Return to Transcripts main page

CNN Newsroom

Anthropic CEO Says A.I. Industry Must "Slow The Pace"; Interview With Rep. Nathaniel Moran (R-TX); Trump Says United Ireland Would Be "Fantastic"; Iran-Backed Houthis Capture Strategic Red Sea Island; Trump Vows $5k Checks If Republicans Maintain Control Of Congress; J.D. Vance Speaks At Final Night Of Republican Convention; Preserving The Memories Of 9/11 For Future Generations. Aired 5-6p ET

Aired September 12, 2026 - 17:00:00   ET

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

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[17:00:33]

OMAR JIMENEZ, CNN HOST: Welcome to the CNN NEWSROOM, everyone. I'm Omar Jimenez in New York.

Breaking news tonight, one of the world leaders in artificial intelligence is warning the industry must slow down now. Anthropic CEO Dario Amodei writes, "With A.I. advancing so quickly, there is a risk of humanity losing control of the technology, possibly leading to cyberattacks and bioterrorism."

Amodei spoke to CNN exclusively today with our Anderson Cooper. Here's a part of Anderson's interview.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

ANDERSON COOPER, CNN HOST & ANCHOR: Obviously, the reason we're talking is these headlines that have come out. Jacob Coxon, who recently resigned from Anthropic, made headlines last week saying, "The people building A.I. earnestly believe that it could kill us all by the end of the decade."

There's a current employee, Evan Hubinger, an alignment science lead. He agreed, saying, "We really do earnestly believe A.I. could kill all humans. I personally think it is greater than 10 percent chance within the next decade."

Do you believe, earnestly believe, that A.I. could kill all humans? And what percent chance do you think it is?

DARIO AMODEI, CEO, ANTHROPIC: So, you know, you know, it's funny. I agree with Jacob much more than I disagree with him, you know. And it's, you know, it's an interesting resignation because when he left, he said, you know, I think Anthropic is the most responsible player, right? I think Anthropic is the most aware of these issues.

He wasn't calling out us. He was calling out the dynamic of the industry as a whole moving too fast. Now, now I, you know, I think I already said, you know, these sort of

unconditional probabilities, you know -- I, you know, I used to kind of talk in that way because it's kind of an easy way to express. I think there's some chance that things go wrong. But, you know, but, you know, but it's not -- it's not all that high.

But again, I think it's more illuminating to think in terms of, you know, how do you decompose those probabilities? What are the paths in which things go well? And what are the paths in which things go poorly?

And so instead of saying, you know, it's a 10 percent chance, that sounds like it's a roll of the dice. I think it's much more illuminating to say, well, that forks into different paths.

And if we take the right paths, then the chance of something going wrong is very low. If we take the wrong path, then the chance of something going wrong could be -- could be even higher than that.

And so let's focus on our agency and our ability to take the right paths instead of the wrong paths. And I think that the way to take the right paths is for the industry to work together.

Again, you know, we'll talk about the proposal that I put out today. But at the end of the day, the industry has to work together. And it's harder but to some extent, the world has to work together.

If we go too slow, I still believe that the wrong people will be in charge of the technology. And you know that again, will bring the probability of things going wrong very high.

COOPER: So what you're proposing is called pacing the frontier of the A.I. industry. And you write, "We must slow the pace at which we improve the capabilities of A.I. models. Progress will seem fast, and we must make wise use of the time we gain.

And there's three parts to this. One is embedded evaluators, part two is democratic coordination and part three is global coordination. Sam Altman at OpenAI just endorsed the idea of embedded evaluators.

Essentially, you are suggesting, I don't know, are they observers inside your company and these other A.I. companies, ideally globally, but certainly in the U.S., who would monitor it? They would have employee access. What power would they have?

AMODEI: Yes. So before I even get to that, I'm just -- I'm very grateful to see, you know, support for this proposal just in the first few hours of having put it out by Sam Altman, by Elon Musk, by, you know, various legislators and government officials.

I think it's a positive sign about, you know, our ability to make something that looks like this plan worked.

But to get to your question, yes, embedded evaluators. So there is precedent for this. If you look at how banks are regulated, right, there's all kinds of, you know -- there's all kinds of rules about, you know, how banks are allowed to do their business, right?

[17:04:50]

AMODEI: Because, you know, we don't want to have financial crises. And one of the things that are done in some cases is I think they're called supervisors in the financial industry, but they're folks who are independent of a company who are embedded in the company day to day to check their practices.

And I think we can do the same thing in -- I think we can do the same thing in A.I.

COOPER: The other thing you were calling for in this three-part proposal is democratic coordination, which is essentially democracy. All the companies that are under democracies, having these evaluators, having this coordination, and probably the most important, because the argument is, well, if the U.S. companies are the only ones regulating themselves, what about does China get ahead?

You're calling for global coordination. That's obviously a lot more difficult

AMODEI: Yes, yes. You know, in this three-step proposal, each step is more difficult than the one before. And Anthropic was kind of getting the ball rolling by committing to the first step.

But we shouldn't kid ourselves that these next two steps are going to be more difficult. And we may not succeed. And so my proposal is a proposal that we should try.

Now again, from all the agreement from others that I've seen in just the first few hours of putting out the essay, that creates some optimism, but that needs to follow up with results.

So yes, pacing among companies and democratic countries, now one of the important things that that I need to call for here is, you know, as we get to the pace of model releases, right, that's commercial activity.

And in order for companies to coordinate directly on commercial activity, they need to do so working with the government.

And so the one thing that we're asking for from government right now, right. I mean, there's also this question of what should the regulations be? But there's something even simpler that the government can do right now, which is it can sit down in the room and with all the industry players, and we can all talk together, and the government can make sure that we're, you know, we're not doing anything nefarious from the perspective of antitrust and collusion.

Were just trying to make our system safe and to work together on making the system safe. And so I think that's an important role for the government to have.

(END VIDEO CLIP) JIMENEZ: Be sure to tune in to Monday's "ANDERSON COOPER 360" for much more of his exclusive interview with Dario Amodei. That's at 8:00 p.m. right here on CNN.

So let's keep this conversation going. It ended talking about government, let's bring in some government. Republican Representative Nathaniel Moran of Texas. He's a cosponsor of a bipartisan bill to require that developers implement a kill switch for the most powerful A.I. system.

So, Congressman, I really appreciate your time.

I want to start with a little bit of what we heard from Anthropic CEO there, Dario Amodei. One, do you agree with his overall premise of pacing the frontier, that there needs to be a slowdown here?

REP. NATHANIEL MORAN (R-TX): Omar, great to be with you today to talk about this really important topic. And yes, I think Dario and many others in the industry that understand the significance of where we're at today, have a good grasp on the fact that if we go too fast without in particular, without maybe having some breaking mechanisms or some of those items he mentioned, I know he had three specific items that he's talking about doing, That's a great way to make sure that as we innovate and not stifle innovation, that we do it safely.

When we talk about slowing down, though, you know, now we're talking about who is making that decision. And I'm so glad to see that the private sector is jumping at the front of that saying they want to be the leaders and to take responsibility for making sure their models are safe. I think they understand the need to do that.

JIMENEZ: You know, one of the things he said towards the end of that snippet there was -- it was it was one of the things he asked from the government saying that if everyone can sit in a room with all the industry players, I imagine some government representatives as well to -- for you all to make sure that they're not doing anything nefarious, in his characterization from the perspective of collusion or anything like that.

Is that a process that you, your office or anyone in the -- in Congress, to your knowledge, has tried to start in any way with some of these tech leaders?

MORAN: Yes. I'm so glad you asked that question because just last month, a couple of weeks ago, my office and I scheduled two full days out in San Francisco to talk with leaders in the artificial intelligence world.

We've actually been at the forefront of doing this for some time in Washington, D.C., but we see the intimate (INAUDIBLE) and policy.

[17:09:47]

MORAN: And we've got to be prudent and reasonable in this time to make sure that we're doing the policy-making the right way. We don't want to do it out of fear. We don't want to do it out of --

out of frustration or in a -- in a very quick moment of emotion. We want to be very prudent and reasonable so that we get the policy right.

But it has to be where we bridge the technology leaders with the policy leaders and have those continuing conversations. We want to be very light on the regulations in my -- in my opinion, because we don't want to stifle innovation. But we can protect humans, we can protect national security interests and public safety interests while they're able to innovate.

I give the analogy all the time. If you have a break in the vehicle, you can actually go faster in the vehicle because you can slow down and stop when you need to. Without the break, you can't drive as fast.

JIMENEZ: And you know your co-sponsor of the A.I. Kill Switch Act, which would -- which would require companies to report incidents, create technical capacity to shut down, throttle, or even suspend their powerful A.I. systems among other things.

But I wonder, even if that does pass, would you see that as enough? Or do you see it more as a -- as a crucial first step?

MORAN: It's a crucial first step. Earlier in the summer, we put out the A.I. Incident Reporting Act. And then I was really pleased to be a co-author with Ted Lieu, my friend on the Democratic side on this A.I. Kill Switch Bill to make sure that we put those (INAUDIBLE) safeguards in place.

But again, we don't want to stifle that innovation. But it is a first step.

But here's the thing. Government can never keep up with the pace of technology and innovation. We will never be able to do that. That's why I'm so happy to see Sam Altman and Dario and so many others out there in the tech world and the private sector, saying they want to take the lead. They want to take personal responsibility, corporate responsibility for making sure that this technology remains safe for humans.

We can do great things with artificial intelligence, and we don't want to stop that. But we do want to put some safeguards in place.

JIMENEZ: And look, one of the things we heard from Anthropic CEO there, but something I know you have also thought about as you serve on the -- on the Select Committee on China is look, the U.S. part of this is one thing. So you have U.S. companies, maybe, ok, everyone agrees to a to a slowdown.

But then in terms of countries like China, how do you how do you believe the United States or even some of these private companies should go about explaining or trying to get China on the same page? Or do you even see that as a possibility at all?

MORAN: Well, Omar, it is a possibility. And right now is the time to strike with that. That's going to -- that's going to be more, government to government, not just commercial businesses to commercial businesses, but it's going to take the leverage that the United States government has right now over China ,in particular, as we talk about the potential for export controls on chips and those things that we could do to slow down their innovation if they're not willing to come to the table because they are dependent upon us and a number of items in their A.I. tech stack in order to do the things that we are doing.

They're behind us right now in innovation. So we have that leverage. We can get them to the table. There needs to be something akin to what you recall during the ballistic missile discussions. This -- an international ballistic missile agreement to say, you know what, these things could create and could do a lot of harm to humanity. So let's agree on a subset of principles.

And right now is the time to strike. I think we can do the same thing as it relates to A.I., particularly with China, who is dependent upon us to make sure that they continue to innovate.

JIMENEZ: Well, and maybe something that President Trump brings up with Xi Jinping, as he's expected in Washington pretty soon here.

Congressman Nathaniel Moran, really appreciate you taking the time. Thanks for being here.

MORAN: You bet. Thanks, Omar.

JIMENEZ: All right. Meanwhile, President Trump in Ireland suggesting the reunification of Ireland and Northern Ireland could happen. But it's a sticky topic. We're going to break it all down.

You're in the CNN NEWSROOM.

[17:13:52]

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

JIMENEZ: Tonight, President Trump weighing in on Irish reunification during his visit to Dublin.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

DONALD TRUMP, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: Well, I don't want to cause any problems. But I will tell you, I'd love to see it unified. I have friends on both sides, great people. They're Irish people. How can they be bad, right? I'd love to see it unified. I think it would be a great -- yes, a great feather in everybody's cap if that happened.

Now the U.K. will have something to say about it, obviously, but I think it would be a great thing. I mean, how could it be bad?

(END VIDEO CLIP)

JIMENEZ: Now, the issue, as you might know, is a contentious one. After decades of sectarian unrest in Northern Ireland, the U.S. brokered a deal in the late 1990s called the Good Friday Agreement, which finally brought peace to the region.

Now, U.S. presidents have often avoided commenting on the issue just because of how sensitive it is.

President Trump met with Ireland's leaders earlier today before attending a tournament at one of his golf courses. His visit also prompting some protests in Dublin as well.

So for more on all of this, CNN correspondent Julia Benbrook joins us now from Ireland. So Julia, what else have we heard from the president today?

[17:19:47]

JULIA BENBROOK, CNN CORRESPONDENT: Well, this is an interesting trip for President Donald Trump. It's a quick one, just about two days. And it's not an official state business. In fact, it kind of highlights the often-blurred lines of Trump's travel with these official meetings taking place in the morning today.

But then the bulk of this trip is taking place in Doonbeg. That is where the Irish Open is happening at one of his properties there.

But this morning we were there as Trump arrived and he was greeted by the Irish president, Catherine Connolly. They had an official handshake. He signed the guest book. He came out and there was a lot of pomp and circumstance around that arrival.

Those two had a courtesy call, a quick meeting behind doors to discuss some issues, but it only lasted a number of minutes.

And then he went on to meet with the Taoiseach, Micheal Martin, and he and Martin have a relationship. That's where we expect the -- more of those diplomatic conversations to actually take place on policy and on specifics.

Martin had visited the White House around Saint Patrick's Day in 2026, and that's where they discussed this potential visit. A White House official told us ahead of time that they were expected to discuss a wide range of international issues of mutual interest, including economic development, as well as creating businesses for both countries.

Trump said trade was also at the top of the list. Take a listen.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

TRUMP: Well, I don't want to cause any problems, but I will tell you, I'd love to see it unified. I have friends on both sides. Great people. They're Irish people. How can they be bad, right?

I'd love to see it unified. I think it would be a great -- a great feather in everybody's cap if that happened.

Now the U.K. will have something to say about it, obviously, but I think it would be a great thing. I mean, how could it be bad? (END VIDEO CLIP)

BENBROOK: So in that soundbite, we heard him actually speaking on a different topic. He did go a little bit off script when asked about the potential for Irish reunification.

And that is catching a lot of questions from people in the U.K., as well as in Ireland. Obviously a very contentious topic that many did not expect Trump to weigh in on at all today.

But as he often does, he shared his opinion. He started to say, I don't want to cause any trouble. And then he went into detail there on those specifics.

But Omar, all of that say this trip is taking place with the midterms just weeks away now. In fact, Trump was just at that unique midterm convention in Dallas a couple of days ago. And he's now spending his time here on this trip, which is mostly being used again to watch that golf tournament in Doonbeg.

JIMENEZ: Julia Benbrook in Dublin, really appreciate the reporting.

I want to bring in now CNN national security analyst and "New York Times" correspondent David Sanger. So David, look, President Trump, known for freewheeling in these settings, especially sitting alongside other world leaders.

What is your assessment of how seriously these comments on the very politically sensitive topic are being received across Europe?

DAVID SANGER, CNN NATIONAL SECURITY ANALYST: Well, I guess we've learned, Omar, that there is no highly-sensitive topic that Donald Trump will not opine about at various moments.

You saw a few months ago his comments about how to rebuild Gaza, to turn it into a resort. You've seen the question of whether Canada should become a 51st state. Whether Greenland should become part of the United States. So why not Ireland and, reunification.

The 1998 accord, the Good Friday Agreement, is pretty explicit on this. It says that Northern Ireland would remain part of the United Kingdom until there was a vote, a referendum to the contrary.

British government has made pretty clear they don't think it's ready for that. And it doesn't appear that there is much of a movement to do that anytime, particularly soon.

I suspect people will just sort of shrug off what the president said, but it certainly didn't comport with the U.S. position, which is it's up to the people of Ireland to make this decision.

JIMENEZ: Sure. And we didn't see the U.K. Prime Minister Andy Burnham jumping to change his position either.

(CROSSTALK) JIMENEZ: Look, while President Trump is in Ireland, obviously there's a lot still going on across the Middle East. We talk about Saudi Arabia in particular, that President Trump saying that Iran, in his words, is probably behind the attack that shut down a key Saudi oil pipeline.

And when you zoom out here, Saudi Arabia is under intense pressure after the Houthis captured some strategic points along the Red Sea coast as well. Starting with that pipeline, though, how significant do you see that attack there?

[17:24:51]

SANGER: Well, the pipeline, the East West pipeline in Saudi Arabia was intended as an alternative to getting oil through the straits while they are closed.

And so anything that cuts off another way for Mideast oil to make its way out into the world markets is a problem. And that is, of course, the Iranian strategy here, which is to escalate and continue to escalate in areas where it would stretch the U.S. thin.

What I thought was interesting is that when the Saudi de facto leader, Mohammed bin Salman called President Trump, we think two or three times in the past week and asked for help in trying to keep the Red Sea open and fighting back against the Houthis, the president basically turned him down and, you know, offered some intelligence help and so forth, but not forces to go do it. Which tells you the president thinks that right now, the U.S. is stretched about as thin as it can handle.

JIMENEZ: And, you know, as we -- as you bring that up as well, you know, obviously everybody has been focused on the Strait of Hormuz, understandably so. It has been the largest choke point over the course of this year.

But over on the western front of Yemen, you have the Bab al-Mandab Strait, which obviously is another tight area to potentially get oil out of the region as well. And you see Houthi forces capturing some strategic points along the Red Sea coast there.

And I know you went through sort of the calculation of what support was there and what wasn't. But how do you think fighting on that front impacts U.S. thinking across the Middle East?

SANGER: Well, I think the main message that's here is that while the president said just the other day, oh, this will all be over as soon as the midterms are done. I mean, I'm sure the Iranians would love to influence the midterms by keeping gas prices high.

The chances that this is over, come the midterms and maybe even by the next presidential election, are getting slimmer and slimmer because the U.S. now faces a choice about keeping a standing force, a naval force there to bottle up what's going on in and out of the Strait of Hormuz and now may need to worry about patrolling further west in the Red Sea. And, that's exactly where the president didn't want to take us, which

was a significant and lengthy presence there.

JIMENEZ: David Sanger, appreciate the insight and reporting as always. Good to see you.

We'll be right back, folks.

[17:27:42]

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[17:32:12]

JIMENEZ: All right. Midterms fast approaching. President Trump vowing $5,000 checks to all Americans if Republicans maintain control of Congress this November. How? Well, he didn't offer up any details.

But the promise came as part of the president's pitch to voters this week in Dallas at the Republicans' Midterm Convention. The GOP has looked at Trump to engage voters ahead of the midterms, with him telling his followers to pretend that he is on the ballot.

So, let's talk about this more with Democratic strategist Chuck Rocha. We should note he is a senior advisor for the Talarico for Texas Senate campaign, and former Pennsylvania Republican Congressman Charlie Dent.

So, Congressman Dent, I just want to start with getting your reaction to this week's convention. Do you think it ultimately helped in getting more people fired up and to the polls?

CHARLIE DENT, CNN POLITICAL COMMENTATOR: Well, that was the whole point of this exercise, was try to get -- generate Republican enthusiasm that would supposedly help turnout across the board, you know, rising tide lifts all boats.

You know, maybe on the margins it helped a little bit, but, you know, I think this campaign narrative is already written. The die is cast. It's kind of hard to change the trajectory at the race at this point. So, I'd say, on balance, it probably helped a little bit. But the message that came out of this campaign, though, I really think more than out of this convention, really was, you know, the $5,000 checks, and I think that's a problem. So, I don't think the message was particularly good.

I mean, they bang the Democrats and the democratic socialists pretty hard, but you know, people are still talking about the $5,000 checks.

So -- but the -- but the trajectory of the campaign is already pretty much as it is, and it's not likely to change much between now and the midterm.

JIMENEZ: And Chuck, look, even if this is an unlikely promise, we can call it that for now until we get more details. I'm waiting for him. But bottom line, it does seem that it centers the president a little bit more in midterm prospects, which it sounds like is what he wanted. It also sounds like it's what Democrats want as well to center him in midterm efforts.

(CROSSTALK)

CHUCK ROCHA, DEMOCRATIC STRATEGIST: Well --

JIMENEZ: No?

ROCHA: Exactly right. And the voting public is not stupid, and they know that Republicans control the House of Representatives, they control the U.S. Senate, and Donald Trump is a Republican in the White House. If they want to give you $5,000, there is literally nothing stopping them from doing it right now.

These are more empty promises, more carnival barking, and the American people are fed up to hear with it, along with higher gas prices, grocery prices, figuring out daycare. These are the regular anxieties that the American public is going through every day. And as we talk to midterm voters all across America on campaigns that we are working for, they are sick and tired of Donald Trump's lies.

JIMENEZ: And Congressman, you said earlier that the fact that people are coming away from the -- from this convention, talking about $5,000 is a little bit of an issue, but obviously, it falls under the umbrella of affordability, I think -- I think it's fair to say.

[17:35:07]

What do you wish was the message that was -- that was more prominent coming out of these conventions?

DENT: Well, I think, on the $5,000, I think it's smarter for the for Republicans and the president to find ways to lower costs, maybe repeal the tariffs. You know, maybe bring a resolution to the war with Iran and get the strait reopened. I mean, these are things that could directly affect costs that Americans are paying right now.

Rather than writing $5,000 checks to every American that wouldn't be paid for, it might as well just try to find a way to lower their costs. I don't -- I think, people see this as a bit of a gimmick.

I think Chuck is right. If this is a great idea, you know, put it on the House floor next week, they can do that. But this is -- this proposal is not ready for prime time.

But Republican messaging, though, going forward, I mean, it's tough because they don't have a lot to sell. They have the One Big, Beautiful Bill, but it's not very popular. Some elements of it are, but it's not very popular. So, I think their whole strategy is, is to try to just tie the Democrats to democratic socialists and basically say these guys are terrible. You may not like us, but they are worse. And I think that's the message.

JIMENEZ: Chuck may have misread. You are smiling. Did you want to get in there? ROCHA: Yes, I was just thinking that this message is really easy. Whether you are Democrat, Republican, this is not some rocket science from Chuck Rocha. Is they care about two things. Right now, the American people want to know how they can make more money, and they want to know why can't the cost come down.

And it's not really cost as much as it is prices. It's very elementary. Take my mother for example, who lives in Florida. She is on a fixed income of social security. Social security is stayed the same for old folks. Guess what's went up? The price of her everyday groceries, where me and my sister have to figure out how we give mama a little more money just so she can buy groceries. That's real things that people are going through, and they are looking for solutions to that.

JIMENEZ: And, you know, Congressman, look, there is this -- there is a lot of talk of, again, President Trump centering himself in these midterms and voting like he is on the ballot. We have -- we have heard him say that many times.

But we also saw Vice President J.D. Vance in maybe one of his higher- profile moments out on this particular convention stage. Do you think Republicans see him as the future of the Republican Party, or is his power proximate to the fact that Trump has seemed to have power in the Republican Party?

DENT: Well, I had the sense based on this two-day convention that there is a lot more energy and enthusiasm behind J.D. Vance than Donald Trump, because I think a lot of Republicans are looking forward right now for the post-Trump era, and many -- I'm not -- I'm not necessarily one of them, but many of them are saying that J.D. Vance is the guy. That's the issue.

And by the way, on a broader issue too, by having this convention focus so much on Donald Trump, I don't believe that was really a good thing for Republicans because Donald Trump's image ratings are lower than the Republican Party right now.

And again, I just don't know why you know these conventions are not a bad idea. Let me put that out there. It's a good idea to have a convention, but at some point, you have to drive a message that resonates. And if Republicans want to make this a referendum on Donald Trump, I'm sure the Democrats are saying, yes, please do. Yes, and so do we.

And so, I think that's really the bigger challenge. But Vance came out of that convention, I think, a bigger winner than the president by far.

JIMENEZ: Chuck, we are out of time, but I'm going to give you an elevator pitch on what you think Democrats need to focus on going into midterms.

ROCHA: Well, the first thing the DNC should do with a little bit of money that we have left is send it over to Donald Trump and tell him to stay on the road on the same message, because all it does every day is give a Democrat wings every day he takes the podium.

And the second thing is talk to the American voters to say the system is broken, we didn't broke it, and we are going to do our damnedest to try to fix it.

JIMENEZ: Democrats and Republicans seem to agree they want Trump out on the trail. Didn't think that's what they would agree on, but hey, here we are.

Chuck Rocha, Charlie Dent, appreciate you both. We will be right back.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[17:43:43]

JIMENEZ: 25 years after September 11th, the shared promise to never forget carries a new challenge. As the attacks pass from lived memory into history, holding on to the stories of that day takes on a new importance.

CNN's Tom Foreman looks at what it means to keep those memories alive for generations to come.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: People jumping at the windows. Over there, they are jumping out of the windows.

RUDY GIULIANI, FORMER MAYOR, NEW YORK CITY: The situation is that two airplanes have attacked them.

TOM FOREMAN, CNN CORRESPONDENT (voice over): Nearly 100 million people have been born in the United States since that September morning. One- third of the nation has no real memory of that terrible day.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: We made it all the way downstairs. And then, when we were just about to come out of the building, there was another blast.

FOREMAN (voice over): And sharing the memories is growing more difficult.

The greatest number of victims were in their mid to late 30s, meaning many of their parents have passed away. Many spouses, partners and friends are approaching old age.

AARON BROWN, FORMER CNN ANCHOR: About an hour ago, about 8:45 Eastern time, one plane crashed into the tower -- the World Trade Center tower on the right, the first of those towers that you can see behind me.

[17:45:04]

FOREMAN (voice over): Some who were front and center are gone, too. And others have slipped from the limelight, including the man who heard the news at an elementary school in Florida, a half-hour from where some hijackers trained. GEORGE W. BUSH, 43RD PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: Thousands of lives were suddenly ended by evil, despicable acts of terror.

FOREMAN (voice over): More than 3,000 children lost parents. Eight children died on those planes. The youngest, Christine Lee Hanson, was 2. Her stuffed rabbit is now in New York's memorial, one of several sites tasked with maintaining the nation's collective history of 9/11.

Another is at the Pentagon in D.C. and another in a Pennsylvania farm field, where the last plane came down. The voices of some victims can still be heard there.

LAUREN CATUZZI GRANDCOLAS, 9/11 VICTIM (via telephone): OK. Well, I just wanted to tell you I love you. We're having a little problem on the plane. I'm totally fine. I just love you more than anything. Just know that.

FOREMAN (voice over): 9/11 led American troops to Afghanistan, hunting terrorists behind the attack. They would stay for nearly 20 years, even as the nation back home moved on in so many ways.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: This is new for me, this kind of heat.

FOREMAN (voice over): Consider in September 2001, Tom Brady was in his first season as a starting NFL quarterback. Taylor Swift was 11. The iPod was about to debut. And an Illinois state senator was almost 10 years away from this historic moment.

BARACK OBAMA, 44TH PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: The United States has conducted an operation that killed Osama bin Laden, the leader of al-Qaeda.

FOREMAN (voice over): A quarter century after any major event, collective memory starts passing from witnesses to historians, filmmakers, and teachers.

Yet, on this anniversary, people who cannot remember that dark day are still gathering with those who cannot forget.

Tom Foreman, CNN.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

JIMENEZ: Thank you for that report, Tom. So, how do you teach the next generation about 9/11? Coming up, we are going to talk to someone who is doing just that on the other side of the break.

You are in the CNN NEWSROOM.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[17:52:18]

JIMENEZ: 25 years after September 11th, the nation is facing a growing generational divide, with nearly 100 million Americans who were not born yet when the attacks happened. Educators, memorials, and museums are working to help keep those memories alive.

One of those people is Megan Jones, vice president of education programs at the 9/11 Memorial and Museum.

Megan, I really appreciate you taking the time, because for many young Americans, 9/11 is -- it's history, not memory. And so, how are new generations processing these attacks, and how are you using it to guide the education and teaching about it?

MEGAN JONES, VICE PRESIDENT OF EDUCATION PROGRAMS, 9/11 MEMORIAL AND MUSEUM: Well, thank you for having me.

That's absolutely true. We are at a turning point now where there is a generational shift where people who remember where they were on 9/11 and experienced that day, have the responsibility of passing on the stories to this next generation, so that they can become the stewards of this history.

And so, many of them come into the museum just curious about what happened that day. To them, it's an event that happened in a history book. It's just, you know, any other event that they may learn in their history or social studies class. So, they are very interested in the events of the day.

So, we always start there with a factual foundation, using the artifacts in the museum to lay that foundation, and then, I think, they are really looking for a connection. They see the people around them having response reactions. They may hear things from their parents or their grandparents, and so, really it's our responsibility, as I said earlier, to share the stories of that day to highlight the humanity. Because at its core, 9/11 is a human story.

So, the factual foundation combined with storytelling is the heart of everything we do in our education programs.

JIMENEZ: And, I know you said that a lot of the questions you get are people just trying to know what happened and, you know, maybe how this could have happened. I wonder how -- and this maybe varies by age, but how do you balance teaching the truth without you know potentially traumatizing them? Where is that line for you all in terms of, you know, again conveying that gravity while also trying to recognize, you know, this is a new generation of people just trying to understand?

JONES: Of course, and as you pointed out, it really varies depending on the age. So, for our very, you know, our youngest learners, we really focus on the idea of what is an emergency, what does that mean? And then, you know, to look for the helpers-that very famous saying.

So, framing 9/11 in the context of yes, there were many people who were hurt and needed help.

[17:55:02]

And then, focusing on the stories of those helpers, whether they be first responders who were rushing into buildings to help people, or average everyday people just like them who saw, you know, someone in need, who needed help, and decided, you know, to help them in that moment.

So, from there, you can level up as you know, as the students get older. But really, again, it comes down to, you know, to that storytelling and really not being afraid to answer their questions. It's important that we, as educators, not only answer questions but also listen and ask them what it is they want to know and what they are curious about.

JIMENEZ: Yes. Megan Jones, I appreciate you being here. Appreciate the work that you are doing. Incredibly important, especially, so these 25 years later.

JONES: Thank you so much.

JIMENEZ: All right. Coming up for us, a major warning about A.I. directly from the head of an A.I. company.

CNN's exclusive interview with the CEO of Anthropic, next.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)