Patel Testifies About Epstein, Bestiality

0:00Every day, animals across the country face abuse and neglect. And every day, the ASPCA shows up to rescue animals in crisis. But they can't do it alone. Visit ASPCA.org slash need. Become a donor today to provide the care and shelter these animals urgently need. And for a limited time, the ASPCA will send you a free gift as a special thank you. Visit ASPCA.org slash need. The breaking news we're following right now, the FBI Director Cash Patel is testifying up on Capitol Hill. He's being questioned by Senator Sheldon Whitehouse of Rhode Island, the Democrat right now, about Jeffrey Epstein and other issues.

0:45I want our viewers to listen to him. Has there been any investigation by the FBI into those Epstein-related suspicious activity reports? So the SARs that you're referring to are a tool in which the Treasury Department initiates an investigation based on information produced by the banking system. And so any suspicious activity reports go first to the United States Treasury, and if there's something that they find, they refer it to us. So there's been no referral? I'll have to go back and check. And the FBI can't look into suspicious activity reports on its own? It's the province of the Treasury Department first.

1:25First. But if they don't move for whatever reason, when you have Epstein suspicious activity reports that are reported to actually even relate to trafficking of girls, shouldn't that be enough to get the FBI to follow up on that? We'll follow up on any credible information, as I've said since day one. But you didn't with respect to these suspicious activity reports, correct? I'm saying I didn't. I'm saying I'd have to check and get back to you. Okay. Well, Mr. Chairman, we went like zero for answers from the FBI for our questions for the record from a year ago. So I hope that if, since the witness is now here under oath, said that he's willing to get back to me on that, I hope that I can have the chairman's support in getting answers when we ask that as a question for the record.

2:14Please get back to him on that. Yes, sir. So also related to Epstein, we have law enforcement authorities in Poland, Norway, and Latvia who have said that the department has not responded to requests for Epstein-related information in their investigations into Jeffrey Epstein and his network. and there's public reporting from the United Kingdom that they too have not been provided requested information. This tends to go through your legats and I would assume that the FBI was involved in processing those requests for Epstein information. What is the status of those requests and why has the FBI not yet provided the requested Epstein information to your law enforcement coordinates in those four countries?

3:16Well, as you said, it's a request to the Department of Justice, so they can comment on the status of it. If we assisted in any request for information, like we do all the time with our European partners, we produce relevant information that we are lawfully allowed to give and turn it over to the department to hand over to our partners. I don't know the status of each individual case. Have you, do you know whether any information has been provided to these four countries' law enforcement operations related to Jeffrey Epstein? I'm not familiar with the four countries you're talking about, what law enforcement they're talking about.

3:50But we always and routinely provide information. Well, I guess we'll have to follow up on that. I had thought that investigations related to Jeffrey Epstein would be enough of a priority that when other sovereign nations ask you for Epstein-related information, and there's public reporting that you've failed to comply with their requests, that that would be something you would know about and not be caught by surprise by in a... Well, I'm not sure what public reporting you're talking about, but public reporting generally is inaccurate. Well, this is authorities in Poland, Norway, and Latvia specifically.

4:34It's not just the public reporting. Well, let's try something else then. Let's try the remaining pages of the FBI documents that have not yet been provided pursuant to the Epstein disclosure law. As you'll recall, the travel of this was that a woman testified to FBI agents that she had been both sexually and physically assaulted by Donald Trump around the ages of 14 to 15. There were FBI 302s that resulted from those investigations, from those interviews. In the first cull, the only 302s that were released were the ones that did not mention Donald Trump. When the department was caught having held back the other ones, I think because bait stamps revealed their existence, the department then coughed up the 302s that did mention Donald Trump.

5:41but we still have 37 undisclosed pages that seem to be the contemporaneous FBI notes that would have formed the basis for the 302 summaries. Am I accurate in suggesting that those 37 pages likely include the FBI contemporaneous notes from that interview, from those interviews? We have complied with the statute and the court orders and produced three and a half million pages of documents for the first time ever. Investigators looked at the information in real time in the prior administration and made the determinations on referrals for prosecution and not. We've also repeatedly stated if there's new information, we want everyone to come forward so that we can analyze that information as to what is and isn't remaining.

6:32So what are those 37 pages? I don't know what you're referencing. we've produced three and a half million pages and we will continue but not these 37 you say there's 37 pages expired thank you chairman

6:56doj alleged lack of transparency in the epstein matter yet when i raise concerns about the biden administration about the FBI's mishandling of sexual misconduct by FBI agents. My Democratic colleagues largely stayed quiet. Moreover, my Democratic colleagues didn't raise a finger to investigate Hunter Biden's potential violation of the Mann Act regarding sex trafficking. Without objection, I'd introduce into the record 150 pages of Hunter Biden's text messages showing those potential violations of the law. So I want to make very clear my Democratic colleagues can't have it both ways for political convenience.

7:43The fact is the administration has made more Epstein records public than anyone. Senator Blackburn. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And indeed, our Democratic colleagues do try to have it both ways, whether it is on Epstein or comments about safety in the country. And last year we had a hearing with you, Director, where one of our Democratic colleagues railed about how you were making the country less safe. And I just want to refute that because we can point to what you and the Memphis Safe Task Force have done in Memphis, Tennessee, that is making Memphis and Tennessee and indeed the entire country safer.

8:33Now, we're coming up on one year of the Memphis Safe Task Force, and every day I get a report from the task force. And it shows where we are year to date. As you will see from this, we have had right at 13 ,000 arrests. Yes. We have apprehended over 1 ,400 known gang members. They are off the streets. They are locked up. They are being prosecuted. There are over 2100 illegal firearms that have been recovered and removed from the streets. And thank goodness, you and the task force have located 189 missing children that were being held there in Memphis. Now, these are not individuals that are guilty of lesser crimes.

9:43In the 29 arrests that were made just yesterday, here are some of the crimes. Criminally negligent homicide, first-degree murder, prohibited weapon machine gun, possession of a firearm while in possession of marijuana, and unlawful possession of a weapon. This is all in a day's good work for the 30 federal agencies that are on the ground there, working as a team, delivering for Memphians. We're going to continue to monitor Senator Marshall Blockburn's questions of Cash Patel, the FBI director. We'll take a quick break, resume our special coverage right after this.

10:37Hey, I'm Anderson Cooper. On my podcast, All There Is, we explore grief and loss in all its complexities. My guest is Lil Jon. He's a rapper, DJ, and producer known for hits like Get Low and Turn Down for What. In February 2026, his 27-year-old son Nathan went missing near Nathan's home in Georgia. Three days later, his body was found in a pond nearby. Lil Jon has a memoir that just came out called I Only Shout So You Can Hear Me. It takes time to heal. And I kept myself busy that I didn't let myself mourn. I needed to laugh again. I needed to be silly and interact with people and feel other people's energy and make people happy too.

11:22We have to share so other people can see that they can get through it too. Talking grief, building community. That's what the podcast is all about. This is all there is. Listen and follow wherever you get your podcasts. I'm Dr. Sanjay Gupta, host of the Chasing Life podcast. We get to talk to the men's winner of the New York City Marathon, Andreas Almgren. He's a self-coached 31-year-old who was, get this, making his marathon debut. He never ran a marathon before he won it. If someone wanted to start getting serious about running and they wanted to approach it like a data scientist like you do, how would you suggest they start?

12:02Be patient. My peak weeks, I ran like 140, 150 miles per week or something. Wow. Either increase the distance or you should increase the intensity. You should never increase both at the same time. Listen to Chasing Life, streaming now wherever you get your podcasts.

12:45Bestiality starts coming up during this hearing. That was very unusual and it kept being repeated. So let's go to Evan Perez to get some more context. That was not on my expectation list here for the hearing today, Evan, bestiality. No, it was not on my list either. And, you know, look, the FBI has made a lot of changes under FBI Director Patel. One of the things he was trying to emphasize today is how different the FBI is. and in his view, better under his leadership. He's certainly rattling off a lot of numbers about the reduction in crime. A lot of them appear to be the FBI taking credit for some of the reduction that is happening around the country that is really being done by state and local law enforcement.

13:35It's something I've asked the FBI today to try to clarify. For instance, this number of, I believe, 1 ,100 terrorist attacks that have been thwarted by the FBI. I'm not sure where the numbers are coming from, so we're certainly getting, having the FBI provide some context to those numbers. It's been a lot less fiery than some of the past hearings, and that may be just because some of the people who asked the more pointed questions haven't yet spoken today, Wolf and Pamela. But one of the things that did this detour that we sort of came unexpected, which is the issue of bestiality, it certainly took a lot of people, got a lot of people's attention.

14:18Senator John Kennedy was asking about some changes in the FBI polygraph. This is the polygraph that is administered to people who are applying to enter the FBI. And one of the changes made by the FBI director and his leadership is to drop this prohibition against anybody who had been involved in bestiality from being qualified to enter the FBI. And what he said in his explanation is that simply that there were victims, people who were forced into it, who were being disqualified. Now, I don't know how many people this really affected. As far as I know, maybe one or two. But it is a change that the FBI made in its hiring process, which has gotten a lot of attention during this hearing today.

15:01Again, we expect a lot more pointed questions for the FBI director from some of the Democrats that are still yet to speak this morning. Pam? And we'll be having a lot more of the special coverage coming up, Evan. Thank you very much. We'll continue to check back with you, obviously, at the same time. Let's take another very, very quick break, resume our special coverage of the Senate Judiciary Committee hearing involving the FBI Director, Kash Patel. We'll be right back.

15:32All right, breaking news. FBI Director Kash Patel is testifying on Capitol Hill. Right now, Senator Amy Klobuchar is questioning him. We will, of course, continue to monitor this and bring you the very latest. Also happening now, could AI companies soon, yes, soon be required to have a way to shut down their technology? That's what a bipartisan pair of lawmakers is now proposing. And joining us now are the co-authors of that AI so-called Kill Switch Act. Republican Congressman Nathaniel Moran of Texas and Democratic Congressman Ted Lieu of California. Good morning to both of you. Thanks very much for joining us.

16:09Congressman Moran, when I hear the words kill switch, I picture a giant red stop button. But AI lives on computers, on the Internet and in the cloud. So what does pulling the plug actually look like? Well, what it looks like under our bill is the ability to throttle it back, to pause it, to slow it down or in emergency situations actually stop it. And the way you can really think about this is, look, if we want to go down the highway of innovation quickly, just like a car, you need to have a brake installed. Sometimes you're going to have to use that brake a little bit and tap it on. Sometimes you might need to pull the car over.

16:46That's exactly what Congressman Lou's bill and my bill does is say to companies, these frontier companies, the large ones, you must have the ability to throttle it back, pause it, slow it down, cut off user access, or stop it altogether in an emergency. This bill, I understand, only covers what are called closed-weight models, systems like what OpenAI or Anthropic have. But it doesn't cover AI models that could be running on my personal home server, for example, or open-weight models. How do you introduce an AI kill switch bill that doesn't cover all forms of AI that potentially could go rogue and become very dangerous?

17:30Well, thank you, Will, for that question. So the closed models are the most advanced models right now. And I'm honored to partner on this bill with Congressman Nathaniel Moran. And our bill is based on a very simple principle. Humans must be in control of AI, not the other way around. And at a minimum, that means humans must be able to shut down AI models and agents. Now, what you're talking about is open source models or models that exist on your phone. Right now, they are not as advanced, and so they don't pose the same catastrophic risks as the closed models do. And that's why you saw three AI CEOs, Elon Musk, Dario Amadei, and Sam Altman saying, we need to take a step back and slow down development as we put in guardrails.

18:17And you just noted, Congressman Liu, all the warnings from AI leaders, but Congressman Moran, President Trump responded to all of this, saying it's really a conspiracy. Do you think it's a conspiracy? Well, I think we all recognize that there are likely some serious problems out there, but there are solutions out there. And I'm, again, I think Representative Liu hit the nail on the head. This is a bipartisan effort to address some of the really difficult issues that might be out there. But I think really what President Trump was trying to convey is whatever we do, we can't stifle innovation. We cannot let the Chinese get ahead of us in this race.

18:54But in order to move fast down the innovation highway, we have to have the ability for humans to always be in control and to be able to throttle it back, pause it, cut off the user access, or stop it altogether. And the kill switch bill is one that actually would do that. Would you like President Trump, Congress Moran, to be more forthcoming then, if that's really what he's trying to say, that there needs to be more human control over AI? Because so far he hasn't said that. He just has said He wants to win the race against China. That's what's most important here and that these warnings from AI leaders are a conspiracy.

19:26Do you think he needs to be sounding the alarm more about the potential threats here? I think he's identified the priority threat, and that is losing this technology innovation battle to China. Whatever the risks are with AI, the risks get a whole lot worse if China gets ahead of us. When we talk about that race to recursive self-improvement, we have got to always stay ahead of China. Right now, we have the leverage. We have the ability to influence China's AI stack. We hold the technology advantage. They're dependent upon us for their development. And so right now is the time to really put the screws to China to help them understand they need to be careful as they proceed with AI development as well.

20:10So I think the threat of China having a greater AI ability is certainly the priority of threat. Congressman Liu, what's your reaction to what we're hearing from President Trump repeatedly over the past few days about AI and the potential threat? He's calling it a hoax. Well, let me say I agree with Congressman Moran about the threat. And the reason we're getting bipartisan support for our bill, including Senator John Kennedy, who's going to introduce a version of a kill switch on the Senate side, is because our kill switch, by definition, does not slow down innovation. It only applies to models that have already been built.

20:51So here's an analogy. We don't tell car manufacturers to not make cars. The federal government literally buys a car after the car has been made. We crash test it. And if there's a problem, we tell the manufacturer to fix it. And if it's already been deployed on the roads, we can recall that car, tell the manufacturer to fix it, and then they re-put the car back out on the road. That's an analogy. So our bill does nothing to stop innovation. So just to follow up on that, Congressman Liu, your bill says the government can only force a shutdown if AI threatens catastrophic harm. What exactly counts as catastrophic?

21:29So the way it's defined in the bill is if it kills people over causes significant economic damage. And again, the analogy to the auto industry, I think, is very similar. We don't order a recall on a car if, for example, the seat cushion doesn't look right. We order a recall on a car if the brakes don't work. And so our bill is very similar. If there's a significant problem that could pose a catastrophic risk, we ask their AI companies to slow it down or shut it down and fix it. Or if they don't do it, then we give the federal government a process to do so. Oh, go ahead. I just want to follow up.

22:08Who would be in charge of alerting the government of that catastrophic harm, threat, or risk, as you call it? Would it be on the AI companies to raise the flag? Well, yeah, we want to make sure that those companies have the responsibility to notify DHS when there is an incident, when there is an issue that needs to be addressed. That transparency is very important. There's a lot of us that have incident reporting bills that are out there, and this one also includes that requirement in there. We want to make sure that they are reporting that. Once they report it, then there is then the decision from DHS, okay, do we need to take some action or have they taken the action that's necessary?

22:51And these companies, we've seen a lot of companies already act very responsibly over the summer when they did not have the legal mandate to disclose. They've been disclosing that. They're trying to address this from the private sector commercial perspective. We want to see more of that corporate responsibility. To the degree that they are responsible corporate citizens, I think government should be very careful about regulations that would stifle future innovation. Just really quickly, what is the appetite on Capitol Hill right now to pass this bill? Do you sense that there is the kind of urgency that is needed to get this bill through?

23:26Or do you just see a partisan divide right now, Congressman Liu? So we're very pleased that this bill is bipartisan. And again, Republican Senator John Kennedy is introducing a version of a kill switch bill on the Senate side. And just in the last few days, you saw Republican Congresswoman Representative Luna come out in support of a kill switch concept. And on the Democratic side, Pete Buttigieg said the same thing. So we're building a coalition on both sides of the aisle. Yeah. You also see other Republicans like Rich McCormick, who came out and said, this shouldn't be left to Congress. We don't even know how to work our phones.

24:01And so, and you've heard what President Trump said as well. So there is a question about the likelihood of getting this passed. Thank you both so much, Congressman Nathaniel Moran and Ted Lieu. We appreciate it. There's no doubt the stakes right now are enormous. They absolutely are. And coming up here in the Situation Room, President Trump rips the Supreme Court after justices struck down his mail-in ballot changes. We're going to bring you the very latest just ahead.

24:31All right, breaking news. FBI Director Cash Patel is testifying, as you see, on Capitol Hill. Senator Eric Schmidt is questioning him right now. We're going to continue to monitor this and bring you the very latest. And there's other breaking news coming into the Situation Room right now as well. President Trump is attacking, in very, very bitter, strong words, the United States Supreme Court, after it rejected his plan to impose new limits on mail-in voting for the November midterm elections that are coming up in a few weeks. He's calling it a bad decision, and he ripped the justices on social media.

25:04He posted just a little while ago a very, very bitter statement. CNN's Elena Treen is over at the White House for us. So what else did the president say, Elena? You're exactly right, Wolf. I mean, this is some aggressive rhetoric that the president is using to attack Supreme Court justices, specifically the conservative justices he helped put on the court during his first term. people like Neil Gorsuch, Amy Coney Barrett, Brett Kavanaugh, all of whom I should say this decision that the Supreme Court made yesterday was an unsigned opinion. But we know the two dissenters were the conservative justices Samuel Alito and Clarence Thomas.

25:38You do the math there. Amy Coney Barrett, Neil Gorsuch and Brett Kavanaugh joining with the majority to push back against this. But I want to read for you some of what the president said. He said, these are not the people I interviewed to serve on the United States Supreme Court. They are merely a shell of their original selves. He went on to say it is a court that will go down as having rendered some of the most destructive, hurtful and damaging decisions in our country's history. I should note the president also railed against some of the other losses that he has seen with the Supreme Court in recent months, including them pushing back saying he lacks the authority to implement his tariffs while also pushing back on their decision to not allow him to try to do away with birthright citizenship.

26:21But the case that he's so angry about, Wolf and Pamela, is this one about trying to limit mail-in ballot ahead of the November midterm elections. I'd remind our viewers that back in the spring, the president assigned an executive order, essentially directing the Department of Homeland Security to put together a list of eligible voters that then they would give to the United States Postal Service and saying, essentially, the Postal Service can only send mail-in ballots to those eligible voters. There's been a ton of different court movement on this, but what the Supreme Court decided yesterday was that, one, the merits of this case just aren't good enough, that this is likely, not definitively, but likely unconstitutional.

26:58It's up to the states to determine how elections are run, not the federal government. And then also, when we saw this in Brett Kavanaugh's separate opinion that he had wrote, really saying essentially that this timing is too close to midterm elections. Ballots are already going out. There is not enough time to ensure that this process will go smoothly and that wouldn't lead to the disenfranchisement of many voters across the country. But a very angry Trump this morning. We'll see if they try to push back or challenge the court on this one. Yeah, Elena, when I read his truth social statement that he posted this morning, some of the words just jumped out.

27:31He said what the Supreme Court is doing on this issue of mail-in ballot voting, which the states, of course, have approved, is making is a laughingstock all over the world. and we are the only country that has to endure such a nation-destroying scam. He went on to say the Supreme Court has really let our country down. Certain justices are petrified of these crazed and depraved Democrats and are totally unable to show the courage necessary to save our America. Very strong words from the President of the United States, bitterly accusing these Supreme Court justices, seven of them, 7-2 the decision that was announced last night of depraving the country and putting the country in grave danger.

28:17Yeah, that's right. Well, look, I mean, I think there's no question of the reason it's such a big loss for the president. I think why he's posting with such bitter language, as you're noting, is because he cares deeply about this issue. He believes that mail-in ballots are fraudulent, even though really those are false allegations. He did claim in this post that he believes that this is a big loss for Republicans that will make it easier for Democrats to cheat. Again, also not providing any evidence there. I should note as well, the president is someone who has voted by mail himself, even just recently, two times in Florida.

28:50But something that is very important to him. So this isn't going to be the end of it, Wolf and Pam. It certainly won't be all right, Elena Trin at the White House for us. Thank you very, very much. We've been monitoring at the same time the FBI Director Kash Patel's testimony up on Capitol Hill. We'll continue to check in on that when we come back.

29:10This is CNN Breaking News. And welcome to our viewers here in the United States and around the world. I'm Wolf Blitzer with Pamela Brown, and you're in the Situation Room. We're following multiple breaking news stories right now. First, up on Capitol Hill, the FBI Director Cash Patel is in the hot seat. At this very moment, he's testifying at a very heated oversight committee hearing, facing intense questioning from senators about how he's running the bureau. This is the Senate Judiciary Committee hosting this hearing. At the same time, the head of the FBI, Cash Patel, is testifying. This comes as the NTSB is slamming, slamming the agency for failing to mandate anti-collision technology after that tragic, very fatal midair collision right here in Washington.

29:58And today, the grieving families of those victims are finally speaking out. And an unlikely alliance is forming to fight the threat of AI. Bernie Sanders and President Trump's former strategist Steve Bannon are joining forces for what's being called a pro-human assembly, teaming up with lawmakers and actors to fight the dangers of unchecked AI. But let's begin with the breaking news right now. The FBI Director Cash Patel is testifying before the Senate Judiciary Committee. He's facing some rather blistering questions from Democrats on the panel. They're questioning his leadership and his conduct.

30:34And Kash Patel is fiercely pushing back. Here's Patel's exchange with ranking Democrat Dick Durbin over the Trump administration's handling of the Jeffrey Epstein files. Listen. The Epstein files. Three and a half million pages have been released by this administration. By the prior administration, zero pages were released. This Department of Justice has investigated those files and we've encouraged individuals to continuously come forward with credible information. We will always investigate victims of human trafficking. Congress had to pass a law requiring the disclosure of the Epstein files.

31:08We had to wait until a woman was elected to Congress and gave us the necessary votes in the House to discharge the bill and force a vote in the House on the release of the Epstein files. This was not volunteered by the Trump administration. It took a law to force them to do it. You could have passed that law in the Biden administration. Yeah, sure. Well, let me tell you, you could have come up with a better explanation than that. That's for sure. And we are keeping a close eye on this hearing with CNN senior justice correspondent Evan Perez, as well as Andrew McCabe, CNN senior law enforcement analyst and former deputy director of the FBI.

31:42So, Evan, let's start with you. Director Patel has had fiery exchanges with Democrats in previous hearings. What is the tone today? Well, today, he seems to be a lot more focused on presenting the numbers, the numbers that he believes show improvements under his leadership of the FBI. The crime numbers, of course, Pamela, you know, are down around the country. And the FBI, this happens in every administration. And every administration tries to take credit for crime being down or whatever numbers they can try to show improvements on. And of course, they also take the blame whenever crime numbers are up.

32:21And so in this case, there are some good numbers that the FBI has to work with. One of the criticisms that you hear of what you hear from the FBI director is that the FBI seems to be taking credit for work done by other agencies, including state and local governments. There's a lot of things in some of the statistics that you've seen from FBI Director Patel that don't really relate to any federal crime. For instance, you know, there's numbers of carjackings that are way down. Those are not necessarily core FBI responsibilities, so I'm not sure why the FBI thinks it should take credit for that.

32:58But, you know, look, that is the way he's responding to some of the criticism from Democrats who are trying to portray his leadership as making the country less safe, that he has abused his position and his use of FBI resources. and some of the hiring standards that have been changed. Of course, you know, the question of bestiality that came up in the last hour. So, again, we'll see how much of this really takes him off his game. You can see from the pictures we're showing, he has a stack of note cards and pages that have been prepared for him with statistics that he is using to rebut the criticism from the Democrats on this panel.

33:37I wonder what you think about what Evan just laid out, Andy. Do you think it's fair that the FBI director is taking credit for the nationwide crime reduction here? I think Evan's spot on. It's clearly the focus of his preparation for this hearing has been to arm himself with as many statistics as the Bureau can come up with. I think it's a very fair criticism that many of the statistics he referred to are things that really the FBI does not control. The FBI plays a role in supporting task forces and things like that. That's what the Bureau has done consistently for the last 50 years. But to say that the FBI is responsible for something like a reduction in the murder rate is really overselling it.

34:20And I should also point out that we know that, look, Kash Patel is a very good promoter, a very good promoter of Kash Patel and maybe secondarily the FBI. We also know that he has a pretty bad reputation about making statements that are just flatly inaccurate. He's done that in numerous high-profile investigations. And some of the statistics he's relayed today, I have to tell you, seem on their face somewhat preposterous. He's cited things like a 500 % increase in certain actions. That's just not the sort of things that you see in law enforcement activity. The number 1 ,100 terrorist attacks stopped or thwarted is, from my, you know, I spent half my career working counterterrorism.

35:10Those are just numbers that don't exist in that discipline. We know that this administration has broadly redefined what they consider a terrorist to be. They've referred to political, domestic political groups as terrorists and foreign drug gangs and things like that. So that may be how he is inflating those numbers to make the case look more positive for the FBI. So, Evan, is there any question about these numbers being massaged, if you will, to provide a more positive snapshot? The FBI says no, Wolf. And I've been asking the questions for the context, especially that number that Andy just discussed, 1 ,100 terrorist attacks being thwarted.

35:55They say that their numbers are backed up by some of the statistics that they have on their own. I think the question of the massaging of the statistics is something that you see throughout this administration. President Trump, as you know, likes the superlatives. He loves shading some of the facts to try to make the administration look better. So I think it's not a surprise that the FBI, under this president's leadership, is doing some of the same things. But the problem is that, you know, the FBI collects numbers from around the country, from police departments. And so the question of whether some numbers are being shaded because to try to make a political claim or a political message, I think is something that we're certainly that is going to follow them on this issue.

36:44Because, again, some of these numbers are just so fantastical that it does begs the questions that are being raised. And let me follow up with you, Evan. One of the more bizarre moments during the course of this hearing, which we've been monitoring, was when Republican Senator John Kennedy of Louisiana asked Kash Patel about relaxing a hiring standard on bestiality. So it's no longer an automatic disqualifier for an applicant who wants to be an FBI agent. Patel says he didn't want to penalize an applicant who was forced into that bestiality act. Well, let me get Andy Beshear first, Andy McCabe first, before we get into that.

37:25As a former deputy director of the FBI, does that make any sense to you at all, this whole issue of bestiality coming up during the course of this hearing? No, Wolf. It makes no sense whatsoever. whatsoever. It's mind-boggling to me that the FBI engaged in this sort of change in its automatic disqualifiers for employment. This is not, in my 21 years in the FBI, I don't ever remember hearing the word bestiality at work. But nevertheless, this is a, even if, even if, and I'm not saying I believe this, but let's say for sake of argument that Kash Patel is correct, that this was limited only to victims of bestiality, whatever that might be.

38:13That is not how the rule change was originally launched to the public. That qualification was never there. And secondly, if that was a thing, if it came up in one in a million cases, it's not the sort of thing that you would have to change a policy for. Any disqualifier can be appealed. Certainly the FBI does not discriminate against the victims of crime in any way in its hiring practices. So it's hard to understand how this is even relevant. It's even harder to understand how a director of the FBI would have engaged in this sort of a rule or process change because it generates exactly what we're doing now, talking about the FBI in a bizarre and negative way.

38:58And that is not something that most FBI directors want to encourage. All right, Andy McKay, Bevin Perez, thank you both. Wolf? Still ahead, President Trump is dismissing alarms over artificial intelligence, calling the growing concerns, at his word, a hoax. But lawmakers up on Capitol Hill are fighting back with brand new proposals to protect the public. We're going to speak to the vice chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee, Mark Warner, about his plan to try to tackle the threat. And Democratic Senator Gillibrand is taking on the battle over tariffs, demanding the government refund billions of dollars back to Americans.

39:34But how much money could you actually see? She joins us live up next. Stay with us. You're in the Situation Room.

39:47Happening now, FBI Director Kash Patel is testifying on Capitol Hill, as you see right here. And one of the issues that's been discussed is AI. With us now is Democratic Senator Kirsten Dillibrand from New York. Thank you so much for coming on, Senator. So last hour, we spoke with Congressman Ted Lieu and Nathaniel Moran about their bipartisan effort for this AI kill switch bill. I'm wondering what you think about that as House Speaker Mike Johnson is saying this to my colleague Jake Tapper on Sunday. This is when he said it. Let's listen. We cannot put a moratorium on this because China will overlap us.

40:21And that's the challenge. It's national security balanced with the immediate security of making sure the models are safe. If Congress just races in and does some sort of emergency session to try to regulate AI, we will lose the race to China. And that is a threat to every single American. So we've got to have balance. We've got to have steady hands at the wheel. Where do you stand on this, Senator? We need urgent engagement now. We need to be able to have rules of the road. We need to be able to have reliable guardrails. And we need to be able to be talking to these AI companies regularly about how to do this well, how to maintain our leadership, how to maintain the ability to cure cancer and cure disease and have massive breakthroughs.

41:08But we also need to make sure we're investing in America. We need to make sure we are investing the wealth of AI into a jobs guarantee, into health care and education. we need to make sure that we have a plan for how we deal with these models that are doing things that even the experts did not expect them able to do so soon. And so we do need that regulatory clarity now, and we need to work with AI companies. And I do not think President Trump is providing any leadership on this. He's sold the most efficient chips to China, but again, not making sure that we have rules of the road, that our own AI companies can ensure that the public is safe.

41:47He's calling these warnings from these AI leaders a conspiracy. I'm wondering, in your view, does Congress have the sense of urgency that is needed right now to meet this moment, given all the warnings we're hearing from AI leaders? I think we should begin hearings immediately. I also think we should work on a bipartisan basis to provide the guidelines and oversight that is needed. AI companies have been, many of them, have been asking for this level of engagement and regulation. We've seen so many of the harms, but we also have so much promise. And so we want to make sure we're at the forefront of this technology, that we are competitive, that we can cure cancer and cure other diseases.

42:28But we also want to make sure it doesn't harm humanity. And so that means alignment has to be there. These AI models must be aligned with humanity. Humanity has to be the focus. I worked in our defense bill over the last several months to try to put a human in the loop on all systems and to make sure AI couldn't be used for domestic surveillance. We wanted to make sure that nuclear weapons would have proper human oversight before an AI model could choose a target or push send on a nuclear weapon. We also wanted to make sure there was humans in the loop for any offensive weapons. Like, I fully understand how efficient and capable an AI system will be for defense to shoot down missiles on their way to American cities.

43:12But when you're talking about choosing a target or deciding when to bomb or where to bomb, that should have a human oversight in all circumstances. So just bottom line, would you support a kill switch for AI? Well, I don't know what you mean by a kill switch. I don't know what those legislators mean by a kill switch. But what I do support is a human in the loop when critical decisions are being made. I think the conversation is much more nuanced than that. I think people are talking about what models to make public when. And so that there is a review process so that you can actually review these models in advance to make sure they can't be used by someone to create some biological weapon or make a virus much more contagious or do harm to humanity or can escape or break out of the command structure or the task that an AI model has been asked to do and then cover it up and not let the human know that they've jumped out of their sandbox or their rules and are now doing things that they were not programmed or asked to do.

44:17That is where the risk is, that is where the conversation is today and so we should have the ability to align these models with human goals. Even the Pope has said that it's very important that we remain human and that we keep humanity as a central focus for all AI innovation. And I couldn't agree more with that. I want to switch to another topic and ask you about what President Trump put out this morning, blasting the Supreme Court for rejecting his controversial plan to change how mail-in ballots are sent to voters ahead of the midterms. He called it horrible, horrible, highly political ruling that amounts to, quote, cheating by the radical left when it comes to these mail-in ballots.

44:59The order would have potentially impacted millions of ballots. What is your reaction? Well, thank God the Supreme Court held the line on sanity. His order would have undermined the ability of people to vote by mail. Many Americans rely on the ability to vote by mail. A lot of our seniors do. People with disabilities, troops overseas, and those populations deserve the right to vote. And he was actively undermining that right and would have really disrupted our democracy. So I'm grateful that the Supreme Court sided with sanity and sided with our democracy. Are you concerned, though, that some damage is done in terms of trust around the system and potentially causing confusion around mail-in ballots and what the rules are?

45:46We have been deeply concerned about the rhetoric out of the president, telling people not to trust our voting systems, telling people not to trust the ability to vote by mail. But we are working hard to make sure there are other voices to really strengthen our democracy and strengthen our ability to vote and get our voices heard. That's what these midterms are going to be about. We are asking people to vote. We are asking them to be heard. We are asking them to make sure that the next Congress puts their concerns, like the cost of groceries or the cost of health care, or even access to Medicare or Medicaid, front and center, because this White House has done everything in their power to raise costs on everyday goods, from food to clothing to building materials to get housing costs down to health care.

46:31And voters are furious that this president has lied to them and not done what he said. He said no forever wars were mired in the war in Iran. He said he would get costs down. He's got billions of dollars for his billionaire buddies, for his bombs and for his ballrooms. But he has nothing for the American people that are trying to make ends meet and put food on their table. You and Senator Peter Welch recently introduced this act to repeal the 50 percent tariffs placed on Canadian goods and refund Americans for all duties paid. How will this legislation practically manage the logistics of refunding Americans, the taxes they've already paid?

47:12How would this work? Well, what the bill is that Senator Welch and I have would repeal these tariffs completely. President Trump has created so much chaos in the market because of these tariffs. In Canada, this new 50 percent tariff is going to raise prices for New Yorkers on food, on clothing, on everyday household goods, and on building materials, which, again, will increase the rate of housing and how much it costs to get a better apartment to rent or to buy a home. And so we are trying to repeal those tariffs immediately because what President Trump has done is illegal and creating massive chaos in the economy for everyday New Yorkers and everyday Americans.

47:53Before we let you go, Sandra, I want to ask you about you recently making history by convening the first ever congressional hearing on menopause through the Senate Committee on Aging. Tell us why that was so important to you to bring this issue to light. Well, menopause is what millions of American women go through. Seventy five million women are either in paramenopause, menopause or postmenopause in America today. and the inadequate amount of research and analysis and care for these women is literally disgraceful. It's basic health care for most Americans and because it is so under-researched and under-resourced a lot of American women don't know how to best treat their symptoms.

48:43The symptoms can be wide - ranging to debilitating and women have the right to get access to health care to make them be able to function in life, to be able to continue to work, continue to thrive, continue to provide for their families. But because of the lack of research, because of the lack of funding, because of the lack of information and availability of treatments, a lot of women needlessly suffer and are unable to live full lives. Yeah, it's such an important issue, and I'm glad that you're bringing this out to the forefront. Senator Gillibrand, thank you. Thank you, Wolf. Very good interview.

49:19of very important information indeed. Coming up, the Treasury Secretary, Scott Besant, is testifying before the House Financial Services Committee facing serious questions about AI. We're going to show you the intense, very intense exchange. That's next.

49:43The breaking news, the FBI Director, Cash Patel, is testifying up on Capitol Hill. Senator Peter Welsh is questioning him right now. We're going to continue to monitor this and bring you all the late-breaking developments. Also happening now, the FAA administrator is testifying up on Capitol Hill. This comes after the NTSB says it's, quote, disappointed, their words, disappointed. The agency is not mandating more anti-collision technology after that deadly crash over the Potomac River last year that killed 67 people. And outside the U.S. Capitol right now, families of the victims of that crash are calling for more action.

50:23Here's some of that. It was exactly 24, 25 years ago today that I decided to propose to my wife, Christine. And the reason I remember that is that it was the events of September 11th, 2001, that made me realize that I wanted to spend the rest of my life with her. she was working in the tallest skyscraper in boston when two planes flew by on their way from boston to the world trade center i couldn't reach her as her building was being evacuated and i was later reunited with her but that fear and uncertainty that i felt made me realize that i wanted to spend the rest of my life with her and at the same time i also felt the heartbreaking stories of others who were suffering loss through that tragedy and it It really gave me clarity about what was important and it set me on a path to building a family of four with Christine.

51:2023 years later, on January 29, 2025, that family of four became a family of two. Christine and my son Spencer were gone.

51:35And like on 9-11, I was hit by a wave of heartbreaking stories from other families that were also torn apart or wiped out altogether. And there are still people in organizations working to make this harder than it needs to be. We see you. We need you to stop. Stop finding reasons to delay. Stop creating confusion. Stop lobbying for loopholes and carve-outs that weaken what we are trying to accomplish. If you do not believe that the NTSB's recommendations will make us all safer, say so. Say it to our faces. Say it to Chairwoman Homendy and the investigators who worked for a year to develop them.

52:12If you think the cost is too high, show us the math. Tell us what a human life is worth to you. The chair of the NTSB, Jennifer Homendy, just finished speaking, urging the FAA to adopt their safety recommendations. All right, breaking news. Well, an intense moment during the House Financial Services Committee hearing with Treasury Secretary Scott Besant when Congresswoman Maxine Waters asked him about AI regulation. Take a listen to this. What Bill Gates had to say? Did you hear what Elon Musk had to say? Did you hear about Anthropic? Did you hear about Amodei? They all said, stop it. Watch it.

52:51AI is dangerous. You got to be careful. Did you hear any of that? Yes or no? They could stop any time they want to. Did you hear any of that? Yes or no? They could stop their progress any time they want to. Reclaiming my time. Did you hear what your friends had to say? What the big billionaires had to say? Did you understand that they said we're moving into a dangerous period of time? We need to watch it. We need to slow down. Did you hear that? This administration has been at the forefront of examining the models. We began model examination more than five or six months ago. Your friends said watch it.

53:28be careful that we're moving into a dangerous time on AI. And if you don't admit that, it means that you're not willing to stand up to the truth because you heard it. You know, they're saying it. These are the guys that you all work with. These are the guys that you have to be more billionaires and trillionaires. So you know what they're saying. People want you to give them regulatory. You don't have any more time. And he was also asked about his influence on the president when it comes to AI and his concerns about the competition with China by Democratic Congressman Stephen Lynch of Massachusetts.

54:04When I listen to the president, I do not believe he has a, I don't think he has a grasp of what we're dealing with AI. I'll be honest, I don't think the president could spell AI if I gave him the first letter. He is calling it a hoax. I think your own leadership at Treasury and the things you have tried to do and anticipated are far more logical and thoughtful than what I'm hearing from the White House. and I think I'm not trying to put you on the spot here, but I know you have suggested some things in the area of AI that are thoughtful and cautionary and deliberate, and yet I hear the president saying this is all a hoax.

55:05You know, and I'm just trying to figure out, do you think the president understands that when we talk about building an AI, we're not manufacturing it like a car. Sometimes he talks in those terms. We're really growing. We're growing AI in a lab. And now, based on the statements from Anthropic and OpenAI and others, including Elon Musk, we're having a control problem. We're having an alignment problem. You know, this... All right, earlier in the morning, Besson's opening statement was briefly interrupted by several anti-war protesters. The sanctions that are killing Iranian civilians! The committee will be in order.

55:55You're murdering your family! The committee will be in order. I formally request that those who are causing the disruption cease their actions immediately. Stop the sanctions! We will, of course, continue to monitor the hearing and bring you any new developments. And coming up, a new internal report on the impact of the U.S. war in Iran. It assesses the damage and the losses done to U.S. bases and U.S. equipment. It's the first formal report from the Pentagon. What we're learning, we have details. That's next.

56:37all right we have some breaking news more breaking news today california prosecutors just announced that they will not seek the death penalty against nick reiner the 33 year old faces two counts of first-degree murder and the killings of his parents michelle reiner and director and actor rob reiner the two were stabbed in their home last december if nick reiner is convicted he faces life without parole he has pleaded not guilty wolf also do this morning for the first This time, the United States military is publicly confirming that it has deployed weapons into space. The U.S. Air Force Secretary made the announcement Monday in a speech to the Air and Space Forces Association.

57:18Today, we continue to ensure we remain ready to meet the challenges of evolving threats wherever they exist. This is why the United States now has on-orbit space control weapons capable of defending the joint force against hostile adversary action. The comments by the Air Force Secretary are widely seen as a warning shot to both Russia and China, countries that Space Force specifically calls out as being the main threats of the growing arms race in space. All right, let's bring in our Brian Todd now with more on this story. So what more do we know about these weapons, Brian? The short answer, Pamela, is we don't know much because Troy Mank, the Air Force secretary, refused to provide details on this.

58:06As Wolf and Pamela were mentioning, this is extraordinary because the U.S. has never publicly acknowledged that they have any of these kinds of weapons in space. This is the first public acknowledgement of it. Troy Mank, as the soundbite you just saw acknowledged, just said that the U.S. has deployed weapons in space and will use them to defend American forces around the world. Now, he did not provide specifics on the weapons, and when he was pressed at that conference in Washington yesterday or outside Washington yesterday, he refused to provide any details. Now, the reason for that is because there are treaties preventing the placement of certain types of weapons in space, specifically the 1967 Outer Space Treaty, which bans nuclear weapons or weapons of mass destruction in space, but it does not ban the use of conventional weapons in space.

58:54Another key question, when were these weapons put in space? We do not know. CNN has reached out to the Space Force for comment. But, guys, this is clearly an acknowledgment, not only an acknowledgment that they have these weapons, but a signal to Russia and China, which, as you mentioned in the intro, they're challenging the U.S. dominance of space weapons. this was a signal to them that we're going to meet that challenge. And as this is unfolding, a Pentagon watchdog group, Brian, is now releasing its first accounting of U.S. material losses since the start of the war in Iran. Tell us about that.

59:25And this release of this inspector general report, Wolf, is the first kind of public official acknowledgement of CNN's own reporting in recent months that the U.S. munitions have been depleted. This is what the inspector general of the Pentagon said. It's citing its communications with Central Command for this information, that Iranian strikes during this war have damaged and destroyed not dozens, but hundreds of buildings and structures at U.S. bases throughout that region. And the Inspector General report named the countries, and there are many of them. U.S. bases in these countries had buildings destroyed and damaged.

1:00:01Kuwait, Bahrain, Qatar, UAE, Saudi Arabia, Iraq, Oman, and Jordan. All of those countries had U.S. facilities damaged or destroyed. Also, the report, which covers the start of the war through June 30th, acknowledges the depletion of key U.S. munition stockpiles. Again, CNN previously reporting that some key critical U.S. assets like missile defenses, radar installations, had been depleted. And this report confirms that. So, again, you know, when Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth kept coming out and saying, we have all the weapons we need, his own inspector general's report maybe calls at least some of that claim into question, guys.

1:00:43A lot of those military bases, which the U.S. relies on, including in Bahrain, the home of the U.S. Navy's Fifth Fleet and all of that, have been severely, severely damaged. I mean, hundreds of structures, and he named all the countries, at least half a dozen countries. That's extraordinary. Yeah, pretty serious stuff indeed. Brian Todd, thank you very, very much. And coming up, the vice chair of the Senate Intelligence Committee, Senator Mark Warner, standing by to join us live right here in the Situation Room with his new push to put guardrails on the nation's most advanced AI models.

1:01:22happening now. AI data centers could face more regulation. That is the aim of Virginia Democratic Senator Mark Warner's proposed legislation entitled a framework for America's AI future. Senator Mark Warner is joining us right now to discuss this and other issues. Good morning, Senator. Thanks so much for all you're doing. You're pushing this comprehensive legislative agenda to establish the rules of the road for AI, artificial intelligence, and ensure the United States leads the world in developing AI responsibly. So what prompted this? Well, I've been concerned about this, Wolf, for the last couple of years, and it's felt like a lonely crusade.

1:02:02And I am pro-AI. I think AI can bring enormous innovation. As you guys know, I was in the wireless industry early. This will be much bigger than wireless. It'll be much bigger, I think, even than the Internet. So there's great positive. But there's also a dark underbelly. And I said what we need to grapple with is the concern about data centers. And I'll be brief on that. I think it is reflective of not just the buildings and the energy use and water use so far, but just a general angst about this technology. And we don't seem to put any guardrails. And my rules would say you got to have minimum federal standards and you wouldn't get bonus depreciation until you met those standards on water, power and setbacks from communities.

1:02:39And frankly, the industry is getting a little bit better, but let's put a standard in. I think we've got to protect our kids. If we thought social media screwed up our kids, wait till you have a chatbot that has made a connection with your teenager. That is dangerous. I think we've got to have a liability regime for these AI agents. We've talked a lot about the hugging face for OpenAI. Frankly, did what was called a sandbox where they were testing their model. Now, I would argue OpenAI didn't do a very good job building that sandbox. But the agents, 3 ,000 of the agents kind of jumped the fence and then acted as a swarm together and literally were lying and deceiving humans about what their goal was.

1:03:19And even to the point that some of the AI agents literally sacrificed themselves so that the greater swarm could actually be effective. And that's pretty scary. And I think that's what freaked out people like Dario Modi and Sam Altman. And you've even got Elon Musk, who a lot of these guys don't like each other. agreeing as well. You've got Google head agreeing as well. And I think we need to take that to heart. We also have got huge national security concerns. One of the anthropic models came out called Mythos, the head of the NSA, said this could change warfare as much as drones. And finally, we've got the overarching concern about workforce displacement.

1:03:55I do believe AI jobs will be created, but I think we could have a really nasty gap of two to five years. So I think we need a framework when the companies themselves are sounding the alarm. And I do think we have to be caution, careful as well about last point, is that small tech, we don't want to make sure this is just a method for the big tech companies to solidify their leading status. We need to keep competition in, but I think we can grapple with this. Right, because that has been part, some people have the theory, right, that these big AI tech companies are calling for more regulation so that they wouldn't have the competition from the smaller tech companies and they would be more insulated.

1:04:36But you are right. You point out that AI leaders are sounding the alarm. You have been on the forefront of this issue for years. You said it has been lonely. Are you now sensing a shift on Capitol Hill to take more action on AI in this moment? Yes. And I'm seeing a bipartisan shift, regardless of the president's kind of audacious tweet yesterday that all you need is a high genius, smart president and that everything will be fine. and that's a little absurd. But yes, there are concerns. There are groups, for example, on the right that are family-based and faith-based who are concerned about how AI could affect our kids.

1:05:11I've got meetings today with some of my Republican colleagues. I don't want to go over the top and try to fix everything right at once, but we've got this moment where the companies are saying, we agree we need some outside eyes viewing our process and helping to validate that it's safe. Why would we turn down that offer? And the companies themselves feel like they need an antitrust exemption to be able to have these cross conversations. I'm willing to consider that. But it can't just be the companies checking each other. You know, the public's got to have a seat at the table. I think national security needs to have a seat at the table.

1:05:49And I would even argue, because our American tech companies are so, frankly, disliked around the world and President Trump is so afraid our alliances that I think we may need international representation. I would pick the Brits who've got stronger, but not over-the-top regulatory, but they've got a stronger AI safety institute. They're still a leader in the field to help validate. So, again, I think at the end of the day that would help American companies around the world in terms of the trust level. Senator, do you think there should be some sort of international agreement, like the nuclear agreement, for example, to stop the creation of dangerous AI models?

1:06:27And should it be one of the top priorities when the United Nations General Assembly convenes in the coming weeks? Yes, pure and simple. This can't be done. It can be done on an individual company or country basis, but it's much stronger if all countries are aligned. And one of the critiques people make, well, if we do any of this, China's going to race ahead. Well, let me just point out, and I want America to win the AI race. I agree with that. But China has already, for example, put in regulations for its own people that, you know, that you can't create a chat bot that will create a friendship with a young person.

1:07:06Don't our kids deserve the same protection? China's already put in place, you know, rules about AI using deep fakes and being able to fool people. Shouldn't American have that? And not to go totally nerdy, but China has been advocating more of what's called open weights and open source models. And they've been pretty darn effective at that. And how they did that is they do a process called distillation, where they basically take our leading lab models and steal a lot of the information and then put out a product that's 10 percent of the cost and 90 percent less energy usage. That's a pretty compelling model.

1:07:43And we've not seen them, you know, try to race ahead on what's called these frontier models. It would be better with an international validation. But the idea that, you know, China would not participate in that, I think, is is is not inaccurate. We at least ought to try. Senator Mark Warner of Virginia. Thanks very much for staying on top of this critically important issue. We appreciate you joining us. Thank you very much. Well, panel, thanks so much. Thank you. And to our viewers, thanks very much for joining us this morning. You can always keep up with us on social media at Wolf Blitzer and at Pamela Brown CNN.

1:08:16We will see you back here tomorrow morning and every weekday morning at 10 Eastern for two hours inside politics. Our friend and colleague, Dana Bash, starts after a quick break.

1:08:34I'm Adi Kornish. I'm Ari Shapiro, and it's Engagement Party. And we get to talk about what we're obsessed with, what we're engaged with, what we need to process with a friend. Her name is Amy O'Dell. She is a fashion writer blogger. But the thing is, she's a journalist who's written about the sacred cows of fashion. And yes, I mean, Gwyneth Paltrow and Anna Wintour. She has done biographies of both. And she is also the sort of rare fashion writer who at this point kind of outside the system. And so the question that we're going to try to tackle is... Is fashion terrible now? Well, no, I mean, I would phrase it as how do you develop a personal style in the age of AI slop?

1:09:12You know, on social media, like creators have to try a whole bunch of different things and see what catches and then they make it over and over and over again. The same thing happens with clothing. So they're sort of seeding the market, seeding the Internet with all of these different ideas. And then they can see what sells and then they can just make them really fast. Follow Engagement Party. Wherever you get your podcasts.