PBS News Hour - Full Show - September 14, 2026 - PBS News Hour full episode

Episode Date: September 14, 2026

Monday on the News hour, stark warnings from AI leaders fuel new calls to rein in the rapidly advancing industry. The conflict with Iran-backed fighters in Yemen escalates with attacks on Saudi Arabia, compounding risks to the region and the world. Plus, an investigation finds a Russian oligarch with ties to Putin paid for Donald Trump Jr.'s wedding celebrations in the Bahamas. PBS News is supported by - https://www.pbs.org/newshour/about/funders. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy

Good evening. I'm Amna Nawaz. And I'm Jeff Bennett. On the news hour tonight, stark warnings from AI leaders fuel new calls to rein in the rapidly advancing industry. The conflict with Iran-backed fighters in Yemen escalates with attacks on Saudi Arabia, compounding risks to the region and the world. And an investigation finds a Russian oligarch with ties to Vladimir Putin paid for Donald Trump Jr.'s wedding celebrations in the Bahamas. Because one of the former FBI officials that we spoke to said his concern was if somebody pays for your wedding, at some point you're going to owe them something. Welcome to the News Hour. President Trump is rejecting calls for greater oversight of artificial intelligence, despite the dire warnings of some of the most powerful voices in the industry. Today on social media, the president said the only AI guardrail the country needs is a, quote, strong and smart president. And yesterday, he emphasized the importance of staying.

ahead of China in the AI race. We're the most sophisticated country in the world. And frankly, I want to keep it that way. Because whoever wins AI wins. And we can put guardrails, we can do this and that. But I think you have a lot of negative forces that are bringing it up. That shouldn't be bringing it up. And they're bringing up things that won't happen.

The president's pushback comes after anthropic CEO, Dario Amade, published an essay over the weekend, arguing for a coordinating. slowdown across leading AI companies, warning rapid advances in the technology now pose an existential threat to society. Recent weeks have seen a series of high-profile security incidents and the resignation of an anthropic employee who warned AI companies were, quote, gambling with our lives and that, quote, no other human activity poses this level of danger. For more on all of this, I'm joined now by Stephen Wigg. He's an investigative journalist who covers

AI, and author of the book The Thinking Machine, Jensen Huang, Invidia, and the world's most coveted microchip. Stephen, welcome to The NewsHour. Thanks for joining us. Thank you for having me. Let's start with that essay by Dario Amadeh. He says the industry needs to slow down, that they need more regulation. Why is the head of one of the top AI companies arguing for that right now? Well, it's an unprecedented situation. I think Dario is looking at the tools that he and his team have developed, and he's terrified by their capabilities. I think it's genuine. I don't think it's some kind of conspiracy or marketing stunt.

I think he's genuinely freaked out by what these things can do now and what they promise to do in the near future. I've never seen anything like it. Anthropic is on the verge of a $1 to $2 trillion IPO, and they're asking the U.S. government to come regulate them as soon as possible. I mean, there is, as you mentioned, some criticism here that these companies are on the verge of big IPO, that if you argue for regulation and a slowdown right now, you're cementing your status as a power player,

keeping some of the smaller players out. Do you think there could be truth to that? No, I don't buy it at all. Not with my conversations with AI scientists. That kind of coordinated action would require a grand conspiracy that I just don't think these guys are capable of. You know, these systems are escaping containment. Swarms of rogue AIs are invading the Internet, taking over other websites. they're hacking into other company's systems. That really happened. That's not some kind of marketing stunt. That's not some kind of conspiracy theory. There's hard evidence that it happened.

And it could happen again in a much more serious way if we're not careful. So we did see other tech CEOs, Sam Altman, Elon Musk, sort of indicate that they agree with Amade here on a slowdown, a need for regulation. We've now seen a bill from Senator Bernie Sanders calling for an all-out ban on super-intelligence, AI superintelligence and a temporary pause on AI development. What do you make of any of these means of regulation? Do you see Congress being able to step in here? You know, it's unlikely that senators' proposal will pass.

I don't think there's a lot of organic support for that. But I do think that there will be some kind of regulation that's formed over the next six to 12 months. Trump is really resisting it right now as are his AI advisors, including David Sachs and, of course, NVIDIA's CEO, Jensen Wong, very anti-regulation. But I think in this case, it's really necessary. It's the companies that are building this, that are asking for it. You know, they're begging for it. And I think the popular support from U.S. citizens to develop some kind of breaks on this stuff is there. So I think ultimately

some kind of legislation will get passed. You know, I argue that we should treat these AI incidents like the NTSB, the air traffic safety investigators, treat airplanes. crashes. We go in and we have a government investigator, produce a report on what happened. That needs to be happening here. And I think also we need better visibility on what's going on inside the AI labs. Even the AI labs themselves are calling for that. You yourself have gone further, though. You've called for, you wrote in an op-ed for the New York Times, a global pause on AI research and development right now. But we know that global tech race with China is precisely why President Trump is saying that the U.S. shouldn't slow down right now.

now. Is he wrong? He's not wrong. It would be bad if the U.S. paused and China did not pause. That would not be a good outcome for anybody. We'd be good for China, arguably, but in the long term, it would be bad even for them because they would have the runaway AI problem, them. So there does need to be coordination. Trump is meeting with President Xi Jinping of China in the White House later this month. And this gives him an unprecedented opportunity to begin that discussion, to start building a framework. for regulating and controlling AI, similar to what we have for nuclear weapons or biological weapons or even just uranium enrichment. You know, there's a huge economic and social upside to AI. It can manifest some really good outcomes like curing disease and creating a more prosperous

society. But there's downsides, too. And we need to address that quickly. You mentioned David Sachs, who used to be the president's AI and cryptos are. I want to put something to you that he tweeted over the weekend. He's now co-chair of the president's science and tech council. And he tweeted this in response to Dario Amadeh. He said, the easiest way not to build superintelligence is for you to agree not to build it.

Demanding your preferred regulatory framework as the price of that will look like blackmail of the public and the political system. So just do it. So, Stephen, I guess the question is, why don't they just do it if they think it's necessary? They can't. They're locked in a race. It's like asking two card players in a poker game not to cheat without an internal reference. watching them, right? It's like asking two boxers to obey the rules, but there's no referee in the ring. It's just not going to happen, right? Like you need a third party to set the rules of the

game for what's going to happen. Self-regulation does not and will not work in this case. We don't ask the airlines to voluntarily patrol where the aircraft land at the airport. We understand that the regulator is needed to do that. We understand the regulator is needed to investigate airplane crashes, right? Asking the AI companies to patrol themselves simply won't work. So Amadei's warning rogue AI agents could take over the internet within months. Jacob Coxon, that former anthropic employee who resigns, says AI could kill all humans. Is there reason to take that assessment of the system's capabilities, those warnings, with a grain of salt?

No. It seems like there would be, right? It sounds like science fiction. But the more that I personally investigate this, the more I'm convinced these guys are absolutely right and perhaps even underselling the capabilities of this thing. Now, Open AI is not going to do this. But if Open AI gave a command to its most powerful internal model to just hack the entire internet right now and shut down as much of it as possible, the damage that would cause would be incalculable. Like the AI would succeed at that task or come close to succeeding. So right now you have this loaded gun just sitting, just sitting on the table. And the people who are developed that are terrified of the gun that they've built.

They're asking for regulation. You know, this narrative that this is all overhyped or some kind of conspiracy theory, it's just not supported by the facts. I would have no problem saying that if I found any evidence of it. Instead, I find concrete evidence of the opposite. These AIs and these systems, these swarms of AIs, are actually even more powerful than their creators are letting on. And the creators don't really have any idea now.

how they work or what they're capable of. All right, that is investigative journalist Stephen Witt joining us tonight. Stephen, thank you very much. Thank you so much for having me. And tomorrow we'll have more on all of these concerns when we speak with that former anthropic researcher who recently resigned Jacob Coxon. And we start today's other headlines in Washington, D.C.

Officials at the Kennedy Center are warning of certain fiscal collapse unless President Trump's name is added to the exterior of the building. The warning is laid out in a new court filing in the lawsuit brought by Democratic Congresswoman Joyce Beatty, an ex-officio member of the Kennedy Center Board who has been fighting the effort to put Mr. Trump's name on the building. The President's handpicked board is set to meet tomorrow to consider 10 possible inscriptions bearing his name. The board says that without what it calls appropriate recognition, Mr. Trump is unlikely to help lead the fiscal rescue of the center. Several state election officials tell the news hour they are bracing for uncertainty over mail-in ballots ahead of this year's midterms, but pushed back on recent headlines suggesting chaos over the rules.

That says the U.S. Supreme Court is set to rule on President Trump's executive order seeking to restrict mail-in voting. Late last night, a second federal judge blocked the order warning it could increase the risk that some valid mail-in ballots go uncounted. And the timing is critical. At least three states have already started. sending ballots, with some military and overseas ballots set to go out later this week. Turning now to the war in Ukraine, NATO Secretary General Mark Ruta condemned Russia's attacks near Ukraine's border with Poland today. A Russian drone struck a train in Western Ukraine this weekend, shortly after several European officials had passed through.

The EU's top diplomat said today the attacks were meant to scare Western countries from supporting Ukraine. And speaking in Brussels, Ruta said the strikes show that Russian President Vladimir Putin is, quote, desperate and that the NATO alliance is solid. He thinks that he can stop us from supporting Ukraine and that he can undermine our unity. He is wrong. Our answer is to increase support to Ukraine so it has what it needs to defend itself. Also today, President Trump posted on social media that both Ukraine and Russia had agreed to stop. attacking each other's energy targets, though he did not provide any specifics. A Kremlin spokesperson says Moscow welcomes the idea, but also said Russian forces will continue their strikes across

the entire territory of Ukraine. And Ukraine's leader, Volodomir Zelensky, says his country has pushed for such a proposal, but adds that Ukraine is not convinced that Russia would adhere to any agreement. The National Weather Service is warning of possible flooding across parts of the Central Plains and the Midwest, even as the Northeast recovers from this weekend's torrential storms. From, this is nuts. In northern New Jersey, runners found themselves trudging through water midway through a local half-marathon.

While in Connecticut, cars were fully underwater, barely visible from above. Officials in one town called it the worst flooding in three decades. The state's governor blamed what's known as a rain bomb, the phenomenon that is a getting worse, in part due to human-caused climate change. It's how sudden the intense rainfall is. Five, seven, nine inches in a very limited period of time. When air gets warmer, it holds more water. That's why these rain bombs are more severe.

The conditions wreaked havoc on plane and train schedules, while emergency crews rescued dozens of people across the region. No deaths or injuries have been reported. Officials in Pennsylvania reported a third measles Measles related death this weekend, local health officials say the unvaccinated 40-year-old woman lived in a rural area in a county northeast of Pittsburgh. It's more than 200 miles from the county where Pennsylvania's first two deaths involving measles were reported this year. Both of those involved infants. Pennsylvania's Democratic Governor Josh Shapiro and Trump administration officials, including health secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr., have clashed over measles reporting this year.

Wall Street ended lower today as AI stocks struggled. The Dow Jones Industrial Average lost about 150 points. The NASDAQ fell about a half a percent. The S&P 500 also started the week in negative territory. And fashion designer Bob Mackie has died. Known as the Sultan of Sequins, Mackie helped define 1970s glamour by dressing countless stars in his signature style, sometimes shimmering and sleek and other times campy and outrageous.

He created costumes for all 11 seasons of the Carol Borne's show, including the iconic Gone with the Wind dress, Curtin Rod and all. He also worked closely with Cher on her variety shows and crafted some of her most famous red carpet looks. In 2018, he reflected on his design philosophy. I was trying to enhance the image that they already have, that people think of them as. If you're going to appear on stage, you don't want to come on and say, oh, is that her? I'm not sure that's her.

You know, you want them to say yes. And that's very important. You don't try to change anybody. You just try to make them look better than ever. Over the years, Mackie won nine Emmy Awards and a Tony and was nominated for three Oscars. Bob Mackie was 87 years old. Still to come on the news hour, the EPA rolls back regulations that limit climate impacting emissions from power plants. Our Politics Monday team examines the latest pressure points ahead of this year's midterms.

And comedian Jenny Yang takes her act to an unusual stage, immigrant grocery stores. This is the PBS News Hour from the David M. Rubenstein studio at WETA in Washington, headquarters of PBS News. The Environmental Protection Agency announced today its repealing rules limiting greenhouse gas emissions from coal and gas-fired power plants. The move eliminates requirements that would have forced some power plants to sharply reduce their emissions, including through technology such as carbon capture and storage. EPA administrator Lee Zeldin said the rollback will help cut red tape. Our actions result in savings into the trillions of dollars.

It means providing companies that choose to invest in America with the certainty that their work will pay off and their money won't get tied up in unnecessary burdensome regulatory battles inform more by ideology than practical environmental protection outcomes. Power plants are the nation's second largest source of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gas emissions. For more on what this rollback means for U.S. climate policy, we're joined now by Vicki Patton, General Counsel for the Environmental Defense Fund. Thank you for being with us. Thank you. So the coal industry has described the Biden era rules as overreach.

You now have the Trump EPA saying that those same rules, make it harder and more expensive to generate the kind of power the country needs. Is there any part of that argument that you accept? You know, today the Trump administration moved to eliminate any standards, any limitations on the dangerous climate pollution from power plant smokestacks. I want to be clear, that is one of the single largest sources of harmful pollution in our country. It's also a rising source of pollution as communities see increasing data centers. And if the companies behind those data centers decide to power them with high-emitting power plants,

that means that those communities and those neighborhoods and those people are bearing more pollution. And it's just, it's not responsible to do nothing in the face of this serious pollution. It's analogous to, you know, your house being on fire and the fire department kind of driving. by instead of taking action, look, we're Americans. We know how to take action to protect our children's health from this harmful pollution and to do it in a way that protects people's pocketbooks with clean, affordable, and abundant energy. So the path forward is not inaction. The path forward is not reckless irresponsibility. The path forward is America rolling up its sleeves, working together and protecting our children's health and growing our economy. The EPA is also making

a broader legal argument about whether greenhouse gas emissions can be regulated this way at all? How significant is that, especially for future administrations? You know, the law in the United States for decades has been that EPA has a responsibility under our nation's clean air laws to protect the American people from harmful pollution. And when you think about kind of the impacts here that are at stake, they're really quite extensive. The Trump administration was heralding kind of these cost savings. I want to be very clear that they are signing no value, no value whatsoever to protecting the American people from the harmful pollution. Those numbers that they're touting, that's the money that large industrial emitters will save and not doing anything.

to address this harmful pollution. But the impacts, the impacts are more asthma attacks. It's more missed work days, missed school days. It's more hospital visits and doctors' visits. Look, just this summer, there were heat waves across our country, major fires and smoke that harm people. You were just talking about sort of the just really intense weather events, the flooding.

And then in parts of the country, suffering very, very serious droughts. You know, these are really high costs. And these costs, when we experience them as American people, they mean higher insurance costs, they mean higher health care costs. It makes it harder for us to make ends meet. That's why our nation's clean air laws were designed to help protect people from pollution. And it's not the right direction for our country to assign no value to doing that. And it is the responsibility of the environment. Protection Agency to move forward and ensure we have limits on this very harmful pollution. But on the question, to what degree could this potentially limit the future, the ability of a

future administration to regulate power plant emissions? Because that's in many ways the bigger story here. The Trump administration has in multiple different decisions, including the actions that it's taking today, endeavor to walk away from. from its responsibility to protect the American people from harmful pollution under our nation clean air laws. The law is clear. It's clear in the written terms of the statute. It's clear in terms of rulings by the United States Supreme Court,

multiple rulings, that EPA has a responsibility to protect the American people from dangerous pollution. And this pollution is quite dangerous. It's very serious. If the federal government is not no longer requiring these reductions. To what degree could states or local utility step in? States and local governments and local power companies can take all sorts of important actions to address this harmful pollution. Here in my home state of Colorado, we found that not only can

we move forward together rolling up our sleeves, we can address this harmful pollution, but we can also do it in a way that benefits people's lives economically. And so in rural Colorado, we've seen farmers keep their farms and their families by receiving lease payments to host wind turbines. In other parts of Colorado, we've seen major employers, manufacturers, save hundreds and hundreds of jobs because they're relying on clean, affordable power that's lower their operating costs. And so, yes, definitely states can take action, local governments can take action. We can all encourage and ensure that our power providers do their fair share. What we need, though, we need are these comprehensive national emission limits. This is a big problem that has very

serious impacts on millions of people all across the country, and every American deserves these protections. Vicki Patton with the Environmental Defense Fund. Thank you for joining us this evening. Thank you so much. A note, the Newshour has requested an interview with the Environmental protection agencies, Lee Zeldin. Yemen's Houthi rebels sees more islands in the strategically crucial Babal Mandib straight today and now control the west coast

of the country on the Red Sea. In the meantime, a crucial pipeline in Saudi Arabia will be out of commission for weeks after it was attacked last week, sending oil prices even higher. Here's Ali Rogan. Today, more Houthi attacks against Saudi Arabia. Yemeni fighters say they hit

Saudi Arabia's Hamis Mushan. Air Base. And Saudi Arabia says a Houthi projectile wounded two people and damaged a mosque in the Saudi port city of Jazein. Just the latest in the past week, with hundreds hurt on both sides of the border and as the conflict reignites. Riyadh has turned to the U.S. for help, but so far, President Trump has not answered a call for American airstrikes. And over the weekend, he said the U.S. has been talking to the Houthis directly. We've had discussions. Houthi's called us, and they don't want to fight with us.

They let us know. They don't want to fight with us. They don't want me to go after them. They don't want us to go after them. They're letting most ships go through. There's just one country that they're not too happy with, and we'll get that straight and down. Inside Yemen, Houthi seized more islands near the crucial Bab al-Mandab Strait, the choke point through which roughly a tenth of global trade sales. And so far, it has been in advance met with little pushback, capturing more territory

without real resistance from Saudi-backed Yemeni forces. The Houthis have been expanding their control over Western Yemen along the Red Sea. They're freeing prisoners once held by Saudi-backed forces and celebrating in Sana'a, the Houthi capital. Today they expanded their reach again, capturing. the islands of greater and lesser Haneiš, 100 miles north of the strait, giving them even more leverage over Saudi shipping routes out of the Red Sea. It follows last week's seizure of the port of Mokka and the island of Mewan inside the

strait itself that sparked global alarm over who controls it. And it matters even more now with Iran and the U.S. still battling over the Strait of Hormuz. Saudi-backed Yemeni forces are trying to regroup and fight back. What happened is a deeply painful event for us, and it stems from reasons that will be thoroughly discussed. Even the forces that withdrew from one location to another are currently regrouping, God willing, and will return to the battle in one way or another. A crucial Saudi oil pipeline went down after it was struck last week in an attack Riyadh blamed on Iran-backed militias in Iraq. It will take weeks to fix.

The kingdom had leaned on that pipeline, 745 miles coast to coast to move crude away from the blockaded Persian Gulf and out through the Red Sea. Now that route too is under threat. The Houthis and Saudis fought a nearly decade-long war that for the last four years had settled into an uneasy ceasefire. Tension spiked again in July when Saudi Arabia bombed a Houthi-controlled airport to stop a plane Saudi officials said was carrying. Iranian weapons. And yet the war resurging threatens yet another humanitarian crisis in one of the most impoverished countries in the world. Already more than 85,000 people have been displaced inside Yemen since July. More than 2,000 have already crossed the strait by boat to Djibouti. Families with their children displaced again and again in this war arriving with nothing.

For the PBS News Hour, I'm Ali Rogan. To help us better understand the state of play in this volatile region and how it might affect the wider war, I'm joined now by Michael Ratney, who served as U.S. ambassador to Saudi Arabia during the Biden administration. He's now a senior advisor at the Center for Strategic and International Studies. Ambassador Ratney, welcome back to the News Hour. Thanks for joining us. Thank you. As the Saudis deal with these new attacks, what is it exactly that they're asking for from the United States? So the Saudis are now under direct attack from their mortal enemies, from the Iranians directly,

from Iranian proxies, obviously the Houthis, as we're discussing in Yemen, and from Iranian-backed militias in Iraq, and they're looking for help from the United States, substantial military support to help try to push back, disincentivize at a minimum the Houthis from continuing these attacks, and if possible, to vanquish them completely. The Saudis, though, were engaged in a long war with the Houthis for about a decade, bombed them heavily using American munitions, killing many, many Houthis. And yet, that still hasn't seemed to really put them on the back foot. What would the United States getting involved at this point really gain the Saudis? What makes them think it would make any difference?

So it's true. There was a really unfortunate, long and unfortunate experience with the Saudis pursuing military conflict. against the Houthis, it eventually resulted in a suspension of that and pursuit of diplomacy, including this roadmap with the Houthis that effectively legitimized them as a governing authority. And that worked. That held until after the Gaza war started and the Houthis started attacking U.S. shipping. There was another U.S. effort to support military strikes against the Houthis that President Trump suspended. I think now the calculation is that the Houthis have attempted. Saudi Arabia, their energy infrastructure, they're an oil refinery in the south of the country

that has an impact not just on the Saudi economy, but global oil markets at this point. And I think what the Saudis want is some kinetic support from the United States to push back on that. It's an unfortunate situation in the past. It's true that military strikes haven't worked, and frankly, I think eventually this is headed for diplomacy again. But in the meantime, It's hard for the Saudis not to try to retaliate. So far, President Trump seems to suggest such support is not forthcoming. He said the Houthis called us. They don't want to fight with us, as we mentioned in the peace.

He also said he spoke with Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman, who says, and the president says that everything is going fine and will work out dandy. How do the Saudis feel about how the United States is treating this conflict? So at a minimum, they're extraordinarily frustrated. When you think about it, the Saudis have pursued a military partnership with the United States for decades. And we with them, and the whole point of a partnership like that is at a time of crisis when you're being attacked, you want support from your partner, from your ally. The Saudis went so far as to pursue a mutual defense treaty with the United States

and the possibility of normalization with Israel. That's how important it was that they have clarity about their relationship with the United States. I think that's what they're asking for from what they're asking President Trump for at this point is military support. And if not military support, some manner of support that will help them retaliate, push back, disincentivize the Houthis from continuing these strikes. It seems like President Trump, as you say, is not that interested in doing it. He probably sees it as kind of broadening a war that he's hoping is wound down already. But at this point, it clearly hasn't wound down. And it probably irritates the Saudis to no end to hear President Trump in Ireland talking about this whole war as a small problem that something will be very happy with.

Well, and to that point about trying to wind down this wider war, to what extent do you think the U.S. is staying out of it because they're already overextended in Iran? You know, that's part of it, I think. It's true. President Trump seems to have a lot of calculations for the Iran war. he seems to want to get out of it. He seemed to want to get out of it almost since it first started. Clearly, one of the problems is that the supply of our most sophisticated munitions is being diminished. Our Navy is being stretched thin. These deployments are long. It's having an effect on the U.S. military's posture at a time when there's other conflicts in the world. So I think he's probably hearing from military leadership that they can't afford another front. And for him, too, politically, I think he's at a point where he doesn't want to have to keep answering questions about why this war

keeps going on and on. In about 30 seconds, we have left. How severely do you think this is going to impact oil markets, given the disruptions already that are taking place in the Strait of Hormuz? I have the impression that until very recently, global oil markets were not pricing in the risk that was out there. I think in some ways they were hopeful looking for the next ceasefire, looking for the next kind of piece of evidence that this war was over. I think now you're seeing the real risk being priced in. Closure not just of Ormuz, but potentially the Babel Mandeb, these Red Sea routes, bombing of Saudi East-West pipeline. Now you're seeing oil up near 110, and I think that is a result of all of the risk that's finally been recognized.

Former Ambassador Michael Ratney, thank you so much for your insights. Any time. A new report from ProPublica says a Russian oligarch with ties to President Vladimir Putin helped fund Donald Trump Jr.'s lavish wedding celebration in the Bahamas earlier this year. Here with more on this is our White House correspondent Liz Landers. According to the report, Umar Kremlev, a Russian businessman and president of the International Boxing Association, paid hundreds of thousands of dollars in expenses for the president's son's wedding weekend, including the rental of a private island and a fireworks display.

Joining us to discuss his reporting is Justin Elliott, one of the team, of journalists investigating the story for ProPublica. Justin, thank you for joining us. Good to be here. How did you trace this money to this Russian oligarch? What did you find in your reporting? Yeah, so we talked to a lot of people that both in Donald Trump Jr.'s world and in the oligarchs world, and we ultimately reviewed records and talked to people who had intimate knowledge

of these payments. We found we don't have the exact number, but we need. know that well into the six figures was spent in wedding payments for Donald Trump Jr. And after the story was published, Tina Trump, Donald Trump Jr.'s new wife made a post on Instagram confirming that Umar Kremlev had paid for the wedding and describing him as a personal friend. I want to ask about that. So she said in a statement on Instagram today that their wedding was on a Friday, that they were surrounded only by family and that friends came for the weekend to celebrate. She added, quote, our dear friend, Umar very generously hosted two incredible nights of

celebrations for us after our wedding. It was an extraordinarily generous wedding gift from a friend and something for which we were and remain incredibly grateful. What's your response to her explanation? What do you make of that? Yeah, I mean, it's consistent with our reporting. There's a three-day wedding. The actual wedding ceremony was on the Friday, as she says, that was just family and then this larger group of around 50 guests were there for the sort of two days of partying, which is what Kremlin paid for. I think the thing that really still has not been fully explained is how this Russian oligarch who, by their own account, met Donald Trump Jr. only a couple of years ago, ended up paying hundreds of thousands of dollars at least

in wedding expenses. It's just not a situation that, any of us had ever heard of, a kind of new friend paying for your wedding. What else did you find about the relationship between Don Jr. and Kremlin? And what did Umar Kremlin say about why he funded this? So we actually found very little about the relationship between Don Trump Jr. and Umar Kremlin. For one thing, we've talked to a lot of people that have worked with Kremlin over the years, and we're told very consistently that he speaks limited English. I think the thing that we were very fixated on is that he's not just a random businessman.

He is somebody that has very close connections to the Russian government, owes a lot of his wealth to the direct interventions of the Russian government and is in President Vladimir Putin's circle. And so, you know, we talked to a lot of both Republican and Democratic former FBI counterintelligence officials who said that, you know, if they'd heard about this sort of thing when they were in the government, it would have been a sort of. sort of five alarm situation where they would have been warning the family member of the president, in this case, Donald Trump Jr., that, you know, look, this person may have other

motivations besides just friendly generosity. In terms of what Kremlin said, Kremlin's spokesperson actually didn't address our questions about why he had paid for this beyond saying that they were friends who had met a couple of years ago. We should mention that President Trump did not attend this wedding, but Jared Kushner, who is negotiating on behalf of the U.S. government with this Ukraine-Russia conflict, he was there. What more do we know about who Kremlin is and his relationship with Putin? Yeah, I mean, it's interesting. One of the things we learned actually is that just a few days before the wedding in the Bahamas, Kremlin was actually in China as part of President Putin's official delegation to China. Putin was in China at the same time.

We also know he's gotten several awards from Putin as recently as this past April. I think he received the order of friendship. It's an important award given out by the Russian government. And I think most of all, Kremlin's fortune he owes to the Russian government. For example, he owns the largest car dealership company in Russia. And that was a company that was previously nationalized. And then the government announced that Umar Kremlov was the new owner. Again, he's not just a random businessman.

He's somebody that has very close connections to the Russian government. And, you know, is one of the former FBI officials that we spoke to said, his concern was if somebody pays for your wedding, at some point, you're going to owe them something. Donald Trump Jr. is worth around $300 million, according to a recent estimate from Forbes. Why didn't he just pay for this himself? You know, that's a good question. I mean, you know, I've heard of, you know, the bride's family paying for the wedding. I've never heard of a situation of a friend and certainly not a recently acquired friend paying for a wedding.

You know, we don't have full insight into Donald Trump Jr.'s wealth. How much of his multi-hundred million dollar fortune is actually liquid ready to spend? I don't know. Or maybe it's just, you know, a hard thing to refuse if somebody's offering to foot, you know, the bill for a lot of the bill for this very expensive weekend. So, you know, they, Donald Trump Jr.'s people did not comment on that. The statement that they released after our story did not comment on this, besides saying that they were very grateful for what they described as a very, very generous gift. Justin Elliott, thank you so much for sharing your reporting. Thanks so much.

For more on how Washington is responding to AI and other issues shaping midterms races, we turn now to our Politics Monday duo. That is Amy Walter of the Cook Political Report. with Amy Walter and Tamara Keith of NPR. It's great to see you both. Let's start with these growing concerns over AI, what might actually be done to address them. We reported earlier, President Trump says he does not want to see more regulation. House Speaker Mike Johnson has said tech companies should take the lead.

As you've seen, this issue is making for some strange alliances. Steve Bannon, Bernie Sanders, now finding themselves on the same side of this issue. Congress is back in session, Tam, as you know. But we've also, we want to note Senator Mitch McConnell is back on the hill tonight. for the first time after a three-month absence due to health issues. That's him there in the wheelchair at the bottom of your screen. But, Tam, this is lawmakers' final week before the midterms. Are they going to do anything when it comes to AI?

Probably not in any serious way that will become law. Because I will just point out that Facebook has been around, social media has been around since the mid-2000s. And many of those companies in a previous life were begging Congress to regulate them, to create guardrails, to create rules of the road. And you know what happened? Nothing. Right now, there is some bipartisan agreement when it comes to social media to protecting children. And yet, they have not been able to get any legislation over the finish line. And now we're talking about a new technology that where the U.S. would like to have a case.

competitive advantage, where there's a real collective action problem, a lot of money at stake. And then you see this division between, you know, there are actually a lot of rank and file Republicans who are hearing from their constituents like, hey, we're worried about AI data centers, we're worried about AI taking our jobs, we're concerned about these things. And then the president of the United States, who is essentially saying, you're going to be a backwards loser if you are concerned about AI or don't want a data. center in your backyard. Amy, these fears, though, that we're hearing from tech leaders, they are new, they are different. Is this the kind of thing voters are paying attention to?

This still is an affordability election. That's what voters say over and over again their top concerns are. And in that way, it's the data centers are part of the affordability conversation. What we're seeing in campaign ads, we're hearing on the campaign trail, our candidate saying, either look at me, I'm here to help regulate the data centers to ensure that your electricity bills do not go up or to bring the cost of your electric bills down, or better yet, to blame your opponent for the high cost of electricity because they okayed data centers and gave them tax breaks. But to the degree to which the actual topic of AI, and its influence these concerns about it breaking out of its sandbox and its impact,

is not yet something that we're here in candidates talk about. And quite frankly, the midterm elections probably aren't the place for it to happen, where it will, I think, become a very big topic. And topic number one will be once we get into the presidential race. How about how closely voters are paying attention to some of the other stories we're covering right now? The one Liz was reporting on earlier, the revelations from the ProPublica investigation that showed Don Trump's Jr.'s wedding celebration was substantially bankrolled by a Russian-old. with close ties to Putin and Trump Jr.

And as I've confirmed the funds, they called it a wedding gift. Do Americans see that these conflicts as problematic or have they just become normalized? Well, I think that what Americans believe is politics is corrupt and they have very little faith in actually most institutions. But in politics, it's being able to make the link between corruption and the cost to you. What does it mean for a political system or person to be corrupt? It means that you're paying more or getting less. That is the connection.

We're seeing that conversation happening in campaigns. So it's not that corruption doesn't matter. But for voters, they do have to see how this is impacting them. I mean, Tam, the appearance of the impropriety used to be enough to prevent the behavior. Are the guardrails just totally gone? There are not a ton of guardrails, though I think voters can be the ultimate guardrail. You know, we saw in the 2006 blue wave that there were a lot of concerns from voters about scandal among Republicans. Well, so this election, we are seeing that corruption is a big concern.

It's actually a bipartisan concern. And the general feeling among voters are very cynical. And the general feeling is that the political class is getting ahead while regular people are struggling to get by, their gas costs more, their groceries, costs more, and they're just struggling to make it. And then these guys can just get rich, which is why you see some candidates talking about the ban on stock trading for members of Congress. You actually see candidates from both sides of the aisle doing this. You do see a lot of discussion of corruption, but obviously it varies by party, how they're directing it. And, you know, like, there just isn't that much focus on Trump and his family in sort of paid advertising.

I do want to turn out to where we're going to find the president and the vice president, both today and the rest of the week. Vice President Vance, we should point out, is in Kansas tonight. He's stumping for Senator Roger Marshall, who's seeking a second term there against the Democrat, Adam Hamilton. President Trump himself would be in North Carolina later this week. He's hoping to boost Michael Watley's Senate campaign there against the former Democratic governor, Roy Cooper.

Tam, what does it say to you about those races that the fact that the vice president and president are on the ground for these candidates? Yeah, so the vice president is there in Kansas. I will say that it's much cheaper to send the vice president to Kansas, especially when there's like an official visit attached to it, than it is to drop a few million dollars on TV ads. At this point, we are not seeing MAGA Inc. or any of the other big groups dropping money in Kansas, but this is a signal that they have their eyes on it

and they want to help at least a little bit. North Carolina is a race. I mean, actually, it's not really a race at this point. Roy Cooper is polling in a much better place than Michael Watley. Michael Watley is someone who Trump feels something of a debt to because he was the chair of the Republican National Committee. He's also the person that President Trump wanted running in that Senate seat, and Watley has had something of a lackluster campaign. Amy, how are you looking at this? Yeah, I mean, the fact that these are two very different states, and yet they're both on the board tells you a lot about this election season. And they're on the board for different reasons, but also one thing that they both have in common is a lack of enthusiasm from the Republican base.

Obviously, the president spent a good deal of time last week, Dan was there in Dallas telling his base, come and vote, pretend I'm on the ballot. That was at the midterm convention. But the challenge the president has with his base is that the ones who are saying they are the least enthusiastic about showing up, also happen to be the ones who are most stressed about the economy, who believe that the president isn't doing a particularly good job on handling the economy. And so when you bring out the president to a place like North Carolina, the vice president to Kansas, they are speaking to the base.

They are not really trying to speak to the swing voters who, quite frankly, are in North Carolina, more so than they're in Kansas. 50 days to go. Those midterms. Amy Walter, Tamara Keith, great to see you vote. Thank you. You're welcome. As the challenges facing immigrant communities continue to make headlines, Los Angeles-based comedian and writer Jenny Yang is taking a different approach, using comedy to draw attention to the issues on her nationwide stand-up tour. Senior arts correspondent Jeffrey Brown cut up with her for our series Art in Action, exploring the intersection of art and democracy, which is part of our canvas coverage. Why are we here, Jenny?

We're here because why not? Jeffrey, why not? It's not a normal spot for an interview. There might be some box moving around here. In the aisles of a grocery store in New York's Chinatown. Look what we've got. We got wife cake. We got moon cake.

We got, you know, so I don't know. For me, it's like what's more joyful than, like, my people's food. Jenny Yang is taking her comedy into some unusual places. places like here at the new Khamman Market, part of her good egg, immigrant grocery store, stand-up comedy tour. You could be crying in H-mark. But you're laughing at New Kamm-Mond Market, baby. For Yang, who was born in Taiwan and moved to the U.S. with her family as a child, the

comedy is a serious response to the Trump administration and its policies around immigration. I have felt a deep sense of anger and hopelessness. And so for me to get some hope into my, into my veins, I was like, what if I actually go to where the people are and witness myself? How are people living right now? I decided I'm going to tour the country inside immigrant grocery stores and raise money for local immigrant organizations that are protecting our communities. Why not?

Why not? A tour started with stores in just a handful of cities, but grew to nearly 20. Ice rates have created a second pandemic for people, you know. It's created a sense of isolation, of fear. And so I think for me to come to immigrant grocery stores to say, no, this is our space and we can reclaim it, we can have joy in it, we can laugh in it, we can, you know, grab snacks and drinks that we love. That kind of physical, this whole experience is what I love about art and comedy.

Yang, who spent several years as a labor organizer before becoming a work. a comedian appeared alongside Michelle Yeo in the Netflix action series, The Brother's Son. She wrote for TV shows like Fox's Last Man Standing and Busy Tonight on E. In 2016, Yang was recognized by the Obama administration for her contributions to Asian-American and Pacific Islander art and storytelling. I can write jokes about immigration policies. I've done topical jokes, but that's not my personal comedy. But it almost sounds like the personal is political.

in this sense. A hundred percent. Jeffrey knows what's up. Yeah. My art is not just what I say on stage. My art is in the practice of how I do my touring, of how I put together my work, of who I hired to do my art, you know? So going to a grocery store, connecting with the immigrant grocery store owner,

of, you know, benefiting a local organization that might help with people who've been impacted by the immigration policies, that in and of itself is like part of my art. The shows are deeply personal. One bit the challenges of growing up the child of immigrants. I would best describe my immigrant parents' style, parenting style, as frazzled CEO. Okay? Because how are you mean a micromanager and neglectful at the same time? How do you do that?

How do you do that? The grocery store setup keeps crowds small, sometimes fewer than 100 people. And every single time this would have to her good egg title is a nod both to her rule-following personality. I am what you call a recovering try-hard. If you did not laugh at that or nod, you are the slackers that are mooching off of us. And her struggles with fertility, including ten failed rounds of in vitro fertilization. I think we need to do a photo shoot for my pregnancy failures. What do you want from the audience?

Because you are taking us to some dark places. I want people to laugh and to think about the stories I tell them long after they leave my show. I want them to reflect on how they might be a little more emboldened to be more themselves. Part of my authenticity involves being transparent around the things that I struggle with and not having to sort of put up this facade and this mass that I just have everything together. which is what a lot of people rely on. We all are walking around just pretending we're okay. Jeffrey, we are not okay.

This is how every comedy show should begin. In July, she performed the Schwung-Hur supermarket in Minneapolis, which became the epicenter of the Trump administration's immigration crackdown earlier this year. I can't talk about Minneapolis while tearing up. It was very important for me to go to Minneapolis, because Minneapolis has been the source of so much heartache. It was symbolically meaningful, as an experience it was meaningful. as an experience it was meaningful for me to get to know how they coped, how they've adapted, how they survived.

The owner of that supermarket felt more safe than some of his, you know, black and brown customers who didn't want to show up into the streets. So he went and delivered groceries. Stories like that make me believe in humanity again, Jeffrey, and that's why I toured. I just want to be amongst the liquid gold. Early next year, Yang will record her first one-hour comedy special at Where Else, an immigrant grocery store in her home. town of Los Angeles. Any comedian who wants to do one hour special, all they need is stage time. So it doesn't matter if it's in a comedy club or a theater.

For me, I'm like, if I could bring the people to an immigrant grocery store, that's stage time. That's the show, everyone. Thank you so much. For the PBS News Hour, I'm Jeffrey Brown at the new Common Market in New York. And that is The News Hour for tonight. I'm Omna Navaz. And I'm Jeff Bennett.

For all of us here at The News Hour, thanks for spending part of your evening with us.