welcome back to "face the nation." we are continuing a theme with podcast host and tech watcher kara swisher, talking about how

technology is really changing so many industries and you, of course, watch this. >> yes. >> and you've also interviewed barry diller. >> dozens of times. >> i was reading an interview you did with him in 2019 and almost forecast some of this. he said hollywood's irrelevant. >> he did in the rise of tech companies. >> he said their children wouldn't have teeth because they're so inbred and don't understand what's happening. colorful barry diller about that. he's been honest and that's the reason i've known him so long. he was one of the first people to contact me from hollywood and one of the only. there were just two, bob iger and him, about the internet back in the early days, and everyone thought it would go away. i kept saying it's not going away. it's going to keep changing. that's what's happening now and continues. hollywood continues to struggle with the implications of technology, even at this advanced stage. >> that's the streaming and digital -- >> that's the latest. >> using the pipes to get it out

to consumers. but it's also the content makers. >> right. >> it's that apple makes content and amazon. >> they're competing with people with enormous amounts of resources and money that hollywood doesn't compare to. last year i interviewed bob iger, and he said disney was too small. think about that. think about the idea that disney with its parks and characters and ip, has a hard time competing with these tech companies that are getting better and better, whether it's apple tv or amazon. obviously, netflix is really, you know, really plowed the field here and it's now back again in a very strong position, as a standalone company versus a hollywood company. >> the ceo of disney, bob iger, got some criticism certainly from the union about his comments that this was just sort of the worst possible time to have this kind of negotiation because all of the strain on the industry. >> yeah. i think he's right, but they don't like that message, right. i think he's probably right, at

the same time he earns an enormous salary and you can point and say what a greedy plan. it's important for them to talk about financials but it almost has nothing to do with what's going on in hollywood right now, which is the switch to streaming is important. it's expensive. they've overspent. competition between and among all the companies and nobody has figured out how to pay for people. the actors are correct, they should get a piece of this and figuring out whose value, who values and who is valuable, is going to be very hard. and -- but there is a real strain on these companies at this moment in time. it doesn't mean it's not going to change, but it certainly is one of those sort of rubicon moments hollywood faces from time to time. >> i'm guessing giving everyone a 25% pay cut is not going to go anywhere? >> i don't think so. but they're right, what's their value. whose value is what and

contributes to what and what happens over time when you could use a.i. and all kinds of things to replicate things easily, including writers. >> that's what i want to ask you about is a.i. because this isn't just the entertainment industry. this is every industry. people are saying am i going to be replaced by a robot. >> not a robot. >> you know what i'm saying. >> yes. >> maybe a robot. >> well, anyway, but on that point, how is the tech industry thinking about this? because when you hear the calls for legislation, things are not moving swiftly in congress. they are just now really starting classified brief option what a.i. is. >> right. well, they haven't legislated the old internet yet, not in 25 years, there's not been one piece of legislation out of privacy or antitrust or algorithmic transparency, so i imagine they'll get to this in 2060, 2070. they find this more interesting and they're moving faster because it's a global issue and

a competitive issue with china, for example, and so they're thinking about it because of the implications of a.i. are much more profound. they're more like the shift, farming shift, manufacturing shift, the internet shift. this is a big moment, actually. i know barry said it was under, no, it's not. >> i thought that about hollywood but didn't when he was talking about publishing. >> i think he's right. they're not going to suddenly make an a.i. i don't know brad pitt or something like that. he'll be around until his career is over essentially and be fine, but i do think that there's implications on writers and everybody. i mean, someone that in the green room just said, is a.i. going to kill us? what do you do? he's a lawyer. anti i'm like, yeah a lot of what you do. it's going to change why what you do. say you're a lawyer that is writing a contract. it could write a contract and you can check it. if you're a person a press release better.

in journalism, headlines faster. it's like using a spreadsheet. you don't use a calculator anymore. you use a spreadsheet and don't think that's put all these accountants out of business. it just changed their work. >> what is the entry of elon musk announcing he has a new firm and also wants china to be what did he say on team humanity to shape artificial intelligence? >> sure. china is always really good that way. >> it's a surveillance state. >> surveillance state. you know i think that. you know, i think it has to be a global solution for a lot of issues because when you think about things like killer robots, yeah, maybe we should all think a.i. robots you need to think about that and there should be global decisions made as a group of countries discussing what should and shouldn't be used. every country is competing and elon's was early to a.i. i've interviewed him many times about it a decade ago. he was late because he opened a.i. and parted ways for a variety of reasons, and then they, of course, launched

chatgpt, et cetera, and microsoft made the investment. elon was ahead and then was behind and now trying to be ahead again after calling for a pause. >> a six month pause. >> so funny he called for a pause and started a company. one would imagine that was hypocritical. >> there was no pause. >> what was his entry -- excuse me, he's already entered the social media space through twitter but what is the entry of mark zuckerberg's product threads mean for twitter? >> very bad. >> very bad. >> very bad. first real -- there's been a lot of interesting efforts, i like them all, but this is someone who has an immediate social network you can tap into, instagram, smart way to do it. it's a good product. they're slowly rolling it out. it seems safer, more civil. it's a real musk may have given zuckerberg an opening, and say in a cage match he would have had the stuffing knocked out of

him. we'll see if he can recover. advertising is way off. he's created a haven for white supremacists. there's no safety on that platform. so mark zuckerberg can come in and say we have safety. oh, look we have a network. it was really smart of mark and he's sort of redefining his narrative hopefully he can get it right this time. >> versus facebook? >> yeah, exactly. >> and all the criticism. >> it's not going to be a huge business. maybe 8 to $10 billion for him if he turns on the advertising and twitter has gone from $5 billion to maybe $2 billion. >> 50% drop in revenue. >> at least. if not more. >> kara swisher always great to have you here particularly in person to help us make sense of these shifts that change our economy and politics and change our society. we'll be right bacack. warrior rt helped m me find t the ststrength t to go fururthr ththan i evever thoughght poss. - [n[narrator]r] i was a abe to come ououtta my s shell and rereally cononnect witith o. - [narrarator] so o i can feel l like part of a teteam, papart of ththe commununity a. - [n[narrator]r] it's poposse to livive betterer.

- [nararrator] i it's possssibo haveve a voicece and to o be h. - [n[narrator]r] to feel unders. - - [narratotor] to fifind pe. - bebecause i'i've expereried firsthanand ththat anyththing is p possi. (insnspirationonal musicic) i am in love with mixtiles. you just pull the adhesive off the back and stick it to any surface, and there's no damage to your walls. go to mixtiles.com and pick sizing, filters and it really makes it fit the decor of your home. order now and get up to 50% off.

we're joined by the chairman of the house foreign affairs committee, texas republican representative mike mccaul. welcome back. >> thanks for having me.

>> i have a lot to get to with you, but i want to start on the national defense authorization act, which passed the republican controlled house and it was -- it drew a lot of attention this week because of the social policies attached to it. this is a bill that pays military personnel, things necessary for national security. once this goes to the senate, they're going to chop out those things, you know that. it comes back to you in the house. are you confident that republicans can get this necessary piece of legislation through without having to turn to democrats to help you get it over the finish line? >> we saw the session when the democrats had the majority they passed a partisan, you know, ndaa bill, went to the senate, i'm on the frconference committ and the more partisan minutes get stripped out. at the end of the day this always ends up as a bipartisan bill. but there were some -- certain

policies like the hyde amendment not to fund taxpayer abortions our members felt was important to put in there. i think that's one that will survive. >> well, you're talking about the provision that would restrict funding to allow service members to travel. >> and pay expenses, yeah. >> but it doesn't in any way fund abortions? >> well, you know, i wish they hadn't -- >> or fertility services. >> they kind of started this argument, and look, this is a process, you know. we had a lot of amendments our members needed that vote, and i think at the end of the day, we come together as a conference and it will be a bipartisan bill. i think there's nothing more important than our national defense and our military. we give the largest pay raise in 20 years. we upgrade our triad system and nuclear capabilities, hypersonics, a lot to counter china and particularly taiwan. so it's vitally important we not politicize this bill at the end of the day, and i feel very

confident we'll have a bipartisan bill coming out. >> okay. because you did vote to eliminate the diversty offices at the pentagon, to deny transgender troops coverage for this, restrictions on funding for people to get reproductive services including fertility treatments and abortions to travel. none of that you think ends up -- >> that goes -- >> none will get -- >> goes against since 1980 we haven't funded anything that goes towards taxpayer abortions. i think some of the policies on culture that the defense department has instituted has caused problems within our military. recruitment is at an all-time low now. after afghanistan and to watch these videos these trained, you know, say s.e.a.l.s. have to watch, you know, injecting their own social moral policies, let's make it about readiness and our ability to fight a war. >> that's why the defense secretary said one in five troops are now female and that what he put this policy in to be

able to do is for them to travel to get things that aren't covered in the states they're living. shouldn't all troops, regardless of where they're stationed, get the same treatment, like why penalize them for living in texas? >> they're free to travel to another state to have -- >> they would be penalized. take time off. >> just not at taxpayer expense. >> they have to take the time off and the like and would impact their ability to do their jobs, arguably, right, if they have to go. anyway, i want to ask you about one of the things not in there, but many conservative members of your caucus wanted it to and those are restrictions on funding for ukraine. what does that indicate about what republicans will get over the finish line in the fall in terms of a spupplemental to hel ukraine? >> you know my position on ukraine. we should a year ago been putting in the weapons we've been putting in now, not just

for victory but to survive. there were several ukraine amendments and all failed and the majority of republicans voted to support ukraine. at the end of the day, the reagan institute did a great poll that showed that over 70% of republicans support ukraine and i think that was reflected in our vote. yes, we had about 70 members that voted against it, but i do think when it comes back, you're going to see a more bipartisan support for things like our efforts in ukraine, particularly as we're in the counteroffensive. to me, it's very dangerous to have these amendments when ukraine is in the crossfire trying to push the aggression of russia back on the counteroffensive. >> like what marjorie taylor greene was trying to attach and republicans did oppose this thing that they -- >> we did. and it failed. and i think that's good news. >> you've been pushing for longer range missile systems like attackems. do you have enough funding in this current allotment or what

you can put together in the fall to continue the pace of weapons? >> sure. it was already appropriated in the supplemental last year. the $90 billion. i mean, it's a draw down authority. we've tackms. i have great sources on the ground telling me right now because of the mines and the fortifications that what they need -- the cluster munitions will help with killing russians in the field but they need longer range artilleries to hit the depots and logistical supply lines and they don't have air cover. that's really important. the f-16s were held back so long, by the administration, and the pilot training, that they don't have what they need to win in this counteroffensive and it's really sad. >> i want to ask you about iran. you've been vocal in asking the administration for a briefing on the presidential envoy rob malley and why he is suspended. do you have any promise that you'll get it? that you'll get information?

>> well, i sent a letter. we were rebuked. we have been given no answer about his status. remember, this is a top negotiator to iran on one of the most nuclear weapons programs -- >> yeah. >> highest classified secrets. we are giving a deadline of july 25th to have, you know, the diplomatic security and management secretary come in and brief us in a classified space. margaret, i can't tell you how important this is because if he somehow worse case scenario transferred intelligence and secrets to our foreign nation -- >> there's no proof of that at this point. >> but that would be treason in my view. >> unfortunately i have to leave it there. because we have a hard out here. more to talk to you about always. we'll be right back. >> thanks, margaret.

(warehouse ambience)

introducucing togo's's nenew french d dip sandwicics featuring fresh arartisan breae piled d high with h tender roasast beef, smsmothered wiwith melty provolone e cheese anand served w with hot auau for dipppping. try the roroast beef o or pastri french dipips today only a at togo's whatat if a moususe could d change thehe world? ♪ new susurprises awawait at the disisney100 celelebrati, onlyly at the disneyeyland resorort. we turn to president biden's national security adviser jake sullivan who we spoke with rerl about the chinese cyber hack. >> this was an intrusion into microsoft's cloud system and went in through that to get into the unclassified e-mail system of u.s. government agencies. it was the u.s. government that discovered the intrusion,

alerted microsoft and shut it down and we're taking steps to make sure that's not a vulnerability going forward. we have seen this kind of thing before many times over many administrations, and we take steps to try to hold the relevant actors responsible and we'll do so in this case. >> china-based actors according to microsoft? do you have any reason to dispute that? >> i have no reason to dispute what microsoft is saying. >> the treasury secretary told us that china's decision to cut off ingredients for computer chips starting august 1st may be retaliatory for some of the actions the u.s. has taken. to restrict tech sales to china. do you see this as tit-for-tat moves here? are we in a period of escalation, despite your diplomatic outreach? >> look, i can't get inside the heads of the chinese decision makers, so i'm not sure what was motivating them. i think it's a self-defeating move because i believe it will only reinforce the determination of many other countries in the world to derisk, to find ways to reduce dependencies and increase

the resiliency of their own supply chains, including for the kinds of critical minerals at issue in this decision. so from our perspective, we are being clear and transparent about the steps we're taking. we're not looking to end all trade with china. what we're looking to do is have a small yard of restrictions on technology with national security implications and a high fence around that yard. that's what we're going to continue to do and china will make its own decisions. >> staying in asia, we saw this week that north korea appears to have taken a significant step towards an intercontinental ballistic missile that could put the u.s. within range of a nuclear weapon potentially. are you concerned that they will carry out another nuclear test in the coming weeks? >> i have been concerned for some time that north korea would conduct what would be its seventh nuclear test going back multiple administrations, and i remain concerned about that. i don't see any immediate

indications that that's going to happen, but it would not come as a surprise if north korea moved forward with another nuclear test. with respect to its intercontinental ballistic capability this is a capability they began testing several years ago. they have continued to test it. we watch all of those tests closely to see how it is developing, and we coordinate extremely closely with our allies, with japan and korea, to make sure that we are responding in lockstep to this the street in have you made any new to negotiate with pyongyang or talk to them at all? >> not since this test but in the biden administration we indicated we're prepared to sit down and talk and made clear to china it is the united states ready for diplomacy and north korea is not. from our perspective, china has a role to play here, too, given its relationship with north korea, to indicate to the north koreans that its continued

testing is destabilizing and frankly is, in fact, only creating circumstances in which the united states, our allies and partners v, have to step up our activities to respond to the threat. >> you are just back from europe where the president was at this nato summit. on the diplomatic front, though, there are other issues as well, including the expiration of what's known as this black sea initiative to allow for ships carrying food leaving ukraine to safely pass without russia attacking them. is there any sign from vladimir putin that he is willing to extend this? >> look, i can't predict what vladimir putin will do. he has been all over the map with respect to this initiative over the course of the past many months. it is possible that russia pulls out of it. it is possible they continue. if, in fact, they pull out of it, the rest of the world will take a look at that and say that russia has turned its back on ensure that the countries of the global south and africa and

latin america and asia can get the food they need at affordable prices and i think that will come at an enormous diplomatic cost to russia going forward. this is a choice vladimir putin is going to have to make. we are prepared for any scenario and we're working closely with the ukrainians on that. >> it's set to expire at midnight tomorrow. in terms of the promises made at nato, there was this general pledge to potentially allow ukraine to join in the future. are you concerned that that will shape a negotiation, potentially, with russia to end the conflict where they are incentivized to just drag this out? >> the ukrainians are currently, as we speak, bravely and courageously pushing against the russian lines in the south and in the east. they are inflicting enormous damage on the russian forces. the west is working to continue to tighten the squeeze of our sanctions. hollowing out russia's defense industrial base, weakening its capacity to produce advanced

technology. we will continue to put economic pressure on russia and the ukrainians will continue to put military pressure on russia. so i think in the end, if russia chooses to continue fighting in this war it will come at a grave cost to russia and ukraine will continue to make progress on the battlefield. in the meantime we are going to make sure ukraine has the support it needs for as long as it takes and that is a message that came out of the nato summit. finally, yes, we said at nato, very simply, ukraine's future is in nato and we meant it. that's not up for negotiation. that's something 31 allies have committed to. >> not up for negotiation. okay. on iran before i let you go you've said that the administration is trying to put iran's nuclear program back in the box, ultimately through some diplomatic effort. are you close to any type of understanding on that front and any type of understanding that would allow for the four americans to be released? >> we have tried very hard to secure the release of the four

unjustly detained americans in iran. we have done so since the day that president biden took office. we have had indirect contacts with iran on this in an effort to try to get a deal that could get them released. we have not arrived at an understanding that would get them out at this point. we are continuing to work at it. >> by understanding, in terms of the nuclear program, this would not be any kind of written agreement? we are not close to an actual deal? >> with respect to the nuclear program we're not close to a deal. >> may i ask you about rob malley the president's envoy. is he coming back to the administration? we understand he's being suspended? >> rob malley has served multiple administrations, faithfully and well. he is a public servant. he is a diplomat and engaged in high-level, high stakes diplomacy for a long time, and he's someone who a lot of us, including myself, have deep respect for. i can't speak to the current circumstances. i have to refer you to the state department on that.

>> jake sullivan, thank you for joining us today. we'll be back with a l lot more "face e the nationon." ststay with usus. hi, i'm jason and i've lost 202 pounds on golo. when you have to get wheeled through the airport because you're too heavy to make it and you have extreme pain, you have to make a change. golo enabled me to make that change. golo is real and it changes your life. thisis is americican infrfrastructurere, a prime tatarget for cybeberattacks.. but the sasame ai-powered security that protects all of google also defends these s servics for evereryone whwho lives here. ♪

that's it for us today. thank you for watching. i'm margaret brennan.

this iscbs