Return to Transcripts main page

The Lead with Jake Tapper

Meta and YouTube Found Liable in Social Media Addiction Trial; U.S. Set to Deploy More Troops as White House Says Iran Talks Continue; New Jersey, Maryland Sue Trump Admin to Halt Planned ICE Facilities. Melania Trump Introduces Humanoid Bot At The White House; MLB's "Robot Umpires" Official Arrive. Aired 6-7p ET

Aired March 25, 2026 - 18:00   ET

THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[18:00:00]

PHIL MATTINGLY, CNN ANCHOR: Welcome to The Lead. I'm Phil Mattingly in for Jake Tapper.

This hour, a landmark ruling in these social media addiction case, jury today finding YouTube and Meta, which owns Facebook, knew their designs were dangerous and failed to warn users of the risks. This case could lead to major changes for how these social media apps operate, especially when it comes to younger users. I'll speak with a mother who blames Instagram for her daughter's death and is suing social media companies in a separate case.

Plus, as strikes and damage pile up, the White House says, talks to end the Iran war moving forward and the U.S. is working to arrange a meeting to discuss an off-ramp. But it comes as sources say about 1,000 additional U.S. soldiers are preparing to deploy it for the Middle East. So, are the countries moving towards peace or not?

Also, a very unusual guest, you could say that, at the White House today. First Lady Melania Trump joined by an A.I. powered robot. She discussed ways that A.I. could be used in classrooms across the country. The robot even managed to greet the crowd in 11 different languages before leaving the event.

And speaking of robots, the national nightmare is over into opening day for Major League Baseball, and we've got, seriously, robot umpires. The new system will allow players to challenge the calls made by human umpires. So, how could this change the game? That's ahead.

The Lead this hour, the bombshell ruling in California against two social media giants, a jury today found YouTube, which is owned by Google, and Meta, which owns Facebook, harmed users when they designed dangerous and addictive platforms and failed to warn their users of potential risks. A now 20-year-old California woman named Kaylee and her mother sued the companies accusing them of hooking her as a child and causing her to develop anxiety, body dysmorphia and suicidal thoughts.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

MARK LANIER, PLAINTIFF'S ATTORNEY: This message is one that's important to Kaylee and her family, but it's a very great importance to a generation of people who have been affected.

There are so many families who've been tragically hurt through the addiction of social media, and we've sent a message with this that you will be held accountable.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

MATTINGLY: Now, this comes after a separate jury in New Mexico found yesterday that Meta failed to protect children from sexual predators. The jury's decision called Meta's practices, quote, unconscionable and ordered the company to pay $375 million in damages. I'll speak to the New Mexico attorney general in moments in both cases.

Meta denied the claims and said it disagreed with the rulings and is appealing. Google also said it would appeal today's verdict.

Now, these rulings are a major victory for parents and advocacy groups that have spent years calling on tech giants to impose and enforce guardrails for children online. The decisions have the potential to upend the social media landscape, setting a precedent for hundreds of similar cases around the country.

We start things off with Kara Swisher, CNN contributor and host of The Pivot, and on podcast, nobody better to talk to.

Kara, you've reported on and chronicled the rise of social media companies for decades at this point. Put in perspective how significant these two verdicts are.

KARA SWISHER, CNN CONTRIBUTOR: Well, finally, right? This is something we've known for a long time. It's been -- you know, there were whistleblowers, there's all people talking about -- I've talked about it for 15, 20 years about these issues around social media. Maria Reza in the Philippines was talking about all this in terms of changing people's personalities.

And this is their cigarette moment, the cigarette company moment, and that it finally got to court, because they've been able to stave off these things through Section 230, all manner lobbying, all kinds of things. But now these cases are starting to pile up, especially around kids and especially what they do to our kids. And I think anyone with -- anyone who has children, anyone who themselves understands the addiction problem here does understand this and the carelessness with which they've rolled out a lot of these things and the way other companies have not, you know, that are not allowed to regular analog companies has been very clear here for a long time. They do not care for your safety.

And so, you know, they will appeal these, they have so much money, they're so wealthy, you're going to see this. But there's dozens and dozens of cases behind it and we'll see where they go. And they'll try to defend themselves in all manner of grounds. But we all know, right? I think anyone who has a phone understands this verdict.

MATTINGLY: I think, initially, I was stunned because I just never thought honestly there would be a verdict in any case related to them.

SWISHER: Right, accountability.

MATTINGLY: Yes. For --

SWISHER: It's called accountability.

MATTINGLY: For all the reasons you laid out, there never seemed to be a pathway for anything to reach an outcome.

SWISHER: Right.

MATTINGLY: I guess the next thought was, does this open up the door to kind of -- open up the floodgates for legal losses and liability.

[18:05:02]

SWISHER: Yes. I think -- I mean it's interesting. It usually takes 20 years, like cigarettes took 20 years, mothers against drunk driving, these are very -- they like to pretend they're different, and this is all about the First Amendment, but it's a -- they're putting out a product. And it's sometimes it's a good product, sometimes it's a shoddy product. And there's plenty of evidence to show how sloppy they've been, especially around young people. I mean, it's really quite astonishing.

And I think the New Mexico thing was interesting. It was different. There's all these chat bot things that are going at Google and OpenAI, and it's all the same idea. How -- are they making products that are reasonably safe? And not everything could be safe. I'm not a sort of mommy state person, which is another argument they're going to use, but we do this with liquor, we do this with driving, we do this with the military. You know, we expect products not to hurt us. And these hurt us in very different ways. And so you're going to see a lot of this. And eventually they're going to have to be accountable for what they've done here. And even if they've given us a lot of things we like, it's still a product and they have to act like it's a product.

MATTINGLY: Do you see the industry -- look, these companies have been very savvy about getting in front of regulations, about doing -- making their own changes, about creating their own kind of operational structures to try and head off where certain problems or conflicts may be arising. And --

SWISHER: There aren't regulations.

MATTINGLY: No, that's my point. Okay, yes --

SWISHER: There's no regulations.

MATTINGLY: No. Head off, as in they basically manage to eliminate the plausible pathway legislatively on the federal side of things. Is this a situation where you're going to see the companies make a lot of changes themselves in the wake of this, in the hopes of trying to stop the floodgates, essentially?

SWISHER: Well, who was standing in front of Donald Trump in the front row? It was Mark Zuckerberg, Sundar Pichai, both Meta and Alphabet. You know, they're going to try because this is an administration who's been very friendly to tech compared to a lot of other administrations. And actually none of them have been particularly hard on them. And I think the states have been very active, you know, in doing this. And I think that's great.

And now it's gotten in front of a jury, which is, I think, a very different thing because I think. There's a very bipartisan consensus that something's wrong here. And that's -- and everybody knows whether it's Marsha Blackburn or Ro Khanna or those are politicians, but parents understand that. And I think if you're a parent, you understand the deleterious effects. You also understand the good things. I like a lot of what it's doing. But I'd like -- there's more regulation on your corner deli than there is on the richest companies in the world. And you have to ask yourself, why is that?

MATTINGLY: There is nobody better. Kara Swisher, I really appreciate your time. Thanks so much.

SWISHER: Thank you.

MATTINGLY: Well, joining me now to discuss his court victory yesterday against Meta is New Mexico's Attorney General Raul Torrez.

Now, Meta has been ordered to pay $375 million for violating the state's child safety laws.

Attorney General, thanks so much for joining me. Just to start, jurors on the case, they spoke out after the verdict was read. I want you to listen to what they said.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Social media has really become, and as Meta, as a company itself and what it has come to represent and should be trying to represent better and in just protecting teens and people that are going to be on those platforms.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: It ultimately swung that way because the majority of the 12 people agreed that there was willful violation.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

MATTINGLY: I'm interested, what did these outcomes yesterday and today as well signal to you about what's to come in this space?

RAUL TORREZ (D), NEW MEXICO ATTORNEY GENERAL: Well, I think yesterday's decision was a really a watershed moment for holding Meta accountable, for holding social media companies accountable and, frankly, for a whole new era of accountability for big tech across the board. We had an opportunity to put before a jury all the evidence about the ways in which this product is dangerous, it's addictive. It was intentionally marketed to children, and the leaders of that company lied and misrepresented those facts.

And the jury came back with an unequivocal message that they expect change and they demand accountability in this space. The question now is, are leaders in D.C. going to hear that same message and take the action that we need?

MATTINGLY: A Meta's spokesperson released a statement that read in part, quote, we work hard to keep people safe on our platforms and are clear about the challenges of identifying, removing bad actors or harmful content. Do you believe children and teens should be on Meta's platforms at all?

TORREZ: No, not right now. I don't think those places are safe. I think there was a lot of evidence introduced by Meta's own employees, former employees and whistleblowers who had identified features and aspects of their business model that placed kids at risk.

[18:10:00]

They were raising red flags for years and making specific recommendations. Those recommendations were ignored because it ran into, you know, the business imperative, the profit motive inside these companies. And until that changes, I don't think these are safe places for kids to be in.

MATTINGLY: Yes. You mentioned kind of the concerns that were ignored. The obvious questions mounting over what CEO Mark Zuckerberg, other top executives at the company knew about the potential harm tied to their platforms. Zuckerberg, obviously, everybody remembers, apologized on Capitol Hill in 2024, rolled out teen accounts, but even today, the company maintains its products are safe. Is Mark Zuckerberg being held accountable enough, in your opinion, given what you've seen?

TORREZ: Well, I think yesterday's decision is an important first step, but we're not through with Meta yet. We actually have a second phase of the presentation that we'll be making to the district court in Santa Fe in May. We'll be asking to have Meta declared a public nuisance here in New Mexico. We'll be asking for additional monetary penalties, but more importantly, specific injunctive relief, changes to the algorithm, real age verification, independent monitoring of those features. That's the kind of real change of the business model that we need to see inside this company and inside the entire industry.

MATTINGLY: Have you thought through going after other social media companies as well in the wake of this victory of phase one?

TORREZ: Well, we already have a pending lawsuit against Snapchat for the role they play in facilitating sextortion. We have a number of investigations outstanding into allegations of misconduct by various artificial intelligence platforms. So, we're just getting started in terms of trying to hold the line and set clear guardrails for doing business here in New Mexico.

MATTINGLY: Just real quick, we don't have a ton of time left, but were you surprised?

TORREZ: No, I actually wasn't surprised. You know, it was a message. I've been a prosecutor and a trial attorney for some time. When you do a six-week trial and a jury comes back in less than a day, they're saying something, right? Like this is -- the message was clear. I think the evidence was overwhelming. And, you know, Meta made all the same arguments in court that they've been making in front of Congress, that they've been making to the public, and the jury just didn't buy it.

And I think they and everyone else in this space need to really understand that communities, families, parents are fed up. They expect a whole lot more. And we're going to use every available tool to keep holding them accountable.

MATTINGLY: New Mexico Attorney General Raul Torrez, I really appreciate your time, sir. Thanks so much.

TORREZ: Thank you.

MATTINGLY: Well, Trump administration officials still CNN they're trying to set up a meeting to discuss an off ramp in the war with Iran. But how likely is that and how soon? We'll go to the White House next for a reality check with the one and only Kaitlan Collins.

Stay with us.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[18:15:00]

MATTINGLY: In our World Lead, unanswered questions about the U.S. war on Iran and what comes next as we're seeing a U.S. military buildup in the Middle East, including 1,000 paratroopers set to deploy in days. Sources telling CNN Iran has been boosting its defenses on Kharg Island as the U.S. reportedly weighs a ground operation there to regain control the Strait of Hormuz. As for diplomatic talks, White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt would not confirm reports that there will be a meeting in Pakistan this weekend to discuss an off- ramp to the war in Iran.

CNN's Kaitlan Collins joins us from the North Lawn of the White House. And, Kaitlan, this is fast moving and very fluid and seems to change quite often. What's your sense of where things actually stand right now?

KAITLAN COLLINS, CNN ANCHOR AND CHIEF WHITE HOUSE CORRESPONDENT: Yes, Phil. Sometimes it is changing by the hour and it's also changing depends on who you're talking to. Iranian officials have been saying one thing, U.S. officials have been saying another. Both are kind of trying to further their own interest here. But what we do know from our own reporting, Phil, is that at least talks about talks are happening and having them in real life, whether that's in Pakistan or whatever destination they should decide on, that is still something that is very much underway, but could materialize.

And we've been keeping track of whether or not they're getting close to that and what that looks like here at the White House, because not only did Karoline Leavitt today describe these preliminary talks that are happening right now as productive, she also issued a threat about what happens if they fall apart and if they don't work. Because, of course, it was when the president came out on Monday and said he was extending his deadline that he had issued for that night to blow up Iranian power plants should they not reopen the Strait of Hormuz, he extended that to this Friday.

And so there are still questions about the deadline and if that holds and where these talks go from there, and there's so much as a part of those talks to sort out between the two sides. And one key part of this obviously that's affecting people here in the United States is the Strait of Hormuz, which has become that choke point for the flow of oil going through there.

And my colleague, Kristen Holmes, actually asked Karoline Leavitt about this today during the briefing as she was fielding multiple questions on where these talks stand and what the president is trying to get out of them.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

KRISTEN HOLMES, CNN SENIOR WHITE HOUSE CORRESPONDENT: I had a question about the Strait of Hormuz. If these negotiations are not successful, is the only option to open to reopen the strait boots on the ground given that all of our allies have essentially said that they are unable or unwilling to help?

KAROLINE LEAVITT, WHITE HOUSE PRESS SECRETARY: Look, that's a hypothetical question. It's a hypothetical question. It's also a decision that would have to be made by the commander-in-chief, and I'm not going to get ahead of him.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

COLLINS: It is obviously not a hypothetical because it does matter obviously what happens there and how that gets resolved. It's something I personally spoke to President Trump about on Monday about who he wants to see controlling the Strait of Hormuz by the end of this, if he's comfortable with it still being Iran, given obviously how much they can disrupt the flow of oil, and the president said it could potentially be him controlling it. He said me and the ayatollah was his quote to me, whoever the ayatollah is.

[18:20:11]

Obviously, they have not recognized the new supreme leader, who was the former supreme leader's son, is legitimate.

And so there's still obviously a lot of balls up in the air right now, Phil, in terms of where this is going. And as they are just struggling to even get these talks to a place where they are happening in a more fluid way, the way that they were about a month ago before the United States went to war with Iran, when obviously officials including Steve Witkoff and Jared Kushner were not pleased with what the Iranians were bringing to the table.

And so the president has been signaling this but also still sending more troops to the region. And so it is a real question of whether or not this war has been winding down, as the president had suggested, or whether or not this is simply buying them more time in order to do what they want to do before it ends over there in Iran.

MATTINGLY: A lot of questions, very, very high stakes. Kaitlan Collins, the best, as always, at the White House, thanks so much.

And, obviously, don't miss Kaitlan on her show, The Source with Kaitlan Collins. Her guests tonight include Democratic Congressman Jamie Raskin of Maryland. That's tonight, 9:00 Eastern, on CNN.

Well, the state of Michigan is suing the Trump administration trying to stop plans for a new mass detention facility. Michigan's attorney general joins me live next to explain.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[18:25:00]

MATTINGLY: In our Law and Justice Lead, a wave of legal challenges to planned ICE detention facilities in Democratic-led states. Just last week, New Jersey officials filed to halt the Trump administration plans to convert a large warehouse into a mass detention facility. Last month, Maryland's attorney general filed a similar lawsuit in that state. And yesterday in Michigan, the state's attorney general, along with the City of Romulus, filed a federal lawsuit challenging another proposed warehouse conversion there.

Here now to discuss is Michigan Attorney General Dana Nessel. Attorney General, I really appreciate your time.

Just to start with, you have warned about this has been playing out over the course of about a month. This is by far the most aggressive action. What triggered the lawsuit?

DANA NESSEL (D), MICHIGAN ATTORNEY GENERAL: Well, because this is a disaster in the making for this local community. They did not discuss this plan that -- DHS did not with state or county or local officials, and we only found out about it after the warehouse had been purchased.

You know, this is a residential area. They tell us that they're going to be detaining the worst of the worst there. And yet you're right near an elementary school, a middle school, you're a budding these residential households. And that facility also is in a floodplain. It has protected wetlands that are nearby.

There're so many other reasons why this is a bad idea, but, you know, this is not -- we're not talking about Seattle or Portland or Chicago. This is a considerably smaller police force. And I expect that we are going to see some pretty substantial efforts to protest this. We are right in the middle of Metropolitan Detroit and, frankly, it's going to be a public safety issue, if for nothing else, then just the ability to police traffic in that area. I don't know how school buses are going to get through. I don't think any thought went into putting this facility in this particular location except for the fact that it was near a couple of airports, which is all that DHS or ICE seemed to care about, but it's really tragic for this local community. And we would like DHS certainly to reconsider this.

MATTINGLY: Have you had any substantive conversations with DHS or administration officials since you initially raised concerns since this became kind of a public fight over the course of the last several weeks?

NESSEL: Yes. Well, I'm happy to say at least that DHS did contact my department today to set up some future discussions, and maybe that's because there is a new DHS secretary who probably was not a part of planning what's happening in this particular facility. But, you know, I still have grave concerns, especially because we see the way that these facilities generally operate.

And, you know, it's gravely concerning. The way that they are treating people is certain to generate a lot of controversy. And I think that the people of Metropolitan Detroit are pretty fed up with the way that ICE has been operating. And I think we're going to see that play out in real time if this facility actually comes to pass.

MATTINGLY: I'm interested. In your complaint, you know, DHS appears to have neglected to make any effort to conduct the environmental reviews required by the National Environmental Policy Act, as well as further DHS failed to consult with state and city officials and consider their input before purchasing the Romulus warehouse, contravening the Intergovernmental Cooperation Act. If this location or another location selected by DHS complies with NEPA or with the other statute that you're referring to, is that something you would eventually have to support, you would support?

NESSEL: I think the problem is that I don't know how you possibly can comport with those standards. I mean, you know, maybe there are things that you can do in regard to the actual warehouse. You can replace the sewer line. You can put in more bathrooms. It only has six bathrooms in this facility, and you're planning on over 500 people being there. That doesn't include the staff. But are you going to move the wetlands? I just don't see how -- are you going to move the neighborhoods? Are you going to move the schools? I mean, how could you possibly make this an appropriate place for such a facility?

And, you know, all I know is that if we, in the state of Michigan, behave like this, obviously, we would get sued. And it's just the height of irony that you have the federal government saying these people have to be locked up because they did not comply with our laws.

[18:30:07]

And yet here the federal government is violating multiple federal laws and state laws and local laws.

And so it's concerning to me. I don't think this is going to be a good place for a facility like this, irrespective of what DHS does.

I hate to volunteer this, but, I mean, I don't know why they didn't even ask the state about our many empty prisons that we have as a result of the declining amount of crime that we've had in the state. It just -- it makes no sense, but it's a complete disregard for the interests of this local community, and it has people really upset.

MATTINGLY: Michigan Attorney General Dana Nessel, I really appreciate your time. Thanks so much.

NESSEL: Thanks for having me.

MATTINGLY: Well, today, Meta and YouTube were found liable in a landmark social media addiction trial. Up next, a mother who blames social media for the loss of her child joins us to respond.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

MATTINGLY: We're back with more in our Tech Lead, the outcome of today's landmark social media trial could set a precedent for hundreds of similar cases and impact even more families, many of whom have been speaking out for years about the harm they say social media has caused their children.

[18:35:10]

Among them, Julianna Arnold, who lost her daughter, Coco, weeks before her 17th birthday, after she was sold Fentanyl on Instagram. Juliana is now a founding member of the group, Parents RISE!, and is joining me now.

Julianna thank you very much for your time. Thank you for being here.

I guess just to start with how are you feeling after this verdict actually coming down?

JULIANNA ARNOLD, FOUNDING MEMBER, PARENTS RISE!: Thank you, Phil. Thanks for having me. This is a very important, obviously milestone in our fight for online safety for kids, but, personally, you know, I was thinking about, I just feel really -- it's kind of bittersweet, you know? We're sitting in that room because the most horrible thing in our lives happened, and that's the loss of our children. And at the same time, we got a unanimous verdict, which was phenomenal because we are working so hard and telling our stories over and over. And this is the first time we actually feel that we are being heard and action has been taken and it came from a jury of our peers.

So, that feels good, but I have to say it's very angering to understand what these companies have done knowingly and purposefully to increase their profits and not care at all about our children's lives.

MATTINGLY: You mentioned the other parents, dozens of other parents from around the country in the U.S. flew to California for the trial. We're following it very closely. I imagine you talk often with many of them. What are you hearing from them? How are they feeling? ARNOLD: Well, I think we feel the same way. I mean, we work together closely. We work with a group. Our organization is all survivor parents, so we work very closely together. We've taken many trips to D.C. together. We've been, you know, lobbying for safety legislation for a few years now. But I think for us, this really feels like, okay, there's hope. There's hope, because everyone told us we would never get our day in court. Everyone told us that, you know, even though we were telling our stories that the legislation was difficult and because of some of the legislative like Section 230, we'd never be able to get there, and here we are. We made it.

And I think that gives us hope for the future. And we're going to continue to work on this and charge ahead because this is just plain wrong. It should not be happening. We should not be in this position. I should not be sitting here talking to you and my daughter should still be alive.

MATTINGLY: Did you ever think -- I mean, given everything you were just laying out the kind of Sisyphean task of working on this, as you have, as personal and heartbreaking it is from a loss perspective, did you think you would see this day, did you think you would see a verdict like this?

ARNOLD: I think it was very interesting because this case is being tried in a different matter, like a product liability case. So, that gave us some hope that we could get around 230, Section 230, because it wasn't content based. This is about the design of their platforms and how they were purposely designing these platforms to, you know, hook our kids, really, you know, amplify their hurt and pain and doing it all in the name of, you know, profit over, you know, protection.

And that just should be unheard of. This is the only industry in our country that's been able to get away with this, and enough is enough. Parents need to speak up. Parents need to know that this is not their fault. We can no way be in competition with what these companies are doing to our kids.

And, unknowingly, we didn't know about it, right? We had no idea. And now we find out that they knowingly did this. They had reports they had access to data that showed how much they were harming our kids, and yet they still chose to move forward. I mean, I don't even think that's negligence. That's just like their business model and that their business model is based on, this is infuriating, I have to say, and will keep us motivated until we can stop that and we have safe places for our kids and no more kids are going to die. And that's why we're doing what we're doing for our kids but all the kids in the U.S.

MATTINGLY: Just before I let you go, what do you want the world to know about your daughter, Coco?

ARNOLD: Coco was a fighter and she -- the worst thing for her is when she saw injustice. So, I hear her every day and she's pushing me on every day because she wants the truth to be known. And we are doing this to save children. And she always wanted to do things with children. She loved kids. So, I'm doing this for Coco and for all of the kids. MATTINGLY: Julianna, thanks for your time. May your daughter's memory be a blessing. I really appreciate it.

ARNOLD: Thank you. Thank you very much.

MATTINGLY: We'll be right back.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[18:40:00]

MATTINGLY: More than five years after the January 6th Capitol attacks, a notable attention on a new plaque hanging in the Capitol. Democrats, including Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries and former speaker Nancy Pelosi, unveiled this memorial to honor police officers beaten and taunted by a violent crowd on January 6th. Capitol staff actually quietly installed the plaque more than two weeks ago at 4:00 A.M. on a Saturday, three years past the deadline. The law passed by Congress mandated that plaque go up by March of 2023. Make that what you will.

In our Politics Lead, as the redistricting battle between Democrats and Republicans charges, on Virginia's Democratic Governor Abigail Spanberger is jumping in.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

GOV. ABIGAIL SPANBERGER (D-VA): I am Governor Abigail Spanberger, and I am voting yes on Virginia's redistricting amendment. It's directly in response to what other states decide to do, and a president who says that he's, quote, entitled to more Republican seats before this year's midterms. Our approach is different. It's temporary. It preserves Virginia's fair redistricting process into the future.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

MATTINGLY: Well, Spanberger who won the Governor's race by last year campaigning as a moderate insisted Democrats could pick up seats in this year's midterms without redrawing the map, but she's now changing course and catching some heat for it. A piece in The Washington Post highlights Spanberger's new stance and calls into question whether she's staying true to the moderate politics she ran on and won.

[18:45:05]

My panel joins me now.

Adrienne, Mikie Sherrill in New Jersey were like the model of like, you can talk about affordability. They'll make the progressives happy, but you can also be a moderate. Why change course on this?

I feel like Democrats are winning the redistricting battle against all odds or intentions by the president. Why push on this?

ADRIENNE ELROD, DEMOCRATIC STRATEGIST: I mean, I don't know that she's necessarily I mean, she may have had, you know, a slightly different nuanced position, but like, look, Barack Obama, the Democrats' most popular surrogate, the former president of the United States, has been in Virginia in ads supporting this for a long time. It would be very strange for the governor, the Democratic governor, not to come along with this.

And look, every almost every in fact, I think every blue state governor who has redistricting on the ballot is supporting the redistricting measure. So, you could call it pressure. You could call it, you know, maybe she wasn't as focused on this when she was trying to talk about the affordability issue, which is what voters, as you noted, very much care about.

But at the end of the day, I don't think this is a big deal. And yes, Democrats, I mean, if Trump is going to play this ball, he started it first. Democrats have to do our part to make sure that we play hardball, too.

MATTINGLY: I like hard -- fair point.

BRYAN LANZA, FORMER SENIOR ADVISER, TRUMP 2024 CAMPAIGN: I like -- I like I like hardball. I mean, that's what politics is. But at the end of the day, when the Dems do all their new seats and the Republicans do all their new seats, we're going to be plus nine. As a result of that, we're not going to be down nine.

So, I think all the states should do this. Partizan redistricting. I think gerrymandering is a good thing. I think an independent commission actually hurts democracy because it's against what our constitutional wanted. I think to the winner goes, the spoils, because that ultimately holds accountability. When you have the next election, you know who to blame when things go wrong.

And here's the thing with why it's having such an impact in Virginia. She did sell herself as a moderate. And, you know, one of the very first things she did from a policy standpoint is, is help introduce 20 new tax hikes in Virginia. She wanted the tax packages being delivered to your house.

She's no moderate. She is a full-blown lefty in the style of a Californian, San Francisco leftist who wants to govern like a lefty in Virginia. And, you know, it's like she doesn't have to run for reelection because that just doesn't sell here.

MATTINGLY: As I say, she doesn't have to run for reelection. Chill out, man.

LANZA: Yeah, it's good.

MATTINGLY: But you were going full bore. I was like, but this should be the --

LANZA: Fact that moderates, when they sell themselves to the -- to the electorate as moderates, they're not moderates. They're just hiding under this, this, this skin of fake moderates. They're really lefty progressives who never want to do anything to bring the cost down on anything. Because what is a tax? ELROD: That is not true, Bryan?

LANZA: A tax hike is a cost on the taxpayers and Democrats are voting or supporting tax hikes all over the platform at the state and local level. They don't want affordability. They just want the money to go to projects they care about.

MATTINGLY: I don't -- I can actually talk about this for a long time with both of you, but I have to pivot to the thing that I couldn't stop watching earlier today, which was Melania Trump at the White House, had a guest that was different than.

Yeah, that's the -- that's the guest. It's -- it's -- if you're wondering, is that a -- is that -- that's not A.I., that's -- a, that's a robot at the White House walking with Melania Trump. Take a listen.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

FIGURE 03, ROBOT: Thank you, First Lady Melania Trump for inviting me to the White House. It is an honor to be at Fostering the Future Togethers Global Coalition inaugural meeting. I'm Figure 03, a humanoid built in the United States of America. I am grateful to be part of this historic movement to empower children with technology and education.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

MATTINGLY: The first lady said. This is an inflection point for technology and humanity, laid out her own vision for these kind of products, becoming permanent fixtures in American classrooms. I'm terrified. I'm fairly sure that's going to be the leader of the group that's taking over the world at some point. What do you think about this?

LANZA: Yeah. Listen, I think its somebody who's been doing chores his entire life, from age nine to age 50. I'm looking forward to hand it off to a robot who can take out the trash, right? Because it's clearly not going to be my son at age nine.

So, listen, I think there are components that these robots can play. There certainly can be tutors. You know, I had a tutor growing up. I think it's a good thing that these kids may have this option and have these tutors. I think the technology is there, but you have to do it the right way. You can't have robots come from other countries where they're sending data back to the places. This has got to be built in the U.S. for U.S. components, and I think that will address all the national security concerns.

But I'm excited about it. I mean, I grew up with the Jetsons.

MATTINGLY: Yeah.

LANZA: Rosey played a big role in my upbringing, so I want a Rosey.

MATTINGY: I support that. I support Roombas. I'm a pro-Roomba. Yeah. And I also think that if they're being used for education, if they're being used for health care, if they're being used for ways to kind of the betterment of society, all for it.

What do you think?

ELROD: Well, look, again, I look at everything through the political, political lens. And if you're looking -- if you're an average American who voted for Trump because prices were too high, and you look at that and you're thinking, wait a minute, were now at war with Iran. Gas prices are out the wazoo. I'm terrified that A.I. and technology advancements are going to replace my job. And here's the White House really leaning into this robot.

I understand and I agree with you. I helped -- I helped -- I helped implement the Chips and Science Act and I -- and we want these, these leading edge technologies here, but I think we've got to be very careful. And I think the Trump administration, especially at this precarious time for them, needs to be very careful how they're leaning into this.

MATTINGLY: The optics of things right now. How do you think the administration has done on that?

[18:50:00]

Put the robot aside.

LANZA: The optics related to?

MATTINGLY: What's happening right now, what Republicans on Capitol Hill would love for them to be talking about instead and doing instead?

LANZA: Listen, I think from the optics of the administration does need to talk more about the economy. I mean, just this morning, I put gas in -- I put gas in the car. It was -- it was over $5, $5 a gallon. Like that's unsustainable.

And so when they're looking at the message in November, we have to remember, most voters make up their decision about the economy in July. We're three months away from July. So we -- and the biggest thing that voters thought they at least the Trump administration thought they had their advantage was interest rates being able to be dropped in May.

That's out the window now. So now they have to sort of recalibrate their message, knowing that the number one issue that voters care about is going to be affordability. It's going to be a pricing, and they have no mechanism in government to bring it down. And so, you know, I'm nervous. I'm nervous. We only have a couple months to sort of change the diagram of what November looks like.

But you and I were just talking in the commercial break. I mean, Donald Trump is the luckiest president we've ever seen in our lifetime. And there could be something that comes out that sort of saves him from this, you know, this doomsday scenario that we expect in November. My fingers are crossed.

MATTINGLY: Yeah. It's -- it -- things have changed a lot in a month. And it's extraordinary to think about.

Adrienne, good to see you, man.

LANZA: See you too.

MATTINGLY: Thanks to you both for coming in.

ELROD: Thanks.

MATTINGLY: We're just over an hour from the first pitch, thank goodness of the 2026 Major League Baseball season.

How could new rob -- why are we talking constantly about robots? Robot umpires? How could they change the game? That's next.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[18:55:52]

MATTINGLY: We're back with our sports lead because it is opening day. In just over an hour, the first game of the Major League Baseball season begins, and another first, MLB's robot umpires.

They've officially arrived. Well, not an actual robot. The automated ball strike system or ABS will allow players to challenge the calls made by human umpires.

Here to discuss is Rob Friedman. He is the author of the brand-new book "Unhittable: How Technology Mavericks and Innovators Engineer Baseball's New Era. of Pitching Dominance".

But if you are in the know and you care about baseball, you know him as the Pitching Ninja and as my show team can acknowledge, I've been talking about this all day and gave about three hours of why you need to be following the pitching Ninja on every social media platform.

So do that. Let me get that out there in front.

Rob, huge congrats on the book. I do want to start with ABS. What do you think of this? What does this change?

ROB FRIEDMAN, MLB ANALYST: So, it changes a lot. It's going to change things like framing. It's going to change what you're seeing on the on the screen because some pitches, you know, you see those curve balls that barely clip the zone that umpires give up on, hitters give up on, and now they can be challenged and be a strike. There's a whole level of strategy that comes to be now with robo umps.

MATTINGLY: Does this benefit pitchers?

FRIEDMAN: That's a great question. I think that's heavily debated.

MATTINGLY: Yeah. FRIEDMAN: There are hitters that say it favors them because the

strike zone will be smaller and they can't expand the zone. But there are pitchers that say they're just going to clip the zone with breaking stuff, east to west, north to south. And hitters are going to be helpless against it. So, I'm curious to see what happens.

MATTINGLY: Yeah, it's going to be fascinating to watch it play out.

Okay. Your new book is out. It's like the first time I've ordered a hard copy book in I don't know how long. And the reason why and the reason why I followed you for as long as I have is there was a period probably at the 2018, 2017 where my text chain of my college teammates was like us watching college baseball, watching everybody throw 100 and being like, what the hell happened? Like our guys were throwing 90 back in the day.

The dominance of pitchers right now, it's a fascinating story. Short- handed for normal people.

FRIEDMAN: So, what -- what -- what's happened is pitchers have been engineered to throw harder. It used to be you were taught that either throw harder. You don't, you throw strikes. You don't. You can spin it or you can't.

And now, we've taught been able to teach pitchers through a bunch of different things. Biomechanics, weight training things like Rapsodo, things that slowed down pitchers as they leave your hands so you can see exactly how it's leaving your hand and you can design different pitches, you know how it's going to move, and you can now attack hitters whole different ways.

MATTINGLY: Who should I be watching this year that I might not know about?

FRIEDMAN: I'm a big Nolan McLean fan, and if you follow me, which you do, you're going to be seeing things that you may never see before because his pitches break a ton.

I mean, you're talking about two feet of break and it like makes you want to check your eyes. Sometimes it moves so much.

MATTINGLY: Just real quick, we have about a minute a half left. Your process here again to explain to people like I was trying to, I was showing our team your video and like, they're extraordinary in the way that they show something that I've never been able to explain to people who don't play the game.

What are you doing on opening day?

FRIEDMAN: Oh, I'm going to be busy like I am. I am going to be sitting right here working constantly and watching every game. I have screens all over the place and I'll be watching everything, looking for nasty pitches, and then basically trying to show people out there why hitting is so hard. I mean, these pitchers are wizards and seeing how they tunnel pitches off each other. It's why, you know, you sit there and you feel helpless because you think you're swinging at something that you think is a fastball. Sometimes it's a sweeper or curveball.

MATTINGLY: Real quick, last one. Do you have a threshold for when you know you're going to post something like what triggers it?

FRIEDMAN: If it shocks me even a little bit, or it's something if its somebody I know that people like to see -- you know, Shohei Ohtani, pretty much anything he does gets posted. But other things there are, yeah, there are guys that I -- that I see and I'm like, I don't know how that pitch did that.

And that is when I get there and I -- and I get it out there as soon as I can.

MATTINGLY: It's the absolute best.

Rob Friedman, thanks. Huge congrats on your book. Enjoy. Opening day. Appreciate it.

FRIEDMAN: Thanks for having me.

MATTINGLY: "ERIN BURNETT OUTFRONT" starts right now.