Return to Transcripts main page

Inside Politics

Noem Digs In On "Right People" Electing "Right Leaders" Remark; Axios: Pentagon In Dispute With Anthropic Over AI Guardrails; Viral Essay By AI CEO Warns We're Not Ready For AI's Impact; AI CEOs Warn Technology Could Cause Mass Job Losses; Scott Galloway On His Push To "Resist And Unsubscribe". Aired 12-12:30p ET

Aired February 16, 2026 - 12:00   ET

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

[12:00:00]

DANA BASH, CNN HOST, INSIDE POLITICS: Welcome to Inside Politics. I'm Dana Bash.

We are going to start today with the embattled DHS Secretary Kristi Noem, who is digging in over a brand-new controversy. This time relating to the Republicans push for more control over elections. This is what she said on Friday in Arizona.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

KRISTI NOEM, HOMELAND SECURITY SECRETARY: An elections is another one of those critical infrastructure responsibilities that I have as well. And I would say that many people believe that it may be one of the most important things that we need to make sure we trust is reliable. And that when it gets to election day, that we've been proactive to make sure that we have the right people voting, electing the right leaders to lead this country through the days that we have knowing that people can trust it.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

BASH: Some journalists questioned lawmakers and other elected officials about that, so Kristi Noem lashed out at those journalists who are questioning it over the weekend. And this all comes, of course, after President Trump called for the federal government to take over elections, which is the opposite of what the constitution says.

And that after the FBI seized 2020 ballots in Fulton County, Georgia. And there is also very much related to this, a demand by the Attorney General Pam Bondi to get voter rolls from states across the country. And that prompted some two-dozen lawsuits from states, pushing back against that.

I'm joined today by some terrific reporters, Maeve and Elex. Thank you so much for being here. Alex, you're usually up late night, so thanks for coming.

(CROSSTALK) BASH: --on your fantastic CNN show. I'm going to start with you on Noem, and as I was listening to Noem again just now, it was occurring to me, and this is probably not a, you know, maybe this is a captain obvious political moment. But when people get sideways in Trump's world with Trump over various things, they go to the well on one thing that they know he cares the most about, and that is elections and "election integrity."

And that's clearly what Kristi Noem is doing. Now she is also the DHS secretary, which means that she does have jurisdiction over this, unlike the Director of National Intelligence, which doesn't really make sense at first blush. What do you make of this?

ELEX MICHAELSON, CNN ANCHOR AND CORRESPONDENT: I think it is an example of that. I mean, clearly there is pressure on her. I mean, we see Tom Homan out doing Sunday shows, not her, talking on a lot of these issues. So, this is a way for her to get back into his good graces. That's also one of those issues that shows sort of the lack of trust in our country on so many different levels.

This -- the way that, you know, supporters of Noem, supporters of Trump would interpret this comment is, of course, we want the right people. We don't want illegal immigrants voting. And so, we are going to, you know, try to stop people that are undocumented from being on the rolls. Folks that are Democrats hear that and say, oh, my God, they're going to be targeting us and trying to stop Democrats from voting. And so, I think it's interpreted different ways.

BASH: Let's listen to what Tom Homan said to Jake Tapper on State of the Union yesterday.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

TOM HOMAN, WHITE HOUSE BORDER CZAR: That'd be a question for the secretary if I had a guess, probably that, you know, only those legally eligible to vote would vote. But I have not talked to the secretary about those statements. That'd be something she'd have to answer.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

BASH: Well, let's look at the data, government data on this question that we're starting to hear a lot more about, which is allegations that illegal immigrants are voting in U.S. elections. Again, this is government data, federal voter verification cases. This is as of August 2025, 96.31 percent U.S. citizen, 3.12 percent non-definitive, deceased 0.53 percent, non-U.S. citizen 0.4 percent.

So, it's not nothing, but we're talking about less than five one hundredths of a percentage of people registered were determined to be non-citizens. And by the way, this is only people who are registered. We don't know if they actually try to vote.

MAEVE RESTON, NATIONAL POLITICAL REPORTER, THE WASHINGTON POST: Yeah. I mean, there's -- you know, there's clearly -- this is a minuscule percentage that we're talking about here. And I think it's perfectly obvious that this is just part of the Trump administration's much broader effort to undermine confidence in elections. Particularly as we head into the mid-term elections, my colleagues at the Washington Post did a great deep dive on all of the ways in which the Trump administration is trying to undermine elections right now.

[12:05:00]

And also, to sow doubt for people and condition them to not trust the election results, which look like they're not going to go very well, you know, or potentially could not go particularly well for the Trump administration later this year.

BASH: And you know, just to give -- you're exactly right. I mean, that's -- that is the concern. And you mentioned Democrats being worried about what the president and members of his cabinet and his allies are doing. Listen to Andy Beshear. He is the governor of Kentucky, but he is also somebody clearly considering running for president himself.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

GOV. ANDY BESHEAR (D-KY): Kristi Noem statements are wild and they are un-American. The president talking about not federalizing elections. He first said Republicans should take over elections in certain states that is anti-democracy, but Democratic governors and A.G.s are ready to stand up and make sure we have full and fair elections.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

BASH: And the pushback has been really interesting, Elex, from a lot of the states and I mentioned these lawsuits that the mostly democratic led states are waging against the Trump administration, saying, no, you cannot have our voter rolls because they're talking about trying to get social security numbers, driver's license, date of birth. As one election expert said to me, the trifecta of voter fraud and of identity theft even.

And the pushback for the most part is working in the courts. I mean, they're still starting to make their way through the courts, but there, I think three judges have ruled across the country and ruled in the state's favor, saying the federal government has no reason to have this information about voters in the states.

MICHAELSON: Right. And it's not just democratic states like California, where there is a fight back against this, but we are seeing even some Republicans who work in state governments, who are pushing back on this concept as well. You know, this gets to the idea, Republicans historically have been the state's rights people. They don't want the federal government having reams and reams of your data. They like the idea of having some privacy protections in place.

This administration kind of flying in the face of that. On that issue, we've seen this big fight, Harmeet Dhillon, who's the deputy attorney general on this issue, pushing back and fighting really hard to try to get this information.

BASH: I think we covered Republicans, Maeve, back in the day when they --

RESTON: Yeah.

BASH: -- and not only states' rights, which obviously has a lot of --

RESTON: Look at Brian Camp in Georgia. I mean, this is, you know, this is a -- but this is a really good issue for Democrats heading into the midterms, because people do feel really uncomfortable about the idea of, you know, their data taken -- being taken away. We see that some things like voter ID are more popular now, but you know, this is something where governors can really show and attorneys general can really show that Democrats are fighting back and that is what their voters want to see right now.

BASH: All right. Don't go anywhere. Coming up. An extended conversation with the one and only Scott Galloway podcaster, NYU professor, and now somebody who was trying to push people to resist and unsubscribe. We'll explain after a break.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[12:10:00]

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

BASH: This morning, the Pentagon confirmed to CNN that they are reviewing its contract with the AI company Anthropic after a reported dispute on safety guidelines. A Pentagon spokesperson said, quote, our nation requires that our partners be willing to help our warfighters win in any fight. Ultimately, this is about our troops and the safety of the American people.

That confirmation follows Axios' reporting about a disagreement over AI guardrails. Anthropic guidelines prohibit its AI model Claude from being used to make weapons and for mass surveillance.

I want to talk about this and much, much more with the one and only, Scott Galloway. He is a business leader, a podcaster focusing on many things, including the intersection of business, politics and tech on his many, many podcasts. Thank you so much for being here, Professor. Appreciate it. Also, by the way, you'll see there, he has written a best-selling book, Notes on Being a Man, which I highly recommend about modern masculinity.

Let's start Scott with your reaction to the news this morning. I know you consider yourself an AI optimist, but do stories like the Anthropic and Pentagon tug of war concern you?

SCOTT GALLOWAY, CO-HOST, "PIVOT": Good to see you, Dana. So, what it looks like is that Anthropic is trying to be the clean, well-lit corner of AI, and it's willing to give up some government contracts. And that the government, in no uncertain terms, is saying, we want unfiltered, raw AI the best, regardless of who we surveil. We're not looking for your view on ethics around how AI could be weaponized for surveillance. I don't know the details.

[12:15:00]

But I think Anthropic is clearly trying to carve out a positioning as the good guys, where they say, we're down with this with certain customers, but not down with certain things. Whereas ChatGPT is trying to backfill just this unbelievable valuation expectation and is playing a little bit more, fast and loose. But like everything, it feels, Dana, it feels like it's becoming politicized, where Anthropic is kind of center left and ChatGPT is going, if you will, more MAGA if you will.

BASH: Right. That definitely seems to be where these two massive, massive AI companies are headed. But just on the idea that, yes, Anthropic, for those who are not fully read in on this. They are trying to make it their business model to be sort of putting guidelines and guardrails on themselves. But the question is, what about all the other companies who might shift overtime, maybe even Anthropic leaders could shift over time? And we are relying on these companies to make the determination about safeguards, which, again, you're AI optimist, but it is quite concerning.

GALLOWAY: Well, that's the correct question. And that is, if we're waiting on the better angels of companies, CEOs to show up, don't hold your breath. And I would argue that the economic incentives are so great, and the pressure builds and builds on a CEO to be able to raise the additional round of capital at a higher valuation.

That ultimately a CEO says, we will never do porn, and then a year later, says we'll do porn. That's Sam Altman from OpenAI. We will never do ads, and then economic pressure to keep up with your valuation, we'll do ads. I believe that Ford would still be pouring mercury into the river if we didn't have an EPA with regulation. Otherwise, they would be at a cost disadvantage and a competitive disadvantage, to say, a General Motors and a Stellantis who decided to pour mercury into the river such that they have lower costs.

This is a failure of regulation, and that is, we have to have governments and agencies that have domain expertise and understand the externalities and the risks and also understand privacy concerns and put in place a rule book by which companies can do what they do best, and that is, pursue profits.

But we have increasingly outsourced our ethics, our civic responsibility. What is good for the public to the CEOs of companies of tech, we've decided our innovators and our idols, and they keep letting us down. So, the reality is, this is another example of how government is failing to step in and provide thoughtful, sensible regulations such that these companies know the rules they're playing by.

BASH: And so, understanding that and not being entirely optimistic that that is going to change any time soon. I've been dying to ask you about this, Scott, and that is an essay that went viral online by an AI CEO, Matt Shumer, warning that we're not prepared. Saying, right now where we are feels like, you know, right before COVID hit and that like, oh my gosh, what happened. Then you had the head of Anthropic safeguards team publicly resign, saying that they're going to go write poetry, saying the world is in peril.

We are not ready for the AI effects. But do you think that these warnings, that so millions and millions of people have now read are appropriate?

GALLOWAY: Look, these are individuals. I think they should be taken very seriously. But what I -- what I've I kind of -- I don't about you, Dana, but I walked away from this article a little wanting, and that is what exactly is the peril and how does it manifest itself? And I'm a little bit skeptical of all this catastrophizing. I think there's a little bit of narcissism and a little bit of, I think it's in the economic interests of the founders of these companies, whose options have already vested to say that this technology is so incredible and is going to be so earth changing that we need to be worried about it.

And I'm going to take my 100 or 200 million invested equity and go write poetry. And I know that sounds very cynical, but these companies, the CEOs, seem to talk in very hushed tones about the dangers it presents, and I find that it's somewhat self-serving because what they're effectively saying is this technology is going to change absolutely everything.

OK, you're smarter than me on this, but tell me how exactly that's going to manifest and what we can do to stop it. But just catastrophizing that the world that I'm worried there were nuclear scientists that, after the first nuclear detonation, killed themselves because they thought we couldn't handle nuclear weapons.

My question would be, why can't these incredibly intelligent people with their LLMs figure out a way to use AI to defend against risk, to create additional safeguards, to create more privacy, to have alerts on when things are going off the rails. But I find some of the catastrophizing is, quite frankly, I have invented something so awesome that it's going to rule the world and it's hugely dangerous.

[12:20:00]

Fine, that's not helpful. How do we fix the problem? And what specifically, when you say peril. What does that mean exactly and how can we stop it?

BASH: Well, so, there's the peril to, you know, the human race. And then before we get there, if the catastrophizing, as you call it, is accurate. It's the question that you talk a lot about Scott on your podcast, which is the threat of widespread job losses. I want you to listen to the CEO of Anthropic, Dario Amodei.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

DARIO AMODEI, CEO, ANTHROPIC: People talk about previous disruptions, right? You know, they say, oh, yeah, well, you know, people used to be farmers. Then we all, you know, worked in industry. Then we all did knowledge work, yeah. People, people, people adapted. That happened over centuries or decades.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Right.

AMODEI: This is happening over low single digit numbers of years. And maybe that's my concern here. How do we get people to adapt fast enough?

(END VIDEO CLIP)

BASH: What do you think the answer to that is? And since this is Inside Politics, what's your message to lawmakers who have been talking a little bit about AI, but not done anything when it comes to the regulation that you're discussing.

GALLOWAY: Well, my message wouldn't be to elected officials, it would be to the electorate, and that is elect people under the age of 40 who actually understand these technologies. Right now, Washington is a cross between the Land of the Dead and The Golden Girls. These folks just don't understand these technologies, nor have any idea how to regulate it.

In terms of, the reason (inaudible) optimist is every technology in history has had some short-term job destruction. Automation was going to kill the auto industry, and there were some job loss on the factory floor. But now there are more people. We didn't envision heated seats or car stereos, and now there's more jobs and more employment in the auto industry than pre automation.

I don't see any reason why over time AI shouldn't create additional productivity margin and new businesses that ultimately reshapes the employment market, but we end up with more jobs. Now I realize I might be a Pollyanna, but that's it -- that is what has happened with every technology. The fear is Dario has outlined. Is it the V the initial destruction might be so great that we're caught kind of flat footed.

And what the U.S. is really bad at is taking care of having empathy and retraining the people on the wrong side of that trade. Denmark spends 2 percent of its GDP upskilling and retraining people for where the economy is headed. We spend 0.2 percent. But I don't see any reason why we shouldn't be able to adapt to these technologies and create more jobs.

Youth unemployment is at 10 percent, that's about average. Unemployment right now is four, 4.5 percent. Entry level jobs among college workers. There's more fear there. But my sense is that the employment destruction we keep waiting for, the labor destruction we haven't seen yet. So, I don't -- I take it with a bit of -- a bit of a grain of salt.

BASH: OK, well, that's good. Also, did you know that The Golden Girls were like in their 50s? Doesn't that depress you.

GALLOWAY: They were -- the oldest one was 52. Things have changed dramatically --

BASH: I mean, that's a tough one to swallow.

GALLOWAY: Yeah, absolutely. Well, Sanford from Sanford and Son, he was like 52 when he started, and anyways, yeah, it's getting.

BASH: It's so weird.

(CROSSTALK)

BASH: All right, Scott. Scott, don't go anywhere because we have a lot more to talk to you about, including and especially your resist and unsubscribe movement. What you want people to do and not do. We'll be back after a quick break.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[12:25:00]

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

BASH: And we're back with Scott Galloway. Let's talk about your resist and unsubscribe movement. You've been very alarmed by ISIS operations. You're calling for mass economic boycott to make a difference. And to be specific, what you are saying is that people should unsubscribe from these companies that I'm putting up on the screen. A lot of companies. Explain why and what you think success from your push looks like?

GALLOWAY: Sure. So, if you look at when the president has moved back or checked back from his actions, it's typically the catalyst is only one thing, and that's when the bond market or the stock market falls, whether it's talks of annex in Greenland or moving back or pulling back from tariffs. It's when the market goes down that he actually responds.

And that's not to say that protests aren't important, but this administration responds to the markets, as evidenced by the fact in defense of why the Department of Justice has not even bothered to interview survivors. The attorney general immediately says the Dow is over $50,000 which, by the way, shows she has absolutely no understanding of what the Dow is.

This administration listens to the markets, and 40 percent of the S&P is now concentrated amongst 10 companies that are really dependent upon subscription growth revenues. So, what I'm trying to do with the movement is send a signal to consumers that they have a weapon hiding in plain sight. And that is, if you go on right now and unsubscribe from the paid version of ChatGPT, which costs $240. A company raising money at 40 times revenues. You're effectively taking $10,000 out of the market cap of that company.

And these companies are so sensitive to a slowdown in the growth of their subscriptions that I think consumers have missed a weapon hiding in plain sight. And that is if they just check back. If they go from six streaming media platforms to one, from two ride hailing programs to one