Sen. Bill Cassidy, Nvidia CEO Jensen Huang, more — Face the Nation Full Broadcast - Sept. 20, 2026

[0:01] I'm Margaret Brennan in Washington, and this week on Face the Nation, President Trump [0:06] bars three major news organizations from covering the White House, as Republican concern [0:12] over the impact of his policies continues to grow. The countdown clock to the midterm [0:19] elections continues to tick down, but the rest of the numbers affecting the economy [0:23] continue to go up. We're now 200 days into the war with Iran, and gas prices remain high, [0:30] with diesel prices at new record highs. [0:33] Actually, that's the war that's driving up the diesel prices, but it's all going to end very soon. [0:37] That's a promise that's wearing thin with some Republicans, especially in Iowa, where [0:42] farmers are struggling and where two House Republicans in tight races voted last week [0:47] to oppose the president's open-ending war in Iran. Trump's deportation policy is an issue [0:53] for Republicans in some districts. Florida Congresswoman Maria Elvira Salazar made a [0:58] direct appeal to the president in a campaign act. [1:01] The same Hispanics who helped you get to the White House in 2024 feel betrayed today. [1:07] We'll talk with Congresswoman Salazar, California Democrat Ro Khanna, plus Louisiana Republican [1:13] Senator Bill Cassidy, and Trump's first-term economic advisor Gary Cohn. Finally, we'll hear [1:20] another viewpoint in the debate over how to manage the fast-moving pace of artificial intelligence [1:25] development, as our Joe Ling Kent spoke with NVIDIA CEO Jensen Pong. It's all just ahead on Face the Nation. [1:49] Good morning and welcome to Face the Nation. We begin what could be a pivotal week for President Trump [1:54] with respect to foreign policy, especially when it comes to the conflict with Iran, Russia's war with [2:00] Ukraine, and U.S.-China policy. He'll head to New York for the annual U.N. General Assembly Monday, then host [2:07] Chinese President Xi Jinping here in Washington later this week. The energy shock from production [2:14] and oil supply disruptions is intensifying, and we have seen assaults on Saudi Arabian infrastructure [2:19] from Iran-affiliated forces. The struggle over control of the Strait of Hormuz continues, and overnight, [2:27] new attacks from Ukraine on a Russian energy facility as well. With midterm election day now just 44 days [2:35] away, that pressure over high gas prices is hitting the president and his party hard. All 435 seats in [2:44] Congress are up on November 3rd, so perhaps that explains why Speaker Mike Johnson sent the House home [2:52] until mid-November. We begin today with California Congressman Ro Khanna, who is the top Democrat on the [2:58] Select Committee on the Chinese Communist Party, and he joins us from Fremont. Good morning to you, Congressman. [3:04] Good morning, Margaret. So China and the U.S. are in an arms race. You've proposed this idea that Chinese [3:14] AI firms should cooperate with American companies. You sent letters to DeepSeek, Alibaba, other firms [3:20] urging them to follow the lead of the American firms like OpenAI and Anthropic to slow the rate of AI [3:28] advancement until society develops guardrails, as you put it. Have any of these Chinese firms responded to your [3:35] proposal? They have not. Winning an AI war is like winning a nuclear war. It is catastrophic for [3:46] civilization. And what we have asked is that they agree to some basic terms. Look, there are two dangers [3:54] to AI, either the loss of control or misuse. And the Chinese firms have taken no actions on either of them. [4:04] Well, I'm looking at what the FBI, the NSA and Homeland Security, their division CISA, [4:14] they have all warned that China-based AI companies are targeting and copying American artificial [4:20] intelligence at what they describe as an industrial scale. So how can you ask competitors to collaborate? [4:28] Isn't it inherently at odds that they're stealing technology? [4:31] Well, they're right that they are engaging in distillation. Basically, they are copying American [4:40] models. That's one reason, frankly, to regulate American models. Because they're copying them, [4:46] some of the safeguards would protect the world. But at the same time, we also need an international [4:52] agreement with Xi Jinping to have basic standards. That should include international monitoring. [5:00] It should include checks through the data centers where you can tell whether a model is being used [5:05] for inference or training. And it should use enforceable and verifiable tools. Now, obviously, [5:12] you can't just trust the Chinese. But like any agreement, like an arms control agreement, [5:18] as Reagan said, you need to trust and verify. And the world has done this before. There's no reason [5:23] we can't do it when it comes to AI. Well, I'm looking at Bloomberg's figures. They [5:29] report China is preparing to spend about $300 billion over the next five years to build data [5:34] centers across that country, which will be operated by state-owned firms. As you know, [5:40] there's really no wall between the state and industry in China. So when you are acknowledging they [5:48] commit human rights abuses and their AI firms help the state to commit those abuses, aren't you asking [5:55] the CEOs to do something that's at odds with what Xi Jinping is seeking to do? [6:00] Well, the first ask is of Trump and Xi Jinping to come up with an international agreement. [6:07] And two of the core principles should be, one, banning any self-improving AI, recursive self-improving [6:16] AI. That's basically AI that continues to improve itself and where we could lose control. The second [6:22] is to have safeguards so that AI can't be misused by people for biological nuclear weapons. [6:30] The letters to the Chinese companies were simply seeking information about what they're doing. It [6:36] wasn't intended as a solution. What it was intended to do is highlight the need for the Chinese [6:45] government and the U.S. government to come to an agreement. And that needs to be the first agenda [6:49] item on the Trump-Xi Jinping summit. Well, we know it's going to come up. We just don't know the [6:55] details of exactly what it is the U.S. is proposing at all. We're going to watch for that in [7:00] this next week-long set of meetings with China. You sit on the Armed Services Committee. Yesterday, [7:06] President Trump posted on social media that his plan is to create an AI czar and form the AI force, [7:13] much like I did the Space Force. I'm not exactly sure where he's going with that, but you yourself [7:19] have called for a new government agency to be set up to deal with AI. So you both seem to agree that [7:26] the existing infrastructure isn't enough. Why can't you just have Cyber Command handle all of this? [7:32] What does the executive branch or Congress actually have to do? Well, we need to set up an AI agency [7:40] like the FDA. I mean, I don't know what President Trump's vision is. I don't know if he's using [7:45] AI in an offensive capability, which would give me a lot of pause, especially because [7:50] when you have things like the shooting of the Iranian school, where you had AI information [7:56] basically feed something into a general, and then you had pro forma sign-off, that gives me concern. [8:04] What I'm talking about is what Jeffrey Hinton, the godfather of AI, has said, which is that this can [8:10] be regulated like we regulate nuclear energy, electricity, aviation, have independent technical [8:17] experts, make sure AI is safe. And Margaret, one of the things that really annoys me is when you [8:23] have these tech CEOs out there saying, oh, this is too complicated. People in Washington don't understand [8:29] this. Give me a break. We have regulated very complex things. We know we can appoint independent, [8:35] smart people from universities. This is not complicated. We need to have an independent [8:40] federal agency. Well, respectfully, Congressman, [8:43] Congress hasn't regulated a lot of things or come forward with much legislation of late. But to put [8:50] that aside, I take your broader point. I want to ask you about another important topic at this meeting [8:57] with Xi Jinping and President Trump, and that is the fate of Americans who do business or travel to China. [9:02] Secretary Rubio has designated two U.S. citizens as wrongfully detained by China. And one of them is [9:09] your constituent, scholar Min Xin. He has been held for 100 days now by the Ministry of State Security [9:15] without access to a lawyer. He has no court date. And I spoke with his wife on Friday. Take a listen. [9:24] He's been charged with endangering national security, and that's all we know. [9:29] That's a big charge. It's a huge charge. My daughter looked it up, and I think that really freaked her [9:41] out. That's when she was like, what is going to happen to Dad? And yeah, it's a shock, right? I mean, [9:50] he's a scholar. He's an academic. He's not a spy. What did you think when the U.S. government [9:57] explained to you this charge? That was what I asked. Like, what does that mean? You know, [10:02] and they're like, we don't have more information. This is all we've been told. [10:07] When the U.S. government says that the safety of Americans is their highest priority, [10:12] do you believe that? Well, the president has brought home over 100 [10:18] wrongfully detained Americans home, right? So I'm hoping my husband is the next one. [10:24] Now, this scholar was disappeared shortly after he landed to a conference he was invited to. [10:31] A lot of Americans go to China to conduct business. What are you and others in the [10:35] government doing to help those who are detained when they're doing work there? [10:39] Well, it's appalling. And while I have my disagreements with Secretary Rubio and this, [10:45] I stand in complete solidarity with him, as does the China committee, we cannot have American [10:54] citizens or scholars in America be detained or disappeared because of what they say. And when [10:59] I was in China about a year ago, we raised this issue, not on this specific case, but we had heard [11:07] cases of Chinese students in the United States who were not being allowed to continue because they [11:13] may have engaged in some protest or had an errant social media tweet. We had heard cases of people [11:21] who were detained, business leaders or people doing business because they disagreed with the Chinese [11:27] government. And that is unacceptable to the United States. And then, of course, [11:32] there's the whole situation with the Uyghurs. We just had a hearing last week on the Uyghurs [11:38] situation, extraordinary human rights abuses. And we need that to be front and center in this meeting as [11:45] well. Congressman Khanna, we thank you for your time today. And we turn now to Florida Republican [11:51] Congresswoman Maria Elvira Salazar, who joins us from Miami. Good morning to you, Congresswoman. [11:57] Good morning. Thank you for the opportunity. [12:01] We're glad to have you. I want to talk to you about a number of issues, [12:03] but let me just start up front, because you are a former journalist. I'm sure you saw [12:08] yesterday journalists from CNN, Politico and MSNOW were blocked from entering the White House [12:13] after the president objected to the content of their organization's reporting. Do you agree with [12:19] the president's order to do that? Well, I think that the president [12:24] has a different type of style, but at the same time, I think that he is the most accessible president [12:30] in the later years that has been has been talking to the media. You know, he talks to everybody. [12:35] So may he may not be allowing for some journalists to go into one place, [12:40] but I'm sure that he's going to he's going to be talking to everybody at some point. [12:44] That's his style. And he is very, very accessible, not like Biden. [12:49] No, I understand that point. But when it comes to saying you can't attend press briefings because [12:55] I don't like what you said, doesn't that premise violate the spirit of the First Amendment? [13:01] Well, I think that he has his own style and that he will determine who he wants to talk to. [13:08] But with social media and with all the different outlets out there for people to receive information, [13:14] I am sure that those journalists are going to be able to cover the president the way that you free [13:21] speech, the way you determine because, you know, the media has a way of showing up right now. [13:28] And you know that the American school of journalism is not so vigorous as it was during the time that [13:34] we started this career. So I have my my different opinions as to what's happening on television. [13:39] Well, I don't coverage of this presidency. Yeah, well, I understand your views, [13:44] but I don't think proximity is going to stop these journalists from doing their jobs. Let me ask you [13:49] about something you put out there this week. You have been speaking for months about your concerns [13:56] regarding President Trump's immigration policies. But in this ad you put out, you're more direct. [14:01] You said the same Hispanics who helped Trump get to the White House in 2024 feel betrayed. [14:07] His enforcement efforts have gone too far. And half of the 50,000 people detained in July [14:13] had no criminal record. You spoke to the president after this. Did he take any of your advice? [14:22] It was a very good conversation. He was a gentleman, very courteous, very receptive. [14:29] And I told him exactly what you just repeated. Sir, you have this this moment in history [14:36] where you can keep the pot of gold that you brought to the GOP in 2024. No other president, [14:43] and you know, I covered for 35 years Spanish television. No other president was able to [14:48] convince the Hispanics to vote 55 points for a GOP president. Please preserve that fortune that you [14:56] have brought to the party. Why? Because we need to continue winning elections because we have this very [15:01] big threat called the socialists on the Democratic side. And if you want me, we can talk about that [15:06] later. I belong to the Miami community. I'm the daughter of political refugees. I'm first-generation [15:11] American, and I want to preserve the American values that are entrenched in the GOP and that [15:17] the Hispanics share. So remember, sir, that you are the only guy who can do this. And that's, [15:22] and then we had a fantastic conversation. I certainly hope he listened to what I was saying, [15:26] but he listened. But he seems to have a different definition of criminality than you do, [15:33] right? Because the administration argues anyone who entered this country [15:36] in the country, undocumented, should be deported. You're saying no. [15:41] Well, and, and, and, and, well, you know, and you know very well, immigration is a very toxic [15:47] topic. It's a very complex topic. And the average American, the normal American who is watching [15:54] right now knows two things. 70% of the polls say that the average American wants some type of immigration [16:01] reform law, which is, I was, I presented that legislation called the Dignity Act five years [16:08] ago. And number two, the average American understands the difference between the narco [16:12] and the nanny and the gangster and the gardener. So it's very, it's very, it's what's happening. [16:18] The president does too. And you know why? Because he had said it over the last two years that there [16:24] are good people picking up the jalapeno peppers, working in agricultural construction, [16:28] hospitality, healthcare, and manufacturing. He is a construction and hospitality guy. [16:33] He gets it more than anybody. And I told him during our conversation, [16:37] you could fix this mess that has been happening for 40 years. [16:41] He's the only person because he gets it. He's a businessman. [16:45] And he has the political ability to convince both parties to vote on for this legislation or any [16:52] immigration reform. All I'm trying to do, I'm coming from a very good place. [16:57] I am a proud Republican. And I do want the continuing, I want the values of the American [17:02] people to, I'm sorry that I, no, no, no, I understand. But it doesn't sound like he agreed [17:08] to take your advice. You did say in that ad as well, that he's getting bad advice, [17:13] bad counsel from his advisors. Who? [17:16] I think that some of his advisors are compromising his legacy. [17:20] And I think it's, it's my duty. It's my duty not to, there are no attacks here. [17:26] There I'm just for warning him and advising him as a member of Congress from the South Florida area [17:32] that some of his advisors are just not presenting the whole picture. [17:36] Secretary Mullin, immigration enforcement. [17:39] Secretary Mullin, Tom Homan, Stephen Miller. [17:40] I, I, I, I, listen, he is the only elected official in the White House. [17:46] He is the one who has to determine who he listened and who he does not listen to. [17:50] Yeah. [17:51] He is the president. I, what I'm doing is I'm coming from an elevated emotion. [17:56] I'm coming from a good place. I'm telling him, sir, [17:59] look what you did. Don't squander it. And on top of that, you know what, [18:04] what's happening with immigration enforcement. That's what I did. [18:07] Uh, you mentioned socialism. Uh, this week, Venezuela's leader, Delce Rodriguez, [18:12] a socialist, Maduro's number two, is going to meet with President Trump in New York. [18:16] Um, on this network, you have previously said she was in charge of the secret police. [18:21] She was one of the thieves, you described her, who destroyed Venezuela. [18:25] So should the American president be welcoming her and sitting across from her in New York? [18:30] Well, once again, you see, we go back to Donald Trump. He created this new blueprint, [18:37] the Western hemisphere and how to deal with the dictators. And what he did was that he, [18:42] and think about this. I think that we discussed this. He created this. He has forced the bad actors [18:47] like Delce, because she was, uh, next to Maduro and we know that they were not good people for the [18:53] Venezuelans. So Trump has forced the bad actors to create the platform for the good actors to come in. [19:01] Just like president, like, uh, Secretary Rubio said recently that there was recovery and then transition. [19:09] I do know that the United States is in the business of bringing liberty and democracy to [19:14] our neighbors and transition where occur. So Delce is just a necessary evil for now to stabilize. [19:21] Look what happened. I mean, the Venezuelans love president Trump. He liberated them from socialism, [19:27] from disaster, from misery. Now I'm sure that soon we're going to be able to create new unfair [19:33] elections with international observers. And once again, we will have done our job of bringing democracy [19:39] and freedom to the Western hemisphere. Well, we will watch the answer to that question of soon [19:44] and when, uh, thank you very much Congresswoman for your time this morning. [19:48] Face the Nation will be back in a minute. Stay with us. We're joined now by Republican Senator Bill [19:56] Cassidy. He is the chairman of the Health Committee and he joins us from Baton Rouge, Louisiana. [20:02] Good morning to you, Doctor. Uh, a lot to get to. I want to start first on, uh, something that grabbed [20:08] our attention. Uh, President Trump claimed Friday that his son has now repaid a Russian billionaire named [20:15] Umar Kremlev after it was reported that the Kremlin-linked billionaire paid for parts of his son's [20:21] wedding celebrations in the Bahamas. Um, Don Jr. Originally called it a gift, but your Republican [20:28] colleague from Utah, Senator Curtis, called it corruption. Your colleague from North Carolina, [20:33] Tom Tillis, said it was beyond bad. Do you think it's corruption and does repaying the funds make a [20:39] difference? Well, repaying the funds does make a difference. Anytime someone gives a $250,000 gift [20:47] and they have strong ties to the Kremlin, that's, that's wrong. You, with that proximity to power, [20:54] being the president's son, you've got to give faith to the American people that Washington is not a [21:01] swamp. And even though in your mind it might be a gift, the appearance of it is really bad. And so [21:08] I'm glad it's been repaid. Would be nice to have that kind of verified and know it shouldn't have been [21:12] done in the first place. Well, it was the free press that brought it forward in the first place. [21:16] It was a publication called ProPublica. Um, important reporting there. Uh, let me ask you [21:22] about an issue that I know is on your radar, um, and that is the debt we are in. As a country, [21:28] we are $40 trillion in debt. Um, President Trump said he's going to pay out $5,000 to Americans if [21:35] Republicans win, uh, in these upcoming midterm elections. I know the Treasury Secretary says he'll [21:41] avoid going to Congress for that money. Um, even if it's not fiscal spending is isn't it inflationary [21:47] and is it actually a good idea? It's absolutely inflationary. If Joe Biden had proposed that, [21:54] conservatives would have been all against it. And I say that because if the government borrows money, [21:59] it's going to drive up, uh, how much somebody pays for their mortgage, for their car note, [22:04] perhaps for their credit card. And so for that family struggling to buy their first home or to [22:08] refinance a home or to buy a car, it becomes that much more out of reach to you. Uh, [22:13] we need to actually pay attention to our national debt. And I can tell you that if we can control [22:20] our debt, that will be a stimulus to somebody that will help them be able to afford life better. [22:26] That's a better way to go. Anything like that going to happen post midterms to control the debt? [22:31] Well, so I, as you know, I've been pushing to address social security. [22:36] And the nice thing about addressing social security, which I would still love to do this Congress, [22:41] is that, um, um, is that not only do you ensure the benefit that has been promised to the American [22:48] people, but you also take care of 20% of our nation's indebtedness. And so that's why I've been [22:54] so pushing for this. If we wait six years till the trust fund goes insolvent, my gosh, that's too late. [23:00] We need to do it now. Absolutely. Let's talk more about it in a minute. I'm going to take this [23:04] commercial break, Senator, and we'll have much more with Dr. Bill Cassidy. Stay with us. [23:09] Welcome back to Face the Nation. We return now to our conversation with Louisiana Republican [23:21] Senator and Dr. Bill Cassidy. Senator, you, as we mentioned, run the health committee. [23:29] President Trump spoke at length on Friday, again, about vaccines. And he said he's going to demand that [23:36] drug companies split up kids' vaccines into five doses. He said it will lead, quote, [23:42] to a massive reduction in autism. Take a listen. [23:46] So you have shot one, shot two, shot three, shot four, shot five. So instead of having [23:54] a massive dose of 82 or 88 different vaccines pumped into your arm, we'll take out certain [24:03] vaccines that people are a little worried about. Do you know what vaccines he means or whether [24:11] vaccine makers are actually going to do what he just promised? [24:17] I don't know that. There needs to be, though, radical honesty. Have the president come forward. [24:22] What is he basing this on? Who's giving him advice? And I approach this as a physician. [24:27] I spoke to a pediatrician the other night who says that patients are so worried, [24:31] patients' mothers are so worried. And so we need to address that worry where it is, [24:36] not by coming up with stuff which may have no, I have no clue where it's coming from, [24:41] but kind of in a radically honest way, explain what you think. If you want to be radically honest, [24:47] the vaccines are safe. They've been proven to be safe. And the current regimen has been timed to [24:53] be most convenient to the parent. At any point, the parent can say, I want something different. [24:57] But I would just ask the president to be aware that people are listening to him. [25:01] If he discourages immunization, there'll be fewer people immunized. And if we're speaking of measles, [25:06] there'll be more people sick in the hospital or even die. [25:09] Well, and just on the math of it all, he's talking about more shots, [25:14] adding shots rather than reducing them. But your committee holds a hearing this coming week [25:22] on the nominee to be the next FDA commissioner, Dr. Heidi Overton. She was standing beside President [25:29] Trump a few weeks ago when he falsely called the MMR vaccine lethal. You said it was a nonsensical [25:36] executive order that he was signing to change the childhood vaccine schedule. She'd be involved with [25:42] the vaccine makers here. You said her presence and involvement was almost disqualifying. [25:50] Why not automatically? What do you need to hear from her to be persuaded? [25:54] I need to hear that she understands that calling the measles vaccine lethal is absurd. And we need [26:04] radical honesty. Tell us, Mr. President, why do you think this vaccine is lethal? Have you ever seen a [26:11] case of lethality? And what about the people who are not vaccinated, who are getting sick and even [26:16] dying? By the way, a 40-year-old and an 18-year-old most recently. And what do we say to those families in [26:22] the neonatal intensive care unit at the Children's Hospital of Philadelphia, where a child, an older [26:28] child with active measles walked through, exposing those children in that ICU? We should have a common [26:35] voice of radical honesty, of trying to help the American people understand what is safe. And if [26:41] the president calls it lethal, then where are you getting your information, Mr. President? And if you [26:46] really don't have it, why are you willing to risk the lives of fellow Americans? [26:50] And on this program, Dr. Oz did admit that it was not lethal when we pressed him. But no one did on [26:58] camera. And Margaret, can I also point out that the president's nominee for Surgeon General, Dr. [27:05] Sapphire, just said in committee hearing last week that it's not lethal, it is safe, and people should [27:11] be vaccinated. Did she earn your vote? And if so, when will we see her confirmed as Surgeon General? [27:15] So, she did earn my vote. And she will be part of, I'm sure, the en bloc. There's a whole group of [27:24] people that will be all approved at the same time. But when somebody is willing to be honest to the [27:30] American people and say that vaccines are safe, you should be taking it, and the consequence of not [27:36] can even include death, well, what else can you ask for when it comes to vaccines? [27:40] You mentioned a moment ago the concern that the Pennsylvania Department of Health has said about [27:46] the Children's Hospital of Philadelphia and exposure of babies, infants, in NICU. A baby's not immunized [27:54] until around 12 months of age, so these infants are at risk here. And Dr. Paul Offit, who heads the [28:00] Vaccine Education Center, said the United States is severely underestimating the epidemic of measles [28:07] right now. So, we have had for about two and a half weeks now a new CDC director, Dr. Erica Schwartz. [28:15] In her very first interview, she said the CDC is working on a definition of what a measles-related [28:22] death is. Is that really what the CDC should be focused on, the nuance around the language? [28:30] So, Dr. Schwartz and I have communicated on multiple occasions. And there is a difference in medicine [28:38] between caused by and associated with. Of the four deaths in Pennsylvania, one was associated with [28:46] measles, but the coroner did not say that measles caused the death. The other three, a coroner, by the [28:53] way, all Republicans, have said that the deaths were caused by measles. Now, there's apparently a lag time [29:00] between the records being sent and received by CDC from Pennsylvania and being posted. But the coroner [29:08] in Pennsylvania, three different cases have said that these deaths were caused by measles. And I'll [29:14] repeat, Margaret, one was 40 and one was 18 years old. Having measles is not a kind of victimless [29:21] kind of experience. It's a little bit like drunk driving. You can drive drunk, you know, you can drink [29:27] and get drunk. But if you drive, you're going to hurt other people. You can get measles. But when you [29:33] start spreading it to other people, a 40-year-old dies, an 18-year-old dies. Children in a neonatal [29:39] intensive care unit are at risk. People have got to realize, and the government has to realize it. [29:43] The president should be saying, be vaccinated. It is safe and effective. Do you think this is going [29:47] to hurt your party in the midterms? If you look at polling, women who make most of the health [29:55] decisions for a family overwhelmingly support childhood immunization. And so if the American [30:02] people feel as if there is a message coming out which is not good for the health of the United [30:08] States and which is confusing people, I can tell you it probably does hurt. [30:12] MS. Dr. Cassidy, Senator, thank you for your time today. We'll leave it there. We'll be right back. [30:18] And we're joined now by Gary Cohn. He is the vice chairman at IBM. He previously served as the top [30:26] economic advisor to President Trump during that first term. Welcome back. It's always good to [30:31] have you here. Thanks for having me. So we have a lot of pressure points right now. One of them is [30:35] diesel prices at this record high. Motor oil, jet fuel costs, they're all affecting consumers. And this [30:41] is not just in America. I mean, around the world, the video alone of what's happening with protests [30:45] in some of these countries, in Syria, Philippines, Guatemala, all gas price protests. How concerned are you [30:53] about the state of the consumer and the global economy? Well, Margaret, I think you went to the [30:59] exact topic that the consumer in the United States is most concerned about. It's energy and energy [31:04] products. You know, you start with gasoline, the most obvious thing. People go to the pump daily, [31:08] weekly, and they sit there and they hold the nozzle down and they watch the numbers tick and they see [31:12] these numbers are higher than they were last week and they're higher than the week before. Is this ever [31:16] going to stop? So directly they see it. Then indirectly, when you talk about diesel, diesel is really the [31:23] feedstock for food in this country. You know, our farmers go through diesel to grow their crops, [31:29] to pick their crops, to deliver their crops. The transportation network is all dependent on diesel. [31:34] So they see the secondhand effects of diesel in the economy as well. So the consumer sediment has [31:40] turned quite negative. And then throw on top of that, the unknowns of AI is really concerning people [31:46] because they see very high prices. They're unsure about AI. They're unsure about the job market. And so [31:51] sediment has become quite negative recently. It's become negative. And yet you hear Treasury [31:56] Secretary Besson and others saying, we've got all these positive data points, right? With like, [32:01] you know, the poverty rate in this country, um, really at a historic low. This morning, [32:06] he was posting about that on social media as he's getting ready to meet with the Chinese. He says, [32:10] there's strong foreign demand for U.S. assets. He refutes the ideas that investors are balking at [32:16] treasuries. But there does seem this concern about America's stability and fiscal health. [32:21] You know, we're in a very funny place here. The overall economy is quite stable. So if you look [32:26] at some of the headline indicators, you look at GDP, you look at employment, you look at consumer [32:31] spending, the numbers are pretty good. They're pretty good to very good. So what's actually going on in [32:37] the day-to-day economy that Secretary Besson is talking about, he's right. But when you ask consumers [32:42] about how they feel about the economy and where they think they're going to be in a month from [32:46] now, a quarter from now, a year from now, then you see this very negative sentiment of all these [32:51] issues flowing through. But we have not seen a slowdown in consumption. That said, we have seen [32:57] real wages turn negative in the last few months, meaning that wage growth is slower than inflation [33:03] growth. So your purchasing power goes down. But people have decided to use their savings, [33:08] and savings is diminishing. They've decided to use their savings to continue to consume [33:12] products the way they have always consumed products. Now, that can't go on forever. We [33:17] will run out of savings. Says a lot about us as Americans, doesn't it? [33:19] Well, we are very good consumers in America. Well, this past week, we had this significant [33:24] move, though, by the new Federal Reserve Chair, Kevin Warsh. I know you know him personally. [33:29] He came out and said the economy is strengthening with new hiring, private sector earnings, capital [33:34] investment. But the Open Market Committee unanimously said, we've got to hike rates because of [33:40] persistent inflation. Did it surprise you? Not at all. As you know, the Fed has a dual mandate. [33:47] Mandate number one is full employment. And the chair came out and talked about how strong the [33:51] employment was. I just talked about how strong the employment picture in the United States is. [33:55] Point two that they deal with, the second part of their mandate, is something called stable prices. [34:00] Stable prices means that they're trying to shoot for a two percent unemployment rate. The chairman [34:06] has made it very clear, very clear that he is going to fight inflation. He said it in his first [34:11] meeting. He said it in his Jackson Hole. He said it in any interview he's given. He's told you he's [34:15] going to fight inflation. So we now come to this meeting last week and we still have inflation up in [34:20] the high two percent, two point closer to three percent. And he did exactly what he told you he was going [34:26] to do. And more importantly, he did it with the unanimous vote of all of the governors in the Fed. [34:31] I think it's been many, many meetings. I don't want to guess exactly. It's probably been six [34:36] six plus meetings since we have had a consensus unanimous vote inside the Fed. [34:40] And on the cost of an election that surprised so many people. But the president said the Fed did [34:46] the wrong thing. Maybe he meant politically. But practically speaking, what will this hike do? [34:52] So practically it's an interesting hike because we all know that the inflation is being driven from [34:59] the supply side of the equation, meaning that we don't have enough supply in the system going back [35:04] to energy. If we had more energy in the system, the price of energy would come down and we'd see some [35:09] of the deflation come out of the system. So this is not this cut can't change the amount of oil that's [35:14] in the system. It can't create diesel. It can't create gasoline. But what this increase does, [35:19] sorry about that, this increase does is it makes the cost of borrowing more expensive. And that's [35:24] the intention. The intention is to have consumers buy less product. Therefore, there's less demand [35:31] that offsets with the lower supply that we have in the in the system. It's really a balancing act in [35:38] here. Now, it's 25 basis points. And remember, it's federal funds, which means it's the very front [35:43] end of the interest rate curve. So they they raise the rates in the front end of the interest curve. [35:48] A interesting thing actually happened. The longer dated securities, interest sensitive, [35:53] actually got cheaper or the rates went down on them. So the key, the government bonds. So in essence, [36:00] the curve, which had been fairly steep, meaning the difference between the overnight rate and the 30 [36:05] year rate, it technically flattened. So the differential between those two rates flattened. So [36:10] to the extent that people are getting a mortgage or they're getting a car loan or they're financing their [36:14] credit cards, the rate of which the banks used to set that really did not change or went lower over [36:19] the over the course of the week. And the rate at which depositors can get money overnight on their [36:24] deposits actually went up. Well, you thank you on the yield curve and bonds, because that's where I was [36:29] going on. Besant, the Treasury secretary buying five billion dollars in U.S. debt. Does that improve [36:35] anything? Or is it really just Congress has got to cut their own spending? Well, ultimately, Congress has to cut [36:41] their own spending. And it's not only just Congress. We have enormous demand from the data centers in the [36:45] AI world. There's more debt being issued by corporates as well as the governments than we've seen in a [36:51] long period of time. But what Secretary Besant was doing is exactly what Chairman Walsh is doing. [36:57] They're both trying to make the longer end of the curve, the part of the curve where you and I borrow [37:02] money when we get a car, when we buy a home. They're trying to make the longer dated maturities cheaper. [37:07] They're trying to drive the interest rates down on the long end of the curve. Secretary Besant used [37:12] the tool he has available to him. And Chairman Walsh used the tool he has available to them. And [37:18] they're both driving the same outcome. We'll see if it works. We will hope it works. We'll hope it works. [37:24] Gary Cohn, always good to have you here. Thanks for having me. We'll be back in a moment. [37:28] As the debate over the direction and future of artificial intelligence intensifies, [37:37] our new CBS poll shows Americans are fundamentally divided on the technology and the questions of [37:43] at what pace? Or should we even develop AI technology? 43% of Americans say AI companies [37:50] should slow down development. 12% say we should stop. While 44% say we should keep the current pace or [37:58] even speed up. Nearly two thirds of Americans, 64%, say the US developing AI is necessary to compete with [38:06] other countries. After an AI researcher spoke earlier this month of his concerns that the technology [38:11] could pose a threat to humanity within 10 years, Americans say they do have concerns about AI models [38:19] potentially causing harm to humans, with half saying they probably or certainly will, with the other [38:25] half divided between those who think the models probably or certainly will not or are not sure. [38:31] One industry leader who's firmly on the side of acceleration is NVIDIA CEO Jensen Huang, [38:38] whose company makes chips used by AI developers in both the U.S. and China. [38:43] He spoke with our Joling Kent for CBS Sunday Morning. Here's some of their conversation. [38:48] Are we all going to be, in the words of some, gone in a decade? [38:54] No, that's completely false. And that kind of narrative [38:58] is dramatic. It gets a lot of attention. Of course, obviously, it's gotten the attention of [39:06] the press. And I think at its core, they care deeply that the products are built safely. [39:13] They're transitioning from a lab to engineering. They have to dedicate a lot more of their research, [39:21] researchers, a lot more of their compute to safety. All the messaging around the drama of it [39:28] is unnecessary. It is, quite frankly, too much drama, irresponsible. It is now grounded on facts. [39:38] It's not grounded on science. So it's wrong. [39:41] Well, it's wrong because it's not grounded on science. Their concern is not wrong. I just want [39:46] to make sure that at the core of it, the concern is not wrong. Do you think that we should be pacing [39:53] the development of AI right now, given where we are vis-a-vis China? We should go as fast as we can, [39:59] but not faster than we should. And if we're compromising safety, that can happen. If you're [40:06] compromising safety and you deliver products that are unsafe, that put people in harm's way, [40:12] we have laws of all kinds to come after you. And so the companies that are developing these [40:18] technologies are perfectly incentivized to do the right thing. And I have every confidence, [40:25] I have every confidence, because they're incentivized to do so, they have the capability to do so, [40:31] that we will deliver, we will create AI, advance AI in a way that's safe to society. [40:37] The president is calling this fear a hoax. Do you agree with his characterization of it? [40:42] I believe the claims of the end of the world, stirring fear across America, [40:56] and doing it by the people who are doing it makes no sense to me. So they must be doing it for [41:02] ulterior reasons. That's, that's, maybe it's political, maybe it's otherwise, maybe it's just [41:10] attention grabbing, maybe so that they could get a great interview with you. [41:14] I don't, I don't know what is the reason for it. But however it's characterized, [41:21] 2030 is not going to be the end of the world. There is 0% chance that's going to be the end of the [41:27] world. And so I think that scaring people is unnecessary. It is irresponsible. And I don't [41:35] know what their motives are. However, what he did say in some of the other things. So, [41:42] so that's one thing that he said. The other thing that he said was, was that we don't need more [41:48] regulations. We need to apply the current regulations we have. That's a very practical, [41:54] very sensible thing. And, and we just spoke about that as well. And I agree with that. [41:58] You will be attending the state dinner with President Xi Jinping of China. [42:03] If you get a chance to speak to him about this situation that we're in right now, [42:08] the one that Americans are so concerned about, what will you say to the president of China? [42:12] I would say that, that I'm delighted to see AI's technology transitioning from, [42:20] from laboratories to now really useful capabilities and products and services. [42:26] And because it's making that transition, it would be good for all countries that are developing and [42:32] advancing AI to do so in a way where we share best practices, maybe, maybe set global standards about [42:42] product expectations. Work closer together. [42:45] Of course work closer together. If we want, look, they want China to be safe. [42:54] They want China to have the benefit of AI. They want China to prosper just as we want [43:00] United States to prosper. I'm glad they have ambitious expectations and aspirations. [43:06] As they advance the technology, we ought to make sure that we work with each other as much as we can. [43:11] I want to ask you about something that's really bothering a lot of Americans right now. [43:17] There's a lot of people who don't want data centers in their backyards. [43:20] Yeah. [43:21] This is rare bipartisan unity. The backlash is bipartisan. [43:28] NVIDIA powers a lot of data centers. What do you say to the people out there who are speaking out [43:34] and saying, we do not want these in our neighborhoods? [43:38] I would say, we're sorry we didn't come talk to you sooner. [43:43] We need to go engage the communities long before we set up the data centers. [43:49] And I think all of my colleagues recognize this today. [43:54] You know, it's just all of this happened so quickly and it happened all over America so quickly. [43:58] We didn't realize and we didn't get a chance to be polite, to be a visitor in some new town. [44:07] However, I will also say the data centers are also improving tremendously and tremendously quickly. [44:15] Joe Ling's full conversation with Jensen Huang can be seen on the CBS Sunday Morning YouTube channel. [44:22] And this breaking news development with the president's plan for a 250-foot triumphal arch [44:32] to be built near Arlington Cemetery just across the Potomac River in Virginia, inspired from the Arc de [44:38] Triomphe in Paris. In a new social media post, the president says it may now feature a national [44:44] security facility featuring drones and snipers. At the strong request of the United States military [44:50] and for national security purposes, I have agreed to convert the magnificent triumphal arch planned [44:55] since the Civil War era many years ago at the receptive circle adjoining the Arlington Memorial [45:01] Bridge into a top grade military complex triumphal arch to house, store, and have the rapid [45:07] ability to use large numbers of drones plus snipers on both the roof and plaza areas and additionally have [45:15] and hold large quantities of sniper ammunition in storage. And we will continue to follow that one. [45:22] That's it for us today. Thank you for watching. Until next week, for Face the Nation, I'm Margaret Brennan.