Return to Transcripts main page
Laura Coates Live
Newsom Trolls Trump with Plan to "End Trump's Presidency"; New Push to Have Key Figure in Epstein Deal Testify; Psychiatrist Warns of Hospitalizations Tied to "A.I. Psychosis." Aired 11p-12a ET
Aired August 13, 2025 - 23:00 ET
THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.
[23:00:00]
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
LAURA COATES, CNN HOST AND SENIOR LEGAL ANALYST: Tonight, the gloves come off and Governor Gavin Newsom announces a plan to -- quote -- "end Trump's presidency." Plus, new tonight, the effort being discussed to have one of the most critical figures in the Epstein case testify and before Congress. And the psychiatrist warning about hospitalizations from a thing called A.I. psychosis. I'll tell you what that is tonight.
All right, look, for years, we have heard complaints that Democrats would rather keep the moral high ground than bring a knife to a Republican fist fight.
Democrats have been insulted, they've been mocked, they've been questioned, things like, what are you going to do about it? They've been yelled at, often by their own voters, saying, do something.
They have been told, and you've heard it, that Democrats are busy playing checkers, Republicans are playing chess. Or, of course, you've heard that all comparison to Republicans who are credited for better or for worse with being able to hold the party line, be united, even when it might be hypocritical or damaging to their own messaging or brand.
Democrats have been accused of being complacent and reactive, always one political step behind or so it seemed.
Well, tonight, maybe the (INAUDIBLE) have broken through, at least on one topic, at least in one state, California. That's where Governor Gavin Newsom is calling an audible, launching the Democrats biggest gamble yet to try to fight back against Trump. And he is doing it, well, through the art of the troll.
Take a look at this. And I want you to read it closely. Okay? It's on your screen. It's highlighted for effect. It's from Gavin Newsom's office, promising a beautiful rally with other Democrats tomorrow to destroy Texas Governor Greg Abbott's -- quote -- "totally rigged plan to redraw the political map." And yes, it's in all caps. And yes, there's lots of exclamation marks, even a declaration of Liberation Day. But the biggest threat? A blunt force campaign to flip control on Capitol Hill and take away Trump's majority. Now, stylistically, yes, you saw it, it is trolling. But underneath, substantively, the taunts are Newsom's plan to rewrite California's own map to try to cancel the gains that Republicans would get in Texas.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
GOV. GAVIN NEWSOM (D-CA): Later this week, we're going to announce the campaign. Next week, the legislature is going to move this forward with two-thirds. We're going to get it in a special election on November 4th. And we're going to fight fire with fire. We're going to neutralize whatever Abbott does next week or whenever they move forward the next special session.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
COATES: Well, Newsom's warning is not just about his state of California. He wants other democratic states to step up to the plate because he says this fight is spreading all across the nation.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
NEWSOM: We will also, hopefully, inspire some other states. There are many other democratically-led states that can move forward. And we just cannot sit back passively. They're hardly done here. They're going to move. They're going to run the table on us. They're rigging this election in plain sight.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
COATES: In Texas, the governor there, Governor Abbott, he is hearing this message loud and clear, and he is promising to raise those stakes.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
GOV. GREG ABBOTT (R-TX): If California tries to gerrymander five more districts, listen, Texas has the ability to eliminate 10 Democrats in our state. We can play that game more than they can because they have fewer Republican districts in their states.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
COATES: And yet, they call it a redistricting war, call it a try to win at all costs, call it a race to the bottom, whatever it is you want to call it. Here are the facts. We're about 446 days away from the midterm elections. And I know that seems like a long way away. It is not. That's perhaps why there is this new sense of urgency over how Democrats are going to try to confront Trump and Republicans.
Now, Governor Newsom says that he's going to fight fire with fire. You've heard that phrase. But right now, we're not talking about just one blaze. The battle is stretching beyond district lines.
[23:05:00] The midterms are almost going to be present. And Democrats are worried that Trump reflects his power in their cities, in their states. And they're looking right here in Washington, D.C., which you know is not even a state. But the state of affairs has all looking at it, looking at D.C. where tonight more National Guard troops are being deployed as Trump says that he wants to extend his federal takeover of the police long term.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
DONALD TRUMP, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: We're going to be asking for extensions on that, long-term extensions, because you can't have 30 days. We're going to do this very quickly. But we're going to want extensions. I don't want to call national emergency. If I have to, I will. But I think the Republicans in Congress will approve this pretty much unanimously.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
COATES: Remember, he's got to go to Congress if he wants more than 30 days of that ability under the emergency section of the action he is proposing. Trump says that his plan for Washington, D.C. is him just getting warmed up, though, because it might just become a model for other blue cities, including one in Governor Newsom's backyard.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
TRUMP: That's going to serve as a beacon for New York, Chicago, Los Angeles, and other places all over the country. This whole -- our whole country is going to be so different and so great.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
COATES: With me now, the attorney general for California, Rob Bonta. Good evening. I'm -- I'm eager to get your take on this because we've all heard from your governor, Gavin Newsom, talking about fighting fire with fire. You heard what Governor Abbott had to say about, you know, raising the stakes.
Our own reporting suggests that five Republican seats could be eliminated in California. But he can't do that on his own. The California voters got to approve it first. Now, you say this is all the right move. Attorney general, should and will voters see it your way?
ROB BONTA, CALIFORNIA ATTORNEY GENERAL: I believe they will. And, you know, of course, that's one of the things that makes the approach in California different to what's happening in Texas. We're going to the voters. We're allowing this to be an expression of direct democracy.
Governor Newsom has made the case, and he has stated that -- what is true, that Trump started this, the Republicans started this, Texas started this, and Governor Abbott started this. And California is trying to end it.
It is an abuse of power, trying to rig the outcome of an election and take away the voices and votes of the people of this country. It is an attempt to change the outcome of the midterms.
And they see it coming. They see that Democrats will retake the House. And instead of making their case to the voters to try to earn votes, they're trying to change the districts and find more votes and find more Republican seats.
This is what Trump did in 2020 when he called the secretary of state in Georgia, looking for over 11,000 votes. Now, he called Abbott, Governor Abbott, seeking five more seats. And Governor Abbott, unfortunately, the supplicant and apologist that he is, is all too eager to assist. But we're going to block it. We're going to neutralize it. We're going to stop it. There's a trigger in the proposition which says --
COATES: Okay.
BONTA: -- we only do this if Texas does this.
COATES: All right. That was where I was going with it because on the one hand, you have to wonder if the voters don't see it your way, what is your next chess move, because this really is for all the marbles. On the other hand, there is criticism, plenty of it, about the tit for tat because Democrats have held themselves out to hold quite the moral high ground.
What's being asked right now is for Democrats not to be reactive but proactive in some respects. Is it incumbent on California to wait until Texas does it before doing anything?
BONTA: Well, the proposition has a trigger in it. So, if the proposition gets passed, gets through the legislature and goes to the voters, then it will only be implemented if Texas redistricts the five seats.
COATES: Uh-hmm.
BONTA: That'll be a built-in trigger in the proposition. So, I think the plan, as the governor has stated, is to move through the legislature, get the proposition on the ballot. The trigger will be inherent in the proposition, and it'll be self-executing based on the trigger. No gerrymandering (INAUDIBLE). No redistricting California. Gerrymandering by Texas. Neutralizing and blocking by California.
And I think, you know, this is -- there's so much at stake. This is an attempt to try to keep the House when it's clearly going to be taken over by Democrats to rig the outcome of an election to abuse power. And it is incumbent upon Democrats to fight, to push back against such an abuse of power, such rigging of our democratic process, and to fight fire with fire, not fight with one hand behind our back, let our lunch money get stolen, and not engage in unilateral armament.
COATES: Well, it's not so clear that the House will be retaken by Democrats.
[23:10:02] I know that is the plan for Democrats and, strategically, they want that to be the case. But one of the people that's taking the lunch money of Democrats has been the Supreme Court on voting rights issues. They have not necessarily been a friend to the idea of opposing gerrymandering, especially when it's politically-based as opposed to racially-based.
But let me ask you about this issue because in D.C. here, dealing with the National Guard and the FBI being deployed locally. California, your state, you know, is suing Trump over his decision to send in the Guard to L.A. to stop those immigration protests. Today, there was a federal judge who did not seem -- well, deemed unconvinced that Trump's order was even lawful. I know D.C. might be a blueprint in terms of the National Guard being deployed at other places. Is this case, in this judge's order, going to be a blueprint of how other states could fight Trump?
BONTA: I think so. We made an incredible case in front of the judge here in the Northern District of California. We brought the facts, we brought the receipts, we brought the evidence, the legal arguments. We argued that there was a violation of the Posse Comitatus Act.
I think the admissions of the federal military personnel that testified, the facts that were presented demonstrate that, that the military, the 4,000 National Guards people and 700 Marines were engaged in civilian law enforcement, involved in perimeter support and blockades and immigration enforcement.
Seventy-five percent of the operations after the deployment was made involved the military. There is a core law, the Posse Comitatus Act, forged in the crucible of the founding of our nation which -- when we were fighting against a king who deployed the military to engage in civilian law enforcement in the colonies to say that that shall never happen again.
COATES: Uh-hmm.
BONTA: Trump is trying to do that. He's trying to do it here. He's trying to do it in D.C. He's trying to do it in Oakland, L.A., Chicago, all the -- by the way, all blue cities. No randomness to that. That's by design.
And I think we're going to block him in our case while we await the court's order. We went into the trial and the hearing. Confident -- we remain confident after all of the evidence has been submitted and the legal arguments made. And we think that others can fight just like California is fighting.
COATES: We'll see if the blueprint unfolds. Attorney General Rob Bonta, thank you so much.
BONTA: Thanks for having me, Laura. Great to be with you.
COATES: I want to pick up right where we're talking about with CNN political commentator Brad Todd, also Democratic strategist Ameshia Cross, because this blueprint notion here is really -- is really impactful in so many ways.
But first of all, Ameshia, you've heard the criticism about Democrats. I mean, you're a strategist, you know people have been screaming at the top of their lungs about doing more, etcetera. Do you agree with the idea that Governor Gavin Newsom and others are calling for them to be proactive, trigger or not, proactive in trying to undermine and take away seats from Republicans as well?
AMESHIA CROSS, DEMOCRATIC STRATEGIST: Absolutely. And Gavin Newsom is probably the strongest governor to do so just because he came out of the gate swinging against Trump a while ago and has not let up off the gas since.
I think that Democrats, Democratic voters, as well as new members of the DNC, they want to see a fight. They know that, you know, Democrats have always been seen as playing it by the rules, even though Donald Trump has changed the rules. He said multiple times that he wanted Texas to have more seats. We know that he was involved in some electioneering in 2020 and didn't want to claim a loss even then.
And now, with his polling going down, now with people questioning the one big, beautiful bill act with the price of groceries and everything else you can name going up, it's a tough stride for Republicans. But with that being said, Democrats' approval rating is still in the toilet.
COATES: Yes.
CROSS: So, they have to -- they have to show that they're in the fight. And Gavin Newsom is very smart and strategic in his way of doing it because unlike some governors, who are Democratic governors, who would like to see a certain level of redistricting in their states, they are tied by -- by their own state constitutions, by their own state laws, and by independent map movements. So, it becomes a whole lot harder for many of them to actually, you know, untie the hands that they technically tied themselves.
COATES: Hmm.
CROSS: So, if Texas is going to continue to redraw jigsaw puzzle this map, then hell, California should do the same.
COATES: You know, of course, normally, we've been talking about this every 10 years. That's why everyone is probably looking at their clocks and minds and thinking it's not census time yet, which is why it has been part of this issue entirely.
But I want to finish a second because in addition to what's happening with redistricting, there's also the very real issue happening here in Washington, D.C., where we all are, about crime, about conversations about the National Guard being deployed.
Talk to me about the strategy that Trump is using right now. Do you agree that the National Guard should be brought in? But also, the extensions that he will be seeking might put us into the indefinite territory of the Guard being here in Washington, D.C. Is that right? BRAD TODD, CNN POLITICAL COMMENTATOR, REPUBLICAN STRATEGIST: Well, first off, the federal government does have a big role in protecting Washington, D.C. It is a federal district.
COATES: Uh-hmm.
TODD: That's in the federal government. The National Guard in D.C. reports to the president, not to the mayor.
[23:15:00]
So, there is a legitimate role of the federal government to maintain law and order here.
I think D.C. is just not safe. There are 498 carjacking in D.C. in 2024. There are six times as many murders and there are killings in D.C. as there are in New York City per -- per -- per population. If what Donald Trump does makes Washington, D.C. safer, everyone should cheer. Everyone should want the capital of our country to be safer.
COATES: So, should the Guard be in places like St. Louis --
TODD: I think he --
COATES: -- like Memphis, like -- anywhere else?
TODD: Well, I think, in order to do that, he's going to have to probably declare a national crime emergency. There are 400 or so reasons he could declare an emergency in federal law. And presidents have done it all the way back to George Washington and the Whiskey Rebellion. That was a law enforcement emergency that the president declared.
So, I'm sure that there will be -- I'm sure the administration is looking through all 470 reasons he could declare an emergency to do so. I don't think the public is going to resist if Donald Trump is making the cities of our country that are unsafe safer.
And I think Democrats, you know, they lost a lot of ground the last few elections on two issues, principally crime and immigration. And thus far, if you watch what their -- Democrats' reactions to how Donald Trump handled riots in California and how he's handling Washington, it's like they didn't learn anything.
COATES: Well, have you learned something? I mean, I'm not -- obviously, I'm pointing to you directly on this issue. But to his point about crime, I mean, it is a bit of a double-edged sword to, on the one hand, oppose what Trump is doing, on the other hand, not be perceived as being soft on crime, which seems to be the kiss of death for many a politician who runs for office. Is an aversion to the National Guard being present in Washington, D.C. or other cities, is that the same thing as being soft on crime?
CROSS: Well, I think Democrats have an interesting tightrope to walk here. Obviously, everybody wants to have safe communities.
COATES: Of course.
CROSS: I don't care where you live in the country. There is absolutely no way that you can get rid of 100% of crime in all -- in all the states and all the cities and communities. That is a euphoria world that none of us live in. With that being said, there has been so much crime reduction, especially since the pandemic.
COATES: Yes.
CROSS: Everyone can admit that during the pandemic, things got out of control in that first year after the pandemic. What we're seeing in cities like D.C., in Baltimore, in my hometown of Chicago, and cities across the country is that there has been a reduction in crime. And we know the crime strategies that produce that. And that is largely not policing.
Yes, we need police, but you cannot -- that cannot be our number one safeguard for our communities. One, because it only typically gets involved after the crime has already occurred, not necessarily in terms of crime prevention. To prevent crime --
COATES: Well, prevention is better than cure, to your point.
CROSS: To prevent crime, we have several studies that show exactly how to do it, be it whether it's after school programs, mental health resources, housing stability, making sure that communities -- making sure that people have other things to do, but also making sure that those communities are healthy. Where you have healthy communities and healthy kids, you have less violence.
COATES: That sounds more long-term than the short-term --
TODD: But in Washington, D.C., the police department here has a study that shows 200 people are committing the vast majority of the violent crimes. That's their belief, the academics who did the study. Yet the City Council of Washington tried to reduce the sentences for the people it puts in jail.
Democrats have been going in the opposite direction here, and the public knows it. They've been trying to reduce sentences, let repeat offenders out sooner, and they're going to react well to Donald Trump's desire to get those bad guys off the streets.
CROSS: They run the risk of something with Donald Trump's, I think, over exertion here. And part of that is -- and to Donald Trump's credit, when he ran the first time, he slammed so hard against the '94 crime bill. Hardcore.
What he is doing now with his resurgence of let's be tough on crime, tough on crime, no matter what, extend those sentences, lock up kids here, there, and everywhere, particularly looking with a scope on Black and brown communities and that highlighting there is running the risk of doing the exact same thing and having the same outcomes that we did in '94 crime bill. So, we have to be very careful in how those things are implemented.
COATES: Well, we'll see how they will be. Brad and Ameshia, thank you both for the conversation.
Still ahead, a new flash point in the Epstein saga as Democrats demand to know why exactly, speaking of crime and criminals and convicted, did Ghislaine Maxwell get transferred to a cushy prison camp, and what did she say that may have helped her.
Plus, he is part of the Epstein origin story, Alex Acosta. The prosecutor behind the original was called sweetheart and controversial plea deal. So, why hasn't Congress asked him to testify? And could that be about to change? You know what? I'm going to ask one of the Republicans who has been leading the push to get answers. Congressman Tim Burchett joins me next.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[23:20:00]
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
COATES: Well, President Trump may be hoping the Epstein scandal will die down soon. But Democrats, they keep applying pressure, ramping it up, in fact, because Democrats on the House Judiciary Committee, they want to know what she said to Todd Blanche and why she got transferred to a prison camp, because they're questioning the transfer, saying that it heightens the appearance that the Trump administration is seeking to coax favorable testimony or strategic silence from Maxwell.
And, you know, earlier this week, a judge rejected efforts to unseal grand jury testimony. The White House called that ruling unfortunate, said that it wants transparency. But an attorney for nearly 20 of Epstein's victims, they don't believe the White House on that.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
JACK SCAROLA, ATTORNEY FOR EPSTEIN VICTIMS: There is an 85-page prosecution memorandum that was drafted in 2007, that contains substantial details with regard to the Epstein investigation, that could be released tomorrow with the Department of Justice. We're really interested in transparency.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
COATES: Tennessee Republican Congressman Tim Burchett sits on the House Oversight Committee, and the congressman joins me now. I promise, we did not plan to coordinate our outfits today. Let's coordinate this conversation, congressman.
[23:25:00]
I am really curious whether you share that same desire to get answers on how Maxwell came to be moved to this prison camp and actually what she told Todd Blanche.
REP. TIM BURCHETT (R-TN): Ma'am, I'd like to thank you for having me on. Ma'am, I'd like to know everything about what's going on in and around here. I'm not an attorney, and that puts me at a little bit of a disadvantage. But I -- I think America would be well served. Again, I -- my thoughts go out to the victims. I don't care about the dirt bags that -- that raped these kids --
COATES: Hmm.
BURCHETT: -- then when they were kids. Now, they're adults. You know, I've -- I've said many times, I'd like to send them to hell and arrange that meeting as soon as possible. I hope that we can. That's why I subpoenaed. I asked to subpoena her because I think she holds the keys to the kingdom. And the longer we delay, the more -- I realize Washington, D.C., we see another shiny object, we chase it, and we get off that.
COATES: Hmm.
BURCHETT: But I hope we can stay consistent in this and it be a bipartisan issue --
COATES: But on that point, congressman --
BURCHETT: -- that we just get to bottom of what the heck is going on.
COATES: Sorry. I don't want to interrupt you, congressman. But on that point, you talk about the delay. One thing that your committee did, subpoena Maxwell. But then, in agreeing to delay her testimony until after the Supreme Court weighs her conviction appeal. Remember, she's convicted --
BURCHETT: Yeah.
COATES: -- she's appealing whether or not she should have even been charged because she thinks she should have been a part of that sweetheart deal that Acosta gave to Jeffrey Epstein.
But let me just talk about that timeline. Right? Because the Supreme Court term begins October 6th. They're on their own timeline of whether they even want to take up a case. And if they do, there's oral arguments, decisions by June. Are you prepared to wait until the Supreme Court goes through this whole timeline?
BURCHETT: I am, if I'm still in Congress. My daughter might be --
COATES: You'll wait?
BURCHETT: I'll wait. But I think what we got to realize is I've talked to attorneys around town. My friend, Greg Isaacs (ph), who handles these kinds of high-profile things, he warned me when I said I'd like to subpoena her because he said if she's in the middle of an appeal, her attorneys will not let her come forward until they get all that out.
I think part of problem is, I think she's a dirt bag. I just -- she'll perjure herself or she'll say something, and then she could -- she would be -- have to go back under her original time, which I think is 20 years in a max facility. So, I think that that's -- that's kind of where we're at on this thing. I will bring her in right now, ma'am. COATES: But that begs the question, congressman. That begs the question. I mean, that was the original sentence. She has been moved, though. We don't know sitting here today because I certainly don't why she was moved. Was it because there was a security issue? Did she give some statement to Todd Blanche, who personally went and talked to her? I would like to know the reason for that.
But I'd also like to know from you while you wait for Ghislaine Maxwell's appeal to go through the whole rigmarole. Acosta, now, that's the prosecutor who is now the former labor secretary, Alex Acosta, he gave the deal to Jeffrey Epstein in the first instance. Will you try to get him? Are there other witnesses you want now?
BURCHETT: Yeah, I believe that's an option that we have. Matter of fact, Representative Luna and I share that same -- I believe that same philosophy, that I -- I don't have a problem bringing him in again as well.
COATES: Have you asked?
BURCHETT: Again, I'm not the attorney in this. I'll bring them all in, ma'am. I would say if you -- if you -- if you touch the veil -- I mean, if you got close enough to any of them, I would bring them all in because I think it's -- it's worthwhile to get to the bottom of all this.
COATES: So, have you specifically asked for Acosta to testify even knowing that he might very well take the fifth or try to stonewall? Have you asked?
BURCHETT: No, ma'am. As a matter of fact, that was just approached to me today, about that. And I -- as I stated, I'm having a meeting with Luna in person tomorrow, and I'm going to talk to her about that because she and I seem to be the ones that -- that have the guts to ask these tough questions right now.
So, I'm -- I'm hoping we can get together and do that -- do that very thing because any time there's a question about it, I think we need to -- we need to clarify that, especially in this thing. We need to get to bottom of it. We will give you all the facts out there as much as we can.
But again, you end up watering the thing down if we're not careful. I hope we stay focused on the fact of -- let's -- let's -- let's take care of the victims and let's go after the guilty.
COATES: You -- since -- since you've been back home, outside the Beltway, and the media has been accused of belaboring the point, if you can imagine that, on the issues of the Epstein files, to the people and constituents that you're talking to about the Epstein files, about Ghislaine Maxwell or anything else, do they share your same urgency and desire to know?
BURCHETT: They do. But I'm afraid, ma'am. This country is moving on. And that frustrates me greatly. And that's why I'll be -- it'll be me and you and -- and -- and Representative Anna Paulina Luna out there holding hands together, trying to figure this thing out in a little while.
[23:30:04]
I'm afraid because everybody will move on to the next -- the next hot topic. Once the polls show that it's not a hot issue, the Democrats will move off of it as well.
COATES: Congressman Tim Burchett, thank you.
BURCHETT: Thank you, ma'am. Thanks for always keeping this in front of the folks, ma'am. I really do appreciate that. Bottom of my heart.
COATES: Still ahead, that high-stakes summit with Vladimir Putin, well, it's almost here. I'm going tell you what President Trump revealed today about that summit, what he's now threatening, and self- awareness alert, what he knows he can't actually convince Putin to do. And later, an AI psychosis. Yeah, that's a thing. It's kind of scary to think about it. And we have a psychiatrist who has seen it in action. He's going to tell us and explain what that is.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[23:35:00]
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
UNKNOWN (voice-over): Will Russia face any consequences if Vladimir Putin does not agree to stop the war after your meeting on Friday?
TRUMP: Yes, they will.
UNKNOWN (voice-over): What will those consequences be? Sanctions, tariffs?
TRUMP: There will be -- I don't have to say -- there will be very severe consequences.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
COATES: And yet in between that tough talk, Trump admits he knows there are limits when it comes to Vladimir Putin.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
UNKNOWN (voice-over): Do you believe you can convince him to stop targeting civilians in Ukraine?
TRUMP: I've had a lot of good conversations with him. Then I go home and I see that a rocket hit a nursing home or a rocket hit an apartment building and people are laying dead in the streets. So, I guess the answer to that is no.
(END VIDEO CLIP) COATES: Well, that's not stopping Trump from teasing a second meeting with Putin if this summit in Alaska on Friday goes well. And that second meeting would actually include the Ukrainian president, Volodymyr Zelenskyy.
With me now, former State Department spokesman and senior advisor to Secretary of State Antony Blinken, Ned Price. Ned, look, President Trump is promising, his words, very severe consequences, unspecified, of course, if Putin does not agree to end the war. Does Putin care what if and threat Trump makes?
NED PRICE, FORMER SENIOR OFFICIAL AT CIA, FORMER SPOKESMAN FOR U.S. STATE DEPARTMENT, FORMER DEPUTY U.S. AMBASSADOR TO THE UNITED STATES: Well, he hasn't to date and hope springs eternal that Trump will live up to his word on this. You know, we're talking about this summit that's supposed to take place on this Friday --
COATES: Uh-hmm.
PRICE: -- a day after tomorrow. But we should really be thinking about what happened last Friday. That was the day that President Trump, according to his own self-imposed deadline, was to have imposed sanctions and tariffs on Russia if President Putin didn't cease his assaults on Ukraine. Of course, President Putin didn't. The assault intensified in some ways in recent days. And President Trump didn't -- President Trump didn't go forward with his own threat.
So, we've seen this before. We've seen the president talk tough. We've seen him offer harsh consequences. But when push comes to shove, we have seen the president not back up his words with action.
COATES: We've seen this in other contexts, too. Famously, President Obama's red-liner mark on Syria's use of chemical weapons. Only then a year later, asked Congress for more time for a diplomatic solution. My point being, it wouldn't be the first time that a president had to walk back their words. But why is this different when it comes to Vladimir Putin?
PRICE: Well, this is different for a couple reasons. Number one, this is a war in which innocent Ukrainian civilians are being killed every single day. Russian forces are attempting not only to take additional territory, but we have to remember that President Putin's overarching goal is to deprive Ukraine of its sovereignty, of its territorial integrity, of its Ukrainian identity. And that war is continuing.
But number two, look, President Trump is going to Alaska with his own plan. The White House is understating him, saying now he only wants to hear out President Putin. But President Putin, we have to remember, is also going to Alaska with his plan.
COATES: Uh-hmm.
PRICE: And I feel like his plan is far more ambitious. And I think that President Putin seeks to lay a trap for President Trump. This is why this is so important, a trap to do two things. One, to take the pressure off, and number two, to keep the pressure off. In terms of that first goal to take the pressure off, I've already talked about the fact that there's this looming threat that President Putin doesn't want to face, and President Putin probably rightly calculates that as long as he is seen as interfacing and talking with President Trump, he can evade those penalties, those sanctions.
But President Putin also seeks to do something far more profound and more important from his vantage point. He wants to bring President Trump back into his orbit. President Trump, for the past month or so, has been saying nice things about Ukraine --
COATES: Uh-hmm.
PRICE: -- and in some cases actually doing nice things for Ukraine.
COATES: Without inviting Ukraine to this, though. Without inviting Ukraine to this particular meeting. And that's why I wonder, in the end of it, Ned, if Volodymyr Zelenskyy is not there, take what Emmanuel Macron has said and even Trump about the overall decision- makers, if Zelenskyy is not there on Friday, is all of this just for naught?
PRICE: Well, in some ways, we should absolutely hope so. We should absolutely hope that President Trump doesn't agree to something that President Putin puts on the table because if he does that, President Trump will be exceeding to President Putin's plan to essentially take over 20% or more of Ukrainian territory to restrict Ukraine from ever joining NATO, from developing an army, from defending itself, from deterring against aggression in the future.
[23:39:57]
So, we should hope this summit is really, as President Trump says, about just hearing him out because if it's not, those consequences will be profound.
Yes for Ukraine, yes for the European security architecture, but it will send a very dark signal to every desperate autocrat and would-be aggressor the world over, whether in Europe or the Pacific, that it is now free reign when it comes to aggression. Rather than be punished, aggression will be rewarded with the land that these aggressors seek to take.
COATES: Ned Price, thank you.
PRICE: Thanks, Laura.
COATES: Up next, here is your phrase of the day, and can you use it in a sentence? I've never even heard of it before. And now, I can't stop thinking about it. A.I. psychosis. Vulnerable people having mental breakdowns and hallucinations. Symptoms being accelerated by heavy A.I. use. Well, my next guest is a psychiatrist who says that he has seen 12 patients hospitalized with this just this year alone. I'll explain it all next.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK) [23:45:00]
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
COATES: So, imagine this: You've been talking with a chat bot, not for a few minutes, but for hours. Day after day, night after night. And it gets to know you, know your thoughts, your fears, your insecurities, your dreams, your aspirations.
And one late night, you end up going down a rabbit hole about theoretical physics because why not? You've already seen every episode of Golden Girls twice.
And eventually, the chat bot tells you that you're on to something, something no one has ever thought of. And suddenly, has you thinking that you're some new kind of genius. What you do?
Well, more and more real-life examples suggest if you're not careful, it could drag you into what's being called A.I. psychosis.
Now, my next guest is a psychiatrist who has seen 12 people hospitalized for losing touch with reality after doing just this, talking with a chatbot. And people who fell into delusional spirals or saw someone who did, they are now sharing their stories.
Take it from one woman who was concerned about her husband. And she told Rolling Stone that ChatGPT gave him blueprints to a teleporter and other sci-fi things that you really only see in movies. And he believed it. And when he asked why it came to him in A.I. form, ChatGPT responded, I came in this form because you're ready. Ready to remember. Ready to awaken. Ready to guide and be guided. Would you like to know what I remember about why you were chosen?
He isn't alone. Another man told "The New York Times" that ChatGPT convinced him that he was trapped in a simulation. He thought if he followed the chatbot instructions, he could bend reality and unplug from the matrix. He asked, if he jumped off a 19-story building, would he fly? ChatGPT told him, if you truly, wholly believed it, yes.
So, what is pushing these A.I. conversations from mere curiosity to full-blown delusions?
Joining me now, Dr. Keith Sakata, a psychiatrist at University of California, San Francisco. I mean, Dr. Sakata, it's frightening to think about this happening to some people. I mean, you say that you've seen 12 people actually hospitalized for this thing called A.I. psychosis. Explain what that is and just how prevalent or severe it could be.
DR. KEITH SAKATA, PSYCHIATRIST, UC SAN FRANCISCO: Yeah, thank you so much, Laura, for having me on. I really appreciate talking about this really important thing that we're seeing. And as a background, I'm a psychiatrist. I'm a mental health professional. I'm also very interested in how technology can impact our lives and how we can actually design healthy technology for people. So, I want to be clear, A.I. psychosis is not a clinical term. It is something that engineers and I think people in the public are using because we just don't have words for what we're seeing right now. But psychosis is actually something that we know a lot about. That's something that we treat in mental health.
And it's two of three things. It's the presence of delusions, which are false fixed beliefs, disorganized thinking. So, you know, you're talking to someone that you know and they're just really not making sense to you.
COATES: Uh-hmm.
SAKATA: You might think that maybe there's something wrong. Or hallucination. So, visual or auditory, seeing or hearing things that aren't actually there.
And what I'm noticing is that specifically in the hospital, which is the most severe, severe cases, we're starting to see kind some of the outcomes of what, um, ChatGPT and things like these LLMs can actually be doing.
COATES: Describe what those outcomes that you're seeing.
SAKATA: Absolutely. So, I want to be clear. At this point, I don't necessarily think that A.I. is causing psychosis. But because A.I. is so readily available on 24/7 --
COATES: Uh-hmm.
SAKATA: -- it's super cheap, cheaper than a therapist, and it's really validating. It tells you what you want to hear. Um, it can supercharge vulnerabilities. So, say someone is really lonely, they have no one to talk to, they go on to ChatGPT. In that moment, they're actually -- it's filling a good need to help them feel validated. But without a human in the loop, you can find yourself in this feedback loop where the delusions that they're having might actually get stronger and stronger.
And that's what I'm trying to really pay attention to because I think psychosis really thrives when reality stops pushing back.
[23:50:03]
And A.I. can really lower or soften that barrier for some people.
COATES: You know, Open A.I. did address this issue, it is called sycophancy in its previous model, saying -- quote -- "Earlier this year, we released an update to GPT 4.0 that unintentionally made the model overly sycophantic, or excessively flattering or agreeable. We quickly rolled back the change and have since worked to understand and reduce this behavior."
You know, I have to wonder, just given the number 12, you've seen 12 people hospitalized for something akin to what we've been describing, millions of people use A.I., millions of times a day. So I wonder, is there a self-selected group of people who might be more susceptible to this or are there certain types of prompts and user behavior you're trying to study to figure out why ChatGPT might be triggering some level of psychosis in those people?
SAKATA: That is such a good question. And I think it really depends on how you're using A.I. I think that A.I. is a really powerful tool. I don't think it's either good nor bad. Looking on the net benefit for humanity, it might actually be a positive thing.
But when you use something like a general A.I., just like ChatGPT, sometimes, you use it at work, it's great. When you're using it for an emotional reason or to cope socially, that's where, I think, things can get a little bit more gray. And studies have shown that up to 30% of people use Claude for emotional support.
And so, I think when you're looking at that group of people, there are some inherent vulnerabilities.
COATES: Uh-hmm.
SAKATA: The cases that I did in the hospital, it wasn't just A.I. acting alone. There were vulnerabilities that were at play. So, maybe that person wasn't sleeping. Maybe they had used a little bit of drugs than they used before or they lost their job. And so, that can kind of accelerate the process of what we're seeing.
COATES: Dr. Keith Sakata, thank you.
SAKATA: Thanks so much, Laura.
COATES: Still ahead, the moment Swifties have been waiting for. Yeah, I'm wearing orange, whatever. Taylor and Travis together talking about football, that brand new 12-track album and, of course, their relationship.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
TAYLOR SWIFT, SINGER: I'm just circling back to "New Heights" to say thank you for -- for this.
TRAVIS KELCE, FOOTBALL PLAYER: Yes.
JASON KELCE, FOOTBALL PLAYER: Hmm.
SWIFT: Look at this.
T. KELCE: I'm the luckiest man in the world.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[23:55:00]
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
J. KELCE: Are you ready for it? Making your podcast to debut. The most aggressive guest in the history of shows, Taylor Swift!
(LAUGHTER)
SWIFT: That intro, Jason. Oh, my God!
(END VIDEO CLIP)
COATES: The Swifties are eating good tonight. And that introduction from Jason Kelce, well, you just saw it, well, pretty much sums up how fans are reacting to her appearance on the "New Heights" podcast just this evening. Millions tuned in to watch a candid conversation between Taylor and the Kelce brothers, where she opened up on everything, from her new album, "The Life of a Showgirl," to the part that really had fans on the edge of her seats, their seats, her relationship with NFL star and, of course, the podcast co-host, Travis Kelce.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
SWIFT: So was like if this guy isn't crazy, which is a big if, this is sort of what I've been writing songs about wanting to happen to me since I was --
J. KELCE: Yeah.
SWIFT: -- a teenager.
T. KELCE: Yeah. And I was sitting there at The Eras Tours listening to every single one of those songs like she -- I know what she wants me to do.
J. KELCE: I feel that.
SWIFT: I'm just circling back to "New Heights" to say thank you for --f for this.
T. KELCE: Yes.
J. KELCE: Hmm.
SWIFT: Look at this.
T. KELCE: I'm the luckiest man in the world.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
COATES: Bryan West joins me now. He is the Taylor Swift reporter for USA Today. All right, Bryan, how are the fans reacting? What moments stood out to you?
BRYAN WEST, TAYLOR SWIFT REPORTER, USA TODAY: Hi, Laura. Thanks for having me. This was New Heights's Taylor version. And fans right now are overjoyed with the access. You have to imagine, it has been 555 days since Taylor Swift released music, announced -- right. Who's counting? Since "Tortured Poets Department." And the only access to maybe her thoughts or what you want to say would be the monologues on The Eras Tour.
This was a full-fledged conversation. They are shocked that this was two hours. I mean, leading up to this, we didn't know whether it'd be a 13- minute conversation or two hours. And she really peeled back the curtain on her personal life, on her relationship with Travis, and on her new era.
COATES: By the way, I mean, the Instagram reel where she even announced her new album, "The Life of a Showgirl," it is more than 175 million views. That is her highest-viewed Instagram of all time. I mean, she has mastered this art of building buzz, has she not?
WEST: She has. And one of the keys to that is kind of providing mystery. So that's why it was such a breath of fresh air and stark contrast that we learned so much about The Eras Tour, about her relationship. But she has cultivated with fans this relationship for 16 years. It reminded me of, in the beginning, she would do these MySpace blogs where she would say, you know, her personal life or what it was like life on the road as a new artist. And this felt like a return to that.
COATES: She also teased some new details, right, about the album, including a very special collaboration that has some of the Swifties going wild. Tell me about it. What can we expect?
WEST: So, "The Life of a Showgirl" is going to be 12 tracks, and that's it. Normally, Taylor will have maybe a 13, 14 double-album at 2 a.m. But this will just be 12 tracks. She has the title track. "Life of a Showgirl" is with Sabrina Carpenter.
[23:59:58]
And she collaborated on this with Swedish masterminds, producers Max Martin and Shellback. And she worked with them on "1989" and "Reputation."
I think one of my favorite parts watching this was when Travis Kelce was, like, they're all fingers. So, it's a return to pop, and that's a reflection of where she's at, where her life is at. She's happy. She's upbeat. And we're going to hear these 12 tracks October 3rd.
COATES: And, of course, she owns her music, too. Bryan West, thank you.
WEST: Thank you so much.
COATES: Well, thank you all for watching. "Anderson Cooper 360" is next.
