Return to Transcripts main page

CNN News Central

Anthropic Rejects Pentagon's Ultimatum, Won't Remove Safeguards; OpenAI CEO Says He Agrees With Anthropic's Refusal To Lift Safeguards; Bill Clinton Testifies In House Epstein Investigation; Paramount Emerges Victorious Over Netflix In Warner Bros. Discovery Bidding War. Aired 1:30-2p ET

Aired February 27, 2026 - 13:30   ET

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

[13:30:00]

BRIANNA KEILAR, CNN CO-ANCHOR OF "CNN NEWS CENTRAL": The deadline is not for three hours, but the world's biggest A.I. company is already saying it's not going to give the Pentagon unrestricted use of its technology "for all lawful purposes." That's what the Pentagon wants, despite the threat of being effectively blacklisted from lucrative government projects.

Anthropic told Secretary Pete Hegseth, it wants assurances that its Claude A.I. system will not be used for fully autonomous weapons or for mass surveillance of Americans, two things that Hegseth won't commit to.

Instead, a top Pentagon official is lashing out at the company's CEO, writing, it's a shame that Dario Amodei is a liar and has a God complex. He wants nothing more than to try to personally control the U.S. military and is OK putting our nation's safety at risk. The Department of War will always adhere to the law, but not bend to whims of any one for-profit tech company.

CNN A.I. correspondent Hadas Gold is with us now. This Pentagon deadline is just a few hours away. It sounds like we know where things stand here, Hadas.

HADAS GOLD, CNN A.I. CORRESPONDENT: Yeah, Anthropic has dug in and saying that despite some legalese back and forth with the Pentagon to update this contract, their red lines still stand, their red lines on autonomous weapons and mass surveillance. And they say they want to work with the military, but they are even willing to help the Pentagon offload Anthropic from their systems and work with whoever else they choose.

Here's the issue, though. Anthropic's Claude is so far the only system that works on the military's classified network, and it's really good. And a lot of people at the department -- at the Pentagon, they use it and they like it. But I do want to read to you some of what Dario Amodei says about one of the concerns about autonomous weapons.

And what he says is that today's frontier A.I. systems are simply not reliable enough to power fully autonomous weapons, that they will not knowingly provide a product that puts America's war fighters and civilians at risk. And that in addition, without proper oversight, fully autonomous weapons cannot be relied upon to exercise the critical judgment that our highly trained professional troops exhibit every day.

Dario is saying, and this is a quote from him, "We cannot in good conscience accede to the Pentagon's request to drop these red lines because they just say there are issues with this." Now, the Pentagon is saying we need to be able to make our own decisions in times of war. We can't, you know, have to go running back to the company for help." But now, Anthropic is getting some huge support from one of the top rivals, OpenAI.

Sam Altman has come out in both a memo to staff and in public statements saying that they have the exact same issues, the same red line issues with the Pentagon when it comes to autonomous weapons and mass surveillance of U.S. citizens. Take a listen to what Sam Altman had to say earlier today.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

SAM ALTMAN, CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER, OPENAI: I don't personally think the Pentagon should be threatening DPA against these companies. But I also think that companies that choose to work with the Pentagon, as long as it is going to comply with legal protections and the sort of the few red lines that the field -- that we have, I think we share with Anthropic, and that other companies also independently agree with, I think it is important to do that.

I've been, for all the differences I have with Anthropic, I mostly trust them as a company and I think they really do care about safety, and I've been happy that they've been supporting our war fighters. I'm not sure where this is going to go.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

GOLD: And Brianna, this is a big deal though, because if the Pentagon is not going to use Anthropic, then one of their next best options is OpenAI, which is considered almost as good or just as good as Claude system, but this presents another issue for them.

KEILAR: Yeah, that's really interesting. I wonder, Hadas, if this would be an issue if the Trump administration had not gutted this military legal process, right? You have a lot of, especially former JAG folks, who are looking at some of the decisions that this Defense Department has made and they're saying things that have been deemed as legal, they actually question the legality of. I wonder if that plays into some of the concerns of these companies.

GOLD: Yeah, I mean, I've been talking to a lot of people in this space. I talked to the former DOJ liaison for the DOD. I've talked to former under secretaries of the Department of Defense, and they were like, we don't know what they're talking about. How can you label a company like Anthropic, an American company, a supply chain risk?

There's never been an American company that's been deemed a supply chain risk and at the same time, being threatened with the Defense Procurement Act, which would compel potentially a company to work with the Pentagon. How can you have both things be true at the same time? And I've literally been told by some of these former officials, I don't know what they're talking about when it comes to this. So there's a lot of legal issues, and there's a lot of speculation.

This is just punitive. This is about having reputational harm. This is about hurting Anthropic's businesses, because if they're deemed a supply chain risk, anybody who has a contract with the Pentagon would then possibly have to show that any of their military work doesn't touch an Anthropic product. And maybe in that case, they would just drop Anthropic, drop working with them, and go somewhere else. So for a lot of people in this world, they see this as just purely punitive.

[13:35:00]

KEILAR: Yeah, the logic of it is contradictory, unless you look at it through that lens of is this punitive. Hadas Gold, thank you so much. Really appreciate the report.

Coming up, the bidding battle appears to be over, but the war may just be beginning for Paramount and its plan to take over Warner Bros. Discovery. Stay with CNN for that.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

KEILAR: The Breaking News, former President Bill Clinton is testifying behind closed doors right now in the House Oversight Committee's Jeffrey Epstein investigation. He's been deposed under oath in Chappaqua, New York. And in his opening statement, the former president declared, I saw nothing and I did nothing wrong.

And potentially at any moment, we could see video of former First Lady, former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton's full deposition.

[13:40:00]

She sat for more than six hours of questioning yesterday. I'm joined now by Sarah Fitzpatrick, who is a Staff Writer for The Atlantic. She knew Epstein survivor Virginia Giuffre for almost a decade and has reported extensively on Jeffrey Epstein, including interviews with Giuffre and her family.

Sarah, thank you so much for being with us today. It was actually Giuffre who was one of the two people who said that they saw Clinton on Epstein's island. Clinton has denied through a spokesperson that he was ever on the island. And to be clear, he hasn't been accused of any wrongdoing by law enforcement. But Giuffre said she didn't see him do anything untoward, but she saw him there and so did an employee of Jeffrey Epstein's.

What do you think is gained from clarifying this discrepancy with Clinton today? As we expect it probably will be done.

SARAH FITZPATRICK, STAFF WRITER, THE ATLANTIC: Absolutely. I think there's a lot to be gained, because Giuffre probably provided the-most full account to federal prosecutors, to the FBI of the Epstein sex trafficking operation. Not every victim was involved in the full-scale criminality. There was kind of a select group of women that were allegedly trafficked between Epstein and his friends.

But I do think that it will clarify once and for all, and it will potentially bolster her credibility, which has, up until this point, has been quite -- you know, I worked with her for many, many years, fact-checking to the ends of the earth and found her to be incredibly consistent and credible.

However, I do think that one thing that could be at play here, and Virginia, of course, has died, so we unfortunately can no longer discuss this with her, but she has talked a lot about the fact that she was given drugs and alcohol by Epstein and his associates, that she was highly, highly drugged during these periods. So her memory may not have been perfect. She was pretty clear about when she said something, that she absolutely remembered it, but that could possibly be the discrepancy here, which was by design.

These women, in many cases, could not remember exactly where and when, because they were drugged.

KEILAR: She had also talked about how, you know, and she'd said this on camera, sort of, why not just say you were there, as she truly felt that he was, as so did other people, and Doug Band told Vanity Fair -- a former Clinton aide told Vanity Fair that he was. You know, even if you didn't see anything, why not be forthcoming about it? What else do you think would be helpful to learn? There were some photos of Clinton in the Epstein files. What else would be helpful to learn today?

FITZPATRICK: There's so much that could be learned. I mean, we still do not understand exactly who was involved in making sure -- enabling the sex trafficking operation. Who were the key employees? Who were the people that were making logistical plans to get things across the way? Who was providing the money? Who was kind of cultivating, helping cultivate this network of people that he kept in his orbit, which offered as a buffer?

President Clinton was a very, very clear target for both Maxwell and Epstein, because he prevented them. He kind of gave them this social credibility. And anyone who, you know, I talked to so many people who would be at these parties at their house, and would say, well, Bill Clinton was there. So I didn't think, you know, it was weird. I sensed something wrong was going on, but Bill Clinton was there, so that told me that it was OK.

KEILAR: And then the money piece of it with Ghislaine Maxwell and the Clinton Global Initiative, because post-2008, when Epstein gets the deal, right, there is still, I mean, public, very clear, documented associations with Maxwell. Why does that matter?

FITZPATRICK: It matters because it shows the extent to which she was involved in cultivating the most powerful people in the United States and around the world. And it helps you understand, I think in some ways, the story of the Clintons and Epstein is really a story about money in politics. That because our political system depends on these kinds of donations from wealthy individuals, she was kept in the mix, and she was valuable to all sorts of different people, even if it wasn't directly Epstein -- or even if it wasn't directly the president and the former secretary of state. So I think it is very, very telling.

But I also think we should take it all with a grain of salt in that Maxwell has been shown to have not been truthful on many occasions.

KEILAR: That's right.

FITZPATRICK: So anything that she said, including in sworn documents, I think we have to really be careful about it.

KEILAR: Totally. She faced perjury charges, to be clear.

FITZPATRICK: Yes.

KEILAR: They were dropped, and I'm sure she'll use that as her defense. They weren't dropped because the authorities thought that she hadn't perjured herself. That was not the reason why they were dropped, important to note.

(CROSSTALK)

FITZPATRICK: I mean, she was on the run from the authorities and even when they arrived at her house, she was hiding cell phones in freezers and trying to escape. So this was not a --

KEILAR: Not on the up-and-up.

FITZPATRICK: Yeah.

KEILAR: Sarah Fitzpatrick, thank you so much. Appreciate it.

And coming up, an update in the search for Nancy Guthrie. Savannah just posted a new message. We'll take a look at it.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[13:49:37]

KEILAR: Paramount Skydance has emerged victorious in the months-long battle for Warner Bros. Discovery and its vast media empire, which includes CNN.

BORIS SANCHEZ, CNN CO-ANCHOR OF "CNN NEWS CENTRAL": Yeah. Netflix backed out of the bidding war on Thursday when the streaming giant declined to raise its offer. The Netflix decision was announced soon after the WBD board determined that Paramount had submitted a superior offer.

We're joined now by CNN Media Analyst, Sara Fischer.

[13:50:00]

SANCHEZ: Sara, thanks so much for being with us. If and when this deal closes, what kind of influence will this give the Ellison family, who owns Paramount Skydance, over the media landscape?

SARA FISCHER, CNN MEDIA ANALYST: Huge influence, especially because if you think back to a few months ago before they owned Paramount, David Ellison was just the CEO of a small Hollywood studio in Skydance. Now, he could potentially own two major news networks in CNN and CBS.

He could own a slew of sports rights. If you think about it, they'd have a basic monopoly over March Madness bringing together TNT and CBS Sports. They'd own two of the biggest streamers in HBO Max and Paramount Plus. And of course, you're uniting two huge legacy Hollywood studios in Warner Bros. Pictures and in Paramount Pictures.

So, this would make him one of the biggest media moguls that this country has ever seen. But of course, Boris and Brianna, as you know, we still need regulatory approval for this deal and that could take many months.

KEILAR: And what about the influence of President Trump here and his administration? David Ellison's father, Larry Ellison, is a close ally of the president's.

FISCHER: Yeah, I think that the Paramount folks were trying to convince retail investors that the regulatory battle for Netflix would be so high that they should tender their shares over. But the reality of this is, the DOJ would have likely probed either deal, meaning conducted an investigation, because it's just so big.

Whether or not they would have sued to block one deal over another, we don't know. It was implied that they would have been more likely to sue to block the Netflix deal over Paramount because of what you're saying. But ultimately, if the DOJ sues to block a deal, an independent judge would need to decide the merits of that case.

And so, it's not like Donald Trump can just unilaterally block this if he wants. The only power he really does have to block a deal is if there is national security concerns. And there were some at first because the Paramount deal includes a lot of debt from foreign sovereign wealth funds. But those funds have since waived all of their voting rights and their governance rights. So that becomes a little bit less of an issue.

I think that the big question here is when Ted Sarandos went and visited the White House just yesterday, before this decision came out, a lot of people are wondering did he think that he wasn't going to get the regulatory approvals and that's why he backed out of the deal? I mean, that could be part of it, Brianna and Boris.

But I think ultimately, the reason that Netflix bailed here is because this deal had just become too lucrative and they had a lot of incentive to walk. I mean, Paramount's going to pay the break-up fee. And now, they watch as two of their competitors face a very difficult regulatory climate which can sometimes delay progress.

KEILAR: Yeah.

FISCHER: And Paramount is left with a massive, massive sack of debt.

SANCHEZ: Sara, please stand by for us. We want to go straight to Chappaqua, New York because the Chairman of the Oversight Committee, James Comer, is speaking right now, right after the deposition of former President Bill Clinton. Let's listen.

REP. JAMES COMER, (R-KY) CHAIRMAN, HOUSE OVERSIGHT COMMITTEE: Well, we just wanted to give a brief update. I know the minority members are going to be coming out very shortly. We just concluded the second hour of deposition. The Republicans or the majority had an hour. The Democrats or the minority had an hour.

We will break for 10 minutes and the majority will go back for our second hour, which will be the third total hour. That might be the halfway point. After that, that's yet to be determined.

But I just wanted to mention something because I know there's a lot of obsession about President Trump from the media, a lot of curiosity about President Trump from the media. I want to make a statement because they'll probably not mention this when they come out here.

Ranking Member Garcia asked President Clinton, quote, "Should President Trump be called to answer questions for this Committee?" And President Clinton said, that's for you to decide. And the president went on to say that the President Trump has never said anything to me to make me think he was involved. And he meant what he (ph) said.

So, I know there's a lot of curiosity about President Trump. I thought that was an interesting thing that President Clinton said. So, I'll let the Democrats have the podium and they can answer your questions.

We'll come back at the conclusion and we'll answer all your questions. Thank you.

SANCHEZ: That was Chairman Comer. Let's listen in to the minority now. Democrats are speaking about the deposition of the former president.

REP. RO KHANNA, (D-CA): -- had asked these questions. That's the only way we're going to have accountability and healing. Now, I'll turn it over to our ranking member, Ranking Member Garcia.

REP. ROBERT GARCIA, (D) RANKING MEMBER, OVERSIGHT COMMITTEE: I'm just going to introduce folks. I'll make some comments at the end. I am going to introduce other members. First one we have is Congresswoman Emily Randall.

REP. EMILY RANDALL, (D-WA): Thank you. As you heard, President Clinton in his opening statement said that America was built on the idea that no person is above the law, even presidents, especially presidents. And the Democratic members of the Oversight Committee feel the same.

[13:55:00]

No one is above the law and anyone with knowledge of Jeffrey Epstein's crimes should absolutely come before the Committee to give testimony about what they saw, or did. Who was there? Who was involved? Survivors like Sharlene Rochard, who was my State of the Union guest, deserve the accountability and the truth.

The American people deserve accountability and truth. That means a complete release of the files and cooperation, not obstruction, from Pam Bondi. And it means testimony on the record from anyone with information, whether that's Howard Lutnick, Bill Gates, Larry Summers and yes, even and especially Donald Trump.

GARCIA: Congresswoman Stansbury?

REP. MELANIE STANSBURY, (D-NM): All right. Well, good afternoon, everyone. I am Congresswoman Melanie Stansbury and I am deeply proud to represent New Mexico's 1st Congressional District, where our state has taken action where the federal government has failed. We have reopened an investigation through our State Attorney General into the crimes committed by Jeffrey Epstein and his associates in New Mexico, as well as passed the first state-level truth commission in this case ever passed in the history of the United States. We will be working very closely to make sure that the state is able to make a full accounting of the crimes in New Mexico.

With regards to today's deposition, I want to be clear at the outset that President Clinton, as of today, has not been accused of a crime. There are not public files available that accuse him of a crime, whereas there are publicly available documents that do allege a crime of President Trump.

But, it is very well established that President Clinton had a relationship with Jeffrey Epstein and Ghislaine Maxwell and we are treating this investigation extraordinarily seriously and when you see the recorded deposition, you will see that we asked all of the hard questions centering the survivors, making sure that we get to the bottom of where there are discrepancies in the record, and understanding how not only the crimes that Jeffrey Epstein committed could go on, but why there was a culture that surrounded him wherein the rich and powerful turned a blind eye.

And with that, I turn it back to our Ranking Member.

GARCIA: Hello, everybody, Congressman Maxwell Frost.

REP. MAXWELL FROST, (D-FL): First off, just thank you to President Clinton for coming here today to speak with us. Answering these questions has been helpful for us as we will continue this investigation. Donald Trump, as we know, needs to come before this Committee. He's been caught in multiple lies as it relates to his relationship with Jeffrey Epstein.

I can tell you, I've seen unredacted files myself that directly refute his assertion that he kicked out Jeffrey Epstein out of Mar-a-Lago and the reasoning why he did that. Also walking out of this, I can tell you we all now have a lot of new questions that we have to raise as it relates to the reasoning on why Donald Trump had a falling out with Jeffrey Epstein in the first place. Another thing is that I saw about an hour ago, Donald Trump in a press conference said that Howard Lutnick is "a very innocent guy." Donald Trump has asserted many times that he knew nothing of Epstein's crimes. If he doesn't know anything about Epstein's crimes, how can he know for sure that Howard Lutnick is "a very innocent guy"?

We have questions for him and I think what today is showing and what yesterday is showing is, of course, no one is above the law, that includes the president of the United States. And my hope is that our Republican colleagues as we walk out of here today and go back to D.C., will join us in making sure that we can hear from Howard Lutnick, from Pam Bondi, and from President Trump.

REP. YASSAMIN ANSARI, (D-AZ): Good afternoon Congresswoman Yassamin Ansari representing Arizona's 3rd District. I think today was a historic day for transparency in the United States of America. The fact that we have the former President of the United States, Bill Clinton, under oath, speaking to the Oversight Committee and answering questions in a transparent manner is critical.

I look forward to the Republican majority listening to our demands of having the transcripts and the videos unedited of both depositions, today's and yesterday's, released immediately because the American public deserves to hear and see these answers for themselves. And ultimately, this demonstrates that nobody is above the law and my top concern at this moment is the ongoing White House cover-up.

It is deeply concerning that we are seeing a very coordinated machine from the president of the United States continuously repeating that he has been exonerated. He just repeated that today to members of the Republican Party on the Oversight Committee, repeating that lie as well.