Full transcript of "Face the Nation with Margaret Brennan," Sept. 13, 2026

On this "Face the Nation with Margaret Brennan" broadcast, moderated by Weijia Jiang:

Click here to browse full transcripts from 2026 of "Face the Nation with Margaret Brennan."

WEIJIA JIANG: I'm Weijia Jiang in Washington.

And this week on Face the Nation: a major development in the artificial intelligence arms race. And our election-year Battleground Tracker reveals where the race for control of Congress stands less than two months from Election Day.

As the midterm election campaign pace picked up dramatically last week, so did America's anxiety over A.I.

QUESTION: Do you have any concerns about A.I. leading to human extinction?

DONALD TRUMP (President of the United States): No, I don't have any. I have concerns that, if we don't win A.I., we're going to be put in a very bad position. We are leading China right now by a pretty good period.

WEIJIA JIANG: This coming after an Anthropic researcher's very public revelation.

JACOB COXON (Former Anthropic Researcher): Super advanced intelligence, it could – it will be smart enough to kill us.

WEIJIA JIANG: And now a big development within the industry.

DARIO AMODEI (CEO and Co-Founder, Anthropic): What we need to do is not stop. We need to slow down.

WEIJIA JIANG: Dario Amodei is the head of Anthropic. We will have more of his first-on-CBS conversation with our Jo Ling.

Then, on to politics. We will talk with Utah Republican Governor Spencer Cox, as well as Michigan Democratic Senate candidate Abdul El-Sayed. Plus, our CBS News poll shows where the battle for Congress stands.

Good morning, and welcome to Face the Nation. Margaret is off today. I'm Weijia Jiang.

We begin with the stunning news from Anthropic CEO Dario Amodei Saturday that he is urging a slowdown when it comes to the development of artificial intelligence. It was a pronouncement that his chief competitor, OpenAI CEO Sam Altman, and Elon Musk quickly agreed with.

Our Jo Ling Kent sat down with Dario Amodei yesterday. He explained the thinking behind his decision.

DARIO AMODEI (CEO and Co-Founder, Anthropic): What we're building is essentially intelligence. When something's very powerful, then, of course, it can be used well and it can also be used for ill.

And so I am worried about what we have seen with the OpenAI Hugging Face incident, with models taking actions they weren't authorized to take, and I'm worried about that escalating. I'm worried about misuse of A.I. models.

Just two days ago, we put out a report about misuse of models to build biological weapons. And our view, the whole way we have built Anthropic is so that these bad outcomes don't happen. Instead of talking about the probabilities, let's talk about what we can do. It's not like we're just rolling the dice, right?

If we build in the right way, I think the probability of something bad happening is very low. If we build in the wrong way, the probability of something bad happening is very high.

DARIO AMODEI: And so we have got to build in the right way.

JO LING KENT: We are in this race with China. Do you actually think slowing down is a good idea, when China will not?

DARIO AMODEI: So, this is – this is the toughest dilemma. This is the toughest aspect of our situation. If we weren't in that situation, we could take much more time.

So, this is – this is the thing that most puts us in a bind. It's not about commercial competition. This – the geopolitical situation is the hardest to deal with.

But I will talk about two strategies that we have. One – and I talk about it in my proposal – is, we can slow down within the margin, within the envelope that we have, particularly if we don't sell chips to authoritarian countries and if we do more to help our own security so that our technology is not stolen.

I believe that will buy us at least a little time.

JO LING KENT: President Trump will meet with President Xi Jinping very soon. What's the one simple, most important solution that they should come to an agreement on in A.I.?

DARIO AMODEI: A thing that's small enough we might be able to do it, and a thing that's big enough that I think it's going to take a very long time.

The small thing is, if we could – U.S. and China could agree that we won't use A.I. to develop biological weapons or release A.I. models that bioterrorists could use to develop biological weapons. We're already both signatories to the Biological Weapons Convention. If we could just extend that convention to that idea, that would be really valuable.

And then I think the more long-term thing would be working together to put a speed limit on the rate of A.I. progress. I think that's going to be very difficult. We shouldn't kid ourselves, because the incentives to pull ahead and the military advantage that you get from that are so large that the ability to check that the other side isn't cheating has to be ironclad.

So, I think that's going to be the work of years. And, honestly, I don't know if it's possible. But we should – we should try. We should see if it is possible.

Again, all of this is above my pay grade. I have no idea how to negotiate with China.

JO LING KENT: As we zoom out here on this problem, it seems like the fate of humanity is at risk. How much personal responsibility do you feel about where we are going?

DARIO AMODEI: My view here is, it has always been very strange that this technology is being built by a private company. People ask me that question all the time. Why isn't this being built by government?

And the strangest thing about it is, I agree with them. I'm uncomfortable. Government didn't build this technology. This company – this technology came from the private sector. And we, Anthropic and I would hope other companies have done everything we can to try to have legitimate oversight mechanisms.

I think the government and the public needs to have a stake. And this is why we have supported regulation of the technology. Regulation constrains the private companies. Regulation allows the public and its elected representatives to have a stake, to have a say, and limits what the private companies can do.

Now, you might ask, why doesn't government just control the technology completely?

JO LING KENT: Would you be willing to give up the technology to the government?

DARIO AMODEI: To the – to the right combination of governments. So, the worry I have…

JO LING KENT: You're willing to hand over this company?

DARIO AMODEI: I want to be very clear about this. The worry I have, I am concerned that one single government could abuse this technology just as easily as a single company could.

But I think a combination of democratically elected governments, I don't know about handing over, but some kind of oversight, some kind of joint governance. Again, that would be the work of years, but I wonder if that's the direction we need to go in.

WEIJIA JIANG: I want to bring in senior business and technology correspondent Jo Ling Kent, who is in San Francisco this morning.

Jo Ling, you also asked Amodei about next steps for the industry overall, given the support he got from both Elon Musk and Sam Altman. Let's listen.

DARIO AMODEI: I'm enormously appreciative that other industry leaders, including our competitors, have offered their agreement with this plan.

I think the next step is for multiple industry players to also agree to have third-party evaluators. Then, I think the next step after that is in some form the companies need to work together to set standards about safety standards for release, perhaps something about the pace of release.

But in order to do that, there needs to be involvement of the government, because what we're talking about is the rate of release of products because of whether they're safe. We need to have that conversation with the government in the room.

WEIJIA JIANG: So tell us what he thinks the government needs to do exactly here, Jo Ling.

It appears that there is a new, more active willingness from Dario Amodei, Sam Altman, and Elon Musk to potentially work together to slow the pace of development of A.I.

I asked if there was a group chat, and he laughed it off, but there has been well-known beef between these billionaires in different ways.

So this is a very notable development. Especially, you have Sam Altman saying that, in a post yesterday, he agrees with Amodei's approach, and he now also plans to give independent evaluators that employee-like access to their models.

And Amodei told me he is willing to engage with his competitors, and he also wants to include Demis Hassabis, the co-founder and chair of Google DeepMind.

And I'd also like to flag, in an interview with "Fortune," Altman hinted at a pact himself as well with these guys about safety. And he committed also not to take the company public, OpenAI public in 2026.

But when I pressed Amodei on the business of this and making money off of these models that they think are dangerous, he says they will continue releasing advanced models, Weijia.

WEIJIA JIANG: Well, there are plenty of critics too who argue Anthropic is trying to put constraints on others for their own good. Can you tell us more about why?

JO LING KENT: Yes, there are some vocal critics out there that are arguing that there's some sort of coordinated timing between that viral Jacob Coxon tweet, him quitting Anthropic, and then the support of Amodei and the other A.I. giants, if you will.

And so you have David Sacks, who is the co-chair of the President's Council of Advisers on Science and Technology. He posted on X yesterday saying that, if the unreleased models are scary enough that you should – that you think you should slow down, I support your decision to be responsible.

But Sacks goes on to say, stop pretending you need anyone's permission. He says that demanding your preferred regulatory framework as the price of that will look like blackmail of the public and political system. So just do it.

Now, Amodei, for his part, tells me he does not support a ban on superintelligence. That's been proposed by Senator Bernie Sanders. But he did tell me a kill switch, which has been proposed by Congressman Ted Lieu of California, is a – quote – "good idea."

WEIJIA JIANG: All right, Jo Ling Kent, thank you so much for your reporting this morning.

We go now to Michigan's Democratic nominee for Senate, Dr. Abdul El-Sayed. He joins us from Ann Arbor, Michigan.

Good morning, Dr. El-Sayed. Welcome to Face the Nation.

ABDUL EL-SAYED (D-Michigan Senatorial Candidate): Good morning, Weijia. Thanks for having me.

WEIJIA JIANG: So, I do want to ask you about A.I., but let's talk first about the RNC Convention, because you were a main character. Several speakers mentioned you, everyone from the president, the vice president, your opponent, Mike Rogers, to the speaker of the House, Mike Johnson.

REPRESENTATIVE MIKE JOHNSON (R-Louisiana): We know who the Mamdanis and the El-Sayeds are, but it's the Democrats in the swing seats who say one thing and then join forces and vote with the socialists that they're afraid of, that is the dangerous part. They're the ones who have let the barbarians inside the gate.

WEIJIA JIANG: What do you make of Republicans focusing so much attention on you?

ABDUL EL-SAYED: Well, I will tell you this. The barbarian is in the White House. And we're seeing the consequences of that right now.

You know what was not a subject at all of the RNC? The gas prices, grocery prices, these ridiculous tariffs and this war with Canada that's raising our prices an average $5,600 a year for the average Michigan family, the war in Iran. Didn't want to talk about any of it, the fact that you can't see a doctor in the United States.

So, they're going to point to me. They're going to talk about me. They're going to point to my name. They're going to point to our faith. And, at the end of the day, they're doing that so that you don't pay attention to the fact that you are being nickeled-and-dimed by the barbarian in the White House and by a set of public policies that are not in your interest, but in his.

WEIJIA JIANG: Well, several Republicans did continue to mention your campaigning with Hasan Piker, who is known for making incendiary remarks. Your opponent, Mike Rogers, calls him your running mate. What is your current relationship with Piker?

ABDUL EL-SAYED: Well, I will tell you this. I don't know if Mike Rogers has a running mate, but, when you run for U.S. Senate, you don't actually have one.

I'm actually running to represent the people in my state, which is why, while he was in Dallas saying that, I was in Detroit. Dallas is not in Michigan. I'm sure he won all of the Michigan votes in Dallas.

And the only reason he went to Dallas is because he cannot break with the president, and when the president tells him to do something, to jump, he's going to say, how high? It's the same reason he won't comment on the tariffs. It's the same reason he won't talk about gas prices being driven up by this war in Iran.

So, they want to make this about a streamer in California. I want to make this about affordability in Michigan, and they can't talk about it because it's their policies that are driving them up. So, yes, they can continue to distract. That's fine. Let's see how well that goes for them.

But, at the end of the day, it's very hard to ignore a president, especially one who wants to host himself at Trumpapalooza, and forces all of the Republican candidates to come and kiss the ring. So, good luck with that.

WEIJIA JIANG: Well, there are Jewish voters in your state who are concerned about your relationship with Piker. You have condemned antisemitism, but not called out his rhetoric directly. Why not?

ABDUL EL-SAYED: Weijia, with all due respect, I – this is the third time you've asked about a Twitch streamer in California. I have done four events in Michigan this week.

You know what didn't come up? Twitch streamers in California. You know what did come up? Grocery prices, the fact that people can't see a doctor, the worry that they have about the quality of air and water. I'm not interested in having a conversation about streamers in California, because they are not raising the prices of gas and groceries.

I'm more interested in having conversation about tariff policies and trade wars we shouldn't be fighting, about hot wars with Iran, about A.I., which I know we were supposed to talk about right now.

So let's actually talk about the issues that are affecting people, instead of getting distracted by whatever the president says we should be talking about. Their whole game is to make us fight culture wars, so that we don't pay attention to the fact that the president has made $2.2 billion.

His family has made even more. How about your family in Michigan? How about your ability to afford the basic things? How about the ability to believe that you could see a doctor without having to potentially fall into medical debt? Those are the conversations that people are having. Those are the conversations I'm interested in having.

So, yes, I'm not all that interested in having a conversation about a Twitch streamer, forgive me, when people can't afford their gas and their groceries.

WEIJIA JIANG: Understood, Doctor, but Republicans have made it a big attack on you, so I wanted to give you the chance to clarify. But we'll leave it there for now.

You do talk a lot about prices. One of your central campaign messages is that you want to pass Medicare for all. You talk about it a lot, but where's the money going to come from to do that?

ABDUL EL-SAYED: Well, right now, in our economy, we spend about a fifth of the whole economy on health care. It's already coming out of our back pockets, and it's going into the back pockets of CEOs of pharmaceutical companies and drug companies and insurance companies and big hospitals.

That's where it's coming from. That's where it's going. Under Medicare for all, instead, we would be paying a lot less overall. And instead of going into the back pockets of CEOs of corporations, it would actually be going to pay for our health care.

Right now, as a country, we have an average of $225 billion – excuse me – a total of $225 billion in medical debt. That is more than the GDP of half the states in this country. Medicare for all would allow us to actually provide every single person cradle-to-grave insurance without having to worry about losing it if they turn 26, if they get a job, lose a job, get married, get divorced, turn 65, all ways you can lose your insurance in this country, without having to pay as much as they overall pay right now.

That seems, to me, like, to be a great deal. The only losers, well, the CEOs who are making tens of millions of dollars right now on an inefficient system that is locking a lot of people out.

WEIJIA JIANG: And what about taxpayers who are worried that, you know, they're going to have to help pay for this with a hike in their taxes? Will they?

ABDUL EL-SAYED: Look, I'm looking for billionaires to pay their fair share by taxing their wealth. Yes, so if you're a billionaire in this country, you probably should be worried.