Real Time with Bill Maher - Overtime – Episode #740: Byron Donalds, Molly Jong-Fast, Michael S. Roth

Episode Date: September 1, 2026

Bill Maher and his guests answer viewer questions after the show. (Originally aired 8/28/26) Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

Two and five Canadians will hear the words, you have cancer. That's why every step and dollar raised matters. On September 19th, join thousands in Toronto for the Princess Margaret Cancer Foundation Walk. Challenge yourself, friends, and family to walk 21 kilometers in support of life-saving research. Together, we can carry the fire and help create a world free from the fear of cancer. Register today at pmcfwalk.ca.ca. Do you wish you could just hit skip on the worst parts of your life? You know, the same way you can skip an ad?

I get it. I'm Siaya and I live in Ice Cove. I've made some questionable decisions that didn't end up the way I planned. And today, I'm still figuring it out. Somehow things usually get worse before they get better. Apparently, that's how I roll. So bundle up and come along for the bumpy ride. Don't miss the new season of North of North

starting September 8th on CBC Gem. Welcome to an HBO podcast from the HBO late-night series, Real Time with Bill Maugh. All right, here we are in overtime with the president of Westing University and author of the student of short history. Michael S. Love. Here's the Republican Congressman from Florida and the state's gubernatorial candidate, Representative Byron Donald, and she's the host of the Fast Politics podcast and author of How to Lose Your Mother and Daughter's memoir, Molly Zhang, Fats. All right, here are the questions from the people.

What's the panel's reaction to Meta, reaching an $18 billion settlement? Yes, mentioned it in the monologue of routine. Social media addiction is social media the new big tobacco. Well, yes, I mentioned that too. Very kin to that. Finally, putting a flag down and saying, no, you cannot, with impunity, just addict people, especially children, because that was an issue with tobacco. Remember, Joe Camel.

And now I don't think it goes very far this thing, but it's a beginning, right? Yeah, you're an anti-regulation guy, and I'm no fan of regulations most of the time. Well, I'm not anti-all regulation guy. I live in California, so I bitch about regulation, which we have way, way too much. When it comes to drugs and addiction... Oh, I'm good on that. So here, here we have an incredibly addictive product, an incredibly addictive product. It is.

And holding these companies to account for, Getting kids hooked very early on this stuff is so important, and I'm glad we're going in that direction. Imagine how bad that trial was going to be that meta settled. Like, imagine, because they settled because they didn't want to go to trial. Right. So it must have been so bad the stuff that they were going to present, and it means they're going to have, I mean, these are, this, remember,

they're going to have many more settlements like this, and there are many more plaintiffs, and there are, like, you know, there's kids, but there's also like the Rohingdon genocide. This was not every state, but it was a lot of states. It was $18 billion, which it takes them 33 days to make. Right. Yeah. Look, I think it's a step in the right direction.

The apps are very addicting. There's no doubt about that. And it's not just kids. It's adults, too. The amount of doom scrolling that occurs, first thing in the morning when people get up, lasting before they go to sleep, you know, all through the day. I think it's something where you talked about our politics earlier.

It's not just politors, culture, it's everything, where people are really being focused into their corner. of the world based upon their own private algorithm, and that is somewhat destructive of Western civilization. But this is Congress's fault, right? They never regulated any of this. They never regulated Facebook at all. I mean, they got us here.

And by the way, this has killed local news. I mean, these big companies, like, they could have said, you know, you have to be connected to a local news source. You have to have fact checking. They never said any of that. I mean, there's been no regulation. Local news killed local news. Local news killed me.

I am not mourning the death of local news. I'm talking about... But local news is how you keep power to account in places like Albany. Local news is bullshit about how to carve a pumpkin and... Local news is bullshit news. The Weather Girl and Rick Rattagliagla with the sports.

We know what you watch, but... I don't watch it. I don't watch it. The Weather Girl and the Sports Club, What about holding the congressman to account or the state representative? I mean, that's only going to happen at the local level. It's not going to happen at HBO or the New York Times. Well, I don't know.

I think right now, with social media has its problems. We all understand that. But in this environment, everybody having access to just about any piece of information, true or not is a side point. There's more information flowing through everybody's phones today than you could ever get off of the 6 o'clock news or waiting for the Saturday evening. posts. And I think more information

is always better for people, not less. But you can't have an algorithm that just traps you in with impunity. And I think that's the issue we're seeing in this case and we'll see where it goes. You also want it to be true. Yeah, I want it to be true, but I'd rather have all the information as opposed to one news anchor or frankly, one editor telling me what's true through their own

eyes. It's impossible. In this current atmosphere we live in, I never believe anything I read just from that one thing I read. It's just, it's sad. You can't. X has community notes, and I think community notes, I don't want to compliment X here,

but community notes works pretty well. Well, then compliment them. You just did. You just don't do it. I'm doing it. Yes, I'm doing it, but I don't want to. Why love when you can hate? That's what I say.

Anthropic CEO Dario Amodi, the only guy with a conscience in that field, said that AI could make it possible to cure most human diseases within five to ten years. Okay, I'm going to add something to this question because this question doesn't include what Bill Gates said

this week. Bill Gates, I've been saying this and I'm no profit, I'm just quoting the people when I sound the alarm about AI that said it ten years ago like Musk and the father of it, Jeffrey Hinton, who in some ways

have forgotten what they said ten years ago. I don't know if it's the money or whatever, But I'm on the page that this is really dangerous. And Bill Gates this week said we are crossing thresholds that the industry is not doing enough. They are not taking it seriously how bad this could be. This is Bill Gates. So it's not my field, but it is his.

And I think it's great he's weighing in on this because I do think it's a problem. He's talking about not just the fact that it may take so many jobs that we just reorder society and what do we do then when people don't have anything to do. but also biological warfare. The fact that when they run tests against what humans would do

in a certain situation, the robots much more go for nuclear war than the humans do. Humans are pretty bad, but somehow they've avoided it since 1945. I'm not so sure the robots will. Have a good weekend. Anyway, the question is,

is the potential upside of AI worth the risks? Well, I think the potential upside is enormous, but the risks are existential. And I think that curing diseases, everybody can clap their hands. But as you said, it's creating diseases. That's the problem. And automatic weapons with nuclear warheads just becomes ever more likely when machines are making those decisions. If anybody should like it, it's us, because we're going to need it sooner than you two. The curing diseases part.

Yeah, look, I think the answer is yes. Thanks a lot. But are there rules that are needed? Absolutely. And this is why I think states are probably going to step up and do regulations faster than the feds ever could because you've got to get that through the United States Senate and good luck with that one,

especially with the dynamics we have right now. But I think, yeah, it's a force multiplier. It does allow for advancements in medical research. You know, people are now finding fraud in government programs. Why? Because they're using AI to do that. We've never had the manpower to scrub these programs the way they're doing so quickly now. And so that does save resources.

But in part, that genie's out the bottle now. It's what are you going to do to regulate it to make sure that kids are protected, name image and likeness is protected, and there is protections of just a human experience overall. I think that's going to be the next big step going forward. Okay, Molly, you originally wrote about plastic surgery. Could we see a beauty gap in our society in the future

between those who can afford it, ah, and those who can't? Oh, I see. Two Americas. One that looks good and one that doesn't. Or one that looks their age and one that looks ageless. And I think that it's the Forever 35 face. And in fact, it's already here, women who make over $400,000 a year or some number like that, you know, about half of them, maybe more, do some kind of plastic surgery. But, you know, Fran Leibowitz had the great line on this years ago, and she said, Who looks at someone 70 who's had plastic surgery and goes, who's that 35-year-old person? Well, I think you can look.

I think you, the older women, what we have, which is cool from a feminist point of view, is we have older women in movies, in television, in a way we didn't 20 years ago. Now, the problem is they don't really get to look like older women. They sort of have to look like older women who really look kind of like younger women. And so I think it's...

They look like older women who had plastic surgery. Right, exactly. Yeah, they do. This is, we're not in, maybe AI will fix this, but that's what it is. I mean, that's what it is. And I don't, I don't know. I always want to ask the question when people do anything to themselves, you know, bigger tits, whatever it is. I don't know why I looked at you, Doc, about that.

I did do that. No, no, not you. But, like, did you think this true? Like, how would this actually connect to my life is better? Like, okay, I saw one of the Kardashians the other day on DMZ saying she wanted bigger tits. She's got big tits. Okay. You're a billionaire.

You're dating a movie star. You've got big tits. What will the bigger tits, like, where is the connection to my life is better because I did this? Oh, you're asking me. To anybody. I mean, like, you did it. Yeah. How is it connected to making your life better?

Well, I think that a lot of people you watch on television, a lot of actresses, a lot of television personalities have all had plastic surgery. I'm going to tell you. I'm sure they have. Oh, I agree. And a lot of times when we write about that, and I've written about this for the times, is that we write about in a very pejorative way that's kind of misogynistic, where we say plastic surgery, you know. And the truth is, they do it because there's a lot of pressure to not look old. I don't care That's up to other people

That's up to you That's what you're gonna do with your money Do that with your money Let's just you know Not my deal But I think if we are I mean if you're gonna go into like a feminist thing here If we're gonna do plastic surgery

I think we should be honest about it Because otherwise we're setting up A sort of unrealistic How people age I got one clap At one person I think that's my dad Two and five Canadians will hear the words, you have cancer.

That's why every step and dollar raised matters. On September 19th, join thousands in Toronto for the Princess Margaret Cancer Foundation Walk. Challenge yourself, friends, and family to walk 21 kilometers in support of life-saving research. Together, we can carry the fire and help create a world free from the fear of cancer. Register today at pmcf walk. Michael, what is the impact of the Trump administration cutting federal funding for research at universities? Well, again, there's an example of sometimes the idea has merit and then the execution. I don't know how that fights what we were talking about.

Funding to scientific diseases. Why do that? Well, because the Trump administration is making war on civil society. they've gone after entertainment shows, they've gone after newspapers, they've gone after law firms, and they've gone after schools, not because they're trying to protect Jews or because they're upset about free speech. They want loyal institutions. And so to protect Jews at Harvard, they cut scientific research. To make Brown do more work with the community, they find them tens of millions of dollars,

or not hundreds of millions of dollars. And I think the point is we can push you around and make you obey our rules. And that's going to decimate scientific research in this country. But what is the endowment of Harvard, like $50 billion? Right. I think more. Okay. So they cut funding there.

What is the argument to people who say, really Harvard couldn't have took it out of that pocket and made up for it? Like, I don't know how much they cut, but whatever it is, that $50 billion endowment couldn't have made up this road for? No, it can. You can only spend a certain amount from your endowment every year. But in this case, they have a scientist with a contract to do research on Alzheimer's disease. He's been awarded a grant by another group of scientists, and the administration just says, we're not going to pay you because we don't like the way you're behaving.

And that should scare us all. It's just like telling you a law firm. Is that the researcher or are you talking about the university? It's not paying the researcher. No, but is it about what the university is doing, or is it about what the researchers research is about? It's about what the university is doing, what they punish the researcher.

And hospitals and scientific. My only point is, if the university has set up a culture where kids are actually not getting an education that makes them economically viable, then why is the federal government continue to pump money into that university? Because we're already seeing the frustration

with young people all across this country. They went and got the degree. That was the social kind. then they went to the real world and realized that the money they make in the real world was not worth the money they paid for the piece of paper from the university. And it's frustrated a lot of people. It has, but all the statistics show that if you don't have a college degree, your chances for economic success are much less. And the schools he's punishing, their graduates are not in that category. But this is about scientific research in hospitals that are in the university.

So this has nothing to do with students. to do with students. This is you're doing cancer research in a lab at Harvard and Elon Musk, the richest man in the world with Doge decides he's going to cut NIH funds and they're like we're sorry, we can't pay

for your research anymore and that researcher is going to Switzerland. Can we acknowledge that this is the same NIH that was investing in other research that shut down half the basically entire planet? Can we acknowledge that? No. We don't acknowledge that the NIH. We don't acknowledge that the

The NIH is funding gain of research, gain of function research. I do not believe the NIH caused COVID. So then why did Fauci plead the 114 times? That's what he's saying, is that the NIH caused COVID? Wait a second. We don't know that. If COVID came from a lab and that lab was in Wuhan, which is coincidentally, right where the disease started, of course it could have come from that lab.

And of course that lab has been linked to gain of function research. If the evidence comes out that the NIH caused COVID, okay, but it hasn't yet. I didn't say the NIH caused it. I said that they've not funded. Those are two different things. That's what I'm saying. But I'm just saying that cutting cancer research in America has nothing to do with who may or may not be responsible for COVID. All I'm saying is we cannot sit here with a blind eye and assume that every grant that was issued by NIH,

every program that's funded by USAID is somehow actually in the interest of the United States is government and its people. because we do know that there are programs that have been funded that actually have not worked any interests of the United States so why would we continue to fund that? But the rule now... We don't clap for that, you guys. That's an honest assessment. Let the crowd come up.

It's a bad faith reading on something. Well, you can't shut down the crowd from clapping. That's like trying to shut down their ability to speak. I'm censoring the class. You're going to vote with their claps. That's good. That's good. But what's important to note is that when people get their grants canceled today,

The letter doesn't say because it's not in the interest of the American people or the country. It says your research no longer aligns with the priorities of the president. That's what it says. And that should frighten all Americans. Yes. But on this very

specific issue this is not wrong. I like that clapping. I like that clapping. This is a real thing. Gain of function, if people don't know what we're talking. Gain of function is when you purposely soup up a back. bacteria or a virus that you're studying to make it worse.

Because maybe it will get there on its own. Maybe it will evolve to that place on its own. So you want to see in the lab whether we could get ahead of this. Okay, there's an argument to do that. But if it escapes the lab, which absolutely may have what happened there. Obama was very much against doing this, but they were still doing it. Gain of function is a real thing. And it may look like it was a very, very bad call in the future.

I don't know how much the NIH is directly responsible for that, but they had their finger in that pie. So, like, I don't know why we have to, like, pretend that that's not true. And still, you wouldn't want to cut the researchers. Again, I said two different issues. Last question. A new study finds that at least one in four NFL players get the brain disease CTE. Yes, I mean, this is sad, and football season is starting.

Woo! Should parents allow their children to play? parents, that's up to them. But is this an example? Look, I've covered this issue before. I watched the games. The players love playing. It's their choice.

I'm a libertarian on things like this. If you want to do that and you know what the risks are. They didn't know the risks until this week. One and four. The one in four is shocking to people. Believe me, the players knew. Because they talk to each other.

The ones who still can. But I think one of the interesting things in the research... They know the risk. One of the interesting things in the research is much of the damage is done in practice. So there are ways that you can mitigate those risks and still have football. Much of the damage to the head is done in the multiple hits you take in practice. And so in many college campuses today, they're changing the way we practice because people want to play the game.

They know the risk. They choose to play the game. But you can do it more safely. Well, I agree with it. Look, my three sons all played football. my oldest played college football. The practices have changed drastically from when my oldest started in Pop Warner.

I think when he was around 12 or so, the NFL came down with some of the first concussions work and they were changing the way they taught tackling in Pop Warner so that kids were not leading with their head the way they were. One of the things we started to find, though, is that there were more concussions in youth soccer than youth football because kids are running around their head

and parents think, like, oh, it's safe, it's easy. But there's no head protection in youth soccer. And you're heading and you're just jumping in the air and they're all colliding. But at the end of the day, players want to play. You know, my son wanted to play. So as a parent, you just make sure he's aware of the information, but that's what he wants to do. And people want to watch. That's right.

And it's, you know, the NFL is useless country. All right. Thank you, everybody. Thank you, Penn. Catch all new episodes of Real Time with Bill Maher every Friday night at 10. Or watch him anytime on HBO on demand. For more information, log on to HBO.com. Two and five Canadians will hear the words, you have cancer.

That's why every step and dollar raised matters. On September 19th, join thousands in Toronto for the Princess Margaret Cancer Foundation walk. Challenge yourself, friends, and family to walk 21 kilometers in support of life-saving research. Together, we can carry the fire and help create a world free from the fear of cancer. Register today at pmcf walk.ca.