9/9: The Takeout with Major Garrett

Let's start with Canada. OK. So basically, the president is retaliating against Canada's retaliation. You'll recall that Canada imposed new tariffs that went into effect yesterday, bumping up tariffs to 50% on things like US steel and aluminum. And obviously, the president was not going to let that go unanswered for long.

On this very program last night, you said there was a possibility of tit-for-tat retaliation, and here we are.

And we got the tat even sooner than we thought. The president is now outright banning-- so this is an acceleration. He's saying he's not going to hike tariffs. He's just going to ban altogether some kinds of Canadian alcohol, Canadian dairy, motorcycles, things like that. So buy your Crown Royal now--

Essentially stopping it at the border.

Right. It's not going to be for sale here in the US. And a lot of provinces in Canada had already done something similar when it comes to American alcohol. So basically, the scenario we're watching unfold is what a lot of people are worried about, which is that these two major trading partners with very intertwined economies will get into this retaliatory spiral, where suddenly, we end up in something like what we saw with China last year, where we're imposing 145% tariffs on them. They're imposing 125%-- The escalation becomes almost numerically comical. Exactly. And obviously, what both sides are trying to do is put themselves in a power position when it comes to these negotiations that Canada walked away from last month. The question is, do they end up angering each other so much-- and the president is clearly very angry-- that they aren't able to get back to the table. And what did the president say about oil prices today? A new line from the president, who has been promising, since the start of the Iran war, that oil prices are going to come crashing down as soon as the war is over and that that is going to happen very soon. Now he's suddenly saying the war probably isn't going to end until right after the midterm elections, which are a couple of months away. So suddenly, from four to six weeks, we're now looking at a nine-month conflict, perhaps longer. Obviously, he's trying to set expectations. He knows that voters are frustrated about gas prices, are asking Republican candidates about this every day. So he's trying to almost remove it as an issue and say, they're going to come down, don't worry, but just not now. Take a listen to how he put it on the tarmac outside of Air Force One. Right after the election, oil prices are going to be tumbling downward. They're going to be tumbling down. And we'll get them down-- I think, for gasoline, we'll get them below $2 a gallon. The question for the elections becomes, do voters really believe him anymore? He has predicted so many times now that oil prices and gas prices are about to come crashing down. Do people really take stock and say, I'm not sure I buy that, that they're suddenly going to come down after the election? They will be buying gas, and they will see the prices. Nancy Cordes, thank you very much. Voters in New Hampshire have selected their nominees to replace Democratic senator Jeanne Shaheen, who is not seeking reelection. On the Republican side, John Sununu defeated Scott Brown in a battle of former US senators, one from New Hampshire, one from Massachusetts, interestingly. Congressman Chris Pappas, who had the backing of Senator Shaheen, prevailed in the Democratic primary. And in the state's race for governor, Cinde Warmington, who ran unopposed, will face incumbent Republican Kelly Ayotte. And Cindy Warmington joins me now. Cindy, congratulations on your victory. Thanks for joining us. So you heard Nancy and I talking about the president's remarks today, that oil prices, therefore, gas prices, will not come down until after the midterms. How do you evaluate that? Well, not surprising to me that President Trump is making yet another claim that he cannot back up unsubstantiated. And fuel prices are really hurting the people here in our state. I recently was visiting at a farm, where the cost of diesel has driven up the cost of putting crops into the ground, the cost of getting them out of the ground, the cost of transporting crops and dairy products to the marketplace and driving up the cost for everybody in our state. What about the trade war with Canada? New Hampshire-- I've been there many, many times-- has fond relationships with Canada and integrated economic relationships with Canada. Yes. And being a border state-- we have a lot of trade with Canada. And this trade war that Trump has started has been hurting tourism in our state. We've already seen tourism down by 30%, which is hurting our small businesses. We've seen the cost of goods go up, the cost of lumber that we need for building houses, the cost of farm products, equipment, feed, the cost of diesel fuel. This trade war is really crushing the people of our state. And we have a governor in Kelly Ayotte who is completely unwilling to stand up to Donald Trump and fight for the people of New Hampshire. As governor, I will stand up and fight for the people of New Hampshire, making sure that President Trump knows the damage that his tariffs are doing to the people of our state. You invoked the name of Kelly Ayotte, the governor, but the most recent polls have her ahead of you by at least 10 percentage points. This is an uphill climb. I'm sure you'll acknowledge that. Are you relying only on the atmosphere? It's going to be a tough race, there's no question. But Kelly Ayotte actually has some of the lowest approval ratings we've seen of any governor in more than 30 years. And everywhere I go across the state, people are completely fed up with the inaction of Kelly Ayotte's administration and all of the things that she's doing that are actually driving up costs for the people of our state, putting in an education voucher scheme, jacking up the costs of property taxes across our state, and increasing premiums on the most vulnerable of Granite Staters. People are really fed up. They're ready for a change. I'm ready to bring it to them. Cindy, an issue that has persisted in not only this race, but an earlier race she made for governor in 2024, is your history as a Purdue Pharma lobbyist. Early in the 2000s, before the state legislature, you said that OxyContin was not subject to abuse, was a miracle drug. You were clearly parroting the party line, the company line. How much do you regret that advocacy then? And how do you deal with this issue now, which persists? As I have said many times, I did not, of course, know of Purdue Pharma's fraudulent scheme back in 2002, but I most certainly regret ever having anything to do with Purdue Pharma, given what we know now. I have been profoundly affected by addiction in my own family, and it is an issue that I have spent a lifetime working on. And I am convinced that the people of New Hampshire recognize that Kelly Ayotte is attacking me because she is unable to defend her own record as governor, that she is unable to defend the fact that she has sent the cost of health care and housing and school property taxes through the roof, that our electric rates are some of the highest in the country because of her failed policies. I think the people of New Hampshire recognize that Kelly Ayotte has no record to run on.

Cinde Warmington, the Democratic nominee for governor, great state of New Hampshire. I appreciate the time. Thank you.

We're now going to underline some of the concerns about the future of artificial intelligence we mentioned at the top of the program. And to help us do that, I want to bring in Massachusetts Democratic Congresswoman Lori Trahan, who is one of the most persistent voices on Capitol Hill, looking for a way to regulate the future of artificial intelligence. OK. Congresswoman, I'm sure you've seen Jacob Coxon's social media post today talking about not just the dangers of artificial intelligence, but that it could exterminate humanity. How do you evaluate that? Look, when you have the people who are building this technology sounding the alarm, we have to listen, right? Safety researchers are resigning. Models are escaping their own labs. It's the architects who are telling us that they can't guarantee where this technology goes. And today, the only thing that we have in place is the honor system. This is the most powerful technology in human history, is being regulated by a few people. So that, I think, is the whole case for Congress to finally get off the sidelines. And I think we have legislation like the FRONTIER Act ready to go. But that's, I think, where we should start. What would that legislation accomplish? How would it solve this problem? Well, today we know AI touches everything-- jobs, the economy, our kids classrooms, our national defense, data centers. I think, first and foremost, we have to put guardrails in place for the frontier labs. These are the handful of companies whose models can actually cause a catastrophe. And the FRONTIER Act would require incident reporting that would lead to a catastrophic risk, independent verification. And then it's backed by a government pause button if a model does pose an imminent risk to a catastrophe, with the courts as a backup or a check on that power. So, like I said, today, all we have is the honor system, voluntary guidelines by the administration. We need something much more durable than that. Does there need to be a federal regulatory agency specifically monitoring the future of AI? I think that is a debate worth having for the long term. I think in the near term, we need to fund CAISI. That's the Center for AI Standards and Innovation. We need them to test foreign models that the market won't. They are equipped. They're the best equipped agency to jump in right now, because I don't think that time is on our side. And look, we have to start with transparency, independent audits, an emergency skill switch. That's what frontier is. But then we need to fast track cybersecurity for our hospitals, the National Grid, biosecurity, screening. We need to have a liability regime before rogue agents cause harm. So there's a lot The Congress needs to do, but I think we have to deal with the clear and present danger that's before us. And that's a catastrophic risk, that these models have shown, that could be imminent. Is the data center debate separate from this or merely adjacent? I think a lot of things are intertwined. There's no question that data centers right now are an issue in all of our communities, and I think that's across the country. And bipartisan. We have to-- Absolutely. I mean, look, people are not imagining this. They feel it in their electric bill. They see it when a data center is proposed down the road, and they're reading the headlines about AI models that are escaping their own labs. And, so I think these worries are legitimate. I think-- This is what I hear, most folks aren't anti-technology. They just want to know that someone's watching this. This is the most powerful technology in human history. And it's, like I said, running on the honor system. So I do think that first things first, we have to put guardrails in place, so that we're protecting the security of people's bank accounts. Our national defense preventing catastrophic risk. And then we also have to talk to people back home about how they're going to have a say in data centers, and they're going to be-- They're not going to have to pay for the energy used for those data centers, and we're going to have community agreement agreements set up. Our governor in Massachusetts just put that in place by executive action. I think you're going to see a lot more of that across blue states and red states around the country. And yet, President Trump says two things, data center and AI hesitancy only serves China's interests, and that data should reign. Yeah look, I think a lot of my Republican colleagues are having trouble with the leader of their party, who says things like, let data reign, when they're hearing something very different back home. And so I think this is something that, we need to give power to our communities. They should have a say in where these data centers are being built, how they're being built, what happens to their energy cost, which I think they should be held harmless in all of this. But rest assured, it's not just Democrats that are hearing from their constituents on this, it's Republicans too. And so this is worthy of Congress debating. The hardest part about losing the last two weeks of the calendar in Congress is that we're not actually in special session, which we should be, taking up these issues that are absolutely on the minds of the American people. Meaning it will lay over to a lame-duck Congress. Massachusetts Democratic Congresswoman Lori Trahan, thank you very much. I appreciate it. Thank you.

Still to come, James Talarico, on the state of his Democratic campaign for Texas's seat in the United States Senate, the latest edition of The takeout's state by state segment with fancy graphics and orchestra, music, and everything. Also, former Georgia Republican Senator, now turned Trump administration official SBA head, Kelly Loeffler. She joins me from the Republican midterm convention in Dallas. Plus, raised in the aftermath of the 9/11 terrorist attacks, I talked to the director of a Netflix documentary profiling that generation. The Takeout returns in 90 seconds. I told you there would be fancy graphics and super good music from the orchestra. Welcome back to The Takeout and welcome to the conversation corner. Today's rather state by state segment, Texas is the focus. James Talarico got an endorsement today from a former top advisor to Attorney General Ken Paxton. He's the Republican nominee in that Senate race. David Maxwell, former Texas Ranger, that's what they call a member of the Texas Department of public service, was previously a whistleblower who reported Paxton to the FBI, alleging improper political favors. He says he is backing Talarico because quote, Texans deserve a Senator who serves the people, not a crook who serves himself, unquote. CBS News, Senior White House and political correspondent Ed O'Keefe joins us with the headset and the convention floor in Dallas. Ed you talked to James Talarico. What did he tell you? We did, Major. He is going to be the subject of conversation in speeches tonight here at this midterm convention. His Republican opponent, Ken Paxton, the state attorney general, is set to speak later tonight, and is likely going to make the argument that Talarico is too liberal, too extreme for Texas. That's what he's been doing in his advertising and his stump speech. So Talarico, earlier today, anticipating the incoming from Paxton, maybe also from President Trump, held an event with volunteers about 15 minutes South of here at a community center, where they boxed up, what they say, was about 20,000 pounds of food to give away to Needy Families here in Texas. Because Talarico says, he's chiefly focused on the number one concern of voters, the cost of living. We talked about the state of the campaign, his thoughts on those Republican attacks. Take a listen. I think Texans are tired of this professional wrestling in our politics. They want a serious Senator who's going to bring both parties together to lower costs and get this economy back on track. And I have a track record of doing that. We don't have to wonder what kind of Senator I'm going to be, because I've served as a legislator for eight years now, for four terms, in the Texas House. And I brought Democrats and Republicans together to pass 60 bipartisan bills on a whole range of topics. Bills that lower the cost of housing, bills that lower the cost of child care and prescription drugs, including insulin. So I'm asking Texans to judge me based on my legislative record. I have a legislative record. Ken Paxton has a criminal record. Ken Paxton has an entire career of using his public office to enrich himself and his donors at the expense of the people of Texas. And I think the contrast could not be more clear in this race. You're blanketing the airwaves with television ads. The Paxton team or associated groups are starting to do so as well. And he's released one that uses AI imagery of you and your past public statements. What do you make of the use of AI, first of all, in a political ad? I mean, this is consistent with Ken Paxton's record of lying to the people of Texas, right? He lied to his own staff. That's why they reported him to the FBI. He lied to his own party. That's why they impeached him for bribery. He lied to law enforcement, which is why his former director of law enforcement endorsed me yesterday. And now he's lying to the people of Texas using artificial intelligence to put words in my mouth. And I think Texans are tired-- Well, they're statements you've made. It's just, they're being personified in a different way. Well, not all of those statements. I mean, this is-- The issue is when you look at this ad, they are using AI in order to mislead the people of this state. And that is completely consistent with a liar like Ken Paxton. And I am confident that Democrats, Independents and Republicans are going to reject Ken Paxton, because we don't want a criminal representing us in the halls of power in Washington. Would you use AI in political advertising? No. So you have no plan to do so. And every ad that we put out is made by human beings, and we're very proud of that fact. I know data centers have become an issue here in the state because they help funnel or establish, create AI tools and products. There have been warnings in recent days about the dangers of it. Someone now suggesting we could all be dead in 10 years, thanks to it. What specifically should the federal government be doing to regulate it? So Ken Paxton has taken nearly half a million dollars from the data center industry, and it's why he ignored residents in Hood County, when they asked for his help as attorney general to pause data center construction in their community. He just ghosted them, because he is bought and paid for by the data center industry. I don't take money from data centers. I don't take any corporate PAC money. I answer to the people of Texas, and it's why I've laid out a comprehensive plan to rein in these data centers. And I've said clearly, if data centers can't meet the demands of the people in these communities, if they can't pay for their own energy, if they can't recycle their own water, then they shouldn't be built. Period, full stop. And that's exactly the approach we have to take to AI. We cannot let artificial intelligence become yet another arena where billionaires write the rules for the rest of us. We have to have a government that puts in place some common sense guardrails, to ensure we're developing these technologies safely and responsibly. And that we're not replacing jobs, but making jobs easier. Is a federal moratorium on AI construction or data center construction something you'd consider? I honestly don't care what you call it, but if a data center can't meet the demands of the community where they seek to operate, they shouldn't be built. Finally, you're a Democrat running for statewide office in Texas, and you're within shooting distance of making it happen. You're like Charlie Brown in the football. What's going to be different this time? What is different this time, that makes you so confident you can prevail? I think there is a movement growing in the state of Texas. People are hungry for the old fashioned values I was raised with, honesty, integrity, service, putting others before self, doing the right thing, even when no one is watching. I know that those-- I know those values have been out of style recently, over the past 10 years, but I really do believe those old fashioned values are about to make a comeback in this race, in this. There's got to be something specific, that has happened, or been said to you, or that you've seen, that says, this is profoundly different than what Beto O'Rourke went through, than what others have gone through. Oh, absolutely. I mean, I go to every corner of this state. We've had thousands of Texans showing up. We have to change venues, because we have so much interest in the movement that we're building. We have 60,000 volunteers who have signed up. That's historic. We have shattered grassroots fundraising records, all without taking a dime from corporate PACs. So this is truly a movement unlike any other, that we've seen in the state of Texas. And I'm confident that, although big money is powerful and the billionaire mega donors that are partying at the billionaire ball, they're going to spend unlimited amounts of money to try to stop us. That big money is powerful, but it's nothing compared to people power. Talarico has a single point edge in most polling against Republican Ken Paxton, who again speaks later tonight at this midterm convention. Major, as we have been asking to speak with the attorney general, Ken Paxton. We've asked multiple times. We welcome him into a conversation, should he be willing to have one, Major.

That invitation is also extended, as the attorney general's office well knows, by The Takeout. Ed O'Keefe, we appreciate your time in Dallas. Thank you very much. We're going to take a quick break. Please stay with us. You are watching and very much enjoying as you always do, The Takeout. Welcome back to The Takeout. It's Wednesday, which means Takeout Tavern time. We are gonna turn to our reporter panel. Sophia Key, White House reporter for Politico. Igor Bobic covers the Senate for the newly renamed Washington Sun. That's right, let's go. What was the old name? Notice. That's right. We don't even know what that is. Washington Sun. All right. And by the way, they're here at the Tavern, enjoying themselves as they always do. And remember, kids, it's always coffee for me, because I need to keep my wits about me. Sophia, tell my audience about this thing that you found in federal disclosure forms about a cache, a set of cash gifts from the President of the United States to three women who work in the White House. Yes, three close dates. This was on the website of the White House, because it is the law that if you work at the White House and you're receiving gifts above a certain amount, that you disclose them. And the three aides are Natalie harp, Chamberlain Harris and Margo Martin. These are people who spend a lot of time with Trump in person. They have great access. Margot does a lot of the social media posts. Natalie Harris is the human printer. She prints out a lot of the material that-- Natalie Harp. Natalie Harp. And then Chamberlain Harris. Chamberlain Harris is the deputy director of the Oval Office operations. So she is also on the commission of the Fine Arts, helping Trump move along the ballroom and other sorts of things. And other renovations of the White House and whatnot. Yes, I mean, and look-- Each got 45,000 cash. $45,000 is a lot. Must be nice. Yes. But I think, the other side of this is, look, you could argue it's a president who is awarding his workers for good work, but then you have the White House telling us that this has nothing to do with their White House roles. I don't understand that. I thought they would say it does have to do, it's a reflection of all the hard work they've done on behalf of the country and the White House and the president, et cetera. But they don't make that argument. And I think the White House is trying to argue that this is within the legal confines. I think that is not for us to determine. No, it isn't. And Natalie Harp was already on the lips of many Democrats. This allocation will probably keep that alive. Whether that's good for the White House, Natalie Harp, or political discourse in our country, I'll leave that for others to decide. Igor, you talked to Abdul El-Sayed, candidate for Senate in Michigan, the Democratic nominee, about AI today. And he has enlarged his sense of anxiety about this, and is willing to slam the brakes on even harder than he was before. Yeah, it was interesting. I asked him about this development overnight, this kind of crazy sounding warning from one of these top AI researchers at Anthropic, saying, in the next decade, potentially, humanity could be wiped out. Sounds fantastical, but also scary as hell. And, I got El-Sayed on the phone today to talk about his plan for AI. Initially, he was talking about taking ownership of AI companies, of putting in safeguards, not going so far as Bernie Sanders did in calling for a ban on AI and pausing AI. Today, he told me he changed his mind. He said, this calls for going even further now, and really doing something about, putting, pumping the brakes on this AI development. And he does not believe there's any particular political risk in that. He believes it is imperative. And maybe that's where the voters are, in Michigan, on an issue that in the data center level has been bipartisan, and there's been a lot of tapping the brakes on that. Absolutely, and you saw today, it's breaking out. It's not just us, politicos, people in DC, talking about it. I saw very big name celebrities posting it in their Instagram stories, for example. Very widely viewed, millions of views going out there. And it's coming out of the bubble now. And I think people are getting more and more worried. Sophia, what is the White House perspective on this. Because early on, the White House was super bullish on AI and its development. Then there was a period of about a month or two where they were reappraising it, and there were some safety concerns. And now the president is all on with the data centers. And if you're all in for data centers, then you have to be all on for however these AI models are advanced in the future. Yes, and I think that's exactly what's challenging. I mean, I've been talking to some people very high up in the White House, and these people are very concerned. They do not want a cybersecurity attack to happen on their watch. And they believe that if it does, the White House and the president will be held accountable for it. So while they are saying, we are for AI and data centers, they are also trying to figure out, how do we rein it in and how do we maybe create an AI regulator. That has mixed reviews from the tech industry. We reported that Mark Zuckerberg had a conversation with Trump, where he was against this. David Sacks is against this. But then, OK, if it's-- A White House advisor-- Another top White House advisor in this space, who has Trump's ear, is against this. But then the White House has already created this EO to make the regulator, but it has not been signed. So you see this push and pull within the White House.

An executive order awaiting a signature of the President, that's a rare thing indeed. [INTERPOSING VOICES] Sophia Key, Igor Bobic, thank you very much. I appreciate it. Coming up, the Republican midterm convention is here. It's in Dallas. We just saw. It'll keep near the floor. I will speak with Trump administration official Kelly Loeffler, who's there. That's next, right here on The Takeout. Welcome back to The Takeout. Welcome back to the conversation corner. The first ever Republican midterm convention, well, it's underway in Dallas, where the GOP is getting ready for, you guessed it, President Trump. He's going to speak tonight and tomorrow night. Was there ever any doubt? President called this event a, quote, rally like never before, and an opportunity to what he hopes will be a celebration of his administration's first two years in office in his second time in the White House. CBS News poll in late July, however, showed the President has an approval rating of just 39%, down 5 points from March. The administrator of the US Small Business Administration, Kelly Loeffler, joins me now from Dallas. Kelly, it's great to have you back on the program. I've heard this convention described two ways, one as a savvy means of mobilizing the Trump base ahead of the midterms. Second, as a cry for help. How do you describe it? Well, it's incredibly energized here at the conference already at the convention. And here's what's going on. We're going to be talking about, not just a historic convention, but a historic presidency, that is already delivering 19 months into this administration on key promises to the American people. And we already have the results. If you saw, last week's blockbuster job numbers almost triple the expectations. Those are the types of expectations this president has been exceeding time and again, and we are thrilled to be talking about them, because the contrast could not be sharper, contrasting socialism of the Democrats or free enterprise capitalism, and how it's working under this administration, to lift all Americans up. The contrast couldn't be more clear. And one of your points of contrast on that, Kelly Loeffler, is what's going on in New York City with Mayor Mamdani and five government backed grocery stores, one in each borough. You've criticized them extensively. I know you believe generically that socialism is inefficient and ineffective. So why are you worried about five grocery stores when there are more than 1,000 grocery stores in Bodegas, already in New York. If socialism is inefficient and ineffective, why are you worried? Well, first of all, let's be very clear, the American people do not believe in socialism. And the idea that taxpayers need to fund government run grocery stores, when there are already small generational family businesses doing that, it's just wrong. They've failed everywhere else. And guess what they do? They chase out the existing competition in that area, and then the residents would be left with a food desert, once the government experiment fails again. That is the contrast of what President Trump has delivered. Growth. We have all time record business formation in America right now. Over half a million new businesses every single month. We have over 600,000 new jobs. The government didn't do that. Free enterprise did that. That's what's at stake here. Speaking of small businesses, there is an effort afoot and there's a public comment period until later this month, September 21, to reclassify what a small business is, in terms of receiving grants from the federal government. Why is that necessary? And what do you say, Kelly Loeffler, to small businesses who fear this reclassification could make small businesses now compete with things that make a billion a year and employ more than 3,000 people? Well, I'm here in my personal capacity, but I can tell you what the Trump administration has done very effectively, which is deregulate onerous and complex regulations that small businesses disproportionately bear the brunt of. Now that's happening across every type of business or entity in America. It's not just for small businesses, it's for employers writ large, which is why we have a booming hiring expansion right now happening. And so, in terms of any regulations, what we're doing is getting the finger off the backs of the small business, letting them grow. But here's what's going on at this convention. We're talking about why free enterprise works, not government regulation. And that's President Trump's commitment to the American people. For every new regulation that went into place, over 1,000 regulations have been removed. And that was a cost of $5 trillion that the Biden administration put on the backs of hardworking Americans and businesses. Very quickly, the president said today, before he arrived in Dallas, that oil prices and therefore gas prices will be high and remain high, until after the midterms. That cannot be good news for small businesses. Well look, the president is doing what he promised to do, which is deliver strength on a world stage and energy dominance. This is a short term situation, that's going to be replaced permanently by long term lower energy prices. Look, the Democrats have a policy of high energy prices. Don't forget, four years ago, we reached an average of $5 per gallon across the country, with no conflict going on. And so the president has unleashed American energy production. That's what matters to the American people. I appreciate the time very much. Thank you for joining us from Dallas. Next as promised, the documentary of the generation raised in the shadow of 9/11. You're watching The Takeout. Welcome back to The Takeout. A new Netflix documentary is available now. It's about, among other things, children whose parents died in 9/11. Turning Point generation 9/11 profiles those children, as well as soldiers who joined the military because of those terrorist attacks on 11. Here is a preview of that documentary, as well as my conversation with its director, Brian Knappenberger. My father was working at the Pentagon on September 11. I just turned four. My dad was the co-pilot on Flight 93. I was 10 months old. I was five years old when 9/11 happened and I wanted to serve my country. I was three years old. We got attacked and they killed a bunch of our people. Obviously, we should bring some justice to those that did it.

If you start to scratch at almost any aspect of our daily lives in the United States today, I can show you how 9/11 changed that part of our country.

Brian, I'm going to start with what sounds like an obvious question. What is generation 9/11? And I ask it because, for those of us who remember it, we always will believe that 9/11 will be a multi-generational trauma, but what is the distinct generation 9/11, from your vantage point? Well, on the 20 year anniversary of 9/11, we released our first turning point series, which was about 9/11 and the war on terror. And looking at some of the conversation online, it became clear that some people didn't really know what it was, what 9 9/11 was. They hadn't learned about it in school, or just weren't clear about it, and they were kind of coming to it fresh with that series. And they either hadn't been born yet or they were too young to remember the events of that day. And that was really eye opening for me at the time. It was really kind of mind blowing, because, like so many people, it just changed my whole life and career. I remember nearly every moment of that day. So in some sense, I'm the-- And those of us who lived through it, and whose lives had changed so dramatically, are the generation. But I was on the one year anniversary in Kandahar, Afghanistan, making a film. And so-- But here we are, 25 years later, and in the next few years, we're going to reach a point where nearly half of all Americans were either born after 9/11, or just too young to remember it. So that's the generation we're talking about here. It's-- This film starts with their experience. We don't assume people really know about the trauma and the fear of that day. So we go back to that. And we try to understand the terror and the uncertainty that so many people felt, but also try to understand what happened next. Because in so many ways, the decisions made in the days and the weeks and the years after 9/11 shaped the country even more profoundly than the attacks themselves. And this generation grew up in that shadow of 9/11. So that's what this film is directed at. And some of your entry points, Brian, are children of Americans who died that day. So they went from unknowing, because they were too young to remember their parents' death, to knowing, to a life of remembering. What was that like, to experience with them? Just really, really, really powerful. One of the more powerful interviews we did was with this woman, Laurel Homer, whose father was the co-pilot of flight 93 that crashed in Pennsylvania. And her interview was just really, really powerful. It's clear, when you watch her, that she's still kind struggling to understand that day. And one of the things that really stood out from that interview, that I found pretty telling, is that she had been trolled online. That online she was-- That people had sort of found her and trolled her for this. And that made it clear that a lot of this generation kind of grew up in a social media age that came after. 9/11 happened right on the cusp of a big social media wave. Facebook launches in 2004, Reddit in 2005, Twitter in 2006. And these platforms came of age right in the immediate aftermath of 9/11. And at the same time, conspiracy theories about the attacks were spreading and they're finding new audiences online. So that was one of the many things that you found when you did these interviews, is that they're growing up in a kind of new environment, information environment as well. Also, many things changed in America after 9/11. The security state, the security apparatus now has taken on dimensions, I think, unimaginable to most Americans pre 9/11. Yeah, absolutely. That's one of the things we really focused on in the film. After 9/11, fear and suspicion just sort of took hold of the country. And much of it directed at the Muslim and immigrant communities at the time. And a lot of people didn't understand, this is where-- In the weeks and months after 9/11, is where we created the Department of Homeland Security and then the agencies that would ultimately become ICE. We built this enormous security and enforcement infrastructure in response. It also changed us. It changed us in all sorts of ways, including greater surveillance of Americans. The sort of mass dragnet suspicionless surveillance expanded. And that didn't disappear when that immediate threat disappeared. It continues to stay with us today. Brian Knappenberger, the documentary Turning Point, Generation 9/11. Thank you so very much. Thank you so much.

Quick reminder for you. The Takeout is available as a podcast on Apple, Spotify, YouTube, and everywhere else. You can find each show there and our long form interviews, of which I'm happy to say, we do many. Happy Wednesday everyone. This is The Takeout. Relentlessly curious, reliably civil, occasionally clever. The Daily Report is next.