← Here's the Scoop
Here's the Scoop
“Ready to Deal”: Sen. Elissa Slotkin on the DHS Shutdown and Social Media’s Legal Reckoning
00:28:15
Loading summary
Transcript85 lines
- [00:04]
A
Hey, everybody. And welcome to here's the Scoop from NBC News. I'm Yasmin Vesugin. We have got verdicts in both landmark social media trials. Juries in New Mexico and Los Angeles say the tech companies are at fault. But first, our top story today. We have got Democratic Senator Alyssa Slotkin from Michigan joining us. It is her first term as a senator after spending six years in the House. Slotkin's also a former CIA intelligence analyst. She served three tours in Iraq, and she serves on the Senate Armed Services Committee. That's important background because, of course, we are in the middle of the war with Iran. Tens of billions of dollars have been spent so far. And NBC News is reporting that President Trump has approved the deployment of more than 1,000 paratroopers to the Middle East. All of this is raising questions about congressional oversight and the use of artificial intelligence in war. Just last week, Slotkin put forth a proposal to legislate how the Pentagon can actually use AI. So I want to ask her about that and about the gridlock in Congress over funding for the Department of Homeland Security and how close they are to a deal. Hi, Senator Slotkin.
- [01:14]
B
Hi there. Thanks for having me.
- [01:16]
A
It's great to have you. Let's start with news of the day, and that is the war with Iran. You are deeply familiar with the Middle East. You serve three tours in Iraq as a CIA analyst. Based on what you know about the region, about Iran's current regime and where we are in this war, do you think it was the right move?
- [01:41]
B
Certainly, you know, we tend to be able to rack and stack whether, you know, things have been successful or not after a war is complete and we are fully in the middle of this one. But I would just say it is really hard to know whether you've, quote, won or achieved your objectives if you can't even be clear about what your objectives were for going in. So the scale to even grade how we're doing is off because the president and his cabinet could not get their talking points clear on what the goals of this war were. But at a very minimum, I take the goals that they sent to Congress, right? They notified Congress in a War Powers Resolution and they or notification and they said we, we want to something about mitigate Iran's power projection in the region. And by any measure, with Iran having a complete veto on who can and cannot cross the Strait of Hormuz into the Persian Gulf by the complete choking off of all commercial traffic, military traffic, any kind of traffic, you cannot say that we have done anything. But actually enabled their power projection, particularly in the Persian Gulf. I know that we have hurt their nuclear capabilities, their ballistic missile capabilities. That's. You know, that is not, to me, a question. But if we can't move, you know, a ship full of fertilizer through the Strait of Hormuz, then Iran holds a veto power over the United States and everybody else. And until and unless that is resolved, there's no possible way you can say that we're in a good place in this war.
- [03:17]
A
So what I'm hearing you say is you don't feel as if the President and his team have gone about this war in the right way?
- [03:22]
B
Oh, gosh. I think from being unclear about objectives, from literally confusing the American public about what was truly imminent versus not imminent. I mean, that word is important. Was there an imminent threat from the nuclear capabilities of Iran? I have not seen evidence of that. And then, frankly, right now, we're about to deal in the next couple of weeks, I'm sure, with the price tag for this war. And, you know, they're floating $200 billion, which, just for perspective, at the height of the Iraq and Afghanistan wars, like, when we have hundreds of thousands of troops and personnel and pieces of equipment in those two countries, the largest supplemental request that we ever received here on Capitol Hill or was ever sent to Capitol Hill was 90 billion at the height of those two wars, and they're asking for 200 billion today.
- [04:17]
A
How are you going to vote on it?
- [04:19]
B
Well, look, I always say, you know, as a commitment, as a senator who's a Democrat, who represents a state that voted for Trump twice, like, I read what is sent to me, I wait to see it in black and white, and I try to assess it as independently as I can. So I will always, like, they haven't produced anything. I've just seen things tweeted and floated in press. So I will look at everything that comes across my desk and try to be objective, but I am skeptical. It would be hard to imagine me getting to a place of voting. Yes, but again, on national security, I'm just not going to make a decision without seeing the black and white documents.
- [04:56]
A
Listen, you said to us just now, right, you don't agree with how the president got into this thing, but you told Politico we are in it. Now, what is, from your perspective and the Democratic perspective, the exit ramp here, as we are nearly a month into this thing?
- [05:10]
B
Well, look, I mean, wars end in predictable ways. I think what you're seeing now is the President sort of putting two options on the table. He's bringing more force into theater. He's bringing Marines, he's bringing the 82nd Airborne. He's moving a ton of stuff from Europe into the Middle East. And then on the second score, he's, you know, open to negotiation. We're seeing that now, right? There's all these things being floated, a 15 point plan or JD Vance is gonna fly and negotiate. You're seeing all that come out. And that's them kind of Iran.
- [05:42]
A
The Iranians aren't even necessarily trusting the negotiating process. Twice they have sat down with both Jared Kushner and Steve Witkoff, and twice during negotiations, the United States has launched on Iran.
- [05:55]
B
Well, and even if they're ongoing, are they going to get anywhere if the, if one party just doesn't believe that they're. The other party's negotiating in good faith? There's a huge, huge number of questions around whether you can successfully negotiate a diplomatic solution now to the end to end this war. Clearly, the President is looking, I mean, look, he's a politician and he is seeing the same things I'm seeing in a place like Michigan. The last thing I saw when I Left Michigan, a 90 minute line at Costco to get gas. Not because there's a gas shortage, but because it's cheaper at Costco and people are willing to wait that long to get cheaper gas. $4 a gallon in Michigan impacts the average person in a real serious way. This is important disruption that is happening here and is not going to be playing well with people's pocketbook. He knows that, and I think he's now looking for options. Whether those options will work remains to be seen. Because if you sort of use what we call the madman theory in national security, which is never be predictable, your adversary never knows what you're going to do, they never know what you're going to do next. If you're practicing that, it makes it really hard when you actually want to negotiate and you want someone to believe you.
- [07:10]
A
I want to talk about the information or the lack thereof that both the American public are getting along with lawmakers in Congress in those first wave of attacks. There was an attack on a school killing 175 people, mostly children. By the way, we have sources here at NBC News that have told us that the Pentagon is looking into whether the strikes were a result of quote, unquote, outdated intelligence. Is it your thinking, is it your assumption that AI was a part of, of that quote, unquote outdated intelligence that the Pentagon was using in that strike that killed all those kids in Iran?
- [07:47]
B
I think that's a possibility. But so is human error. So is. I mean, look, people of a certain age, certainly my age and older, remember when the United States of America accidentally bombed the Chinese embassy in Serbia during the Balkan war? That was old maps, human error. And so it's. Human beings make mistakes in war, too. I have no special information on the role of AI in that strike.
- [08:15]
A
So if it wasn't the school, then what was your impetus to introduce the AI Guardrails Act? The legislation?
- [08:21]
B
Yeah, we, I, we had been working on this legislation in general, and then we had kind of bust into the open, this debate between some of the AI companies and Pete Hegseth on the rules of the road for AI being used at the Pentagon.
- [08:38]
A
Sure.
- [08:38]
B
And that conversation, I think, really exposed what a number of us had been thinking about privately, which is what is the right role? And so for the upcoming legislative season on the Pentagon budget, we propose this legislation. It's very simple, but it puts some left and right limits on the use of AI and making sure in particular, I think, most importantly that there's human engagement and involvement in decisions on life and death.
- [09:05]
A
So let's talk about some of the points that are, that are in this bill. First and foremost, as you mentioned, right. Humans should be in the loop when launching lethal strikes. Machines shouldn't be making the call. Essentially, Defense Department should not be allowed to use AI to conduct mass surveillance in the US And AI should not be able to launch or detonate nuclear weapons. The first two points already exist, it seems, as dodge guidelines. Right. It's not law, but guidelines nonetheless. These are also the points that actually led to the partnership between the DoD and the AI company. Anthropic falling apart. Right. Basically anthropic wanting to ensure that the DoD was following these points. What are you hoping this bill could feasibly accomplish? And why did you decide to do it alone and not wait for co sponsors?
- [09:50]
B
Yeah. So what I'm hoping it will do is be a big topic of conversation in this spring's Pentagon budget conversation, the ndaa, the, the way that we legislate around military issues. I'm on the Armed Services Committee. I've flagged far and wide in my committee that I think this is an important thing for this committee on a bipartisan basis to engage on. My goal would be to codify those rules of the road and not leave it up again to like, just policy of any one department or agency or any one company. And the reason why we ended up doing it by ourselves, first of all, we searched for a Republican co sponsor whenever I can, especially on issues of national security. I would like things to be bipartisan. That's how we get things actually done faster. But we had and we approached a number of offices. We approached one office who was pretty blunt and they said, look, we don't have a problem with the substance. We just don't want the political problem of having to put our name on this bill and be seen as trying to push back on the Pentagon or Pete Hag, Seth, or the president.
- [10:56]
A
Last question. We have a partial government shutdown right now. We're going on possibly six weeks. Right. Of TSA employees not getting paid. You got lines wrapping around airports around the country. Colleagues at NBC reporting Republicans believe they have a solution. The path is going to be involving funding DHS without immigration enforcement and deportation operations under ice. And by the way, we are also getting reports though that Republicans say, okay, we're going to pass what we've agreed upon with the Democrats, but we're going to use reconciliation to fund the rest of ICE and then pass parts of the Save America act because that's what the President is most focused on. What is your reaction to that?
- [11:32]
B
We thought we had a deal. We thought we were within like 12 or 24 hours of a deal where we fund everything but ice since we're having an American conversation about the use of force in our cities that is now like a cultural conversation in America after what happened in Minneapolis. So carve that out. Fund FEMA and the Coast Guard and all the other important missions at dhs. We thought we were there and then the President came out and said, nope, I don't like the deal that's on the table. I don't like anything that the Republicans in the Senate are trying to do. It's very hard to negotiate a deal with Senate Republicans when they keep getting undercut by the President. I, we're a border state in Michigan. I was just literally coming from a meeting with one of our TSA officers who was in town trying to lobby Congress to do something about this. And so I'm ready to fund that. I'm ready to and fund that if we need to, whatever. But I think this is just kind of a game playing thing. And my Republican colleagues are trying to shield ICE when they know that Democrats, Republicans and Independents don't agree with what they saw with their own eyes in Minneapolis. So we're ready to deal.
- [12:37]
A
Senator Slotkin, thank you.
- [12:39]
B
Thanks so much. Have a good one.
- [12:42]
A
By the way, we have a longer version of our interview with Senator Slotkin on our here's the Scoop YouTube channel. And while you're there, why not take a moment to subscribe. That way you can watch our interviews as well. All of our new episodes go right into your feed and you won't miss a thing. All right, coming up, what verdicts against Meta and Google in two social media trials could mean for the future of the platforms and the other cases that are waiting in the wings? We'll be right back. Try angel stuff for your tushy. It's made by Angels Soft and strong.
- [13:18]
B
Budget friendly.
- [13:20]
A
The choice is simple.
- [13:23]
C
Pick up a pack today. Angel Soft.
- [13:25]
A
Soft and strong. Simple. Love college basketball. Gear up for another exciting season with a special offer from BetMGM. Sign in to your BetMGM account and enjoy a college basketball odds boost token to snag even more winnings on your next bet. If you win your bet with your token activated, you'll score extra winnings. It's that simple. Log in now and enjoy our odds boost token to help you create another memorable season of college ball. BetMGM and GameSense. Remind you to play response see betmgm.com for terms 21+only. This promotional offer is not available in Mississippi, New York, Ontario or Puerto Rico. Gambling problem. Call 1-800-GAMBLER or 1-800-MYRESET For New York, call 877-8-HOPENY or text HOPENY 467-369. For Massachusetts, 1-800-327-5050. For Iowa, 1-800-BETS Off. For Puerto Rico, 1-800-981-0023. Subject to eligibility requ in partnership with Kansas Crossing Casino and Hotel. And we are back with here's the scoop from NBC News. It is a landmark moment in the age of social media. In the last 24 hours, juries in Los Angeles and New Mexico have returned consequential verdicts against social media giants. And in both cases, they found the platforms liable for harming children. And these social media companies are still facing a mountain of other legal cases over platform safety allegations that that these companies are denying. So how do these guilty verdicts set the tone for future legal action? I wanna bring in now NBC News legal analyst Misty Maris.
- [15:08]
C
Hi, Misty.
- [15:08]
A
Hi.
- [15:08]
C
Yes, great to see you.
- [15:10]
A
Great to see you. Thanks for coming on. So major day yesterday with the New Mexico decision. Right. Major day today. Now we finally got the decision in the social media trial out of Los Angeles. Deliberation went on for nine days in the one outta California. In New Mexico, it was just eight or so hours. Walk us through what the juries decided in both New Mexico and Los Angeles and also the damages that we're hearing.
- [15:35]
C
Yeah. So both of these cases are a bit different, but there's one through line and the cases are based on not the content that the aggrieved are viewing. Right. Because that's protected by section 230 of federal law. It's about the algorithms, it's about protections, it's about warnings that were given relating to the use of these platforms for underage individuals.
- [15:58]
A
Because to be clear, section 230 is about the content, it's not about the algorithm. And these cases are about the algorithm.
- [16:03]
C
Right, because Section 230 is a federal law and it says that social media platforms cannot be held liable for the content that third parties post.
- [16:11]
A
Right.
- [16:11]
C
So this is the reason why we haven't seen any real liability. They've largely been shielded because of Section 230. But now there's all of these different legal theories that are really circumventing the idea of what content people are viewing and instead talking about vulnerable individuals and whether or not actually these companies are prioritizing money and success over the safety features. So breaking these down. Cuz there are two very different legal theories. New Mexico you have that brought by the state through the attorney general on a consumer frauds theory. So this is brought under state unfair trade practices laws, says that the consumers underage people were basically not warned about the dangers of using. And this was meta, meta platforms. And basically that underage people were being subjected to what would be predatory bad actors. And in addition to that, that there Wasn't enforcement of that 13 age restriction that is to prevent this type of conduct. So all of that resulting in the jury determining that there was liability. And because this is a case brought by the state, we were talking about civil penalties, $5,000 a population for what the jury determined was approximately 37,000 victims who would be underage consumers in that state. So that adds up to about 375 million. So that's the result of the civil penalties.
- [17:40]
A
Then we have Los Angeles happening today and also finding liability.
- [17:45]
C
Right, right.
- [17:45]
A
So what happened there and what were the awards?
- [17:48]
C
So in Los Angeles we have an aggrieved plaintiff, kgm, using her initials because she was underage at the time. And what the jury found was that Both Meta and YouTube were liable because their platforms had a design defect. Again, all about the algorithm, the way that these platforms are designed.
- [18:07]
A
So essentially within Los Angeles trial they're saying, okay, were these platforms designed to be addictive? Right. And if in fact you say they are designed to be addictive, did they in fact cause KGM to have mental health issues, depression, so on and so forth? All the things in fact that the plaintiff was alleging were developed because of the use of these social media platforms. Is that accurate?
- [18:31]
C
That is correct. That is what the jury had to decide. And then once they decide that there's. That's the liability piece, right? That basically both of these platforms, YouTube and Meta, were negligent, the next step is what does that mean? They have to decide on damages. And the jury here awarded damages in the amount of $3 million. And they broke that award down, allocating 70% to Meta and 30% to U2. So that's the compensatory award. So that's part one of damages, compensatory damages. Just to really break down what that means, those are the damages that are to make this particular individual, kgm, whole, compensate her for those mental health issues that she talked about at the trial that relate to the wrong that occurred, meaning that the addictive nature and quality of these platforms. So one of the reasons that. But we saw deliberations go on for days and days and days, in my opinion, is because it really had to be treated as two different trials. So those questions about whether or not there was negligence in designing these platforms, whether or not there was negligence in failing to warn about the dangers, the jury had to go through that analysis individually for both meta and YouTube. Then they had to come up with this number on the damages side of what does that mean for the purposes of compensating KGM. And that's what they came up with, this $3 million number.
- [20:06]
A
They are still deliberating currently on punitive damages.
- [20:09]
C
So being awarded punitive damages, just so everybody understands it's a big deal, they're not awarded in every case. And the reason for them is to punish. It's not just to punish for the conduct that happened in this case. It's to punish and deter. And something you'll see, the plaintiffs argue is, well, what type of number to pun really makes them feel? It really makes these companies feel it and change the way that they operate or change the way that they change the way that they warn or design moving forward and really think about fixing some of these issues.
- [20:41]
A
So I want to get to that in a moment. But Meta and YouTube have denied the allegations. Meta already said they will appeal the New Mexico decision. And in the LA case, YouTube said they, quote, unquote, plan to appeal. And Meta said they are evaluating their Legal options. But as we look ahead, I mentioned, right, thousands of cases that are still out there. These are the first two of its kind. What legal precedent do you think this sets for those cases that are to follow considering they have both come down in favor of the plaintiffs?
- [21:19]
C
So if you're met at Google and actually interestingly enough, you saw the lawyers for TikTok and Snapchat in the LA courtroom today when the verdict was being read, even though they were no longer part of the case. But this is consequential for all social media companies. What you're looking at with these trials is what is a jury gonna do with these, right. How is a jury gonna react to these arguments? What types of awards are we going to see? So now you're looking at this. When you're in the company's shoes as defense lawyers, you're not looking at these cases at individual, you're looking at it globally, right? What's the global picture here? So when you see verdicts coming down in favor of the plaintiffs on two very different legal theories, state one, an individual, you're gonna be thinking of, okay, strategically, do we settle some of these cases that are waiting in the wings, Right? Do we get rid of them? Do we settle down?
- [22:07]
A
Because going into this, some in fact did.
- [22:09]
C
Some in fact did Snapchat and TikTok both settled in the Los Angeles case. The question is, what cases do you wanna test? What cases do you wanna bring to the jury and what cases do you want to bring all the way up the chain on appeal to establish whatever the legal standards are gonna be? Cuz anytime you have these novel trailblazer legal theories at trial, you have vulnerability of the legal theories and verdicts because they're new, right? So there's gonna be law that's developed as they're tested in these appellate cases. So I definitely think the New Mexico case, I know Meta came out very strong and said, we're going to appeal this because think about the consequences of every single state bringing in action and saying you violated our consumer fraud laws. You could see a carbon copy of that across the country, right? So they're gonna wanna get rid of that. Something like kgm this award is, and we don't know the punitive award yet. So that's of tremendous consequence. But $3 million isn't necessarily the worst it could be. I mean, you frequently see eight figure verdicts, you know, eight figure compensatory awards, these cases.
- [23:17]
A
But some would argue in the LA case, the plaintiff wasn't necessarily a strong plaintiff.
- [23:22]
C
You know, I actually think that that is very true in the sense that she had to prove that the cause of her anxiety, depression, body dysmorphia, you know, the mental health, that they were a substantial factor in that harm. And that means that without this, and this is just the simplest way to say it, because substantial factor, like what does that mean?
- [23:47]
A
Right.
- [23:47]
C
But the way to say it is without using these platforms, she wouldn't have had those, those issues. Meanwhile, the jury still came to this conclusion.
- [23:57]
A
Misty Maris, it is a lot to take in, but some really good stuff and we're gonna have to wait and see how it all kind of plays out from here.
- [24:03]
C
Yes, a lot more to come.
- [24:05]
A
Thank you, Mr. Maris.
- [24:06]
C
Thank you.
- [24:07]
A
Also today, Meta is laying off hundreds of employees across five divisions of the company, including its Reality Labs virtual reality division. That's according to a source familiar with the matter. Earlier this year, CEO Mark Zuckerberg signaled the company is shifting resources towards artificial intelligence. The layoffs are unrelated to the company's recent legal losses. We're going to take a very quick break and when we are back today, co host Savannah Guthrie gave her first sit down interview since her mother Nancy's disappearance. Her plea to the public seven weeks into the search. Stay with us for the headlines.
- [24:54]
C
Hi, I'm Chef Franklin Becker. You know the jingle now discover the facts about Ozempic, a GLP one.
- [25:00]
A
There's only one FDA approved Ozempic made by Novo Nordisk.
- [25:03]
C
Learn about the real thing.
- [25:05]
A
Talk to your healthcare professional today. Call 1-833-OZEMPIC or visit ozempic.com to view the medication guide and to learn more about ozempic. Semaglutide injection 0.5 milligrams, 1 milligram and 2 milligra.
- [25:22]
B
Drafty windows.
- [25:23]
A
Rising energy bills. Worn out windows making you uncomfortable in your home. Renewal by Andersen can help. We offer custom built energy efficient windows that block drafts, open and close easily and can help lower your energy costs. You can buy now and pay nothing until September 2027. No money down, no monthly payments and no interest for 18 months with a minimum of six. But don't wait. This offer ends March 31st.
- [25:45]
B
Visit renewalbyandersonhome.com for more information and enjoy
- [25:48]
A
your new wind for years to come.
- [25:56]
C
You do it all, so why not
- [25:58]
A
get all the electrolytes hydrate better than water with new Gatorade. Lower sugar now with no artificial flavors,
- [26:06]
C
sweeteners or colors and 75% less sugar than regular Gatorade.
- [26:11]
A
New to the fridge. All the Gatorade electrolytes you love. Gatorade lowers sugar.
- [26:16]
C
Is it in you? Now available nationwide.
- [26:23]
A
And we are back with here's the scoop from NBC News. Let's get to some headlines. Iran is flatly rejecting a 15 point US proposal to end the war. The English language broadcaster Press TV cited an unnamed senior political security official with knowledge of the details of the proposal. The official said that five conditions must be met before Iran agrees to end the war, including a halt to quote, unquote aggression and assassinations by the US And Israel and recognition of Iran's sovereignty over the Strait of Hormuz. When asked by NBC News about the talks in her daily briefing, White House press secretary Caroline Levitt said, quote, talks continue and that they are productive. Meanwhile, NBC News is exclusively reporting that President Trump's daily briefings on the war include a two minute highlight reel of the most successful strikes on Iranian targets. That is according to three current and one former US Official. Sources saying that it isn't the president's only source of information. He continues to hold briefings with military advisers, intelligence officials and foreign leaders. However, some allies express concern that the president may be missing the broader strategic picture. Two current and one former US Official say the videos are also fueling the president's friction with the media and his questioning why news reports don't reflect the successes he sees on his screen. The Associated Press projects that Democrats have flipped a key Florida state House seat in Palm beach county, which is home to President Trump's Mar A Lago resort in a Tuesday special election. First time Democratic candidate Emily Gregory upset. Trump backed John Maples, winning a seat that Republicans carried by double digits in the 2024 election in her first full interview since her mother was abducted. Today, co host Savannah Guthrie opened up to Hoda Kotb about the ongoing search for Nancy Guthrie, detailing what the family has been going through in the more than seven weeks since her disappearance.
- [28:17]
B
We are in agony. Yeah, we are in agony. It is unbearable. And to think of what she went through. I wake up every night in the middle of the night, every night
- [28:43]
A
and
- [28:43]
B
in the darkness
- [28:46]
A
I imagine her terror. And it is unthinkable. But those thoughts demand to be thought and I will not hide my face.
- [29:09]
B
That she needs to come home now.
- [29:13]
A
The two part interview with Savannah will air Thursday and Friday on the Today Show. Anyone with information on Nancy's disappearance is urged to call the FBI tip line at 1-800- call FBI. And finally, happy opening day, baseball fans. The season begins with a special opening night game. The San Francisco Giants host the new York Yankees at Oracle park. And they will be rolling out one of the biggest rule changes to the sport in a generation, the automated ball strike system. Automated systems have been used in football and soccer for years, but for over a century, baseball has kept it old school. The strike zone was defined by the human eye. Now players can contest those fraction of an inch calls in real time. But there is a catch to it all. They only get two challenges per game, and the strategy is high stakes. Teams have a tiny window to signal for a review before the whole stadium watches the ruling play out out on the big screen. So play ball everybody. Now if they could just automate delivering that $17 beer straight to my seat, then we'd really be in business. That is gonna do it for us at here's the Scoop from NBC News. I'm Yasmeen Vasugin. We'll be back tomorrow with whatever the day may bring. And if you like what you heard, subscribe wherever you get your podcasts. And you can also subscribe to our daily newsletter, the Inside Sponsor. It is a deeper dive on the main stories of the day that comes out every weeknight straight to your inbox. You can sign up for the Inside Scoop as part of our paid subscription@nbcnews.com we'll see you tomorrow. Try angel stuff for your tushy. It's made by Angels Soft and Strong.
- [31:11]
C
Budget friendly.
- [31:13]
A
The choice is simple.
- [31:15]
C
A roll that feels like paradise and
- [31:17]
A
always at a heavenly prize. Angel Soft. Angel Soft. Soft and strong. So it's simple.
- [31:25]
C
Pick up a pack today.
- [31:26]
A
Angel Soft, Soft and Strong. Simple.