Return to Transcripts main page
One World with Zain Asher
Trump Posts Image of Strait of Hormuz as "New U.S. Territory"; Global Oil Prices Above $ 90 a Barrel, Highest Since July; Iran Lays Out Demands for Reopening the Strait of Hormuz; Trump Says He Recently Spoke to North Korea's Kim Jong Un; Opening Statements Kick Off as 29 U.S. States Sue Meta; China's Unitree Unveils "Superman" Robot Ahead of Market Debut. Aired 11a-12p ET
Aired August 18, 2026 - 11:00 ET
THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.
[11:00:00]
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
ZAIN ASHER, CNN HOST, ONE WORLD: All right, coming to you live from New York. I'm Zain Asher. This is "One World". Ahead on the show, President
Trump declares the Strait of Hormuz is a new U.S. territory in a social media post, as the fight over reopening the waterway continues.
Plus, a mega fight over Meta in a California court. The company faces allegations its social media platforms are harmful to kids. And the world's
top maker of humanoids and its dancing robots waltz towards a record IPO listing in China. All right, a day after the U.S. President threatened
Oman, a key Middle East ally in the midst of a war with Iran, Donald Trump says there are currently no talks going on or scheduled with Iran or Tehran
right now.
He also shared a new picture on his social media platform as well. Take a look here. This is the image that President Trump posted early today. The
Strait of Hormuz, the narrow waterway between Iran and Oman, at the entrance to the Persian Gulf, is circled underneath, a label saying new
U.S. territory.
CNN's Kevin Liptak joins us live now from the White House to break it all down for us. I mean, what is the president's strategy here? Because we've
seen this playbook before with Canada, with Greenland. What is the president trying to achieve with this?
KEVIN LIPTAK, CNN SENIOR WHITE HOUSE REPORTER: Well, he seems to be doing what he said last week was low keying it, essentially trying to back away,
put out all of these threats of American leverage, but at the end of the day, not really doing much to try and advance the discussions to get the
Strait of Hormuz open.
And it was interesting to hear him say this morning that there were in quote, no talks or conversations going on scheduled with the republic,
Islamic Republic of Iran, because that's completely different from what we heard just yesterday from Jared Kushner, who has been the president's envoy
to these discussions.
And he said in a conversation with Fox News that, quote, we are having very positive and active conversations, and that the Iranians were quote,
engaging in a very strong way, and that's quite positive. And so completely different perspectives about what exactly the negotiations look like at the
moment.
And the president seems to be trying to shrug this whole thing off, and in a lot of ways just move on, even though the strait remains closed and even
though the tankers carrying oil have not been getting out at the volume that they were at the onset of the war, and I think it just shows that now,
as this ceasefire has completely collapsed, as the war nears the six-month mark, the president is sort of out of options for breaking the stalemate.
What you've heard from administration officials is that yes, they do have a whole new suite of very tough economic sanctions in the planning stages,
and that they could put those into effect potentially as early as this week. But so far, no details about what those might look like have actually
materialized.
And the president seems to believe that continuing the blockade and ramping up the economic pressure will convince the Iranians to capitulate on the
strait, but also on their nuclear program. But so far, there's no evidence to be seen that the leaders in Tehran are willing to fold to the
president's demands.
And the president is also clearly facing his own set of pressures with the midterms approaching. And you are starting to hear, and you've seen this
for the last several weeks or so, many Republicans coming out to say that the president does need to find an exit ramp to this conflict because of
the economic toll that a number of Americans are facing.
Now, when it comes to the Oman threat, we haven't seen the president repeat that today, but you are starting to hear frustrations behind the scenes
with American officials saying that they think the Omanis, in their role as mediators, have been sort of putting the thumb on the scale for the
Iranians.
So, whether the president, I guess, follows through on that threat remains to be seen, Zain.
ASHER: Right, Kevin Liptak, live for us there. Thank you so much. Right as usual, when tensions in the Strait of Hormuz goes up, of course so do oil
prices. Both the European and U.S. benchmarks jumped on uncertainty about the Iran war. Let's take a look and see where things stand at this hour.
Brent crude is up.
[11:05:00]
There it is, 91 dollars a barrel. WTI, the U.S. benchmark, is at $85 a barrel. Matt Egan joins us live now to break down the numbers for us. I
mean, this is really no surprise, right? You have the memorandum of understanding is actually expiring, and a lot of people look at the
situation here.
Certainly, looking at Donald Trump's threats and him sort of talking about the Strait of Hormuz as being a U.S. territory. And that really signals
that we are effectively at a stalemate. There is absolutely no obvious, clear end in sight. What does that mean for oil prices, Matt?
MATT EGAN, CNN SENIOR REPORTER: Well, Zain, the president is arguing that the U.S. has total control of the Strait of Hormuz, but I think the oil
market is saying otherwise, right? We are seeing some more nervousness creep into energy markets about the war, about this supply crisis.
Now, when we look at where prices are, as you mentioned, we got Brent crude, the world benchmark above $91 a barrel, another 1 percent increase
almost for WTI above $85 a barrel. But the real action is actually beneath the surface, where we are starting to see red lights flashing.
Now a key measure of refinery profitability, it's known as the diesel crack. It skyrocketed above $100 a barrel yesterday for the first time
ever. Before the war, it was only at $40 a barrel. This shows two things, one, refineries they are printing money right now, and two, the world just
doesn't have enough diesel and other fuel right now.
I talked to a veteran analyst, Bob McNally, and he told me, speaking about this refinery issue, he said this is man bites dog news. The market is
screaming that we're short. And we're short because it's not one or two, but three of the world's refinery hubs. They are in crisis right now.
Obviously, you have the Strait of Hormuz and the damage from the war knocking out Middle Eastern refineries. But then you also have the war with
Ukraine. And export limits hurting Russian supply of refined product. And then China as well has restricted its own exports.
It's really just those Gulf Coast refineries in the United States that are carrying the load right now. Now, when we think about prices, fuel prices
here in the United States, they're not as high as many had feared back in late February and early March, and yet they are still significantly higher
than this point, last summer.
You look at gas prices, 30 percent more expensive year over year. Diesel, almost 50 percent more expensive. That's really key because diesel is the
workhorse of this economy, right? It's powering the trucks that are hauling all the stuff that we buy online. It's powering the tractors that the
farmers use, and the trains and the boats as well.
And then look at jet fuel, 73 percent more expensive than at this point last year, and we know that airlines have not been shy about passing along
those costs to consumers. Now these prices would be even higher if not for two things, right? One, China has slashed its imports of oil more than
anyone even thought was possible.
And two, the United States is releasing historic amounts of emergency oil. This is a look at the U.S. Strategic Petroleum Reserve going back to the
early 1980s, and you can see how much it's down since 2022 when the Russia- Ukraine war started. How it's going straight down this year because of the war with Iran.
And look, this is shielding consumers and businesses from some of the pain price pressure, Zain. But this is not a bottomless pit. There are limits
here. Back to you.
ASHER: Right, Matt Egan live for us there, thank you so much.
EGAN: Thanks.
ASHER: All right. British maritime officials say that they received a report that a vessel has been struck by a projectile in the Strait of
Hormuz. The incident claimed one life in the vessel's engine room, where the projectile hit. The rest of the crew were assisted by Oman's Coast
Guard.
The UK Maritime Trade Operations have not shared any more information about the strike. More than two dozen such incidents have been reported since the
beginning of July. So, with so much vital traffic in the Middle East, at essentially a standstill, what will it take to get things moving again?
Iran's government has made a list of demands for the U.S. The Speaker of the Parliament says that this is what Iran wants, the lifting of the U.S.
blockade on Iran's ports, the release of billions of dollars in frozen assets, the lifting of sanctions on Iranian oil and an end to all U.S.
military operations and threats of attack.
Let's get some perspective on where this conflict was going. I'm joined live now by Rosemary Kelanic. She's the Middle East Director at Defense
Priority. She's also the author of the book "Black Gold and Blackmail: Oil and Great Power Politics". Rosemary, always good to see.
Always good to have you on the program. Just want to start with the vessels, of course, being attacked in the Strait of Hormuz. I'm wondering
how does a vessel, how does a ship's operator determine at this stage in the game?
[11:10:00]
You know, you've got to remember that five months ago, or so, we were seeing 130 vessels per day traveling through the Strait of Hormuz. It is a
much more dangerous voyage at this point in time. How does ships operate to determine if the voyage is worth it? You know, I imagine that it's a --
they calculate based on insurers and premiums, and also what the cargo is worth as well.
Just give us your take on what goes into that calculation.
ROSEMARY KELANIC, DIRECTOR OF THE MIDDLE EAST PROGRAM AT DEFENSE PRIORITIES: Yeah. Hi, Zain. It's good to see you again. So, a lot goes into
the calculation. All the sort of private sector economic factors that we would think, like insurance, what's the price of oil, how much are they
going to sell it for, et cetera, et cetera. They're also calculating risk.
What's the risk of being struck by an Iranian projectile? What's the risk of damage to the crew, damage to the vessel? And they're also calculating
what can the United States do to protect them while they're going through the strait, presumably against sort of the mechanism imposed by Iran.
And I think they're also calculating, you know, who is owning the ship and who is asking them to move. So, we've seen many of the tankers that are
going through are closely tied to the government of the UAE. They're essentially part of the national oil company there.
And so, when the national oil company tells you move your tanker into the strait, you go. So, it's not just totally a private market actor doing it.
There is government involvement here as well, but certainly they're also taking their chances, thinking about OK, can the U.S. guide enough ships
through that we have a pretty good shot of making it through without getting harmed.
And that's a risk that they're taking that the ship took, and unfortunately, it didn't work out as well for them.
ASHER: Yeah, I mean, and worth noting, I think you brought up a very good point about governments sort of putting pressure on some of these vessels
to go through. But you know, just because one vessel makes it through successfully doesn't mean the next one is going to as well.
And is it easy to really calculate how much traffic is passing through the Strait of Hormuz. You know, we give these figures, you know, three a day or
five a day at this point. But a lot of these vessels have their transponders off. So how do you make that calculation as to the numbers?
KELANIC: Yeah, it's impossible to tell because they're turning off their transponders. They're going dark. They're doing it to evade attack from
Iran. Obviously, right? They're doing it over the kind or under the cover of darkness. So, the U.S. military probably has a pretty good picture of
what's going through.
And the operators that are actually sending ships probably also have a pretty good picture of what's going through. The rest of us don't because
we're relying on you know public source, open-source intelligence, which is going to be, you know, biased by ships turning off their transponders.
But the people who are making the actual decisions whether to go or not probably have a better read on what's getting through unmolested and what's
getting stopped. And just like you said, you know, if some ships go through and they're OK, doesn't mean the next one will be.
But if a ship is attacked, it doesn't mean the next one is also going to be attacked.
ASHER: Right, right. That's why the calculation is so difficult.
KELANIC: Yeah.
ASHER: This war has been going on for approximately six months, almost six months. At this point in time, during that half year period, how much more
investment are we seeing by, let's say, golf producers, for example, in terms of investing in pipelines that bypass the strait, because that has
got to be one of the key lessons that's being learned here.
KELANIC: It is, and we have seen significant investment in terms of you know Iraq and Syria are already moving in this direction. The Saudis are
talking about it. The UAE is talking about it. They're you know broadening or increasing their pipeline capabilities or capacities rather.
So, we're seeing a lot of that going forward. I do think some of that was delayed, unfortunately, because in some ways you know the president was
just really good at talking down the oil market in the early phases of the conflict. And so for the first month or two or three market actors weren't
responding like this was going to be a long-term issue, because the president was reassuring folks that this would be over quickly.
And unfortunately, that delayed the sort of market adaptations that we should have been seeing all along in terms of whether it's frackers in the
United States investing in increasing production, which takes time to come online, or its pipelines going around Hormuz to avoid it.
So that's clearly the future, and its good news that market actors are starting to sort of, you know, keep pace with what's going on in world
events beyond what the president is saying. But I do think that the U.S. and the world sort of hurt itself by downplaying this crisis for as long as
it did.
ASHER: And so based on that, based on I mean you know you brought up such a good point that the sort of investment may have been delayed because people
thought based on what the U.S. was saying that the war would be over quickly, but if the investment continues at this pace, and worth noting by
the way that you know when you have pipelines that are just sitting there.
[11:15:00]
They're also vulnerable to Iranian attacks as well, so it's not as if we're completely out of the woods just yet on that front. But when it comes to
the Strait of Hormuz specifically, if these investments in pipelines and alternate routes in terms of getting around the Strait of Hormuz.
If it continues at this pace, can you envision a future, let's say, in a decade or two decades from now, where the Strait of Hormuz is not as
relevant, where the global dependency on this particular strait just isn't the same as what it is right now.
KELANIC: Yes, I can. It might take a decade to get there, but I think more important than the bypass pipelines are just that oil as a fuel will be
less important in a decade or two decades from now. You know, oil as fuel matters primarily for transportation. That's the real bottleneck.
And so, as we see the adoption of electric vehicles and electric rail in places like China, markets are going to de-risk from oil period, not just
from Hormuz. And that might actually happen more quickly than these pipelines can come online. It might be one of the reasons why China has
been able to adapt so easily to this market disruption.
And certainly, higher oil prices make EVs more attractive to consumers who are weighing sort of the life cycle costs of buying an EV versus a regular
gasoline powered car. So that's the sort of adaptation I expect that's going to make the biggest difference going forward.
ASHER: Yeah, that is such a good point, right? It's not just about you know no longer depending on the Strait of Hormuz. It's also about no longer
depending on oil as much as we do, which is I think the biggest lesson of all.
KELANIC: Absolutely.
ASHER: And that's one of the reasons why China has fared relatively well compared to other nations during this war. Rosemary Kelanic from Defense
Priorities, thank you so much. Appreciate. Always love having you on the show by the way, thank you. Thank you so much.
KELANIC: Thank you, Zain.
ASHER: All right. Still ahead on "One World", partners for Mutual Defense. Washington's military alliance with South Korea goes back decades. So why
is the U.S. President saving his friendliest words for North Korea's Leader? That story just ahead. Plus, President Zelenskyy in desperate need
of more ammunition.
This is Russian attacks once again lights up the skies of Ukraine. Those details next.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
ASHER: All right, the front lines of Russia's invasion of Ukraine remain largely stagnant, but in the skies, the war is certainly ratcheting up.
[11:20:00]
Russia continues to target Ukraine with a mix of missiles and drones. Early Tuesday, a Russian missile attack killed at least 10 people in the Kharkiv
region. Meanwhile, Russia says it intercepted hundreds of Ukrainian drones targeting the Moscow region overnight.
CNN has been granted exclusive access to a U.S.-made patriot launcher in Ukraine, the most sought-after weapon in the world. Now sits idle because
of an ammunition shortage. President Zelenskyy says that the country needs at least 5 percent of the U.S. stockpile just to survive the winter, but
currently has only 1 percent.
For more on the shortage, let's bring in Nick Paton Walsh from London. So, Nick, just in terms of the short-term consequences of this shortage. I
mean, yes, of course, it will certainly mean that Ukrainian cities are that much more vulnerable, but we can think back to the winter months last year.
And I think a lot of people are concerned about what the shortages will mean for Ukraine's energy infrastructure being that much more exposed this
time around.
NICK PATON WALSH, CNN CHIEF INTERNATIONAL SECURITY CORRESPONDENT: Yeah, I mean they are when these large attacks come being hit already in
infrastructure and other parts of the societal means they'll need to get through the winter months.
Now, when Zelenskyy said he needed 5 percent that was to effectively survive winter. He said he accepted that would still come with casualties
and damage being done to Ukraine. Remember, that's 5 percent of U.S. stockpiles, as far as he understands them at the moment.
He didn't give us a figure, and we know that the United States roughly makes 6, 700 through Lockheed Martin and Raytheon and these interceptors
every year, but most likely has a much bigger stockpile. The question now is, this information is fairly public, and through the access we got seeing
interceptor launchers lying idle gives a very clear message of ultimately desperation.
And while we never get a clear zero from the Ukrainian officials we speak to about where the stockpiles are, understandably, never wanted to
broadcast that. It is pretty clear they're in very dire straits right now. Hence these very public appeals, something you do when ultimately your
private entreaties have not been answered.
And so, in the nights and weeks ahead, well, we've heard my understanding from our colleagues in Kyiv eight air raid sirens in Kyiv alone today, and
we have this horrific attack in Pechenihy area near Kharkiv, 10 dead and 17 injured on a strike on a crossroads. They're hitting civilian shops, post
offices on that particular street corner.
There are concerns that as Russia recognizes increasingly this weakness, ramps up its ballistic missile production, gets more North Korean missiles,
some being used already to assist in these assaults, that these become yet more brutal. A reminder, too, though, that July was still the deadliest
year for Ukrainian civilians, deadly month, sorry, since April 2022.
So much of this is indeed already happening. But on the Ukrainian side, they did just last night launch 791 drones against Russia, a startlingly
high number, one of the highest I think indeed recorded. A sign of their growing ability to hit back and indeed damage Russian infrastructure.
I think the point here, though, is that Russia's been suffering much less damage over the past four years, and Ukraine significantly trying to get as
much resilience as it can together to get through these winter months, but very clear that without the patriots, they are acutely vulnerable in the
weeks ahead.
ASHER: Right, Nick Paton Walsh, appreciate your reporting. Thank you for joining us, and worth noting that we will have Nick's full report on his
exclusive access to patriot launchers in the next hour of "One World" right here on CNN. Donald Trump suggests, he recently spoke with North Korea's
Kim Jong Un and that their engagement is quote, making things safer.
President Trump posted on social media that he's scaling back the U.S. role in joint military exercises with South Korea. He wrote that his decision is
based on his quote, very good relationship with Kim Jong Un, end quote. The U.S. and South Korea have held joint military exercises for more than 70
years.
They're designed to protect the south from North Korea. CNN's Will Ripley has more on the exercises and President Trump's announcement.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
WILL RIPLEY, CNN SENIOR INTERNATIONAL CORRESPONDENT (voice-over): Kim Jong Un and his daughter smiling at the circus, North Korean state media showing
them celebrating in Pyongyang this weekend. At the same time, President Trump was posting this picture with Kim, saying, despite the unfriendly
look, Kim Jong Un and I get along great.
A relationship Trump is now invoking to make a major change on the Korean Peninsula. Ordering the Pentagon to substantially reduce annual military
exercises with South Korea, based on my very good relationship with Kim Jong Un, Trump says, adding the exercises are costly and send a totally
inappropriate and hostile signal to North Korea.
[11:25:00]
The moves are fueling speculation Trump may be laying the groundwork for renewed diplomacy with Kim.
CHRISTOPHER HILL, FORMER U.S. AMBASSADOR: This is kind of a shocking development by the president. We'll see if he has some reason beyond what
he stated. But certainly, this is not the way to handle a region of the world that really expects reliability from us.
RIPLEY (voice-over): For decades, North Korea has demanded these drills stop, calling them rehearsals for invasion and war. For the U.S. and South
Korea, they serve a very different purpose, training their forces to fight together on the ground and in the air. There's a reason the allies stay
ready.
In 1968, North Korea seized an American spy ship, the USS Pueblo. One American was killed. 82 more were held captive for nearly a year. In 1987,
North Korean agents bombed a South Korean passenger jet. All 115 people aboard were killed. Then, in 2010, the South Korean warship Cheonan sank
near the North Korean border.
46 sailors died. An international investigation blamed a North Korean torpedo, Pyongyang denied it. Months later, North Korean shells raining
down on Yeonpyeong Island. Two South Korean Marines and two civilians killed. Both nations blaming the other for exchanging fire, all on a
peninsula where the Korean War never formally ended.
And the North Korean military Trump faces today is far more heavily armed, with Kim's teenage daughter rumored to be his likely successor, as he
expands his nuclear and missile arsenal. Kim's military is also more battle tested, fighting for Russia and Ukraine.
Ukraine's President Volodymyr Zelenskyy says Russia wants another 30,000 North Korean troops warning Moscow is helping Kim learn modern warfare. Kim
has even built a memorial for those killed, with room for many more graves.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
RIPLEY (on camera): President Trump has tried diplomacy with North Korea before. After the 2018 Singapore summit, he suspended major exercises. Kim
never gave up his nuclear weapons. Now Trump is scaling back drills before Kim has even agreed to talk.
Could this be a new opening for diplomacy, or a concession before negotiations even begin? Will Ripley, CNN, Hong Kong.
ASHER: All right. Still ahead on "One World". Opening statements in the case against Meta begin this hour. Why 29 states are suing the social media
giant, and why it could be the company's most consequential legal battle to date?
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[11:30:00]
ASHER: Right, welcome back to "One World". I'm Zain Asher in New York. Here are some of the headlines we are watching today. Oman has not responded to
the U.S. President's recent threat. Donald Trump said that Washington would bomb the U.S. ally if it interfered with his government's efforts to reopen
the Strait of Hormuz.
Oman and Iran are in talks about the management of traffic through the strait. Iran's speaker listed four demands the U.S. must meet for the
strait to be reopened. More tension in the Strait of Hormuz, a vessel was struck by what authorities call an unknown projectile.
It hit the ship's engine room, killing a member of the crew. Oman's Coast Guard assisted the rest of the crew. No word so far on who fired it.
President Trump says the U.S. will scale back annual military drills with South Korea. The U.S. President suggests that he spoke recently with North
Korea's Kim Jong Un.
Meantime, South Korea's president said Tuesday that a solid alliance with the U.S. is mutually necessary. And early today, Russia launching a barrage
of strikes in Kharkiv. Authorities say at least 10 people have been killed. And CNN has been granted exclusive access to a U.S. made patriot launcher
in Ukraine amid what the country says is a shortage of interceptors needed to protect civilians from incoming Russian fire.
All right, opening statements are kicking off this hour in a courtroom in Oakland, California, as Meta faces what could be its biggest ever legal
fight over accusations it deliberately makes platforms addicted, addictive rather, to young people. 29 U.S. states are suing the company.
That's the owner of Facebook, Instagram, WhatsApp, Messenger, and Threads. The lawsuit accuses Meta of designing Facebook and Instagram to get
children addicted, resulting in widespread harm to their mental health and violating their privacy. The company is fighting these allegations, but it
faces thousands more lawsuits making similar claims, as do Snap, TikTok, and YouTube.
Our Tech Reporter and Host of CNN Podcast "Terms of Service", Clare Duffy, joins us live now. She's of course on this story. So, Clare, I was just
saying to my producers, there are so many lawsuits against Meta and social media companies. It is very hard to keep track.
I think that one of the key things about this particular one is a sort of 1.4 trillion-dollar demand in compensation, bearing in mind that Facebook,
or rather Meta's market cap is 1.5 trillion dollars. So, it is unlikely to see that amount being given out. But also, the fact that this is part of a
multi-district, multi-state litigation.
You've got 29 states involved. Walk us through it.
CLARE DUFFY, CNN TECH REPORTER: Yeah, Zain, I think that is really what sets this case apart is the scale of the potential damages in this case. As
you said, 1.4 trillion with a T. That would be massive. And even if the states didn't get that significant of an award, they're also seeking
changes to how Meta's platforms operate.
So, if Meta were to lose this case, we could see really significant changes to the experience that people have on social media platforms. As you said,
this trial that is kicking off with opening statements in federal court in Oakland today is part of a case that was brought by 29 state attorneys
general.
This trial will be argued by lawyers for four of those states, California, Colorado, Kentucky, and New Jersey. They're alleging that Meta
intentionally designed its platforms to be addictive to young people, including with features like the endlessly scrolling feeds, frequent
notifications, the recommendation algorithms, and that this has all contributed to a mental health crisis among young people in their states.
They also claim that Meta has misled the public about the risks from its platforms, and also that it has illegally gathered data from children under
the age of 13. Now, as you said, Zain, this is one of thousands of cases that have been brought against the company, not just by states, but also by
individuals and families and school districts.
Meta has already lost two of those cases and is on the hook for nearly a billion dollars in damages in those cases. So, this could be another really
significant loss for Meta. Obviously, will be coming in strong to argue its side of the case in this trial. Meta claims that these claims that the
states are making are unsubstantiated.
[11:35:00]
In a statement, a spokesperson told CNN, quote, the AGs offer no proof anyone in their states was misled. They claim benign features like having
an additional Instagram account somehow harmed their residents, and attempt to penalize Meta for industry-wide challenges like age verification.
Rather than sticking to the facts or the law, the states have instead decided to chase an outlandish payout. Now, a jury in Oakland will have a
chance to hear both sides of this case. And ultimately that jury will be advising the judge who will be making the final verdict in this case.
We are also likely to hear during this trial from Meta executives, former Meta employees turned whistle blowers. And also, potentially researchers
who study the impact of social media on young people's mental health. And Zain, this is going to be a long one. It's expected to last around seven
weeks, so I will be back for you with updates.
ASHER: And you'll be watching very closely. Clare Duffy, our tech reporter. Thank you so much. All right. For more on the potential impact of this
case, we're joined by Sarah Kreps, Director and Founder of the Brooks Tech Policy Institute, a research hub at Cornell University, working on
technology policy and national security research.
She's also a professor of government at Cornell as well. Gosh, you really are the perfect person to talk to on this, Sarah. So, one of the things I
think is really important to note is that this idea that Meta, what they're being accused of, is knowingly, and you know that is an important word to
underline.
Knowingly harming users under the age of 13. How do you prove that this social media company knowingly harmed young kids?
SARAH KREPS, DIRECTOR AND FOUNDER OF THE BROOKS TECH POLICY INSTITUTE AT CORNELL UNIVERSITY: Yeah, I mean it's really difficult as you're
insinuating. So, there are what makes this case a little bit different is that there, as your correspondent mentioned, three different parts to it.
The first part is about this causal relationship between online presence and social media and you know mental health, but that's only one component
because that's a really difficult one to prove.
The second is about whether Meta knew about those risks and publicly minimized them, and then the third, and I'll get to the second, is this
question of privacy and whether they were collecting information about underage users. I do think that the second one is most challenging for Meta
because of some of these internal documents, some of these materials that cite and the judge had cited about internal research that referred to
addiction as common on Instagram.
So, it does sort of suggest that there was awareness within Meta that I think is potentially damaging.
ASHER: Another sort of argument that Meta is making is that age verification is quite difficult, you know, across the industry. A lot of
social media companies have an issue with age verification, and so what is the suggestion in terms of what Meta can do?
I mean, obviously, the owner is right now on -- the onus is on the social media companies to make sure that children under the age of 13 are not
using their platforms. How do they do that? How should they do that?
KREPS: Yeah, you know, just like most policy, there are tradeoffs, and this one is certainly imperfect. I think that advocates of this kind of measure
would say you're not going to get this 100 percent right, but if you can try to winnow out the like sort of most of the cases of these under age
users, then that's a least bad strategy.
But I think it's also worth pointing out again, all policy is tradeoffs. That the more information you're collecting from adults, there are
tradeoffs as well there too. So, if you're aggressively requiring people to determine age and information, that's also these adults are providing
information about themselves, which has some sort of you know free speech and First Amendment implications as well.
ASHER: And when it comes to one of the other arguments that Meta is making is that social media addiction, according to Meta, is not a real diagnosis.
I mean, it's not like this is from their perspective. It's not like depression. It's not like a real diagnosis. Is that a valid or a weak
argument to make, do you think?
KREPS: Well, I think some people reference the tobacco analogy. Kentucky's Attorney General explicitly compared this strategy to tobacco and opioids.
I mean, the analogy works in one respect, which is states are arguing that a company privately understood risks that it publicly minimized.
But the causal science here is very different because the relationship between cigarettes and lung cancer is extraordinarily direct compared to
the more complicated and bidirectional relationship between social media and mental health. And that is to say that some people go on to social
media because they're already experiencing mental health, rather than the causal arrow being the other way around.
[11:40:00]
ASHER: Before -- during the break, I was actually speaking to my producers about the number of countries around the world where we have seen moves to
limit social media use to, if not teens over the age of 16, at the very least over the age of 15, and it started with Australia.
I'm sure you'll remember back in December, and it has moved to the UAE. I mean, Britain, the UK, where I'm from, is looking at it, possibly
implementing something by Christmas, although it would be very different. Denmark, Greece, so many. The list goes on.
Is that something you could ever imagine? And I'm guessing the answer is no. In the United States, raising the limit to 15 or 16 instead of 13 for
social media use.
KREPS: Yeah, no, I think it's difficult to contemplate here, and one of -- I mean, there are a lot of different --
ASHER: But why though? Explain why. Why?
KREPS: Oh, well, I was going to say. I mean, first is we have much stronger First Amendment protections, I think, than many countries, and but I don't
think we can lose sight of the fact that a lot of these social media companies are American, whereas you know it's easier to try to proscribe a
foreign social media company.
So, I would find it difficult, and I do think that it's been an interesting set of experiments to see how this is playing out around the world with
these first movers, because I think one of the arguments detractors could make of these policies is that well these teenagers are going to find a way
to use some other social media.
And so, what you tend to see is like they these you know legislators will block or try to proscribe certain social media sites, but that's giving
rise to other sites, and so it's almost like trying to kind of put a block in the dam, and the water is just going to move somewhere else.
So, again, I think these are all trade-offs. And I think what the sort of advocates of removing, we're trying to minimize social media use, would say
is that again, you're not going to get 100 percent compliance, but can you try to reduce the let's say reliance on social media with this very
impressionable demographic.
ASHER: And speaking of impressionable demographics, you know, of all the times in the middle of the Meta trial, ChatGPT, OpenAI is now launching
ChatGPT for teens, right? And what would make this different is there are restrictions on high-risk conversations involving perhaps violence or self-
harm.
Also, there are more studying tools. It's targeted for teens between the age of 13 and 17. Your thoughts on that?
KREPS: Yeah, I mean, I think it's easy to sort of analogize social media with these new AI chatbots. And they're also very different in the sense
that not good or bad, but that social that you know, this the -- what I think OpenAI is trying to do is design in some of these policies and try
not to make the mistakes that companies like Meta have made.
But this is a very different product at the same time, which is that these are kind of relational tools, and I think to suggest that they're going to
get it right the first time I think is ambitious. But at least there's a mindfulness I think in terms of what those protections, how to think about
those guardrails for this particular again this very impressionable demographic, I think is at least the right direction.
ASHER: And just one last question on Meta. One of the issues that a lot of people have is the idea of endlessly scrolling. That is part of what makes
Instagram and the like addictive. Is that something we might see the end of, whereby you know you can scroll for 30 minutes a day, and then you
reach the end of your feed.
Is that something you can envision in the future, perhaps?
KREPS: Well, no, in the sense that they did not invent it. You know, the person who invented endless scroll has had very many misgivings about that.
But that technology is out of the -- You know, so that horses left the barn, and now I mean we've seen that with these debates about TikTok as
well.
Every platform uses it just because it's so effective. So, I don't see that going away. I think that any measures to try to protect children or guard
these teen populations are going to have to be different types of design features.
ASHER: All right, Sarah Kreps. Great speaking to you. Thank you. Thank you so much.
KREPS: Thank you.
ASHER: All right. Still ahead on "One World", China's Unitree Robotics is showing off its newest machine as the company is about to make its market
debut in Shanghai with an already massive IPO.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[11:45:00]
ASHER: All right, China's humanoid robot boom is headed for the stock market. Unitree Robotics, one of the industry's biggest names, is set to
make its Shanghai debut after raising more than $900 million in an IPO known for their dancing and jumping robots. The company debuted its newest
model on Monday, called the Superman.
It can actually jump two meters high or more than six feet high, Unitree's market debut tomorrow will make it the first humanoid robot manufacturer to
be listed in mainland China. Our Anna Stewart is joining us on this story from London. So, what can we expect, Anna, from tomorrow's IPO?
ANNA STEWART, CNN CORRESPONDENT: Well, with that share price jump as high as the robot, which was extraordinary, more than two meters. The company
says it's also faster than Usain Bolt. That is their latest offering, the Superman humanoid. Now this stock will start trading tomorrow.
It is so popular it is more than 8000 times oversubscribed. Selling off 10 percent of the company has raised $905 million so far, and given that's
only 10 percent of the company, that means the valuation for this company is now around the $9 billion mark. Revenue of $250 million last year, a
little bit over, which means that this is actually a robotics company that is turning a profit.
And I can't say that many of them, particularly those focused on humanoids are doing that yet. It is a really, really competitive space. You have Elon
Musk's Optimus, you have Agility, you have 1X, you have Boston Dynamics, and they're all essentially trying to race to do the same thing, create a
robot in human form that can perform useful tasks.
Now, whether you think this is scary or whether you think it's cool? The question is, is it useful? That that is a robot that is very fast. You can
get ones that can jump. You can get robots that dance, and I've seen loads of them at tech conferences in the last couple of years.
It's the new big thing. The question is, when will robots actually be useful? General purpose. When can you put a robot into a factory so that it
can do perform basic tasks or in the house. When will it be able to do household chores? And that really is the key question here, because until
they are useful, until they are able to perform multiple functions, who's really going to want them?
So, you may see a -- robot at a tech conference, but could it actually make your coffee at home? Probably not. The technology is developing really
quickly, combine that with artificial intelligence, particularly sort of agentic AI, and you could be seeing robots actually using their brains,
thinking about what needs to be done, and perhaps performing different tasks.
But we are a little bit of a way off. Really hard for a humanoid to learn the physical world around us.
[11:50:00]
All the cool things you see on TV when it comes to robots right now, humanoids, they're always in a controlled space. They can dance in a
conference. They can make a coffee in a specific place, but they can't do much more than that yet.
ASHER: I was just thinking how much I hate doing laundry, and it would be so useful to have one of them help me with that. Maybe not yet, but perhaps
in a few decades, or maybe four years.
STEWART: Probably quite same.
ASHER: Yes, yes. I just realized
STEWART: -- I think at the end of the year, maybe.
ASHER: Exactly. Anna Stewart, live for us. Thank you. We'll be right back with more after the short break.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
ASHER: Electronic vehicles are gaining serious momentum across the Gulf. And BYD is pushing far beyond cars alone as the global EV market
accelerates. The company is positioning itself as a technology brand. CNN's Eleni Giokos has more in today's marketplace Middle East.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
ELENI GIOKOS, CNN CORRESPONDENT (voice-over): Electronic vehicles are reshaping the auto industry. More models, stronger policy support, and
rising demand can be seen in the Gulf. The region's EV market is on track to nearly triple by 2031, with BYD already one of its leading players, as
the company repositions itself as a global technology brand.
GIOKOS: I want you to give me a sense of what are the most exciting markets for you.
STELLA LI, EVP OF BYD COMPANY LIMITED: Every market is very exciting, fast- growing market for us, especially now in Europe and also in Middle East, our market is growing so fast.
GIOKOS: I wonder what success would look like for you in the GCC.
LI: I think in GCC area, first for BYD, our targets introduce BYD brand as the technology brand. I want to be one of the leading companies, but I want
the people realize BYD is a technology leader. We think BYD is like an Apple Store in the auto industry.
GIOKOS (voice-over): Intelligent mobility, advanced driver awareness systems, and a new frontier in robots. BYD isn't just building cars, its
building technology, and the market is catching up. Global EV sales are on track to hit 23 million by the end of 2026, nearly 30 percent of new cars
sold worldwide.
Europe is up 30 percent year on year. The GCC even faster at 40 percent.
[11:55:00]
GIOKOS: How does your portfolio investment differ in the GCC relative to what you're doing in Europe.
LI: In Europe, we're now investing. In every country, we have an office. We build the team, then we hire the people. But then we're also building the
large, our first European manufacturing in Hungary. So that facility actually will hire maybe close to 20,000 people very soon.
We are global company. Yeah, we already made the decision like five years ago when we do globalization ourselves. Then we are localizing ourselves.
So, we already decided to invest heavily in Europe back to maybe four years ago. So now we invest our first Hungry facility, and now the next one we
cannot invest second facility.
GIOKOS: Yeah.
GIOKOS (voice-over): From Hungary to the Gulf, BYD's bet is the same, don't just sell cars, build a brand. With the GCC buying in and Europe still
being won over, BYD's next challenge is proving that vision at scale.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
ASHER: Right, stay with CNN. There is much more "One World" with my colleague Bianna Golodryga after this short break. Don't go away.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
END
