developing? You talked about penicillin and others back saving us from earlier plagues of infection. Can we invent a whole lot of things that will stop pathogens?

[Annie Jacobson]

There's certainly a subset of people that have a very utopian idea about them. I referenced them in my acknowledgments. I interviewed a lot of them because they are all working at medical countermeasures that use AI and biotechnology to come up with these ideas. But I didn't want to present that utopian idea because to my eye, as a national security reporter for decades, it's very new. And I'm not clear that. I'm not clear that that actually is a solution or the other question is, is it part of the sort of biotechnological, military, industrial compass? I don't know. There are certainly a lot of answers out there, there. But what I can tell you is where we are right now is best summed up by a quote from retired Colonel Tom Earhart, who ran these catastrophic nuclear and biological war games out of the office of the Secretary of Defense under a very legendary and famous Andy Marshall in his Office of Net Assessment. And what Colonel Earhart told me was, there is nothing you can do or there is very little you can do regarding homeland defense in the event of a biological incident or attack, only things to mitigate extermination. Those are his words. And when you really think about that, I believe the only solution is diplomacy. The only solution is treated is countries coming together and realizing, thanks to the pandemic, we're all going to be impacted by the release of one of these nightmare germs. So therefore, why don't we all begin to look at how to enforce guardrails to make sure that kind of thing never happens.

[Walter Isaacson]

Annie Jacobson, thank you much. So, thank you so much for joining us.

[Annie Jacobson]

Thank you for having me.

[Christiane Amanpour]

And finally, capybaras getting a say in state affairs. Well, in the central Brazilian state of Mato Grosso, the world's largest rodents are making increasingly frequent visits to the Legislative Assembly Building. Here you see them strolling in, unbothered, approaching lawmakers who'd been preparing for a vote. This would scare me. I don't know how they continue to work there. And the animals were escorted back to the park next door where they live. Perhaps these social creatures were just popping by for a neighborly hello. Interested in local politics? Maybe. Alright, that is it for now. Thank you so much for watching and goodbye from New York.

[Bianna Golodriga]

Go inside the sports moments that brought

[Justice Lawton Nuss]

us together and made history.

[Bianna Golodriga]

From the underdogs to the rivalries and

[Justice Lawton Nuss]

the miracles, it sends chills down your spine. It's what sport was all about.

[Annie Jacobson]

The new CNN original series, decades in Sports, now streaming on the CNN app.