[MUSIC]
President Trump is now playing AI companies' doomsday warnings. The robots will not be taken over. The AI will not be taken over the rest of the world. The whole thing is our hopes. He's framing the issue as a race against China
was selling them the chips they need to develop AI. >> I mean, Martinez, that's Leila Fodel.
And this is a first-for-men PR news.
[MUSIC] The Supreme Court rejected President Trump's push for new mail-in voting restrictions. This voting by mail has already started in several states, what does the ruling mean for mid-term elections? >> And the Kennedy Center says it's on the brink of bankruptcy. Part of the ceiling collapsed because of rain and PR obtained an internal memo warning that the building is unsafe and may have to close as soon as today.
Meanwhile, the fight over putting Trump's name on it is still in court.
“Stay with us, we'll give you the news you need to start your day.”
[MUSIC] This is our glass. On this American life, we tell stories about when things change, like for this guy David, who's entire life took a sharp unexpected and very unpleasant term. And it did take me a while to realize this basically because the monkey pressed the button. That's right, because the monkey pressed the button.
Sprising stories every week, where you get your podcasts. >> On the next, do line from NPR. >> Let's listen to Josh Reddick's new walk-up song. Whether you love it or you hate it, walk-up music has become a huge part of major league baseball. >> The need to secure and the attention of the fans is relentless.
>> I've thought of my hearing things, I mean, I realize everybody's singing a lot. >> Listen to NPR's through line in the NPR app or wherever you get your podcasts. >> This is Tanya Mosley, co-host of fresh air. Each week, we go beyond the headlines and dive deep into an issue, like the Epstein files. The dismantling of voting rights and the conflicts abroad.
Listen to fresh air interviews to better understand our world. Mind us on the NPR app or wherever you get your podcasts. >> Senator Bernie Sanders and President Trump's former top advisor, Steve Bannon. That's right, Bernie Sanders and Steve Bannon are holding a rally together today to highlight concerns about artificial intelligence.
>> Yeah, executives have been talking for the past week about fears that their technology could destroy humanity without guardrails and they've been calling for Congress to act. >> The president disagrees. He made that clear on Monday when he called in video CEO, Jensen Wong, Wong was on stage for a taping of the business and technology podcasts all in at a conference hosted by that podcast.
>> The robots will not be taken over. The AI will not be taken over the rest of the world. The whole thing is our hoax. >> With his NPR's White House correspondent Emily Fang.
“So Emily, what else does President Trump said about AI recently?”
>> He has written a lot on his social media site true social this week. He's called criticism of AI and really to be data centers that help power these AI models a quote, "sick conspiracy that would only benefit China, which is a major AI competitor with US companies." He's brushed off possibility of regulating development of cutting AI, which he called the
US as quote, "golden goose," and he wrote that fears that AI could take over the world were a quote, "hooks and scam," and he's really framed AI as a race against China. And I can briefly summarize his arguments as if the US doesn't build it, then China's going to do it first. But there's series to be right now in the global AI industry on whether Chinese companies
actually can get ahead of the US on AI because the US maintains a lead right now,
and also whether Beijing really would want to create a super powerful AI that might destroy
all of humanity because arguably that's not in China's interest either. >> Oh sure, now think about Trump's inauguration a few years ago.
“I remember a lot of tech CEOs right there right next to him in attendance and on the donor list.”
What are Trump's ties to this industry? >> A good example is Chip Maker Nvidia CEO Jensen Huang, who you heard about in the intro. Trump even flew Huang with him during his trip to China this spring. There's also Trump's former AI Tsar and the co-host of that podcast snippet you heard earlier, hosted by David Sacks, he is a long time Silicon Valley investor.
And these types of connections have certainly shaped Trump's focus on AI, as well as the industry's market share in the US. There have been massive investments driving the US economy from the AI industry. And my reporting shows how in the past year, Trump advisors have leaned heavily on academics and think-tink researchers and
heilades to quash analysis that's supportive of stronger export controls against AI. But the intense public debate over AI this month reflects, as I see it, deeply contradictory assumptions that underpin Trump's pro-technology pro business stance. >> What do you mean by that? >> For example, last year, the Trump administration suspended some AI expert controls,
and they also allow Chinese companies to buy a powerful semiconductor chip that's called the H20,
With the US government taking a cut of sales.
That was despite warnings that China needs these chips specifically to further its AI ambitions.
“And some of the biggest trade deals in under Trump's second term have involved US technology”
that's been included in data centers built in Saudi Arabia and the UAE. And these are US ally countries, but there are also countries that have very strong economic ties with China. And I talked to Chris McGuire about all of this. He is a senior fellow at the nonpartisan thing tank, Council on Foreign Relations.
He's also a former senior director of the National Security Council during the Biden administration. >> It doesn't make any sense to say that we have to move as fast as possible in the AI in order to be China while we're also selling China the tech they need to move faster in the AI. >> And he's speaking here to mounting evidence that Chinese companies are accessing more advanced
American AI chips by shipping them through Malaysia in particular. >> That's NPR's Emily Fang, Emily Fangs. >> Thanks. >> The Supreme Court has rejected President Trump's push for new mail-in voting restrictions before the mid-terms.
This new ruling brings some closure to a legal fight that was threatening to disrupt voting by mail, voting that has already started in several states. And a social media post-Trump called the court's decision a "big loss for Republicans" even though voters who cast ballots by mail span the political spectrum. NPR's Hanzi Lowang has been tracking the court action and joins us now.
Good morning, Hansi. >> Good morning, Leyla. So what does this new Supreme Court ruling say? >> This ruling helps solidify the rules of mail-in voting for the mid-term general election. You know, last month there was an earlier Supreme Court ruling.
That was about a procedural question.
But now we have some finality because this new ruling basically says,
a plan the U.S. Postal Service came up with. They were spawned to an executive order by President Trump is still blocked. That plan included new mail-in ballot requirements that states would have had to follow in order to get their ballots delivered by U.S. P.S. but a federal judge in Boston found those requirements are likely illegal because U.S. P.S. has no authority to impose them on states.
And this new Supreme Court order rejects the Trump administration's request to pause the judges ruling. And I should note U.S. P.S. is a financial support of NPR.
“>> So the upshot for voters is that the status quo continues for mail-in voting?”
>> That's right, this ruling means the postal service is expected to keep delivering ballots as usual, voting by mail has already begun in some states, Lincoln, Alabama, North Carolina, Wisconsin. And more states are set to use U.S. P.S. to mail out their ballots as planned. >> Do we have a sense of how the justice is voted individually on this ruling?
>> Well, there was a dissenting opinion from two conservative justices, Samuel Lito and Clarence Thomas, but conservative Justice Brett Cavendell joined the court's majority in this ruling. And although Cavendell voted to keep the U.S. P.S. plant blocked, he wrote that he believes there's, quote, at least a fair prospect that U.S. P.S. does have legal authority to carry out
this plan, but Cavendell says the postal service just doesn't have enough time to do that for the midterms without violating federal law. >> To Justice Cavendell's point, was it even possible for election officials and U.S. P.S. to make these changes to mail-in voting for the midterms? >> You know, that has been a big question looming over this legal flight.
And for months, many legal experts and election experts have said it is too late to put in place these new mail-in ballot requirements. They said it was too late when President Trump put out this executive order back in March.
And they said it was certainly too late when U.S. P.S. finally put out its plan last month,
just over a week before the first mail-in ballots for the general election went out. And on top of that, there was a whistleblower report. We've talked about. And it claimed that the online system election officials would have needed to use to follow these new ballot requirements, has not been properly tested and was set up in a way that
could have led to many eligible voters not getting their ballots in time or at all. And it's still not clear that online system would have been ready to use. If the Supreme Court had ruled in the administration's favor, so there was a real risk of major disruptions and potentially even disabled voters and voters in places without polling sites losing the ability to exercise their right to vote.
But again, that is not happening right now because this U.S. P.S. plan is blocked for the midterms. Is there another takeaway for mail-in voters? Well, there's been a lot of headlines coming out of this legal fight.
But the bottom line now is mail-in voting is still available to all eligible voters.
U.S. P.S. is expected to continue delivering ballots as usual. And if you're eligible to vote by mail in your state, your ballot may be on its way to you very soon
“if not already. And if you need to request a ballot, it's a good time to check your state's”
deadline for getting in those requests. And as always, election officials recommend returning your completed ballot as soon as possible. That's then, Pierre's Honzilla Wong-Honzilla. Thank you. You're welcome, Lila. The board of the Kennedy Center says the arts institution is on the brink of bankruptcy.
That's according to Documents filed with a federal court on Monday.
And Pierre also obtained a separate memo that the Center's administration recently shared with its board, which says the Center might be forced to close as soon as today. And Pierre Culture correspondent Anastasia Silcus is covering this and joins me now. Good morning, Lila.
“So what's changed so suddenly that the Center may close today?”
So, and Pierre obtained that memo that the Kennedy Center administration resized the board and it says that the complex is "unsafe for continued occupancy." The King Center board, which of course includes President Trump as its chairman, is still very caught up in federal litigation brought by Representative Joyce Badeo Vauhaio. She's a Democrat who is an ex officio member of the board.
And she wants to stop these efforts to put Trump's name back on the building. Now, the judge in the suit Christopher Cooper had already scheduled a status hearing for later this morning, which essentially is a meeting to set more deadlines and court dates. But the board is also scheduled to meet early this afternoon and late last night they told the judge that the sole item on their agenda today is "the necessary closure of the Center."
What is the Kennedy Center say about all this? So yesterday, Kennedy Center officials did not respond to my request for comment, but midday yesterday, Badeo's team submitted to the court copies of two proposed board resolutions, including that discussion of what they say is the dangerous condition of the building that warns in the immediate shutdown.
Badeo claims that the construction consultants, the board brought in, have never said any such thing.
The second proposed resolution says the Kennedy Center is in such a quote precarious financial position that it will not be able to meet payroll or maintenance contracts within weeks. Okay, let's take a step back for a moment. I mean, most of the Center staff have either been fired or left. And those who are still around are largely loyal to the president.
And most of the Kennedy Center board was hand-picked by President Trump. So is this fight about the name on the building? What's behind these warnings now? Well, certainly, the Kane Center's argument is that the financials are collapsing and they have said repeatedly. The President Trump is the only person who can fundraise at such a massive scale
and can successfully oversee such an extensive renovation project as he's been proposing. And as such, they're arguing he deserves his name to be on the building. They're also saying that the situation with the physical plant is dire. On September 5th, for example, the Center's administration said, "A portion of the ceiling in the main buildings, grandfather collapsed due to rain damage."
“What's your understanding of the Kennedy Center's financial status?”
Well, let's put it into a larger context. It's a large legacy not-for-profit institution. And those generally depend on three legs to their financial stool. One is earned revenue, including selling tickets and merch. Two is philanthropic giving, which has fallen off and three some amount of government grants. Now, both artists and audiences have fled the Kennedy Center for the past year plus,
saying it's to politicized. The live event counters a fraction of what it used to be. Do nations have dried up? So yes, it seems like there's a real and dire financial crisis. The question now is how to manage it and if doubling down on adding Trump's name is the way to solve that. That's then Pierre's Anastasia Circus, thank you. Thanks for having me.
And that's up first for Tuesday, September 15th. I'm Leila Faldin.
And I mean, Martina's today's episode of a first was edited by Rebecca Metzler, Ben Swazie, Steve Drummond, Mohamed Elbar D.C. and Alice Wolveli was produced by Zia Buchin and Nia Demos. Our director is Christopher Thomas. We get engineering support from Zo Van Gnovin. Our technical director is Carly Strange and our supervising senior producer is Vince Pearson, Join us again tomorrow.
[Music] I haven't seen my son since 2012. This is Deborah Tice. The disappearance of her son, Austin, is one of the biggest missing
“person cases in the world. What do you want from me? What should solve the mystery?”
I know that my son is somewhere alive. Listen to where is Austin Tice, from MPRZ embedded and BBC Radio 4. On the MPRZ or wherever you get your podcasts. This is Tanya Mosley, co-host of fresh air. Ten years ago, Colin Kaepernick took the knee during the national anthem and it cost him his NFL career. He's really talked about it since. Now he tells the story of that decision and why he still trains every day to play.
But I am not at the point of accepting that I will never step on a field again.
Listen on the NPR app or wherever you get fresh air.
Big news stories don't always break on your schedule. But with the MPR app, news, culture and podcasts are ready when you want them in your pocket. Download the MPR app today.
