>>> HELLO, EVERYONE, AND WELCOME TO "AMANPOUR AND COMPANY. "

HERE'S WHAT'S COMING UP.

>> WE BELIEVE THAT EUROPE CAN AWAKEN FROM ITS LONG SLUMBER AND REKINDLE THE FIRE THAT WAS LIT HERE A MILLENNIA AGO.

>> SECRETARY OF STATE MARCO RUBIO APPEALS TO EUROPEAN NATIONALALLISM AS TRUMP ADVISERS CONSULT WITH PRO-RUSSIAN POLITICIANS IN BOSNIA.

I SPEAK TO DEMOCRATIC SENATOR JEANNE SHAHEEN IN SARAJEVO.

THEN --WHO'S KEEPING ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE IN CHECK?

AS THE A. I. RACE ACCELERATES A TOP SAFETY OFFICIAL WITH OpenAI I SPEAK WITH DAVID ROBINSON ABOUT WHY HE LEFT AND THE DANGERS HE FEARS.

AND -- >> FOR 50 YEARS THE HERITAGE FOUNDATION HAS BEEN THE SINGLE BIGGEST AND MOST INFLUENTIAL INSTITUTION OF THE CONSERVATIVE MOVEMENT.

>> THE BATTLE FOR THE POST-TRUMP RIGHT AS CONSERVATIVES LOOK BEYOND THE PRESIDENT.

A POWER STRUGGLE ERUPTS INSIDE THE HERITAGE FOUNDATION.

NEW YORKER STAFF WRITER EMMA GREEN JOINS MICHEL MARTIN ON THE MOVEMENT'S GROWING DIVISIONS.

> >> "AMANPOUR AND COMPANY" IS MADE POSSIBLE BY -- THE ANDERSON FAMILY ENDOWMENT.

JIM ATTWOOD AND LESLIE WILLIAMS.

CANDACE KING WEIR.

THE SYLVIA A. AND SIMON B. POYTA PROGRAMMING ENDOWMENT TO FIGHT ANTI-SEMITISM.

THE STRAUS FAMILY FOUNDATION.

THE PETER G. PETERSON AND JOAN GANZ COONEY FUND.

CHARLES ROSENBLUM.

KOO AND PATRICIA YUEN, COMMITTED TO BRIDGING CULTURAL DIFFERENCES IN OUR COMMUNITIES.

AND BY CONTRIBUTIONS TO YOUR PBS STATION FROM VIEWERS LIKE YOU.

THANK YOU.

> >> WELCOME TO THE PROGRAM, EVERYONE.

I'M CHRISTIANE AMANPOUR IN LONDON.

WITH LESS THAN A MONTH UNTIL THE U. S. MID-TERMS, PRESIDENT TRUMP IS DISTANCING HIMSELF FROM TWO CLOSE ALLIES AFTER THEY TRAVELED TO BOSNIA TO DO PAID WORK FOR THE PRO-RUSSIAN GOVERNMENT OF THE REPUBLIKA SRPSKA, WHICH IS THE SERBIAN POLITICAL ENTITY THAT MAKES UP PART OF BOSNIA.

IT COMES AS ETHNIC TENSIONS ARE ONCE AGAIN RISING ALL OVER THE PLACE.

MORE THAN THREE DECADES AFTER A DEVASTATING WAR.

BOSNIA AND NATIONALIST MILORAD DODIK CLAIMED VICTORY FOR HIS PARTY IN SUNDAY'S ELECTIONS, AND IN THE SAME BREATH HE THANKED BOTH DONALD TRUMP AND VLADIMIR PUTIN.

>> HAD IT NOT BEEN FOR DONALD TRUMP'S MAGNIFICENT VICTORY AND HIS DISMANTLING OF THE WIDELY HATED BIDEN STRUCTURE, WE WOULD IN ALL LIKELIHOOD BE PLIT ECONOMY DEFUNCT TODAY.

YET COURTESY OF THIS NEW POLITICAL CLIMATE, WE EMERGE AS THE POLITICAL VICTORS, AND WE FULLY INTEND TO FORMULIZE THAT REALITY.

I MUST ALSO, OF COURSE, EXTEND MY GRATITUDE TO PRESIDENT PUTIN.

>> WHICH IS A FAR CRY FROM THE ROLE AMERICA PLAYED THREE DECADES AGO WHEN IT HELPED BRING THE OSNIAN WAR TO AN END THROUGH THE DAYTON PEACE ACCORDS.

DEMOCRAT SENATOR JEANNE SHAHEEN WAS JUST VISITING SREBRENICA, THE SITE OF THE 8,000 MASSACRE BACK IN 1995.

SHE'S ON HER LAST CONGRESSIONAL DELEGATION TO THE BALKANS AND SHE'S JOINING ME NOW FROM SARAJEVO.

SENATORTIA SHE KNOW, THANK YOU VERY MUCH FOR BEING WITH US.

I DON'T KNOW HOW YOU REACTED TO THE NEWS THAT, YOU KNOW, THIS ULTRANATIONALIST IS BEING SERVED APPARENTLY BY A VERY SENIOR TRUMP OFFICIALS -- FORMER OFFICIALS.

I MEAN IT'S CAUSED A POLITICAL FIRESTORM BACK IN THE UNITED STATES.

BUT POLICY WISE WHAT DO YOU MAKE OF IT?

THEY'VE GOT HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS OF DOLLARS, ACCORDING TO "THE NEW YORK TIMES," FOR THIS.

>> WELL, IT SHOULD CAUSE A POLITICAL FIRESTORM IN THE UNITED STATES.

REPUBLICANS SHOULD BE PUTTING PRESSURE ON THE WHITE HOUSE TO END THIS.

THIS IS ALL ABOUT GETTING MONEY FOR PEOPLE WHO ARE WORKING FOR THE WHITE HOUSE.

AND IT'S BEING DONE AT THE EXPENSE OF BOSNIA, HURTS ERZEGOVINA AND THE UNITY TO THIS COUNTRY.

THE FACT IS CONGRESS PASSED LEGISLATION LAST YEAR THAT REQUIRES MANDATORY SANCTIONS ON MR.

DODIK FOR HIS RHETORIC THAT PUSHES SECESSION OF THE REPUBLIKA SRPSKA, A PROVINCE OF BOSNIA HERZEGOVINA FROM THE COUNTRY.

THE FACT THAT HE IS PRAISING DONALD TRUMP AND VLADIMIR PUTIN IN THE SAME BREATH IS CERTAINLY NOT IN AMERICA'S INTEREST.

VLADIMIR PUTIN, WE KNOW, IS ENGAGED IN AN UNPROVOKED, HORRIBLE WAR IN UKRAINE KILLING THOUSANDS OF CIVILIANS.

THAT IS NOT IN AMERICA'S INTEREST.

IT'S IMPORTANT FOR US TO SUPPORT THE UKRAINIANS IN THIS WAR, AND HE IS ALSO MEDDLING IN BOSNIA HERZEGOVINA IN WAYS THAT PROMOTE SECESSION IN THIS COUNTRY THAT IS IN VIOLATION OF THE DAYTON ACCORDS.

SO I HOPE THAT IT DOES CREATE A FIRESTORM FOR THE PRESIDENT AND HE BACKS OFF AND UNDERSTANDS THAT THIS IS NOT IN HIS INTEREST OR AMERICA'S INTEREST OR BOSNIA HERZEGOVINA'S INTEREST.

>> NOW HE SAYS HE'S GOING TO LOOK INTO IT, AND IF THERE'S A CONFLICT HE'S GOING TO FIRE THEM.

BUT I JUST WANT TO TALK MORE ABOUT THE SUBSTANCE OF WHAT'S HAPPENING.

YOU JUST --YOU KNOW, YOU'RE THERE.

DODIK THE ULTRANATIONALIST HAS TOLD SUPPORTERS THAT, QUOTE, BOSNIA IS DEAD.

IF HE'S RIGHT --OR IS HE RIGHT, DO YOU THINK?

AND IF SO, WHAT DOES THAT MEAN TO THE UNITED STATES?

WHAT DO YOU THINK THE UNITED STATES WOULD DO ABOUT IT?

WHAT DOES IT MEAN FOR THE REGION?

>> HE IS NOT RIGHT.

THEY JUST HAD AN ELECTION HERE WHERE THEY -- BY ALL ACCOUNTS THE ELECTION WENT FORWARD.

IT WAS FREE AND FAIR.

THEY HAVE A NEW SYSTEM IN PLACE.

WE TALKED TO OFFICIALS WHO WERE SUCCESSFUL IN THAT ELECTION --PRESIDENTS AND STAFF - -ONE PRESIDENT AND STAFF OF THE OTHER TWO PRESIDENTS, ALL OF WHOM AGREED THAT THE ELECTIONS WERE FREE AND FAIR.

AND THEY WERE HOPING TO MOVE FORWARD TO FORM A GOVERNMENT SOON.

I HOPE THAT THAT'S THE CASE BECAUSE THAT'S IN THE INTEREST OF BOSNIAN CITIZENS.

AND THE UNITED STATES' POSITION IS STILL THAT BOSNIA HERZEGOVINA SHOULD MAINTAIN ITS TERRITORIAL INTEGRITY, ITS ETHNIC MAKE-UP, CONTINUE TO SUPPORT DEMOCRACY HERE.

AND THAT'S THE POLICY CERTAINLY OF THE UNITED STATES CONGRESS.

IT'S BIPARTISAN, AND IT'S BEEN THE POLICY OF THE WHITE HOUSE.

>> SENATOR, DO YOU THINK IT'S THE CURRENT POLICY OF LET'S SAY THE WHITE HOUSE OR INDEED THE STATE DEPARTMENT?

YOU OBVIOUSLY --YOU SAW PROBABLY AND HEARD SECRETARY OF STATE MARCO RUBIO'S SPEECH THAT HE MADE IN GREECE TALKING ABOUT, YOU KNOW, HOW EUROPE NEEDS TO WAKE UP FROM ITS SLUMBER.

I JUST WANT TO PLAY WHAT HE SAID IN ATHENS AND THEN ASK YOU TO COMMENT.

>> WE WILL EITHER CHOOSE TO ACT NOW OR LOSE THE CHOICE TO ACT AT ALL.

UNDER PRESIDENT TRUMP THE UNITED STATES HAS MADE ITS CHOICE.

WE CHOOSE THE UNAPOLOGETIC PURSUIT OF NATIONAL POWER, TO TAKE BACK CONTROL OF OUR CRITICAL SUPPLY CHAINS, TO REINDUSTRIALIZE OUR ECONOMY, TO REBUILD OUR DEFENSE, TO FIGHT FOR DOMINANCE OF THE TECHNOLOGIES AND INDUSTRIES OF THE FUTURE.

WE CHOOSE TO REACH FOR NEW FRONTIERS.

>> I BY IMPLICATION HE'S TELLING, I THINK, OTHERS TO DO THE SAME THING.

SO IT SOUNDS EMPIRISH.

IT SOUNDS SPHERE OF INFLUENCE-ISH AND SOUNDS LIKE WHAT THE TRUMP ADMINISTRATION WERE WORRIED ABOUT.

FOR THE U. S. THE STRONGEST SURVIVE IS THE LAW OF THE JUNGLE, ET CETERA.

WHAT DO YOU MAKE OF THAT SPEECH BEING DELIVERED RIGHT NOW?

>> WELL, CERTAINLY THE FOCUS ON BUSINESS AND TRYING TO PROMOTE AMERICAN INTERESTS.

ALL COUNTRIES ACT IN THEIR NATIONAL INTERESTS.

BUT TO DO IT AT THE EXPENSE OF LONG-STANDING POLICY THAT RECOGNIZED IT'S IN AMERICA'S INTEREST TO HAVE BOSNIA HERZEGOVINA CONTINUE TO STAY TOGETHER, IT'S NOT IN AMERICA'S INTEREST TO ALLOW VLADIMIR PUTIN TO DISRUPT THE WESTERN BALKANS REGION, TO CONTINUE HIS WAR IN UKRAINE.

AMERICA'S NOT GOING TO BE THE BENEFICIARY.

AND WE WILL BENEFIT IF VLADIMIR PUTIN IS DEFEATED, AND I'M NOT SURE WHAT THE BASIS IS OF SECRETARY RUBIO'S SPEECH THERE.

I DON'T THINK IT'S IN AMERICA'S INTEREST FOR US TO PROVIDE GRANTS TO FAR-RIGHT ETHNO-NATIONALIST PARTIES ACROSS EUROPE BECAUSE THEY ARE CERTAINLY NOT GOING TO CONTINUE TO ACT IN AMERICA'S INTEREST OR IN DEMOCRATIC INTEREST.

AND WHAT WE KNOW IS THAT COUNTRIES THAT ARE DEMOCRACIES TEND TO BE MORE STABLE AND THAT THEIR CITIZENS HAVE MORE OPPORTUNITIES AND CAN PROSPER.

AND THAT HAS BEEN THE POLICY OF THE UNITED STATES CERTAINLY FOR MY LIFETIME.

AND I --I THINK CONGRESS ON A BIPARTISAN BASIS BELIEVES THAT SHOULD CONTINUE TO BE THE POLICY --THE FOREIGN POLICY OF THE UNITED STATES.

AND WE ARE THE ARTICLE 1 BRANCH, SO WE NEED TO CONTINUE TO REMIND THIS PRESIDENT THAT THAT'S WHAT'S IN AMERICA'S INTEREST.

>> SO YOU RECENTLY SENT A LETTER TO SECRETARY RUBIO BASICALLY SAYING THE DIPLOMATS AND AMBASSADORS ARE BEING KEPT OUT OF THE LOOP ON AN ISSUE REGARDING THE PENTAGON.

PENTAGON APPEARS, ACCORDING TO REUTERS AND OTHER REPORTS, TO BE MULLING REMOVING U. S. TROOPS FROM EUROPE.

ONE POSSIBILITY WITHDRAWING ABOUT 25,000 OUT OF THE 80,000 THAT ARE CURRENTLY THERE.

WHAT IS THE CRUX OF YOUR COMPLAINT?

WHAT WOULD THAT KIND OF DRAW DOWN OF AMERICAN FORCES RIGHT NOW ACTUALLY SIGNAL AND DO?

>> WELL, I WOULD JUST POINT OUT THAT, AGAIN, CONGRESS ON A BIPARTISAN BASIS HAS INSTRUCTED THE ADMINISTRATION THAT BEFORE THEY DRAW TROOPS DOWN IN EUROPE BELOW 76,000, THEY HAVE TO CONSULT WITH CONGRESS.

SO THAT IS A PROVISION THAT IS, AGAIN, IN THE DEFENSE BILL.

I EXPECT IT TO PASS BECAUSE CONGRESS UNDERSTANDS THAT TO WITHDRAW TROOPS NOW AT A TIME WHEN VLADIMIR PUTIN IS FLEXING HIS MUSCLES ACROSS EUROPE IS THE WRONG MESSAGE FOR US TO BE SENDING.

I DON'T WANT -- I HAVE FOUR GRANDSONS.

I DON'T WANT MY GRANDSONS TO HAVE TO GO FIGHT BECAUSE DONALD TRUMP BOWED DOWN TO A DICTATOR WHO IS INTERESTED IN DESTROYING NATO, DESTROYING EUROPE, AND THEREFORE IS GOING TO AFFECT THE UNITED STATES.

SO DONALD TRUMP NEEDS TO WAKE UP.

HE NEEDS TO UNDERSTAND THAT COURTING FAVOR WITH VLADIMIR PUTIN IS NOT GOOD FOR AMERICA.

HE NEEDS TO DISINVITE HIM TO THE G20.

AND HE NEEDS TO DO EVERYTHING POSSIBLE TO ENSURE THAT UKRAINE IS ABLE TO WIN THIS WAR.

>> I DON'T KNOW WHAT ODDS YOU GIVE ON DISINVITING HIM TO THE G20, BUT CERTAINLY YOU DID MEET WITH PRESIDENT ZELENSKYY AT THE UNGA.

I JUST WANT TO ASK YOU BECAUSE AGAIN YOU RAISED CONGRESS' --YOUR PREROGATIVE OVER THIS.

IF THE DEMOCRATS WIN BIG IN THE MID-TERM WHAT COULD YOU DO OR WOULD YOU DO?

WOULD IT OPEN UP THE SPIGOT TO BEPS AGAIN AND ALL SORTS OF HELP THAT UKRAINE NEEDS TO ACTUALLY DO BETTER --WELL, TRY TO REALLY BRING THIS TO SOME KIND OF NEGOTIATED END?

>> WELL, I HOPE SO.

AND I HOPE IT WILL ALSO MAKE IT VERY CLEAR TO DEPARTMENT OF WAR AND SECRETARY HEGSETH THAT WHEN CONGRESS PASSES $400 MILLION TO HELP UKRAINE, WE EXPECT THAT $400 MILLION TO GO TO UKRAINE, NOT TO BE SENT TO COUNTRIES IN LATIN AMERICA, WHICH IS WHAT HE'S TRYING TO DO.

SO I THINK IT'S VERY IMPORTANT.

PEOPLE ARE FED UP BECAUSE THEY UNDERSTAND THAT THIS WAR THAT PRESIDENT TRUMP IS ENGAGING IN IN IRAN IS COSTING AMERICANS FOR GAS, FOR GROCERIES, FOR MORTGAGES, FOR RENT.

PEOPLE ARE PAYING MORE BECAUSE OF THE POLICIES OF THIS PRESIDENT, WHETHER IT BE HIS HIGH TARIFFS OR HIS WAR IN IRAN.

AND THEY'VE HAD ENOUGH.

AND I HOPE THEY'RE GOING TO MAKE THEMSELVES HEARD AT THE BALLOT BOX COME NOVEMBER.

>> WELL, YOU PROBABLY ARE FEELING VERY ENERGIZED BY THE POLLS, ALTHOUGH YOU NEVER KNOW WHETHER THE POLLS ARE CORRECT.

YOU ARE RETIRING YOURSELF.

THE RACE TO REPLACE YOU IS BETWEEN DEMOCRAT CHRIS PAPAS AND A FAMILIAR NAME WHICH IS JOHN SUNUNU.

>> NO, NO, HE'S NOT THE FORMER GOVERNOR.

THAT'S HIS BROTHER.

>> THE BROTHER OF -- SORRY, YEAH.

IF PAPAS WAS TO WIN, HE WOULD BE THE OPENING -- FIRST OPENLY KAY MAN TO SERVE IN THE SENATE, BUT WHAT DO YOU THINK THE ODDS ARE -- WHAT DO YOU THINK THE ODDS ARE IN TERMS OF YOUR STATE RETAINING YOUR DEMOCRATIC SENATE SEAT?

>> WELL, I THINK THEY'RE VERY GOOD.

THE FACT IS I RAN AGAINST JOHN SUNUNU.

I RAN AGAINST HIM IN 2002 AND LOST TO HIM, AND I RAN AGAINST HIM IN 2008 BECAUSE PEOPLE SAW THE KIND OF LEADERSHIP HE PROVIDED.

AND IT WAS NOT GOOD.

EVERYWHERE I WENT PEOPLE SAID I CALLED JOHN SUNUNU'S OFFICE AND HE NEVER CALLED US BACK.

AND WE KNOW HE VOTED FOR --HE SAID BEFORE HE WAS AGAINST TRUMP, NOW HE'S FOR TRUMP.

HE SAID HE SUPPORTS ALL OF DONALD TRUMP'S POLICIES ON TARIFFS THAT ARE COSTING AMERICAN BUSINESSES AND NEW HAMPSHIRE BUSINESSES, THAT ARE COSTING NEW HAMPSHIRE FAMILIES.

HE SAYS HE SUPPORTS THE WAR IN IRAN THAT PRESIDENT TRUMP HAS STARTED THAT'S RAISING COSTS FOR AMERICANS ACROSS THE BOARD.

SO I THINK CHRIS PAPAS IS DOING A VERY GOOD JOB OF REMINDING THE PEOPLE OF NEW HAMPSHIRE THAT THEY DON'T WANT THAT KIND OF LEADERSHIP AGAIN.

>> WHAT DOES PAPAS HAVE TO DO TO GET ACROSS THE LINE?

BECAUSE, AGAIN, THE SENATE NEEDS TO FLIP FOUR SEATS FOR THE DEMOCRATS TO BE ABLE TO HAVE CONTROL.

WHAT DOES HE NEED TO DO TO, YOU KNOW, TO BRING IT HOME IN YOUR VIEW?

>> WELL, HE'S WORKING VERY HARD CAMPAIGNING ACROSS NEW HAMPSHIRE.

UNFORTUNATELY, AS WE KNOW, THE REPUBLICANS ARE OUTSPENDING DEMOCRATS IN NEW HAMPSHIRE ABOUT 5 TO 1.

AND SO HE'S MAKING IT VERY CLEAR THAT HE STANDS ON THE SIDE OF NEW HAMPSHIRE BUSINESS AND NEW HAMPSHIRE FAMILIES.

AND JOHN SUNUNU STANDS ON THE SIDE OF DONALD TRUMP AND THE POLICIES THAT PEOPLE HAVE HAD ENOUGH OF, SO I THINK HE WILL CONTINUE TO MAKE THAT CASE.

AND HE'S MAKING IT VERY EFFECTIVELY.

>> AND I GUESS LASTLY THESE ARE THE LAST FEW MONTHS FOR YOU AFTER A, YOU KNOW, LIFETIME OF PUBLIC SERVICE.

PROBABLY YOU'RE DOING A LOT OF REFLECTING.

WHAT WOULD YOU SAY IS SOMETHING YOU'RE MOST PROUD OF AND SOMETHING THAT ON REFLECTION YOU MIGHT HAVE DONE DIFFERENTLY?

>> WELL, ONE OF THE THINGS I'M VERY PROUD OF --AND THAT'S WHY I'M HERE IN BOSNIA HERZEGOVINA --IS WORK TO TRY AND SUPPORT DEMOCRACY HERE IN BOSNIA HERZEGOVINA, TO SUPPORT DEMOCRACY ACROSS THE WESTERN BALKANS.

ONE OF THE THINGS WE DID LAST YEAR AS A CONGRESS WAS TO PASS ON A BIPARTISAN BASIS THE WESTERN BALKANS DEMOCRACY AND PROSPERITY ACT, WHICH HELPS WITH SUPPORTING YOUNG PEOPLE IN THE REGION.

IT STARTS A PROGRAM CALLED THE BOLD PROGRAM AND EXPANDS THAT ACROSS THE REGION.

IT WOULD REIMPOSE SANCTIONS ON PEOPLE LIKE MILORAD DODIK WHO ARE TRYING TO BREAK UP THIS COUNTRY, AND PROVIDE OTHER ECONOMIC SUPPORT FOR THE REGION.

SO I'M VERY PROUD OF THAT.

I'M PROUD OF WORKING ON A BIPARTISAN BASIS TO GET THINGS DONE IN CONGRESS.

THAT'S WHAT WE NEED TO DO.

AND, YOU KNOW, I'M SURE THERE ARE A LOT OF THINGS THAT I WOULD DO DIFFERENTLY KNOWING WHAT I KNOW NOW.

BUT AT THIS POINT WHAT I'M TRYING TO DO IS TO ENSURE THAT WE CAN GET SOME OF THESE FINAL PIECES IN PLACE BEFORE I LEAVE OFFICE.

>> SENATOR JEANNE SHAHEEN, THANK YOU FOR JOINING US FROM SARAJEVO.

>> THANK YOU.

> >> ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE IS ADVANCING AT BREAK NECK SPEED, BUT ARE THE COMPANIES BEHIND IT MOVING TOO FAST FOR OUR OWN GOOD?

THAT'S THE WARNING FROM A FORMER TOP SAFETY OFFICIAL AT OpenAI WHO RESIGNED LAST WEEK.

DAVID ROBINSON SAYS THE COMPANY'S CULTURE IS BROKEN AND WARNS THAT ITS TRIAL AND ERROR APPROACH TO SAFETY COULD LEAD TO CATASTROPHIC FAILURES.

OpenAI INSISTS ITS SAFETY PRACTICES ARE ROBUST.

AND DAVID ROBINSON JOINS ME NOW FROM NEW YORK IN HER FIRST TELEVISION INTERVIEW SINCE LEAVING THE COMPANY.

SO WELCOME TO THE PROGRAM.

CAN I ASK YOU, IN YOUR OWN WORDS, WHY DID YOU DECIDE TO LEAVE?

>> WELL, OpenAI HAS A APPROACH TO SAFETY THAT I THINK HAS WORKED ALL RIGHT FOR THE RISKS THAT WE HAVE HAD IN THE YEARS LEADING UP UNTIL NOW.

BUT OVER THIS SUMMER WE SAW MAJOR STEPS FORWARD BOTH IN WHAT THE MODELS WERE ABLE TO DO AND IN THE GUARDRAILS THAT ARE NEEDED.

WE SAW THIS IN THE HUGGIN FACE INCIDENT AND IN SIMILAR EPISODES THAT HAVE HAPPENED SINCE THEN.

AND THE LEVEL OF CARE, THE LEVEL OF SAFETY RIGOR THAT IS NEEDED FOR THE CAPABILITIES THAT WE HAVE NOW UNLIKE EVEN A FEW MONTHS AGO I THINK IS AT THE LEVEL OF WHAT YOU WOULD EXPECT IN A NUCLEAR POWER FACILITY OR IN A BIG COMMERCIAL AIRPORT.

AND THESE COMPANIES ARE RAPIDLY TRYING TO IMPROVE AND ARE RAPIDLY MAKING SOME HEADWAY ON SAFETY CONTROLS, BUT IT'S STILL A TECH CULTURE AND A SORT OF STARTUP AND MOVE FAST CULTURE.

AND I DON'T THINK THAT FITS TODAY'S RISKS.

>> SO YOU WERE A LEADER ON OpenAI'S SAFETY SYSTEMS TEAM.

CAN YOU DESCRIBE TO US WHAT YOUR JOB ENTAILED AND WHAT YOU DID AND WERE TRYING TO DO?

>> I WAS THE PRIMARY PERSON WRITING THE REPORTS THAT WE PUB LISH TO SHOW THE WORLD THE SAFETY WORK THAT WE'VE DONE FOR EACH OF OUR LAUNCHES.

SO YOU COULD THINK OF ME LIKE AN EMBEDDED TRANSLATOR.

MY ROLE WAS TO MAKE IT CLEAR TO PEOPLE HOW WE UNDERSTOOD THE RISKS, WHAT WE HAD DONE ABOUT THEM, AND WHAT THE RESIDUAL RISKS WERE LEFTOVER BY THESE SYSTEMS.

AND A BIG PART OF THAT, CHRISTIANE, IS EXPLAINING HOW THE TECHNOLOGY WORKS.

BECAUSE BOTH THE MODELS THEMSELVES AND THE TOOLS WE USE TO MAKE THEM SAFER ARE CONSTANTLY EVOLVING.

>> YOU KNOW, WE ORDINARY PEOPLE NOT TECH GENIUSES AND A. I. CREATORS, WE'VE BEEN REALLY BUFFETED BY A HUGE AMOUNT OF INFORMATION WARNINGS, COUNTER WARNINGS OVER THE LAST SEVERAL WEEKS, FOR SURE PARTICULARLY WHEN THAT VERY, VERY SORT OF DRASTIC WARNING ABOUT AN EXISTENTIAL RISK PERHAPS WITHIN TEN YEARS, ET CETERA.

I'M TRYING TO FIGURE OUT HOW IT IS THAT THE TECH LEADERS INCLUDING YOUR OWN FORMER BOSS AND OTHERS ARE SAYING THE RIGHT THINGS.

WE NEED TO PACE.

WE NEED TO KEEP THE HUMAN IN THE CENTER OF ALL OF THIS.

WE CAN'T JUST LET IT, YOU KNOW, RUN OUT OF CONTROL.

THEY'RE SAYING THAT.

WHY IS IT --WHY ARE THEY NOT ABLE TO IMPLEMENT IT?

OR ARE THEY TRYING TO IMPLEMENT THAT?

>> WELL, I THINK THERE ARE COMPETING IMPULSES HERE.

SO IF YOU LOOK AT WHAT MY OWN FORMER BOSS SAM ALTMAN SAID, FOR EXAMPLE, AT THE U. N. SECURITY COUNCIL A WEEK OR TWO AGO THAT EVEN A VERY SMALL RISK OF LOSS OF CONTROL WOULD BE TOTALLY UNACCEPTABLE.

THAT'S TRUE.

AND ALL THE RIGHT THINGS HAVE BEEN SAID.

BUT AT THE SAME TIME IF YOU LOOK AT THE TOTALITY OF WHAT PEOPLE ARE DOING AND SAYING, IT'S A MIXED BAG.

WE'RE STILL RUSHING FORWARD TO RELIEVE SYSTEMS, AND WE'RE SEEING VERY CLEAR EVIDENCE INCLUDING PUBLIC EVIDENCE THAT OUR MEASURES FOR KEEPING THEM IN A SANDBOX OR FOR MAKING SURE THAT PEOPLE ARE IN CHARGE EVEN OF THE SYSTEMS THAT WE HAVE TODAY ARE NOT COMPLETELY RELIABLE.

AND SO I THINK THE SORT OF UNSTATED SUBTEXT HERE IS WE'RE IN A RACE.

THE COMPANIES ARE RACING WITH EACH OTHER.

THERE'S ALSO, OF COURSE, THE GLOBAL DYNAMIC OF A RACE WITH --BETWEEN THE UNITED STATES AND CHINA AND SORT OF A BROADER SENSE THAT WHOEVER GETS TO THIS TECHNOLOGY FIRST IN ITS MOST ADVANCED FORM MIGHT HAVE A GREAT ADVANTAGE IN THE BALANCE OF POWER BETWEEN PEOPLE AND COUNTRIES.

>> AND OBVIOUSLY PRESIDENT TRUMP HAS SAID THAT, AND, YOU KNOW, HE'S BEEN ASKED ABOUT THE RISK-COST BENEFIT.

AND HE SAYS, LOOK, WE'VE GOT TO KEEP GOING BECAUSE WHOEVER WINS A. I. BASICALLY WINS.

DO YOU THINK ENOUGH WAS SAID BETWEEN HIM AND PRESIDENT XI AROUND THE U. N. SUMMIT THAT THEY HAD?

AND WHAT WOULD YOU HAVE THOUGHT WOULD HAVE BEEN AN APPROPRIATE, I DON'T KNOW, RESULT OR SORT OF AGREEMENT BETWEEN THESE TWO LEADERS WHO LEAD AND, YOU KNOW, WHOSE COUNTRIES LEAD IN THE A. I. RACE?

>> I THINK BOTH COUNTRIES ARE IMPLEMENTING DOMESTIC CONTROLS.

WE SAW THIS SO- CALLED MORALLY BINDING ACCORD FROM THE WHITE HOUSE RECENTLY.

AND RIGHT NOW THE PERCEIVED RISK FROM THE TECHNOLOGY ITSELF IS NOT EXTREME ENOUGH TO MOTIVATE REAL COOPERATION BETWEEN THE UNITED STATES AND CHINA.

AND SO I THINK OF THIS AS REALLY GETTING READY JUST IN CASE, IF THE TECHNOLOGY JUMPS TO A NEW LEVEL OF CAPABILITY, WE HAVE PEOPLE IN WASHINGTON AND PEOPLE IN LONDON AND PEOPLE IN BEIJING ALL SAYING, HEY, WE'RE REALLY WORRIED.

WE WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT HUMANITY STAYS IN CHARGE.

I THINK IF THAT HAPPENS, WE MIGHT FIND THAT THE WHOLE POLITICAL CONVERSATION MIGHT RAPIDLY SHIFT IN FAVOR OF GLOBAL COOPERATION.

AND SO I THINK A LOT OF THE CONVERSATIONS THAT ARE HAPPENING NOW BETWEEN LEADERS AND ALSO IN THE BROADER POLICY CONVERSATION --I THINK OF THOSE CONVERSATIONS REALLY AS A KIND OF GETTING READY JUST IN CASE WE FIND OURSELVES IN THAT KIND OF A WORLD.

>> SO YOU TALKED A LITTLE BIT EARLIER ABOUT HOW ALL THE TECH COMPANIES ARE COMPETING WITH EACH OTHER.

WHAT IS THE CULTURE INSIDE LET'S SAY THE COMPANY THAT YOU JUST RESIGNED FROM?

WHAT ARE THE CONVERSATIONS?

ARE THERE SUCH A THING AS DISSENT CHANNELS OR ROUND TABLES WHERE PEOPLE CAN, YOU KNOW, AIR THEIR CONCERNS RIGHT UP THE LADDER?

>> AT OpenAI I WOULD SAY EVERY CHANNEL IS A DISSENT CHANNEL.

WE'VE GOT A BIG SPRAWLING INTERNAL SLACK, LIKE A ONLINE CHAT SYSTEM.

AND THAT'S WHERE A GREAT MAJORITY OF THE WORK EXCHANGES TAKE PLACE.

SO, FOR EXAMPLE, MY DEPARTURE MEMO WAS A SLACK MESSAGE.

AND IT --PEOPLE --IT HAS THE CULTURE OF A RESEARCH LAB.

PEOPLE TAKE INITIATIVE.

PEOPLE HAVE DIFFERENT IDEAS.

PEOPLE TRY DIFFERENT WAYS OF MAKING SYSTEMS BOTH MORE CAPABLE BUT ALSO OF MAKING SYSTEMS SAFER.

AND I THINK THAT'S A GREAT STRENGTH WHEN IT COMES TO INNOVATION.

BUT THAT CULTURE IS NOT A GREAT FIT FOR TECHNOLOGIES THAT POSE BIG, BIG RISKS LIKE A LOSS OF CONTROL RISK.

I MEAN, IF YOU WERE TO COMPARE, FOR EXAMPLE, THE KINDS OF CONTROLS THAT WE HAVE IN PLACE TO PREVENT A NUCLEAR POWER STATION FROM MELTING DOWN TO THE KINDS OF CONTROLS THAT A PLACE LIKE AN OpenAI OR ANTHROPIC OR AN X HAS, IT'S JUST --IT'S TOTALLY DIFFERENT.

THE CULTURE OF A -- OF A TECH COMPANY IS TO EXPERIMENT AND TO, AS OpenAI LIKES TO PUT IT, TO ITERATE, TO TRY DIFFERENT THINGS.

BUT IN A SITUATION WHERE WE'RE WORRIED ABOUT A RISK THAT CAN'T BE REMEDIED ONCE IT TAKES PLACE, WE NEED A TOTALLY DIFFERENT KIND OF CAREFUL.

>> SO I WONDER IF THIS IS THE KIND OF THING YOU WERE WARNING ABOUT WHEN YOU --YOU KNOW, WHEN YOU ANNOUNCED YOUR DEPARTURE.

IT WAS IN AN ARTICLE IN THE ATLANTIC.

YOU QUOTE PAUL CHRISTIANO ANOTHER SAFETY A. I. EXPERT HE RECENTLY JOINED THE OpenAI BOARD, AND HE SAID THERE'S A MEANINGFUL RISK THAT RAPID ACCELERATION LEADS TO CATASTROPHIC IRREVERSIBLE LOSS OF CONTROL IN THE NEAR TERM.

WHAT LEVEL OF HARM ARE WE TALKING ABOUT WHEN HE SAYS MEANINGFUL RISK?

>> WELL, I THINK THERE'S A DEBATE HOW LIKELY THAT SCENARIO IS.

I WAS A TRANSLATOR AND MY BACKGROUND IS IN POLICY, SO I DON'T EXACTLY SCIENTIFICALLY WHAT THE LIKELIHOOD IS.

BUT THE PART I PAID ATTENTION TO IN HIS STATEMENT I THINK WAS THE OTHER SIDE, WHICH IS SUPPOSED IT DID HAPPEN.

HOW MUCH HARM IS THAT CATASTROPHIC AND IRREVERSIBLE LOSS OF CONTROL?

SO THAT'S SOME VERSION OF THE OTHER THAT WE ALL ARE UNDER THE CONTROL OF A PIECE OF TECHNOLOGY.

AND WHEN I THOUGHT ABOUT THAT MY REFLECTION WAS IT DOESN'T MATTER HOW LIKELY OR UNLIKELY THAT IS.

IF A MEMBER OF OUR BOARD OF DIRECTORS IS SAYING THAT IT IS PLAUSIBLE ENOUGH TO PAY ATTENTION TO, THEN NOT ONLY OpenAI BUT REALLY ALL OF THE COMPANIES ACROSS OUR INDUSTRY OUGHT TO BE ACTING AS IF THIS MIGHT HAPPEN AND OUGHT TO BE DOING THE THINGS THAT, YOU KNOW, YOU OR I OR YOUR AUDIENCE MIGHT HOPE FOR PEOPLE TO DO, IF THIS WAS A REAL POSSIBILITY.

AND I THINK WE'RE --AS AN INDUSTRY, I THINK WE'RE A PRETTY LONG WAY FROM THAT.

>> WELL, I MEAN, I HATE TO BE A CATASSTRUFAST, BUT I WANT TO ASK YOU WHAT CATASTROPHE LOOKS LIKE AND LOSS OF CONTROL.

YOU ALSO SAID IN YOUR ARTICLE OpenAI STANDS BY ITS SAFETY PRACTICES, MAINTAINS IT'S BEING CAREFUL ENOUGH.

>> YEAH, I THINK, YOU KNOW, WHEN PEOPLE TALK ABOUT DOOM OR EXTINCTION, I THINK THOSE ARE THE WRONG QUESTIONS.

I BELIEVE IN HUMANITY.

I THINK WE'RE GOING TO SURVIVE.

I FEEL SURE THAT WE'RE GOING TO FIND A WAY FORWARD, BUT THERE ARE A LOT OF SCARY THINGS THAT COULD HAPPEN IN A WORLD OF VERY, VERY CAPABLE A. I. YOU KNOW, ONE SIMPLE EXAMPLE WE'VE ALREADY SEEN THIS PROBLEM OF HACKERS LOCKING UP HOSPITALS AND TURNING OFF THE COMPUTERS SO THAT PATIENTS CANNOT BE TREATED.

IMAGINE A VERSION OF THAT WHERE YOU DON'T HAVE A HUMAN HACKER.

IT DOESN'T NEED TO EVER REST BUT COULD GO TO A BUNCH OF HOSPITALS.

THAT'S THE KIND OF THING THAT I THINK IF WE DON'T GET A GOOD HANDLE ON THIS, WE COULD BE HAZARDING QUITE SOON.

>> SOME ASK DOES THIS WHOLE SYSTEM - -THE WHOLE A. I. SYSTEM THE WAY IT'S BUILT, IS IT TOO FAST FOR US TO BE ABLE TO THINK?

I MEAN, IS IT OVERTAKING OUR MENTAL CAPACITIES TO BE ABLE TO DEAL WITH THIS?

>> I THINK THAT'S A REALLY IMPORTANT QUESTION.

IT USED TO BE A THEORETICAL QUESTION BUT TO ME SOUNDED LIKE SCIENCE FICTION, BUT NOW WE REALLY ARE STARTING TO SEE SYSTEMS THAT CAN THINK CIRCLES AROUND PEOPLE.

I MEAN, WE HAD --JUST A DAY OR TWO AGO WE HAD HUNDREDS OF MATHEMATICS PROOFS THAT GOT RELEASED IN BULK BY OpenAI.

AND THERE HAVE BEEN DISCOVERIES BY OTHER FIRMS AS WELL.

I THINK THAT ONE OF THE BIG QUESTIONS HERE --THERE ARE CERTAIN AREAS OF WORK WHERE IT IS EASY TO TEACH A. I. HOW TO DO IT WELL BECAUSE WE KNOW WHAT COUNTS AS A GOOD ANSWER OR A BAD ANSWER.

MATH IS THIS WAY, FOR EXAMPLE, RIGHT?

YOU KNOW IF THE PROOF IS CORRECT OR NOT.

IT'S EASIER TO CHECK A PROOF THAN IT IS TO COME UP WITH ONE.

THE SAME IS TRUE IN WRITING SOFTWARE SOURCE CODE.

IT EITHER WORKS WHEN YOU CLICK THE BUTTON OR IT DOESN'T.

AND SO IN THOSE DOMAINS, IN THOSE AREAS OF WORK, A. I. HAS PROGRESSED QUITE RAPIDLY.

THERE ARE OTHER AREAS WHERE IT'S HARDER TO MEASURE WHAT COUNTS AS A GOOD ANSWER, AND IT'S HARDER TO TRAIN A. I. TO DO A GOOD JOB.

SO SOME EXAMPLES OF THAT, MOVING AROUND IN THE REAL WORLD AS A ROBOT WOULD NEED TO OR WRITING, MY OWN ADVOCATION, TRYING TO HAVE A. I. BE A GOOD WRITER TURNS OUT TO BE A HARDER PROBLEM THAN TEACHING IT TO DO MATH.

SO WHEN I THINK ABOUT YOUR QUESTION OF WELL, OKAY, WHAT'S GOING TO HAPPEN?

IS IT GOING TO THINK CIRCLES AROUND US IN ALL OF THESE OTHER AREAS?

I THINK ONE OF THE BIG QUESTIONS IS ARE WE GOING TO SEE PROGRESS SIMILAR TO WHAT WE'VE SEEN IN MATH IN ALL THESE OTHER AREAS?

AND I WOULD SAY THE WEIGHT OF OPINION AMONG SCIENTISTS THAT I SPOKE WITH WAS THAT WE PROBABLY WILL SEE THAT KIND OF GENERALIZATION.

WE WILL SEE THAT KIND OF PROGRESS ACROSS THESE OTHER AREAS.

I THINK THAT'S --THAT'S UNCERTAIN.

BUT, AGAIN, TO ME IT SEEMS LIKE WE OUGHT TO BE ACTING AS IF THAT MIGHT HAPPEN.

>> LET'S JUST FOCUS ON YOU JUST A LITTLE BIT.

BECAUSE AS YOU'VE MENTIONED, YOU'RE NOT A COMPUTER SCIENTIST.

IN FACT, YOU STUDIED PHILOSOPHY AS AN UNDERGRAD.

AND AT OpenAI YOU WERE DEALING WITH SOME BIG PHILOSOPHICAL QUESTIONS, ESSENTIALLY WHAT IT MEANS TO BE HUMAN.

JUST GIVE US AN IDEA OF WELL, "A," WHAT ARE THE QUESTIONS?

BUT IT'S REALLY INTERESTING THAT --THAT YOU WERE DOING THAT AT THIS TECH COMPANY, I MEAN BEING A PHILOSOPHER.

>> WELL, THERE WAS DEFINITELY AN ELEMENT OF THAT.

I THINK WE -- AND PART OF WHAT I THINK WOULD BENEFIT ALL OF US IS IF WE BROUGHT A LITTLE MORE OF THE HUMAN BACK INTO THIS TECHNOLOGY.

SO, FOR EXAMPLE, WHEN I WAS IN OpenAI ONE OF THE THINGS THAT WE --I USED TO ASK PEOPLE IS LET'S IMAGINE WE GET ALL OF OUR SAFETY PROBLEMS SOLVED, AND WE HAVE THE HAPPY, BIG FUTURE THAT THE THE BEST CASE FOR AGI, ARTIFICIAL RANGE INTELLIGENCE THAT CAN DO GOOD WORK FOR PEOPLE.

I USED TO ASK MY COLLEAGUES AND SAY, LOOK, WHAT DO WE HAVE TO DO ALL DAY IF WE DON'T HAVE TO DO OUR JOBS ANYMORE?

AND IT ALWAYS STRUCK ME THAT WE DIDN'T QUITE HAVE A GREAT ANSWER THERE.

PEOPLE WOULD EXPRESS UNCHARACTERISTIC HUMILITY FOR SILICON VALLEY.

THEY WOULD SAY IT'S ABOVE MY PAY GRADE TO KNOW WHAT OTHERS ARE GOING TO CHOOSE TO DO.

OR, YOU KNOW, MAYBE PEOPLE WILL TAKE UP PAINTING OR WHATEVER.

AND I PERSONALLY FEEL LIKE THERE'S A LOT OF WORK WE NEED TO DO TO FIGURE OUT WHAT A GOOD HUMAN LIFE IS GOING TO LOOK LIKE IF WE DO END UP IN A WORLD WHERE LEARNING IN ORDER TO HAVE USEFUL SKILLS ISN'T NEEDED THE WAY IT USED TO BE NEEDED.

OR DOING A JOB IN ORDER TO EARN A LIVING MIGHT NOT BE NEEDED IN THE WAY IT USED TO BE NEEDED.

I THINK PART OF WHAT I WAS RESPONDING TO IN THINKING ABOUT WHERE MY OWN WORK AND OTHERS WORK IS NEEDED IS THAT WE DON'T HAVE GOOD ANSWERS.

AND THOSE QUESTIONS WHEN I FIRST JOINED BACK IN 2023 AND WE JUST HAD CHAT BOTS, THOSE QUESTIONS SEEMED LARGELY THEORETIC AND FRANKLY A BIT FAR-FETCHED.

BUT THEY SEEM MORE CONCRETE TO ME NOW, AND I DO HOPE TO THINK MORE ABOUT THEM.

>> YOU KNOW, WE ALL PERHAPS HAD CERTAIN FEELINGS WHEN WE HEARD LATE IN THE LIFE OF SOCIAL MEDIA AND THOSE SOCIAL MEDIA TECH TITANS WHO THEN BASICALLY TOLD THE WORLD THAT, OH, MY GOSH, WE DON'T LET OUR KIDS GO ON THE PHONES.

WE DON'T LET THEM, YOU KNOW, HAVE SOCIAL MEDIA.

BUT, BY THE WAY, THEY'RE HOOKING EVERYBODY ELSE IN THE WORLD ONTO IT.

IS THERE THAT KIND OF THING GOING ON IN THE A. I. WORLD?

I MEAN, I DON'T KNOW QUITE HOW TO FIGURE OUT WHAT THEY DON'T DO.

BUT ARE THE TECH TITANS WHO DON'T DO A. I. NOT LETTING THEIR KIDS GET TOO INVOLVED IN IT?

>> WELL, I CAN SPEAK FOR MYSELF.

MY KIDS ARE 2 AND 4, AND THEY DON'T SPEND A LOT OF TIME ON SCREENS.

AND I GUESS THEY DON'T --NOW THAT YOU MENTION IT, I SUPPOSE THEY DON'T INTERACT WITH A. I. JUST YET.

AND I SEE THAT AS AN IMPORTANT THING TO FIGURE OUT AS A PARENT.

CERTAINLY I THINK ALL OF US AS PARENTS PROBABLY ASK OURSELVES WHAT'S GOING TO BE RIGHT FOR OUR KIDS.

YOU KNOW, THE ONE THING I THINK A LOT ABOUT WHEN IT COMES TO THIS IS THE WAY THAT WE INTERACT, RIGHT?

IF YOU THINK ABOUT HOW YOU TALK TO A VOICE ASSISTANT OR HOW YOU TALK TO SIRI, YOU KNOW, IT'S A ROBOT SO YOU DON'T HAVE TO BE NICE TO IT.

YOU DON'T HAVE TO SAY PLEASE.

BUT MY INSTINCT --WHEN I'M AROUND MY KIDS MY INSTINCT IS ALWAYS TO MODEL SAYING PLEASE AND THANK YOU NOT BECAUSE I WASN'T MY KIDS TO BE CONFUSED ABOUT A ROBOT BUT JUST BECAUSE THESE ARE THE SAME HABITS THAT WE USE WHEN WE SPEAK TO ONE ANOTHER IS WE --YOU KNOW, WE ADDRESS --I JUST WORRY THAT IF WE --IF WE TREAT THINGS LIKE PEOPLE AND THEN WE GET SORT OF HARSH WITH THEM, MY FEAR IS DO WE END UP TREATING PEOPLE LIKE THINGS?

AND THAT IS AN OUTCOME THAT I'M VERY KEEN TO AVOID BOTH FOR MY KIDS AND IN GENERAL.

>> AND THAT IS A PHILOSOPHICAL QUESTION TO END WITH.

SO DAVID ROBINSON, THANK YOU VERY MUCH INDEED FOR JOINING US.

REALLY INTERESTING.

NOW, AS WE MENTIONED EARLIER, U. S. MID- TERMS ARE FAST APPROACHING.

BEHIND THE SCENES IS AN INTERNAL BATTLE FOR THE FUTURE OF THE CONSERVATIVE MOVEMENT.

ONE OF THE BIGGEST DIVIDES IS BETWEEN OLDER AND YOUNGER GENERATIONS, SO HOW CAN THE RIGHT BRIDGE THAT GAP?

AND WHO MIGHT TAKE THE REINS FROM TRUMP AFTER THE NEXT PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION?

"THE NEW YORKER"'S EMA GREEN JOINS MICHEL MARTIN TO DISCUSS HOW THIS IS PLAYING OUT IN THE HERITAGE FOUNDATION, THE THINK TANK BEHIND PROJECT 2025.

>> THANKS, CHRISTIANE.

EMA GREEN, THANKS SO MUCH FOR JOINING US.

>> THANKS FOR HAVING ME.

>> I THINK MOST PEOPLE KNOW PRESIDENT TRUMP, DONALD TRUMP HAS DRASTICALLY TRANSFORMED THE REPUBLICAN PARTY BUT HE'S NOT GOING TO BE THERE FOREVER.

I WOULD ALSO SAY BY DEFINITION YOU PROFILE THE HERITAGE FOUNDATION AND YOU FIND IT THE PLACE TO LOOK AT WHAT THE STRUGGLE IS WITH WHERE THAT MOVEMENT GOES NEXT WITH THE PARTY AND WHERE THAT MOVEMENT GOES NEXT.

WHY IS THE HERITAGE FOUNDATION AN IMPORTANT PLACE TO LOOK AT THIS QUESTION?

>> FOR 50 YEARS THE HERITAGE FOUNDATION HAS BEEN THE SINGLE BIGGEST INSTITUTION OF THE CONSERVATIVE MOVEMENT.

IT TAKES UP ALMOST A FULL BLOCK ON THE SENATE SIDE OF THE CAPITOL.

HUGE AMOUNTS OF MONEY IN RESERVE, HUGE BUDGETS.

IT'S ALSO GOT LONG REACH INTO THE CAPITOL AND INTO THE WHITE HOUSE.

THERE ARE ALUMNI FROM DECADES AND DECADES OF HERITAGE WORK ALL OVER THE CAPITOL.

SO IT'S IMPORTANT TO LOOK AT HERITAGE BECAUSE THE CHANGES THAT THAT INSTITUTION IS UNDERGOING ARE IN SOME WAY A LABORATORY FOR UNDERSTANDING THE BROADER CHANGES THAT ARE HAPPENING IN THE REPUBLICAN PARTY.

>> SO HERITAGE HAS NEWISH PRESIDENT KEVIN ROBERTS.

WHO IS HE?

AND WHAT WAS HIS MANDATE IN TAKING OVER HERITAGE OR WHAT DID HE COME TO BELIEVE THAT IT IS?

>> KEVIN ROBERTS IS A GUY FROM TEXAS.

MOST RECENTLY HE HAD BEEN RUNNING THE TEXAS PUBLIC POLICY FOUNDATION, WHICH IS A VERY INFLUENTIAL PUBLIC POLICY FOUNDATION IN TEXAS, HELPS TO SHAPE THEIR STATE POLITICS.

HE'S ALSO DEEP FROM THE CATHOLIC WORLD.

HE RAN A SMALL CATHOLIC COLLEGE WHICH DEVELOPED AN OUTSIZED REPUTATION RELATIVE TO ITS SIZE BEING AN INSTITUTION THAT WOULD RAISE UP THE NEXT GENERATION OF YOUNG CATHOLIC THINKERS.

SO HE'S ANACHYDEMIC, ACADEMIC, A SCHOLAR, COMES OUT OF THE YOUNG THINK TANK WORLD.

HE WAS TRYING TO FIND SOMEONE WHO COULD RESTORE GRASS ROOTS, NATIONALIST POPIALIST CREDIBILITY.

THERE HAD BEEN SEVERAL PRESIDENTS PREVIOUSLY HAD GONE THROUGH DISCORD.

ONE SOURCE DESCRIBED HER TO ME AS A KIND OF BOG STANDARD REPUBLICAN ESTABLISHMENT FIGURE, SOMEONE HAD REALLY STANDARD ISSUE REPUBLICAN POLITICS.

AND FROM MY UNDERSTANDING THE BOARD AT HERITAGE WANTED SOMEONE WHO COULD RE-ESTABLISH HERITAGE'S CREDENTIALS WITH THAT GRASS ROOTS BASE.

THEY BROUGHT HIM IN FROM OUTSIDE.

THEY CARED A LOT HE WAS AN OUTSIDER.

AND HE TOOK OVER AT HERITAGE ABOUT FIVE YEARS AGO WITH THIS DETERMINATION TO PUT HERITAGE INTO THE MIDDLE OF THINGS.

HE WANTED TO MOVE FASTER, STARTED USING A LOT OF SPORTS METAPHORS, MARSHAL METAPHORS.

MAYBE IN THE BATTLE WE'RE GOING TO FALL DOWN THE FIELD.

HE WANTED HERITAGE TO BE BACK IN THE GAME.

>> YOU WROTE THERE'S THIS GENERATIONAL DIVIDE.

YOUNG CONSERVATIVES ARE CALLING THE OLD GUARD REAGAN ZOMBIES.

THEY ARE ANGRY.

THEY FEEL THAT THEY ARE BEING DENIED THE THINGS THAT THEY WERE PROMISED.

WHAT DO THEY THINK THE OLDER GENERATION GOT WRONG?

AND WHAT DO THEY WANT INSTEAD?

>> IN MY REPORTING I OFTEN COVER WHAT YOU MIGHT CALL HORSESHOE POLITICS, SO INSTANCES WHERE DIFFERENT SIDES OF THE POLITICAL SPECTRUM ACTUALLY HAVE A SORT OF ECHO.

AND WHAT YOU SEE FROM YOUNG PEOPLE ON THE RIGHT ACTUALLY QUITE MIRRORS WHAT YOU SEE FROM YOUNG PEOPLE ON THE LEFT, WHICH IS SENSE OF DISILLUSIONMENT WITH THE ESTABLISHMENT IN POLITIC, A FEELING THAT THE COMPACT THAT THEY HAD BEEN PROMISED AROUND HAVING A SPOUSE, A HOUSE, CHILDREN, BEING ABLE TO AFFORD THE BASICS OF LIFE --THAT THAT COMPACT HAS BEEN BETRAYED.

AND I WOULD SAY IN THE RIGHT IN PARTICULAR AMONG THE YOUNG THERE'S A REALLY WELL-DEVELOPED SENSIBILITY ABOUT WHERE THE POLITICS OF THE CONSERVATIVE MOVEMENT HAVE FAILED AND HOW THEY SHOULD CHANGE.

A FEW ISSUES IN PARTICULAR INCLUDE WAR, A LOT OF EXHAUSTION WITH FOREVER WARS AND ADVENTURES OVERSEAS.

A SENSE THAT THE UNITED STATES SHOULD BE A STRONG NEGOTIATING POWER, NOT TRYING TO DO DIPLOMACY AND DEALS WITH ENTITIES LIKE CHINA THAT THE YOUNGER GENERATION SEES AS A REAL THREAT TO AMERICA.

AND A DESIRE TO PROMOTE FAMILY, TO WANT PEOPLE TO GET MARRIED AND HAVE CHILDREN, AND SEEING THAT AS A GOOD THE GOVERNMENT CAN PROMOTE.

SO SOME OF THESE ARE REAL SHARP DIFFERENCES WITH WHAT CONSERVATIVE ESTABLISHMENT TYPES MIGHT HAVE SAID DURING THE REAGAN YEARS.

BUT DEPENDING ON WHETHER YOU'RE UNDER OR OVER 45 IS A SORT OF ROUGHLY GOOD METRIC TO SHOW WHETHER YOU WANT A DIFFERENT KIND OF FUTURE FOR THE GOALS THAT CONSERVATIVES WILL PROMOTE.

>> HERITAGE HAS BEEN IN THE NEWS FOR TWO REASONS MAINLY, AND I WANT TO TAKE THOSE SEPARATELY.

FIRST IS PROJECT 2025.

LIKE THIS BECAME AN ISSUE.

IT WAS ALMOST LIKE A CHARACTER, RIGHT, AT THE DEMOCRATIC CONVENTION, YOU KNOW, IN 2024 WITH DEMOCRATS WARNING PROJECT 2025 IS COMING, THIS IS WHAT THEY'RE GOING TO DO.

WELL, IN FACT, YOU KNOW, THIS IS WHAT THEY DID.

I MEAN, PRESIDENT TRUMP DID DISTANCE HIMSELF FROM PROJECT 2025 DURING THE CAMPAIGN.

AND I KNOW YOU SAY IN A WAY THAT ADMINISTRATION HAS KIND OF KEPT THE HERITAGE FOUNDATION A BIT AT ARM'S LENGTH, BUT THE REALITY IS THEY HAVE IMPLEMENTED A LOT OF THOSE GOALS THAT WERE IN PROJECT 2025.

I MEAN DISMANTLING THE DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION.

SO HOW WOULD YOU DESCRIBE THE INFLUENCE THAT HERITAGE ACTUALLY HAS WITHIN THE TRUMP ADMINISTRATION?

>> I THINK IT WOULD HELP TO BACK UP FOR A MOMENT AND JUST TALK ABOUT THE SUBSTANCE OF PROJECT 2025.

SO THIS WAS A SPRAWLING PROJECT.

IT'S MORE THAN 900 PAGES OF POLICY PROPOSALS, AND IT WASN'T JUST THE HERITAGE FOUNDATION.

THEY WERE SORT OF A CONVENER OF THE PROJECT.

IT BROUGHT TOGETHER MORE THAN A HUNDRED CONSERVATIVE ORGANIZATIONS.

AND EVERYBODY WHO IS IN WHAT YOU MIGHT CALL THE CONSERVATIVE THINKING LANDSCAPE --PEOPLE WHO WORK AT THINK TANKS AND FOUNDATIONS, PEOPLE WHO ARE POLICY WONKS, WHO DO THIS STUFF FOR A LIVING --HERITAGE BROUGHT THEM ALL TOGETHER TO TRY TO MAKE THIS COLLABORATIVE UNIFYING BLUEPRINT.

AND THEY BRANDED IT WITH A BELL AND THEY GOT OUT IN FRONT OF IT AND SAID THIS IS HERITAGE.

WE ARE INSTITUTIONALIZING TRUMPISM, WE ARE THE STEWARDS OF THIS PROJECT.

THAT'S WHERE THEY GOT IN TROUBLE WITH THE TRUMP CAMPAIGN IN 2024.

NOW, COME TO PRESIDENT TRUMP BEING IN OFFICE, OF COURSE SOME OF THOSE POLICY PROPOSALS HAVE SHOWN UP.

BUT I WILL SAY THAT ABOLISHING THE DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION, FOR EXAMPLE, HAS BEEN A LONG-STANDING GOAL OF ACTIVISTS WITHIN THE CONSERVATIVE MOVEMENT.

BUT WHEN I SPOKE TO A SENIOR WHITE HOUSE OFFICIAL WHO'S NOW OUT OF THE ADMINISTRATION, I SENT HIM SOME OF THE FUND-RAISING E-MAILS THAT HERITAGE HAS SENT AROUND TO SAY WE ARE RESPONSIBLE FOR IMPLEMENTING THE TRUMP ADMINISTRATION'S AGENDA.

THEY'VE ALREADY TAKEN ALL OF OUR RECOMMENDATIONS.

THE RESPONSE OF THIS OFFICIAL, WHO'S A VERY SENIOR WHITE HOUSE OFFICIAL WAS IS THAT IS PREPOSTEROUS ON EVERY LEVEL.

THERE'S A LITTLE BIT OF ILLUSION BETWEEN WHAT ACTIVIST PRIORITIES AND THE CONSERVATIVE MOVEMENT HAS BEEN AS A WHOLE AND FOR A LONG TIME, WHAT HERITAGE SPECIFICALLY HAS HAD A HAND IN GUIDING THE TRUMP ADMINISTRATION TO DO.

AND I WOULD SAY IT'S A COMPLICATED PICTURE.

TO BE SURE THEY'VE HAD SOME INFLUENCE IN SHAPING THE TRUMP ADMINISTRATION AND REPUBLICAN PRIORITIES, BUT I THINK THEY'VE ALSO BEEN HELD AT ARM'S LENGTH, AS THAT SENIOR WHITE HOUSE OFFICIAL TOLD ME.

>> BUT THEN LET'S TALK ABOUT THE OTHER CONTROVERSY YOU REALLY DIG INTO IN YOUR PIECE, WHICH IS TUCKER CARLSON'S INTERVIEW WITH NICK FUN TEZ.

HE'S A WHITE NATIONALIST WHO'S PRAISED HITLER.

HE'S MAIN OPENLY RACIST AND ANTI-SEMITIC REMARKS, NOT TO MENTION I WOULD AURAL MISOGYNISTIC COMMENTS ABOUT WOMEN.

HE DEFENDED CARLSON IN THIS VIDEO.

WHILE HE REJECTED FUENTES' VIEWS CANCELING HIM IS NOT THE ANSWER.

WHY DID THIS BECOME SUCH A FLASH POINT FOR HERITAGE?

>> THIS IS ONE OF THE CENTRAL DRAMAS THAT CAPTIVATED ME BECAUSE IN ONE SENSE IT WAS SORT OF A FLUKE IT SORT OF BECAME THIS HUGE ALL CONSUMING DRAMA, WHICH IT DID.

IT REALLY CONSUMED HERITAGE.

IT CONSUMED THE CONSERVATIVE MOVEMENT FOR MONTHS.

BUT IT WAS A PODCAST THAT THEN KEVIN ROBERTS, THE PRESIDENT, TWEETED THE VIDEO ABOUT AND HE FELT THE NEED TO STEP IN AND DEFEND TUCKER CARLSON BECAUSE HE WAS GETTING ALL THESE NUDGES FROM THE LEADERS IN THE CONSERVATIVE MOVEMENT TO STEP INTO THE FRAY AND DOING THIS THING TUCKER CARLSON WHO THOUGHT IT WAS NOT RIGHT WITH THIS PERSON WITH VILE VIEWS.

WHY IS IT A TWEET ABOUT A PODCAST TOOK UP ALL THE OXYGEN IN THE CONSERVATIVE MOVEMENT?

WELL, AS I ARGUED IN THE PIECE, THIS WAS A PRESTAGING GROUND FOR THE GREAT INTELLECTUAL BATTLE THAT IS COMING FOR THE CONSERVATIVE MOVEMENT I WOULD ARGUE RIGHT AFTER MID-TERM.

WHICH IS A LOT OF PEOPLE IN THE MOVEMENT DO NOT LIKE THE DIRECTION HERITAGE HAS GONE UNDER KEVIN ROBERTS.

HE'S MOVED IN A MORE POPIALIST AND NATIONALIST DIRECTION.

THEY DON'T LIKE KEVIN ROBERTS HAS ALIGNED HIMSELF WITH CERTAIN FACTIONS IN THE REPUBLICAN PARTY, AND PARTICULAR WITH VICE PRESIDENT VANCE.

AND SO THEY USE THIS MOMENT WHERE PRESIDENT ROBERTS WAS STANDING AND MAKING A STATEMENT IN DEFENSE OF TUCKER CARLSON TO BASICALLY SAY THIS IS NOT WHAT THE CONSERVATIVE MOVEMENT IS, IT'S NOT WHAT IT'S FOR.

AND THAT JUST GOES TO HAY SHOW THAT HERITAGE IS THIS ICONIC INSTITUTION IN THE MOVEMENT.

PEOPLE CARE WHAT HAPPENS TO HERITAGE BECAUSE THEY SEE THAT AS A FUTURE OF THE REPUBLICAN PARTY.

>> WHAT WOULD YOU SAY IS KIND OF A --THE FAULT LINE HERE?

SO WE'VE ALREADY TALKED ABOUT THAT THERE'S A GENERATIONAL DIVIDE, BUT WHAT ELSE?

I MEAN, THERE'S AN IDEOLOGICAL DIVIDE.

THERE'S A PRIORITIES DIVIDE.

WHAT ELSE?

A CULTURAL DIVIDE, A LANGUAGE DIVIDE.

>> YEAH, THERE ARE A LOT.

SO I WOULD SAY FIRST AND FOREMOST THERE'S A GREAT ARGUMENT HAPPENING ON THE RIGHT AS TO THE EXTENT TO WHICH YOUNG ANTI-SEMITES OR PEOPLE WHO HOLD VIEWS THAT ARE ABOUT RACE HAVE INFILTRATED THE BASE OF THE PARTY, EVEN INFILTRATED STAFFERS ON CAPITOL HILL.

SOME PEOPLE MINIMIZE IT AND SAY IT'S NOT ACTUALLY THAT BIG OF AN ISSUE.

BUT THERE ARE A LOT OF ELDER CONSERVATIVES WHO FEEL ANXIOUS ABOUT THIS AND WISH TO DRAW A LINE IN THE SAND.

I THINK THE VIDEO CONTROVERSY REALLY AROSE THE ANXIETIES BECAUSE IT FELT LIKE AN EXPLICIT MOMENT OF GIVING A PASS TO THAT KIND OF YOUNG INTERNET CULTURE THAT CONTAINS A LOT OF BIGOTRY.

I WOULD SAY THE SECOND THING IS IDELOGICAL.

ONE TRUMP ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL WHO HAS CLOSE TRIES TO DR.

ROBERTS DESCRIBES THE STATE OF PLAY AT HERITAGE WHEN DR.

ROBERTS FIRST ARRIVED AS BEING ONE FACTION THAT WAS MAGA SORT OF NATIONALIST PALMULOUS BASED AND ONE FACTION THAT WAS VERY FOREIGN POLICY ORIENTED, VERY HAWKISH FACTION WITHIN HERITAGE.

AND ANOTHER THAT HE DESCRIBED AS THE FREEDOM CONSERVATIVES, SO PEOPLE WHO PUT A REAL PREMIUM ON INDIVIDUAL LIBERTY.

YOU MIGHT CALL THEM LIBERTARIANS WITH A RELIGIOUS STREAK.

SO WITH HERITAGE THESE FACTIONS HAD BEEN BATTLING ONE ANOTHER EVEN BEFORE THE VIDEO CONTROVERSY ERUPTED.

AND WHEN THAT VIDEO CONTROVERSY HAPPENED, IT WAS SORT OF A MOMENT WHEN DIFFERENT MEMBERS OF DIFFERENT PARTS OF THOSE FACTIONS SAW AN OPPORTUNITY TO MAKE THEIR CLAIM ON HERITAGE SHOULD BE MORE IN LINE WITH MY IDEOLOGICAL VIEWS.

OR HERITAGE SHOULD KICK OUT THESE OTHER MEMBERS OF THESE OTHER FACTIONS BECAUSE THEY PROMOTE THINGS THAT AREN'T ACTUALLY CONSERVATIVE.

>> I KIND OF GOT THE IMPRESSION FROM YOUR PIECE, THOUGH, THAT ONE SIDE KIND OF IS WINNING BECAUSE THE PEOPLE WHO AREN'T WITH THE PROGRAM DEFECT AND HAVE ALREADY HAD TO LEAVE.

LIKE, CAN YOU SAY MORE ABOUT THAT?

>> YEAH, YOU KNOW, JUST TO SAY A LITTLE BIT ABOUT THE DYNAMIC SHIFT PERSONALITY-WISE, WHICH IS AN IMPORTANT PIECE HERE -- THAT SOURCE I WAS TALKING TO WAS TALKING ABOUT THE TEACHERS PETS, THE CLASS PRESIDENT SUCK UPS.

HE WAS REALLY MAKING THE COMMENT THAT THERE'S BEEN A SHIFT IN WASHINGTON, WHERE THE YOUNG STAFFERS WHO COME TO TOWN ACTUALLY DON'T HAVE THAT PROFILE ANYMORE.

THEY'RE MORE WILLING TO BE AGGRESSIVE.

THEY'RE MORE WILLING TO PICK FIGHTS ABOUT OLD STANDARD PILLAR BELIEFS WITHIN THE CONSERVATIVE MOVEMENT.

AND THAT HAS CHANGED THE WORKPLACE DYNAMIC NOT JUST AT HERITAGE BUT CERTAINLY AT HERITAGE, YOU KNOW, I HEARD FROM A LOT OF PEOPLE ABOUT MEETINGS THAT WOULD HAPPEN TO ADJUDICATE WITH WHAT'S CALLED THE ONE VOICE POLICY.

HERITAGE PUTS OUT STATEMENTS AND EVERYONE HAS TO SPEAK WITH ONE VOICE AFTER THEY PUT OUT A STATEMENT ON A POSITION.

AND THERE WOULD BE YELLING AND ARGUMENTS AND JUST THESE DRAG DOWN, KNOCK OUT FIGHTS OVER WHAT HERITAGE WAS GOING TO PUT OUT ON A POSITION, FOR EXAMPLE, ON ENCOURAGING PEOPLE TO GET MARRIED.

I THINK THIS SPEAKS TO THAT GENERATIONAL SPLIT AND DYNAMIC.

BUT TO SPEAK TO YOUR POINT ONE THING THAT I FOUND WAS REALLY INTERESTING IS THAT SOME OF THE OLD ESTABLISHMENT REPUBLICANS, THE KINDS OF PEOPLE WHO THE YOUNGS OTHERWISE WOULD ABSOLUTELY BE CALLING REAGAN ZOMBIES OR BOOMER-CONS.

THEY'VE ACTUALLY COME OVER TO THE SIDE OF THE YOUNGS.

ALL OF THAT IS TO SAY THAT WE'RE IN THIS REAL PIVOT MOMENT IN OUR POLITICS AND THE CONSERVATIVE MOVEMENT IS REALLY FACING A BIG CHANGE, WHICH IS THERE HAS BEEN A GROWTH AND MOMENTUM FOR A CERTAIN SET OF IDEAS THAT WOULD HAVE BEEN INATH MUTEN YEARS AGO, 15 YEARS AGO THAT NOW HAVE A REAL BASE OF SUPPORT NOT JUST AMONG THE 22-YEAR-OLDS WHO ARE NOW WILLING TO YELL AT MEETINGS AT HERITAGE BUT ALSO AMONG A WIDE VARIETY OF PERHAPS UNEXPECTED BEDFELLOWS WITHIN THE CONSERVATIVE MOVEMENT.

>> LET ME GO BACK TO SOMETHING YOU SAID IN YOUR PIECE.

YOU SAID ONE FORMER HERITAGE EXECUTIVE TOLD YOU THE PODCAST MAY BE THE WHITE PAPER OF OUR TIME, MEANING THAT PODCASTS MAY PLAY THE ROLE POLICY PAPERS ONCE DID IN SHAPING IDEAS.

SO WHAT IS THE IMPLICATION OF THAT FOR A LEGACY INSTITUTION LIKE HERITAGE?

>> YOU KNOW, IN A PREVIOUS TIME IN WASHINGTON, A GENTLER, MILDER TIME IN WASHINGTON IT WAS POSSIBLE TO JUDGE PUBLISHED POLICY PAPERS.

IN FACT BEFORE HERITAGE CAME ALONG IT WAS SORT OF THE STANDARD PUBLISHED POLICY PAPERS PUT OUT POSITIONS AFTER VOTES HAPPENED IN CONGRESS.

PUT OUT POLICY PAPERS BEFORE THE VOTES WERE PUBLISHED.

THINK OF THAT.

THAT WAS SUCH A CONTROVERSY AT THE TIME.

BUT NOW IT'S NOT POSSIBLE TO JUST PUT THINGS OUT AND ASSUME THAT THOSE IDEAS ARE GOING TO GAIN PURCHASE POLITICALLY, THAT THEY'LL HAVE RELEVANCE OR SALIENCE AMONG VOTERS OR THAT THEY WILL REALLY REACH THEIR INTENDED AUDIENCES WITHIN WASHINGTON AND BECOME SATURATED WITHIN THE IDEAS MARKET.

THERE IS THIS NEW MEDIA ENVIRONMENT, AND HERITAGE IS VERY AWARE OF BEING A BIG LEGACY INSTITUTION THAT NEEDS TO BE MORE NIMBLE IN ADAPTING TO THAT MEDIA ENVIRONMENT.

THEY DO HAVE LOTS OF PODCASTS.

THEY HAVE THEIR OWN MEDIA NETWORK, FAIRLY SIGNAL.

THEY'RE TRYING TO BE PART OF THAT MIX AND DEVELOP PEOPLE WHO ARE STARS IN THE CONSERVATIVE MOVEMENT, THAT THEY CAN POINT TO AS KIND OF A REFERENCE POINT NOT JUST AS A POLICY EXPERT BUT AS SOMEONE WHO CAN ATTRACT A FOLLOWING AND DEVELOP A SORT OF PARTY FOR AN IDEA OR CONSTITUENCY FOR AN IDEA.

BUT I THINK ALL THE LEGACY INSTITUTIONS IN WASHINGTON ARE STRUGGLING WITH THIS QUESTION OF HOW TO BE RELEVANT IN A MEDIA ENVIRONMENT THAT IS RAPID, THAT HAS CHANGED DRAMATICALLY EVEN IN JUST THE LAST FIVE TO TEN YEARS.

AND TO NOT JUST DO WHAT THEY ALWAYS DID, WHICH IS PUTTING OUT DOOR STOPPERS WITH PAPERS.

>> BEFORE WE LET YOU GO, HERITAGE IS NOW WORKING ON PROJECT 2029.

THE MOVEMENT HAS TO LOOK TO A POST-TRUMP ERA, RIGHT?

AND PEOPLE TALK ABOUT THAT A LOT.

YOU KNOW, ABOUT IS IT GOING TO BE A J. D. VANCE REPUBLICAN PARTY?

IS IT GOING TO BE MARCO RUBIO?

IS IT GOING TO BE TUCKER CARLSON, FOR HEAVEN'S SAKE, WHO'S GOING TO BE THE STANDARD BEARER FOR A MOVEMENT?

WHAT DOES PROJECT 2029 LOOK LIKE?

WHO'S --WHAT IS THEIR VISION FOR THAT?

>> THEY WOULDN'T TELL ME WHAT'S IN PROJECT 2029.

IT'S NOT OUT YET, SO UNFORTUNATELY I DON'T HAVE ALL OF THE PREVIEWED SECRETS OF THE POLICY PROPOSALS OF PROJECT 2029.

BUT WHAT I WILL SAY IS THAT KEVIN ROBERTS IN PARTICULAR IS VERY BULLISH ON A KIND OF POPIALIST VISION FOR THE CONSERVATIVE MOVEMENT.

HE CARES VERY MUCH ABOUT SAVING WESTERN CIVILIZATION.

HE TALKS A LOT ABOUT IMMIGRATION, HE TALKS A LOT ABOUT VOTER FRAUD.

HE TALKS A LOT ABOUT THE FAMILY.

HE SEES THESE AS EXISTENTIAL THREATS TO AMERICA AND TO WHAT HE CALLS THE WEST.

AND SO I KNOW THAT AS HE MOVES FORWARD INTO THE NEXT COUPLE OF YEARS, THAT IS GOING TO BE THE PRIORITY FOR HERITAGE.

IT HAS THESE CORNERSTONE PRINCIPLES, WHICH IT RECENTLY PUBLISHED WHICH ARTICULATE A KIND OF VIEW OF THE CORNERSTONES OF SOCIETY OF WESTERN CIVILIZATION THAT HERITAGE WILL DEFEND, A DEPARTURE FROM SOME OF THOSE PAST POSITIONS THAT WERE REPUBLICAN STANDARD BEARER POSITIONS FOR MANY, MANY YEARS.

AND PRESIDENT ROBERTS HAS BEEN VERY, VERY PRAISING OF VICE PRESIDENT VANCE.

HE CAN'T REALLY TAKE AN EXPLICIT POSITION OR ENDORSE A CANDIDATE IN PARTICULAR BECAUSE HERITAGE IS A NON-PROFIT, SO THEY'RE NOT ALLOWED TO ENDORSE POLITICIANS IN THAT WAY.

BUT IT'S PRETTY CLEAR THAT THAT IS THE WING OF THE REPUBLICAN PARTY THAT HE FEELS MUCH AVIBE WITH.

SO I THINK HERITAGE IS A PLAYER.

I THINK IT'S AIMPOSSIBLE FOR THEM NOT TO BE.

THEY HAVE TOO MUCH MONEY NOT TO BE ON THE TABLE.

BUT I THINK THE QUESTION IS WHEN THAT IDEA SET WENT OUT, WILL THEY BE ABLE TO GET THAT GROUND POLITICALLY AND WILL THEY BE ABLE TO WIN OVER PEOPLE IN WASHINGTON WHO IN SOME OF THESE OTHER CAMPS ARE EXTREMELY OPPOSED TO THAT DIRECTION?

NOT JUST FOR HERITAGE BUT FOR THE MOVEMENT.

>> EMMA GREEN, THANK YOU SO MUCH FOR TALKING WITH ME.

>> THANKS SO MUCH FOR HAVING ME ON.

> >> AND FINALLY, A TRAILBLAZER WHO PUT THE FIRST HUMANS ON THE MOON.

MARGARET HAMILTON, WHO HELPED BUILD THE SOFTWARE TO LAND APOLLO 11, HAS DIED AGE 90.

HE JOINED THE MASSACHUSETTS INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY IN 1969. .

JUST A FEW YEARS LATER HE BECAME THE FIRST FEMALE PROJECT MANAGER.

IT ALMOST DIDN'T HAPPEN AS PRESIDENT OBAMA WOULD HIGHLIGHT WHEN AWARDING HAMILTON THE PRESIDENTIAL MEDAL OF FREEDOM.

>> THREE MINUTES BEFORE ARMSTRONG AND ALDRIN TOUCHED DOWN ON THE MOON, APOLLO 11'S LUNAR LANDER ALARMS TRIGGERED.

RED AND YELLOW LIGHTS ACROSS THE BOARD.

OUR ASTRONAUTS DIDN'T HAVE MUCH TIME, BUT THANKFULLY THEY HAD MARGARET HAMILTON.

>> AND MARGARET HAMILTON FAMOUSLY SAID "THERE WAS NO CHOICE BUT TO BE PIONEERS. "

AND WHAT A PIONEER SHE WAS.

AND LET'S JUST BE CLEAR IN CASE ANYBODY'S CONFUSED.

THIS IS NOT THE SAME MARGARET HAMILTON WHO PLAYED THE WICKED WITCH OF THE WEST IN THE "WIZARD OF OZ. "

AND THAT'S IT FOR OUR PROGRAM TONIGHT.

IF YOU WANT TO FIND OUT WHAT'S COMING UP EVERY NIGHT, SIGN UP FOR OUR NEWSLETTER AT PBS.

ORG/AMANPOUR.

THANKS FOR WATCHING AND GOOD-BYE FROM LONDON.

>