What makes you worried specifically that the president may claim some sort of bogus foreign interference, um, in next month's elections?

Well, first of all, let's look at some of the good news.

Incredible enthusiasm.

I urge everybody to get out and vote early, um, number one.

Number two, there are literally 75 plus voting rights groups that meet on a daily basis to make sure that the lawsuits are already filed if, uh, if activity takes place.

Uh, we are as lawyered up as any election in, I think, in American history because we've never had these unprecedented threats.

Number three, in terms of Trump, he tried some of this campaign in August.

Um, he's just apparently-

Uh, where do we launch this?

Well, clearly somebody thought it [laughs] was a serious enough threat to have the planes exit.

But, you know, we've had this kind of haphazard approach, and I fear that it, it, one, it makes our forces not look secure.

I, I do agree with Secretary Rubio.

We always have to have our, our bases secure no matter where they are in the world.

Uh, but to kinda leave this quickly, um, and, and I don't have the details of where the investigation stands, so let me, uh, again, make that clear.

But it, it feels like it was kind of a, you know, drop everything, we gotta get out of dodge.

[sighs] Shouldn't you know more about it? You're in the Gang of Eight.

Tell us what you're unveiling.

Well, first of all, I've been ...

One of the reasons I'm running my last time for re-election is we gotta get AI right.

I'm still AI optimistic long, but we need guardrails.

I've got a meaningful bill around data centers.

I've got legislation around how we protect kids' safety.

I mean, if we thought social media was bad, wait till your kid has an aff- affinity relationship with a chatbot.

Um, you know, on one hand he's threatening to annihilate Iran, on the other he says, "Well, negotiations are gonna be resuming soon and, and the war will be over before you know it." Um, you know, it, it seems as prices continue to go higher and higher because of this conflict, um, you know, it seems like we're just in a complete and utter stalemate.

Senator, i- is there any reason to think the White House and Congress could actually work together to develop guardrails? Because, as you know, the president is saying these concerns are a hoax.

Well, first of all, they're not a hoax, and I'm talking to my Republican colleagues literally every day.

And let's step back for a minute.

I've been trying to advocate that we need guardrails for the last two years, unsuccessfully, let me tell you.

And I'm pro-AI.

I think there'll be great innovation.

I think there'll be great...

Yeah

What's your assessment of those two arguments?

Well, first of all, Mr. Trump also said, you know, the only thing we need is a really brilliant president with a high IQ like himself, so I'll, I'll let your viewers make your judgment on that.

And then, you know, Mr. Sacks- You -- he's got a point that as we go through this process of an AI safety review, we've gotta make sure there is the voice of small tech or early tech so that this is not an effort to simply solidify the incumbency position these big four entities have.

Uh, and I do think the idea, what the Trump administration has done is they put together a bit of a voluntary forum.

You can't do voluntary when there's at least a reasonable chance of a catastrophic risk that might permanently disrupt the financial markets or disrupt water systems or electric systems.

So we've gotta take this seriously, and those of us who, in a bipartisan fashion, who've been calling for this kind of safety guidelines, um, for a while, this is our moment to move.

Where m- it's made more difficult because, frankly, you know, President Trump's administration has, you know, gotten rid of a lot of the talent at the Cybersecurity Agency, which is part of the problem.

What do you think realistically could pass this year in terms of legislation?

What's your assessment of those two arguments?

Well, first of all, Mr. Trump also said, you know, the only thing we need is a really brilliant president with a high IQ like himself.

So I'll let your viewers make your judgment on that.

And then, you know, Mr. Sachs, he's got a point that as we go through this process of an AI safety review, we've got to make sure there is the voice of small tech or early tech so that this is not an effort to simply solidify the incumbency position these big four entities have.

And I do think the idea of what the Trump administration has done is they put together a bit of a voluntary forum.

You can't do voluntary when there's at least a reasonable chance of a catastrophic risk that might disrupt the financial markets or disrupt water systems or electric systems.

So we've got to take this seriously.

What do you think realistically could pass this year in terms of legislation? Well, that's the

So what prompted this?

this?Well, I've been concerned about this, Wolf, uh, for the last couple years, and it's felt like a lonely crusade.

And I, 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.

Are you now sensing a shift on Capitol Hill to take more action on AI in this moment?

Uh, first of all, what, what were those conversations like over the weekend?

Well, listen, I've been talking about this issue for the last year and a half, that we need some guardrails.

I was...

I came from the tech industry before I was in politics.

I think we need some guardrails around data centers, around kids, around AI agents, some pretesting in terms of national security.

And the fact that now the, the leaders of the four frontier tech models are calling for this, um, I think is, is a moment that we have to take advantage of.

I'm not looking to kind of put in place EU type heavy regulations.

So [laughs] yours might be a little too nuanced.

Uh, what was your takeaway on the best way to regulate this industry, and how do you respond to the, the people, it like, um, I, I guess Vice President Vance is the most recent one to say, "Well, why don't they just regulate themselves? Why do they need the government?"

I do think you need collective action here.

I've been talking about this for a year and a half, and here are the problems, Anderson.

One, we don't have expertise inside the government at this level to know exactly what they are doing.

Um, two, you know, when you talk about the OpenAI hugging face incident, I think there was really critiques of that OpenAI didn't create what's called a sandbox that was tight enough.

We ought to make sure we have an ability to make sure those sandboxes are protected.

Three, one of the things that Dario didn't mention was that you literally had in this 3,000 agent effort, C- AI agents literally sacrificing themselves, I hate to use that terminology, to try to get to the goal, and that was with 3,000 agents.

What do you think?

Like, does that make sense to you?

Yeah, it makes total sense.

I mean, an editor's cut is like, you know, saying that my cut, I'll tell you about my philosophy is, you know, and unless I work with a director that doesn't want me to do this as I cut the script.

The script had value.

People funded the script.

There's ideas in the script.

There's juxtapositions in the script.

And I guess touching into the theme of being accredited 10 years ago, I'd be really keen to really hear how your craft or your practice has changed over that time.

... cheaper domestic product and-

So, yeah, that's true, too.

So, now, if you're looking at it from the point of view of, of, of the, of businesses that are selling into the US, then, then I think they will face a pretty, uh, depending on what it is, depending on what the product is, and how much demand, and how many alternatives there are, they may see a reduction in demand.

Um, and, uh, or they'll be asked to cut margins.

So I think they'll face that.

They'll, they'll see that pretty immediately from a point of view of businesses.

But from...

Yeah

Do you accept that you guys in Congress, especially in the Senate, but across the House and Senate, are out of touch with your base when it comes to Israel?

I would say that, you know, I have been a strong supporter of Israel.

Of course, I- the Israel that I grew up with, of Moshe Dayan and Abba Eban and others, is very different than the Israel that my kids grew up with, uh, of Bibi Netanyahu, who basically have known no other Israeli leader.

And the horror of what has happened in Gaza, uh, is inexcusable.

Any Palestinian life, any Israeli life that's lost is, is, is awful.

I would also say, uh, we should not forget what happened on O- October 7th as well, which was horrific.

So it has taken me probably longer than many of my, my friends have liked, and, um, to, to make the distinction that you can be supportive of Israel and its right to exist, but not agree with the Netanyahu government.

Yeah.

And I wonder if you have seen intelligence yourself to the extent you're able to confirm or deny to us that suggested or that that could be active in 2026.

I was embarrassed by the president the other night.

not as a senator, not as a Democrat.

I was embarrassed that the President of the United States would ask for this much time and go forward with a bunch of lies.

Most responsible networks didn't even treat it as news.

And you've already seen, I mean, the hypocrisy of this guy is jaw-dropping.

He's saying China does all this, and yet today he was asked about China.

How

Of course, we know three, at least three more service members have also been killed in recent days.

Well, first of all, when you start a war of choice, you ought to have a plan, and we've seen none of the four goals the administration had come to pass.

Administration change, not so good.

The guys are worse than before.

Enriched uranium.

It'd take 15,000 troops on the ground to go in.

Nobody wants that.

What can you tell us about what exactly your bill would legislate and set in motion for the years to come as more and more workers are edged out of the workforce, and then are not paying taxes?

15,000.

15,000 been the minimum assumption you'd need to go into these bunkers, take out this enriched uranium in canisters, would be very difficult.

The Iranians would be shooting at them.

Nobody, uh, has been, uh, moving on that.

We said we were gonna degrade their ability to use missiles and drones.

Obviously, we've not been successful.

On that point, it gets me particularly crazy, because we're using missiles that cost two and a half million dollars to shoot down Iranian drones that cost $50,000.

Has your committee been given evidence to back up those claims that suggest a direct ability to, uh, interfere?

What should the president do to respond to that?

Well, first of all, I join with all Americans in condolences to these soldiers.

Remember, as we think about this five-month war, this is a war of choice.

As a member of the Gang of Eight, it, there was no imminent threat from Iran against America.

So Donald Trump chose to go to war.

It took him two weeks to lay out what he thought his goals were gonna be.

Let's go through those.

I mean, we have troops in the region.

Let, let me just start by asking you what you made of the president's speech tonight.

tonight.Jen, yeah, I'm not saying this as a senator, I'm saying, or a Democrat or whatever.

As an American, I'm embarrassed.

I'm embarrassed that the President of the United States tried to speak to the whole nation with a whole series of falsehoods, accusations, I believe aimed at trying to undermine America's confidence in our system.

And probably as a prelude because he's, if we have a free and fair election in 2026, he and his allies will lose in a dramatic fashion.

And this is not [scoffs] the normal back and forth.

This is whether, you know, Franklin said, you know, "You got a republic if you can keep it." We're gonna decide whether we can keep our republic.

... on this as well at the time

Senator, what do you expect the president may say tonight that involves intelligence?

Well, what he may say is anybody's guess.

Whether he says anything that's true or new, I am very skeptical.

I've been either chair or vice chair of the Intelligence Committee for most of the last decade.

You know, a lot of this focus on foreign interference started when Russia interfered in 2016 on behalf of Donald Trump.

And, uh, this is the irony.

To Trump's actual credit, and the first administration's credit, they set up a series of efforts at the Director of National Intelligence, at the FBI, at the NSA.

Where do you see all of this headed?

What did you think of that moment?

Well, Nicolle, I've known, uh, Jay Clayton for some time.

I actually have worked well with him.

And I was hugely disappointed.

Um, I was disappointed there.

I was disappointed in subsequent questioning when he seemed to not have a view or know much about when the former director, Tulsi Gabbard, came down and completely, I believe illegally, tried to interfere in the, uh, Georgia Fulton County, uh, e- um, grabbing of the ballots.

Uh, the job of the Director of National Intelligence has nothing to do with domestic law enforcement actions, which I think is a, a thorny action to start with there.

Tell me how that is something, how we're even at a moment where that's something that he's gonna try to sell to his base.

D- d- don't Democratic senators need to be leading the charge on putting pressure on Israel to stop in the benefit of the United States?

Well, we had, we had both parties ...

You know, I've been a longtime supporter of Israel, but I got to the breaking point on the last set of resolutions and voted for one of them to make sure that the Israel, the settlers were not continuing to do, um, I think, outrageous things on the West Bank and in, you know, the, to use, for example, bulldozers in Southern Lebanon to destroy, um, Lebanese homes.

Um, I think you will see, uh, more of that coming forward.

Uh- And I do think that, that, uh, as someone who still very much believes Israel has a right to defend itself, they have made a strategic error by putting all their eggs in the basket of Donald Trump.

Um, and we will see how this continues to play out.

Now, one of the things...

Grainger, for the ones who get it done.

And what was offensive to me, here's a Black admiral, number one on the board, you say no, but the number three guy gets promoted, who's a white guy, but then they wanna talk about DEI and merit.

merit.Yes, it is.

This is not just about what's morally right and fair, it is about the fricking security of our country.

And anybody who, who is a Black, Latino, woman, you know, we have to acknowledge, rising through the military where there's still that network, you have to still be twice as good.

And the fact that finally things were starting to get adjusted where people of merit rose, and to bring back almost this Jim Crow approach, it doesn't help the security of our nation.

We're a nation that's, you know, at least Virginia, we're 20% Black in Virginia, we're 11, 9% Latino, 8% Asian, 52% women.

It's not just morally, but if, if we don't take care of everybody with a fair shot, the enterprise called Virginia is not gonna do as well.

... yeah, we have fire on somebody.

What is your reaction to these firings and to Pulte being acting DNI right now?

Well, first of all, this was what I was worried about.

This guy is totally not qualified for the job.

We don't have confirmation that firings have taken place.

I've seen a lot of press reports.

You know, we have made inquiries.

It seems like it's totally chaotic at the office of National, uh, Director of National Intelligence.

Have you heard from the administration, of an administration official or even Bill Pulte in the past couple days about where he, what, what he's doing there and what the process is going to be to replace him?

Sam, that's again a, a very valid question, and Jim Himes, my counterpart in the House, we wrote Pulte yesterday and said, you know, "Remember the law.

Don't go in there.

You're, you've not been congressionally approved.

You know, you're only acting, and that even is not a legal status, so you, you can't go out and start firing people or changing policy." We have not received a response to that.

Um, we've not heard, uh, from Pulte director, directly.

I don't believe any of the Republicans have Either this is a Trump selection to, I think, again, cause chaos.

Obviously, no one was quite fully aware of the extent, uh, to this, but I, I need to ask, did you have ru-- had you heard rumblings about this? And now that it's happened, to what degree are you going to look into whether or not a cult leader may have influenced our chief intelligence officer? I can't believe I have to ask that, but I do.

What is your reaction to these firings and to Pulte being acting DNI right now?

Well, first of all, this was what I was worried about.

This guy is totally not qualified for the job.

We don't have confirmation that firings have taken place.

I've seen a lot of press reports.

You know, we have made inquiries.

It seems like it's totally chaotic at the Office of National-- uh, Director of National Intelligence.

What's the point of the DNI? What do you answer?

[laughs]

And if you just look, you know, the regime is worse.

This agreement doesn't even allude to the missile capability that Iran still has, by the way.

You know, 60% of the missiles, 50% of their launchers.

We didn't take out their drones, so the agreement doesn't even mention that.

It doesn't mention Iran's support for the proxies like Hezbollah or Houthis, and if Iran is gonna get beyond sanction relief that allows them to sell oil, another $300 billion from somewhere, how much of that will end up with the Houthis? And the Strait of Hormuz is supposedly open, but at any point the Iranian speedboats can put mines back in.

Yeah.

We've got a big Iranian diaspora in Virginia.