Return to Transcripts main page

The Story Is with Elex Michaelson

Trump - U.S. Strikes Deal To - Control - Greenland's Security; Trump - Banning CNN, Politico, MS Now From White House; Trump Signs New Russia Sanctions Bill; Hands Around The Kennedy Center Rally Held Friday Evening; Aired 12-1a ET

Aired September 19, 2026 - 00:00   ET

THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.

[00:00:00]

POOJA TRIPATHI, CREATOR, BROOKYLN COFFEE SHOP: Like, what email is going to come in today? You never know. And so I think I'm very curious as well to see where it all heads.

LAURA COATES, CNN ANCHOR AND CHIEF LEGAL ANALYST: Well, thank god for that hospital lighting. We never would have seen you otherwise. Pooja Tripathi, thank you so much. Nice to meet you.

TRIPATHI: Thank you.

COATES: And thank you all for watching. "The Story Is" Elex Michaelson is next.

ELEX MICHAELSON, CNN ANCHOR AND CORRESPONDENT: I'm Elex Michaelson live in Los Angeles. Welcome to "The Story Is."

"The Story Is" in the Arctic. President Trump says a sweeping new deal gives the U.S. permanent control over Greenland security and shuts the door on China and Russia. But has anything actually changed?

"The Story Is" at the Kennedy Center where thousands of demonstrators flooded the streets, demanding that one of the country's premier cultural landmarks be preserved.

And "The Story Is" family feud, the battle over princess Diana's legacy. Back in the spotlight. Her brother says King Charles made a monstrous comment after her death, and now both sides are digging in.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Live from Los Angeles, "The Story Is" with Elex Michaelson.

MICHAELSON: Remember when President Trump pushed for the full annexation of Greenland and European leaders panicked? Well, that's not going to happen. Late Friday, the President announced that the U.S. has struck a security deal with Denmark and Greenland after months of negotiations. The President said the agreement would give the U.S. "permanent control over Greenland security, and the U.S. would start building a large military presence on the semi-autonomous Danish territory in addition to the space base it already has there." The deal resembles a pact established back in 1951, but it would forbid U.S. adversaries such as China from having a military presence there.

The scope of deal is still unclear. The Danish Prime Minister on the left did not repeat President Trump's description, but called it a great agreement, which recognizes Danish sovereignty. And Greenland's leader said it recognizes the island's interests. The agreement still required Danish parliamentary approval and is expected to be signed next week at the UN General Assembly.

Let's bring in Conor McPartland. He is the Associate Director of Transatlantic Security at the Atlantic Council. He previously worked on Arctic Security Strategies for the Pentagon. Welcome to "The Story Is" for the first time.

CONOR MCPARTLAND, ASSOCIATE DIRECTOR OF TRANSATLANTIC SECURITY, ATLANTIC COUNCIL: Thank you for having me.

MICHAELSON: So why does Greenland matter?

MCPARTLAND: So President Trump is right that Greenland is incredibly strategically important. Greenland's geography is vital for detecting threats to the homeland coming over the North Pole on the way to target the U.S. homeland, and that's why the United States has had a military presence in Greenland since the end of World War II. Greenland's also home to critical mineral deposits that are important for everything from laptops to fighter jets. One day these could lessen U.S. dependence on China for these resources.

And then I think third and importantly, the dispute over Greenland has been a major point of tension between the United States and our allies in Europe. Hopefully, an end to this dispute could have an impact on the United States broader relationship with our allies even on areas like trade where we are seeing disagreements today.

MICHAELSON: So we know President Trump likes to sell the fact that he made a deal. We know also that the U.S. made a deal back in 1951. So what's actually new about this deal?

MCPARTLAND: Yeah. So from the President's announcement on Truth Social, it looks that what's new here is an expanded U.S. authority and oversight on foreign investment and military activity in Greenland. The Trump administration has expressed concerns about the possibility, however unlikely, that China or Russia could gain access or control over Greenland's critical mineral resources or establish a military presence on the island that could threaten the U.S. homeland.

The new deal appears to give the U.S. the ability to block investments and other activities from U.S. adversaries in Greenland, and this will be a whole new level of U.S. control over aspects of Greenland's affairs. As you said also at the top, the President said the deal gives the U.S. permanent control over security in Greenland, but until we see the full text of the agreement, it's still a little unclear what that will actually mean in practice.

MICHAELSON: Is there anything that the President may be selling as part of this deal that already was actually in place from 1951? MCPARTLAND: Yeah. So there is a lot of continuity here as well. going back to 1951, the United States has had near complete freedom of action for military activity in Greenland. And it's only been because of U.S. decisions that we have made ourselves that has shrunk our military footprint in Greenland down to just Pituffik Space Base from its cold war high where we had multiple other installations across the island.

[00:05:00]

So if we wanted to build up a large military presence in Greenland and indeed steps were already underway to identify sites to reopen, we didn't necessarily need a new deal to make that happen. And the President also highlighted the longevity of this new deal, saying that it had an infinite life. The 1951 agreement also did not have an expiration date on it, so it's unclear what will change with this new deal in this regard.

MICHAELSON: So we know a few months ago there was such a freak out around the world over this issue of Greenland, what would happen there. Is that now done? Is this issue officially behind us, and is this a win for President Trump?

MCPARTLAND: Well, it's not over until it's over and we get the signatures on the document, but I'm cautiously optimistic that this is going to set a sustainable path forward. This deal looks to give President Trump a win in this crisis that keeps the United States' broad access to Greenland for defense purposes, while again seemingly giving the United States more authority over some of Greenlandic affairs.

At the same time, the deal didn't cross Greenland and Denmark's red lines around their territorial integrity or their sovereignty. And, again, I will be eager to see the full text of the agreement to learn a little bit more about how some of these new mechanisms will actually work. But, again, I'm cautiously optimistic that, this will be put to bed after this.

MICHAELSON: Conor McPartland joining us from Washington D.C. where it's now after midnight, which means it's now your birthday. Happy birthday. I'm glad I could be the first one to wish you that.

MCPARTLAND: Thank you very much.

MICHAELSON: Hope you enjoy the day ahead. Really appreciate you joining us. Meanwhile, in Washington, President Trump says that he is "banning CNN, Politico, and MS Now from the White House effective immediately. He later defended that move in the Oval Office.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

DONALD TRUMP, PRESIDENT, UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: You get so tired of reading and seeing fake news. No. But I think it's good. I think it's good to point it out whether it survives or doesn't. I mean, I don't think a court should allow depends on the judge you get, to be honest with you. I don't think that a court should allow fake news to be written day after day after day. It's sick. I mean, there's something wrong with a country that can allow people to write purposely negligence. Now if they want to write them, that's fine. But I don't have to let them into my -- into the people's house.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

MCPARTLAND: So far, there is no indication the White House has taken steps to enforce that so called ban. CNN reporters were still in their White House workspaces as of Friday evening. A CNN team is still traveling with the Vice President. Our Senior White House Correspondent, Kristen Holmes, has more from CNN's position still on the White House lawn.

KRISTEN HOLMES, CNN, SENIOR WHITE HOUSE CORRESPONDENT: It is still unclear what exactly this ban is meant to do. President Trump was asked specifically about the logistics because just to kind of explain it here. There are multiple aspects of covering the White House. There is the press badge, which is also called a hard pass. You have to have a background check. So is that what he's talking about, limiting CNN from going to campus? But it's also a larger issue of the TV pool, which is essentially there is a rotation of all the various TV networks that is a set rotation on a schedule that has different correspondents, different networks going in on a daily basis and asking questions or traveling with the President. So what exactly does that mean for the television pool?

And when President Trump was asked about the logistics, he didn't have a clear answer. This is what he said.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

DONALD TRUMP, PRESIDENT, UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A very simple ban. I don't want him in my office. I don't want him here. I would say the ban would go as far as you can. And if they could straighten themselves out, if you -- if they could straighten themselves out, I'd love it. Look. They're very dishonest people.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

HOLMES: Now he also seemed to imply that he didn't really care if this was legally challenged or held up in a court of law. When he was asked about previous challenges that have been overturned by the court, he said whether it survives or it doesn't and then went on to say that he didn't want what he called fake news and dishonest press. He also spent a lot of the time lamenting what he said was negative coverage. He said very specifically he doesn't get fair press. He said that Biden got better press coverage. And one thing to note is that a lot of our coverage has been gearing up towards these midterms.

And if you look across the board at polling and even Republicans on our air would say the same thing, they are facing tough political headwinds. And President Trump has a record level of unpopularity right now given the war in Iran and affordability, the economy. Again, all of these are looking at datasets, and they are things that we have had Republicans on our own air also acknowledged. Kristen Holmes, CNN, The White House. [00:10:00]

MICHAELSON: Kristen, thank you. CNN said in a statement, "CNN stands fully behind our White House team and their fair and accurate reporting." We have a right under the U.S. constitution to do that reporting without hindrance or interference from the government. Should the ban, president Trump threatened, go ahead, it would be an illegal assault on that fundamental and constitutionally protected right.

Joining me now live from Austin, Texas is does Douglas Brinkley, a Presidential Historian and Professor of History at Rice University. Professor, welcome back. Can you talk about the historical context of the press covering the president? Has there always been the press around the President essentially following him 24/7?

DOUGLAS BRINKLEY, PRESIDENTIAL HISTORIAN: There's no love lost between presidents and the press. I mean and then it's just a question of ranking them in the John Adams and the Alien and Sedition Acts is probably the low bar of wanting to really go after on the press. But in the 19th century, 85 percent or so of the press was either they were politically party run. I think what Donald Trump is trying to do is what he's been doing, what he thinks of as the mainstream media, and then marketeer that fake news, a slogan, which he loves. And time for the midterm at the Donald J. Trump presidential library in Miami, he's starting to have a whole fake news wing and things.

And but I would keep my eye on what is ban. I mean, what does it even mean? What's the definition of ban? But no President in modern times, meaning 20, 21st century has a loathing in his dean for the press like Trump, and it's just his ugliest and longest feud because he sees journalists as the enemy of the people.

MICHAELSON: And yet, he also loves to talk on camera. He's talks on camera to the press more than just about any other president ever. Before he became the President, he would call up reporters all the time, including sometimes with a fake name. So for somebody who loathes the media, he certainly loves to watch the media and seems to know all the reporters in the media.

BRINKLEY: Watches it nonstop and, all of all of it. You could be watching right now. He watches the morning shows. He's a television addict, television news addict, and gets his ire up. What anytime he hears any criticism, he tries to slay them. We know about Presidents and enemies list. We know about Nixon and the targeting oppressed. We know first, what Trump did with Jim Acosta and targeting people. What's odd to me right now is he thinks there's political mileage in this, obviously, or you wouldn't just say it the way he said it.

It wasn't in a fit of anger or picket scene to me, but it was something he wanted to recirculate like a golden oldie. But the -- he only makes modern journalism look stronger and better when he decides to do that low road and put them down, and particularly when he mocks a particular reporter's looks for, not even the byline or what they wrote, just trying to dehumanize reporters, which is very dangerous because it kind of puts almost a scope on them, like go the aim for this reporter or this network. And so there's a danger to what he does.

MICHAELSON: Well, you mentioned the name Jim Acosta. Of course, Jim Acosta was a White House Correspondent for CNN during the first Trump administration. The two of them often went back and forth. They pulled Jim Acosta's White House credential. There was a lawsuit, and a judge said, Jim Acosta, you can go back to the White House. They lost that. Jim Acosta ended up showing up again. That's precedent that could be important here, right?

BRINKLEY: Very much so. And I think it will hold, but that holds up. And Jim Acosta is bigger than ever with his -- in history books. He's in the text, the index. He with his podcast, with his name because he had the temerity to speak truth to power, to deliver facts, and to defend his profession in a profound way on CNN. And reporters just have to keep on doing what they do. And by and large, there we -- even though there's it's difficult times and newspapers, et cetera, here, there, everywhere we look in the serious journalism, it's an age of great reporting going on too.

And it might just be Donald Trump wants to just switch the narrative right now back to make a demonizing the press instead of looking at gasoline prices high or talking about other topics.

[00:15:00]

MICHAELSON: Yeah. You can often see that he will challenge a reporter directly after they ask a question about a topic he doesn't want to talk about. That has been something that he has done for many years. That's often when you get the sort of most mean spirited responses from him. So it'll be interesting to see what happens in the weeks ahead as we head towards the midterm and how much of this is enforced. Whether it just means you can't come to the Oval Office, whether it means you can't come on Air Force 1, whether it means you can't go to the building at all, all that stuff still hasn't really been defined.

Douglas Brinkley for us live in Austin, Texas. Thanks again for your historical perspective.

BRINKLEY: Thank you as always.

MICHAELSON: Here's a topic that the President doesn't particularly like to talk about. How much has the Iran war cost so far? The Pentagon had to say, and it's $45.1 billion. That price tag does not include the cost to repair bases or buildings damaged in the war. Sources familiar with the matter say the Pentagon informed Congress of Friday of this latest estimate. That's why they had to say because they need that money. That estimate as of September 3rd. So it's actually more expensive than that now, because we've continued on. That number surpasses the latest estimate from the congressional budget office, which had put the cost at around $38 billion through August 1st.

President Trump now has more leeway to slap tariffs on countries that buy Russian oil and gas. He signed a new Russia sanctions bill on Friday, two days before or two days after it passed in Congress. It targets top government figures in Moscow, including Russian President Vladimir Putin. But it also allows for 100 percent tariffs on Russia's energy customers, including China and India. U.S. lawmakers from both parties have warned that the bill gives President Trump too much power when it comes to tariffs. The Kremlin has said that any new sanctions could backfire on Ukraine peace talks.

Meantime, President Vladimir Putin has voted in the country's ongoing parliamentary elections. This video shows him casting his ballot on Friday, the first of three days of voting. He voted online, Technically speaking, 450 seats in Russia's lower house of parliament are up for grabs. That process, as we know, though, is tightly controlled, and effective opposition is practically non-existent. The only registered party opposed to the war in Ukraine has been banned from the ballot. It's no surprise then that Mr. Putin's party is expected to come out on top.

Still ahead this hour, California Governor Gavin Newsom is taking steps to regulate AI amid growing concerns about the technology's risks and rapid advancement. One of his top advisers joins me live. Plus, a war of words between Buckingham Palace and the brother, the late Princess Diana. We head to London up next. And later, Ed Sheeran is getting ready to get back on stage in Philadelphia ahead how a concert tour became a flashpoint in the debate over Gaza and free speech.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[00:20:00]

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

MICHAELSON: This is a wild story. Some new exclusive reporting from CNN about why you can't always trust AI. So get this. The U.S. military had planes in the air ready to take action against a Chinese ship because of an AI generated intel report, which turned out to be entirely false. That is according to sources who detailed this alarming incident to CNN. One source saying that the false AI report, "almost started a war."

Now earlier this spring, armed U.S. military members were preparing to board a Chinese ship in the Middle East after the report indicated that the ship was transporting components of a nuclear weapons program to people familiar with the matter tells CNN. Now it was only just before the operation that officials dug deeper into the report put together by a special operations command analyst and found that the AI chatbot the analyst had used inaccurately identified the material the Chinese ship was carrying.

Meanwhile, California's Governor Gavin Newsom's office released this photo of the Governor signing a first in the nation executive order to regulate the California based tech companies who are at the heart of the AI debate. The order calls for the gathering of an expert panel to provide guidelines on new regulations within the next two months. Part of those guidelines includes creating a kill switch for technology that goes wrong and an independent agency to regulate those companies.

The Governor says the state is stepping up after Congress failed to act.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

GAVIN NEWSOM, CALIFORNIA GOVERNOR: This nation needs to get in the game. Washington D.C. needs to do its job. If congress again won't act, California --

(END VIDEO CLIP)

MICHAELSON: Joining me live right now is Jason Elliott, Governor Newsom's former Deputy Chief of Staff who advised him on a variety of issues including tech policy. Jason, welcome to "The Story Is" for the first time.

JASON ELLIOTT, AI POLICY EXPERT: Good evening. Thanks for having me.

MICHAELSON: So real simply, what is a kill switch?

ELLIOTT: Sure. It's a good question. And in plain English, it's a way to stop out of control AI from doing things that you don't want it to do. Catastrophic harms, cyber-attacks on other companies or on people on the banking system, perpetrating biological attacks, things that no one wants to have happen.

[00:25:00]

And if the AIs are doing things that we don't want them doing, we think that they should be able to be stopped, be turned off.

MICHAELSON: So, essentially, if you think about a computer taking a way to kind of unplug that computer so everything stops, not that it gets to a point where the AI has taken over and there's no way to undo what is happening. So there's going to be a panel that looks into how to do that and also look at to this issue of independent verification. What is that, and why does that matter?

ELLIOTT: That's right. Well, thanks for the question. I think maybe just a couple seconds of background here on what this is all about. Last year, the Governor and the legislature here in California passed the nation's first and strongest AI transparency law for these big frontier systems like Claude and like ChatGPT. Basically, the law in California right now is that these big frontier labs, these big AI companies are obligated by law to publish transparency reports. What can your system do? How dangerous is it? What steps have you taken to make it less dangerous?

What the Governor is calling for in this executive order is building on that existing law. This is not a story about a very first action on AI safety here today. This is about building on a corpus of work that California has been undertaking for a number of years to keep AI safe. So California's existing law is around transparency. What this executive order is trying to move towards is the Governor saying, now we're not going to let the companies just report their own definition of what they think is safe and their own, grading their own homework on what they've done to guardrail those systems to make them safe. Let's bring in some third party verifiers to do that checking and to do that reporting so that we can create more trust that these systems remain safe.

MICHAELSON: One of the biggest criticisms of California is always that there's too many regulations, and because of that, businesses leave the state. Are you worried that some of these tech companies might just say, we're going to go somewhere else. We don't want to deal with all of this.

ELLIOTT: Yeah. It's a -- Elex, it's a tale as old as time. A company doesn't like a regulation in California, and they threaten to leave. Rarely do they. And sometimes when they leave, they come back. Ask Elon Musk about that one. But to your question, look, I think it would be one thing if it was just California talking about these independent verification requirements, but frankly, this is a trend that is spreading across the country quite quickly. California is by no means the only state contemplating this.

Frankly, there's a bill in congress that talks about potentially establishing something like this as national policy. So, look, I don't want to speak for the companies, and I don't speak for the companies, but I think that they understand that certainly the writing is on the wall here. But more than that, you've even seen them come to embrace some of these policies in recent days because as I just said, this is where this is headed. And they know that this technology that they have can be dangerous. And I think they, for whatever reasons, are also very interested in getting on top of it with this independent verification requirement.

MICHAELSON: To that point, Governor Newsom on his podcast, raised an interesting question. I want to play this.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

GAVIN NEWSOM, CALIFORNIA GOVERNOR: Look at the headlines today. Fast forward to today. They were right so far. And here's the question every American should be asking right now. Who is actually in control? Are the companies that are building AI in control? Is the government in control? Or increasingly, is the AI itself that's in control?

(END VIDEO CLIP)

MICHAELSON: So, Jason, to the Governor's question, who is in control right now?

ELLIOTT: Well, I think he posed an important rhetorical question, and I don't know that any of us have the answer. But I will say, here's who should not be in control, the AIs themselves, the systems themselves. They need human oversight. They need independent safety checking. And, ultimately, there's a question here about whether we really do need that kill switch that you asked me about at the top of the segment. Fundamentally, humans need to remain in control, and, I believe, and I think the Governor believes very strongly, government has a role to play in that. And that's really what this executive order is about, is advancing government's leadership, in this case, the state of California, which is on the vanguard of this work, but advancing the government's role in making sure that there is control of these systems. And, I'll tell you who else isn't in control, and you played a little bit at the top of this, segment as well. The President, he is gleefully absent on this issue. I guess he and David Sacks want to be judged negatively by history because the willful ignorance, the ostrich head in the sand on this is just it is simply unjustifiable. There is no logic behind the position they've taken, which is let her rip.

All gas, no brakes. Look, you can have a reasonable argument about whether independent verification should be featured this way or should be structured that way, and there's important nuanced conversations to have about how a kill switch actually works. Let's have those conversations, and I think that's what the what governor Newsom's executive order is inviting in those conversations.

[00:30:00]

But I'll tell you what's exactly wrong is thinking that there's nothing wrong. And that's what the President -- that's President Trump's perspective on this issue.

MICHAELSON: Of course, David Sacks is a Californian who President Trump made the AI czar. President Trump recently saying that the only regulation you need is a high IQ President, and saying that you don't need much more than that. So a different perspective coming from the Government of California. Jason Elliott, bringing us that perspective live in San Francisco. Thanks so much for being with us.

ELLIOTT: Thanks, Elex. Good to see you.

MICHAELSON: Good to see you too. For the first time, we are hearing from the late Princess Diana's brother, Charles Spencer, about explosive comments in his upcoming book. He is pushing back on the palace's statement, refuting his allegations that Charles and Diana would soon be forgotten after her death. He spoke to the BBC about it.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

EARL SPENCER, NEW BOOK, SWAN SONG - DIANA, MY SISTER: The king is plainly furious. Buckingham Palace almost never issues any kind of statement.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Well, he furious or is he embarrassed? Because I can tell you here and now those are exactly the words he said. Have only ever had two calls on the line with Prince Charles at any stage of my life. I was hyper alert to what he was saying and those are precisely the words he said. And I promise that to you now, genuinely, that is what he said. I don't hear him saying he didn't say that.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

MICHAELSON: More new details have emerged from Spencer's new book. In it, he reportedly discusses the day of his sister's funeral and the fallout from her divorce. Anna Stewart has more from London.

ANNA STEWART, CNN CORRESPONDENT: Sir and from the latest excerpts from the Daily Mail, it goes into great detail about how Charles Spencer experienced the day of Diana's funeral. This was his sister. It was clearly a very traumatic day for him.

And I should say that CNN has yet to read this book. This is purely from the excerpt we've had from the Daily Mail, and we keep getting more information. The book will be released next week. Charles Spencer describes the procession, behind Diana's coffin ahead of the funeral and describes it as the most harrowing moment of his life. He questions why Prince Charles was there in the procession for his ex- wife and says the reason given was Charles wanted to support his sons.

He also describes traveling back on the train from London to Althorpe Estate, which is where Princess Diana would be buried, and being told by the queen's private secretary that she was offering to restore Diana's HRH title, Her Royal Highness. That had been taken away following the divorce, and had caused a lot of upset, as Charles Spencer says. He writes, I felt that I knew in my bones how she would view this posthumous award. That's very kind of the queen, of course, but what's the point, Robert? He said.

Now, I mean, Diana's dead. There's a lot of reflection as well in this on prince Harry, being so young and having to walk behind the coffin in this very public procession, something he was very against, he says, in conversations with Prince Charles ahead of the funeral. And he says he was worried about the "Lack of obvious care for Harry." And he goes on to say he needed Diana's hugs, of course, and they would forever be denied him. But instead of calm and nurture, he was allowed to spin out of control.

Of course, that will generate a huge amount of interest, not least given how Prince Harry's been very public about how he felt growing up, in the spotlight, the scrutiny of the media, how hard it has been, and ultimately would lead him to leave, leave the UK and, leave his status as a working member of the royal family and also lose his HRH title much like his mother had.

And all that is fresh now. He has returned to the UK. We will, of course, touch base with the palace, but we were under the impression from yesterday with the latest excerpt that they're not going to comment beyond the statement we initially had, which essentially said that grief can color memory, very much like a statement we've had in the past from the late queen where she said recollections may vary.

As you will remember when Harry and Meghan did the interview with Oprah, it's the sort of diplomatic royal denial, I would say.

MICHAELSON: Anna Stewart in London. Anna, thank you. Still ahead, demonstrators rally at the embattled Kennedy Center in Washington in an effort to save the historic institution. Our panel is next to break that down and more. Stay with us.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[00:35:00]

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

DONALD TRUMP, PRESIDENT, UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: I can save it easily. But why should we be doing that and then raise money for the rest of our lives to keep it afloat because that's what you have to do. If we get no recognition, I think the Trump administration should be recognized as having saved the Kennedy Center because nobody else can do it.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

MICHAELSON: President Trump there arguing once again that his name should be added to the Kennedy Center. Protesters gathering at the building Friday evening for a hands around the Kennedy Center rally. As the demonstration took place outside, troubled venue made another round of layoffs. Sources tell CNN that more than a dozen employees were let go.

President Trump has repeatedly tried to add his name to the Kennedy Center, but so far, all of his attempts have been blocked in the courts. Joining me now, our political panel. Jennifer Horn is host of The Morning Answer on 870AM in LA, and Areva Martin is a Civil Rights Attorney and Legal Affairs Commentator from the left and the right. Apparently, they both can agree on the color green.

[00:40:00]

JENNIFER HORN, HOST OF THE MORNING ANSWER ON 870AM IN L.A.: We do this a lot of the time. I don't know I think we're an injured spirit.

MICHAELSON: Yeah. Welcome to "The Story Is." Does he have a right to have his name? Should he get credit for helping the center?

AREVA MARTIN, ATTORNEY & LEGAL AFFAIRS COMMENTATOR: Should he get credit for doing his job? Absolutely not. And how dare him hold this memorial to JFK hostage and insist upon his name being on it in order to repair it? This is a national treasure. He does not respect our national treasures. And I just think if you listen to the argument that he and Joyce Beatty had during that last meeting, the name calling, the Congresswoman Beatty, the name calling the belittling of that, Congresswoman that has had the courage to stand up to him. And this isn't about Joyce Beatty or a committee.

This is a federal judge saying no, not once, but twice, that your name cannot be put on this memorial, unless congress decides so. So rather than go to congress and do what give congress an opportunity to include his name if they so choose, he's trying to bully and intimidate and force an issue, and it's really despicable. And now talking about perhaps demolishing the entire memorial if he doesn't get his way like a petulant child.

MICHAELSON: Well, President Trump called in to a meeting of the Kennedy Center board. Joyce Beatty, the congress member, was on that and reportedly he was yelling at her on the phone. I want to put up a headline that that CNN put out there, Jennifer. This Trump's reason for holding the Kennedy Center hostage doesn't even make sense. And let's talk about what he's talking about. So in September of 2024, we'll put this up on the screen, there was a $41.4 million surplus at the Kennedy Center when, of course, it was run with the Democratic administration. There was $370 million revenue, $266 million in expenses.

February 2025, President Trump replaces the board, becomes Chairman. By June 2026, nearly a $100 million below revenue target. So he's saying that we need to save it. It's like he has to save it from himself. The revenue's loss started when he put his name on it.

HORN: Well, I can tell you that the ceiling wasn't falling just in the last few years of the Trump administration. Democrat presidents like Joe Biden knew that this was suffering, and no one took the initiative to fix the building. I think it's kind of silly that we get caught up in whose name is going to be on the outside of the building. We have a historic landmark.

MICHAELSON: Who's caught up in that?

HORN: Well, I think everybody, right? We're talking about whose name is going to be on that.

MARTIN: Nobody wants her name on it, Jennifer, except President Trump.

MICHAELSON: No other President try to put their name on it.

HORN: Well, no other President has raised the money that President Trump has to directly put into the center to get it redone. And look, this is not about demolishing the Kennedy Center. The place needs to be redone. If you look at the video, the ceiling is falling into the lobby. It is not safe. It needs to be redone. And the previous presidents never took care of it. So they may have had a surplus, but they certainly weren't doing what they needed to do to maintain the facility.

MICHAELSON: But why the need to put his name on it? Especially --

HORN: I think his tone. He's raising money for it. And so look, I care less about whether or not he wants his name on the building or not rather than getting the project done. I think that's just sensible. We should be getting that project done. It's a landmark. It needs to get done. But if President Trump himself has donated $17 million to the project raise that money, I think it's what does he get? A tote bag? I think his name belongs on the outside of the building.

MARTIN: But the problem with that argument is President Trump could go to Congress and ask for an appropriation from congress to repair the building. And the reason the building isn't being repaired is because President Trump is being an obstructionist.

HORN: And that would be taxpayer money.

MARTIN: And the money -- taxpayers' money can fix a national memorial. HORN: But isn't it better for private?

MARTIN: No. It's not better for private dollars if the private dollars are being, if he's holding hostage this national memorial because his name can't go on it. How come he can't just fix it without his name? What prevents him from raising money and fixing this national memorial and going on with his life because his name is all over everything in Washington. That's his only plan is to have his name on things. That's not the job of a leader. That's not what a leader does, Jennifer. You have to acknowledge that. So you can't just dismiss this obsession that he has with his name on building. That's not fair to the American people, we're in the middle of a war Jennifer.

HORN: Without our money. That's absolutely where we should celebrating.

MARTIN: We're in a middle of a war Jennifer. People can't buy food, and we're fighting about a man's name on a building.

MICHAELSON: Another hugely important issue is AI, and what are we going to do about it in terms of regulating it? Jensen Huang from NVIDIA, one of the top tech leaders in the world, spoke with the CBS Evening News. Here's what he says in terms of whether we should slow down or move faster.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: So should we slow down, and would that affect the race with China? The American standing in global economy.

[00:45:00]

JENSEN HUANG, NVIDIA CEO: We should go as fast as we can irrespective of anybody else. We are going to go as fast as we can, but we would never ever and never should ship products before they're ready, deliver products that are unsafe, and nobody's expecting us to do that. But everybody's expecting us to succeed and help America be as prosperous as possible.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

MICHAELSON: Should we be going as fast as we can?

HORN: I think so because if we don't, other countries will, other actors will, other companies will. Look AI is very amazing technology. It can be very helpful. It's also a little bit scary because most of us don't understand or have a grasp of exactly what it's capable of. But the genie is out of the bottle, and it is not going to be slowed down. And I think this attempt right now by Democrats to make it some kind of political issue and fearmonger is really not helpful. Really, what I think they're trying to do is take control of the technology because they realize that that technology is pretty powerful. It's been uncovering fraud left and right that's been committed by Democrats.

And somehow, something that we should all be celebrating and keep a watchful eye on, doesn't need to have anybody, whether it's Trump, Gavin Newsom, or anybody in politics overseeing it, I think.

MARTIN: Well, first of all, this isn't Democrat versus Republican argument. You have people on both side of the aisles, people in both parties, ringing the bell, the alarm bell about how dangerous AI can be. And I think you're right on one of the points is AI is an amazing technology, but it's also technology that must be regulated. We have researchers saying that within a decade, all of society can be annihilated because of rogue AI. So we have Governor Newsom stepping up to do what President Trump will not do, which is at least try to investigate how we control AI in a way that it doesn't destroy all of humanity.

At least he's asking the right questions. At least he's trying to get to a solution. Donald Trump is ignoring all of the warning signs primarily I assume because he held own stock his own financial disclosures revealed that he owns stock in AI companies and data centers. In chip companies so he doesn't have any interest he has a financial interest to the contrary to make sure that it goes as fast and is unregulated. And he doesn't care if it harms people or if it discriminates against people in housing and so many other ways in the job market that we see AI discriminating against people.

MICHAELSON: We could talk all day. Unfortunately, we're out of time. Areva, Jennifer, always great to talk with both of you. Appreciate it.

HORN: Thank you.

MICHAELSON: Coming up, here on "The Story Is" we are going to be talking about Ed Sheeran set to perform in Philadelphia this weekend with planned protests and a heightened police presence. More on what's driving all of that next.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[00:50:00]

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

MICHAELSON: Ed Sheeran is set to take the stage Saturday night in Philadelphia amid controversy involving his opening acts. It'll be his first show since rapper Macklemore was dropped from the tour for his onstage comments in support of Palestinians. Sheeran's other opening acts then withdrew in solidarity. CNN's Danny Freeman reports on the turmoil surrounding that tour.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: So are we all asking for refunds on our Ed Sheeran tickets now?

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: And I'm still not exactly sure what we're going to do.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: We're going to go, and we're going to have a great time. DANNY FREEMAN, CNN CORRESPONDENT (voice-over): The continuing controversy surrounding Ed Sheeran's Loop tour has more and more fans thinking out loud as the English superstar prepares for a Saturday concert in Philadelphia. The first since one of his opening acts, Macklemore, was removed from the tour after making a plea to free Palestine two weeks ago.

KAREN DEANGELIS, HAS TICKETS TO SATURDAY ED SHEERAN CONCERT: It was very disappointing to be quite honest.

FREEMAN (voice-over): Karen DeAngelis is from Virginia and has had tickets to Saturday's concert for nearly a year. She and her 10-year- old daughter are still planning to drive up and spend the weekend in Philly. But after Sheeran didn't defend Macklemore, she's not sure if they'll attend the concert.

DEANGELIS: We thought what the heck is going on? Why, would someone not stand up for free speech? I thought you can't stand up for free speech. You don't want to stand up against something that's so terrible. You've stood up for Ukraine. You've stood up for Black Lives Matter. Why not why not this?

FREEMAN (voice-over): And Karen's not alone as the concern and drama intensifies. After the rapper was kicked off the tour, other opening acts for Sheeran dropped out in solidarity. Plus, the price tracking site TicketData, notes while it is normal for many concert resale ticket prices to drop closer to the show date, resale prices for Saturday's Sheeran show are now falling by a notable amount.

KEITH PAGELLO, FOUNDER, TICKETDATA: The gain in price, which is the price that the cheapest take us, which is kind of the best marker for demand for the event, for this show has gone down now 50 percent since Monday. So we are well past what was trying to consider normal.

FREEMAN (voice-over): Meanwhile, a protest is now planned for Saturday's concert. Philadelphia police telling CNN it is working closely with venue and event organizers to help ensure the safety of concertgoers, employees, and neighborhood residents. Also acknowledging the protest, noting, our civil affairs unit will be on hand to ensure everyone's safety during protected first amendment activity.

HEATHER PARK, HAS TICKETS TO SATURDAY ED SHEERAN CONCERT: I'm still going. And even if Macklemore was still opening up, I would still go. Like, he's allowed to have his opinion. I'm allowed to have mine.

FREEMAN (voice-over): Still, others like Heather Park are not going to let the controversy get in the way of a concert she's been looking forward to for months.

[00:55:00]

PARK: My favorite part of concerts is when you go and there is thousands of people of all different religious, ethnicities, beliefs, political views, and they are all there to see the same person because they all love the music that that person puts out. FREEMAN: Now, Elex, we reached out to the Messina touring group. That's the promoter for the Sheeran tour, but we did not hear back. However, we did learn that the concert on Saturday night has been pushed back from 05:30 to now 08:00 PM behind me at Lincoln Financial Field. So the big question is, will the superstar address the lack of opening acts during the concert. Elex?

(END VIDEO CLIP)

MICHAELSON: Well, I'll be watching for that. Danny Freeman, thank you. Coming up in our next hour, more on our top story. After months of negotiations, President Trump strikes a deal with Greenland. Alex Plitsas live with what it means for national security.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)