The 11th Hour With Stephanie Ruhle 5/16/26 — MSNBC Breaking News Today May 16, 2026

[0:00] The Iran war nears a pivotal 60-day deadline. [0:03] The law says Trump must make the case to Congress for continuing the conflict or end all military action. [0:09] Then, what war in Iran is costing Americans at the pump? [0:13] Gas prices spike again, surging to a national average of $4.30 a gallon, the highest we have seen in four years. [0:21] Plus, the Supreme Court's ruling on the Voting Rights Act supercharges the race for new congressional maps [0:26] as the 11th hour gets underway on this Thursday night. [0:38] Good evening, once again. I am Stephanie Ruhle. [0:41] And Trump's war in Iran has now lasted more than two months. [0:44] And we are just one hour away from the deadline for the president to either end the conflict [0:49] or officially request authorization from Congress under the War Powers Act. [0:53] But Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth, well, he seems to think there is a loophole. [0:58] Listen to what he told the Senate Armed Services Committee earlier today. [1:01] On Iran, ultimately, I would defer to the White House and White House counsel on that. [1:08] However, we are in a ceasefire right now, which our understanding means the 60-day clock pauses [1:14] or stops in a ceasefire. So, you're not in. That's our understanding, just so you know. [1:19] OK, well, I do not believe the statute would support that. I think the 60 days runs maybe tomorrow. [1:24] And that's going to pose a really important legal question for the administration. [1:32] We'll have to see whether that theory proves true. [1:34] However, if hostilities were to resume, it would definitely change the calculus. [1:39] And Axios is reporting that, according to two separate sources, military commanders were set [1:43] to brief the president as soon as today on new plans for potential military actions in Iran. [1:49] Those could include a wave of what they call short and powerful strikes to break the deadlock [1:54] and peace talks, as well as an operation to completely take over the Strait of Hormuz. [1:59] Meanwhile, the president is not publicly acknowledging the negotiations are even at an impasse. [2:03] Nobody knows what the talks are, except myself and a couple of other people. [2:11] They want to make a deal badly. We have a problem because nobody knows for sure who the leaders are. [2:18] It's a little bit of a problem. We're not going to have a nuclear weapon in the hands of Iran. [2:22] The gas will go down. As soon as the war's over, it'll drop like a rock. [2:27] There's so much of it. It's all over the place, sitting all over the oceans of the world. [2:31] So they don't even know who's in charge? I'm not sure if that's true, because Iran's [2:38] supreme leader posted several messages on social media today, and he did not sound like someone [2:44] who is desperate to make a deal. [2:46] Quote, Iran will put an end to the hostile enemy's exploitation of the Strait of Hormuz. [2:52] He then added that Iranians consider their scientific capacity, including nuclear and missile [2:57] technologies to be national assets. With all of that, fears of escalation are causing chaos in [3:02] the oil market. International Brett crude futures closed at over $110 a barrel after reaching a [3:09] wartime high of $126 a barrel yesterday. You might say, what does that have to do with me? Well, [3:15] it has to do with this. The average U.S. gas price is now $4.30 a gallon. That is 30 cents more than it [3:22] was just one week ago. Now it's time to get smarter with the help of our leadoff panel this evening. [3:27] And it's certainly going to be a good one, because Peter Baker is here, chief White House [3:31] correspondent for The New York Times. Miles Taylor, former chief of staff for the Department of [3:35] Homeland Security during the first Trump administration. And he is the founder of defiance.org. [3:40] And Lieutenant General Mark Hertling, retired commander of the U.S. Army Europe. And I am super [3:46] excited to announce he is our newest military analyst here at MSNOW. So, Mark, I officially [3:53] welcome you to the MS family. I'm thrilled that you are here. So, here's your test. You're going to [4:00] have the first question tonight. Let's see how you do. Could you walk us through the risks of potential [4:05] options for these new military strikes? What Axios is reporting? Yeah, we've talked about this. And thank [4:10] you, first of all, Stephanie. It's great to be part of the MSNOW team. But what I'll talk about a little [4:16] bit is the dangers involved in any kind of escalations at this point. The military commanders, [4:22] the CENTCOM commander, is giving briefings, allegedly, to the White House, to the chairman, [4:27] the SECDEF, and the president on what the options might be. What I would suggest is they better be [4:33] pretty good and they better be well thought out. Because if we're talking about putting forces [4:38] anywhere along the Strait of Hormuz or capturing any or seizing any of the islands in the area, [4:45] it's going to be rough going. A very tough situation along the coast. There is still [4:51] unknowns like the mines in the water, the potential for additional drones and missile launches by Iran [4:59] against targets in the area. And I would suggest that it could be a very difficult offensive operation [5:06] if they're planning to do something like that. You opened up in the beginning of the program [5:12] talking about the pause, the potential pause that would restart the clock. I'm not a lawyer either, [5:18] but I don't think that lives up to the spirit of either the 60 or the 90-day rule regarding combat [5:26] operations in a theater and how much time the president has to notify the Congress and the American [5:32] people exactly what he's doing. The fact that we're debating what forces may do going into the area, [5:39] what forces they are, and what their actions are going to be, gives an indication that, again, [5:45] America's sons and daughters are going into harm's way. And we really don't know what the objective is [5:50] and what they're trying to accomplish for the parents and the loved ones of those sons and daughters. [5:56] Miles, what is your understanding of the War Powers Act? Because we heard right there from [6:00] Secretary Pete Hegseth, he's thinking or he claims that the ceasefire, pause that clock. [6:05] Well, you know, this is the type of thing that's big constitutional law. In other words, [6:11] you know, there's not a bureaucratic lawyer you can go to in the government that says, [6:16] hey, can you just look at the text of the contract here and tell me if I'm in violation or not? [6:21] You're going to have, over the course of the next 48 hours, legal scholars on the right come out and [6:28] defend the administration's interpretation. But I also suspect you are going to see a lot of legal [6:33] scholars, regardless of their ideological stripes, say, look, this is pretty clear when you're looking [6:38] at the War Powers Act and how it relates back to the U.S. Constitution. And for all intents and [6:44] purposes, they're about to go into the red zone outside of compliance with that. That is going to [6:50] lead to demands to bring more of these officials back up to Capitol Hill. It's going to lead to [6:55] frustration. But here's the other thing, is right now the administration is banking on the fact [7:01] that Republicans will have their back, that Republicans will look the other way, [7:05] let the administration violate the War Powers Act. But if the administration continues this fight, [7:10] continues kinetic engagement in the conflict zone, if gas continues to surge and markets panic, [7:17] which seems to be the direction that we are trending, that support could evaporate very, [7:22] very quickly. Peter, what do you think happens tomorrow? Because of course, Democrats are going [7:27] to call this theory wrong. But last week, when I interviewed Rand Paul and I asked him about the [7:32] war, he said, wait, wait, wait, you know, come 60 days, everything's going to be so different. [7:36] And we know that Republican Senator John Curtis of Utah, he wrote an op-ed saying that he would not [7:41] support the operation past 60 days without congressional sign-off. Where do you think we're headed tomorrow? [7:46] You know what? I think nothing happens tomorrow. I mean, the truth is that there is no teeth [7:52] to this law. The War Powers Act has always been a complicated and controversial law since it was [7:59] passed under the Nixon administration. Remember, the Congress passed it. Nixon vetoed it. He thought [8:04] it was an abrogation on presidential power. Congress passed it over as vetoed. Every president since [8:08] then, Republican and Democrat, has at some point or another not fully recognized the authority of [8:15] this law. Sometimes they've gone along with the, you know, the attributes of looking like they were [8:21] complying with it. But there's always been a constitutional argument about this law. [8:25] And I would imagine that tomorrow comes and goes and nothing will happen, because there's nothing [8:30] in the law that says what happens if the administration doesn't comply with it. Somebody would have to go [8:35] to court. They'd have to prove standing. They'd have to get a court to decide. They wanted to get [8:39] involved in what is really a political contest between the executive and the legislative branch. [8:45] They're reluctant to do that kind of thing. And so I don't think that necessarily, you know, [8:49] if some clock goes off tomorrow and ding, ding, ding, you know, the military has to come home. [8:54] Now, the real power Congress has, if they want to do something about this, is through the power [9:00] of the purse. I doubt very seriously they're willing to cut off funding for the war, especially, [9:05] as Miles said, the Republicans are going to have President Trump's back. They still control Congress [9:10] barely through very narrow majorities. And I don't think that you're going to see a will at this [9:15] point to go as far as cutting off aid, which is the, or the cutting off funding, which is the only [9:19] actual technique that the Congress has to enforce his will at this point. [9:24] And, Peter, does the White House think that new strikes would actually bring Iran back to the [9:28] negotiating table? Because despite what the president says, it doesn't sound that way on their side. [9:35] Well, listen to what the president just said. He says they're desperate for a deal, but we don't know [9:38] who they are. We don't know who we're talking about. We don't know who the leaders are. But whoever they are, [9:42] they're desperate, you know? So, how do you know they're desperate if you don't know who they are? [9:46] It's a very curious situation here, obviously. Look, the Iranians obviously would like to end the [9:53] war, but they're not going to do it on terms that President Trump wants them to do it on. [9:57] The question is whether or not there are terms that would involve concessions by both sides that [10:02] both sides could live with. It's really hard to see how that happens at this point. Both sides [10:06] have political imperatives at home that make any kind of concessions unlikely. It's not like the [10:14] president's going to accept something that would be along the lines of what President Obama did under [10:17] the JCPOA. That was the nuclear deal he sealed in 2015, because, of course, President Trump said [10:22] it was a terrible deal and then abrogated it. Well, any deal with the Iranians might look a little [10:27] like that. Even if you've got better terms, you know, it's not likely to be that the Iranians simply [10:32] say, OK, you're right, we're done with nuclear power altogether. We're never going to go after [10:36] it again. And even if they did say that, who would trust them? What would be the mechanism that you [10:40] would verify that in? The Trump administration hasn't even addressed that kind of an issue. [10:44] So, the idea that there's a deal in the making seems very hard to imagine. At the same time, [10:49] it's hard to imagine the president really wants to get back into the full strikes scenario, [10:53] because right now this war has not gone well politically. Most of the American public is against it. [10:58] Republicans are very nervous about it going into the midterms. [11:01] They would like to find a way out of this if they can. The question is, [11:04] is there a way out of it? General, the New York Times editorial board [11:08] wrote the following, quote, The U.S. military was losing its edge. After Iran, now everyone knows [11:14] it. Do you agree? Has this conflict exposed our weakness? I don't, Stephanie. I read that article. [11:23] And truthfully, I just I agreed with some of it. There are some very good points in it. [11:28] But the fact of the matter is the folks that write on the editorial board are reporting on what they see. [11:33] I know what's going on in the military. I, in fact, today, talked to a commander [11:38] who is training against drones someplace in Texas. And we're talking about a new revolution [11:44] in warfare, an evolution. I'm sorry, I used the wrong word. It's an evolution [11:48] in combat. And every generation has that. You know, Stephanie, I retired in 2013. [11:54] And in the last 12, 13 years since I've been retired, there has been exponential changes on the [12:01] battlefield, mostly driven by what's been going on in Iran. For a while, we were paying very much [12:06] attention to that. For the last several months, we've kind of been pulled away from that. [12:10] We could have learned a whole lot. It's sort of like watching the Germans conduct a blitzkrieg [12:17] operation before World War Two. You would learn a lot from someone that's doing something [12:22] evolutionary. We haven't seen that as much. But I got to tell you, in every war, there's changes [12:28] like this. You have to adapt. The U.S. military is going after it. They could be a whole lot further [12:34] along, as far as I'm concerned, if we had some more connections with the Ukrainians and some of the [12:39] other agencies that are working these kind of concepts on the battlefield. But I believe we're [12:45] doing just fine. And I think the New York Times editorial board overstated a problem. You always [12:50] have those kind of folks talking about the next war and how we're not prepared for it. The military [12:55] learns quickly and adapts. And that's why we're lucky to have you and your expertise. Miles, I want to get [13:01] your take on something else Secretary Hegseth said today in his Senate hearing. Watch this. [13:05] I believe we do have the support of the American people. And we have briefed regularly what this [13:12] mission looks like and why it's critically important that we undertake it. And I would [13:16] remind you and this group that we're two months in to an effort. And many congressional Democrats, [13:22] as I pointed out, want to declare defeat two months in. Iraq took how many years? Afghanistan took [13:28] how many years? And they were nebulous missions that people went along with. This is different. [13:33] This is a defined mission set that we have had great success in pursuing against the [13:38] determined enemy who seeks nuclear weapons. This is different. How is that going to sit with the [13:45] scores of American people who say, I don't know why I'm in this war. And by the way, this war is forcing [13:51] me to decide between filling my car with gas and filling my refrigerator. Stephanie, almost everything [13:59] that Secretary Hegseth said in that sentence, those several sentences, was wrong. The American [14:06] people are not behind this war. In fact, the war is already, according to polling today, [14:13] more unpopular than Vietnam was, okay? A war that dragged on for years and slid in popularity. This [14:19] has been going on for 60 days, and it's now more unpopular than Vietnam. Americans are not behind it. [14:25] The objectives are not defined clearly. And the biggest admission of that, Stephanie, [14:31] is reporting today from Axios that shows the administration is considering an array of [14:37] different options, one of which reportedly is resuming conventional bombing to potentially [14:44] strike infrastructure targets. Another reported option is to go try to send special forces to seize [14:51] the fissile material that could be used to build nuclear weapons. And another approach is to seize [14:56] more of the Strait of Hormuz and operate it. Those are three completely different strategic [15:02] objectives. Those are not defined objectives. That is an administration slailing to find some way [15:09] to claim victory so that it can then settle this war. This is what this really gets down to. [15:15] Right now, Donald Trump, he sees the news like anyone else. He sees that this war is a political and [15:21] actual loser. They haven't obtained any major strategic objectives, and he just needs some [15:29] kind of win. That is what is happening here. Those are the conversations being had with the president. [15:35] Get me some kind of win so I can claim victory. But here's the problem. None of those options I just [15:40] listed get them the victory that they said they were going to get. And every single one of those options, [15:46] even if it's successful in getting the Iranians to the table, still probably results in an Iran [15:52] that in certain ways is stronger than it was before. Maybe not their conventional military [15:57] capabilities, but certainly the leverage they have over the international system is greater than it [16:04] was when we went into this conflict. And that's going to be a hard calculus to upend in a matter of [16:09] days or weeks. General, the Pentagon just bought a new kind of interceptor drone, which they have not [16:16] used before from a company backed by two of Donald Trump's eldest sons, Don Jr. and Eric. Now, [16:22] the boys definitely say they're private businessmen and the company says there's no conflicts of [16:26] interest. But does this raise any concerns for you? It does, along with all the other conflicts [16:33] of interest we've had with those in government who are buying up stocks and different weapons [16:38] producers and different defense contractors. It's just it's a lot like what happened in Turkey [16:45] with their reactor drones and the son of Erdogan buying into that company. We know the Turkish [16:51] government is corrupt and that's what happened there. And to look past this, to know what's going [16:57] on in terms of an evolution and have a real estate family starting to buy in defense contractor [17:03] devices like drones, which are the most important thing that we have to update ourselves in, they know [17:09] that's going to be a big contract. So, yeah, it causes me a great deal of pain because we know [17:16] where some of the drones are going to be bought from. It's that company in and of itself. [17:19] One more question to all of you, Miles. The DHS, the shutdown, is set to end after the House bill [17:29] passes most of the agency, including the TSA. Why didn't they just do this sooner? [17:34] Well, look, I mean, if I was going to give them the benefit of the doubt, which would be very, [17:41] very generous, the mechanism that they're using to reach this deal, it's called budget reconciliation. [17:46] It's kind of an underhanded mechanism, Stephanie. It's preserved for when the House passes a budget, [17:52] the Senate passes a budget. They've got to put the two together, reach a compromise and send it back [17:57] for a majority vote. This allows them to get around the filibuster. And so in normal times, [18:03] you don't jump straight to reconciliation because it's a really underhanded tactic. So for a period [18:09] of time, Republicans were trying to get Democratic votes. They thought they could pass this the [18:15] normal way. Remember, Democrats were demanding primarily that the administration comply with the [18:21] U.S. Constitution, not engage in warrantless searches, not break into homes, try to get agents [18:27] to identify themselves and the reasons they're arresting people, some pretty foundational things. [18:33] But those compromises fell apart because again and again, the president said, no, [18:37] he did not want to cut a deal with Democrats. At points, Stephanie, Republican leaders grew [18:42] actually very frustrated in the Senate because they thought they had a deal. And so now facing the [18:47] prospect that the White House is not going to make any of the concessions Democrats want, [18:53] Republicans have said, fine, let's move to budget reconciliation. Let's cut Democrats out of the [18:58] process and we'll pass it this way. Unfortunately, what that means is there's really no end in sight [19:04] to some of the measures that we have seen Trump's immigration authorities undertake, [19:09] unless the administration unilaterally decides it's going to step back from some of those aggressive [19:14] measures. And there's certainly been a pause in recent weeks in some of the more outlandish actions [19:20] from those authorities. This seems like the kind of frustration the American people have when they [19:26] say our government just doesn't work for them. All right, gentlemen, I know I say this often, [19:30] but I truly enjoyed this segment with all three of you. You make us smarter every time you're here. [19:35] In general, welcome aboard again. When we come back, the AI boom may be boosting our economic growth [19:41] and investors are loving that. But how long can it offset the actual economic pain [19:47] our economy is enduring from the Iran war? And later, Elon Musk, the savior? I'm going to put a big [19:53] question mark, not an exclamation point at the end of that. How the world's richest man is trying to [19:57] sell himself to a jury as a pioneer of AI safety. When I look at that guy, I think he is a beacon of [20:04] safety. The 11th hour just getting underway on a Thursday night. Look at your clock. You know what time [20:19] it is. Money, power, politics. Iran talks have effectively stalled. You know that. And the [20:24] straight of four moves is still under blockade. But you would never know it if you were looking [20:28] at today's market action. The Dow soared at nearly 800 points while the S&P [20:34] had its first close above 7200 and its best month in six years. Man, this guest is going to have a hard [20:41] time explaining this because I don't get it. A clear message that investors are way more excited [20:46] about earnings than they're worried about oil prices, which also hit a four year high today. [20:51] New data also shows that the economy grew by two percent in the first three months of the year. [20:55] That's good news. It is thanks largely due to spending and artificial intelligence. But here's [21:01] the bad news. It is a huge blow to consumers because inflation jumped in a big way too. My dear friend, [21:07] John Insana. John, can you believe it? Tonight is the night I make his big introduction and I call him [21:15] John Insana. My dearest friend who I just want to say I'm thrilled every single time he's here. [21:21] I've wanted this behind the scenes for such a long time because as you know, I truly care about [21:26] covering the economy and it's not so easy to do when you don't work in a business network. But now, [21:31] my dearest friend, my partner in crime, Ron Insana is now an MSNOW contributor. I'm thrilled about it. [21:39] And he's also a publisher of The Message of the Markets on Substack. I can't believe I just did that. [21:43] But I'm going to get my other guest name right. Neil Irwin, not Er, Neil Wynn. He is chief economic [21:48] correspondent for Axios. Welcome aboard. I can't believe I just did that. In fact, before the show, [21:53] I'm like, we should cut when I introduce Ron for social media because this is going to be a great [21:57] moment for us. And then I ruined it. Stacey, thank you so much. You're welcome. You know, [22:01] luckily that is my sister's name. Can you please explain these markets? Sure. I mean, look, [22:06] we had very strong earnings from Google's parent alphabet. We had a positive response to Amazon's [22:11] numbers. We had, as you said, the economic data that showed the economy still expanding at a [22:15] reasonable clip. Although, again, Heather Long, an economist, points out that about one and a half [22:19] percentage points of that 2% growth came from AI infrastructure build out and consumer spending [22:25] slowed down as inflation accelerated. So we also had jobless claims, by the way, dropped to the lowest [22:30] level since 1969. So the job market doesn't look quite as bad as we thought, at least by this measure. [22:36] And so the market took solace in that. And again, as you said, looking past the war in Iran [22:43] and the oil price increase and focusing on the build out of AI and its promise. [22:47] Irvin Nealwynn, tell us, if the Iran war continues, if the strait remains locked, [22:54] what is going to have a bigger impact on the economy? AI or high gas prices? [23:00] For the U.S., AI seems to be dominant. Look, what we have happening now with oil prices is [23:05] the biggest direct effects are not in the U.S. They're in Asia. They're in Europe that rely more [23:10] on imported Middle Eastern oil. In the U.S., we are a net oil exporter. Look, higher energy prices, [23:17] higher gas prices, they hurt. They hit people. These are what we're seeing so far is not the kind [23:22] of destructive prices we saw in 2008, even 2022. And the AI build out in terms of GDP and markets is [23:30] huge. It's massive. The thing is, you can't eat GDP. So for ordinary Americans trying to pay their [23:36] bills, you know, get to the grocery store, GDP growth doesn't really matter as much as wage [23:41] growth and inflation. And that's where the pinch really hits. Did someone say in our ear that he [23:47] could eat GDP? I mean, you can't eat GDP. You're in trouble, Ron, because this is your first time [23:51] you're here as a contributor. And right now, Neil gave a better answer than you did. So here we go. [23:56] We're going down this road again. You know, I like to. It seems obviously like everyone is betting on [24:01] AI for good reason. But what would things look like if it doesn't live up to the hype? [24:06] Well, just this year alone, there's $700 billion worth of spending going into artificial intelligence [24:11] infrastructure, which is an enormous, unprecedented build out for technology. So if this were not to [24:19] live up to its promise, what you would see down the road, and it's not immediate, Steph, [24:22] you know that at some juncture, if an open AI, an Anthropic, a Google, a Microsoft doesn't derive [24:29] enough revenue and profitability from this, Amazon eating through its free cash flow, by the way, [24:34] at this point in time, to fund a lot of this stuff, you'd see reduced profitability. You'd probably see [24:39] some companies run into trouble. And the stock market would then react to that major disappointment [24:43] of AI not living up to the hype and the promise that's being told to us today. [24:48] Neil, let's be fuddy-duddies and talk about the national debt, which now exceeds 100% of the GDP. [24:56] Donald Trump definitively ran on reducing this number, yet here we are halfway through his second [25:01] term and our national debt is close to breaking an 80-year record. I remember seeing Scott Besson [25:08] before Trump won at an event practically foaming at the mouth, saying he was desperate to support Donald [25:16] Trump. He wanted to be part of the administration for this specific reason, our crippling debt. [25:21] Now here we are. [25:23] Yeah, look, 100% debt to GDP. The number itself doesn't matter. It's not that there's some magic [25:28] threshold that trips some crisis. But it does tell you where we're going. And what matters is that [25:34] it's not getting any better. It's on an upward path. We're running deficits of 67% of GDP a year. [25:40] We're growing only at 2% to 3% a year, if we're lucky. And so that's not a good equation. And that [25:45] is, you know, the old line is if something can't go on forever, it won't. That's where we are with [25:49] U.S. deficits and debt. [25:52] Ron, I got a new topic. [25:53] Yeah. [25:54] Because I want you to explain this to our audience. Today the president signed an executive order [25:58] that expands retirement account access, right, 401ks for workers that don't have employer-sponsored [26:04] plans, right? They don't work at a big company. What do we need to know? Because on some level, [26:09] is this good for the American people or is it good for the money managers of the world that provide [26:17] those accounts? [26:17] Yeah, both. I mean, look, I think there are somewhere in the neighborhood of 56 to 60 million people who do [26:21] not have access to that. Now, the thresholds for putting $2,000 a year away are pretty low. I mean, [26:26] the income caps are around $30,000, $35,000 for a married couple, $20,000 for a single individual. [26:33] So it's hard to save $2,000 a year and have a government match. [26:36] I was going to say, people in that income bracket aren't contributing to a 401k. [26:39] It's good that the availability is there and they should put away as much as they possibly can. [26:43] This is also, by the way, an extension of a Biden-era program that was started in 2022 [26:47] that it's being linked to. So this is not brand new. This is an extension of a program that's already [26:53] on the books that was supposed to start in 2027 anyway. So it does expand the field a little bit. [26:58] But again, for those people in that income bracket, it's not the easiest thing to do, [27:02] particularly given persistent inflation, high gasoline prices, food care, food cost, child care, [27:08] and health care. Yeah. [27:09] All right, Neil, before we go, I have to ask you about Live Golf. [27:13] Saudi Arabia is officially pulling funding from its Upstart League, a league that just a few years ago [27:18] seem to have an unlimited budget and desire to sort of infiltrate U.S. golf, leaving their star [27:25] players in the lurch. What's your take? Look, if something's a vanity project, not based in kind [27:32] of real economics of demand from end consumers, it's vulnerable when things turn rough. And the [27:38] Saudi government and Saudi investment fund is in a difficult situation right now with the Iran war. [27:44] It's understandable. They might want to cut back on things. That's the risk you take if you sign [27:49] on to somebody else's vanity project. And that seems to be what's happened here for some of these [27:52] golfers who are part of that. Sorry, boys. Neil, thank you. Ron, bad news. Now that you're signed [27:58] on to work with us. I have to stay. We're going to make you stay. Double duty for Ron tonight. When we [28:02] come back, Elon Musk paints himself as a guardian of AI safety in his trial against OpenAI. One of the [28:09] reporters who is in the courtroom today joins us after the break. Pollution is holding on for a [28:23] hero. And apparently that hero is Elon Musk, at least according to his attorneys in the OpenAI trial. [28:29] The SpaceX founder has been portraying himself as a pioneer of AI safety. It is an issue Musk has [28:36] discussed in the past, even warning of potential human extinction if the technology falls into the [28:41] wrong hands. But when the trial judge told Musk's attorneys not to discuss catastrophe and extinction, [28:47] it resulted in a fiery exchange before the judge finally said, quote, [28:52] I suspect that there are a number of people who do not want to put the future of humanity in Mr. [28:57] Musk's hands, but we're not going to get into that. Joining me now, Paresh Duvet, senior writer for [29:03] Wired and Ron and Sana still here. Okay, Paresh, you were in the courtroom. That's a treat. That is a [29:10] courtroom I would love to be sitting in. That was a fiery exchange. Walk us through it. Your biggest [29:15] takeaways. What was it like in there? I mean, a courtroom equalizes everybody. [29:21] Well, honestly, the edge came off a little bit today. The last two days, [29:25] Musk and Altman both spent a lot of time in the courtroom. Today, they probably spent more time [29:32] away from the courtroom than they did in the courtroom. So it was definitely a different vibe. [29:37] And it was Musk's last bit of testimony or expected to be his last bit of testimony. So he was [29:43] trying to make a case to the jury. It was his last stand in some ways. And he kept repeating this [29:48] phrase that Musk and Greg Brockman, Open AI as president and Open AI in general, are trying to [29:54] steal a charity and that's not okay. And he kept using this phrase, steal a charity. And that's [30:00] really the message he was trying to deliver. And then it got, you know, a little bit less tense [30:06] after Musk was off the stand. Okay, but here's what's hard for me to understand with the whole [30:11] stealing a charity. Elon Musk is arguing that Open AI, a company that he helped launch, [30:16] abandoned its principles when it became a for-profit company. I would buy that except for the fact [30:22] that Elon Musk now has his own AI company that is also for-profit. And part of the discussion in the [30:29] trial was involving emails that went back and forth between Altman and his top executive [30:35] and Mr. Musk. And Mr. Musk asking for 55% of Open AI and possibly taking it public at some juncture [30:42] in the future. So it seems like there's some dissembling going on, which is a difficult thing [30:46] and a dangerous thing to do on the stand, as one might surmise. But we don't really know what his [30:52] true motivations are here because originally, at least the Altman team is arguing that he wanted it to [30:57] be public, that he wanted control of it. And the reason he left was they were not going to give him [31:01] control. Okay, but if Elon Musk succeeds and Open AI is forced to unwind its move to become a [31:07] for-profit company, could that not have massive consequences, not just for Open AI, but for the [31:13] industry? And then in turn, the market? I don't know if I want to say the economy, but it's almost [31:20] in a too-big-to-fail scenario. Well, they've pledged to spend over a trillion dollars. [31:23] A trillion with a T. Did you hear that? AI infrastructure. Now, as a not-for-profit [31:29] or non-profit, you can still earn money and finance that. But one of the things that's [31:34] interesting is Open AI projected that by 2030, it would earn a billion dollars in advertising. [31:39] I'm sorry, $100 billion in advertising. And so the whole model gets called into question. Can [31:45] they then finance this build-out of AI infrastructure that they are committed to, [31:49] that other companies are investing in with them over time? That would be a big disappointment [31:54] if they were not to make good on the promises that they've offered out so far. [31:57] Paresh, the trial is continuing on Monday. I'm guessing you're going to be there. What are you [32:01] watching for? Well, Greg Brockman is one of the folks that's expected to testify. [32:08] You know, there's a diary entry that's very sensitive that could come up. There's also a lot of [32:15] questions to be asked about, you know, what was that founding agreement? Elon Musk was repeatedly [32:23] asked by Open AI's lawyers today about, did he attach any conditions to his roughly $38 million [32:30] in donations to Open AI? And it's clear he didn't attach any stipulations, no terms and conditions. [32:39] They were free to use the money. There was no restrictions on them restructuring or veering [32:45] towards the direction that they have. And that's tough for Musk's argument with the jury that there [32:51] was this charitable trust that existed that was breached. And, you know, they're going to be [32:56] leaning on Greg and some of the things that he wrote back in 2015, 2016, to potentially show that [33:04] there was this agreement that the path forward was to stay a nonprofit, to be open source and not to [33:13] be like Google, which is what Open AI has turned out to be. And explain this diary entry. We're not [33:19] talking about a 16-year-old dear diary. I hope Brad asks me to prom. What is this? No, this is Greg [33:26] Brockman sort of leaving notes to himself about, you know, the relationship with Elon and the goals of [33:35] Open AI. Does it surprise you, Ron, that this would go to trial? Does it surprise you that these two men, [33:42] I mean, the world knows that they hate one another, that they would be doing this? [33:46] Well, yeah. I mean, Elon Musk is about to become a trillionaire this year. He's got his own, as you [33:50] said, point out, his own AI company. SpaceX is going public shortly. He's got a lot on his plate, [33:57] including trying to get people to Mars. So I don't know what they're quibbling over, [34:01] except maybe the philosophical dispute as to whether or not Open AI should be a, you know, [34:06] nonprofit company that is an open source firm that shares its information, not only credibly, [34:13] but safely with the rest of the world. That was one of Musk's arguments, is to keep this stuff safe [34:17] and out of the wrong hands. Now, everybody's doing it. So we're kind of past the point of no return. [34:22] I'm not quite sure, including Elon Musk. I'm not quite sure what the complaint is exactly. [34:26] And, Parash, why do you think they're doing this? Again, Elon Musk on track to become a [34:31] trillionaire. Clearly, his plate is full, yet they want to air all their dirty laundry, [34:35] as well as some embarrassing stuff. Like, usually, giant public figures before you get to trial, [34:41] before you get to discovery are like, let me just put this thing away. I don't need it. I don't want [34:45] it. They're different. Yeah. I mean, one of the things that came up today was this video [34:51] of Elon Musk's deposition in this trial. And there's a moment where he's kind of stretching awkwardly, [34:57] really frustrated with the line of questioning. You know, you didn't get to see it at home because [35:04] this trial isn't broadcast. But I mean, that's like an awkward moment. And I'm sure OpenAI may [35:09] have tried to deliberately play that. You know, they're trying to embarrass Elon just as much as [35:15] Elon is trying to embarrass Altman. But I think that's part of it. I mean, there's egos at play [35:20] here. That is significant. But I think Elon just wants to send a message, and he has the resources to do it. [35:27] My goodness. All right, gentlemen, thank you. We are not in the courtroom, but we are certainly [35:31] interested. When we come back, seriously, stay up for this one. If you need to go get a drink, [35:36] go to the bathroom, fine. Don't go to bed. You want to see this. How the Supreme Court's latest [35:40] ruling on voting rights could fuel an era of endless redistricting wars. The race to the bottom [35:46] is only getting hotter. Joyce Vance is going to break it down. Please care about this. Tonight, [35:59] we need to talk about gerrymandering, which is just a fancy word for when politicians pick their voters [36:04] instead of voters picking their representatives. Almost immediately after the Supreme Court gutted [36:10] part of the Voting Rights Act yesterday, Republican-led states started talking about redrawing [36:15] their own voting maps. Early voting for Louisiana House primaries was set to begin this weekend, [36:20] but now state leaders are going to push that back so they can draw more Republican-friendly maps. [36:25] And now there's already talk of new maps in the state of Georgia, too. Speaker Mike Johnson [36:30] is all in for this. In fact, he thinks states should get it done before the midterms. Surprise, [36:36] surprise. Meanwhile, House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries is already looking at more potential [36:40] Democratic gerrymandering targets in response. All of this makes me say, yuck. Former U.S. Attorney [36:46] Joyce Vance, who spent 25 years as a federal prosecutor, joins us. Joyce, this is so distressing. [36:53] With this decision, has the Supreme Court sent us into this awful cycle of constant gerrymandering [36:59] wars, which I'm going to just say is like the worst of us? [37:04] It's such a race to the bottom, but the Supreme Court gave Republicans this path forward, [37:10] and Republicans seized the moment. Florida didn't wait a single day to vote, right? In Florida, [37:16] the legislature seized Clay by the horns and voted yesterday that they would take advantage of the [37:24] partisan advantage that it offered them in the upcoming elections. And the reality stuff is we're [37:31] now going to have states where Black voters are 30, 40 percent of the electorate. And there are, [37:37] of course, white Democrats like me in deep Southern states who would add to their, you know, [37:42] to the sort of majorities that they might hope to pull in some districts. But now they'll be limited [37:48] in many states to one. Some states are even saying no Black opportunity districts because they will [37:54] spread out and thin the Black vote across the state to make it theoretically impossible for them to [38:00] elect any candidates of their choice. Choice, this is only going to increase polarization in the [38:06] country. Do you think that's going to inspire voters to get out and vote more? Are they going to stay [38:12] home because they feel like these races are decided for them with these new maps? [38:17] Well, I think you've asked exactly the right question. Something that voters need to keep in [38:22] mind is that no one would try this hard to take their vote away from them unless the person doing [38:28] the taking understood how powerful it was. And turnout is always the key to every election. That's, [38:35] you know, that's one of the truisms of these operations. The reality is in this election, [38:41] the razor thin sort of voting majorities that these new maps will leave in some districts [38:48] could be overtaken if there's enough turnout. So if Trump angers voters, if voters are heavily [38:56] motivated to go to the polls, if they vote in unprecedented numbers, it's possible to overcome [39:03] these gerrymanders. Interestingly enough, there was a similar situation in Hungary where the former [39:10] leader Orban had managed to gerrymander in some parts of that country. Massive turnout takes away [39:17] the advantage that gerrymandering creates. After the Supreme Court decision, how hard is it going to [39:23] be for anybody to challenge voting maps in court? Right. So it becomes virtually impossible because [39:31] Justice Alito, in his majority opinion, the court splits along partisan lines. It's a 6-3 decision. [39:38] And he says that the court will not permit the use of racial considerations to draw electoral maps. [39:47] That, of course, is nonsense, right? Because we're talking about remediating historical discrimination [39:53] against Black voters. But now the court has said that can't be considered in any way. It used to be that [40:02] you could use discriminatory impact in these Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act cases to invalidate maps. [40:10] But now the only thing that lawyers will be able to do is to prove intent, racially discriminatory [40:17] intent, which is very difficult to prove. It sometimes happens. It's not ordinary. And even where the lawyers [40:24] can show that, there will be other hurdles they would still have to clear, making it functionally impossible [40:30] to win these cases. New topic. Just before we go, I don't have a ton of time left, but I just want to [40:36] hit this. My colleague, Carol Lenning, is reporting that the Seashells case for the 86-47 case against [40:44] James Comey has been around for a while. It has been on the back burner at the DOJ. But once Pam Bondi [40:49] was fired and Todd Blanch was in charge, he decided he needed to win Trump's approval to get the permanent [40:55] gig. This case is helping him gain steam. What's your reaction? [41:01] Carol's reporting is always dead on the money. It's apparent to everyone who's watching DOJ that [41:07] Todd Blanch is auditioning for the nomination to be the permanent attorney general. And we know that [41:13] Jim Comey has been living rent-free in Donald Trump's head for all of these years. No better way for [41:20] Todd Blanch to try to score the nomination than to indict Jim Comey in this particular moment. [41:28] Aye, aye, aye. Well, we'll be watching. Again, Jim Comey's wife must be like, seriously, dude, [41:33] you might be right, but read a book on the beach instead. Nobody needs this. [41:37] Thank you so much, Joyce. We'll be right back. [41:40] Thanks, Steph.