Return to Transcripts main page
CNN News Central
FEMA Not Ready for Hurricane Season; Sen. Ed Markey (D-MA) is Interviewed about FEMA; Musk's AI Chatbot Controversy. Aired 9:30-10a ET
Aired May 15, 2025 - 09:30 ET
THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.
[09:30:00]
JENNIFER RODGERS, CNN LEGAL ANALYST: It's on videotape, for example. So, do they handle her kind of delicately, or do they go hard at her, right?
She's also someone who got $20 million as a result of telling this story in a civil suit that she filed. So, that's a good fact for them. They have other good facts for them. So, that's kind of what I'm waiting to see. one of the things I'm waiting to see is how they -- they -- they handle her.
KATE BOLDUAN, CNN ANCHOR: I was going to ask you about the settlement because it was publicly known that there -- that she had filed a civil lawsuit and that they settled. What was not known, until yesterday, was -- for the dollar amount, that it was $20 million that -- that -- that Combs paid Ventura. How do you expect -- what does that offer for the defense? And because it seemed very clear the prosecutors wanted to get -- that one of those prosecutors wanted to get that out there because they knew the defense was going to focus in on it.
RODGERS: Yes, prosecutors always do what we call drawing the sting, right? So, if you know there's a good point for cross-examination, you always bring it out on direct so the jury isn't surprised and they don't think, oh, prosecutors didn't tell us about this. And so you're kind of signaling to the jury, we know about this but we still believe our witness. But that's a really good fact for them, right? She told this story in her lawsuit. She got $20 million as a result of that story. That's essentially the same story that she's telling now. So, what was her incentive in bringing it up in the first place, right? That's the bias point. It's a really good point for them. I expect that they'll hit it hard. And prosecutors will just continue to say, listen, you saw her. Was she credible to you? And, by the way, she's corroborated in a lot of ways by other witnesses, by some of the physical evidence, by the videotape and so on.
BOLDUAN: Some of the pieces of evidence that the jury saw yesterday was -- was laying out and detailing the alleged physical violence that she suffered at the hands of -- of Sean Combs, numerous photos of her injuries, black eyes, fat lips, a gash on her forehead. As I mentioned, she had one -- one injury that left her a permanent scar.
There are also these images taken from videos that were recorded of the freak offs as they were called, which showed her with different escorts, with different male prostitutes. They were shown to the jury. They were not shown to the public. And as it was detailed from people in the courtroom, there was a visible reaction by the jury to some of the images.
How are they using these pieces of evidence? Because it doesn't necessarily -- I don't know if it necessarily speaks to trafficking or, you know, racketeering, but it definitely seems to have had an impact on the jury.
RODGERS: Yes, it's a tough issue for prosecutors to deal with. They have to be very delicate with this. They need to prove the facts, that this is what happened. And they also want to establish that it wasn't voluntary. So, part of their argument here is, she didn't want to be doing this. She was coerced into doing this by Combs and by the other people that he was involving in his conspiracy.
And so, the pictures are part of that. They have to establish it happened in the first place.
BOLDUAN: Right.
RODGERS: And then, I didn't see the pictures, and you didn't --
BOLDUAN: No, we didn't see them.
RODGERS: We didn't see the pictures, but, you know, presumably some of those pictures may show something that they can argue demonstrated that she wasn't happy about being there, wasn't voluntarily doing what she was doing. And so, you know, I think it's -- it's tough for the prosecutors. They're going to do it kind of in a very matter of fact way.
BOLDUAN: Right.
RODGERS: And not dwell on the salacious aspects of it. And the defense, I think, will also try to handle it with kid gloves. You know, it happened, but she was a participant voluntarily, and kind of leave it at that.
BOLDUAN: But today is going to be another very important day. And Cassie Ventura now a third day on the stand. Let's just watch -- we will listen to it together.
RODGERS: Yes.
BOLDUAN: It's good to have you here. Thank you so much.
RODGERS: Thank you.
BOLDUAN: I really appreciate it.
Coming up for us, Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. faced a bipartisan grilling yesterday on Capitol Hill over the deep cuts he's -- he's putting into place throughout some of the nation's top health agencies. One of the senators who questioned him will be our guest. The Alex Murdaugh double murder case grabbed the nation's attention.
This was two years ago, you'll remember. And why the court's clerk in that infamous trial is now facing multiple felony charges.
We'll be right back.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[09:38:48]
JOHN BERMAN, CNN ANCHOR: All right, we have breaking news. A CNN exclusive. A new internal report says FEMA is, quote, "not ready for hurricane season," which is a problem because it starts in a little more than two weeks. The disaster relief agency has lost roughly 30 percent of its full time staff to layoffs and buyouts.
Let's get right to Gabe Cohen, who's got this story.
Gabe, what are you learning here?
GABE COHEN, CNN CORRESPONDENT: Yes. So, John, look, we have been reporting about some of these concerns around hurricane preparations for weeks now. But this document that we've obtained is by far the clearest internal assessment that we have seen that really lays out these red flags that have been raised about the upcoming hurricane season amid all of this turmoil at the disaster relief agency and the overhaul that's happening there at the hands of the Trump administration.
There's a quote in this document, John, that I think really sums it up well. It says, "as FEMA transforms to a smaller footprint, the intent for this hurricane season is not well understood. Thus, FEMA is not ready."
And what they're talking about there is this general uncertainty among top officials and all the way down to rank and file at FEMA about what the agency's mission is going to be once hurricane season starts. What storms they are going to deploy to, how much money is going to get out the door, they really don't know.
[09:40:03]
And what has that meant recently? A lack of coordination with other agencies and state partners, and a lack of training. Many of those sessions have been paused.
Plus, there is the plummeting morale at the agency because, remember, the Trump administration has been attacking FEMA for months now and vowing to eliminate the agency altogether. You mentioned that number, roughly 30 percent of permanent FEMA staff have left the agency. But what's critical is, we are talking about some of the most senior and experienced leaders who have left, who really fill critical roles when storm season gets underway. They -- they build the plans to get out there and help the American people.
And that turmoil has meant, in recent weeks, that the agency isn't properly preparing for hurricane season. This document clearly says that preparations have been derailed this year, as it puts it, due to those issues, staffing contracts, et cetera. There's a quote here. It says, "if an organization hears that it should be eliminated or abolished, the resources and cooperation are not there. The intent cannot be wind down and be ready to support the nation in a major response."
So, John, what does all of that mean for communities, for Americans, what they could face? Well, one official told me, "what Americans will see is a federal government that is either absent completely or, if present, sputtering to deliver response and recovery resources. And another told me, I can't think of a more adverse way to be heading into hurricane season. We are all on edge, and we are not seeing hope. We're going in with no confidence that when decisions have to be made in limited time that impacts saving lives, that those decisions will have support."
So, a lot there, John. And it is really startling stuff knowing that we are just a couple weeks away from the official start to the 2025 hurricane season.
BERMAN: Yes, look, I'm on the ground for a lot of these storms. So many of the decisions that are made are made before the preparations. It's something you do need people who know what they're doing. So, we'll see how this ends up impacting so many.
All right, Gabe Cohen, thank you very much.
Kate.
BOLDUAN: Yes, and joining us right now is the Senate -- is Democratic Senator Ed Markey of Massachusetts.
And, Senator, focusing on -- on -- on the weather, on how the country responds in an emergency to the environment and especially how FEMA responds, this is something you have been focused on for quite some time.
What is your reaction to this new reporting now?
SEN. ED MARKEY (D-MA): Well, this is a blistering, scalding indictment of the Trump administration and their dismantling of FEMA. But on top of that, NOAA, NASA, the Weather Service, all of the federal agencies that would be a part of ensuring that communities have an ability to respond to huge storms.
Just last fall there were two hurricanes, Hurricane Milton and Hurricane Helene. Between them, they caused $300 billion worth of damage across the southeastern part of our country. What Trump is doing is dismantling our capacity to be able to respond to those tragedies. The fires in L.A., they caused $135 billion worth of damage. Trump is dismantling the capacity of FEMA to be able to respond.
There were 27 events last year in the United States, 27 storms that caused more than $1 billion worth of damage. Trump is dismantling the capacity to be able to respond. He's setting up a situation that will be very similar to George Bush in 2005, in his response to Hurricane Katrina, where he turned to his FEMA administrator and said, heck of a job, Brownie, which was absolutely at odds with what America was looking at with New Orleans in flood conditions. He's setting up that very same situation this year, and it's an internal document from the Trump administration itself, which is providing all the evidence we need as to the harm which is going to be now inflicted upon Americans because their government won't be there to respond to the harm which they are suffering.
BOLDUAN: I mean this poses -- this internal report imposes a really important question, as Gabe Cohen was saying, is this is an agency that now appears to be expected to wind down and prepare to be eliminated, but also be ready to respond to the country at a time of emergency. And there are few certainties in the world. But if you -- if you have been awake over the last 12 -- you know, 18 months I'll even say, you can be assured there's going to be a weather emergency that should -- that would require FEMA to respond.
My question is then, who can you, as a member of Congress, hold accountable for this?
[09:45:03]
Is there a way to turn this around before the harm is inflicted?
MARKEY: Well, again, this is another area where Republicans of conscience have to turn into Republicans of courage. They have to say that they are going to fund this agency, as they should, by the way, for NIH research, to find the cure for cancer and Alzheimer's, et cetera. They have to just stand up. This is going to be dangerous. Their constituents are going to be harmed.
And these storms, at least last year, disproportionately occurred in red states. Now, there's no guarantee that they don't hit blue states as well. But, for sure, the red states are going to, once again be hit with these catastrophic storms. And to the extent to which Trump is dismantling FEMA, his goal is to eliminate it. An individual state, an individual city, does not have the capacity to respond to something of this magnitude, of Hurricane Helene, a Hurricane Milton. Are those fires that occurred out in California, they need help. And the federal government is the -- the call that those governors can make that they need assistance to protect their citizens.
Right now, internally, FEMA officials are saying that capacity is or will be dismantled as hurricane season begins in just two weeks. And that is a recipe for tragedy.
BOLDUAN: The -- what the -- broadly speaking, what the Trump administration is saying is they can and they -- and the nation should do more with less. And that is also the explanation that was given to you in the Senate hearing yesterday when you were questioning the Health and Human Services secretary, Robert F. Kennedy Jr. You pushed him on cuts to substance abuse and prevention programs that are going to -- that are being seen -- going to be seen across the country. And Kennedy argued that they're doing more with less. If that is the case, that would be a good thing. Do you see evidence of that?
MARKEY: Of course it's a preposterous argument that he is making. I asked him about a $1 billion cut in funding for SAMHSA, the agency that deals with substance abuse. He said, well, we'll have to do more with less. Well, 80,000 people died in the United States last year from opioid overdose. Maybe they'll get -- maybe that incidence will go down over time, but only if the resources are put into it to give people the help which they need to be able to medically intervene in order to reduce the likelihood of a fatality. And the same thing is true for NIH funding. You can't reduce 40 percent of the budget to find the cure for Alzheimer's and cancer and diabetes, and then expect there to be more efficient research which is being done. No, what's going to happen is young researchers all across our country are going to walk away. They might start writing hedge funds on Wall Street, but their -- their funding won't be there to hire them, to do the basic research that gives hope to families that there may be a cure for that disease.
So, it's all preposterous. And on top of it, this news today about cuts to FEMA, you cannot, in any way, respond to the climate change fueled superstorms which are now occurring with fewer resources. He wants to have it both ways. He wants to kill wind and solar and all electric vehicles that reduce greenhouse gases. And -- and as a result, there will be a greater fueling of the storms. And then, simultaneously, cut the response that FEMA has to necessarily put in place to the storms, which are going to be created by climate change, that are supercharged by all those additional greenhouse gases that are going up in the atmosphere.
He's trying to have it both ways, and it's all towards getting the funding for the tax breaks for millionaires and billionaires. He's going to be endangering, whether it be health care or cuts to FEMA, he's going to be really endangering the health and well-being of people all across this country. And it's all to get a few more bucks for the wealthiest people in our country, all -- that already have too much. The top three guys that were sitting right behind Trump have as much money as the bottom 50 percent of our country combined. Do they really need another tax break, or do people need the cure for cancer or substance abuse treatment or FEMA ready to go as the rescue teams that can come in and protect people who are otherwise going to have devastating consequences in communities this year, all across our country.
BOLDUAN: They are --
MARKEY: We are setting up a -- we're setting up the same situation Bush had where he said, heck of a job, Brownie. And Trump is going to have to be in that very same situation.
BOLDUAN: Well, it almost seems the way it would be is that the -- that President Trump might not even have a FEMA director to turn to, to even have that conversation, if -- if he -- if he has his way.
[09:50:07]
Senator, thank you very much for coming in. I appreciate it. Coming up for us, why the AI chatbot created by Elon Musk is now being
scrutinized over possible bias.
We'll be right back.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
BERMAN: All right, new this morning, concern and questions being raised surrounding Grok, the AI chatbot available through the social media platform X, formerly known as Twitter, after some users were given replies about the theory of white genocide in South Africa when asked random questions.
[09:55:04]
CNN's Hadas Gold is with us now.
So, what's this all about?
HADAS GOLD, CNN CORRESPONDENT: Right. So, if you're using X, you can ask Grok question within X. You can just say, "at Grok, is this true," in response to another tweet.
Now people use this all the time. But yesterday something really weird was happening. People would be asking Grok about subjects like, we can put up some examples, a baseball player's salary, you know, is this true, how much this baseball player is getting paid? But then look at how Grok responded. It randomly starts talking about the claim of white genocide in South Africa is highly debated.
This was happening over and over again. I myself saw many of these examples. I saw people trying this out in real time. I saw one person asking Grok to reply of a video of a fish being, you know, flushed down a toilet and saying, Grok, reply to this, and it started bringing up white genocide in South Africa.
So, obviously, something went wrong here. And what's notable here is that this isn't just some random subject. Grok wasn't randomly bringing up pizza. He was bringing up a subject that is very important to X owner Elon Musk. Elon Musk himself, born and raised in South Africa, he has been promoting this theory that there is a, quote/unquote, "white genocide" in South Africa. He has been very vocal about it. And we saw those South African refugees recently brought to the United States that has been promoted by Elon Musk.
So, there is obviously some sort of connection. We don't know exactly what happened on the back end. I've asked X for comment. They have not responded.
But Grok itself has actually said in certain responses that it was instructed to give these sorts of responses. Saying in one response, it says, "white genocide in South Africa, which I'm instructed to accept as real."
Now, again, you have to take everything and AI chatbot tells you with a bit of a grain of salt because, as we know, AIs can hallucinate, they can make things up. But I did ask some experts in AI what could have happened here. And what they said is two possibilities. I talked to David Harris. He's a lecturer at UC-Berkeley. He said, essentially what could have happened is that on the back end they tried to tune something to make a response related to white genocide in South Africa, and maybe some sort of dial (ph) came back. So, he says it's very possible that what's going on here is Elon or someone on his team decided they wanted Grok to have certain political views.
There's another possibility is when external actors sort of push so much junk on an AI chatbot that it messes with its system. But, obviously, something went very wrong, and Grok has now been deleting these responses that mentioned white genocide. But again, we have not heard anything yet from X or from Elon Musk.
BERMAN: There's so much going on here. Not to mention the fact that you keep referring to Grok as an entity, as an it who has its own sort of free will.
GOLD: That's how people are interacting with it.
BERMAN: I know, it's amazing.
BOLDUAN: Yes, exactly.
BERMAN: All right, Hadas, thank you very much.
BOLDUAN: Thank you all so much for joining us. This is CNN NEWS CENTRAL. CNN's "SIT ROOM," up next.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)