Return to Transcripts main page
Isa Soares Tonight
U.S. Continues Mideast Military Buildup; U.S. to Offer Diplomatic Services in West Bank; Indian PM Modi Visits Israel; Trump Claims Economic "Turnaround for the Ages"; Trump's Surgeon General Pick Faces Senate Committee; Anthropic Drops A.I. Safety Values. Larry Summers Says He'll Resign from Harvard After the Academic Year; Iran Pushes Back Against U.S. President Trump, Accuses Him of Repeating "Big Lies", World Reacts to Trump's State of the Union Address. Aired 2-3p ET
Aired February 25, 2026 - 14:00 ET
THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.
[14:00:00]
ISA SOARES, HOST, ISA SOARES TONIGHT: A very warm welcome to the show, everyone, I'm Isa Soares. Tonight, missing files from a Trump accuser and a
high profile resignation as the fallout from the Epstein files takes another turn. We'll bring you the very latest.
Then Iran pushes back against U.S. President Trump, accusing him of repeating, quote, "big lies", setting, of course, the tone for critical
talks tomorrow in Geneva. And roaring like never before. The U.S. President touts his accomplishments and focuses on the economy.
We'll unpack what was said and what wasn't said at Donald Trump's State of the Union address. We have that and much more ahead for you. We do begin
this evening with new fallout from the Epstein files. Harvard says Larry Summers; the university's former president and former U.S. Treasury
Secretary, is resigning from teaching at the end of this academic year.
And this fall from grace was months, really, in the making. Documents released by Congress show Summers had a much closer relationship to the
late sex offender Jeffrey Epstein than previously known. Meanwhile, a new CNN investigation suggests the Justice Department withheld dozens of FBI
records when they released the Epstein files last month.
Among those apparently missing files include three interviews related to a woman who accused Jeffrey Epstein and U.S. President Donald Trump of
sexually assaulting her decades ago. The President has consistently denied any wrongdoing, and he never mentioned the files during his State of the
Union speech.
Looking though at the wider picture, we have seen a string of resignations now from U.S. business leaders as well as professionals. Lawrence Summers,
the most recent -- my colleague, Laura Coates, asked one of the Epstein survivors if this is a step in the right direction. Have a listen.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
LAURA COATES, CNN ANCHOR & CORRESPONDENT: Do you view these resignations as a step forward or sweeping under the rug?
DANIELLE BENSKY, EPSTEIN SURVIVOR: I think they are definitely a step forward. I think we have so many tiers of co-conspirators in this case. And
I think that the treatment or the just -- the form of justice is not going to look the same for all of these different people, right?
And so, I think when you're seeing these resignations, it is a little bit validating for survivors. But we just have to keep pushing.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
SOARES: And looking ahead, Bill and Hillary Clinton are set to testify in the Epstein probe. The former Secretary of State is due to appear on
Thursday, and the former President is set to appear on Friday. We have a lot to get through.
I've got Matt Egan, Kara Scannell following developments. First, I want to go to Kara first. Let's start then, Kara, with these missing records. What
more do we know?
KARA SCANNELL, CNN CORRESPONDENT: So, our investigative team have taken a look at the file, and they have discovered that there are dozens of records
missing. Specifically, they looked at an evidence log that was provided and made public to Ghislaine Maxwell's attorneys.
And by looking at the serial numbers in there, they were able to establish that there are about 90 out of 325 FBI 302s. Those are the documents that
account for the witness interviews that are not publicly available.
And within those 90s, there are three that come from interviews that were taken with a woman in 2019 who said that when she was as young as 13 years
old, she was being sexually assaulted by Jeffrey Epstein. And she also made an allegation to authorities that she was also sexually assaulted by Donald
Trump in the 1980s.
The White House has called this accusation false, and as far as why these records are not in the public domain as required by the law, the Justice
Department has said that they did not delete any documents. They said that the documents that are not on the website include ones where there are
either duplicates, privileged or part of an ongoing investigation.
Now, it's not really clear what happened with this one individual's allegations that were made. There was another record that was public, an
FBI summary of some of these salacious allegations in which that one said that there was one person who claimed abuse by Trump, but refused to
cooperate.
[14:05:00]
So, it appears that this person may have initially come forward with this allegation, but then did not continue to cooperate with investigators. It
is something that Democrats are highlighting, though, as they say, that there are documents that they know that exist, that are not being made
public as required by the law --
SOARES: Yes --
SCANNELL: All part of this tension over the Justice Department's publishing of records and redactions and withdrawals that they have taken
during this whole process. Isa.
SOARES: Do stay with us, Kara. Matt, let me go to you, as we were saying, former Treasury Secretary and economist Larry Summers, then it seems to be
leaving his post. This is over amid the scrutiny of course, over his alleged ties to Jeffrey Epstein. What is he saying? What is Harvard saying
here? And speak to those ties, what do we know?
MATT EGAN, CNN SENIOR REPORTER: Yes, well, Isa, as you said, this is really another fall from grace. And it is being triggered by the release of
the Epstein files. I mean, Larry Summers has been a legend of sorts in economic circles. A former president of Harvard, former U.S. Treasury
Secretary under Bill Clinton, former top economist under President Obama.
Now, he says he's retiring from Harvard at the end of the school year. He's also stepping down from a key position at the Harvard Kennedy School.
Summers says that this is a -- this was a difficult decision, right? And it's clearly coming as there's more scrutiny over his links to Jeffrey
Epstein.
Documents that were released in recent months have showed that Summers kept ongoing correspondence with Epstein for many years, and that correspondence
included e-mails that showed Summers making at times sexist comments and even seeking romantic advice from the convicted sex offender.
Now, Summers has previously said that he is, quotely(ph) -- he's quote, "deeply ashamed over his relationship with Epstein." The Harvard University
spokesperson says that they decided to accept his resignation from this top post at the Harvard Kennedy School as part of the university's ongoing
review of the Epstein files.
Now, Summers joins a growing list of business leaders whose careers have been derailed by the release of the Epstein files, and the fact that these
files show that some business leaders, their judgment has been questioned by their decision to continue ties with Epstein for years after his 2008
guilty plea. And --
SOARES: Yes --
EGAN: Some experts tell me, Isa, that this is just the tip of the iceberg, right? That we could see more prominent people be forced to step down and
retire because of the Epstein scandal.
SOARES: And we've seen more from the business side than we have from the world of politics. And the Epstein files, Kara, you know, continues to take
center stage, and it's happening tomorrow. We're seeing Hillary Clinton testifying on the House Oversight Committee. And then on Friday, Bill
Clinton. Give us a sense of what we're expected to hear from them.
SCANNELL: So, both Clintons have said that they wanted to testify publicly if they were going to be forced to testify at all, and their testimony is
coming pursuant to a subpoena by the House Congressional Committee. They initially had balked at it.
But when they were threatened to be held in criminal contempt, they said they would testify. They are not able to do this publicly, so tomorrow,
Hillary Clinton; the former Secretary of State, will sit for a deposition in Chappaqua, New York, where they live, where she will answer questions.
She is not someone who is known for having a close relationship with Epstein, but she is going to be tasked with answering questions about this.
On Friday, former President Bill Clinton will sit for his deposition, he has been on Epstein's plane, according to a CNN analysis, at least 16
times.
That was when he was launching the Clinton Global Initiative. He has said repeatedly, he had no knowledge of any Epstein's criminal activity. He did
not assault any women. He has not been accused of assaulting any young girls or women from his association with Epstein.
But it is a remarkable moment in U.S. history to have both a former President, a former first lady, having to sit for these depositions under
oath. What we have seen, though, that these depositions, while they are private, they do become public within days. So, we should see a video and
transcript surface of exactly their exchanges in the next few days. Isa?
SOARES: I know you'll be across it for us, Kara, thank you very much. Kara there and Matt Egan, thank you. Well, we're going to stay in the United
States because the Trump administration has imposed new sanctions on Iran as part of what it's calling its maximum pressure campaign to force Tehran
into signing a nuclear deal.
The new measures target vessels in Iran's shadow fleet, as well as networks in Iran, in Turkey as well as the UAE. In his State of the Union address on
Tuesday, Trump largely steered off foreign policy, but he did touch briefly on his rapidly souring relationship with Tehran. We want to play a little
bit of what he said. Have a listen.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
DONALD TRUMP, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: My preference is to solve this problem through diplomacy. But one thing is certain, I will never
allow the world's number one sponsor of terror, which they are by far, to have a nuclear weapon. Can't let that happen.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
[14:10:00]
SOARES: Well, Iran's Foreign Minister, meanwhile, accuses Trump repeating, quote, "big lies" during his speech to Congress. Trump meanwhile, has
repeatedly accused Iran of building a nuclear weapon, something that Tehran has denied. Indirect talks are set to pick up on Thursday as U.S. is
continuing its largest military buildup in the region in decades.
Nic Robertson is here with me. And Nic, we are seeing that military build- up, the armor that's growing by the day, and now we're seeing that pressure again from the united strike -- from United States with new sanctions. Have
we -- how effective have these measures been so far? I know they're meeting tomorrow. What are you hearing from your sources?
NIC ROBERTSON, CNN INTERNATIONAL DIPLOMATIC EDITOR: How effective, it's very hard to judge, because we're really not getting a glimpse behind the
doors of these discussions that have gone on between the Iranian Foreign Minister with intermediaries, the Omanis, and Steve Witkoff, Jared Kushner
from the U.S. side.
But I think if we try to read the tea leaves here a little and look at the very positive statements that the Iranians have been making after their
meetings, and also Witkoff, sort of indicating initially that first meeting that they had in Oman a couple of weeks ago, that things were sort of
looking good, everything was positive.
I think the reality has sort of -- the reality of the last couple of weeks shows that that's not the case, that the United States doesn't feel that
Iran is moving in the right position, hence the military pressure, hence these additional sanctions. The sanctions really are sort of part of the
maximum pressure which is, you know, how President Trump and his administration have framed they would rather deal with --
SOARES: Yes --
ROBERTSON: Iran that bring them to the negotiating table without the use of the military. So, I think this doubles down on that, but really, if
you're Iran and you're looking at it, what's the difference in terms of pressure between more economic sanctions and a military on your doorstep?
SOARES: And we heard, I think it was from the Foreign Minister, a couple of days ago or yesterday, said Iran is ready to do whatever is necessary to
reach a nuclear deal. Do you have a sense as -- do you understand why Iran hasn't capitulated yet to any -- to this pressure? What -- how much
movement has that been on those red lines, if at all? Because the devil I know is in the detail here.
ROBERTSON: Yes, and also it's about what Iran wants --
SOARES: Yes --
ROBERTSON: In for this, and it wants sanctions relief --
SOARES: Relief, yes --
ROBERTSON: And so, the answer today has been well, you're not going to get sanctions relief. Here's some more sanctions. And it's very sensitive for
the IRGC, who have been prescribed terrorist organization by the European Union, by the United States as well, the sanctions on them and their
business interests.
And, of course, they're going to look to their own business interests. So, we don't know. Is it -- is it the IRGC's sanctions on them that they want
lifted first? Do they want those completely lifted all in one go? A deal like that would look very much like, you know, what President Trump has
criticized President Obama for doing back in 2015.
If you look at the military build-up, and you do a comparison for how that -- although, we talk about the bigger since 2003. If you do a comparison,
it looks like 1998 when the U.S. had a military build-up aircraft carriers, Tomahawk cruise missiles, aircraft in the region.
That had a very limited, short and heavy and sharp strike over a -- just a few days in Iraq. The posturing looks like that's the type of military
action. If President Trump was going to do it and he hasn't said he's going to do it --
SOARES: Yes --
ROBERTSON: But that's what the force posture is reminiscent of.
SOARES: Very briefly. What are you hearing from your -- from European allies? You know, if we look at the military build-up. Is this inevitable
now?
ROBERTSON: There's a sense that it is. When you put, let's say F-22 --
SOARES: Yes --
ROBERTSON: Very advanced stealth fighter jets in Israel and long range refuel capabilities with them. And you -- it's not like putting an aircraft
carrier battle group in the sea, which can stay there for months.
SOARES: Yes --
ROBERTSON: This is a lot to add in to the theater, but it does -- the military theater. But it does create the impression of a potential packet
of very strong and heavy, but limited strikes. But -- so, what's the -- what's the sort of thought here? I think the -- I think the general feeling
is the mood music going into the talks tomorrow.
There's not a lot that's been really positive.
SOARES: Yes --
ROBERTSON: It's sort of been -- the tension around, it's been getting stronger.
SOARES: It doesn't sound like it's a good start, but of course, they are talking, and that is -- that's diplomacy. Nic, appreciate it, thank you
very much indeed. Well, another key moment from President Trump's State of the Union address, repeating a false claim that he has ended eight wars in
the past year.
He said this as Europe's deadliest conflict since the second World War entered its fifth year though. We're talking, of course, about the war in
Ukraine.
[14:15:00]
That was a conflict President Trump once promised if you remember, to end in 24 hours. Ukrainian officials will meet with the U.S. negotiators on
Thursday in Geneva. So, two different talks as you can see there, following talks last week there which also included Russia.
Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy says the so-called prosperity package for the reconstruction of Ukraine will be on the agenda. This as
Kyiv allocates a further $36 million for the construction of anti-drone nets which can really be strung up to prevent drone attacks as we've seen
from our reports in Ukraine.
Let's get more we can expect from Thursday's talks, as well as the perspective among NATO allies. Jens Stoltenberg is the Norwegian Finance
Minister as well the country's former Prime Minister and a former NATO Secretary-General. Great to have you here on the show, Jens, it's great to
have you here once again.
Let me start then on your expectations for Thursday's meeting. What hopes do you have that the road to peace, that we're nearing that road to peace
because it doesn't seem like we -- it's moved much.
JENS STOLTENBERG, FINANCE MINISTER, NORWAY: Well, I think it's far too early to say when and how this war can end, but it is a positive sign that
at least, there are talks. We do not know when the war will end.
But what we do know is that the stronger Ukraine is on the battlefield, the more likely it is that President Putin will realize that he cannot win the
war and has to sit down and negotiate and accept an end to the war where Ukraine prevails as a sovereign independent state. So, the important thing
is to provide a military support to Ukraine to help to end the war.
SOARES: It is astonishing that we are here. I remember when the war started, I had a morning show, I remember speaking to you on numerous
occasions, and it's staggering to think that, you know, four years on, four years of mourning, four years of stolen childhoods. Did you ever believe,
Jens, that it would be that it would last this long?
STOLTENBERG: No, I think I have to be honest and say that I know -- I and -- I think that most others also believe that the war in Ukraine, the full-
scale invasion will not last four years. Having said that, I think that what we have learned again and again from history is that, wars tend to
last longer than we expect when they start, and they also tend to be more brutal than we expect when they start. And this war has not lasted for four
years. It started in 2014.
SOARES: Yes --
STOLTENBERG: So, this is really one of the most brutal, and one of the longest wars in Europe for centuries. But again, we need to then address
how to end the war. And I don't think we can change President Putin's mind. He wants to control Ukraine.
But I do think that we can change his calculus, that if the price he has to pay to achieve that is too high, then we can force him to sit down and
accept a solution where Ukraine continues to be a sovereign, independent, democratic state in Europe.
SOARES: But we have been trying to change his calculus for years, and it doesn't seem that their goals, you know, they've said it themselves, have
been achieved. I think Dmitry Peskov; the spokesperson said that the goals of Russia's special military operations, what the euphemism they used for
its war in Ukraine, have not been achieved.
So, how then can we change the calculus that you know, up to now, we've been adding sanctions, we've got the 20th package of sanctions against
Russia. We've been -- we've been in dialogue. What else can be done? Because the economy clearly is on its knees in Russia or deeply suffering,
but it hasn't really moved the needle at all.
STOLTENBERG: Well, I think actually, we have achieved a lot compared to what we thought, when this full scale invasion started, because the reality
is that, most experts also in NATO and in the West, they believed that the Russian forces were going to take Kyiv within days, and the rest of Ukraine
within weeks.
That didn't happen. And the Ukrainians were able, in the first weeks of the war, to liberate roughly 50 percent of the territory that Russia took in
the beginning of the war. And now, there is a kind of war of attrition, and Russia continues, of course, to push.
But in last year in 2025, they were able to take control over 0.8 percent of Ukrainian territory. And the pride -- and they paid a very high price,
roughly 1,000 killed or seriously wounded per day. And even for Russia, that is a price that they cannot sustain in the long run.
So, therefore, what at least, we should do is to keep up our support, keep up the sanctions, and of course, I would welcome if NATO allies and other
countries also provide even more, because, Russia is not winning this war.
[14:20:00]
Russia has actually lost a lot. They have more NATO in their borders now than ever before. There are two new NATO allies, Finland and Sweden, and
Ukraine has proven to be much stronger than they expected.
SOARES: Yes, it is about changing the calculus. That was the point I was trying -- that I was trying to make, which clearly hasn't shifted from
Putin's side. I wonder whether you think, Jens, that the strategy from the U.S., whether you think it's been effective because the U.S.' strategy up
to now is to listen to what Putin wants, right?
He wants the Donbas and then pressure Zelenskyy to give him what Putin wants. I mean, how effective of a strategy do you think that can be?
STOLTENBERG: But first, again, of course, we haven't seen that Putin's calculus has changed, that at some stage, that price they're paying now is,
will be too high. And they have to start to recruit also forces from the big cities, from the middle class, and the economy cannot sustain this for
the long run.
So, it's about our ability and will to continue to stand by Ukraine. So, Russia will not win the war. Then on the United States -- well, the United
States provides support to Ukraine. They make a lot of weapons, ammunition available, paid by other NATO allies.
They support Ukraine with sharing information, planning, but of course, I would like to see even clearer support from the U.S. and also that they --
that the United States also pay some of the costs, because today it's actually first and foremost, other NATO allies that are paying the bill for
providing the military support to Ukraine.
SOARES: Yes, and we -- and we heard from President Zelenskyy speaking to our Clarissa Ward in Kyiv, where he said ahead of the State of the Union,
where he said he wants the U.S. President to, quote, "stay on our side". And we do understand, as you were speaking, Jens, that President Trump has
spoken with President Zelenskyy in the last few moments regarding the war in Ukraine.
This is ahead of talks tomorrow in Geneva, that we don't have any sense of a readout of the call, but just to give viewers some perspective of the --
of the communication between both sides. As we wrap up very briefly here, Jens, I did hear here in the U.K., the head of the British army warning
that Britain is on a collision course with Russia.
Whether the war in Ukraine is won or whether it's lost. And I wonder whether you feel that could be applied to anywhere else in Europe. I mean,
do you agree with that?
STOLTENBERG: Well, I think the important message is that we need to support Ukraine, because that is a way to also enhance our own security,
because if Russia wins in Ukraine, we will be in a more dangerous situation as European NATO allies. But of course, the answer is that as long as NATO
allies stand together, we will be safe.
Because NATO is by far the strongest military force in the whole world, and the purpose of NATO is to not actually wage war, but to prevent war by
sending a clear message to Moscow, to any other potential adversary, that an attack on one ally will trigger a response from a whole alliance.
So, as long as we maintain that unity, and not create any misunderstanding about our credible deterrence and collective defense, then we will also be
able to prevent an armed attack from Russia.
SOARES: Jens Stoltenberg live there from Oslo, good to see you, Jens, thank you very much, indeed. And still to come tonight, as tensions near
breaking point, is there an off-ramp for the Trump administration, and Tehran, we'll have more on the options the White House is weighing.
Plus, President Trump facing some headwinds in the form of low approval ratings, making his pitch to American voters. Reaction, of course, to his
State of the Union address just ahead.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[14:25:00]
SOARES: Welcome back, everyone. As we mentioned earlier, right now, the U.S. is in the midst of its largest military build-up in the Middle East
since the invasion of Iraq in 2003. The USS Gerald Ford, the world's largest ship, is set to arrive in the region imminently.
And you can see it here in footage captured earlier this week on its way through the Mediterranean. It is joining a wealth of U.S. assets capable of
launching multiple waves of strikes into Iran if ordered, of course, to do so by President Trump.
In his State of the Union on Tuesday, Mr. Trump said he was still looking for a diplomatic solution with Tehran. He also accused the regime of saying
sinister -- having sinister ambitions and building nuclear weapons. Tehran has repeatedly denied that, and is -- and says Trump is spreading lies.
So, a lot of attention, of course, looking ahead to Thursday. With us is our politics senior reporter, Stephen Collinson in Washington. Stephen,
great to have you with us. Look, we are seeing -- I was speaking to Nic Robertson, our diplomatic editor, about this.
We are seeing and hearing kind of the diplomatic wheels between the U.S. and Iran starting to stall. Like not much is coming out of that so far. In
the meantime, we're seeing this armada, right? In the region.
And the question I had earlier today as my team and I met for our editorial meeting is, if -- would Trump need to ask -- need to seek approval from
Congress, from the American people for any sort of action?
I ask this because I read in the "New York Times", this quote, "rarely in modern times, has the United States prepared to conduct a major act of war
with so little explanation and so little public debate." Why is that, Stephen?
STEPHEN COLLINSON, CNN POLITICS SENIOR REPORTER: Well, what David Sanger in the "New York Times" says there is true. There has been very little
public debate about this. The public debate there has been -- has been confused and opaque and contradictory from the administration, giving
various reasons why it might go to war with Iran.
But really providing no evidence or analytical argument about it. The answer to your first question is that, in a real normal world and
presidency, and in a presidency that took place over 25 years ago, there would have to be a debate about this constitutionally, because Congress
declares war and Presidents don't have that power.
But over the last 25 years since the 9/11 attacks, Presidents have more and more taken it on their own authority to use military action. There are laws
which the President must report to Congress after he takes action, but no modern President has really asked for a declaration of war against another
country since Franklin Roosevelt in World War II.
They take action, and then they justify it. And if you think back to the Iraq war situation, there are lots of people in Congress who don't want
this power. Many Democratic and Republican politicians saw their careers blighted after they were swept up in the push to war and voted to authorize
the conflict, and then saw it come back to haunt them.
People like Hillary Clinton for example, and John Kerry, and it hurt their political careers. So, it's not that Congress, apart from a few Democrats
and a bunch of libertarian Republicans, are actually itching for this vote to take place.
SOARES: Yes, I did -- I did see Senate Republican leader John Thune basically insisting the administration must consult Congress. But the
reason I'm asking you, and we are asking these questions on this side, is because it's not clear what the goal is from the administration.
Is it regime change? Is it protecting the protesters? Is it nonproliferation? I wonder if there's a conversations that Americans, you
know, in the corridors of power will be asking themselves.
STEPHEN COLLINSON, CNN POLITICS SENIOR REPORTER: So, people in the corridors of power are asking themselves. I think it's quite possible that
the country wakes up in four- or five-days' time and finds itself at war with Iran and starts thinking, what on earth is all this about? And I think
that's one of the big political risks for Trump, if he goes into this conflict and he doesn't have public support and hasn't explained it to the
public, then I think he's very politically exposed if things don't go well.
I would also say, I think just in the media of Washington, listening to people at think tanks, people coming on TV and on podcasts, there is a
great deal of happy talk starting to take place about, well, you know, could we engineer some kind of regime change in Iran that parallels what
the U.S. did in Venezuela, taking the top off the regime and then having perhaps some leader in Iran that would be willing to work with the United
States. I mean, this is pretty fantastical stuff.
And I think one of the big problems is even if you got rid of the clerical regime in Iran, there are a lot of experts in Washington who think, well,
you'd be left with some kind of IGRC regime, which might be more secular in tone, but we'd be just as hostile to the United States. So, there's that
issue.
But I do think one of the drivers of this is that people are thinking in Washington, well, this has been an issue for 50 years for the United
States. President Donald Trump could be the president who toppled the Islamic regime that has haunted American foreign policy for half a century
nearly. That is something that's got to be very tempting to the president, especially one that doesn't necessarily think of follow-on options when he
takes action. And it has quite a taste for action.
You know, there's been a lot of reports of -- Dan Caine, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs in recent days, has warned the president that this
wouldn't be like Venezuela. It's much more of a risk and it would take much longer. And you have all sorts of unforeseen consequences in the region.
But to your first point, it does seem that we're moving inexorably towards a confrontation right now.
SOARES: Yes, the regional fallout, of course, is huge. And we don't have time for this, but it will be interesting to see how Americans would react,
why go -- you know, you go ahead with the war with polling looking pretty bleak for President Trump and clearly, Americans more concerned about the
economy than anything else in foreign policy. Stephen, appreciate it as always. Thank you.
I do want to stay in the region for you because the U.S. says it's for the first time ever it will offer diplomatic services inside a Jewish
settlement in the occupied West Bank in a one-day event on Friday. The U.S. embassy will provide routine passport services to American citizens in the
settlement of Efrat. And it breaks with decades of U.S. foreign policy, which has held that Israeli settlements in the West Bank are an obstacle to
peace. Critics of the new move warn it's, quote, "normalizing annexation."
Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi is in Israel for a two-day visit with his Israeli counterpart, Benjamin Netanyahu.
And the two leaders describe each other as close partners. Mr. Modi became the first Indian prime minister to ever visit Israel. That was back in
2017. Earlier today, he addressed the Israeli parliament. His visit comes as the U.S. builds up naval forces near Iran, raising the risk of wider
conflict in the region where millions of Indian nationals live as well as work.
Still to come tonight, reaction to President Trump's record-breaking State of the Union address, including his claim that the U.S. economy is, quote,
"roaring like never before."
And then later in the show, President Trump picks for general -- for surgeon general, is facing a Senate Committee today. We'll tell you what
she's had to say.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[14:35:00]
SOARES: Well, Washington and American voters are digesting and reacting to U.S. President Donald Trump's record-breaking State of the Union address.
In the face of sagging poll numbers and high grocery prices, Mr. Trump used the biggest stage possible to try to convince voters that his policies are
indeed working.
His 107-minute-long speech included a number of clashes with Democrats and a celebration of the U.S. men's Olympic gold medal-winning hockey team. But
there was really little to no mention of China or, indeed, of Greenland. And when it came to the topic many voters wanted to hear about, that is, of
course, the state of the economy, the president took a number of economic victory laps but offered very few details.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
DONALD TRUMP, U.S. PRESIDENT: When I last spoke in this chamber 12 months ago, I had just inherited a nation in crisis with a stagnant economy,
inflation at record levels. The roaring economy is roaring like never before. In 12 months, I secured commitments for more than $18 trillion
pouring in from all over the globe. I believe that tariffs paid for by foreign countries will, like in the past, substantially replace the modern-
day system of income tax. Our country is winning again.
In fact, we're winning so much that we really don't know what to do about it. People are asking me, please, please, please, Mr. President, we're
winning too much. We can't take it anymore.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
SOARES: Let's go more. Senior White House reporter Kevin Liptak joins us. And, Kevin, as you and I were discussing Friday and seeing polling numbers,
you know, Americans didn't want to hear about the economy, but specifically not GDP. I think they wanted to focus on affordability. So, give us a sense
of whether you, from what you've heard and the analysis you've got here, whether the president was able to advance his political agenda. Was it
forward-looking, in your view?
KEVIN LIPTAK, CNN SENIOR WHITE HOUSE REPORTER: I mean, the speech itself was not forward-looking at all. You know, I think traditionally a president
whose party controls both chambers of Congress would have used a State of the Union to, for example, lay out a raft of new policies that he wanted
the Congress to pass over the coming year.
And you didn't hear any of that from the president, aside from a few mentions of wanting tax cuts. This was much more of a victory lap. You
know, the president doesn't really do the I feel your pain thing, even though many Republicans probably want him to do that, just given the
disconnect between the president's boasts about the economy and what Americans say they feel the economy is doing.
And so, I'm not sure that the president really provided his Republican followers a glimpse of what exactly he intends to do with the economy going
forward.
[14:40:00]
But I think also at the end of the day, you know, these speeches, they're very high-profile, but they do have a tendency to kind of vanish into the
ether after a few days. You know, I don't think many people are going to be talking about the State of the Union come November when people go to the
polls for the midterm elections, particularly if, for example, the United States is at war with Iran or growth slows significantly.
I think what he did do is suggest to Republicans and demonstrate for Republicans a way of going after Democrats, a way of going on the political
offensive to try and suggest that Democrats are not aligned with common sense, you know, values, which I think was his whole intention when he was
pointing to their side, asking why they weren't standing up for these various items and people that he listed out in the speech.
And so, you know, it was a speech that many Republicans, I think, feel good about today here in Washington, but it's not necessarily something that
anyone thinks is going to dictate Republicans' prospects in the midterm elections.
SOARES: Kevin Liptak for us at the White House this hour. Thank you, Kevin. We're going to stay with President Trump because President Trump's
pick for surgeon general faced Senate questions today. Dr. Casey Means was scheduled to go before a Senate committee last October but went into labor
with her first child hours before her hearing.
In her opening statement today, Dr. Means described what she calls the unravelling of the physical as well as mental health of U.S. citizens.
Means is a Stanford medical graduate, author, as well as wellness influencer. She's also a prominent voice in the Make America Healthy Again
movement.
Our Meg Tirrell was listening and she joins us now. So, Meg, what did we hear from Dr. Means today?
MEG TIRRELL, CNN MEDICAL CORRESPONDENT: Well, she spent a lot of time sort of defending her credentials, a lot of folks asking what made her really be
ready to be the surgeon general as she has an inactive medical license, a lot of questions about conflicts of interest in her background and the fact
that she didn't practice medicine in a traditional sense.
There were also a lot of questions about her stance on vaccines. And she's tried to say that really isn't part of her message and what she's going to
do as surgeon general. She really wanted to focus on a lot of these Make America Healthy Again themes, like focusing on ultra-processed foods.
But of course, we are we are in a historic year when it comes to vaccine preventable diseases like measles. And that's something that the chair of
the committee, Republican Senator Dr. Bill Cassidy asked about. Take a listen to this exchange. And then one she had with Senator Bernie Sanders,
where it really juxtaposes how she wants to use this office to talk about those different issues.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
SEN. BILL CASSIDY (R-LA): You're the nation's doctor. Would you encourage her to have her child vaccinated?
DR. CASEY MEANS, SURGEON GENERAL NOMINEE: I'm not an individual's doctor, and every individual needs to talk to their doctor before putting a
medication in their body. I absolutely am supportive of the measles vaccine, and I do believe vaccines save lives and are an important part of
the public health strategy.
SEN. BERNIE SANDERS (I-VT): Would you use your position to ban junk food TV ads?
DR. MEANS: Thank you so much, Senator Sanders. And I agree with you completely. I think there is so much that we agree on, on these issues.
Just to be clear, the surgeon general's office does not have the purview to ban this.
SANDERS: But you have a voice.
DR. MEANS: Absolutely. And that's a voice I would absolutely lend to talking about the dangers of ultra-processed foods and getting these
advertisements off TV.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
TIRRELL: And she learned really hard into that food idea. And that is something that we have heard is that the Trump administration kind of wants
to back off of the more aggressive vaccine policy changes that we have been seeing over the past year from Health Secretary Robert F. Kennedy, Jr.,
because it's really not as politically popular. And she says that is not part of her message. But, of course, tons of questions about that which
will persist.
SOARES: And, Meg, just picking up on really her last answer there, just for our viewers around the world, how much influence really does a surgeon
general have over public health in the United States?
TIRRELL: The surgeon general really plays this role of kind of the nation's doctor. They are supposed to be the person who is out there so
recognizable and providing the best medical guidance to the American public. And they often do that through reports and advisories.
Famously, the surgeon general called out the risks of tobacco. More recently, the surgeon general focused on things like alcohol and cancer and
social media and mental health, something she actually said the previous surgeon general did a good job with and she would want to continue. So,
they really draw attention to issues.
But doctors say it's really important that they don't waffle on things like vaccination, even if they don't believe they personally should be making
any recommendations for folks. Other people say you're the surgeon general. We look to you for the best guidance and public health says the best
guidance is generally that vaccines are right for most children.
SOARES: Yes. And she clearly was noncommittal on that. Meg, appreciate it. Thank you very much indeed.
And still to come tonight, Anthropic drops its flagship artificial intelligence safety policy. We'll get the latest from our tech reporter.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[14:45:00]
SOARES: Welcome back. Artificial intelligence giant Anthropic is dropping one of its core safety values in the middle of a fight with the Pentagon.
The company said its policy adjustment is in response to competition and the rapidly growing A.I. market. It's not clear whether the change is
related to its meeting with the U.S. defense secretary on Tuesday. Pete Hegseth is giving the firm until Friday to ease restrictions on its
products or risk losing its $200 million Pentagon contract. Anthropic says it has concerns over the use of its clawed A.I. system to control weapons
and conduct surveillance.
Our Clare Duffy joins us now. And Clare, I was looking at the right that you put out. It's interesting because they're talking about adopting a non-
binding safety framework that it says can or will change. What exactly is that framework?
CLARE DUFFY, CNN TECH REPORTER: Yes, Isa, it's really interesting here. A big adjustment to Anthropic's core safety principles. And we should say
that this is not Anthropic giving up on safety, but really making a major adjustment here in terms of how they think about model development and the
speed at which the company is moving. Basically, they've removed a promise from their core safety principles to pause A.I. model development if they
felt like they couldn't control it safely.
Now, the company is saying that with others in the industry blazing ahead with model development, it doesn't want to slow down. I want to read you
just a portion of the blog post that Anthropic put out explaining this decision. They said their core safety principles, their previous ones, they
had hoped that announcing that responsible scaling policy would encourage other A.I. companies to introduce similar policies. This is the idea of a
race to the top, the converse of a race to the bottom, in which different industry players are incentivized to improve rather than weaken their
models, safeguards.
Anthropic essentially now saying that that race to the top has not happened and they don't want to slow down while potentially less responsible actors
are speeding up. But this is really interesting timing coming in the midst of this fight with the Pentagon.
A source familiar with the matter told us just recently that this core safety policy update is not related to that fight with the DOD. And so, far
as we know, Anthropic is holding strong on its red line in that fight with the Pentagon. Anthropic does not want to see its A.I. models used for mass
surveillance of Americans or to control automated weapons.
But I think it really sort of puts into relief the stakes here where you've got Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth threatening to potentially impose the
Defense Production Act requiring Anthropic to hand over its technology to be used however the Defense Department would like. And at the same time,
you've got the company saying we're not necessarily going to slow down development of this model. And it could be potentially leading us to a
scary place if these companies lose the ability to control their own products. Isa.
[14:50:00]
SOARES: Yes, and I wonder what kind of reaction you've got to this because like you noted, it is surprising because Anthropic has ascribed itself as
you noted, as a company -- as an A.I. company with a soul, right?
DUFFY: Yes, Anthropic was born out of workers who left OpenAI over concerns about safety. They have built their entire brand around A.I.
safety. And we're actually hearing a number of folks outside of Anthropic, other people who work in the A.I. industry, standing up for Anthropic in
its fight with the Defense Department and arguing that it is really important for Anthropic to stand firm here and retain some control over how
this very powerful technology is used and make sure that it's sticking by these values.
I mean, it's not like, you know, they're asking for a lot here. They are asking that their technology is not used in automated weaponry and to mass
surveil Americans. And that is what is at the heart of this fight. So, it's going to be very interesting to see how this plays out with this Friday
deadline on the line here, Isa.
SOARES: Yes. Indeed, I know you'll stay across it for us. Thanks very much, Clare. Clare Duffy there for us in New York.
And still to come tonight, the results are in and the winner has been crowned. After the break, we'll reveal which image won World Nature
Photograph of the Year. That's next.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
SOARES: Welcome back, everyone. An amazing discovery has been found on the Great Barrier Reef off the coast of Australia. A mother and her daughter
identified the world's largest known coral colony. The duo are part of the group Citizens of the Reef and were on a diving trip when the colony was
spotted. And it spans 111 meters or about 364 feet and covers nearly 4,000 square meters, that's roughly 42,000 feet. The Great Barrier Reef is the
largest living structure on the planet. Truly stunning images from that mother and daughter duo.
And staying in the world of nature for you, we want to end the show tonight with some of the winning images from the World Nature Photography Awards.
And we really want to take you through these because they're really stunning. This one taken in Uganda and winning gold in the animal portrait
photography.
I want to take you now to a brown bear who's in Alaska desperately trying to catch sockeye salmon. What a great photo, as you can see there. Really
caught our eye. It's just a stunning photography in that capturing that moment. That's from Charlie Wemyss.
[14:55:00]
As in this image entitled Water Ballet. You can see why it's called that. Perfectly capturing a moment for this giraffe in Botswana. Beautiful.
Another of our favorites was this rather curious. Well done. It's a -- wonder if he's closing one eye to look at the cameras. We used to do bull
moose. The photograph taken in a national park in Wyoming. This is by Dina Sveinsson. Really beautiful. The contrast in the colors. And then there's
this. Which the photographer has called stoicism in a sandstorm. Really perfectly capturing up life for this chameleon, as you can see. And this,
I'm being told, was taken in Namibia.
And finally, really, the grand prize. I'm going to step back so you can really just be in awe of this. And the top award of world nature
photographer of the year going to the Australian photographer Jono Allen who captured this beautiful moment between a rare white humpback whale and
her mother. As you can see here. Something Jono says is a memory that will live with him forever. Congratulations to all of them.
And that does it for us for this hour. Do stay right here. "What We Know" with Max Foster is up next. I shall see you tomorrow. Bye-bye.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[15:00:00]
END
