other exhibits. >> how about the mahomes exhibit? >> that's dedicated to the g goats. you can see tom brady having a nice laugh about that. he's considered the greatest of all time. but now you have patrick mahomes going to his fourth super bowl try ining to win his third. most of us thought no one is going to top brady, but mahomes is on pace. >> he's 28 years old. what did you do when you were 28? >> i had not gone to four super bowls, i don't think. i'm still not there at 40. >> let me tell you. every time i reread that, now he's going to have taylor swift. i realize i'm going to make all the nfl fans mad by saying i love taylor swift on the field. if it brings more people to enjoy sport i'm all for it.

>> you can't have a super bowl setting the without taylor swift. >> thank you so much. i'll see you tomorrow. thanks to all of you for joining us. i'm kasie hunt. "cnn this morning" starts right now. good morning, . good morning. i'm poppy harlow with phil mattingly. the white house weighing after the drone killed three service american members. how the drone followed an american drone onto that base. a broad framework for hostage release and cease-fire now being studied by hamas as americans of families held hostage meet at the white house today. figure team skating take the gold, two years after doping scandal rocked the world.

we begin with new details this morning about how that drone attack killed three u.s. service members in jordan. military sources tell cnn the drone was following an american drone that was returning to the base at the same time. that created a lot of confusion on the ground and delayed the response to the attack. we're also learning more about the three soldiers, william rivers, kennedy sanders and 23-year-old specialist breonna moffett. president biden facing mounting pressure without sparking regional war. the u.s. response is likely to be more powerful than retaliatory strikes in iraq and syria. to date none of those strikes have deterred it militants. they have injured more than 120 u.s. service members just since october. something the president acknowledged.

>> are the air strikes working? >> when you say working, are they stopping the houthis? no. are they going to continue? yes. >> let's get to the pentagon to start us off. what do we know right now about the options the president, his national security team are actually weighing for this retaliation? >> there are a number of options president biden could take here, including striking the iran-backed militants that carried out this attack. they could also conduct a cyberattack that crippled certain infrastructure being used by these militants. there are a number of different options. one the u.s. is unlikely to take, we are told, is to strike directly inside iran. that's something the administration does not want to do, given they do not want to go to war with iran. but the response that we see, it could be, according to secretary of state antony blinken, multi-leveled, common stages and it could be sustained over time.

>> reporter: a powerful response from president biden is expected after a drone attack in jordan killed three u.s. service members and injured dozens more. >> this is an incredibly volatile time in the middle east. i would argue we have not seen a situation as dangerous as the one we're facing now across the region since at least 1973. >> reporter: u.s. officials tell cnn that biden is under increasing pressure to respond more forcefully to stop the targeted attacks against u.s. and coalition forces in the region. we know these groups are supported by iran. and, therefore, they do have their fingerprints on this. >> reporter: the attack happened sunday at tower 22 in jordan. a military outpost near the borders of iraq and syria. the enemy drone approached around the same time that an american drone was returning to it the base, causing uncertainty and delaying the military's response. u.s. officials are now trying to

determine if the drone followed american drone or if it the timing was a coincidence. according to the pentagon, since october 17th, iran-backed militia groups have targeted americans and military bases 116 times, targeting their munition supplies in iraq and syria and killing a militia leader in baghdad. the defense department has identified the three soldiers killed as sergeant william rivers, specialist kennedy sanders and specialist breonna moffett. kennedy sanders' parents wished her daughter's service to her country to be remembered. >> she was definitely a free spirit. her personality was contagious. i just want people to remember that, you know, even though her time was short on earth, she lived her life to the fullest and she enjoyed her life. >> reporter: 23-year-old

moffett's mother described how she was waiting on her daughter to call her back when she was killed. >> i held onto that phone call as long as possible. i would have got an "i love you." and everything just -- make sure she knew how much we loved her. and that we never wanted her to feel alone. >> nope. >> and we would always be right there by her side. >> now, phil, more than 40 other u.s. service members were injured in this drone attack that targeted that outpost on sunday, and eight of them actually had to be medically evacuated to baghdad from jordan. three of them had to be further transported to regional medical center to be treated for their injuries. the other five are expected to return to duty soon after being

treated. >> thank you for that reporting. joining us, former director of communications, shawn turner along with colonel major marks. good morning. devastating for the families of those three service members. now major questions about how this happened. the fact that it was -- whether it was intentional or inadvertently this drone following a u.s. drone, and as i understand it, flying pretty low, that made it hard to detect and there was confusion so a slowed response, does that track with what you would expect here? >> it does. and clearly in circumstances like this, there will always be a -- probably a delay in response. look, there is a human in the loop. you know, in operations like this. this is not necessarily a completely hands-free type of

environment where a device detects a device and then launches based on a preset criteria. there's too much going on. with the human in the loop you'll have delays like this. i don't want to speak into the details of what might have occurred until it becomes absolutely certain how this occurred, you know, what the circumstances were. if it was following another drone, then you would expect that there would be an uplink to that enemy drone. there have been a downlink. that probably could have been intercepted and that's probably about what was about to happen before it engaged. >> shawn, when we talk about response, you hear things like proportionate, calibration, a lot of buzz words that don't necessarily explain how there are been 160-plus attacks, dozens of u.s. troops and personnel that have been injured even before the three that were killed. what is on the table that could stop this from a deterrence perspective? >> the administration likes to

say all options are on the table. it's important to remember that not all options are equal. what the purpose of a retaliation here has to be to exact a cost on those who attacked us. and for that cost to be so high that when they -- should they ever think about attacking us again, they stop and think twice. the real challenge for the administration is striking the balance between deterrence and escalation. we've seen a lot of reporting about potential striking inside iran or the potential striking irania iranian-backed proxies and the possibility of economic sanctions. the fact of the matter is what people want to see in the aftermath of the death of three u.s. service members is an attack that's decisive, it's unlikely we would see something that's nonkinetic. what i think we're looking at here, we're most likely looking at an attack against

iranian-backed proxies but the administration has a lot to think about without escalating this into a larger regional conflict. >> general marks, former allied -- supreme allied commander of nato said, disagreeing with how the administration is handling this so far. he posted, the u.s. should stop saying we don't want to escalate. this invites the attack on us. stop calling our attacks retaliation. this is reactive. take out their capabilities and strike hard at the source of iran. is there any part of that statement, whether it's the words this administration is using talking about it or his suggestion of strike the source, meaning iran, that you agree with? >> well, i certainly agree it has to be a very punishing blow. it has to be sustained over time. i would not recommend a strike into iran. but also bear in mind, we are very reactive here. the initiative entirely belongs

to iran. we have to get off our back heels. how do you do that? deterrence is a strategic condition, a priority that establishes, you know, levels of behavior and forms of behavior that are accepted. when you get beyond those forms, those described boundaries, if you will, then something is going to happen. there will be some punishment and there will be some pain. we've worked with deterrents before, where you can have at the stop strategic level definitions of what's acceptable down below, and then you hold them accountable. in this particular case, there must be an incredibly punishing blow. we have an array of options. there are things we can do in the gulf. iran is pumping about 3.2 million barrels of oil a day. their economics are fine. they're selling that to china. they're selling that to india. we can try to shut that down. we can make it that much more

painful for them. all of government needs to be engaged. i would expect to see this. phil, i would also suggest, if i can, don't use the word buzz word. in terms of proportionality, in terms of levels of engagement. these are military terms that describe engagements and they're legal in their nature. and it's how we grew up. it kind of gets beyond that. >> but to that point, and it's a great point i want to explore a little bit. i feel like it has become so shorthand in this moment because there have been so many back and forths that it's difficult to understand that underneath it there are clear thresholds, there are kind of lines that people are following based on history, based on conflicts that have driven u.s. force for decades, if not longer. and does that complicate that to some degree right now? it feels like a daily back and forth to somebody who's maybe out of this. >> what you're describing is very difficult to get our arms

around but there has to be a description of consequence. that's what i'm talking about on both sides. what's the consequence to iran for their activities? what's the consequence for the united states to say they're proportionality? if there's proportionality and we're still losing american soldiers, maybe we need to redefine what proportionality looks like, stretch it a little bit. what i'm suggesting is i would hope those kind of options are on the table right now that this administration is about to embrace. >> major general "spider" marks, we appreciate your time. the families of american hostages meeting at the white house as negotiators move towards another release deal. the latest on those talks ahead. new video into cnn. this shows undercover israeli forces infiltrating on the west bank.

this just in. hamas says it is studying a proposal for potential hostage and crease fire and says its priority is complete withdrawal of israeli forces from gaza. negotiators in paris have agreed to a broad framework for a three-phase deal. happening today, families of those american hostages still being held, will meet at the white house with jake sullivan.

jeremy diamond joins us from tell aleve. talk about what is potential progress in paris, if it works, what would it look like in each phase? >> reporter: it looks like these talks in paris are focused on getting officials on the same page in order to then present what they are calling a broad framework that was agreed to on sunday to hamas for their review. the details of this framework, according to officials, would involve the release of civilian hostages first over an initial of six weeks with the same ratio in the same agreement, three palestinian prisoners for every one civilian hostage release. the second phase of that would involve israeli soldiers who are being held by hamas as well as the bodies of some 28 israeli hostages that hamas is also holding as bargaining chips. as part of that, we would see a longer pause that would likely happen as well as a higher ratio of palestinian prisoners being

released. when you put this all together, you could see something like a two-month cease-fire being put into effect if hamas agrees to these terms. hamas has insisted throughout this process it wants to see israeli soldiers leave the gaza strip all together and an end to this war. in a statement this morning they are saying they are reviewing this proposal. they say, quote, they are in the process of studying it and submitting its response to it on the basis that the priority is to stop the aggression, the brutal attack on gaza and the complete withdrawal of the occupation forces from the strip. they also say hamas leader has been invited to egypt to further study and discuss this proposal. it's clear that ultimately there will be a lot of details to work out, even if they can get to an agreement, including implementation details to see if this deal can go forward. >> i want to play this video. i know you've seen it, for our viewers. these are israeli special forces

dressed in civilian clothing and doctors in this hospital in the west bank. what is happening here and what's the significance of it? >> i meep, this is remarkable video. you would think this was a scene out of the netflix show. you see israeli special forces entering a hospital in the occupied west bank city. dozens of commandos -- about a dozen, i should say, described as civilians, medical staff. some are women wearing hijabs and they killed three palestinian militants. both hamas agree those killed were palestinian militants. they were linked to hamas as well as palestinian islamist jihad and say they were involved on attacks on israeli forces as well as promoting significant terrorist activity. the israeli military says they were hiding in that hospital when they were killed. the hospital for its part says

at least one of the men had been receiving treatment for his injuries. >> it's an operational hospital then, jeremy, it has patients in it as this was happening? >> reporter: yeah, look, there is international protection for hospitals. those hospitals lose those protections once fighters use those grounds for their fighting purposes. it does have to be kind of active use of that compound. that's unclear here. certainly these were militants hiding in a hospital killed by israeli forces. >> jeremy diamond live in tel a aviv, thanks very much. elon musk says his company has successfully implanted a brain chip into its first human patient. it happened sunday. we have details straight ahead. house republicans move closer to a very rare move, impe impeaching alejandra mayorkas.

in order for small businesses to thrive, they need to be smart, efficient, savvy. making the most of every opportunity. that's why comcast business is introducing the small business bonus. for a limited time you can get up to $1000 prepaid card with qualifying internet. yup, $1000. so switch to business internet from the company with the largest fastest reliable network. give your business a head start in 2024 with this great offer. plus, ask how to get up to $1000 prepaid card with qualifying internet. later this morning the house homeland security committee is set to take up articles of impeachment against alejandra mayorkas. the two articles released on sunday accuse him of, quote, refusing to comply with the law.

democrats are quickly rallying to defend mayorkas, release a report monday calling gop action a, quote, sham by conservative hard-liners. lauren fox joins us from washington. when you talk to republican rank and file, i'm kind of surprised. it seems like everybody has totally fallen into line. is that how it's going to be here? >> obviously, this is a big moment in the homeland security company, because this is the first time in more than 100 years that congress has tried to move forward with impeaching a cabinet secretary of a president. this is going to be a moment today where we expect there's going to be a lot of fireworks between republicans and democrats as house republicans move ahead with marking up those two articles of impeachment that you mentioned. but, you know, mayorkas is already firing back, saying the immigration system was broken long before he came into office. he's going to continue doing the job that he was given, and he plans to not be spooked by these

republican actions. he also says if house republicans are really serious about fixing the immigration system, they could move ahead with the emerging border deal in the united states senate, something a lot of republicans have already rejected out of hand. meanwhile, there's a question, phil, as you noted. there are a lot of republicans falling in line, but they have a narrow two-seat majority. once this gets out of the committee, which we expect it will, then there's a question of whether or not house republican leadership has the votes it needs to put it on the floor. now, tom emmer, the republican whip, has signaled they're going to begin the process of whipping this once it already moves out of the committee. that is something that a lot of resistant republicans have started saying they want to see this get out of committee and then they will take a closer look at it. here was one of those republicans who had questions about whether these were impeachable offenses back in november, tom mcclinton. >> mayorkas is guilty of mal

administration, knee glektive duties, malfeasance is office, but these are not impeachable offenses. so if they are successful in redefining impeachment, the next time the democrats have a majority, i think we can expect this definition to be turned against conservatives on the supreme court and any future republican administration. >> reporter: so, i think the other thing to keep in mind is where this is ultimately going to go. even if the house republicans can aimprove impeaching mayorkas, then it gets to the united states senate for a trial. you have some resistant republicans over there. obviously, that chamber is controlled by democrats, phil. the expectation is that mayorkas obviously would not be convicted, but obviously house republicans continuing to move forward with this important markup today. >> lauren fox, keep us posted. thank you. joining us, political analyst, political anchor errol louis and michelle prescott. thanks for joining us.

that tom mcclintock sound is everything for me. while i'm no impeachment scholar, i have a good sense of how it's supposed to work. it's not supposed to work traditionally or historically like this. and here we are. why this? >> this is an election base. if you talk to republican voters in any of the early states and states beyond, this is the top issue they are talking about right now. whether they live on the border or not. the concern about people coming over the border, how it's impacting their communities, there are national security concerns being whipped up by republicans on the right. there is -- there is a crisis at the border. this is why this has become a top issue for both republicans and democrats. it's an election year. >> the reality, though, let's just play this out, errol. if those republicans who want to impeach mayorkas are successful in getting it all the way through the house articles and senate, they need him, don't

they, to enforce some of these measures they want most. meaning, is this the most prudent cause to get these significant deees of migrants across the border they want. he's been involved in the negotiations in terms of the technical explanation of you could do this or this to make this work? >> sure. the substance left the room a long time ago. republicans are -- >> shocking. >> -- are galvanized because there's little else they have. they don't have a path forward to talk about the economy because the economy is kind of improving. they don't really have much to talk about when it comes to prescription drug prices or any other complicated things. they're trying once again to repeal the affordable care act or something like that. they settled on this. they seem to bring together the coalition, the voters, gives them something they can raise money around. they specifically don't want a solution. you are exactly right. to try and attack the very person who's employing to implement the things they say

they want is counterproductive from a substantive -- >> try to oust him. >> that's not going to happen. the secretary of war under ulysses s. grant was the last cabinet secretary to be removed. it's not going to happen. it's dead on arrival, as lauren pointed out. it's not about that. mcclintock is less serious about sort of degrading the whole process forever and ever and ever. >> because most people -- >> i don't think we're quite there. i can't see a future congress unless they're under the specific kind of pressures that this republican majority is under, resorting to something that cheap and flimsy and obviously nonsubstantive. >> it's a political way to look like you're doing something about the border without actually doing something about the border. >> well, there's a republican talking last week said this is a pressure release valve for us. we can do this instead of impeaching biden. >> or a bipartisan deal.

>> exactly. my cynicism comes through, i think, a little bit here. i appreciate errol still has hope and faith for the u.s. congress. can we switch over to another critical fight going on right now. donald trump against shawn fain just recently endorsed president biden. trump is going after him with major intensity and fain has responded. take a listen. >> i don't care what donald trump says about me. i don't care what he thinks about me. i care about facts. and the facts are very clear for the large majority of americans. the working class people have been left behind by trump's billionaire class, by billionaire buddies and the economy only works for the wealthy. >> yeah, this is not a fight that donald trump wants. we all know donald trump loves to fight. we also know donald trump loves to fight with labor. in fact, one of his first acts

when he came into office in 2016-2017 was to pick a fight with a bunch of different labor leaders. as we all saw then, it turned out quite poorly for them. i think one of the underlying reasons that this is so powerful and it's happening right now is because of the state of play of michigan. so, this isn't donald trump yelling about, oh, you know, organized labor is against me and, you know, saying stuff about china, including an argument about china that is completely undermined by his entire policy on tariffs, which economists have said will, you know, actually drive up costs and competition and wage warfare with china. but i think this is about putting michigan in play and the power that organized labor has in michigan, but also in wisconsin, in pennsylvania, in all of these broader states. so, what we see is donald trump raging against a larger institution that has essentially said, you know what, joe biden did the work, joe biden is who we're going to endorse, joe

biden is who we're going against. i think for somebody like biden, this is a key moment. we saw he jumped into the fray, he called trump a scab, if you don't know, that's an age old kind of labor talk, someone who's a strike-breaker, who goes against the union, an all-around jerk. we know this is critical for biden because michigan is in play and biden is also struggling a little bit with arab americans in michigan, black voters in michigan and young voters in michigan. this is an entryway into competing him competitive in a very competitive race. >> we'll see trump meet with the head of the teamsters union. who has more than a million members. he'll do that this week. stick around. a lot more ahead. top democrats drowned out by protesters calling for a cease-fire at recent campaign stops. how the biden team is trying to navigate these political headwinds. why nancy pelosi is saying russia and dhooin are behind some of those protests. that's ahead.

the commander in chief is not looking at the mayoral calendar -- >> how they feel about the war on gaza? >> now can i answer the question? he's not looking at political calculations or the polling or the electoral calendar as he works to protect our troops

ashore and ships at sea. >> john kirby sparring with an al gentleman sneer ra reporter. >> poll from december shows low polling, just 60% that responded between 18 and 34 years old, only 16% approve of the job he's doing on that front. >> former spokesperson for the mission united nations. look, that may be true. i respect and understand kirby's kind of affront to the question itself, that said the white house has a political operation and they're very cognizant of these poll numbers, which i think combined with what you heard tony blinken say yesterday about what this moment is, and i want to play it again. we played it earlier. i want to play it again. i think people need to grab onto this. listen. >> this is an incredibly

volatile time in the middle east. i would argue we have not seen a situation as dangerous as the one we're facing now across the region since at least 1973. >> it is happening in an election year, they are cognizant of the electoral dynamics, to hear the secretary of state say that, do you agree? is it that tenuous of a moment? >> i agree it is that tenuous of a moment in the middle east. i would also say that if you look at it in the world, i mean, if you look at the threat we're facing from russia's invasion of ukraine, china, artificial intelligence, we are at a really scary time in general when it comes to international peace and security, including the middle east. for the middle east specifically, one of the scariest times, yes, i agree with him. >> in terms of -- go ahead. >> no, no. >> for this administration in this moment, how should they be responding? what do they need to change right now compared to what

they've done up to this point? >> well, the u.s., you can see they're trying to test every step they're taking. for example, when they were facing attacks from these iran-backed militias across the region, they were responding with limited and controlled strikes in kind. the same went for the houthi militants. they were responding very measured, monitoring the red sea and then they went on the offense. they had to go more on the offense to get that to stop. now you'll see that even more because of the strike that happened in jordan, where three soldiers were injured and 30 were injured. that's because these groups take advantage of instability when it breaks across the region because it gives them legitimacy to attack u.s. presence, to goad the united states into a response. the u.s., it's normal in national security crises to change the policy as you go on. you have to because the number number one priority the u.s. is trying to do is to prevent war from escalating further. you can see them stesting.

how can we get them to stop without blowing up into further escalation? >> democrats almost -- at almost every stop, whether it's the vice president or the president, errol, are having to face protesters that want this president and administration to call for a cease-fire, but it goes back. this video was just released by another media outlet. it's from october outside nancy pelosi's home. i want you to listen closely to these protesters. >> stop the genocide, stop the holocaust. >> democrats want the cease-fire. democrats want the cease-fire. the democrats want the cease-fire. >> the speaker said there is go back to china where your headquarters is. the reason i bring this up now, it just was released, but it follows her claiming on "the state of union" with dana bash

that some protesters were russian plants. dana asked her, clarify, she didn't have any evidence of that. >> look, i think the evidence sort of speaks for itself. i think she's probably right in a general sense. i don't know if there are individual plants who are human beings, who are trying to sort of foment descent but the idea that, say, tiktok and other social media and the hackers and bots are trying to divide this country, not because of the substance of any particular issue, but just because tearing apart and weakening the united states is their goal, i think she's absolutely right. >> i think that's different than russian plants and go back to china. you're saying the gist of what she's getting to is the point? >> i think that's a clear and present danger that this country needs to sort of put on the table and talk about more openly rather than treat this as a one-off. oh, gee, you know, he's not polling well with young people. okay, yeah, that's true. but there's something else that's going on here.

>> the why? >> we don't want to wake up after the fact the way we did after the 2016 elections and say, gee, these people were hacking our election all along and we either didn't see it or didn't want to believe it was happening. i would tend to believe that it's happening. >> can i go straight to you to pull all of this together into one neat little bow, which is, everything that hagar is laying out, the complexity of foreign policy, without question there are people trying to fuel instability within this country, is there an analog for them to pull on? historically what are they pulling on to get through this moment? >> they have a lot of historical data to pull on. i think the most apt comparison, actually, and that i would be deeply concerned about is the johnson administration, 1960s. johnson coming in as a one-term, one and a half term president in a conflict, in a foreign country, that is deeply

unpopular with the american people. and, you know, i think ultimately for someone who had an agenda, who had a legislative agenda, domestic agenda that was quite strong, the conflict in vietnam ultimately hurt his chances of re-election and forced him to step down at a key point in time. this idea that foreign policy could be divorced from domestic policy is actually completely wrong. and, in fact, this is one of the things i think the biden administration needs to do, which is look at how the american public is connecting what's going on in the foreign arena with these questions about domestic policy. in many of these protests, you hear people talking about, why do we have money and not understanding the u.s. foreign policy approach right now, but saying, why do we have all this money for foreign protections protecting the world, but we don't have things for college education, college debt relief, inflation, or paying my bills? i think the administration has

to do a good job of differentiating between the two, while simultaneously understanding the generational dwoid that really does exist between older democrats and younger democrats, including younger democrats who are completely, i think, fed up with this idea. as we saw with the polling, fed up with this idea that in order for -- that u.s. foreign policy means intervening in these larger regional and geopolitical conflicts. >> appreciate it. all of you. we have a lot ahead, including who are the powerful women seen standing behind north korea leader kim jong-un and why they're outlasting the men in kim's orbit. we have a closer look at that.

north korea fired multiple cruise missiles into the waters

off the corrine yan peninsula. this is the third time in less than a week this has happened. at some launches kim jong-un is pictured with women in his inner circle. will ripley reports. >> reporter: north korea's most powerful man making an emotional appeal to women. kim jong-un, wiping away tears, urging moms to have more babies to boost the plunging birth rate. things may be changing in kim's career. the north korean leader bringing powerful women into his orbit. foreign minister, who recently met with president vladimir putin. kim's younger sister, a close aide and trusted confidante, famous for fiery speeches. and this dramatic demolition of the interkorean liaison office, likely fueled by her close

brotherly mom and powerful kim family blood line. the family photo that shook the world, the supreme leader revealing his daughter, believed to -- at a mifl launch in 2021, the first of carefully staged father/daughter photo op, raisin succession. >> kim jong-un is saying by appearing in public with his daughter, my nukes are here to stay and my power will be handed down to my progeny or someone else, a sibling. >> reporter: the kim family ruling north korea with an iron fist. now many wonder, could a woman be next in line? could kim be grooming his own daughter to some day take command of north korea's growing nuclear arsenal. >> the power will be kept, this absolute power will maintain -- will be maintained in the family. >> reporter: a family where the women seem to be faring better

than the men. kim's own uncle, seen half-heartedly clapping when kim came to power, south korean lawmakers say he was executed by antiaircraft guns and possibly decapitated, former president trump claimed. kim's exiled half young brother assassinated by poison at a malaysia airport. whoever the next north korean leader is, man or women, kim's top priority, analysts say, protecting his family's fortune and power. historians on both sides of the political spectrum, left and right, agree north korea has essentially perfected the model of the totalitarian state. they have near total control of information, very heavy propaganda, they surveil the population. it a recipe, experts say, for success for the next north korean leader, man or woman, especially given the size of kim

jong-un's nuclear missiles. elon musk says his company neuralink has implanted a brain chip in the first human patient. we'll break down that what that means.

elon musk says his company, neuralink, has implanted a brain chip into the first human patient and the initial results are pretty good. they show, quote, according to him, promised neuron spiked detection. he says the chip will let people control phones. he says, imagine if stephen hawking could communicate faster than a speed typist, that's the goal. he says, i'm fascinated by it, it gives me a lot of hope. our senior analyst sarah fisher is here. should i be excited about this? >> you should. people who are paralyzed could operate something like a keyboard, as elon musk said, could be a huge advantage. of course, there are a lot of risks, which is something lawmakers are looking into currently with neuralink. >> can you talk about those risks? >> yeah.

for one, whether or not you'll have safety issues with patients, trial patients. they just got approvals last year to start doing human trials. they were trialing on monkeys. you want to make sure these are safe. elon musk says no monkeys have died. lawmakers are worried about side effects which could include paralysis or even seizures. >> we're playing the video of a monkey playing pong. i'm not as fascinated. i'm excited but also slightly terrified about technology from the functionality perspective. does the grand hope, will it match, will it come to fruition here? >> i mean, your guess is as good as mine, phil. the results look pretty promising according to elon musk and newuralink. the big picture is every time elon musk does something new or

innovative, people are skeptical, whether it's driverless cars. and elon musk has proven time and again that he's willing to put the criticism aside. >> it had to go through fda approval, which i'm not saying is fullproof. they have their flaws, but every step of the way they'll have to go through regulatory approval, right? >> that's absolutely right. we'll see x, one of twitter's other -- elon musk's other companies, in front of congress this week. its new ceo linda yaccarino will testify. it's a good example of the fact he has to go through regulatory approvals through so many different bodies and agencies. with this it's the fda. with spacex it's the department of transportation and faa. with x it's members of congress. so, every time elon musk has to do something, he has to get through policymakers and h