Return to Transcripts main page
The Source with Kaitlan Collins
Republicans Push Back On Trump's Priorities Ahead Of Midterms; Meta Reaches $18B Settlement In Landmark Child Safety Trial; Reports: CIA Chief's Surprise Visit To Moscow Was To Warn Russia Not To Attack NATO Allies Or Help Iran. Aired 9-10p ET
Aired August 26, 2026 - 21:00 ET
THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.
[21:00:00]
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
RANDI KAYE, CNN NATIONAL CORRESPONDENT (voice-over): --in one of his last interviews, he was asked about dying, and shared, he had no fear of death.
TIM CURRY, ACTOR: I suspect that in the end, I will welcome it. I think it may be very comforting to go bye-bye, and I want to earn it.
KAYE (voice-over): Tim Curry was 80-years-old.
Randi Kaye. CNN. New York.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
ANDERSON COOPER, CNN HOST, ANDERSON COOPER 360: Quite a life.
That's it for us. The news continues. "THE SOURCE" starts now.
BORIS SANCHEZ, CNN HOST, THE SOURCE WITH KAITLAN COLLINS: Construction projects, trade wars, and actual wars. The President's priorities as we barrel towards the midterms.
I'm Boris Sanchez in for Kaitlan Collins. And this is THE SOURCE.
In just 10 weeks, voters will decide which party controls Congress, and the President's energy appears to mostly be focused on anything but where Republicans actually want it. Take, for example, his reignited trade war with one of our closest allies, Canada.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
DONALD TRUMP, PRESIDENT, UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: They don't have anything that we have to have, OK? We can get by. I mean, there are a couple of things that would make it a little inconvenient, but we could get them elsewhere. And it's time to teach Canada, you can't do this anymore.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
SANCHEZ: In a handful of northern border states that could decide control of Congress, Republicans were caught off guard and have pressed the President to call off plans for tariffs that could drive up prices and hurt their chances of winning in November.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
SEN. SUSAN COLLINS (R-ME): I still think imposing new tariffs on Canada is a mistake.
I really want us to go back to the very friendly, economically beneficial relationship that we have with our Canadian neighbors.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
SANCHEZ: Rather than listen to members of his party, the President posted that he wants to rename Lake Ontario, Lake America.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
TRUMP: And you saw the Lake Ontario.
GLENN BECK, CEO, BLAZE MEDIA: Yes.
TRUMP: You know, people thought I was kidding, but maybe I wasn't. Because the last one you saw was the Gulf of Mexico, is the Gulf of America.
BECK: I know. I know. Yes.
TRUMP: So now we have a Gulf and we have a lake, OK?
(END VIDEO CLIP)
SANCHEZ: Yes, this is real life, and even as he risks driving up prices with tariffs on America's second largest trading partner, he's trying to lower beef prices by dropping tariffs on foreign beef.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
TRUMP: Now beef is starting to come down, you know, the meats, the beef is starting to come down.
We want to get the beef prices down, so we'll get them down a little bit. And that's what people want. That's what the voters want. And that's what I want. The ranchers are great; they're my people. I love the ranchers; they've done a fantastic job. But they admit that we need a little help.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
SANCHEZ: More than a dozen Republican lawmakers have since criticized the one-two punch of those economic moves, and congressional Republicans across the Midwest are flat-out calling the beef move a mistake.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) SEN. MIKE ROUNDS (R-SD): I don't think what the President's done is going to bring down the price of beef. I think what they'll simply do is, is to stop buying U.S. beef.
REP. ASHLEY HINSON (R-IA): We need to focus on affordability, but I think this isn't the way to do that. I think we need to focus on helping our cattlemen grow their herd.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
SANCHEZ: The President has resisted altering his priorities to help Republicans in November. Take, for example, on the national conversation about AI data centers. The President deciding to step in squarely into that debate.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
TRUMP: If I was a mayor or if I was a governor in the state, I would want to have the data centers.
If I were the mayor of a town or the governor of a state, and I had a chance to get a big plant in, an AI plant, or a data center, I would absolutely want it.
I mean, data centers could be bigger than oil.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
SANCHEZ: However, as many as seven in 10 Americans don't want them in their communities.
One look at his social media feed shows you what issue is front and center on the President's priority list. His feed today, just full of posts about D.C. renovation projects, and that's after months of congressional Republicans asking him to stop talking about things like the ballroom.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
REP. BRIAN FITZPATRICK (R-PA): My constituents have made clear, they don't want money for a ballroom.
SEN. THOM TILLIS (R-NC): We're talking about building a ballroom when we're trying to get the economy squared away. Timing's bad.
SEN. KEVIN CRAMER (R-ND): He cares about it, and it's fine. But people don't, and people in North Dakota don't. They care about the price of gas.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
SANCHEZ: You already know that the price of gas and just about everything else is higher than when he took office. Yet, on the issue that Republicans around the country want him to focus on, he continues to claim, mission accomplished.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
TRUMP: But as far as pricing, the prices are coming down.
The prices are coming down.
Costs are coming down. Affordability, we're doing great.
Prices are way down.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
[21:05:00]
SANCHEZ: Joining me to discuss that and more is David Frum of The Atlantic.
David, thanks for being with us tonight.
DAVID FRUM, STAFF WRITER, THE ATLANTIC: Yes.
SANCHEZ: Your colleagues at The Atlantic are reporting that President Trump plans to use his super PAC's $400 million war chest to make the midterms about his own record. The writing, quote, The President has come up with a simple plan to win the election. More Trump.
Is that what you're hearing that Republicans in tough competitive races want to see?
FRUM: Me, me, me, me. Elections are about you, not about me.
The great difficulty that Donald Trump has, is Donald Trump's record is he made things more expensive on purpose. His central economic idea is tariffs. Tariffs make things more expensive. Tariffs are a tax on what you buy, and Americans feel this in all kinds of ways.
I'm speaking to you right now from Canada, where I'm spending the summer, and let me give you a very dramatic example. Americans get about a quarter of their aluminum from Canada. Canada produces a lot of electricity. Electricity is very important to aluminum.
The result of barring Canadian aluminum is that your Japanese competitors pay $3,000 a ton for aluminum, European competitors, $3,000 a ton, competitors all over the planet, $3,000 a ton. Americans pay $5,000 a ton, and that shows up in the price of every canned good contained in aluminum, in every airplane fare using an aluminum airplane, every industrial building clad in aluminum, every household appliance made out of aluminum. Americans are paying more. American manufactures are paying more. And so it is, for everything that Trump has taxed, make it more expensive on purpose.
SANCHEZ: The President did just show the impact that he and his money can have in South Carolina, in the Republican primary there, helping elevate Senator Darline Graham to win that primary. Does that broadly have the same effect, come November, in a general election?
FRUM: Well, one of the great vices of the very polarized political system that Americans have developed, over the past 20 years, is that politicians go through primary season, winning races by saying more of the same, and think that's great. That, when I get to the election, the message that's going to work in the primary is not.
Yes, in a Republican primary, in South Carolina, one of the most Republican states of the Union, being more Republican than thou is a great way to be. But in competitive states, it's going to be a problem.
Where Americans want to hear, what are you doing to make things less expensive, Trump has a plan to make things more expensive. The immigration crackdown -- and look, border security is important. But when you make sure that there's less labor in the country? That's also making things more expensive on purpose. And that's the message against Trump. He made things more expensive on purpose.
SANCHEZ: It's interesting because the President is clearly aware that Republican voters are angry. He actually reposted a supporter today, who said, quote, I don't think the GOP fully grasp how badly they are effing up right now. I'm very worried the GOP is sleepwalking toward a midterm reckoning.
FRUM: Yes.
SANCHEZ: I'm not sure why the President would repost that. Is that a signal to members of Congress running for re-election?
FRUM: Well, he may be trying to shift the blame that -- that's one of Trump's expertise is.
But another way that he -- so, we talked about tariffs, we talked about immigration. The war with Iran makes things more expensive on purpose, and that's something that everyone knew in advance. When you close the Persian Gulf, you make the price of oil more expensive. You make the price of diesel more expensive. You make the price of fertilizer more expensive, which makes the price of food more expensive. Again, he did it on purpose.
Now maybe he could have persuaded the American people that it was worth it. But he didn't try. He never made a case to the American people. He never made a case to Congress. He just launched a war. And again, as with tariffs, as with immigration, he made things more expensive on purpose.
SANCHEZ: We have a sound bite from the President, a few weeks ago, talking about how voters are feeling right now. Let's listen.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
TRUMP: Because a lot of them are very angry at Republicans, to be honest with you. They're angry at Republicans--
JAKE SHERMAN, FOUNDER, PUNCHBOWL NEWS: Why is that?
TRUMP: I don't know. I mean, they're angry at Republicans. But they're not angry at me. SHERMAN: That's an interesting -- why though?
TRUMP: They're not angry at me, but they are angry at Republicans.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
SANCHEZ: They're not angry at him.
FRUM: Yes.
SANCHEZ: Why does he think that?
FRUM: That's a question of abnormal psychology. I'm not an expert on that. But the numbers, it can be tracked in the President's approval rating, which is now heading toward extraordinary lows, it keeps dropping because, people can see who did what.
And every person is the world's leading expert on how he or she is doing, and they know they're doing worse than they were doing in January of 2025, and they know that the things that Trump has offered as his agenda are important to making -- understanding why they're doing worse.
SANCHEZ: You wrote this week about how voter anger could play into his trade war with Canada. You pointed out that Canada is a country energized by its dislike and distrust of Trump's United States.
FRUM: Yes.
[21:10:00]
SANCHEZ: What are you hearing from Canadians, and how does that impact the dynamic here?
FRUM: So, Canada is a multi-party system, not just two parties as in the United States. So, prime ministers, if they're at 40 percent, they think they're doing pretty well. Because, again, it's -- 40 percent in a three-way or four-way or five-way system, that's pretty good.
So, about three quarters of Canadians approve of the approach that Prime Minister Mark Carney has taken, and that is because not -- it's not a personal mandate. It's they understand -- the American negotiating position in this trade war gives Canada really no choice.
The American position is demand, demand, demand, give nothing. Oh, and finally, at the last minute, the United States says, Any deal that it signs with Canada, it reserves the right to change the deal at the last minute after the deal is signed. On its own. There's no deal at all. And Canadians understand or feel it's their national independence that's at stake.
There's a lot of eagerness to make a deal. There've been a lot of negotiations. But when your trading partner says, My signature is worthless? Why would you pay any trade concessions to get a signature that doesn't mean anything?
SANCHEZ: David Frum, thank you so much for sharing your perspective. Appreciate your time.
FRUM: Thank you. Bye-bye.
SANCHEZ: Here with us now on set, my bald brethren.
CNN's Senior Political Commentator, and former Trump campaign adviser, David Urban.
As was former chief of staff to Vice President Mike Pence, Marc Short.
Great to see you, gentlemen.
DAVID URBAN, CNN SENIOR POLITICAL COMMENTATOR, FORMER TRUMP CAMPAIGN ADVISER: I don't know what that says about us, man.
SANCHEZ: I mean, it looks good on TV.
David, first to you. You've actually both been in the midst of campaigns with Donald Trump.
URBAN: Yes.
SANCHEZ: Have you seen a dynamic quite like this before, where Republicans running for re-election, especially in battleground states, are wanting him to focus in a certain direction, and he appears to be focusing on himself.
URBAN: I mean, this seems to be rather the rule than I mean, in every election, this is what we've seen. I know Marc's been there. The President doesn't necessarily respond well to being told what to do, right, by others.
There's a lot to unpack of what you talked about with David Frum there. The President's numbers aren't great by all accord. Our most recent polling here at CNN had him, I think, at like 38. But interestingly, Democrats were at 30 run -- in our poll, and Chuck Schumer was at 17, right?
So, this isn't just a referendum on Donald Trump, right? It's an election. And you have candidates on one side versus the other side. And so, candidate quality I think matters a lot. But can this administration do better in messaging? I think they can. I think that's what the President was talking about when he reposted that.
I think some in the White House want him to be talking about different things, as you alluded to. I think there is a list of accomplishments the President can talk about. He just doesn't seem to want to talk about them.
SANCHEZ: Why, Marc?
MARC SHORT, FORMER CHIEF OF STAFF TO VP MIKE PENCE: Well, look, I think that the President, to Dave's point, does have a lot he could talk about. He could talk about securing the border. He could talk about tax relief. He could talk about the markets being all-time highs. But honestly, I don't think the President really cares about the midterms. And I know that surprises people--
SANCHEZ: Wow.
SHORT: --and they say, Well, how could that be? He's been impeached twice.
SANCHEZ: He could be impeached again.
SHORT: He looks at it as, I've defeated them twice, and they've said -- they sent a -- they sent the DOJ after me.
And candidly, he has more fun sparring with Jeffries and Schumer than he does with Johnson and Thune. And so, a lot of Republicans are counting on President Trump. But he has said himself he's not invested in the midterms at other times. And so, I am not too surprised this is where we are.
SANCHEZ: David, you agree he's not worried about being impeached, and he's more entertained by having Congress run by Democrats?
URBAN: Yes, listen, I think -- I think it'll be interesting to see, to Marc's point, if Democrats do take the House, they're going to have a narrow majority. The DSA is going to be in there. They're going to have a vote on who the Speaker is.
SANCHEZ: Sure.
URBAN: It's going to be really -- it'll be really interesting to see how that plays out. And to think that there's going to have some unified voice amongst the Democrats, I think, is kind of a -- is a foolish notion. And well, if they do in fact win the House, which it looks like it's going to happen.
But look, the President was impeached before. I think the Congress gets -- Democratic Congress tries to impeach him again? It's a fool's errand. I think he'll -- you know, to Marc's point, he'll beat it back. His popularity will go up. He'll not be tried in the Senate. It'll be over again, and he'll make the Democrats look stupid once again. So, I think they'd be really dumb for trying to do it.
Now, if they conduct vigorous oversight of different committees, I think that's a completely different story. I think that'd be much more well-received by the American people. But do I think the Democrats discipline and do that? I don't think they do.
SANCHEZ: Well.
SHORT: Yes, I would agree. I mean, the Democrats say they're not going to impeach him again. But if the base of the party, if they're doing investigations, and the base of the party hears it more, I mean, they'll want it.
I do think there's a difference in the second term, that I think that one of the rally cries that I heard again, in 2016 and 2020 repeatedly, that got the crowds most animated was a promise to drain the swamp. And I do think that in the second administration, the President's administration has made the swamp the family's personal hot tub, and I think--
SANCHEZ: Wow.
SHORT: --I think that there's a far more corruption that's happened this go-round, that makes them far more vulnerable to a lot of the investigations that they should be more concerned about than it seems they are.
[21:15:00]
SANCHEZ: To David's point about folks inside the White House trying to sort of set expectations for the President, and what they would like to see from him in the midterms. Here's Susie Wiles, the chief of staff, what she said a while back about their plans for the midterms.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
SUSIE WILES, WHITE HOUSE CHIEF OF STAFF: He's going to have a fun next year, but we're going to put him on the campaign trail too.
Typically -- just a little bit of campaign speak, if I may?
DEBBIE KRAULIDIS (ph), HOST OF MOMS FOR AMERICA PODCAST, VICE PRESIDENT, MOMS FOR AMERICA: Yes.
WILES: Typically, you -- in the midterms, it's not about who's sitting at the White House. It's you localize the election. And you--
KRAULIDIS (ph): Right.
WILES: --and you keep the federal officials out of it. We're actually going to turn that on its head--
KRAULIDIS (ph): Good.
WILES: --and put him on the ballot.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
SANCHEZ: Is that going to work in places like Maine, Michigan--
URBAN: Yes.
SANCHEZ: --these tight Senate races?
URBAN: Yes, probably not in Maine and Michigan, but a lot of other places it will. The President's popularity, if you look at the numbers, still 80 percent amongst Republican base voters, right? Higher amongst kind of super voters.
So, if the game is turnout, right, if the game is turnout, that's what it is in a lot of midterms, right? Turn out your base. That's when people stay at home, sit on the couch. If the game is turnout, you need to turnout Republicans? Trump will do that in a lot of places. It'll hurt him in a lot of places. You saw in Maine, when JD Vance went to Maine, Susan Collins wasn't standing next to him. SANCHEZ: Yes. Yes. And obviously, with the tariffs on Canada, those areas closer to the border.
SHORT: Well--
SANCHEZ: Sorry, go ahead, Marc.
SHORT: I mean -- I mean, that interview you just showed was from December. We're on the verge of Labor Day. Where have you seen him campaigning?
SANCHEZ: We got--
(CROSSTALK)
SHORT: --Republican primary. He's not actually campaigning to defeat Democrats.
SANCHEZ: Yes.
SHORT: He's been nowhere to be seen in defeating Democrats.
SANCHEZ: So what -- I mean, obviously that sends a signal to congressional Republicans. What are their options now if the President--
(CROSSTALK)
URBAN: Yes, but arguably -- but arguably, nobody's paying attention till -- you know, kids are going back to school, right?
SANCHEZ: We're paying attention. Right? We've been paying attention.
URBAN: No, no, no, but--
SHORT: He's--
(CROSSTALK)
SHORT: --the whole year.
URBAN: No--
SHORT: We're going to have the greatest year. He's going to be all over the campaign trail. Come on, Dave. He's not.
URBAN: Listen -- well, that is true. But I think that, and I think to a certain extent, you know, the President, to your point, the President doesn't like it. He doesn't like to talk about policy victories. He doesn't like about it -- he doesn't like to--
SANCHEZ: Does like to rally, though.
URBAN: He likes to rally, and that'll be helpful in certain races. Again, it'll be targeted use. They have -- Republicans have a huge advantage in money, right? And that does matter in certain races. So, we'll see. I think this notion of some red tsunami -- excuse me, a blue tsunami is going to -- is -- I think that's a reach. I think the House--
(CROSSTALK)
SHORT: I'm more worried. I'm more worried about it. I think the reality is that yes, the Democrats are very unpopular, and they have some crazy socialist nominees.
URBAN: Incredible.
SHORT: But the reality is that a midterm is about the party in power. And it's not just the President. It's a Republican Senate, Republican House. And so, I'm far more concerned about their prospects of November.
URBAN: Yes. And Boris, the thing that -- you know, you can't convince people. When someone has -- you know, they're like working all day long, they're going home, stop at the gas station to fill up their tank, they got to get food for their kids, they pull that $20 bill out, right?
SHORT: Yes.
URBAN: And that used to be able to put some gas in your car and buy a pizza. Now, it doesn't put gas in your car. Doesn't buy a pizza. And--
SANCHEZ: Recent history has shown that that argument about the economy doing well--
URBAN: Yes. And that's what matters. And that's what matters, right?
SANCHEZ: --doesn't land.
SHORT: Yes.
URBAN: When that $20 doesn't go as far as it used to, no matter how much you spend on television, no matter how much mail you send to people, they know reality that--
SANCHEZ: Yes, that--
URBAN: --that 20 bucks buys.
SANCHEZ: That rhetoric about, The economy is doing well, things are well. When people are feeling that pain in recent history, we've seen it doesn't work out. So, what would be your advice, to these congressional Republicans, if they don't have the President--
(CROSSTALK)
SHORT: Well, look, I think that the biggest challenge is that I think the President's trade agenda is bonkers, and I think it's hurting a lot of Midwestern States that are reliably Republican, a lot of agricultural states. And, at this point, it's hard to distance because they've allowed the executive branch to have the authority that belongs to Congress.
URBAN: Yes, the Congress -- the Congress has abrogated the responsibility for years and years. This is something, I agree. Going back to earmarks, right? Giving up everything. They didn't vote on -- this is way off -- way off topic.
SANCHEZ: Well.
URBAN: But Authorization for Use of Military Force. For 20 years, we operated under 9/11 Authorization for Use of Military Force because the Congress didn't want to vote. They kicked the can down the road. The Congress never does their job when they're here, and so the President continues to get stronger.
SANCHEZ: We've heard a lot of lawmakers calling for some war powers action on Iran. Unclear that it's going to happen. To your point.
URBAN: Yes, they won't -- they won't do it.
SANCHEZ: David Urban. Marc Short. Appreciate the time. Thanks for joining us.
SHORT: Thank you, Boris.
SANCHEZ: Up next. An urgent search in Nepal and China for those killed, injured, and still missing, after catastrophic flash floods and mudslides hit that region.
[21:20:00]
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
SANCHEZ: Tonight, search and rescue operations are underway in Nepal and China, after terrifying flash floods swept across the nation's borders. Nepal has confirmed more than a 150 deaths. China says at least three people have been killed. And both countries expect those numbers to rise. Hundreds more people remain missing, including tourists and at least 47 Americans.
A warning: videos of the moment the flood tore through these towns are difficult to watch.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: (FOREIGN LANGUAGE).
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: (FOREIGN LANGUAGE)
(END VIDEO CLIP)
SANCHEZ: You can hear the panic filling that bus as they witness the horror outside.
And then there is this footage: a horrifying moment. The floodwaters hit a Himalayan border crossing. You see people fleeing the area before they can even see what's coming, and the water rushes in so fast. There's simply nowhere safe to go.
There's also this CCTV video showing rows of busses, a four-story building, and everything in the path of destruction is wiped out.
It's going to take weeks to figure out exactly what caused the flooding. Scientists believe a huge chunk of glacier snapped off and fell into the valley below, and a landslide, the equivalent of a 5.2 magnitude earthquake, just cascaded down the mountain.
[21:25:00]
This video was shared by my source tonight, David Fisher, Nepal's head of the International Federation of Red Cross.
David, thanks so much for joining us.
Fortunately, you are safe in Nepal's capital. I wonder what you're hearing about what's happening at the border.
DAVID FISHER, HEAD OF DELEGATION, IFRC NEPAL: Thank you for having me.
We have had a team that has traveled up yesterday, early in the day, from Nepal Red Cross headquarters, to connect with their volunteers who -- excuse me -- live in all of these areas.
And just as you have shown in your video -- excuse me -- it's been really a horrific scene due to this sudden flash flood that came across the border. Right at the border area, it's a very, very narrow area with narrow roads, nowhere to hide from such a wave. And we are acting on the assumption that at least 10,000 families have lost their homes due to this emergency.
SANCHEZ: The hardest-hit areas, we've learned, are extremely difficult to reach, and rescue helicopters who struggled to land because floodwaters have been so high. How is the Red Cross team supporting the response right now?
FISHER: That's exactly right. There are areas that are still not accessible to our headquarters team. But they are flying in by helicopter today, to connect with the volunteers who have already been on site. They have a very small amount of free stored items that they were able to give out.
But they were working yesterday, all through the day, in Nuwakot District that was also very hard hit and is easier to access, providing food, providing water, providing shelter, bringing stretchers, first aid kits, unfortunately body bags. Red Cross volunteers were unfortunately finding bodies as far south as the very southern part of the country in Chitwan Province.
SANCHEZ: Wow. It is monsoon season in Nepal. Floods and landslides are common during this time. But have you ever seen anything of this scale?
FISHER: There was, in fact, a somewhat similar flash flood that came down through Rasuwa last year, but it was nowhere near this magnitude. And although there was loss of life on both sides of the border in that incident. The devastation of entire villages, entire markets being wiped out is really extreme.
And so, we're really focused on the emergency needs of these people, their shelter needs, ensuring that they have safe water to drink because it's extremely dangerous, after floods like this, for waterborne disease, which is endemic in Nepal. But we also need to think early on about their recovery.
This is a major commerce artery between China and Nepal, which is now destroyed. Many people will lose their livelihoods, in addition to their homes, and so we will be counting on global solidarity to help them.
SANCHEZ: Just expanding on that. As these operations continue days and weeks ahead, what are your biggest concerns?
FISHER: Well, the situation of washed-out roads is extremely difficult. So, we know that the authorities are moving as quickly as they can on this. But it's most important to make contact with all the affected communities, make sure that those who are injured are treated.
Nepal Red Cross is the largest provider of blood transfusion services. And so, they're making blood available to the hospitals in the area. We need to make sure that people are healthy and back on their feet as soon as possible. So, our first concern is about emergency needs. And then, also, we need to help them to start looking for rebuilding their lives.
SANCHEZ: David Fisher, thank you so much for bringing us that point of view from this battered part of Asia. Please let us know if there's any message that we can help get out for you.
FISHER: Thank you so much for your interest.
SANCHEZ: Up next. A landmark settlement as Meta agrees to pay $18 billion and to make major changes to Instagram and Facebook. What are these changes, and is it going to be enough to protect our kids?
[21:30:00]
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
JEFF JACKSON, (D) NORTH CAROLINA ATTORNEY GENERAL: Today, we're announcing the largest Big Tech settlement in American history.
PHIL WEISER, (D) COLORADO ATTORNEY GENERAL: The amount of money that Meta is paying out right now, not even contingent on industry-wide relief, is more money than almost any state consumer protection case in U.S. history.
JENNIFER DAVENPORT, (D) NEW JERSEY ATTORNEY GENERAL: There's more work to be done. This is the era of holding Big Tech accountable. ANDREA CAMPBELL, (D) MASSACHUSETTS ATTORNEY GENERAL: As a mom, I will keep asking the basic questions: Is the technology our children are using, is it helping them, serving them, or exploiting them?
(END VIDEO CLIP)
[21:35:00]
SANCHEZ: Tonight, Meta has agreed to pay out roughly $18 billion in a settlement that also includes sweeping changes to the way that kids across the country use its social media platforms. The settlement brings an end to a landmark legal battle brought by 29 state attorneys general, accusing Facebook, and Instagram's parent company, of exploiting children's mental health.
While Meta did not admit to any wrongdoing, what they agreed to do next fundamentally redefines how some of the biggest social media platforms in the world operate and profit.
Among the changes for its users under 18, there will be a two-hour daily time limit, reduced notifications during school hours, plus limited usage between midnight and 06:00 a.m. Meta will also hide the number of likes and reactions on posts and ban extreme makeup filters for minors. Young users are also going to have an option for a feed that's no longer influenced by an algorithm.
My sources tonight:
CNN Chief Media Analyst, Brian Stelter.
And CNN Contributor, and investigative tech journalist, Jacob Ward.
Great to see you both.
Jacob. You've been in and out of the courtroom through this trial. Were you expecting a settlement, a settlement this big and costly for Meta?
JACOB WARD, CNN CONTRIBUTOR, INVESTIGATIVE TECH JOURNALIST: I have to admit to you that I wasn't expecting a settlement at all, Boris. I really thought this was the one where the states were going to go all the way, and that's because the evidence was just so damning.
I mean, we were not even two weeks into this trial and heard, testimony after testimony, and saw exhibit after exhibit, from within the company, of internal research, that showed that they had millions of kids under the age of 13 that they clearly knew about that, and yet had been telling the public that that was not the case, and also had an enormous amount of internal research that showed that there was enormous harm being done to kids, and yet the public numbers and public statements were contradicting all of that.
I think it's probably no coincidence that we had heard just a snippet of testimony from Adam Mosseri, the head of Instagram, yesterday, and we were due to hear from -- a full day from him today. And then Mark Zuckerberg was going to show up in a couple of days. Probably to answer questions about a presentation, the states say he received that -- where he knew about 4 million under-13 users on Instagram.
So, I think that the surprise to me was that the states didn't think that they could win it outright and decided that it was time to make a settlement here.
SANCHEZ: You were just talking to an executive at Meta tonight, Brian. What are your sources saying about these new protections?
BRIAN STELTER, CNN CHIEF MEDIA ANALYST: Well, I remark that -- the deal is like accepting one broken arm in exchange to avoid getting both legs amputated, and of course the company thinks that's too cynical.
But I have to think there's a connection here between this settlement today, this sweeping settlement, and the growing calls for social media bans for people under 16. We've seen this growing movement in countries like Australia and Spain and Turkey. And yes, it's controversial, and there's some evidence that the kids find workarounds. As a former kid here, I would say, yes, 14-year-olds will always find a way.
But I still think today matters a lot because even though it goes -- you know, this is much more limited than a ban. It's about setting new standards, new societal norms, for what's acceptable when it comes to young people and social media.
Tech companies have built these incredible theme parks that we all live inside. You might say we're trapped inside them. Meta would say that people love being inside these virtual theme parks. But it's empowering, it's disorienting, it's scary, it's addicting, all at the same time. And now, Meta tonight is agreeing they're going to turn the lights down a little bit. But they're not closing the theme park, right? Everybody's still going to be on these rides.
So, it's really an issue for Congress. Congress should have stepped in years ago, should have put some rules in place. Just like there's regulations for real-life theme parks, right? But in the absence of that, these states have taken bold action, and these states do deserve some credit.
And now Boris, the really interesting test is going to be for other tech companies. Will they follow suit? Here's what Meta said in a statement today that's going to be in full-page newspaper ads tomorrow morning. It says: These protections will only be truly effective if we work with our peers -- TikTok and YouTube -- to put the same measures in place.
It's unclear how likely that is to actually happen, but some of the states are taking legal action against TikTok and YouTube, especially TikTok as well.
SANCHEZ: Right.
STELTER: So, there could be further progress here on this front.
SANCHEZ: Well, important context here for our viewers: Meta said that it would only pay 70 percent of that settlement of $18 billion in annual installments over the next decade. The rest of that 30 percent, they're only going to pay if YouTube and TikTok also agree to make payments and also make similar changes to their platforms.
Is it clear to you, Jacob, that these other platforms are actually going to do that?
WARD: Yes, the fine print here, Boris, is really important to read. That's right. So what basically it seems to come down to is this question of: Is Meta willing to forego, you know, pay essentially $5 billion, so that all of their competitors will play by the same rules they do? Or will they get to keep $5 billion but be at this competitive disadvantage if TikTok and YouTube decide not to play by those same rules?
But I mean, this is a far cry from let's say the cigarette Master Settlement Agreement we saw back in the 90s, where you had $200- billion-plus and no contingencies like this. This is also true with the Deepwater Horizon settlement. It's also true with the Volkswagen diesel scandal, right?
[21:40:00]
These kinds of this -- I think that the states have been drawn here into some deal-making and some market competitive landscape shenanigans that I think are very different than anything else we've seen in the modern era.
SANCHEZ: There's another major tech development that I wanted to ask about, Jacob.
STELTER: Yes.
SANCHEZ: Microsoft co-founder, Bill Gates, is warning that world leaders in the tech industry are asleep at the wheel, as he says, the transition into the, quote, "New AI era will be one of the most turbulent times in human history."
He spoke with Anderson Cooper tonight. Here's part of what he said.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
BILL GATES, CO-FOUNDER, MICROSOFT: Over the last year, these AIs have gotten dramatically more powerful, even faster than I expected, and they're now capable of causing cyberattack risk, bioterrorism risk, psychosocial risk.
And I have to say, I'm kind of shocked that the exact criteria that we review these models with and the actions we take to minimize the harms are really completely missing. And the broad dialog we get all of society talking about the trade-offs here, that's just not taking place.
The silence is what really drove me to speak out at this point. Because we have to get everybody's voice in this. You know, these are a set of democratic trade-offs that have to be made. And you know, people who think, OK, I'll block a data center. That really isn't going to slow things down. Those data centers will show up somewhere.
We have to take the AI issue, and it's the bads versus the goods on, in a very explicit way.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
SANCHEZ: How do you think the tech world is going to respond to a warning like this from an elder statesman like Bill Gates?
WARD: Well, I mean, welcome to the AI resistance, Bill Gates. Right?
This is a guy who, even three years ago, was saying things like he -- he said in a post, employers and employees had to adapt. He was talking about the Word processing application era. And they did. He basically said, Don't worry about the job implications of AI.
Now he's saying, many jobs will disappear forever. He's arguing now that we need to preserve a set of jobs, he calls it the human preserve, in spite of the fact that they could be automated.
I mean, this is a guy who's clearly been in some meetings, seen some stuff that has him very, very alarmed. And I think the fact that he's speaking out, this a guy who has no love for regulators, right? The subject of an enormous antitrust action way--
SANCHEZ: Right.
WARD: --way back in the past. He's now calling for something like a nuclear weapons regulatory regime across international borders. So, this is a guy who's clearly seen something that's got him very alarmed and has him very fundamentally changing his tune here, Boris.
SANCHEZ: Brian. Last word to you. Your reaction.
STELTER: Every election debate we're having about the midterms, about 2028. These are the topics that should be on the table: social media restrictions, AI, and how it's going to impact everyone's lives. If we spend more and more time talking about how self-absorbed Trump is or how old Biden was, then we're wasting time because these tech stories are the ones that are going to impact in the next decade of our lives.
SANCHEZ: And Brian. Jacob. Thank you both. Appreciate you joining us.
STELTER: Thanks.
SANCHEZ: Up next. The CIA director making a rare unannounced visit to Moscow. What we're learning about why he made that trip.
[21:45:00]
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
SANCHEZ: Tonight, there are multiple reports from The Wall Street Journal and from Politico that the reason CIA Director, John Ratcliffe, made a secret trip to Moscow was to deliver an in-person warning to the Kremlin: Do not attack America's NATO allies and stop giving so much support to Iran.
Joining me to discuss the breaking news.
CNN's Jim Sciutto.
And Jeff Mason of Bloomberg.
Jim, what do you make of the CIA chief going directly to Russia to deliver this in-person message?
JIM SCIUTTO, CNN ANCHOR & CHIEF NATIONAL SECURITY ANALYST: Listen, the fact is, it's a long time coming. Because, Russia has already been carrying out something of a low-grade war against NATO allies, a hybrid war for many months now.
It began with -- and you remember these, we reported about this heavily, drones over European territory, drones over European airports to the extent that it shut them down, but also a series of sabotage attacks, which we've seen with greater frequencies. These go back to last year. Blowing up railroad lines, for instance, that carry the weapons through Poland into Ukraine, assassinations on European soil.
So, there's been a hybrid war already underway by Russia on Europe. The question has become: Would Russia take the deeply alarming step of carrying out actual kinetic military action against the NATO ally?
And this is not the first time we've heard of that threat either. I spoke to the head of Norway's military a few weeks ago. He said that Norway takes the threat of a Russian invasion quite seriously because Norway happens to be located very close to Russian nuclear submarine bases. The Baltic States have been warning about this for years that they are Russia's next target after Ukraine, and they believe they're not sufficiently defended.
[21:50:00]
The final thing I'll say, Boris, is the two other injects in this is that, is Donald Trump, frankly. That, Donald Trump has quite publicly questioned the U.S. commitment to NATO. And European nations, they don't believe the American commitment to their defense that the U.S. has demonstrated in the past, and Vladimir Putin is very aware of that, and he's aware of the disunity within the alliance, and that adds to the fears that he might take a chance, take a shot, test whether Article 5 actually means something.
SANCHEZ: It's notable, Jeff, that President Trump has sent this message publicly, and then you have Ratcliffe going and delivering this message. As the President, just a few weeks ago, said that he was inclined to give Ukraine licenses to build their own Patriot missile systems, their own Patriot missile munitions, and then he relented on that.
So, how do you read Ratcliffe going to Russia to deliver this message?
JEFF MASON, WHITE HOUSE CORRESPONDENT, BLOOMBERG: Well, a couple different things. Number one, the President is sort of the king of mixed messages on Russia, as well as several other conflicts around the world, including Iran.
But we're talking about Russia. So, on this, he's made clear, for a long time, that he has a kinship with President Putin, and he's reluctant to criticize President Putin. He came in, at the beginning of his term, saying he thought he could solve the war within a day. That of course didn't happen, and had that big blow up with Zelenskyy during their first Oval Office meeting. That relationship has gotten better. It's possible that his relationship with Putin has become a little bit trickier, but he's still a fan of having a close relationship with him.
So, it is notable. It's a long way of saying. It's notable that he has sent his CIA director to deliver that message, if in fact that's the message that he delivered.
SANCHEZ: Unclear if it's a shift on the President's part.
Jim, Trump was asked about Ratcliffe's visit today. Let's listen to what he said.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
BECK: The CIA director -- CIA director -- ours is in Russia. Rumors are saying Putin's are going to -- Putin is going to test NATO resolve all the way to speculation that is crazy. He's going to strike England. All the way to this is maybe the U.S. telling them about the Iranian sanctions, saying we're serious about them.
Can you tell me why our CIA director flew in the middle of the night to meet with the Russians?
TRUMP: Yes. Well, none of the above. He's there and, you know, very sort of semi-routine. I hate to disappoint people. We would like to see the war with Ukraine end.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
SANCHEZ: Semi-routine, Jim.
SCIUTTO: I mean, it's just not true because the last time a CIA director flew to Moscow was in 2021, that was William Burns, in advance of Russia's full-scale invasion of Ukraine, when the U.S. saw the forces mounting, and he delivered the message. He said, We're watching you. Are you serious about this?
I mean, the other point I would note is that, of course, the U.S. delivered a warning then, and Putin went ahead with the Russian -- with the invasion of Ukraine. So, a U.S. warning does not necessarily mean that Putin listens.
And it was interesting to hear Trump try to talk it down a bit. I don't know, to Jeff's point, if this is a case of Trump trying to play both sides, deliver a tough message, while leaving the path open to negotiation.
But let's be frank: that path has been open to negotiation for the full two years, almost two years of Trump's presidency, and Putin has not walked down that path. He has not made a concession. He has not held back. In fact, he's expanding his war in Ukraine.
So, it's not clear what influence President Trump has over Vladimir Putin.
MASON: I would add just a little bit to two points that Jim made.
SANCHEZ: Yes.
MASON: Number one, it's significant as well that the Trump administration is taking it seriously as a risk, enough to be sending the CIA director to deliver that message, if that's the message that he delivered.
SANCHEZ: Yes.
MASON: And number two, I would say, I spent the first chunk of my career in Europe and Germany and Brussels, so I have a lot of contacts there still. The fear that Jim was talking about, of an attack by Russia onto a NATO ally is real, and it is absolutely muddled by the fact that the President has been -- has given mixed messages about whether he would respect Article 5, and that's a reason why European countries are boosting their own defense.
But I can tell you, just from talking to people over there, that after Ukraine -- after Ukraine was invaded by Russia, the fear -- there are waves of fear that rippled across Europe, and those waves are still there.
SANCHEZ: Jeff Mason. Jim Sciutto. Appreciate the conversation.
SCIUTTO: Yes.
SANCHEZ: Up next. The Source Code. We're giving you a number at the center of a news story. Can you then guess the story? Tonight's Source Code, 2,046. We'll be back with the answer.
[21:55:00]
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
SANCHEZ: Tonight's Source Code is 2046. That's the year that Dolly Parton would have turned 100, and when one last surprise from the music icon will be revealed to her millions of fans.
On Parton's birthday, two decades from now, January 19th, 2046, a time capsule at her Dollywood resort will be dug up, and inside, there's a recording of a song that Dolly herself once said was written to be her last.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
DOLLY PARTON, AMERICAN SINGER-SONGWRITER AND ACTRESS: I put a cassette player, and I put a -- all the -- CD player up--
KELLY CLARKSON, AMERICAN SINGER-SONGWRITER: Yes.
PARTON: --stuff all in this box that if -- if it would preserve it, how we played those, you know, at the time.
CLARKSON: Yes.
[22:00:00]
PARTON: But I put that in the box. But I had to write this song that nobody was going to get to hear till then. And I tell you, you have no idea how that has bothered me. I want to go dig that up so bad--
(LAUGHTER)
PARTON: --and think, Well I need to use that song because it's like, you know -- and it's a really good song.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
SANCHEZ: The song is called My Place in History. And if it's anything like Dolly's life, it is going to be legendary.
Thank you so much for joining us tonight.
I'll be back for "CNN NEWS CENTRAL" tomorrow at 01:00 p.m.
"CNN NEWSNIGHT WITH ABBY PHILLIP" starts right now.
