Return to Transcripts main page
One World with Zain Asher
Trump: I Don't Think About Americans' Financial Situation; IEA: Global Oil Reserves "Rapidly Shrinking"; Trump Arrives In China As War With Iran Looms Over Trip; The Network Of Chinese Oil Refineries Allegedly Funding Iran; OpenAI CEO Sam Altman Testifies In Lawsuit Brought By Elon Musk; FAA Evaluating Aerial Risks From Trump's Washington, D.C. Arch; Top Business Leaders Join Trump On China Visit; XPANCEO Developing A Smart Contact Lens In The A.I. Era; Aired 12-1p ET
Aired May 13, 2026 - 12:00 ET
THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[12:00:31]
ZAIN ASHER, CNN ANCHOR: The war is costing the U.S. billions, but the president says, when he negotiates with Iran, he's not thinking about
Americans' finances. Second hour of "One World" starts right now.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
DONALD TRUMP, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: We had a choice. Let these lunatics have a nuclear weapon. If you want to do that, then you're a
stupid person.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
ASHER: Americans are suffering financially, but when it comes to Iran, Donald Trump says he's only focused on one thing.
Also ahead, the beginning of the end. The final testimony in Elon Musk's blockbuster lawsuit against Sam Altman is expected today.
Plus.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
ROMAN AXELROD, FOUNDER, XPANCEO: Think of it as an ultimate, intelligent assistant surrounding you all the time.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
ASHER: A smartphone, a wellness watch, and a personal assistant, all available, literally, at the blink of an eye. Later this hour, meet the
smart lens.
All right. Coming to you live from New York, I'm Zain Asher. Bianna is off today. You are watching "One World."
We begin with the financial cost of the U.S.-Israeli war in Iran. A conflict that's now stretching into its 10th week with no apparent end in
sight.
The Pentagon claims the price tag so far is $29 billion. Experts, however, say that that estimate leaves out enormous longer-term costs with one
analyst predicting, the war will ultimately cost U.S. taxpayers about a trillion dollars.
Americans are already feeling the pinch at the pump and at the grocery store, but the president says, that's not his concern.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
TRUMP: Not even a little bit. The only thing that matters that I'm talking about Iran, they can't have a nuclear weapon. I don't think about American
financial situations. I don't think about anybody. I think about one thing, we cannot let Iran have a nuclear weapon. That's the only thing.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
ASHER: The energy -- the International Energy Agency, meantime, warns that global oil reserves are shrinking fast.
At the end of April, they were down by 246 million barrels over two months, threatening further spikes in the price of oil.
CNN's Haley Britzky joins us live now in Washington.
So, Haley, just in terms of the cost of this war, $29 billion so far, that's according to the Pentagon. The price could be much, much higher,
especially if the war continues to drag on.
We're talking about the direct cost here, not to mention the indirect costs that Americans are feeling in terms of pain at the pump and -- and rising
prices in other areas of their lives too.
HALEY BRITZKY, CNN SENIOR NATIONAL SECURITY REPORTER: That's right, Zain. And so it was pretty striking comments from the president yesterday, as we
just heard, particularly in a mid-term year.
We know that's a major concern going forward for the administration, for Republicans, with the election coming up later this year.
But it is something that is -- has been warned about that we are seeing, you know, these -- these costs rising. And as you mentioned, the Pentagon
saying yesterday, during a Pentagon comptroller saying yesterday, during a congressional hearing, that the price tag is now up to $29 billion, where
weeks ago, the estimate was $25 billion. So, we're already seeing that climbing.
And as you mentioned, that itself is likely a low ball. We've reported that -- that the estimate, when you take into consideration repairing the
extensive damage the U.S. military has suffered in the U.S. -- in the Middle East and its bases and installations and repairing equipment, that
that number could be twice that, roughly $40 to $50 billion, if not higher.
And so it is a problem that the Pentagon is trying to sort through. There was a lot of frustration yesterday with lawmakers in what they said was a
lack of transparency from the Pentagon about the ultimate cost of this conflict.
And certainly, as you mentioned, this conflict is not over. There is a ceasefire right now that is on particularly shaky ground. The military has
said they are ready to start operations if the president orders them to do so.
All of this, of course, being watched while the president is in China now. So certainly something that we're continuing to keep an eye on and that the
-- that the Pentagon will continue to be asked about by Congress going forward.
ASHER: All right. Haley Britzky, thank you so much.
Let's bring in CNN's Anna Cooban joining us live now from London.
So, just in terms of global oil reserves, shrinking fast, Anna, that is a huge problem because the point of the oil reserves is to basically provide
a buffer in terms of supply shocks. Just walk us through how fast oil reserves are shrinking.
ANNA COOBAN, CNN BUSINESS AND ECONOMICS REPORTER: Well, you're right. This is supposed to be the sort of backstop and that's dwindling rapidly 246
million barrels. It's fallen by over March and April.
[12:05:05]
And to give you a sense of the scale of this, Zain, in the IEA's report, its monthly report, it's said that across April, the daily withdrawals from
these oil stockpiles amounted to the daily consumption needs of Canada and the United Kingdom combined. This is across the world.
And remember back in March, we have this historic release of 400 million barrels, the largest ever emergency release from global oil stockpiles to
try and tide the globe over until this conflict ended. And there's no real end in sight as of yet.
And I was speaking with the CEO of Hapag-Lloyd, Rolf Habben Jansen, earlier. This is a huge container shipping company. And I asked him about
the costs that he was incurring in his business. This is what he have to say.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
ROLF HABBEN JANSEN, CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER: We today have cost that are 50 or $60 million dollars a week higher than what we had prior to the war.
And that's not only because of fuel, but also because of other costs that are somehow related to fuel like rail, like trucking and feeders, for
example.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
COOBAN: So you've heard it from him there. It's not just rising fuel costs, it's also all of the costs that are incumbent on, you know, getting goods
to places in parts of the Gulf via these so-called land corridors.
And as long as this conflict goes on, as long as the Strait of Hormuz is blocked, these contingency measures, these expensive contingency measures,
will have to be in place, Zain.
ASHER: All right. Anna Cooban, live was there. Thank you so much.
All right. The U.S. president was greeted with pomp, ceremony and 320 children waving flags and chanting "welcome" as he arrived in Beijing for a
high-stakes summit. The war in Iran will dominate talks with Chinese leader, Xi Jinping, on Thursday. Taiwan, technology and trade will also be
a focus of the world's top economic superpowers.
CNN's Mike Valerio is joining us live now from Beijing. I mean, that really was quite the welcome we saw there earlier today.
Just in terms of how this meeting is different. The last time President Trump was in Beijing was in 2017, so about nine years ago now. And -- and
just, you know, walk us through how the focus now be on A.I., for example, be at rare earths, tariffs, of course, the war in Iran, such a different
agenda.
MIKE VALERIO, CNN CORRESPONDENT: I mean, such a different agenda. Absolutely. I think that could be the understatement of our evening.
And also, I think that everybody back home in America, and around the world, needs to realize that the 2017 visit, Zain, was very much the high
point of the personal rapport between Xi Jinping and Donald Trump.
I mean, a private tour of the Forbidden City. That is essentially unheard of. That's the first American president who was able to dine there in a
private setting.
And then just a few months later, it happened in November of 2017. We're talking about January and March of the next year. That's when Donald Trump
launched the first trade war.
So, I think that people need to keep in mind here that even though stability is certainly going to be served as the main course on this
diplomatic menu, everybody's going to be on their best behavior, is certainly what's being telegraphed to us by American officials because so
much is on the line, anything can change, right, with this administration.
But I think that deals and help with Iran really single out this trip different from the rest, different from the first trip. And it seems as
though the president, before he left D.C., was telegraphing to reporters and paraphrasing for the sake of our conversation, he seemed to say, I
don't really know if we need that much help from Iran. We, the United States, are going to win this thing no matter what.
That is not what Republicans on the Hill are telegraphing. Let's listen to Lindsey Graham. He was talking to the Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth who
is on this trip about China having so much leverage to possibly end this thing. Let's listen and we'll talk on the other side.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
SEN. LINDSEY GRAHAM (R-SC): China. Does China buy 90 percent of Iranian oil, Mr. Secretary?
HEGSETH: China buys a very large percentage of Iranian oil.
GRAHAM: OK. Ninety percent is pretty large.
So, does China buy -- are they the largest purchaser of Russian oil and gas?
HEGSETH: I would imagine they're up there, Senator.
GRAHAM: They are. They're the largest. So President Trump, when you go to China, realize that the person you're talking to is propping up Russia and
Iran.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
VALERIO: OK. So, the point here is that China has a lot of sway. So the question is, will China offer to do anything for the United States? And if
that happens, what is China going to expect in return?
So, let's bring up the board of what each side wants. As you mentioned at the top of the show, what China wants. Taiwan position change from the
United States, tech, access to more advanced American chips, tariffs, lower tariffs. I think that people at home, especially need to realize, that a
lot of tariffs are still in place from the first Trump administration. The Biden administration did not get rid of them. So that's drawn the ire
certainly of a whole host of politicos here in Beijing.
[12:10:15]
Then we get to the American side. You can see it on the screen right there. And I think when we're talking about rare earth specifically, that threat,
that Trump card remains in effect.
And another dimension that we want to talk about, why this meeting is so different from the other ones, when we're talking about, you know, Haley's
story at the beginning of the show of how much this war is costing, how many missiles and munitions that the United States is burning up, what are
those things powered by? They're powered by rare earths, the computer chips that make those missiles function.
So, the United States, as this war with Iran continues, as it's depleted so many of its munitions, needs that rare earth spigot from China to still be
turned on in the on position.
So, it'll be interesting to see if there is going to be a truce announced at the end of this diplomatic meeting. There's a lot that's going to go on
between now and Friday afternoon when Trump leaves, Zain.
ASHER: Well, we're watching closely. Mike Valerio, thank you so much.
All right. The day before the U.S. president departed for Beijing, Washington blacklisted a dozen people and entities, it says are linked to
the trade of oil from Iran to China.
CNN's Simone McCarthy traveled to one refinery that's allegedly part of a network helping fuel Iran's economy.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
SIMONE MCCARTHY, CNN SENIOR CHINA CORRESPONDENT (voice-over): As we drove to this oil facility three hours south of Beijing, it was soon clear, we
weren't welcome.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: These guys are just trying to block the camera basically.
MCCARTHY (voice-over): A black van pulled up, blocking our view of one of the many refineries dotting China's coast.
MCCARTHY: Security here is really tight. This is a facility which is sanctioned by the U.S. government for allegedly importing Iranian oil.
MCCARTHY (voice-over): Iran sends most of its oil to China. That trade is in the spotlight ahead of President Trump's arrival in Beijing this week
with the U.S.-Iran ceasefire under strain.
The day before Trump departed for China, Washington blacklisted a dozen people and entities, it says are linked to the trade of oil from Iran to
China.
Five Chinese oil refineries and multiple port terminals have been sanctioned by the U.S. since last year for allegedly importing Iranian oil.
The company we visited, Hebei Xinhai, was sanctioned last May. It declined CNN's request to be interviewed. It was hard to tell what kind of oil the
plant was processing, but sanctions clearly hadn't shut it down.
The U.S. has been increasingly imposing sanctions on Chinese entities it believes are involved in the trade of oil from Iran.
SCOTT BESSENT, TREASURY SECRETARY: They are the largest state sponsor of terrorism, and China has been financing them with their energy purchases.
MCCARTHY (voice-over): For its part, China doesn't acknowledge importing Iranian oil. It also rejects U.S. sanctions and has been pushing back.
Earlier this month, Beijing ordered companies not to comply with sanctions on refineries.
MCCARTHY: Multiple ports south of me here, as well as across the ocean this direction, are believed to have continued to import Iranian oil throughout
the course of the war.
MCCARTHY (voice-over): This oil is carried by a network of vessels, including those known as the shadow fleet. The oil is loaded in Iran and
shipped out often to a floating gas station off the coast of Malaysia, where dozens of boats loiter with their tracking devices turned off.
Trading sanctioned oil and ferrying it to buyers like those in China.
CNN pinpointed one such transfer where the Iranian flagged vessel Herby transferred oil to a China-bound tanker just last month.
Weeks later, the Herby was intercepted by the U.S. Navy on its way back to Iran.
Once those ship-to-ship transfers are complete, ships heading for China blend in with thousands of other vessels regularly transiting through these
waters.
For the U.S., that's a major problem. But for China, this oil flow is powering its economy and keeping a close partner afloat.
Simone McCarthy, CNN, Hubei Province, China.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
ASHER: All right. The blockbuster trial between OpenAI Chief Executive Sam Altman and Elon Musk, has resumed in Oakland, California. Testimony in the
trial expected to conclude today.
On Tuesday, Altman rejected Elon Musk's claim he tried to steal the company, insisting he is an honest and trustworthy business person.
Elon Musk is suing the company he helped co-found and fund. Musk says that OpenAI betrayed him and its original nonprofit mission by shifting to a
for-profit model.
[12:15:01]
CNN's Hadas Gold is outside the courthouse in Oakland, California.
We heard from Sam Altman himself, he got to sort of share his side of the story yesterday. Walk us through how that may or may not have changed the
dynamics of this trial, Hadas.
HADAS GOLD, CNN A.I. CORRESPONDENT: Yes, Zain, it was a big and an important moment in this court. Altman, of course, is the chief defendant.
All of the signs around here, they say Musk versus Altman. So, it was the first time the judge and jury got to actually hear from one of the chief
defendants in this case. And he spent his time testifying that it was actually Elon Musk who wanted to gain control of OpenAI.
He said that Musk even pushed at 1.4 OpenAI to be folded into Tesla. That Musk was trying to push for OpenAI to have a for-profit structure in some
way. Saying it was the only way to raise capital to be able to compete against the likes of Google.
And that when he failed to gain control, he then stopped donating to OpenAI. He left the company. And then a few years later, he started a
competitor in xAI.
Sam Altman even testified that there was a morale boost to add OpenAI when Elon Musk left, saying that he was demotivating to a lot of researchers in
the work that they were doing.
There was an interesting moment to where Sam Altman even testified that Elon Musk was asked by the co-founders if you were to have full control,
what would happen if you were to die? And Elon Musk said that the -- the control would then pass to his children. Sam Altman said that that was a
hair-raising moment and that he was uncomfortable with that possibility.
When Elon Musk's attorneys got their chance to question Sam Altman, they were solely almost focused just on Sam Altman's character. Their first
question out of the gate was, are you completely trustworthy? And this has been an issue with Sam Altman, especially in recent months. There was that
really big New Yorker article from Ronan Farrow about Sam Altman's and about his trustworthiness.
And Musk's attorneys went down a laundry list of accusations from former OpenAI board members, especially around the brief 2023 ousting or Sam
Altman was ousted as CEO for a few days about because of his lack of candor and lack of honesty, according to the former board members.
And it was just question after question of instances from these former OpenAI board members that Sam Altman had to respond to. And he said that he
calls himself an honest businessman. And he chalked up some of those instances to just misunderstandings.
Of course, the question is, you know, Sam Altman character is one thing, but will the jury take that translate over to Elon Musk allegations about
that OpenAI deceived him when they transitioned from being a nonprofit to its current for-profit structure, which OpenAI will say, it's still
governed by a nonprofit foundation.
But, of course, now OpenAI is one of the wealthiest companies, potentially in the United States. Now, testimony is wrapping up today.
Closing arguments will be tomorrow. Before the jury will then begin the deliberations, they will give an advisory verdict to the judge who will
then decide on this case that could completely change the landscape for A.I. if Elon Musk gets his way. Zain.
ASHER: Hadas Gold, live for us there. Thank you so much.
Let's bring in CNN contributor Jacob Ward to join in on this discussion.
One of the sort of last points our reporter just there, Hadas Gold, made was that if Elon Musk wins this particular trial, it completely changes
everything. Not only would, of course, he received massive damages, but it would probably mean the restructuring of OpenAI, potentially leadership
changes.
Sam Altman possibly could be out. I mean, a whole host of things could change. Give us your thoughts on that, Jacob.
JACOB WARD, CNN CONTRIBUTOR: Well, certainly, Zain, that is the -- the -- the possibility here, right? And it's why observers are, you know, calling
this a -- a strategic move, right?
This is Musk who started OpenAI with Sam Altman back in 2015, possibly, you know, trying to disrupt the entire competitive landscape now that his
company, xAI, is so far behind OpenAI. That's what many people, including Sam Altman's team, have been arguing, is that Musk is just trying to
scuttle the company to bring his own company into a better competitive situation.
It would, as you say, be a real problem. If they went from being a for- profit back to being a nonprofit, if Greg Brockman, the president of OpenAI, and Sam Altman were both ousted as the leadership, all that could
blow up the IPO plans that the company has, which could be probably one of the biggest IPOs in the history of capitalism. So, it would absolutely be a
very, very big deal.
You know, for me, I think being at this -- at this trial, the reason so many reporters are here is that it's a really interesting and rare
opportunity to watch these two talk under oath about how they make choices, how they came to create this company, the -- the sort of almost science
fiction style ambitions they had for it and fears they had about it. All of that had been on display here in a really amazing way.
And that's part of why we're here, in addition to what I would say to me looks like a fairly remote possibility that Musk could win here and disrupt
the company as deeply as he seems to want to.
[12:20:04]
But part of the strategy, by Musk lawyers, is to really sort of paint Sam Altman as being a very untrustworthy, slippery, for lack of a better word,
person.
Just explain to us how important was Sam Altman's testimony about himself and his choices to sort of counteract that?
WARD: Well, I mean, Steven Molo, Musk's attorney really -- I mean, walked right up to him and basically accused him over and over and over again of
being a liar. And he relied on testimony that we've heard here in court from the people that (INAUDIBLE) built the company with the board members,
other executives, even his co-founder, Ilya Sutskever, described him having a pattern of lying. This was a -- a guy absolutely, you know, over and over
again with that accusation.
And, you know, under oath, Altman was not in a position to say, no, I do not lie. He had to say things like, I consider myself a trustworthy
business person, which any, you know, a school teacher can tell you is -- is not an admission.
And so all of that was really fascinating to watch. But at the end and after this parade of accusations, Altman then kind of reframed the
conversation. He said, you know, as I understand it, this comes down to these two fundamental questions.
Was there a -- a breach of trust and an unjust way in which I made money? I don't believe I did. And that's the -- the fundamental question here. It's
not whether we trust this guy in terms of his character. It's not even whether we trust this guy with the fate of the world, which is the kind of
thing, the -- the kind of rhetoric that you hear from these people as they talk about A.I. as an industry and as a technological possibility.
It's just a question of, did he take a particular promise to his billionaire partner Elon Musk? And if the lawyers in -- on Sam Altman's
side can get the jury to distinguish between the idea that he might be slippery, as you say, and he actually broke this particular promise, well,
that's the distinction that they're trying to -- to exploit here.
And if they're able to do that, then I think Sam Altman could very much walk away in charge of OpenAI, as it approaches its IPO later this year.
ASHER: Yes. I mean, you bring up such an important point. It's, you know, whether or not you like him or you don't like him or he's trustworthy or
not, he's neither here nor there.
The fact is, is what Musk is -- is saying is true. Are Musk's accusations right? This idea that he started with one particular goal for OpenAI, be
it, you know, a nonprofit, sort of set-up and then change it in order to benefit himself.
Jacob Ward, live for us. Thank you so much. We'll be watching the results and the outcome of this trial very closely.
All right. Still to come here, the president wants a giant arch to leave his mark on Washington, but will it be an obstacle for air traffic?
Exclusive reporting on the way.
And Starmer drama. The British prime minister faces calls to go, but insists that he's staying put, using a bit of humor in Parliament.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
KEIR STARMER, BRITISH PRIME MINISTER: Let me also thank the leader of the opposition for the usual warm and generous nature of her contribution.
(LAUGHS)
(END VIDEO CLIP)
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[12:25:32]
ASHER: All right. U.S. aviation officials are evaluating possible risks to aircraft from President Trump's proposed triumphal arch.
Last October, he showed off models of the planned structure, saying that it would be about 250 feet tall and built about two miles from Reagan National
Airport.
Because of its height and location, it requires a review.
Sunlen Serfaty is in Washington, joins us live now with the details. So obviously, clearly, modeled on the Arc de Triomphe in -- in Paris. But just
in terms of all the engineering questions and the questions about air safety and air travel. Just walk us through what we know.
SUNLEN SERFATY, CNN WASHINGTON CORRESPONDENT: Yes, Zain. This is really about the proximity and size of the arch.
As you noted, it is only about two miles away from a very, very busy airport here in Washington, D.C., Reagan National Airport.
And the size of the arch has been a point of contention as well. Right now, the arch is 250 feet tall. And we now know, according to documents that we
obtained from the Interior Department, that with the ground elevation, the -- the arch would actually be 279 feet tall.
Now, an FAA review is required for any structure that's over 200 feet and also in such close range to an airport. So we know, according to our
reporting, that this review is going to be done by FAA to see what sort of obstruction, what sort of a risk that this potential arch has for pilots,
for planes coming in and out of the airport.
Now, it's very notable, Zain, that this corridor is already very congested. It's super busy. The air -- airport has more than 900 flights on a daily
basis. And it's already pretty complicated for pilots. They have to fly along the Potomac River. They have to look up for many other landmarks,
like the White House, the Washington Monument.
So, this is just a further complication of this corridor. And that's what aviation sources are telling me, that the size is troublesome. They're also
just worried, frankly, that there's one other landmark that pilots will have to be aware of.
Now, this analysis by the FAA typically takes about 40 to 90 days, but it could be up to nine months. And they can come back and say to the Trump
administration, look, this does -- this does provide a hazard to pilots and flights coming in and out of the airport and maybe make suggestions,
potentially scaling down the size, potentially adding in lights that pilots will be able to see it more.
The administration though, Zain, they believe that the FAA will conclude that there's no impact to flights coming to and flying out of Reagan
National Airport, but we'll wait to see what the FAA says after they have time to study the proposal plans.
ASHER: All right. Sunlen, thank you so much. Appreciate it.
All right. Coming up, Trump's entourage. The U.S. president visiting China with a delegation of top CEOs, as the leaders of the world's two biggest
economies prepare for a high-stakes summit.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[12:30:44]
ASHER: All right. Let's check and see how the U.S. markets are doing. Dow is down about a quarter of one percent. S&P 500, up about half a percent.
And NASDAQ, up about one percent or slightly over. This is your business breakout.
Growing economic pain in the U.S. wholesale inflation, tracking the cost of goods as they leave the factory, has soared to its highest in nearly four
years. The Producer Price Index rose six percent in April, led by skyrocketing energy costs amid the war with Iran. Economists say it's a
sign higher consumer prices are on the way.
Amazon is shutting down its Rufus chatbot just two years after launching it. It's being replaced by Alexa for shopping, which Amazon describes as a
personalized A.I. shopping assistant. It says the new bots can answer questions, make reservations, and manage your networked appliances.
Apple CEO Tim Cook and Tesla boss Elon Musk are among more than a dozen business leaders joining President Trump on his trip to Beijing. The White
House says that trade and investment are expected to be part of the discussions between Trump and Chinese leader, Xi Jinping.
Let's get more on all this from CNN tech reporter Clare Duffy. She's joining us live now from New York.
I mean, it's interesting, because each of these leaders have a different focus. Some of them are focused on A.I. Some of them are focused on
financial investment. The summit is about supply chain management and market access. The summit is about E.V.'s. Just -- just take us through it,
Clare.
CLARE DUFFY, CNN TECH REPORTER: Yes, Zain. I think for Trump, a lot of the -- the reason for bringing this delegation is to sort of flex America's
corporate and innovative power as he is hoping potentially to make some deals on this trip.
You have among this group some very friendly faces in China. People like Apple CEO, Tim Cook who has built who has built a massive manufacturing
ecosystem in China for Apple.
Elon Musk, Tesla was once referred to by Chinese officials as a successful example of what a partnership between the U.S. and China can look like.
And then, you mentioned, Zain, there are some businesses that really stand to gain from this meeting. NVIDIA has been pushing for China to allow it to
restart sales of A.I. chips. That is something that, you know, it could be looking to do here.
Boeing has been in negotiations for potentially major sale of its jets to Chinese airlines.
And for Trump, look, there are a number of sort of sticky issues he will be negotiating on here, like Iran and Taiwan.
But if he can secure some deals for American companies during these meetings, potentially he is able to point to at least one win from this
meeting.
And then, of course, there is artificial intelligence, which is an underlying issue entering into this meeting. Of course, there are potential
gains on both sides here. The U.S. would like for China to ease up on trade restrictions, export restrictions for rare earth minerals, which are needed
for things like chips and solar panels and batteries.
China would potentially like to gain more access to America's advanced A.I. technology. And so both sides potentially with something to gain there, but
also, of course, having a fine line to walk because neither wants their rival to get too far ahead in this A.I. race, Zain.
So it will be very interesting to see what kinds of deals come out of this China trip.
ASHER: All right. Clare Duffy, live for us there. Thank you so much.
All right. U.S. Secretary of State Marco Rubio's choice of tracksuit has gone viral. This photo was taken aboard Air Force One. He's America's top
diplomat flew with the president to China.
[12:35:06]
Social media users are calling Rubio's outfit, quote, the Maduro arrest look. And you can actually see why this is a picture of deposed Venezuelan
President Nicolas Maduro in the same style tracksuit after he was captured by U.S. military forces in January.
This photo of Rubio was posted online by White House Communications Director, Observers say, it may be more than a social media fashion moment.
It's worth noting that Rubio is one of the administration's key people on Venezuela.
All right. Still to come, is this the man who could be Britain's next prime minister? I'll look at reports Keir Starmer is facing a major leadership
challenge. That's next.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
ASHER: The U.K. Prime Minister could be about to face the most serious challenge to his authority yet, despite calls to resign as a Labour Party
leader from dozens of his own M.P.s., Keir Starmer has thus remained defiant so far, even poked fun at opposition leader Kemi Badenoch
Parliament in the past few hours.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
STARMER: Let me also thank the leader of the opposition for the usual warm and generous nature of her contribution.
(LAUGHTER)
In difficult days, her input is always a ray of sunshine.
(LAUGHTER)
(END VIDEO CLIP)
ASHER: Now, British media are reporting a potential leadership bid from Starmer's Health Secretary, Wes Streeting. However, it's not clear if
Streeting has enough support from the 81 M.P.s needed to formally launch a challenge.
Manchester Mayor Andy Burnham is another name that's being suggested. The big problem for him is that he's not currently a Member of Parliament, so
he can't become leader of the Labour Party.
Another option could be Angela Rayner, the former deputy prime minister. She resigned from the role last year in a scandal over property tax, but
has been vocal since calling for change.
So, the question is, who could come out on top at Number 10? Time now for The Exchange.
Joining me live now is Richard Johnson, senior lecturer at Queen Mary University of London. Richard, thank you so much for being with us.
So just in terms of Wes Streeting, since that's the name that's being talked about in the more immediate future. He hasn't resigned just yet. But
once he does resign, with all of the people saying he could do by tomorrow, how much of a problem does that pose for Keir Starmer? And does he have the
necessary support needed to actually launch a leadership challenge?
[12:40:12]
RICHARD JOHNSON, SENIOR LECTURER, QUEEN MARY UNIVERSITY OF LONDON: I think this is Wes Streeting's moment, to be quite honest with you. I think it's a
very, very serious challenge to Keir Starmer's leadership.
Streeting is seen as a figure of the -- of the right of the Labour Party. And the composition of the Parliamentary Labour Party at the moment leans
towards the ideological right of the party.
So in terms of Streeting finding the required 20 percent of M.P.s, and that's what that 81 figure is, it's 20 percent of Labour M.P.s sitting in
Parliament at the moment. I think he can find them.
Where he has a little bit of difficulty right now, is that I think quite a significant number of his supporters are members of the government. That's
to say the -- the ministers or in the cabinet themselves. And so they cannot show any disloyalty to the prime minister in the way that backbench
M.P.s can.
But I think once Streeting announces his resignation from the cabinet, then he will be followed in resignations by other ministers who will announce
their support for him and other backbench M.P.s will -- will come in behind them.
And I'm very confident that he will find 20 percent of the Parliamentary Party to support him, which means that there will be a Labour leadership
contest.
And if Kier Starmer chooses to fight it, then that means that it will go before the membership of the Labour Party and members of the trade unions
that are affiliated to the Labour Party.
ASHER: Keir Starmer -- I mean, he is clearly very tenacious. He has shown that he is going to fight. He has shown that he is going to try to hold on
as long as possible.
When it come -- one thing that I -- I am quite interested in is really the role of the British media in these sorts of leadership contests, because
the British media are very good at having a singular focus.
And when you're waking up every day as prime minister and the headlines over and over again on every British newspaper is, you know, is he in? Or
is he out? When is he going to go? Or if you're Liz Truss, let's compare how long you last, compare it to letters, for example.
When that is the headline, there is a psychological momentum that comes with that that is very, very difficult to overcome. It almost becomes a
self-fulfilling prophecy, because you have your own cabinet members and your various ministers who might be loyal to you, but they're reading the
same headlines as everybody else.
And at some point, they're going to begin to ask themselves, well, is it -- is it worth us continuing to be loyal to the prime minister when this is
the mood of the country?
Talk to us about the role the British media and the ruthlessness of the British media in all of this.
JOHNSON: I put the British media alongside the polls, because I think the polls are a big part of this that provide the background context to a lot
of those stories about whether the prime minister is going to stay or not.
If the Labour Party was leading in the polls, those stories just wouldn't be credible. And the reality is that under Keir Starmer's leadership, the
Labour Party, in government, has seen a dramatic drop in its poll, racing from being elected in 2024, already on quite a low poll share of 35
percent, which itself was a drop.
During the general election, not many people comment on this. But during the 2024 general election, Labour actually started at 45 points in the
polls and dropped 10 points just over the course of the election campaign.
It was still able to win. And it won big because the right was split between reform and the Conservatives.
But that to me was never a good sign for Keir Starmer. And the -- and the slope has just continued down and down and down until the Labour Party has
just been sat in the teens for well over a year and a half now.
And so in that context, you get lots of M.P.s who are talking to journalists, who are saying, I'm really unhappy with where we are at the
polls. And the journalists are writing up these stories, saying Labour M.P.s are really unhappy with the leadership of Keir Starmer.
And so it sets this kind of climate, which is a very negative climate for his leadership to -- to operate in. And so this has been a long, long-
running story. And people were waiting basically for the local elections to confirm what the polls --
ASHER: Right.
JOHNSON: -- had been showing.
ASHER: Sometimes, though, you have a situation in, just if you look at British electoral history where, you know, a prime minister does quite
badly in local elections and is still -- still manages to survive somehow.
[12:45:08]
What determines whether, you know, when you have a disastrous local election result, what determines whether you are able to hang on to your
position?
I always wonder whether it's about -- I mean, one, there are many factors, I'm sure. But I-- I imagine that one factor is about the loyalty of your
cabinet ministers. And you want to have cabinet ministers that are loyal to you, who are not necessarily easily influenced by negative headlines, who
are, you know, ambitious enough to do their job well, but not so ambitious that they're plotting and maneuvering against you.
What -- what determines whether or not you can actually survive disastrous election results as P.M.?
JOHNSON: Well, it could be about loyal to you, or it could be that just none of them are any better than you.
And so I think, for example, in 1968, there was a terrible set of local election defeats for the Labour Party. Labour lost every seat in Birmingham
and Leicester, and did terribly in seats like Leeds, and Sheffield, and Sunderland. It lost every borough in London, except for three.
And there was real expectation that the Labour Prime Minister Harold Wilson would resign. But the reason Wilson survived that, and he stayed Labour
leader for another eight years, was because none of the other potential candidates were particularly strong.
The -- the previous chancellor had had to be moved out of his position because there'd been a currency crisis. His previous -- his deputy had
resigned. It was seen on the backbenches.
The home secretary basically Wilson went to him and told him, you're not going to like this job. It's really tough governing Britain at the moment.
And trust me, your life is going to be miserable as prime minister.
Maybe you'd rather be -- he'd moved to that point to be chancellor. His name is Roy Jenkins. He said to Jenkins, you know, I'm not going to stay
here for too long, wait it out. And actually, that was a bit of a trick from Wilson because by the time that they waited it out, the moment it
passed, and Wilson was able to recover his position.
So, with Keir Starmer, I think one of the things that people had speculated on was, does he survive? Because there's no candidate who's kind of
perfectly poised to take him on. Everyone has something wrong with them.
What I mean by that is there's some kind of scandal or they're not -- that they're still recovering from or they're not in parliament or there's some
cloud over them in one way or another.
And the one who has the least problems is Wes Streeting. He has some problems. But the one who has the least is Wes Streeting. And it looks like
Streeting may -- may seize the moment in a way that Roy Jenkins did not in 1968.
ASHER: That is fascinating. I mean, especially because as you pointed out, so many of the other candidates do have something, quote-unquote, wrong
with them.
I mean, I, you know, from my understanding, Andy Burnham would be the most popular, the sort of one that everybody would want to run, but the biggest
issue is that he's, of course, not an M.P. So, that's a massive problem.
We will see what happens.
JOHNSON: And still those parliamentary selection. That's the key thing.
ASHER: Right.
JOHNSON: Starmer -- Starmer has to stay over his faith.
ASHER: Right. So that is -- that is key as you pointed out. That's such an important point as well.
Richard Johnson, that was a fascinating discussion. We'll see what happens tomorrow, right? Tomorrow is another day. We'll see what happens.
JOHNSON: Yes.
ASHER: Thank you, Richard.
All right. Still to come, the new wearable tech that's headed directly to your contact lens, when it's coming out and what it can do, next.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
VALENTYN VOLKOV, CO-FOUNDER AND CHIEF TECHNOLOGY OFFICER, XPANCEO: It doesn't require any batteries, any antennas, nothing. Only these smart
cheap, integrated inside the lens. Instead of going to the hospital, you can just make a selfie.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[12:50:25]
ASHER: Could smart glasses one day be a relic from the past? A Dubai-based tech company is developing a smart contact lens designed to deliver
everything from GPS to augmented reality.
CNN's Ivana Scatola got a closer look.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
IVANA SCATOLA, CNN SUPERVISING PRODUCER (voice-over): The next stage of the technological revolution is coming, and it promises to be completely
futuristic.
XPANCEO, a Dubai-based tech company, is developing a prototype that sounds like it's straight out of the Matrix, a smart contact lens.
AXELROD: Think of it as the ability to use all your typical apps and content directly on the cornea. Something similar to smart glasses, but
even closer to your body.
SCATOLA (voice-over): The company says a version of this could be ready to buy as soon as 2030.
Several other companies are developing something similar. The idea is to merge all personable gadgets into one single wearable that's invisible,
weightless, and A.I.-powered.
The company calls it the next generation of computing, but aims to go one step further by monitoring biometric data in real time as well.
SCATOLA: Why do you think humans will benefit from a smart contact lens?
AXELROD: Think of it as an ultimate intelligent assistant surrounding you all the time. Think of it as -- as an Iron Man helmet probably. Computing
is around you. You operate it by eyes, by voice, by gesture, probably later by mind.
So, basically you only need to think about it and it happens.
SCATOLA: Hello.
VOLKOV: Hello, how are you doing?
SCATOLA (voice-over): Good. Valentyn Volkov is the chief technology officer. He's taking me on a tour of the labs.
VOLKOV: Bring it to your eye as close as possible. Take a look through. Can you see something?
SCATOLA: Yes, yes. I can see speed, kilometers per hour.
VOLKOV: Yes.
SCATOLA: So, basically, it's like lots of different apps that I would have on my phone.
VOLKOV: Well, right now, yes. Of course, it can be used for gaming, for shopping, for monitoring your health, for basically measuring calories in
your coffee, for everything.
SCATOLA: The driving one, like I can see so clearly how that would be helpful. Instead of me looking down at my screen, I'm taking my eyes off
the road.
VOLKOV: Sure, sure, that's a big advantage.
SCATOLA (voice-over): The prototype comes with a wireless companion device, which serves as the charger and main data hub.
SCATOLA: And like medically, is there any risk of wearing something like this and having a companion device so close to your brain?
VOLKOV: The lens itself, it's -- it -- it -- it operates at the level of microwatts. The amount of this electromagnetic field, which can potentially
somehow influence your brain, your body is comparable to, I think, to those ibox (ph) that you're wearing here.
SCATOLA (voice-over): The team says it has produced more than 28 working prototypes. Its goal is to launch an integrated version with biosensors and
the ability for augmented reality, ready for medical trials by the end of this year.
The smart lens would continuously measure glucose levels in human tears, providing real-time data in changes in blood sugar. That, in theory, would
be revolutionary for diseases like diabetes.
VOLKOV: That's a very simple prototype. It doesn't require any batteries, any antennas, nothing. Only this smart chip integrated inside the lens.
Instead of going to the hospital, you can just make a selfie, get an (INAUDIBLE) and see how your pressure changes during the day. And then your
doctor will make a diagnosis.
[12:55:01]
SCATOLA (voice-over): The company aims to target contact lens wearers first. According to a leading organization for contact lens education,
that's around 250 million people globally.
AXELROD: They're still contact lenses. They still enhance your eyesight. But at the same time, they will provide you a picture, with the ability to
talk to your intelligent assistant, and the ability to measure your biological parameters instantly.
SCATOLA (voice-over): XPANCEO says it would aim to market the lenses at around $2,000 a year.
SCATOLA: Lots of people would say a smart contact lens is kind of dystopian, will rarely be disconnected, right?
AXELROD: My son is four-year-old. I don't think he -- once -- when -- when he will be in his 30s, I don't think he will make a huge difference between
digital and real world. I really do think that those worlds will inevitably merge at some point.
In the end of the day, it's up to you to decide how much time you want to spend in the digital world.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
ASHER: All right. That does it for this hour of "One World." I'm Zain Asher. Thank you so much for watching. "Amanpour" is up next.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
END
