Return to Transcripts main page
CNN's The Arena with Kasie Hunt
Now: CNN, MS Now, Politico Back At White House After Regaining Access; Trump Hosts Chinese President Xi Amid Battle Over White House Media Ban; New CNN Poll: Majority Of Americans Concerned About Growth Of A.I. & Data Centers, Support More Regulation. Aired 4-5p ET
Aired September 24, 2026 - 16:00 ET
THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.
[16:00:00]
BORIS SANCHEZ, CNN HOST: You're telling me that the overhand triggers some stuff.
BRIANNA KEILAR, CNN HOST: Yeah, it's underhand pitching.
SANCHEZ: Yeah.
KEILAR: You know, yeah.
SANCHEZ: You crushed it. Congrats, Brianna.
KEILAR: Thanks, Boris. Thank you very much.
THE ARENA WITH KASIE HUNT starts right now.
(MUSIC)
ANNOUNCER: This is CNN Breaking News.
KASIE HUNT, CNN HOST: Hi, everyone. I'm Kasie Hunt. Welcome to THE ARENA. It's great to have you with us on this Thursday.
Right now, CNN's reporters are back in the White House, back being allowed to do their jobs from the people's house under the protections of our First Amendment. This video showing the moments around noon that our senior reporter Betsy Klein and a photojournalist were allowed into the White House complex.
Reporters from Politico and MS NOW have also been permitted to return.
Multiple times throughout the morning, however, Betsy and others were turned away, that despite a federal judge ordering the Trump administration to let them in, ruling shortly after midnight that CNN and the others were, quote, "likely to succeed in showing that their hard passes were revoked without constitutionally adequate due process," end quote.
This all comes as President Trump hosts Chinese leader Xi Jinping. You have not seen that because we still have not received assurances that the White House pool will be allowed to operate normally. And sources say that's becoming a problem for everyone. One source
telling CNN that Chinese officials have spoken privately with some Trump advisors concerned that all of this could negatively impact coverage of the visit. Another source saying that some American officials agreed, knowing that both men want robust coverage of their summit.
And President Trump does seem to be getting frustrated with the situation that he himself created with this ban. According to a print pool report at a photo op earlier today, he quipped that the press pool traveling with Xi, the head of the Chinese Communist Party, was the friendliest. You decide just how much you think he was joking.
All right, let's get off the sidelines and head into THE ARENA. My panel is here along with CNN senior White House correspondent Kristen Holmes, who is back reporting on the White House grounds.
We are also joined by CNN senior justice correspondent Evan Perez and CNN senior legal analyst Elie Honig.
Welcome to all of you.
So, Kristen, take us through what you've seen today and your return there.
KRISTEN HOLMES, CNN SENIOR WHITE HOUSE CORRESPONDENT: Well, it has been somewhat chaotic morning for Betsy for our team as we have tried to gain access to the grounds here at the White House.
We know that just after 5:30 this morning that is when they actually open up the grounds here is the first time that Betsy and the team tried to get in they were denied entry and just a reminder, they had actually physically taken Betsy's badge, so they had to return it to her. So, she was going up to the gate there, there's multiple levels of security. You can see that in front of us.
This happened multiple times despite that court order coming down late last night, early this morning, the reporters for CNN, MS NOW, "Politico" not only were turned away, denied entry, but others who had not had their hard passes taken away then had their hard passes taken away when they went up to that gate. Now, there was an emergency filing on the behalf of these media companies to try and understand, have an emergency hearing to figure out what was going on, why were they being denied entry.
Around that time, there was a response eventually from the Department of Justice, in which the judge had asked for, which they laid out. everything that had gone through saying essentially that they believed that everyone who had had their badge taken or turned off was allowed back in by 9:55. Now, during the same time, Betsy tried again around 11:00, 11:30 and was actually not granted entry until just after twelve o'clock.
The White House, through this statement, the Department of Justice says that they had already given the badges back. However, clearly, they had not or there was a miscommunication somewhere given the fact that Betsy was denied entry so many times until noon here.
So right now, there are still a lot of questions about what this means, the judge saying that we were allowed back in because there had been a lack of due process. But there are still questions about what the White House is going to do about that pool. And what's fascinating is that so much of this event, as you mentioned, Kasie, has gone uncovered because of the fact that there is no TV pool coverage.
This is something that is likely to enrage President Trump. He had wanted this to be splashed all over the televisions. And it's not just President Trump, it's also President Xi. When he comes to the United States and is there for this kind of lavish arrival, the Chinese officials want that to be spread across these American TV news networks, which is just not the coverage that they've gotten because of this press ban.
HUNT: Indeed.
All right. So, Evan Perez, now that this, of course, has been restored. What is next on the legal front here?
EVAN PEREZ, CNN SENIOR JUSTICE CORRESPONDENT: Well, it's not over because this is only a temporary restraining order for 14 days, which allows the two sides, the government, the Justice Department, and the media companies, CNN, MS NOW, and Politico, to further litigate this.
And so, the judge this afternoon has now laid out a schedule beginning next week where we're expecting some additional court briefs on a more permanent version of this.
[16:05:08]
And of course, there is the specter that the president himself has said publicly on social media that he plans to appeal this. He said this even before his Justice Department lost in court. So we may see a notice of appeal from the Justice Department saying that they want to get this -- take this to a to a higher court.
All of that of course is still to be played out, but one of the things we do know is that the judge wants to hear from both sides next week in court briefs before he revisits the issue because again this is only a temporary restraining order that prevents the Justice Department, it prevents the White House from enforcing this ban for the next 14 days until it can be worked out.
HUNT: Yeah.
So, Elie Honig, what's your sense about whether the judge is going to be satisfied with the explanation of events that unfolded this morning?
ELIE HONIG, CNN SENIOR LEGAL ANALYST: Well, he should not be satisfied because I think there are major questions. So, DOJ about four hours ago submitted their timeline of how this all unfolded. And according to the Justice Department, the White House first got notice of the judge's ruling, which came down at 1:00 a.m. last night. The White House first got notice of it, they say, at 7:10 a.m. this morning, and then by 9:55 a.m., they claimed that all the passes were restored and were ready to be picked up and access was open.
First of all, even if that's exactly true, that's a nine-hour gap. You don't get to take nine hours to comply with a federal judge's ruling. I worked at DOJ. I had to comply with rulings in the middle of the night all the time. And so, that's too long.
And I think the judge is well within his right if he wants to question why did this take so long? Why was the response so casual or perhaps even foot-draggy?
The other question is, Is the timeline even accurate? Because according to DOJ's timeline, again, everything was free and clear by 9:55, but Betsy Klein tried to get in at 11:28 and was still denied. So, there's an obvious discrepancy there. And it's up to the judge if he wants to hold further hearings, but he'd be well within his right if he wanted to do so.
HUNT: Yeah. So, Elie, we also saw, of course, the judge rule here, this injunction on this question, this relatively narrow question of due process. Do you anticipate, based on what Evan was saying as well, that a broader ruling may come down when this is more fully considered? Or is this what we're going to be looking at?
HONIG: Oh, there will be more litigation, as Evan laid out. There's going to be continued litigation in the district court. There certainly will be an appeal. But I think it's important to your point, Kasie. In all the chaos at the White House gates this morning, we've sort of lost the opportunity to look at what the judge actually decided last night in his 1:00 a.m. ruling.
Now, first of all, this judge, Timothy Kelly, is a Trump appointee from 2017, and he ruled, actually not technically on the First Amendment grounds, the judge ruled there's been no due process. When the president, when the White House took away the press access, there were no rules in place, there was no procedure to contest this, and you have to have that.
The White House actually said, well, we offer them after-the-fact due process, which is sort of the opposite of what due process is supposed to be. And this judge said that's not good enough. Therefore, the media organizations are likely to prevail.
The other really important thing that the judge said in his ruling last night and again, remember, this is a Trump-appointed judge he basically rejected the Trump administration claim that this is all about national security. The judge says in his ruling the national security explanation didn't come up until several days after the announced ban. And Donald Trump himself and the vice president and Marco Rubio and others said the reason for the ban is we don't like the reporting. We think it's unfavorable, unfair, et cetera. And that's going to be a big problem moving forward.
If the courts reject that national security rationale or pretext, then they're going to lose on the First Amendment grounds as well. All right, everybody stand by for me.
My panel is here in THE ARENA. CNN political commentator, host of the "Off the Cupp" podcast, S.E. Cupp; CNN contributor and host of "The Cari Champion Show", Cari Champion; Democratic strategist, former senior adviser to the Harris and Biden campaigns, Adrienne Elrod; and former Republican congressman from Michigan, Peter Meijer.
Welcome to all of you. Thank you so much for being here.
S.E., what's the president accomplishing with this at this point?
S.E. CUPP, CNN POLITICAL COMMENTATOR: Good question. There used to be a lot more ROI on these kind of stunts. They'd gin up the base, right? They'd get the right people angry at the right people.
And I just don't think it's playing that way anymore. I have an election show called Battleground Midterms. I talked to voters all day and I hear from voters on the left and the right, Republicans and Democrats.
Voters who say I'm voting Republican in these midterms. This makes no sense.
[16:10:00]
This feels undemocratic. He's mad at the wrong thing. He's not speaking to me.
The problem isn't the media. The problem is his poll numbers. The problem is he has not delivered on the promises he made to his own voters. And he's feeling that.
We're covering that, but he's frustrated. There's nowhere for him to go. So, I expect, as our legal experts said, I expect him to do this more and more as we get closer to the midterm elections because he's frustrated, he's desperate, and this has worked than it is now.
HUNT: Yeah, I mean, Congressman, if you're a Republican who is trying -- trying to run for reelection right now, how does this fit in? I mean, clearly, to S.E.'s point, the president has picked these kinds of fights with the media all the way along. It has worked to get his base engaged.
But right now, there seems to be a sense in places like Iowa, for example, that the president's just not focused on the things people actually care about.
PETER MEIJER (R), FORMER MICHIGAN CONGRESSMAN: Yeah, I mean, there's elements where you just look at something and say, hey, there can be a fun stunt element. This can be flooding the zone and distracting from something else. But what this is doing is not only cutting off one of the president's greatest strengths, which is being able to communicate and talk to the media.
You know, he had the ribbon cutting at the White House helicopter landing pad that was just established. Nobody could hear him because the pool wasn't there. This is Xi Jinping's first state visit in 11 years.
We're talking about Iowa. Trade is going to come up. Agricultural exports are going to come up and cutting off the knees of your own press coverage of things that could be great successes, not only for the president, but Republicans in battleground states or in tough districts, I just -- I cannot find a silver lining here.
CARI CHAMPION, CNN CONTRIBUTOR: Yeah, I'm definitely in agreement with everything that everyone said so far. Here's my question. I think that he did do this to get to his base because they are used to his stunts and they think that he thought, I believe he truly thought this was one way to show that he was strong and he was being this leader.
But when I look at this, my hope is, and we've said this before, everyone has often thought, well, is the pen mightier than the sword? And I hope that we have found our way in terms of the fourth estate. Early on, when this president took office, I watched in real time these agencies capitulate.
To see them come together in this moment really feels like a turning point to me. My hope would be is that they could stay strong and that we wouldn't find ourselves capitulating to any more stunts. that this is something that we all can agree on on either side. It's just completely wrong.
No matter who you voted for, no matter where you are in this fight, you realize we still need to have someone who can interpret this language. And I look at what he's doing, and I don't even think if he really understands this has jumped the shark. Again, he's lost the plot of whatever he thought he was trying to do.
HUNT: One other piece of this, of course, and you saw it in that print pool report where the president joked about the, again, Chinese media, state-controlled media. And you'll remember that President Trump has long had an inclination toward strongmen leaders, especially those who he felt complimented him.
I mean, let's flash back to what he said about Vladimir Putin, of course, in the context of another country where the free press considerably different. This was back in 2015. Watch.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
MIKA BRZEZINSKI, MS NOW HOST: Would you like Vladimir Putin's comments about you?
DONALD TRUMP, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: Sure. When people call you brilliant, it's always good, especially when the person heads up Russia.
BRZEZINSKI: Yeah.
JOE SCARBOROUGH, MS NOW HOST: Well, I mean, also as a person that kills journalists, political allies, political opponents, and invades countries, obviously, that would be a concern, would it not?
TRUMP: He's running this country, and at least he's a leader, you know, unlike what we have in this country.
SCARBOROUGH: But again, he kills journalists that don't agree with him.
TRUMP: Well, I think our country does plenty of killing also, Joe. You know, there's a lot of stupidity going on in the world right now, Joe. A lot of killing going on, a lot of stupidity.
And that's the way it is. But you didn't ask me the question. You asked me a different question, so that's fine.
SCARBOROUGH: I'm confused. So, I mean, you obviously condemn Vladimir Putin killing journalists and political opponents, right?
TRUMP: Oh, sure. Absolutely.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
HUNT: S.E. Cupp, 11 years ago.
CHAMPION: It's amazing.
HUNT: That's what we're getting from him.
CUPP: Yeah, I mean, it also, I mean, praising people like Xi Jinping and Putin, it just undercuts his own message sometimes too. Remember, it wasn't that long ago. Donald Trump held a primetime address to tell us that China meddled in our 2020 elections. He used that as justification to meddle in our upcoming elections. The same country he's now praising, coming in here, he's praising their press corps because they're so obedient.
[16:15:05]
I mean, it's -- it's bananas.
HUNT: Adrienne?
ADRIENNE ELROD, DEMOCRATIC STRATEGIST: Yeah, look, I mean, Kasie, 11 years ago, I was on Hillary Clinton's campaign. I remember that interview, and we also have to remember that happened before the primary started, right? Which is really quite remarkable.
But look, at the end of the day, he has been embracing dictators since day one. We saw that play out again before the primaries even started. So, in a shocking way, it served him well in the primary season in 2015-2016. But I think the American people are sick of it, and I think S.E. made a really smart point, He's actually taking away the coverage of him.
You know, yes, I know he's not happy with MS NOW.
HUNT: A little bit of self-harm. ELROD: A little bit of self-harm, but I think even he didn't realize, like when you talked about the news feed, you know, being the mics being cut off because there wasn't a proper feed. I mean, I think he started to realize, oh, wait a minute, maybe I backfired on this.
But at the end of the day, I think the American people are sick of it. I think there's not an ROI, like you were saying, I think it is diminishing returns at this point.
HUNT: Yeah.
MEIJER: I mean, the ROI would come from a productive negotiation, right? We haven't seen with Putin. We could see that with Xi Jinping. I mean, the thing about authoritarians and dictators is the reason why they're definitionally an authoritarian or dictator is what they say goes. And it's kind of pointless to have a negotiation with somebody who isn't speaking with a sense of agency and can't argue. And when they make a commitment, have it be binding because they got to go and take it back to their parliament because maybe their public opinion isn't there.
So, I mean, I obviously abhor the kind of moral equivocation, but just from a practical standpoint, those are the folks who can actually get in a room and something can come out of it.
CHAMPION: I just wonder what he'll do next, now that this ruling is seemingly against him. Do we see him say, let me walk away in the past? Sometimes he doesn't. He leaves it there.
Or does he decide, I still want to pick up -- this is -- being defiant in general. I want to fight this fight.
CUPP: But he's losing it. I mean, he has sued a bunch of media outlets.
CHAMPION: Still doing so.
CUPP: He has lost most of those defamation suits. He just lost one this week when he had sued the pollster at "The Des Moines Register". To your point, some media agencies decided to capitulate and settle. That was a bad look and bad for journalism and democracy. But he loses this fight almost every time.
And we will win this fight, not because we're morally superior or better, but because the American people demand a free press. They demand it. And they're not idiots. They realize, well, if he does it, we're against these guys, what do they do against my guys when the next guy's in office?
So, they're not stupid. And to them, this reads, as weakness. Wherever they're coming from politically, they see this as weak.
HUNT: Yeah.
So I want to broaden this out a little bit too. And, Elie Honig, I'd like to get you to weigh in here because we've walked through a lot of the implications around the First Amendment, spent quite a bit of time covering this, but. What we saw play out this morning is now the latest entry on what's actually a fairly long list of situations where there have been questions raised about how the administration does comply with court orders.
And this was an "A.P." review. They say this, quote, in the second Trump administration's first 15 months in office, district court judges ruled it was violating an order at least in at least 31 lawsuits over a wide range of issues, including mass layoffs, deportations, spending cuts and immigration practices. That's about one out of every eight lawsuits in which courts have at least temporarily blocked the administration's actions.
I mean, there seem to be pretty significant implications here in the way they are essentially fighting the rules of that piece of our system.
HONIG: This is brand new, Kasie. There is no administration who has ever flouted court rulings anywhere near what we're seeing from this administration. And I include Trump 1.0 in that.
And the danger in defying and ignoring court rulings cannot be overstated. When we look at the immigration context, right? We remember Kilmar Abrego Garcia, the guy who was improperly deported. The Supreme Court ordered the administration to facilitate his return.
What did they do? They drag his feet, then they decide to indict him and say, okay, we'll bring him back that way. And then that case gets thrown out because it was an improper prosecution.
And so, it's important that we continue to call this out. And there are a couple of really important negative effects. Number one, Donald Trump is undermining the credibility of his own administration in courts we've seen judges saying whereas I ordinarily would give the presumption of regularity as lawyers call it -- meaning ordinarily, I'd assume that what DOJ tells me is true now judges are not doing that anymore and they're casting doubt on what DOJ lawyers say which is sort of unthinkable.
And number two, they're just simply undermining our justice system. Remember, our courts don't have armies to enforce what they say they rely on the good faith of other actors. And if we ever did get a situation where, let's say the president just said, I'm not letting CNN in today at all, we would have had a real standoff and a real problem.
[16:20:06]
So that really undermines the core of our democracy.
HUNT: All right. Elie Honig, Evan Perez, thank you both very much for joining us today.
Kristen and our panel are going to stand by.
Coming up next here, Democratic Congressman Robert Garcia will be here in THE ARENA, the ranking member on the House Oversight Committee. What does he make of the president's attempts to ban reporters he doesn't like?
Plus, President Trump will soon host the Chinese leader Xi Jinping for a state dinner. The menu featuring yellow squash veloute, sesame crusted sea bass and honey ice cream. So what's changed in the 11 years since candidate Trump said this?
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
BILL O'REILLY, TV HOST: If you were president, would you throw him a big dinner?
TRUMP: I would not be throwing him a dinner. We've had this conference. I'd get him a McDonald's hamburger, and I'd say, we got to get down to work.
O'REILLY: I mean, really? Is that what you're going to do?
TRUMP: I would give him a very -- yeah, but I'd give him a double -- probably a double-sized Big Mac.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[16:25:21]
HUNT: All right, welcome back.
You are looking at a very happy Betsy Klein as she reentered the White House for the first time since the Trump administration barred CNN reporters on Saturday. She had been blocked from entering multiple times earlier today, despite the overnight order from a judge instructing the White House to immediately lift its ban on CNN, MS NOW and "Politico".
Now, that staff from all three outlets are inside the White House complex, the judge said he will not hold an emergency hearing today on the matter.
Joining me now is the top Democrat on the House Oversight Committee, Congressman Robert Garcia from California.
Congressman, always great to see you. Thank you so much for being here.
I want to start with what we saw from the administration this morning because, of course, there was a court order in place. What was your reaction to how long it took them to actually follow that order?
REP. ROBERT GARCIA (D-CA): I mean, look, there's no question that the president is going to continue to play games. They should have been allowed right in. They never -- I mean, CNN, "Politico", MS NOW never should have been -- had the press credentials revoked and kicked out of the White House in the first place. I mean, it's clear that this is a attack directly on freedom of the
press. It's an attack directly on getting people access to communication, access to what the president is doing. It's also part of a much broader effort by the president to try to control the broader media landscape. I mean, he's done it time and time again.
And he continues to attack the press. He continues to favor his own social media platforms that he's created. He's now launched, of course, this Trump TV, the state-run TV program.
So, I think we can continue to expect these attacks. And I'm really glad that the courts are doing the right thing. And I'm glad that we're going to continue important coverage from all of our media organizations.
HUNT: Congressman, of course, Democrats are looking at potentially taking control of the House in the elections this fall, which, of course, would put you in a position of considerable power at the top of the Oversight Committee. How does looking into something like this factor into your potential plans for going forward should you win?
GARCIA: So, we have serious questions about what happened. We've already sent the White House Communications Office demanding a letter demanding answers.
And we've requested a lot of information about who made these decisions. What did the president know? Did he directly give these orders? Why were they done in this way that was targeted? And that's not something that we're just going to let go.
We're glad that CNN and others are now back at the White House grounds, but that's not going to end our investigation as to why this happened. This is really unprecedented for news organizations to be kicked out of the White House and for the president to have the aggressive posture that he took.
I mean, he wanted the court to rule in his favor. And we should be clear, thank God that the courts are actually responding in a way that is appropriate here to all of you, but also to the "A.P." and others in the past.
And so, Donald Trump is going to continue to try to control the narrative, try to create his own networks to get information out, and we've got to continue to investigate and push back.
The fundamental basic right for everyone to understand in the Constitution that freedom of the press is critical to the way we govern, to our democracy -- that's going to be important. Oversight's going to continue to be engaged on this work, and we still are expecting answers to our questions from the communications office at the White House.
HUNT: Yeah. Congressman, we, of course, saw them make a national security argument when they did actually get to court. The president himself had said one thing in the Oval Office last week where he said, oh, the ban on the free press, and he talked about the coverage. But then his lawyers went in front of the judge and essentially said,
this is contrary to the national security interests of the United States. And we've seen them use that argument in other places where they're trying to get what they want and the courts have in some cases stood in their way.
The arch that the president wants to build is another recent example where suddenly there are national security concerns the administration claims exist.
What is your reaction to that argument?
GARCIA: I mean, that was the biggest B.S. I mean, give me a break. There was no national security argument. He made the argument after the fact.
He was trying to cover for himself so he can try to get a win out of this. And he continues to use his national security -- I mean, the real threat to national security is denying the press access to information to the presidency.
He wants to become North Korea or Russia. I mean, those are -- those are the authoritarian leaders and states that he actually admires.
There is no national security threat. In fact, it's harmful to our democracy to not have the press on the ground covering the president.
He's making the same arguments, of course, around the arch. Now that somehow he wants to put snipers on this arch.
[16:30:02]
He was going to put ammunition and artillery inside the arch.
I mean, come on. No one is buying this. And because it worked for him, as it relates to the ballroom, he's going to continue to make this argument.
But we've got to continue to take these cases to the courts. It's good that CNN and the other organizations did so. And in the majority, the House will also be able to take important issues to the courts.
That's something that people don't realize when you're in the minority, we don't have the power to sue on behalf of the Congress. That is going to change when Democrats win in November.
HUNT: All right. Congressman Robert Garcia, thanks very much for being with us. Always good to have you, sir.
All right. Coming up next here in THE ARENA, President Trump will soon host a state dinner with the leader of the Chinese Communist Party, while at the very same time using government money to buy ads about how he opposes communism. We'll discuss.
Plus, one world leader just announced that for the first time that we know of, a rogue A.I. hacked a government system. This, as the company behind that A.I. model tells the United Nations this.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
SAM ALTMAN, OPENAI CEO: We are at a crossroads. One path leads to a world where power is concentrated, decisions are opaque, and people feel that the most important technology of their lifetime is something being done to them.
The other path leads to a world where A.I. works for people, because people, through democratic institutions, help decide how it should develop and guide it.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[16:35:51]
HUNT: All right. Welcome back.
In just a few hours, President Trump will host a lavish state dinner for the Chinese leader Xi Jinping at the White House. But there's a reason why all the pomp and circumstance of the visit hasn't made it to your TV screens.
Right now, the press pool that normally handles live coverage of the White House is in a holding pattern. We need to hear if the administration will allow CNN to fulfill its pool responsibilities. Meanwhile, the president is trying to find other ways to get on TV using U.S. government money. That's taxpayer. That's your money.
But his decision to roll out the red carpet for a communist leader might just be stepping on his overall message.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
TRUMP: Yeah, that we will defeat communism, socialism, and Marxism in America.
America will never be a communist country.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
HUNT: All right, my panel's back, including CNN senior White House correspondent Kristen Holmes.
Kristen, the tagline on this ad, which started airing recently, that it's actually paid for with government money. Have they explained that?
HOLMES: They haven't. And it certainly seems as though it is a campaign ad. It seems very political, particularly given that we are months away right now from November. Now, we are still trying to get information about whether or not CNN is going to be included in the pool. But until then, we are trying to keep track of this meeting with President Xi of China, who, of course, a communist country. And President Trump himself stood next to Xi and really praised the
leader, saying that they have a truly great friendship. President Xi responded much more kind of diplomatic way, talking about geopolitics, saying that the interests of the two countries are intertwined.
And I will tell you, there are a lot of issues at stake. We're talking about artificial intelligence and the race for artificial intelligence. We're talking about China's relationship with Iran, China's relationship with Russia and their support of Russia in the war in Ukraine. Taiwan's fate is one of the other subject matters.
We are not sure if there is going to be anything that actually comes out of this. And the experts that I talked said they don't expect any kind of breakthroughs on this and that really goes to show you really how for President Trump this is something that is seeing the action of his own or the consequences of his own actions because what he really wanted out of this trip likely not the actual deals but the pomp and circumstance and the video coverage.
And I can tell you that it's not just the White House and President Trump that's going to be disappointed, it's also President Xi and Chinese officials. I had already heard that Chinese officials had expressed concerns that this would affect the coverage.
One of the things that the president of China wants to see when he is in the United States having this kind of lavish welcome with pomp and circumstance is seeing it sprayed across all of the televisions at night when they're redoing the coverage, which just hasn't been the case. We'll see how the rest of the evening plays out as we wait to see what happens with that press pool.
HUNT: Yeah, I want to stick, Congressman Meijer, on this ad that we played a little bit of there. The White House said this, that the -- they called that a public service announcement, reminding Americans to love their country and understand what it makes worth defending at home at our borders and abroad. The ad is educational and unapologetically patriotic. We should be proud of our country.
David Axelrod, of course, is our chief political analyst here at CNN, said American taxpayers should not pay for this. It is plainly a political ad aimed at boosting the president's sagging standing and motivating his base weeks before the election. Let him reach into that pile of cash he's amassed over at MAGA Inc.
Like, how is this appropriate?
MEIJER: I don't think it is. I mean, the message I totally agree with. Communism bad. Socialism bad. All these things bad.
The editing was fantastic. I think the vibes were immaculate. I don't think it should be paid for with taxpayer dollars, full stop.
HUNT: Because, I mean, look, the president, of course, and there have been Democratic Socialist candidates who have been elected in primarily city blue districts. The president, other Republicans have, of course, seized on that to make this a big part of their midterm messaging.
And of course, I mean, they've taken it, the president has taken it and claimed that some of those candidates and are communist. Okay.
Let's just watch what he's had to say about communism and how he feels about communism just this summer. Watch.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
TRUMP: Communism is very easy to sell. It destroys everything.
Communism is the enemy of free people everywhere, everywhere in the world. Never works.
Communism is a loser, and it always will be.
I'm number one at TikTok, and all I talk about is how bad communism is, right?
With communism, everything turns to shit, okay? It's true.
Communism is the greatest threat to our country in history.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
HUNT: And yet he is unrolling the carpet, S.E., for President Xi, who he says this of, okay, "I met President Xi at the plane, airport, exclamation point, yesterday, and he looks strong, vibrant, and better than ever."
CUPP: He's jelly. I think he wishes he were president of a China, a Russia, a Hungary, where he could be the strong man and do the things these guys get to do. I think he's really, um, he, it goes beyond admiration. I think he really likes that they have no checks on their power.
But listen, the attacks on the socialism and the communism, it's all he and Republicans have, right? It's all they can really do.
They know that the Democratic brand is also not great. It doesn't pull well either. He can't run on a good economy. He doesn't have one. He has terrible poll numbers. All the issues from tariffs to the war inure to Democrats favor.
So, this is it. And listen, fear is very motivating. It's a terrific motivator. It works when Democrats do it, works when Republicans do it.
This will work. in lots of pockets around the country. Will it work enough for Republicans to maintain the majority? I don't think so. But it's going to work. It's going to turn out some of the base voters for sure.
CHAMPION: When she says he's jelly, it makes me laugh because it's so true. And I often see -- and you have -- you've seen this, you're watching television. Sometimes I see him do this thing where he goes, you just don't know this office, sure, we got a lot of power. Like, he's so fascinated by the power that he has.
I remember when he -- the first Trump 1.0 when he won, I could see him looking around like, wow, I really did this. I tell you, things I get to play. Look at all the toys that I get to play with. Look at all the things.
And he's trying to enforce that in such a way that it is very clear he envies this man. He wants to be exactly like them.
HUNT: Well, and it is an evolution, because back in 2012, President Trump went after then-President Obama for hosting Xi Jinping, who was then the vice premier, vice president, when he was hosted at the Pentagon. And of course, and we showed you a little bit of this earlier, he also, back in 2015, insisted that he would never, ever do exactly what he is doing tonight, which is to host the Chinese president with a full state dinner, an expansive menu of fine food, as opposed to what he claimed he was going to do.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
O'REILLY: The president of China is coming. A man named Xi Jinping. Do you know Xi Jinping? I never heard of him. I don't know who he is.
But he's the president. He's coming over. He's getting a big dinner free at the White House, addressing the U.N. If you were president, would you throw him a big dinner?
TRUMP: I would not be throwing him a dinner. We've had this conference. I'd get him a McDonald's hamburger and I'd say, we got to get down to work.
O'REILLY: So you would be confrontational with the Chinese? You're saying, look, I'm not giving you a dinner. Here's a Big Mac. I mean, really? Is that what you're going to do?
TRUMP: I would give him a very, yeah, but I'd give him a double, probably a double size Big Mac.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
(LAUGHTER)
MEIJER: I'm confused. Are we supposed to be offending the second largest economy and our pacing threat in the Pacific and our military peer and blowing up those relations? I mean, what the president's doing is actual diplomacy.
Like, yes. He wanted to do Big Macs a decade ago. Now he's actually the president. It has to be a state dinner. Turns out things are different when you're in office.
But this is the most important relationship in the world today between the U.S. and China. If we screw this up, it could lead to a global catastrophe. I have no issue with the president rolling out the red carpet and trying to get the best possible deal.
CUPP: Yeah, and no one punishes Trump or Republicans for hypocrisy at all. They just don't get punished.
(CROSSTALK)
MEIJER: Hillary Clinton with a reset button with Putin. How it worked out --
ELROD: He also does this at the expense of our allies, and that's where the rub is, that, yes, he may be embracing Xi right now, but he also is alienating our allies and embracing dictators, which is the whole strongman thing that we were talking about today.
MEIJER: Our allies are thousand times closer to China. I mean, that's part of the challenge with the NATO alliance right now, is if push comes to shove, plenty of them don't feel like they actually are invested.
ELROD: I'm not sure how strategic he is being in this.
[16:45:01]
I think he is embracing Xi because he loves the strongman mentality, but he is also not -- he's not thinking about our allies in this sense either.
MEIJER: Preventing a war is the best thing for our allies.
HUNT: We're going to talk here coming up in just a second about some of these big issues that are in fact facing this bilateral relationship.
Kristen Holmes, thank you very much. The rest of our panel is going to stand by.
Ahead here in THE ARENA, the new CNN polling on how Americans are feeling about artificial intelligence as two of the top leaders in A.I. take the world stage.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
ALTMAN: If A.I. is to be democratic, the most important decisions cannot be made by labs in San Francisco alone. They must be shaped through democratic processes and by governments accountable to the people that they serve.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
[16:50:02]
HUNT: All right, welcome back.
With President Trump's summit with Chinese leader Xi Jinping now underway, the pair are set to tackle the issue that has dominated global headlines these past few weeks, the rapid growth of artificial intelligence.
Trump promised in a Truth Social post this morning that A.I. will, quote, "be a big topic of discussion", but that he also wants to, quote, "leave it exactly where it is". Xi, speaking from the White House earlier, said that both the U.S. and China have the, quote, "capability and responsibility to develop and manage A.I. for good".
That as new CNN polling shows that Americans are far more fearful about A.I. development than they are hopeful or excited, with one in eight saying they are concerned about its rapid growth.
While A.I. pessimism does seem to run deeper among Democrats, majorities from all parties agree that the government has not yet done enough to regulate the technology's development.
Joining our panel now is CNN contributor and technology journalist Jacob Ward, who is also the host of "The Rip Current" podcast.
Jacob, it's always good to see you. Thank you so much for being here.
This is a significant moment here for A.I. with the president meeting with Xi Jinping, and it also comes amid the news that a government was hacked by a rogue A.I. agent. What are you looking at today as we also, of course, hear from two of the biggest players in the A.I. space at the United Nations?
JACOB WARD, CNN CONTRIBUTOR: Well, I guess the first thing I'm looking at here, Kasie, is just the gulf between what the president seems to say and seems to exhibit in terms of his attitude around A.I. as compared to everything else that's going on around him. It's literally like, you know, a house on fire and he's still sort of sipping coffee in the kitchen, you know, saying we don't need -- you know, that basically we want to leave it alone was the way he put it and describing somehow China as also being interested in that.
Meanwhile, you know, calling calls for some sort of international cooperation as if it would be some sort of cartel, he put it. You know, the guy's just not really in touch with what's going on. not least the companies themselves, which are all saying, please, for the love of God, regulate us, right? I would also say there's such a gulf here between how the president, I think, likes to negotiate or tends to negotiate anyway, which is from a position of absolute certainty and total strength, and what's going on with China, which does not need us in order to keep going down the road it's going when it comes to A.I., has an elaborate set of regulations in place, and has a 38- nation global alliance on A.I. that it doesn't need the U.S.'s endorsement to continue on.
So, all of it just feels like he's so detached from the reality of the moment when it comes to A.I. here, Kasie.
HUNT: Jacob, can you just give us your breakdown, your sense of what the race looks like right now? I mean, if you think about this, in some ways, it's not -- it's a little bit analogous to the space race in a way, right? Who can develop the most powerful version of this technology quickly enough? Where does it stand? Who's ahead?
WARD: At the moment, the United States remains ahead in the sort of essential benchmarks. But whereas once upon a time, we could have imagined that we were, let's say, a year, maybe two years ahead, now it's a matter of months.
And according to one recent benchmark from Stanford, in some cases, it's just neck and neck. So, in terms of actual technical achievement, we're pretty much tied, if we're going to call this a race and stick without analogy.
The other thing to point out here, Kasie Wright, is that China is using, because it's been forced to, a set of less powerful chips than American companies have access to, and yet they've managed to squeeze these incredible efficiencies out of it. And so that's one of the things, that's another negotiating tactic right off the table. They don't need our chips, it turns out, to make incredible pieces of technology.
So, you know, the race is definitely sort of on, but then the question becomes, what exactly are we racing towards again? Like, what is it we're building, right? Going to the moon was a very specific target with some very specific scientific benefits.
It's not at all clear what the goal is here. Are we talking about a truly, like, if we're really talking about creating a self-aware A.I., I mean, already, as you mentioned, you know, Australia's prime minister, why don't you ask him some questions today about whether he wants a self-aware A.I. floating around, right?
I think the Chinese negotiators They don't want our agents running amuck through their hospital system or energy infrastructure. So, what exactly are we racing toward here?
There was some really interesting testimony at the U.N. yesterday from a noted computer scientist guy who was an early pioneer in neural networks named Yoshua Bengio. And he said something I want to read out loud here because it's so smart.
It says, "Citizens and governments should not accept the company's claims that they are trapped in a race." Here he's talking, of course, about the race between Anthropic and OpenAI. "The race is not a law of nature. It is the product of choices."
You know, and he says also, it is a race where everyone loses.
I think it's time for us all to step back and just think, where are we going here? What are we trying to build with this stuff? Because so far, the milestones are pretty scary here, Kasie.
[16:55:02]
HUNT: Yeah, no, and I suppose maybe the Manhattan Project is the better question here, although that also has incredible implications.
Jacob Ward, thank you, sir. I always appreciate how clear you are on all this stuff. Hope you'll come back soon.
WARD: Appreciate it, Kasie.
HUNT: All right. We'll be right back. (COMMERCIAL BREAK)
HUNT: Thanks very much to my panel. Really appreciate all of you. Great to be here in New York with you.
Thanks to you at home for watching as well.
Don't go anywhere, Jake Tapper is standing by for "THE LEAD".
Hey, Jake.
