Return to Transcripts main page

The Story Is with Elex Michaelson

Pentagon Tells Congress Iran War Has Cost $45.1B; Trump - U.S. Strikes Deal To Control Greenland's Security; Sources - U.S., Saudi Arabia Lack Clear Plan To Defeat Houthis; Putin Votes In Duma Elections His Part Is Set To Win; Trump Signs Sweeping Russia Sanctions Bill; Trump - Banning CNN, Politico, MS Now From White House; Source - False, AI-Assisted Report - Almost Started A War; Aired 1-2a ET

Aired September 19, 2026 - 01:00   ET

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

[01:00:00]

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

ELEX MICHAELSON, CNN ANCHOR AND CORRESPONDENT: Warren Buffett is stepping down as Chairman of Berkshire Hathaway at the age of 96. In a letter to shareholders, the so called Oracle of Omaha acknowledges his advanced age, but said he plans to stay on the board as Chairman emeritus.

Buffett has been chairman of Berkshire since 1970 and built an estimated net worth of a $145 billion during his tenure. Pretty good. That's all according to Bloomberg. His son, Howard Buffett, will take over as Chairman.

Thanks for watching the first hour of "The Story Is." The next hour starts right now.

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

MICHAELSON: I'm Elex Michaelson live in Los Angeles. Coming up, "The Story Is" we have a deal. That is according to President Trump who says the U.S. has reached a deal to expand its military presence on Greenland, same island he once threatened to take over.

"The Story Is" false intelligence, an exclusive CNN report on how an inaccurate U.S. military intelligence report produced with AI could have possibly started a war with China.

And "The Story Is" treat your friends like a workout. It may sound weird, but we'll explain why your friends might thank you for it.

Our top story though is the rising cost of the war with Iran. The Pentagon says the war has cost $45.1 billion in counting. 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 on Friday of this latest estimate, which is as of September 3rd. 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 at the White House Friday claimed there is an end to the war in sight.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

DONALD TRUMP, PRESIDENT, UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: People don't want to have Iran have a nuclear weapon. And what? They won't. And the war's going to end soon. And when it ends, your gas prices are going to drop to a level that they were before, maybe even lower.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

MICHAELSON: But the war is threatening to spread with the Iran backed Houthi militants intensifying their attacks on Saudi Arabia. Trump administration this week announced a potential $24 billion sale of stealth F-35 fighter jets to the Saudis. Critics say the sale threatens to shift the balance of power in the Middle East. Saudi Arabia would become the only the second country in the Middle East after Israel to operate the advanced fighter jet. However, that sale still needs approval from Congress.

Now a month before the war in Iran began, President Trump had his eye on annexing Greenland. That triggered a diplomatic crisis with Europe and NATO partners. But on Friday, he announced that the U.S. has struck a security deal with Denmark and Greenland after months of back and forth. President Trump 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 which was established back in 1951, but it would forbid U.S. adversaries such as China from having a military presence there. Details of the deal 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. Greenland's leader on the right said it recognizes the island's interests. The agreement still requires Danish parliamentary approval and is expected to be signed next week at the UN General Assembly.

A lot to unpack for my next guest. Joining me live is CNN National Security Analyst Alex Plitsas. He's also Director of the Counterterrorism Program at Atlantic Council. Welcome back to "The Story Is." Alex, good to see you.

ALEX PLITSAS, CNN NATIONAL SECURITY ANALYST: You too. Thanks for having me.

MICHAELSON: Let's start with Iran. At the end of another week of war, after everything that we're talking about with the Houthis in Saudi Arabia, is Iran actually in a stronger position at the end of this week? Do they have more leverage?

PLITSAS: It certainly appears that they do. They were, questions were they really on the ropes? Were they ready to give up? It doesn't appear that they are. And a couple of things happened, that I believe justify that statement.

[01:05:00]

So one, the Iraqi militias likely the behest of the Iranians had attacked the East West pipeline in Saudi Arabia. So after weeks of the U.S. touting, they were getting somewhere between 7 million to 8 million barrels a day out of the Arabian Gulf or the Persian Gulf through small ships and ship-to-ship transfers under the guidance of the U.S. Navy, which was helping to stabilize oil prices. The Iranians realized that that was a problem for them because they wanted to make sure oil prices went up. That's part of their strategy to put pressure on the U.S.

So now, that strategy was to go after that pipeline that was transferring oil across the Arabian Peninsula through Saudi Arabia that was bypassing the Strait of Hormuz to the Port of Yanbu on the Red Sea. That's now out of commission. The Saudis have said that they're not going to be able to ship oil to European refiners this week, likely out of commission for four to six weeks.

Separately from that, the other group of rebels, which are the Houthis that are down in Yemen, also then were able to take strategic territory along the coast and some of the islands that give them the opportunity now to close off the Bab al-Mandab. So we've heard a lot about the Strait of Hormuz, and if you take a look at a map of the Arabian Peninsula, on the right hand side of the entrance to the Arabian Gulf is the Strait of Hormuz with Oman on one side and then Iran on the other.

On the other side of the Arabian Peninsula, you've got Africa off to the West, and then on the eastern side there, you have Yemen. And there, the Houthis are now in control of strategic areas around the waterway with the ability to shut it down, potentially causing a second choke point, and they are firing into Saudi Arabia causing another military problem for the United States and the allies in the region. So Iran basically pushing back after weeks of the United States, making some strategic gains in the oil markets, helping stabilize prices while keeping the blockade on Iran.

MICHAELSON: You're so plugged in. What are you hearing about the possibility of U.S. military strikes in Yemen this weekend?

PLITSAS: So my understanding is that those military options are under consideration by the administration. They've been requested multiple times by the Saudi government with Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman calling several times to President Trump directly asking. Last year, there was a ceasefire that went to effect after the U.S. really gave it to the Houthis because they were acting up again. And that's still in place for right now.

So with the tit for tat going back and forth, they put a blockade. They've been the Houthis and the Red Sea on the -- on Saudi ships moving through, but they really had left those loved the international shipping alone, including the U.S. and other countries moving through there because that strategic waterway then allows you to move north into the Red Sea and from there in the Suez Canal, which then gets you into the Mediterranean.

Otherwise, if they were to block that off, you basically have to go all the way around the Horn of Africa, adding another 10 days to the trip or so, increases the cost of goods, oil, everything else, and all of that cost gets passed on to consumer, which is the rest of us, which means the cost of goods, oil, price, everything goes up. So I think the President was looking to avoid that. The Saudis were supposed to be responsible for the task force, the naval task force to clear that up, and they were also supposed to be there to support the Yemeni government on the ground.

Basically, all the proxies in the region, whether it be the Hezbollah in Southern Lebanon, whether it's the Iraqi militias in Iraq or the Houthis, the region was dealing with that, the Gulf countries. The U.S. was dealing with Iran directly. So the U.S. is now weighing whether or not to get directly involved, but the consequences for that could create a second strategic choke point at a time six weeks before the U.S. election with oil prices rising.

MICHAELSON: And finally, real quickly, Greenland. We finally have a deal. Is this a good thing for security and a good thing for President Trump?

PLITSAS: It's certainly a good thing because the rhetoric around this with the annexation and the comments that were made really caused a problem, with a lot of NATO members for that matter. Danish troops died, and were in bigger numbers than people realized based on population coming to our aid after 9/11. they're a NATO ally, and Greenland is part of the -- is a semi-autonomous state, obviously, under the Danish government.

And we've always had sort of basic rights as you said in the intro in 1951. There was an agreement signed. What president Trump wanted is, this is all goes back to the golden dome, President Trump's new, air missile defense system. And so there's some sort of equipment and technologies to go in there, whether it's sensors or actual interceptor missiles that need to go further north into the -- towards the Arctic to help intercept because most of the missiles that they came over from China or Russia at that point would cross over that every -- on that territory or that area in general. And so that was the argument that was made that we need the base rights.

They didn't want to be able to have the U.S. booted out of there in the future and also wanted to make sure that adversaries weren't allowed to put bases there where they could either cause a problem for us, potentially strike those, or spy on the bases. So this sort of clears all of that up and really, takes away one of the main points of tension with NATO members that's really been problematic for the administration.

MICHAELSON: Alex Plitsas, with details on all sorts of things around the world. Thank you so much. Always great to talk with you.

Meanwhile, we're going to keep on the international relations front. President Trump, talking about Russia. He signed a new Sanctions Bill on Friday, which is aimed at pressuring Moscow to end the war in Ukraine.

[01:10:00]

It allows him to slap up to a 100 percent tariffs on Russia's energy customers, including China and India. Legislation is named after the late Senator Lindsey Graham, who championed it before his passing. But the Kremlin has said any new sanctions could backfire on Ukraine peace talks.

Meanwhile, Ukraine says at least 10 people are injured after a so- called double-tap strike in the city of Odesa. Officials say Russia launched two drone strikes about half an hour apart on Friday. The second attack came just as emergency services were responding to the first one, leaving two rescuers injured. Russia says it only went after military targets.

In Moscow, President Vladimir Putin voted on Friday in Russia's ongoing parliamentary elections. This video shows him voting online. Voting for the lower House of Parliament or Duma will continue until Sunday, but the process is so tightly controlled. Mr. Putin's party is very unlikely to lose.

For more analysis on all this, we are joined by former CNN Moscow Bureau Chief Jill Dougherty, who is now an affiliate scholar at Georgetown University's Center for Eurasian, Russian, and East European Studies. Welcome to "The Story Is." Great to have you with us.

JILL DOUGHERTY, CNN CONTRIBUTOR: Thank you, Elex.

MICHAELSON: So this Sanctions Bill, lamed after Lindsey Graham, does it have real teeth? Is it going to make a big impact?

DOUGHERTY: Quite strong. I think, the question here is, will President Trump actually pull the trigger and do it? Because if he did, it could really hurt Russia. Again, I think the dilemma here is it all of these sanctions ultimately hurt Vladimir Putin and his economy. But does it actually force him to stop the war? That's the question. And so far, the sanctions have not. But cumulatively, the idea is eventually it would just be unrealistic for him to continue the war economically. And also, Russians are getting tired of the war. It's hitting them more directly than it ever has. We've been showing pictures of people in gas stations waiting to get gas.

There have been hits in Moscow, et cetera, and other Russian cities. So, people are getting tired. But the big question is, does it stop Vladimir Putin and make him actually decide that he will seriously come to the table and try to end this.

MICHAELSON: The Democratic criticism of this Sanctions Bill, is about the idea of tariffs, that it could provide a 100 percent tariffs on countries. They're worried about where else President Trump may use that authority. Here's Gregory Meeks, Democratic Congressman from New York, who's the top Democrat on the House Foreign Affairs Committee. Watch.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

GREGORY MEEKS, U.S. HOUSE DEMOCRAT: Why would we hand the tariff man, as he calls himself, new authority to impose even more inflationary tariffs without clear guardrails? And what do the Ukrainians get in return? No security assistance, no air defense, no reconstruction support for war ravaged communities.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

MICHAELSON: Does he have a point there?

DOUGHERTY: I think he does. Tariffs are the way that President Trump has been dealing with a lot of countries. And when you look at actually what is the United States doing now versus a couple of years ago, it's virtually nothing directly. I mean, one thing that the Ukrainians really need right now, it's obvious, is Patriot missiles and defense against the missiles that Russia is now lobbing at Ukraine.

The Ukrainians, Elex, can deal with, to a certain extent, with the drones, but it's these big missiles that they have absolutely no protection from, and that's why they need, Patriot missiles. But there are no Patriot missiles to be given at this point. A lot of them have been burned up in the war in Iran. So that's really the dilemma. And I think the Democrats are saying that this just kind of gives the President carte blanche to go ahead with yet more tariffs.

And that's -- they believe that it's giving him too much power. That's essentially, kind of a domestic issue. But the bottom line for Ukraine is that they I think they would probably support anything that could even potentially hurt Russia.

MICHAELSON: Jill Dougherty, CNN Contributor, former Moscow Bureau Chief joining us live. Great to have you with us. Thanks so much. Have a great weekend.

[01:15:00]

DOUGHERTY: Thank you.

MICHAELSON: Now that this story has gotten a lot of attention today, President Trump says that he is "Banning CNN, POLITICO, and MS NOW from the White House effective immediately. But so far, there's no indication the White House has taken steps to actually enforce a ban on any of those news groups. CNN reporters were still in their workspaces on Friday evening. A CNN team still traveling with the Vice President.

Legal scholars say any effort by the President to block the news organizations is unconstitutional and would likely be knocked down in court challenges. CNN Chief Media Analyst Brian Stelter joins us now with more. Hey, Brian.

BRIAN STELTER, CNN CHIEF MEDIA ANALYST: Hey, Elex. Yeah. Reporters who cover the White House are wondering how this story is going to develop in the coming days. This weekend really could be pivotal because on Friday afternoon, when President Trump announced that he was banning CNN, MS NOW, and POLITICO, he said it was effective immediately, but there was no follow through. There was no actual implementation. So we've seen words. We've heard words from the President, but we haven't seen actions.

Now some Trump boosters are speculating that the White House will try to implement a ban on Saturday or in the coming days. Meanwhile, there is a loud growing chorus of criticism with some Republicans joining Democrats in criticizing the President's anti press rhetoric. And notably, some of those MAGA adjacent figures, some of those Republicans who are being critical, they're saying this is going to backfire on Trump, and it's not going to help him with his messaging heading into the midterm elections.

Of course, Trump's intimidation campaign against the news media has been going on for a long time. But what's new about what happened on Friday is the President's declaration about banning multiple news outlets from the White House altogether. He has never said that before, and it would be unprecedented to do so. Several of the top first amendment groups in the U.S. said that if Trump does try to implement a ban, it would be unconstitutional and would be rejected by the courts.

Of course, in the past, sometimes Trump has welcomed these types of fights even when the expectation is that he's likely to lose. But let me show you what Bruce D. Brown said. He's the President of the Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press, which exists to ensure legal protections for journalists in the U.S. Brown said "A ban like this would be flatly unconstitutional. The first amendment is clear that once the White House invites in some journalists, it cannot ban others because it doesn't like their reporting." Brown said, "This is textbook viewpoint discrimination and will be quickly struck down by the courts if challenged." And newsrooms signal that they would challenge a ban if it's implemented.

But on Friday afternoon, the work continued at the White House basically like usual, with reporters in the press pool asking the President about this. And here's some of what he said.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

DONALD TRUMP, PRESIDENT, UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: 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)

MICHAELSON: Many commentators pointed to Trump slipping there at the end, when he seemingly said my house before correcting himself and saying the White House is the people's house. I feel like we're back to basic grade school concepts here. Americans grow up being taught that the White House is a symbol of the President working on behalf of the people and that the press is there to inform the public about what's going on. And these are basic tenants of American democracy, but they are being tested by this president.

As for CNN's White House reporters, well, they just want to keep doing their jobs, and the work continues. There is a lot to cover about this administration, whether that's on the White House grounds, on the campus, or whether it's talking to sources from the outside. Elex, back to you.

MICHAELSON: Yeah, Brian. It'll be really interesting to see what happens over the weekend on that front. Still ahead on "The Story Is" we are going to be talking about the brother of the late Princess Diana who is doubling down on scathing claims about King Charles. Hear what he has to say. We go live to London, talk to one of CNN's top royal experts next.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[01:20:00]

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

MICHAELSON: The late Princess Diana's brother is standing by allegations he makes in his new book. In an interview with the BBC, Earl Spencer describes a telephone conversation he had with King Charles in which he claims Charles said that Diana would be soon forgotten after her death.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

EARL SPENCER, NEW BOOK, SWAN SONG - DIANA, MY SISTER: Well, I'm not sure I can say exactly what went through my mind, but I really was so stunned. And I just after a stunned silence, I said, I cannot believe you just said that. And I hung up on him.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: You know that Buckingham Palace has already said with a degree of fury that that didn't happen.

SPENCER: Just actually, Laura. They've sort of smudged that one, haven't they? They've said that recollections may vary.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

MICHAELSON: In a rare rebuke, Buckingham Palace had responded to those allegations saying, "His majesty is mindful that the pain of fraternal grief can cloud reason, affect judgment, and color memory in ways others do not recognize even many years after such a loss."

Joining me live from London is Kate Williams, CNN's Royal Historian. Kate, welcome back to "The Story Is." How worried is the king about this?

KATE WILLIAMS, CNN ROYAL HISTORIAN: Good morning, Elex. I think what we can say is what I've heard that the King is extremely upset, and I think we can say he is extremely concerned.

[01:25:00] The household, I can see, worried, concerned because simply the royals usually never explain, never complain, and we have the King putting out this robust statement. It's much more robust than recollections may vary, the queen's statement about Harry and Meghan some time ago. That was really emollient. That was really trying to smooth over the waters.

This is very much, say, oh, Spencer is wrong. He's misguided. And the book isn't even out yet. The book comes out in the U.S. and the UK. next Thursday, and we've only had, I think, a few of what's revelations of in the book. So the king, I think, and the household broke a longstanding tradition that they never comment on books. They never comment on allegations. They went in there, and they went in there hard. And it really does suggest that they are extremely concerned about this book and also about the wider ramifications.

We have the 30-year anniversary of Diana's death coming up next year. And when we saw the 20-year anniversary of that 10 years ago in 2017, Charles' popularity really did plunge. I mean, the polls, the opinion polls were very low. I think Charles, the King, the household are very concerned about really public opinion at this point, and that's why they're trying so quickly to shut down what Earl Spencer is saying.

MICHAELSON: Any word at all from Diana's sons, either William or Harry?

WILLIAMS: William has said nothing. He engage were doing engagements. Harry has said that he wasn't aware of the book and because I think people were saying, oh, well, you were there over the summer because we know that Harry stayed with Earl Spencer's in Earl Spencer's estate over the summer. But I believe that Harry said, I didn't know anything about it. And certainly in terms of book systems, the way that book systems work is that by the summer, Earl Spencer's book would have been fully written in going into press and really ready to be printed.

So it wasn't as if it would have been lying around being written at the time. But certainly, I think both Harry is I think, staying out of this, and William is not saying anything at present. But I think that if William does say something, he most likely will say, I agree with my father. We should not be talking about this.

MICHAELSON: I mean, does this kind of get to the larger issue that in over 40 years, has the royal family ever truly grasped Princess Diana's popularity and why so many people felt so connected to her?

WILLIAMS: I think that goes to the heart of the matter. What -- whether if Charles the King, at the time he was Prince of Wales, said to Earl Spencer, people will forget Diana soon enough. It was obviously a very intense time. There was an argument between the two men. But certainly, I think overall, that idea that the Diana mania, the Diana fascination would blow over was something that we saw even when Diana became a bride. There was fascination with Diana when she married into the royal family. But we know as a matter of record that the Royal family thought after the wedding, it would all blow over, and Diana would people would just see her as a member of the royal family. And the fascination with Diana and the mass grief for Diana, I think any of us who were there, we can remember that the royal family were taken by surprise. They didn't expect it to be a mass distress, mass grief, and they really had to play catch up with the public mood. So the fact is that they were surprised, and they thought perhaps Diana might be sort of, not forgotten, but we just really sort of it would all be less sort of distressed, less a sort of high emotion than it was. I don't find that surprising that the royal family would have thought that.

MICHAELSON: Yeah. And certainly, it seemed like the queen was surprised by all of that at the time as well. So let's talk about the present. You suggested that the King may need to go on a PR offensive after all of this. What would that look like?

WILLIAMS: The King, I think, and the royal family will be going on a PR offensive after this. It'll be engagements. It'll be photoshoots. It'll be charitable engagements. It'll be general speeches about the importance of community and coming together because the King has had a nightmare year. Obviously, we've had the great news that he is in excellent health after his cancer diagnosis. That's excellent news.

But at the beginning of the year, we had the Andrew Mountbatten- Windsor scandal really reach a height with Andrew going being taken to a police station and questioned, and now we have this. And I think next year, we're going to have even more coverage of Diana's passing in 1997, a lot of books. And I do expect that Earl Spencer, who, of course, worked in TV himself, is probably going to make a documentary or something of similar.

[01:30:00]

So Charles is going to be out there with Camilla, with the royal family, on a PR offensive because at the moment, they do risk public opinion about Charles really plummeting because at the moment, they do risk public opinion about Charles really plummeting because there's a lot of conversation about online about this book, and a lot of people do believe what was said, and that is being said by all kinds of members of the public in Britain across the world. And Charles, if he wants to stay a popular king, he's going to have to go out there and not just say no to a book, but also be smiling and waving.

MICHAELSON: Yeah. And another potential distraction is if Harry starts becoming a more public figure in the U.K., as a non-working royal, that also could complicate things, as well. Meanwhile, as you mentioned, it's hard to believe this, but next year will be 30 years since Princess Diana's death.

Thank you so much, Kate Williams, for sharing your perspective.

WILLIAMS: Thank you.

MICHAELSON: You have a good morning and a great weekend.

WILLIAMS: See you. MICHAELSON: Next on "The Story Is" a CNN exclusive, how an AI generated intelligence report nearly sparked a U.S. military crisis with China.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[01:35:00]

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

MICHAELSON: New exclusive reporting from CNN, a false AI generated intelligence report circulated across the U.S. military, "And almost started a war with China." That's according to at least one source. Armed U.S. military members were preparing to board a Chinese ship in the Middle East, and military planes were already in the air to carry out the mission. Two people familiar with the matter tell CNN. Officials dug deeper and found that the report had generated using an AI Chatbox. CNN's Zachary Cohen picks up the story from there.

ZACHARY COHEN, CNN SENIOR NATIONAL SECURITY REPORTER: Sources are telling me and our colleague Katie Bo Lillis that this intelligence report was circulated through the U.S. military earlier this spring and while the war with Iran was still ongoing. And it concluded that a Chinese vessel that was transiting through the Middle East was likely carrying components of a nuclear weapons program.

Now that obviously caught the attention of U.S. military officials who immediately moved to prepare for a potential operation targeting that ship, even taking steps towards possibly boarding the vessel were told that it was when military aircraft were in the sky and that this operation looked like it was going to be underway that U.S. officials took a closer look at the intelligence report itself and determined that it had been generated with the help of AI. And that the chatbot used by a special operations analyst had misidentified the ship's cargo, ultimately leading U.S. officials and military to pull the plug on the planned operation and hence likely avoiding a potential international incident with one of the world's other superpowers.

Now this is reviving and contributing to ongoing concerns and the debate about the place of AI going forward in the U.S.'s commitment to potential guardrails around AI. And the U.S. military under President Donald Trump and his Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth have been very AI forward during their second time in office. Hegseth himself set out a memo earlier this year saying that he wants the military to be experimental in how it uses AI and to incorporate it in nearly every facet of its job, whether that be targeting operations or more mundane tasks like budgeting.

This is going to raise additional questions though given the close call as our sources characterized it, in terms of incorporating an intelligence report that was aided by AI and ultimately proved to be as one source put it entirely false. So another source saying and reiterating that this was not necessarily a one off incident that AI the use of AI particularly when it comes to precision targeting operations is increasing under Pete Hegseth. The source says, "AI and targeting is definitely something that's ramping up and there is no real guidance for how having a human in the loop will prevent civilian casualties or fratricide." And so that does speak to another concern we're hearing from our sources is that there is no consistent guidance coming from the very top levels of the Pentagon about how the military branches should be using AI, which tools and which systems they should even be using.

There is very little consistency across all of the services on that regard. And as we've seen in this case with the Chinese vessel, at times AI can be incorporated into producing intelligence that almost goes to operational status without being fully vetted. And so, again, we're we've heard lawmakers here in Washington D.C., debate in recent weeks about potential guardrails around the use of AI. The Pentagon and the U.S. military, meanwhile, has been on the forefront of trying to find ways to incorporate AI more, and it will be interesting to see how this revelation may impact the Pentagon's stance on AI going forward. Zachary Cohen, CNN, Washington.

MICHAELSON: Zachary, thank you. Coming up on "The Story Is" Germany's chancellor faces a critical test as voters head to the polls this weekend with the far right AfD eyeing another win.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[01:40:00]

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

MICHAELSON: Germany's far right AfD is hoping to score another major election victory this weekend as it surges in the polls in the country's former communist East. The party held a rally on Friday alongside the Social Democratic Party, its close rival in a tightly contested race. The AfD is capitalizing on economic anxiety and growing anger at Chancellor Friedrich Merz. CNN's Fred Pleitgen reports.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

FREDERIK PLEITGEN, CNN SENIOR INTERNATIONAL CORRESPONDENT (voice- over): Germany's right wing AfD looking to race to another state election victory in the former communist East of the country doing 25 miles an hour on old socialist era motorbikes like at this campaign event.

Their most potent fuel, voter anger at chancellor Friedrich Merz, a participant who would only give his first name, Chris, tells me.

CHRIS, ENTREPRENEUR, AFD SUPPORTER (translated): He's the wrong guy, Chris says. He had his chance. He will never be able to recover. Many people just feel this man is incapable.

PLEITGEN (voice-over): The AfD is leading the polls here in Mecklenburg-Vorpommern, capitalizing not just on Germany's economic turmoil, but also propagating mass deportations of undocumented foreigners as well as ending all military aid to Ukraine and renewing ties with Russia.

A position the AfD's candidate for Governor tells me aligns them with the Trump administration.

LEIF-ERIK HOLM, AFD CANDIDATE FOR MINISTER PRESIDENT (translated): Like America First, we want Germany First, he says. That's our core value, and it's also good for international stability if Germany is stable in the middle of Europe with good relations with the U.S. and towards the East.

PLEITGEN (voice-over): Mecklenburg-Vorpommern could be the AfD's second big win in only a matter of weeks.

[01:45:00]

In early September, they beat Merz's CDU in the state of Saxony-Anhalt by a landslide. A desperate Friedrich Merz then attacked the AfD's mass deportation policy, which they themselves call remigration in German parliament. If what you demand became true, remigration, which is nothing more than ethnic cleansing by skin color and country of origin, he says.

But so far, Merz's political counterpunches don't seem to be landing. His popularity has fallen off a cliff, and there's a discussion even among some in his own party about him possibly being replaced as chancellor soon. Merz himself says he will not step down. But back at the AfD's communist era scooter rally, Chris explains how Merz lost his vote.

CHRIS, (translated): Many voters feel they're just not interesting for the chancellor, he says. That's why I think maybe it's not just a protest vote, but you have to try something new if the old doesn't work.

PLEITGEN (voice-over): A sentiment that appears to be growing in parts of Germany, jeopardizing the current government and turbocharging the far right. Fred Pleitgen, CNN, Schwerin, Germany.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

MICHAELSON: Coming up on "The Story Is" how tracking your friendship could be just as beneficial as tracking your fitness. That's next.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[01:50:00]

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

MICHAELSON: A New York Times columnist is suggesting that we should be tracking our friendships the way we track our fitness. That article quotes Jaimie Krems, the director of UCLA's Center for Friendship Research, who says she believes prioritizing friendship should be a part of standard health advice. Krems says even something as simple as laughing together can strengthen a sense of connection and produce a neurochemical that can make you feel good. She also believes following up with someone can show support and help that person feel less alone. Jaimie Krems joins me now here on "The Story Is."

JAIMIE KREMS, ASSOCIATE PROFESSOR OF PSYCHOLOGY, UCLA: Thank you.

MICHAELSON: Welcome to "The Story Is" for the first time. So the premise of this article is sort of this idea of rings if you're, like using an Apple Watch or a phone that tracks your exercise, like your exercise ring for the day is complete. Some people have watches that say you hit your 10,000 steps and that there should be some sort of measurement for connecting with friends.

KREMS: I mean, that would be great because our friends are as good for our health as exercise, sleep, nutrition.

MICHAELSON: I mean, and to that point, at UCLA, you have this institute, which is like nowhere else in the world, where you actually look at the science of friendship. What have you found in terms of the health benefits of being less alone?

KREMS: And one of the things that I think is the most mind blowing is that lacking friends can shorten your lives the same as smoking 15 cigarettes a day.

MICHAELSON: Wow. I mean, that's pretty dramatic. And there are other health impacts as well, right?

KREMS: Absolutely. So having friends can boost your immune system. It helps you deal with stress. You're less likely to get sick. You have better physical and mental health outcomes. And for older adults, it can reduce your risk of dementia by half.

MICHAELSON: Why is that?

KREMS: I mean, we don't really know yet because we haven't studied this so well. But some of the ideas seem to be that social support is just a natural part of our evolutionary history. It's our wiring. We need it like food and water and shelter.

MICHAELSON: I mean, talk about what you were doing at UCLA and why nobody else is doing it.

KREMS: I don't know why no one's doing it. It blows my mind. But what we're doing here is really trying to understand and strengthen friendships. We have a critical mass of some of the best minds in the world trying to figure out this relationship at a time when it might be more important than ever.

MICHAELSON: And I know you said of all the peer reviewed data looking at scientific trends, what less than 4 percent are about friendships?

KREMS: Yeah. With my graduate student, we reviewed over 30,000 peer reviewed articles published in top journals. Fewer than 4 percent of those are looking at friendship. About 30 percent look at romance and marriage. We really need to focus on those other relationships. MICHAELSON: So how can we strengthen our friendships? What would be an exercise we can do on that front?

KREMS: That is a great question, and I think one of the best things that people can do is take the time to call someone when they're thinking about them. So don't wait for that perfect five hour or two hour window that you need to catch up on everything. Call them when you have three minutes and say, you're on my mind.

MICHAELSON: And is calling better than texting?

KREMS: Calling is better than texting. Anytime that you can have synchronous communication that allows for things like laughter, you connect better. It feels better in your brain, in your body.

MICHAELSON: I mean, it literally feels better.

KREMS: It literally feels better.

MICHAELSON: To call and that makes an impact on people. So you just received something called the Ig Nobel Prize.

KREMS: Yeah.

MICHAELSON: Which is a sort of takeoff on the Nobel Prize. You got the Peace Prize for your study of friendship that just happened in Zurich. What's that story?

KREMS: Yeah. We are very honored to receive the 2026 Ig Nobel Peace Prize for our finding that people value friends who are mean to our enemies.

MICHAELSON: So that's sort of what a lot of our politics is about these days, right?

KREMS: Very true. I mean, FDR is purported to have said he may be an S.O.B., but he's our S.O.B. about a Banana Republic dictator, and this is that just in friendship.

MICHAELSON: So there's actual medical science that backs that up?

KREMS: There is. I mean, what we want in our friends is what we want in our dictators too.

[01:55:00]

MICHAELSON: So that is a good point. So as we head into this weekend, people have an opportunity to maybe spend time with their friends, maybe a little more time. What's a homework assignment in terms of how we should handle our friendships?

KREMS: The homework assignment is to think about someone you haven't talked to recently, call that person.

MICHAELSON: Yeah. It's that simple.

KREMS: That simple.

MICHAELSON: And it could really change everybody's health and all the rest of it.

KREMS: Lengthen your life and improve democracy.

MICHAELSON: I love it. Jaimie Krems, thank you so much for the work that you do. You can check out more of your work, at UCLA.

And we thank you as well for watching "The Story Is" all week. It has been a busy and exhausting week. Tomorrow on CNN, I'll be out at the opening of the Lucas Museum. We'll have more on that next week here on "The Story Is." On Monday, I'll actually be off, for the Jewish holiday in easy fast for everybody who is observing Yom Kippur. I'll see you back here on Tuesday. Thanks so much for watching. Hope you have a great weekend.