Return to Transcripts main page
Amanpour
Interview with Former OpenAI Board Member Helen Toner; Interview with European Institute of Peace Senior Yemen Adviser Hisham Al-Omeisy; Interview with Commander. U.S. Navy (Ret.) Theodore Johnson. Aired 1-2p ET
Aired September 14, 2026 - 13:00 ET
THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.
[13:00:00]
BIANNA GOLODRYGA, CNN ANCHOR: Hello, everyone, and welcome to "Amanpour." Here's what's coming up.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
DONALD TRUMP, U.S. PRESIDENT: We're leading China in A.I. We're the most sophisticated country in the world. And frankly, I want to keep it that
way. Because whoever wins A.I. wins.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
GOLODRYGA: President Trump shrugs off calls to regulate A.I. as industry leaders endorse a global slowdown. Former OpenAI board member Helen Toner
joins me to discuss if A.I. can be reined in before it's too late.
And oil prices surge as Iran-backed Houthi rebels continue their rapid advance down the Red Sea coast. Regional expert and former Houthi captive
Hisham Al-Omeisy joins me with his take on developments there.
Then --
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
THEODORE JOHNSON, COMMANDER. U.S. NAVY (RET.): The vast majority of admirals and generals are white men. And the disproportionate number of
folks that have been fired are not.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
GOLODRYGA: Michel Martin speaks to retired U.S. Navy officer Theodore Johnson about race, leadership, and national security.
Welcome to the program, everyone. I'm Bianna Golodryga in New York, sitting in for Christiane Amanpour.
CEOs of leading A.I. companies are jointly calling for a slowdown of development as developers fear they could lose control of their own
powerful technology. Leading the charge is Anthropic head Dario Amodei, who warns that building the systems too fast is reckless.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
DARIO AMODEI, ANTHROPIC CEO: The world in which things could go very seriously wrong is the world in which we just keep going without safeguards
or with not enough time to put in place safeguards because everything is going so quickly.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
GOLODRYGA: President Trump and Republicans in Congress are brushing away calls for regulation. Here's Speaker of the House Mike Johnson.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
REP. MIKE JOHNSON (R-LA), U.S. HOUSE SPEAKER: If Congress just races in and does some sort of emergency session to try to regulate A.I., we will
lose the race to China, and that is a threat to every single American. So, we've got to have balance. We've got to have steady hands at the wheel.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
GOLODRYGA: As for China, the government is pushing back on suggestions that it poses an A.I. risk. State-backed media is saying Amodei's warning
is straight out of a Cold War playbook. All of this comes after a massive wake-up call from former Anthropic researcher Jacob Coxon, who says A.I.
companies are gambling with our lives.
So, is A.I. an existential threat, or are these warnings more of a marketing ploy to drive investment in A.I. companies? Helen Toner served as
a board member at OpenAI, where she was part of an unsuccessful effort to oust CEO Sam Altman. She is now executive director of Georgetown
University's Center for Security and Emerging Technology. Helen, welcome to the program.
So, we mentioned Jacob Coxon's warning and the reason he gave for leaving the company. Shortly thereafter, Dario Amodei was asked about some of the
comments that he made, specifically warning that A.I. could kill humanity by decades. And here's what Amodei said.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
AMODEI: It's funny. I agree with Jacob much more than I disagree with him. And it's an interesting resignation because when he left, he said, you
know, I think Anthropic is the most responsible player, right? I think Anthropic is the most aware of these issues. He wasn't calling out us. He
was calling out the dynamic of the industry as a whole moving too fast.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
GOLODRYGA: So, in one sense, he was defending the ethics standards at the companies, but also raising and I think corroborating some of the concerns
that many experts like Jacob, like yourself, have had about the fast-paced development that we've seen of A.I.
Shortly after Amodei published his paper over the weekend, we saw that Sam Altman, Demis Hassabis, Elon Musk, they came out publicly to share their
support for more oversight and slowing the technology down. You said these A.I. companies are, quote, "starting to get spooked." What is it that they
are seeing that the rest of us need to understand right now, Helen?
[13:05:00]
HELEN TONER, FORMER OPENAI BOARD MEMBER: It's great to be with you. So, it's really interesting to see this debate spilling into the public eye
over the last few weeks, because it's been one that's been long running in A.I. circles.
And what's basically at the core of this dynamic is A.I. companies want to build increasingly powerful A.I. that can do more and more things, that can
take more and more complex actions in the real world. But there's a question of as we build those more advanced systems, are we able to control
them? Are we able to ensure that they will do what we want them to do?
And so, for a long time, there have been debates and discussions and arguments inside the A.I. world about how fast is the capabilities of the
technology progressing? And are we able to understand and control it well enough as it's getting more advanced? And I would say over the last, you
know, three months, six months, 12 months, we've seen inside the industry people who are at that cutting edge.
So, companies like Anthropic and OpenAI with the most advanced models, they've been starting to say, whoa, whoa, hang on. We are seeing some
really sophisticated behavior, and we don't necessarily know how to keep pushing the frontier, keep making more and more advanced models in a way
that we feel safe about. And so, that is what has really caught the public's attention over the last couple of weeks.
GOLODRYGA: So, is it fair to say the development has outpaced even their expectations?
TONER: I think it depends very much on whose expectations. Some people involved here have been expecting human level A.I. systems for the past
several years, and it hasn't come on time. Other people certainly exceeded their expectations, they would have said, you know, in the 2030s or beyond.
I certainly think we're seeing very fast progress relative to most people's expectations, especially outside the industry, where I think people were
not realizing how fast things were going.
GOLODRYGA: Well, I think we can all agree that Dario Amodei's essay was quite thoughtful. It was titled "We Must Pace the Frontier." And he lays
out a three-step plan that he thinks best address the issue, at least in the short-term. And he says that calls for independent evaluators embedded
inside the companies, coordinating among frontier labs in democracies, and then government-to-government coordination, including with authoritarian
states. I think everyone, the one country that comes to mind there is China.
Do you agree with those three parts of his prescription?
TONER: I do think it's a pretty sensible three-part plan. I think step one, which the companies can do voluntarily, is a good start, certainly not
going to be enough. Step two, he frames as democratic cooperation. Personally, I think, you know, anything the U.S. can do domestically is
going to get us a long way there. There aren't really very serious competitors in democratic countries that aren't the U.S. So, I would maybe
say just domestic, you know, rules and regulations rather than democratic cooperation.
And then the third part of how do you account for countries that are not allies, most especially China, which has some very advanced A.I. companies.
If -- you know, the underlying dynamic here is this race dynamic, this feeling of, well, we have concerns. We think what we're doing is risky, you
know, we, the A.I. companies. But if we don't do it, someone else will. And so, we want to do it first so we can hopefully do it better.
And for as long as they feel China breathing down their neck, it's going to be very difficult to make good decisions and to take the time that we need.
So, I do think ultimately, we need to go there.
GOLODRYGA: So, we'll talk about China in just a moment, but let's focus more on these U.S.-based companies because they are still the dominant
players here in the field. OpenAI reportedly didn't know that its own agents had hacked Hugging Face until weeks after the fact. What does that
incident reveal about the gap between what these systems can do and what their creators can actually control?
TONER: Yes. The Hugging Face attack really illustrates a number of fascinating and very important dynamics for what the frontier of A.I. looks
like right now. So, it's important to note we didn't know this when it was first announced, but we now know that the attack was not Carid out by one
A.I. agent or by a couple, but by 700 agents that were acting in a self- described swarm or self-described collective.
And it was part of -- this happened during OpenAI's research and testing process. They were trying to build increasingly capable AIs and trying to
test how good they were. And while they were doing that, they weren't paying close enough attention to the thousands of A.I. agents that they had
set off, that they have kicked off to do experiments.
And so, these 700 managed to first escape the security constraints that they were supposed to be under at OpenAI, which were, you know, I think
they could have been stronger, but they were not incredibly lax. Then also managed to hack into this external company, Hugging Face, and take over
large parts of its infrastructure over the course of several days before anyone noticed anything.
So, I think this really shows us both the speed at which things are changing. You know, OpenAI didn't realize that its systems were going to be
able to do this. And also, the scale and the complexity of the behavior that we're seeing here. So, the fact that hundreds of agents could
coordinate over multiple days, that wasn't true six months ago, certainly not 12 months ago.
[13:10:00]
And this is the kind of thing, the reason that we're talking about kind of pacing the frontier is, it's not that this is unsolvable. These are
totally, we can totally implement new ways of handling these issues. It just takes time. It takes thought. It takes underlying science. And so,
that is why I think you're seeing this sort of unanimous call from some of the parts of the industry that are right at that cutting edge.
GOLODRYGA: And thankfully, the Hugging Face hack was not that consequential, but it does appear from what Dario Amodei was warning, that
it is sort of the swarm phenomenon of perhaps a much more malevolent act that these companies and creators cannot control.
Is it something that they can't control even in real time, or is the fear that it could happen perhaps before the creators and those developers are
even aware of what's going on? Like if there is a swarm attack happening, can it be stopped in the moment?
TONER: Most likely, yes. It depends on how the -- what -- how the system is set up. I think the real challenge here, again, is the speed. And if you
think about kind of the decision-making calculus for these companies, the pressure that they feel to move fast, it's a question of how much are you
doing? How many experiments are you running at once? How carefully are you checking the setup for each of those experiments in advance?
You know, if we -- if they felt that they had the time, and maybe they should just do this anyway, but if they feel they have time, there's a lot
of measures they can take to make it less risky. The challenge is, I would argue, they are recklessly prioritizing trying to stay at the cutting edge
rather than prioritizing making sure what they're doing is safe.
And what they're saying from inside the industry is they feel they have to behave this way, because if they don't, somebody else will. So, that's why
they're asking for external help. But it is good to see that they are also committing to steps that they can do themselves. So, we had both Anthropic
and OpenAI this past weekend committing to allow external auditors to come in to embed inside the companies and stay there for a long period of time
with high levels of information access. That is a good first step and one that they can do voluntarily.
GOLODRYGA: And you see the same reaction sort of unanimously from the heads of all of these companies and the big players from Demis Hassabis to
even Elon Musk, as I noted, Sam Altman, of course, and Dario leading the way this weekend. But there are some detractors or some skeptics out there,
as you are aware of.
NVIDIA CEO Jensen Huang suggests that these are sales tactics, these warnings. And he said, quote, "What better way to create demand than to
create a problem?" What do you make of his response there? And is there reason to be skeptical of their sounding the alarm just months before what,
but for at least two of these companies is expected to be major IPOs?
TONER: Yes. I mean, I think we should always bring a healthy dose of skepticism to anything we're hearing from, you know, CEOs of some of the
most powerful companies in the world. So, I think that's appropriate.
I think the challenge is that it doesn't actually really make much sense. I mean, I've never seen a marketing team suggest, you know, let's go out
there and say, oh, our product committed multiple potential felonies as a marketing tactic. I don't think that is what, you know, what they would be
advising. And, you know, more specifically, I can say as someone who spent a lot of time in and around this industry, what the CEOs are saying is in
large part driven by in part their own views, but also the views of a lot of their employees.
So, you have really top researchers who are really concerned here and are putting a lot of pressure on their employees -- sorry, on their employers,
on the CEOs to be honest about the risk and to take serious measures to prevent the risks. That dynamic of the kind of pressure from employees to
do the right thing is pretty interesting. And I think is an important driver of what we're seeing as well. Much more, I think, than any kind of
attempt to, you know, boost valuations or anything pre-IPO.
GOLODRYGA: So, in addition to Jensen Huang, we heard the president respond by multiple posts. First, let's play sound from him when he was asked about
the sounding of the alarm.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
DONALD TRUMP, U.S. PRESIDENT: Whoever wins A.I. wins. And we can put guardrails, we can do this and that. But I think you have a lot of negative
voices that are bringing it up that shouldn't be bringing it up. And they're bringing up things that won't happen. But whoever wins with A.I.
wins. You know, it's an expression that I came up with. And it's true.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
GOLODRYGA: OK. So, he went on today then to post that the only control or guardrails that A.I. needs is a strong and smart, high IQ president. And
the USA has that in spades. Talking about himself. And then went on to say, this is a sick conspiracy going on against A.I. and data centers. Also,
David Sacks, who is the co-chair of the President's Council of Advisors on Science and Technology, had this to say in a social media post, basically
writing, go ahead. If you want to regulate yourself, you want to slow down. You have all the right to do that now. I support your decision to be
responsible, but stop pretending that the motivation to slow down is purely altruistic.
[13:15:00]
GOLODRYGA: Do you want to respond to that? And what impact does it have on the industry when you have that kind of comment and narrative coming out of
the White House?
TONER: Yes. I mean, I think it absolutely makes sense for the president to be tracking competition with China and what impact that would have. I think
it's important for him to do that. An approach where we just say let's just screech to a halt everything happening in the U.S. and not worry about
what's happening in China would not be a smart approach. Fortunately, I don't think that's what anyone is suggesting here.
I also think it's worth taking seriously as we think about that competition with China. The Trump administration has also been very vocal in accusing
China of so-called distilling U.S. models, meaning essentially using U.S. A.I. to create training data to improve Chinese A.I. And they've said
that's a core part of China's A.I. development strategy. If that's true, it's unclear exactly the extent to which that's true.
But if China is using U.S. A.I. to keep up, then actually slowing down in the U.S. wouldn't necessarily let China race past us. Instead, it might
also have an effect on the speed at which they're moving. But I do think it's a really serious set of tradeoffs. There's also the question of, you
know, can they just do this voluntarily or do they need external enforcement? I think there are some good initial steps that the companies
can take voluntarily, as David Sacks is suggesting.
But I think longer-term, wanting to have a regime where they are actually making the right decisions over a long period of time, and where all of the
right actors are covered as, you know, other companies start to advance towards the frontier. So, is, you know, is Google included? Is SpaceX A.I.
included? Are other top companies included? I think you do need to have an enforceable solution and not purely self-governance.
GOLODRYGA: Yes. And Elon Musk a few weeks ago said he believes China should be seated at the table, too, for these conversations. Amodei flagged
that the toughest dilemma about his proposal is what happens, however, if China does not do the same. We heard the official comments from the foreign
ministry there saying that this is all fear-mongering from these companies, sort of Cold War tactics, as they describe it.
You also agree that competing with China matters, but that they need to be adhering to some of these risks as well. It's much harder to get a sense of
where these developers in China are versus what the official statements from the government is right now. What do we know on that front? Do you
think that China is perhaps more concerned than they are leading on right now?
TONER: I think the perspectives and -- range of perspectives in the U.S., a range of perspectives in China, I think the range is a little different.
I think we are seeing some amount of increasing concern on the Chinese side, but they don't necessarily have exactly the same concerns as the U.S.
does. I don't think they're seeing the same level of alarm from inside their industry just yet about the speed of advancement.
They are thinking more about -- you know, actually, it was really interesting. The Minister for State Security, this is a very powerful
ministry in China, sort of like a cross between the CIA and the FBI, had an article recently about A.I. The top two concerns that he listed for A.I.
were regime stability and critical infrastructure stability.
And so, you know, that shows there is -- the fact that that minister is weighing in, the fact that those are the concerns he's naming, show that
this is registering. The challenge is China is really primed to take anything the U.S. wants to do on technology as an approach to slow down
China. And so, we're seeing that in their messaging as well, like any talk of pacing the frontier. All you're trying to do is pace China, and you just
want to race ahead and make China's life more difficult.
So, I think -- and, you know, pressure that is only coming from the U.S. is not going to work here. They're going to have to be listening to their own
scientists and experts as well if we're going to make any progress.
GOLODRYGA: And they are estimated to be several months behind the U.S. on this technology. Obviously, authoritarian states would use this technology
different. So, what may not alarm them today could very well alarm them in a few months' time.
Quickly, in the final seconds that we have, how equipped is Congress to address this right now? You've testified for Congress before.
TONER: I think Congress is making good progress here. They're paying more attention. They're coming up with more serious proposals. It's obviously
going to be pretty tough to get anything serious passed before the midterms. But I think the next Congress is going to come back and have this
pretty high on their priority list.
My only hope is that we can get something reasonable on the books here without needing to wait for more incidents, more attacks. Ideally, you
know, nothing that really causes genuine harm. If we can take things like the Hugging Face attack, which was very serious from an A.I. perspective,
but didn't actually hurt anyone, and we can make better policy based on that, that would be great.
GOLODRYGA: All right. Helen Toner, executive director of Georgetown's Center for Security and Emerging Technology, thank you so much for joining
the show. Appreciate it.
TONER: Thank you.
GOLODRYGA: And do stay with CNN. We'll be right back after the break.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[13:20:00]
GOLODRYGA: Now, this is a trial from God, words from a displaced mother in Yemen who, like nearly 86,000 others, was forced to flee her home as the
Iran-backed Houthi forces make major advances in the west of the country and lay claim to strategic positions along the Red Sea coastline. Among the
captured locations is Parim Island in Bab al-Mandeb Strait, a vital waterway where the Houthis have sought control.
Meanwhile, they're also targeting Saudi Arabia's military bases and oil infrastructure as the country contends with damage to its key east-west oil
pipeline after drone attacks from Iraq shut it down, jeopardizing up to 4 percent of the global oil supply.
So, what do these escalating attacks mean for the Gulf, and how can Arab states respond? Hisham Al-Omeisy understands the Houthis very well. He was
held captive by the group for five months in 2017 and is currently a senior Yemen adviser with the European Institute of Peace, and he joins me now
from Washington.
Hisham, thank you so much for taking the time to join us. First of all, how have the Houthis, in your view, been able to advance and regroup so
quickly?
HISHAM AL-OMEISY, SENIOR YEMEN ADVISER, EUROPEAN INSTITUTE OF PEACE: Well, they managed to basically exploit the ceasefire period with the Yemeni
government, with the Saudis, and also in addition to the United States, and they exploited the bickering and infighting within the anti-Houthi
coalition and the differences between the Yemeni presidential leadership council.
I've seen a lot of people saying that they were surprised by the Houthi advances. If you ask Yemenis, they weren't. They've seen the Houthis
mobilize for the better part of the last two years. Their recruitment campaign was massive. They've bolstered their front lines. They've acquired
additional technologies from Iran. They've gotten a lot more weapons, their hands on a lot more weapons. They've been preparing for this, and they made
no secret about their advances towards the Houthis. It was the government- controlled areas. It was inevitable.
And we've seen them crash through the gate over the last week, and it sends a strong message that the government was never ready for an Houthi advance.
GOLODRYGA: Yes. I heard analysis that suggested that perhaps this was less about current Houthi strength and more about lack of cohesiveness amongst
the different factions within the opposition. Do you agree?
AL-OMEISY: Absolutely. This is one of the things that the PLC was introduced for in 2022. The Presidential Leadership Council is a council
made of eight members. One of the main reasons behind creating that council was that to create a more cohesive unit between the various factions within
the anti-Houthi coalition. Unfortunately, miscommunication, infighting, divergent agendas continued in that council, and you can imagine on the
ground with multiple additional factions and with the same story, with the same recurring theme, it continued to weaken the anti-Houthi coalition.
So, yes, I've seen a lot of rhetoric over the past week saying the Houthis have grown in strength, but the story is not about the strength of the
Houthis alone. It also has to do with the anti-Houthi coalition being weakened by their internal fighting.
GOLODRYGA: The Houthis, as we noted in the introduction there, have now taken Mocha and Perim Island. What can they do now to Red Sea shipping that
they weren't able to do prior to capturing these islands?
[13:25:00]
AL-OMEISY: A lot. In addition to territorial gains that they've made inside the country, in addition to driving the Yemeni government out, in
addition to weakening the territorial control of the internationally recognized cabinet, they can threaten international maritime routes, but
they can also use their presence in this newly acquired territories to leverage their position to extract additional concessions from regional
powers as well as international powers.
All they need to do is lob a couple of missiles into the Red Sea and asking, for instance, for toll fees for ships going through. They can use
it as political leverage. They can really consolidate power, not just there, but also use that as a launch pad to basically acquire additional
territories in Yemen.
You have to remember their ambition is not just to take Bab al-Mandeb. Their ambition is to take the rest of the country and control that part of
the Arabian Peninsula.
GOLODRYGA: To your point that none of this should be seen as a surprise, I'd like to play some sound from a very frustrated Yemeni vice president.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
TARIQ SALEH, YEMENI VICE PRESIDENT (through translator): We told the world that this is an Iranian plan, but no one listened to Yemenis back then,
that this is a battle that would not only affect Yemenis, but the region and International Community.
NIC ROBERTSON, CNN INTERNATIONAL DIPLOMATIC EDITOR: This is Iran trying to put pressure on President Trump.
SALEH (through translator): Exactly.
ROBERTSON: Are you getting any support from the United States?
SALEH: Just talk.
ROBERTSON: Just talk. How do you feel about that?
ROBERTSON (voice-over): Disappointed, he says.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
GOLODRYGA: Just talk from the United States. And there was also reporting from CNN and Axios that Mohammed bin Salman called President Trump multiple
times and asked him to strike the Houthis, which Trump then declined.
What options are there available for Yemen's internationally backed and recognized government to recover at this point?
AL-OMEISY: OK. Let me start with that I actually agree with the vice president. The national resistance which he heads and was controlling the
West Coast has been requesting a lot of support over the past few weeks. They warned that the Houthis are at the gates. They asked for more
manpower. They asked for anti-drone technologies. They asked for munitions. They asked for logistical support. But none of that came through. But they
didn't only ask the U.S. They asked a lot of people, to be fair.
And when basically the Houthis bulldozed their way through the West Coast, everybody accused them of running away. They didn't run away. They actually
fought. There was about 1,500 soldiers that were killed in trying to defend those territories. But they failed. They were overwhelmed.
And now, in terms of what the internationally recognized government can do, first of all, they need to get their act together. They need a more
cohesive plan. These independent military formations don't make for a collective force if their communication between themselves is not
streamlined. They need to get on the same page first. They need to forego their differences to solidify their ranks. Otherwise, Houthis will continue
to exploit the cracks. And they're really good at it. They've proven themselves in overrunning the capital, Sana'a, in overrunning Amran, in
overrunning other parts of the country, all the way to the south by exploiting cracks within the anti-Houthi coalition.
Now, to the International Community and regional community as well, if you are contemplating striking a deal with the Houthis, that is problematic.
You're looking at short-term gains and short-term peace for a much larger, much longer headache, because the Houthis have proven in the past that they
renege on their deals, that they always regroup, get bolder, and attack and raise the bar on their demands.
We've seen it in 2015, 2017. We've seen it when they attacked the ships in the Red Sea in 2023. And we've seen it now, even after signing the
Stockholm Agreement on Hodeidah. They reneged on that agreement, and they attacked Hodeidah.
GOLODRYGA: The go-to instinct, as you pointed out, is always to ask the United States to intervene and for help, no doubt the world's dominant
military power, despite having depleted some of its resources or at least at the risk of depleting some of its military weapons, by far the strongest
in the world. At the same time, though, I do recall it was only a few weeks ago that we saw a defense pact signed between Saudi Arabia, Turkey, and
Pakistan.
Would this not be an opportunity to show some of the fruition of that defensive pact? And have we seen any of it?
AL-OMEISY: Well, we have to flesh out that pact. That pact is defensive to protect Saudi territory. It doesn't really help Yemenis much. So, even the
Pakistanis came out and basically said, we'll defend Saudi territory.
[13:30:00]
And it takes effect from the signing of that pact. It doesn't cover preexisting conditions, which is basically the fighting with the Houthis.
But again, it doesn't really impact the fighting in Yemen. And the fighting in Yemen has proven now and again that it has a spillover effect.
This fight is not going to be contained within the boundaries or the borders of Yemen. It will always spill over, as we've seen before, in the
Red Sea. And now, of course, with the Houthis attacking Saudi, and they've attacked other GCC countries in the past. It's just a matter of time when
this will happen again.
GOLODRYGA: So, to that point, though, of Saudi, we see their drones. They're saying that drones hit their oil pipeline. Now, that was from Iraq.
But there is a big concern about increased fighting from the Houthis against the Saudis. The Saudis have, in fact, said that they would now
postpone a Gulf Iran meeting in Oman. So, who has the leverage here to rein in the Houthis? Is it Iran itself?
AL-OMEISY: Iran, to a degree, has leverage. But ultimately, the Houthis have their own mindset. They have their own ambitions. They have their own
objectives. And currently, they're trying to project regional power, not just taking control of Yemen. And they're trying to extract concessions
from the Saudis.
For the past two years, the Houthis were demanding that Saudis pay public salaries. They were demanding that they pay reparations. They were
demanding that the Saudis also pay for fixing the infrastructure that was destroyed over the past 10 years. And they're emboldened by the fact that
they actually control territory, but also because they're able to exploit cracks within the internationally recognized government and know that the
Saudis are in a weak position. And they're creating this pincer between Iran and Houthis.
So, they're pressuring Saudi, and they're making it costly for the Saudis to continue this conflict. And by doing that, they're hoping that they will
get their demands.
GOLODRYGA: Should the president have answered MBS's call to intervene? President Trump?
AL-OMEISY: Well, let's be fair here. The U.S. is engaged in what's happening for now in the Strait of Hormuz, and there's a hemorrhaging of a
lot of resources. A direct engagement in Yemen is going to be costly. We use missiles that cost $2 million to shoot down a $2,000 drone by the
Houthis, and Houthis have ample amount of drones. So, it's going to be costly.
But there's going to be a threshold reached where we will have to basically balance and evaluate the loss from what Houthis are doing in the Red Sea,
in the Arabian Sea, but also targeting our allies. When the Houthis target our allies in the region, Saudis and Emiratis and others in the region,
eventually we pay the cost in terms of rising cost of goods, but also in terms of rising cost of oil as well.
GOLODRYGA: Let me ask you, as we noted, you were held captive by the Houthis yourself for several months. What does their advance mean for the
civilian population in the country now?
AL-OMEISY: It's devastating. Honestly, I saw them liberating their own prisoners from Hodeida, the Houthis, when they went, their own soldiers. I
was heartbroken because I was hoping that the government would be liberating the prisoners that are held in Sana'a. I have my own colleagues
who work for the State Department, for the U.S. Embassy in Yemen, and they're being tortured, and one of them already died in prison.
And it was frustrating for a lot of people in Yemen when they expected a bit of a win by the Yemeni government, securing prisoner swaps, releasing
prisoners. But the opposite happened. Houthis took additional territory. They released their own prisoners. And now, people are becoming more
cynical, more apathetic to the current conflict and losing hope.
GOLODRYGA: Well, the World Food Programme has suspended food aid for lack of money. Houthi detentions have halted U.N. operations in the north. How
dire can it get in terms of giving these civilians the aid that they need?
AL-OMEISY: The aid has been dwindling for the past few years to begin with. With the Houthis kicking out U.N. organizations out of the country,
it's getting much worse for a lot of people who need aid. There's almost, I think it was 82 percent of the population that needs some form of aid
inside the country.
And now, with dwindling funding, with organizations leaving the country, it's getting much worse. There's a lack of services. There's a lack of
clean water. Basic services are not there. Electricity is not there. So, with the recent wave of fighting we had just last week, we had a wave of
displacement. I think it was 80,000 people that were forced to other areas but also forced out of the country. I think 2,000 people arrived in
Djibouti just over the past 48 hours. So, the situation, the humanitarian situation on the ground is getting worse by the hour.
[13:35:00]
GOLODRYGA: And as you noted, none of this should come as a surprise. Because those -- the recognized government there has been sounding the
alarm for a long time now. And you say that part of the problem is the fact that the opposition cannot get the coordination that it needs to fight back
against the Houthi rebels making their advancement. Hisham Al-Omeisy, thank you so much for your expertise and for sharing your own experience. Really
appreciate it.
AL-OMEISY: Thank you for having me.
GOLODRYGA: Senior Yemen adviser at the European Institute of Peace. All right. Stay with CNN. We'll be right back after the break.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
GOLODRYGA: Now, public trust in the U.S. military has fallen to one of its lowest levels in the last 25 years, with just 61 percent of Americans
saying they have confidence in it. But signs of discontent are also emerging from within the military. Earlier this month, U.S. Army Secretary
Dan Driscoll became the latest in a string of high-profile leaders to depart from the ranks.
And while Driscoll chose to leave, others have been forcibly sidelined and removed by the secretary of defense, Pete Hegseth, as part of a campaign
against what he calls DEI and woke.
To discuss what Hegseth's overhaul means for the future of the military, former U.S. Navy officer Theodore Johnson joins Michel Martin.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
MICHEL MARTIN, CONTRIBUTOR: Thanks, Bianna. Ted Johnson, thank you so much for speaking with us once again.
THEODORE JOHNSON, COMMANDER. U.S. NAVY (RET.): Always good to be here.
MARTIN: Let's talk about the scale of the changes at the top of the Pentagon. The secretary of defense, as he prefers secretary of war, Pete
Hegseth, has fired or blocked the promotions of more than 80 generals and admirals. That's about 10 percent of the military's top officers. That's
the count of The New York Times.
We know that the chairman of the Joint Chiefs was fired early in Trump's second term. The heads of the Army, the Navy, and the Air Force have either
been replaced or left early. As we are speaking now, the secretary of the army just resigned, and we are in the middle of an active military
conflict. What is your understanding of what's driving all this turnover?
JOHNSON: Yes. So, there's a few things going on here. The first thing is Secretary Hegseth was given the mandate when he started to reduce the
number of four stars across the military. And, you know, a number of military folks have said for years that the military is a little top-heavy.
So, the fact that he's reducing the number of four stars at the Pentagon, across the service, that was part of the plan. The story is how he's doing
it and who he's choosing to let go. That wasn't part of the plan.
The first thing he did was enact Trump's anti-DEI agenda to reduce the ranks of the military, going after black officers, going after women, going
after people he believed didn't earn their position under DEI generals, no matter their race or gender. The next thing he did was essentially push
people out without the proper recognition of their decades of service.
And so, sort of like just ungraciously dismissed from their jobs, even when they were on promotion lists, even when they had the respect of their
colleagues, and even when their career trajectory suggested that this was the logical next step for career trajectory suggested that this was the
logical next step for their careers, they were unceremoniously let go.
[13:40:00]
So, the problem is the manner that he's going about the mandate and who he's choosing to, you know, rid the army of, rid the military of.
MARTIN: So, to your point, the racial and gender pattern in these decisions can't be ignored. More than half of the officers affected by
Secretary Hegseth's dismissals are black or female. There are currently no active-duty female four-star generals or admirals. This is the lowest
percentage of women nominated for general or admiral in at least 25 years.
I guess the first question I have is, how would he know whether these people were qualified for their positions or not?
JOHNSON: He doesn't. That's the thing. I mean, look, there is one fail- safe way to know whether the person is qualified. Look at their record. They have, every year, officers are evaluated by their superior officers on
their performance. You don't spend 25, 30 years in the military by failing every annual evaluation. So, the very fact that their names are on the list
suggests that they're qualified.
The next thing to do is then trust your senior officers around you to speak to the person's character, their service, their reputation, and their
potential, instead of relying on your own, you know, sort of whims and the political whims to make choices about who should lead the military.
So, this is not how business is done. The military is supposed to have one of the most meritocratic promotion systems in the country, and that's been
completely undermined by nepotism, favoritism, and carrying out a political agenda for, you know, at a time when the service is engaged in operations
around the world and a war in the Gulf.
MARTIN: So, the Pentagon rejects the idea that these decisions are driven by race or gender. Last month, chief Pentagon spokesman, Sean Parnell, said
military promotions are given to those who have earned them. This has always been the case under Secretary Hegseth and will not change. And, of
course, President Trump has continued to defend him, despite the fact that even some members of Congress who are Republicans are starting to question
these decisions.
But how do you respond to their notion -- their assertion that race or gender has nothing to do with it?
JOHNSON: Yes. It's just not true, because if that were the case, the vast majority of admirals and generals are white men, and the disproportionate
number of folks that have been fired are not. So, even if you were just to get rid of the chaff, the dead weight, as he would say, it would look
racially like the flag officers and general officers that are serving. It doesn't.
Look, I will tell you that when Make America Great Again visits the Pentagon, the year must be 1945 or so, because it wasn't until 1948 when
the service was desegregated by executive order. And so, it's like they're trying to roll back the clock. Enlisted, it's fine to be diverse, but going
back to a service before desegregation seems to be when the Pentagon was great again, even though it didn't, you know, technically exist then.
So, this is a matter of trying to roll back the clock, trying to reverse the gains and progress that has been made over the country's lifespan, and
dishonoring the service of the people that have been let go, and the service of those who died for the country, in hopes of not just spreading
democracy around the world, but also making democracy accessible, fairness, equity, or equality, these things accessible to folks here at home.
MARTIN: Well, certainly this administration has made no secret of its hatred for diversity programs, whatever they are, and what -- however they
arose. But he's argued -- Hegseth has argued that real toxic leadership is promoting people based on immutable characteristics or quotas, instead of
based on merit. What's your response to that?
JOHNSON: Yes, not at all. So, let's take the fitness standards, for example. Hegseth has said that the fitness standards, he wants one
standard, the male standard for everyone. No more of this, men have to do this, women have to do this. And that way we get away from gender and sex
and have one standard. If that's the case, then why is the one standard a male standard? That's based on what men can do. That's not a gender-neutral
standard.
And so, if there's one standard, create the standard, make men and women meet it, but don't say the male standard is the standard, because that's no
longer gender neutral. Don't say that kicking people out of the military for razor bumps, or for having, you know, the wrong kind of hair, or the
wrong hairstyles is colorblind, is race neutral. It's not, because of the kinds of hair and the way razor bumps work and these things, it will have a
disproportionate impact on those people of color.
[13:45:00]
So, it's very easy to say the right words so that you sidestep any accusations of being racist or discriminatory, but as long as you have the
disparate impact that you hope to have, and more people of color and more women are removed, especially from places of power, of seniority, and of
consequential decision making at a grand global scale even, you know, it's pretty clear what he's up to here.
MARTIN: Well, is the question here whether these standards are relevant to force readiness or not? I mean, there are some fields in which beards are
not desirable, because they do interfere with your ability to wear protective equipment, for example. There are some jobs in which one has to
assume that upper body strength is highly relevant.
So, I guess the question would be, are these standards that he wants to reimpose relevant to force readiness or not?
JOHNSON: No, they're not. And it's because it's fine to have one standard across the board, but it's also fine, and it actually is practiced in the
military to have standards tailored to the job that you do in the military. So, you have to be a certain height to be a pilot. That means you can't be
shorter than a certain height, and you can't be too tall to be a pilot, because you've got to sit straight in the cockpit.
So, if someone has a beard, but they don't have to worry about a gas mask, you know, they work in admin, why should they be kicked out because they
can't shave every day? If they suddenly need to put on a gas mask, or if they're going on a deployment, beards can be shaved.
So, the point I'm trying to make is that if a job requires a specific ability in terms of height, or in terms of strength, or in terms of
endurance, then you tailor the standard to the job, but you don't roll out a standard that basically fits white Christian men who are in shape with no
beards and say, OK, that's the standard for everyone. Everyone has to meet that, and then tack on extra things depending on the job, rather, I think
you make the standard one that fits the country, that does not have a disparate impact on people of color or based on their gender.
And then if you have to increase the standard because they want to be special forces, a pilot, a combat engineer, whatever it is, then you do so,
but that allows you to preserve the service, the people that want to serve the country instead of just making chops across the board without any sort
of strategic or tailored approach to shaping the service.
MARTIN: Yes. I'm also curious about how long it takes to get people to the level of experience that are being sort of mustered out. I mean, I'm
thinking about these are decades of combat experience that have been ushered out the door.
JOHNSON: Yes, it's incalculable. The years you may be able to calculate, the experience lost, never. The professionalism lost, never. It takes 25
years minimum to build an admiral or a general, and that's just for the first star. The people he's letting go are three and four stars.
So, after that first star you get at between the 25 and 30-year mark, add another four years for every additional star you get, maybe three and maybe
even quicker depending on the administration, but a four-star has been around for more than 30 years almost without fail, and to push those people
out the door, you can't just walk out and hire a CEO of a Fortune 500 and replace them, you know, put them in the place of a four-star. You have to
build that four-star from scratch.
MARTIN: So, it's interesting, the secretary of the army, Dan Driscoll, resigned days ago reportedly after warning President Trump directly that
Secretary Hegseth was pushing out some of the Army's most combat-tested leaders and undermining confidence in the promotion system. This is
according to the Times, and there are people who are familiar with this meeting.
And I'm just curious about that, the fact that the secretary of the army resigned in the middle of an active conflict, because the U.S. has been at
war with Iran, which the U.S. started with Israel for six months now, in which the U.S. has sustained casualties. And I'm just wondering what that
resignation says to you. I don't know if you have any visibility into it beyond what the reporting has indicated, but what does that say to you?
JOHNSON: I don't know the former army secretary. I haven't, you know, done any reporting on this. But two things stand out to me. Number one, for him
to resign, as you said, in a moment where the nation is at war, in a moment where the Army is in need of transformation to meet the current level of
threats, both geographically but also technologically, for him to walk away means that he feels like he was being treated as secretary in name only.
And I'm telling you, service secretaries do not take the job to be a figurehead. They take the job because they care about the country, the
service, and they want to do what's best for it. When that avenue gets blocked, those folks don't stick around and just do the ceremonies. They
walk away.
Another point, though, you know, Heads Up barely made it to the Pentagon. It was a 50/50 tie in Vance. Vice President Vance was the one that broke
the tie. Vice President Vance went to law school with former Army Secretary Driscoll, and for Hegseth, the push-out Driscoll, who was friends with the
vice president, who made Hegseth secretary in the first place by breaking the tie, breaking vote, shows you, one, that Vance is on the outs.
[13:50:00]
I mean, like, he clearly is not in the decision-making cycle when it comes to the Pentagon. And two, that Hegseth has Trump's ear. The reporting
suggests that Driscoll went to Trump to tell him what the problems were, to tell him how many folks had been fired. That was a surprise to Trump. To
tell him how his recommendations are being blocked, that was a surprise to Trump, according to the reporting. But Driscoll was the one who turned in
his resignation, and Hegseth is still, you know, flying high.
So, that also suggests where the chain of command lies and who's on the outs and whose final word matters. And it's not the folks in the chairs
with the experience and trying to do a good job. It's not even the vice president.
It's these two men, Trump and Hegseth, that are unilaterally reshaping the military, who gets to serve, who gets promoted, and under what conditions
and sort of what the regulations are that will allow folks to serve in the first place, no matter what their rank is.
MARTIN: Gallup says --Gallup, this is a longstanding pollster, says that confidence in the military now stands at 61 percent.
JOHNSON: That's right.
MARTIN: After 9/11, 25 years ago, it was consistently in the 70s and 80s, reaching as high as 82 percent.
JOHNSON: That's right.
MARTIN: Do you think that that's a part of this, that that is in part a result of this?
JOHNSON: Yes. Absolutely. This is the country expressing their disapproval of this administration and this Pentagon, not of service members. The
country still holds a very high opinion of people who are serving and veterans, but their opinion of the military is what's lagging.
If you would have told me 25 years ago, and I just returned from my second deployment five months before 9/11, four months before 9/11 happened, if
you had told me then that all of the thank yous and the early boarding, all of the things that used to happen from military service members in those
years would be gone, would be lost, and that just barely over half the country would have a favorable opinion of the military, the first thing I
would ask you is, whoever is in charge, what did they do to break it?
I do not believe service members would act unethically at such a large number that it would cause the opinions to lag. I don't believe veterans
would do the same. It would have to be a political rationale reasoning for the drop, and it is.
And so, this is a reflection of how the country feels about how the Pentagon is being run, and I tell you, it's not going away any time soon,
and it will have ramifications for the midterms that are upcoming, and maybe even for whose secretary of defense that will -- you know, over the
next six to 12 months.
MARTIN: Ted Johnson, thank you so much for talking with us.
JOHNSON: Thank you. Always good to be here.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
GOLODRYGA: And finally, one of the best-selling musicians of all time is stepping back into the spotlight. After six years away, Celine Dion has
returned to the stage. A battle with rare health issues has put her career on pause, but now she's making quite the comeback, taking over Paris with a
sold-out residency. She'll be performing a series of 26 concerts over the coming months, captivating audiences from around the globe who have come to
see her shine.
Senior international correspondent Melissa Bell is in the French capital where the queen of power ballads is making her mark once again.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
MELISSA BELL, CNN SENIOR INTERNATIONAL CORRESPONDENT (voice-over): Celine Dion fever has hit Paris hard. Ahead of the Canadian superstar's first
concert in six years, a giant karaoke was organized over the weekend full of the songs that the French know by heart.
(MUSIC PLAYING)
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: For me, it's like it's all what Paris is about, just gathering people in open spaces and having a moment together, singing
together.
BELL (voice-over): The hotel that will serve as Celine's base throughout her 26-concert residency has turned into a place of daily worship for her
fans.
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE (through translator): It's not every day that we get to see Celine Dion up close like this. So, this is amazing.
BELL (voice-over): With more than 200 million records sold, Celine Dion is the biggest-selling Canadian artist of all times and, in the French-
speaking world, an icon. But a rare neurological disorder had forced her to cancel her last tour.
BELL: Which is why her first performance here on Saturday night was so keenly awaited. I was lucky enough to be inside, and the emotion was
unbelievable. It was a performance full of energy with that tremendous voice of hers, but she could feel at the end of her first song the emotion
of the crowd, and she then started crying, really struggling for a moment to regain her composure. And for that moment, there really wasn't a dry eye
in the house.
BELL (voice-over): It's expected that, overall, Celine Fever could bring as much as a billion dollars of revenue to the French economy. Nine million
fans joined a lottery for access to tickets, and all of her shows were sold out in a matter of hours. And for those who joined a lottery for access to
tickets, and all of her shows were sold out in a matter of hours.
[13:55:00]
And for those fans who didn't get a ticket, there are still those daily hopes outside her hotel for a glimpse, a smile, and even a kiss from the
star who's finally returned to them.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
GOLODRYGA: That is a show I would love to see. Glad to see Celine back. All right. Our thanks to Melissa Bell, reporting there from Paris.
That is it for now. If you ever miss our show, you can find the latest episode shortly after it airs on our podcast. And remember, you can always
catch us online, on our website, and all-over social media. Thanks so much for watching, and goodbye from New York.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[14:00:00]
END
