Return to Transcripts main page

The Situation Room

Interview With Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand (D-NY); FBI Director Testifies Before Congress. Aired 11-11:30a ET

Aired September 15, 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)

[11:00:48]

ANNOUNCER: This is CNN breaking news.

WOLF BLITZER, CNN HOST: And welcome to our viewers here in the United States and around the world. I'm Wolf Blitzer with Pamela Brown, and you're in THE SITUATION ROOM.

We're following multiple breaking news stories right now.

First, up on Capitol Hill, the FBI director, Kash Patel, is in the hot seat. At this very moment, he's testifying at a very heated Oversight Committee hearing, facing intense questioning from senators about how he's running the bureau. This is the Senate Judiciary Committee hosting this hearing.

At the same time, the head of the FBI,Kash Patel, is testifying, this comes as the NTSB is slamming, slamming the agency for failing to mandate anti-collision technology after that tragic, very fatal midair collision right here in Washington. Today, the grieving families of those victims are finally speaking out.

PAMELA BROWN, CNN HOST: And an unlikely alliance is forming to fight the threat of A.I.

Bernie Sanders and President Trump's former strategist Steve Bannon are joining forces for what's being called a Pro-Human Assembly, teaming up with lawmakers and actors to fight the dangers of unchecked A.I.

BLITZER: But let's begin with the breaking news right now.

The FBI director, Kash Patel, is testifying before the Senate Judiciary Committee. He's facing some rather blistering questions from Democrats on the panel. They're questioning his leadership and his conduct, and Kash Patel is fiercely pushing back.

Here's Patel's exchange with ranking Democrat Dick Durbin over the Trump administration's handling of the Jeffrey Epstein files. Listen.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) KASH PATEL, FBI DIRECTOR: The Epstein files, 3.5 million pages have been released by this administration. By the prior administration, zero pages were released. This Department of Justice has investigated those files, and we have encouraged individuals to continuously come forward with credible information.

We will always investigate victims of human trafficking.

SEN. RICHARD DURBIN (D-IL): Congress had to pass a law requiring the disclosure of the Epstein files. We had to wait until a woman was elected to Congress and gave us the necessary votes in the House to discharge the bill and force a vote in the House on the release of the Epstein files. This was not volunteered by the Trump administration.

It took a law to force them to do it.

PATEL: You could have passed that law in the Biden administration. You had both majorities.

DURBIN: Yes, sure. Well, let me tell, you could have come up with a better explanation than that. That's for sure.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

BROWN: And we are keeping a close eye on this hearing with CNN senior justice correspondent Evan Perez, as well as Andrew McCabe, CNN senior law enforcement analyst and former deputy director of the FBI.

So, Evan, let's start with you.

Director Patel has had fiery exchanges with Democrats in previous hearings. What is the tone today?

EVAN PEREZ, CNN SENIOR JUSTICE CORRESPONDENT: Well, today he seems to be a lot more focused on presenting the numbers, the numbers that he believes show improvements under his leadership of the FBI.

The crime numbers, of course, Pamela are down around the country. And the FBI -- this happens in every administration. Every administration tries to take credit for crime being down or whatever numbers they can try to show improvements on. Of course, they also take the blame whenever crime numbers are up.

And so, in this case, there are some good numbers that the FBI has to work with. One of the criticisms that you hear of what you hear from the from the FBI director is that the FBI is seems to be taking credit for work done by other agencies, including state and local governments.

There's a lot of things in some of the statistics that you have seen from FBI Director Patel that don't really relate to any federal crime. For instance, there's numbers of carjackings that are that are way down. Those are not necessarily core FBI responsibilities, so I'm not sure why the FBI thinks it should take credit for that.

But, look, the -- that is the way he's responding to some of the criticism from Democrats, who are trying to portray his leadership as making the country less safe, that he has abused his position and his use of FBI resources, and some of the hiring standards that have been changed, of course, the question of bestiality that came up in the last hour.

So, again, we will see how much of this really dents -- takes him off his game. You can see from the pictures we're showing, he has a stack of note cards and pages that have been prepared for him with statistics that he is using to rebut the criticism from the Democrats on this panel.

[11:05:15]

BROWN: I wonder what you think about what Evan just laid out, Andy. Do you think it's fair that the FBI director is taking credit for the nationwide crime reduction here?

ANDREW MCCABE, CNN SENIOR LAW ENFORCEMENT ANALYST: Yes, I think Evan's spot on.

It's clearly the focus of his preparation for this hearing has been to arm himself with as many statistics as the bureau can come up with. I think it's a very fair criticism that many of the statistics he referred to are things that really the FBI does not control.

The FBI plays a role in supporting task forces and things like that. That's what the bureau has done consistently for the last 50 years. But to say that the FBI is responsible for something like a reduction in the murder rate is really overselling it.

And I should also point out that we know that, look, Kash Patel is a very good promoter, a very good promoter of Kash Patel and maybe secondarily the FBI. We also know that he has a pretty bad reputation about making statements that are just flatly inaccurate.

He's done that in numerous high-profile investigations. And some of the statistics he's relayed today, I have to tell you, seem on their face somewhat preposterous. He's cited things like a 500 percent increase in certain actions. That's just not the sort of things that you see in law enforcement activity.

The number 1,100 terrorist attacks stopped or thwarted, it is, from my -- I spent half my career working counterterrorism. Those are just numbers that don't exist in that discipline. We know that this administration has broadly redefined what they consider a terrorist to be.

They have referred to political -- domestic political groups as terrorists and foreign drug gangs and things like that. So that may be how he is inflating those numbers to make the case look more positive for the FBI.

BLITZER: So, Evan, is there any question about these numbers being massaged, if you will, to provide a more positive snapshot?

PEREZ: The FBI says no, Wolf. And I have been asking the questions for the context, especially that number that Andy just discussed, 1,100 terrorist attacks being thwarted. They say that their numbers are backed up by some of the statistics that they have on their own.

I think the question of the massaging of the statistics is something that you see throughout this administration. President Trump, as you know, likes the superlatives. He loves shading some of the facts to try to make the administration look better. So I think it's not a surprise that the FBI under his -- under this president's leadership is doing some of the same things.

But the problem is that the FBI collects numbers from around the country from police departments, and so the question of whether some numbers are being shaded because -- to try to make a political claim or a political message, I think, is something that we're certainly -- that is going to follow them on this issue, because, again, some of these numbers are just so fantastical that it does beg the questions that are being raised.

BLITZER: And let me follow up with you, Evan. One of the more bizarre moments during the course of this hearing, which we have been monitoring, was when Republican Senator John Kennedy of Louisiana asked Kash Patel about relaxing a hiring standard on bestiality, so it's no longer an automatic disqualifier for an applicant who wants to be an FBI agent.

Patel says he didn't want to penalize an applicant who was forced into that bestiality act.

Well, let me get Andy Beshear first -- Andy McCabe first before we get into that.

As a former deputy director of the FBI, does that make any sense to you at all, this whole issue of bestiality coming up during the course of this hearing.

MCCABE: No, Wolf, it makes no sense whatsoever.

It's mind-boggling to me that the FBI engaged in this sort of change in its automatic disqualifiers for employment. This is not -- in my 21 years in the FBI, it's not -- I don't ever remember hearing the word bestiality at work.

But, nevertheless, this is a -- even if, even if -- and I'm not saying I believe this, but let's say for sake of argument that Kash Patel is correct that this was limited only to victims of bestiality, whatever that might be. That is not how the rule change was originally launched to the public.

That qualification was never there. And, secondly, if that was a thing, if it came up in one in a million cases, it's not the sort of thing that you would have to change a policy for. Any disqualifier can be appealed. Certainly, the FBI does not discriminate against the victims of crime in any way in its hiring practices.

[11:10:17]

So, it's hard to understand how this is even relevant. It's even harder to understand how a director of the FBI would have engaged in this sort of a rule or process change, because it generates exactly what we're doing now,talking about the FBI in a bizarre and negative way, and that is not something that most FBI directors want to encourage.

BROWN: All right, Andy McCabe, Evan Perez, thank you both -- Wolf.

BLITZER: Still ahead: President Trump is dismissing alarms over artificial intelligence, calling the growing concerns, in his word, a hoax. But lawmakers up on Capitol Hill are fighting back with brand- new proposals to protect the public.

We're going to speak to the vice chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee, Mark Warner, about his plan to try to tackle the threat.

BROWN: And Democratic Senator Gillibrand is taking on the battle over tariffs, demanding the government refund billions of dollars back to Americans. But how much money could you actually see? She joins us live up next.

Stay with us. You're in THE SITUATION ROOM.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[11:16:03]

BROWN: Happening now: FBI Director Kash Patel is testifying on Capitol Hill, as you see right here. And one of the issues that's been discussed is A.I.

With us now is Democratic Senator Kirsten Gillibrand from New York.

Thank you so much for coming on, Senator.

So, last hour, we spoke with Congressman Ted Lieu and Nathaniel Moran about their bipartisan effort for this A.I. kill switch bill. I'm wondering what you think about that as House Speaker Mike Johnson is saying this to my colleague Jake Tapper on Sunday. This is when he said it. Let's listen.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

REP. MIKE JOHNSON (R-LA): We cannot put a moratorium on this because China will overlap us. And that's the challenge. It's national security balanced with the immediate security of making sure the models are safe.

If Congress just races in and does some sort of emergency session to try to regulate A.I., we will lose the race to China, and that is a threat to every single American. So we have got to have balance. We have got to have steady hands at the wheel.

(END VIDEO CLIP) BROWN: Where do you stand on this, Senator?

SEN. KIRSTEN GILLIBRAND (D-NY): We need urgent engagement now.

We need to be able to have rules of the road. We need to be able to have reliable guardrails, and we need to be able to be talking to these A.I. companies regularly about how to do this well, how to maintain our leadership, how to maintain the ability to cure cancer and cure disease and have massive breakthroughs.

But we also need to make sure we're investing in America. We need to make sure we are investing the wealth of A.I., into a jobs guarantee, into health care and education.

We need to make sure that we have a plan for how we deal with these models that are doing things that even the experts did not expect them able to do so soon. And so we do need that regulatory clarity now, and we need to work with A.I. companies.

And I do not think President Trump is providing any leadership on this. He's sold the most efficient chips to China, but, again, not making sure that we have rules of the road that our own A.I. companies can ensure that the public is safe.

BROWN: He's calling these warnings from these A.I. leaders a conspiracy.

I'm wondering, in your view, does Congress have the sense of urgency that is needed right now to meet this moment, given all the warnings we're hearing from A.I. leaders?

GILLIBRAND: I think we should begin hearings immediately.

I also think we should work on a bipartisan basis to provide the guidelines and oversight that is needed. A.I. companies have been -- many of them have been asking for this level of engagement and regulation. We have seen so many of the harms, but we also have so much promise.

And so we want to make sure we're at the forefront of this technology, that we are competitive, that we can cure cancer and cure other diseases, but we also want to make sure it doesn't harm humanity, and so that means alignment has to be there.

These A.I. models must be aligned with humanity. Humanity has to be the focus. I worked in our defense bill over the last several months to try to put a human in the loop on all systems and to make sure A.I. couldn't be used for domestic surveillance.

We wanted to make sure that nuclear weapons would have proper human oversight before an A.I. model could choose a target or push send on a nuclear weapon. We also wanted to make sure there was humans in the loop for any offensive weapons.

Like, I fully understand how efficient and capable an A.I. system will be for defense to shoot down missiles on their way to American cities. But when you're talking about choosing a target or deciding when to bomb or where to bomb, that should have a human oversight in all circumstances.

BROWN: So, just bottom line, would you support a kill switch for A.I.?

GILLIBRAND: Well, I don't know what you mean by a kill switch, and I don't know what those legislators mean by a kill switch. But what I do support is a human in the loop when critical decisions are being made. I think the conversation is much more nuanced than that.

I think people are talking about what models to make public when, and so that there is a review process so that you can actually review these models in advance to make sure they can't be used by someone to create some biological weapon, or make a virus much more contagious, or do harm to humanity, or can escape or break out of the command structure or the task that an A.I. model has been asked to do, and then cover it up and not let the human know that they have jumped out of their sandbox or their rules and are now doing things that they were not programmed or asked to do.

[11:20:33]

That is where the risk is. That is where the conversation is today, and so we should have the ability to align these models with human goals. Even the pope has said that it's very important that we remain human and that we keep humanity as a central focus for all A.I. innovation. And I couldn't agree more with that.

BROWN: I want to switch to another topic and ask you about what President Trump put out this morning, blasting the Supreme Court for rejecting his controversial plan to change how mail-in ballots are sent to voters ahead of the midterms. He called it a horrible, highly political ruling that amounts to -- quote -- "cheating by the radical left" when it comes to these mail-in ballots.

The order would have potentially impacted millions of ballots. What is your reaction?

GILLIBRAND: Well, thank God the Supreme Court held the line on sanity. His order would have undermined the ability of people to vote by mail.

Many Americans rely on the ability to vote by mail. A lot of our seniors do, people with disabilities, troops overseas. And those populations deserve the right to vote. And he was actively undermining that right and would have really disrupted our democracy. So I'm grateful that the Supreme Court sided with sanity and sided with our democracy.

BROWN: Are you concerned, though, that some damage is done in terms of trust around the system and potentially causing confusion around mail-in ballots and what the rules are?

GILLIBRAND: We have been deeply concerned about the rhetoric out of the president, telling people not to trust our voting systems, telling people not to trust the ability to vote by mail.

But we are working hard to make sure there are other voices to really strengthen our democracy and strengthen our ability to vote and get our voices heard. That's what these midterms are going to be about. We are asking people to vote. We are asking them to be heard.

We are asking them to make sure that the next Congress puts their concerns, like the cost of groceries or the cost of health care or even access to Medicare or Medicaid, front and center, because this White House has done everything in their power to raise costs on everyday goods from food to clothing to building materials, to get housing costs down, to health care.

And voters are furious that this president has lied to them and not done what he said. He said no forever wars. We're mired in the war in Iran. He said he would get costs down. He's got billions of dollars for his billionaire buddies, for his bombs, and for his ballrooms, but he has nothing for the American people that are trying to make ends meet and put food on their table.

BROWN: You and Senator Peter Welch recently introduced this act to repeal the 50 percent tariffs placed on Canadian goods and refund Americans for all duties paid.

How will this legislation practically manage the logistics of refunding Americans the taxes they have already paid? How would this work?

GILLIBRAND: Well, what the bill is that Senator Welch and I have would repeal these tariffs completely.

President Trump has created so much chaos in the market because of these tariffs. In Canada, this new 50 percent tariff is going to raise prices for New Yorkers on food, on clothing, on everyday household goods, and on building materials, which again will increase the rate of housing and how much it costs to get a better apartment to rent or to buy a home.

And so we are trying to repeal those tariffs immediately, because what President Trump has done is illegal and creating massive chaos in the economy for everyday New Yorkers and everyday Americans.

BROWN: Before we let you go, Senator, I want to ask you about you recently making history by convening the first ever congressional hearing on menopause through the Senate Committee on Aging.

Tell us why that was so important to you to bring this issue to light.

GILLIBRAND: Well, menopause is what millions of American women go through; 75 million women are either in perimenopause, menopause, or postmenopause in America today.

And the inadequate amount of research and analysis and care for these women is literally disgraceful. It's basic health care for most Americans, and because it is so under-resourced -- researched and under-resourced, a lot of American women don't know how to best treat their symptoms. The symptoms can be wide-ranging to debilitating.

[11:25:01]

And women have the right to get access to health care to make them be able to function in life, to be able to continue to work, continue to thrive, continue to provide for their families.

But, because of the lack of research, because of the lack of funding, because of the lack of information and availability of treatments, a lot of women needlessly suffer and are unable to live full lives.

BROWN: Yes, it's such an important issue, and I'm glad that you're bringing this out to the forefront.

Senator Gillibrand, thank you.

GILLIBRAND: Thank you.

BROWN: Wolf.

BLITZER: Very good interview, very important information indeed.

Coming up: The Treasury secretary, Scott Bessent, is testifying before the House Financial Services Committee, facing serious questions about A.I.

We're going to show you the intense, very intense exchange. That's next.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)