The 11th Hour With Stephanie Ruhle 5/28/26 | 🅼🆂🅽🅱️🅲 Breaking News Today May 28, 2026

本站添加: 2026-05-31

[00:00:00]Good evening once again. I am Stephanie Rule and we are now 159 days away from the midterms. And today marks exactly three months since Donald Trump launched his war in Iran. American sources tell MS Now the US and Iran appear to have reached a deal on a 60-day ceasefire extension, but the president himself has yet to sign off on it. The deal would open negotiations on Iran's nuclear program and reopen the straight of Hormuz without restrictions. Here's what Treasury Secretary Scott Besson said earlier today.

[00:00:32]>> The teams have been going back and forth and President Trump has made it very clear. He talked about it at the cabinet meeting that he he has several red lines and Iran has to turn over their highlyenriched uranium. They cannot pursue a nuclear weapon and the straight of Hermouth back to your question on energy has to free transit navigation of the seas has to be free and open as it was before. So he's not going to take a bad deal.

[00:01:02]>> The two countries have exchanged fire over the last few days with each accusing the other of violating the current ceasefire. New reporting from the Atlantic gives us a look at how Trump really feels about the situation in Iran. According to aids, he has quote grown deeply frustrated with his inability to get Iran to fully capitulate and angry at the commentators who have said the president's stalemate left him looking weak. They also said that despite Trump's big threats, he's reluctant to restart combat operations because of concerns about US munition supplies and what more strikes could do to the world's f world's fuel crisis.

[00:01:38]Meanwhile, MS Now has new reporting that Trump's own staff is frustrated with his focus on his personal interests, like renovation projects and retribution instead of issues that actually matter to the American people. One White House official says chief of staff Susie Wilds has told her staff to stick to the affordability script and let Trump be Trump. That comes just as we got a new report showing prices are rising at the fastest pace we have seen in years with the midterms just over five months away.

[00:02:08]So let's get smarter with the help of our leadoff panel and break this night down. Peter Baker is here, chief white house correspondent for the New York Times, Leanne Caldwell, chief Washington correspondent for Puck and retired fourstar US Army General Barry McCaffrey, a decorated combat veteran and of Vietnam and a former battlefield commander in the Persian Gulf. General, you know, we are turning to you first.

[00:02:30]What is your reaction to this reported 60-day deal? Because I will tell you, with almost no information or confirmation from Iran, the market that is always dying for the positives said, "Great and it went up." But you tell us the truth.

[00:02:46]>> Well, it's hard hard to sort this out.

[00:02:48]I'm not sure we we do yet grasp what the possibilities are for extending the ceasefire. On the surface, it looks as if we got nothing. Uh that the straits will open. And by the way, they're already the Iranians are already letting several dozen ships a day leave. I don't understand why the US blockade is allowing to do that. But after 21,000 IDF and US air and naval power strikes on Iran, we've got a devastating tactical victory, but it hasn't moved the strategic uh arrow at all. Uh the Iranians think they're in a dominant position primarily because of the strait. Uh also because they're a despotic, cruel, vile government that's capable of keeping their people in line.

[00:03:38]They killed 40,000 a few months ago. Uh so I think it looks to me the way it's going to come out is they'll get $24 billion open the straits uh maintaining the ability to reintroduce a blockade at any time they want and they'll dither with the nuclear weapons until they produce a weapon in five years. That's my read of where this thing's going.

[00:04:03]>> Peter, where do things stand with Trump and the White House on this deal?

[00:04:07]Well, I I think we ought to step back for one second and remember that we have heard multiple times now in the last few weeks that we're on the cusp of deal. We have a deal. It's almost signed. We're just finalizing. Just give it another day. Give it a few hours. We'll announce it later today. And then it didn't turn out to be there. So, I think we should be careful to assume uh what we think is in the deal. But I think that the general point is correct, which is that we don't seem to have gotten much out of what we do think we're getting out of this deal. Right? All we've done is return in theory returning the status quo antibbellum in terms of the straight of war moves. The straight was not closed before we started this war trying to get back to where we started from.

[00:04:43]And then the nuclear thing really is going to end up being pushed down the road because you can't come up with a deal in the next 24 hours, the next few days that adequately uh you know details what you would do about dismantling a nuclear program and how you would verify that for the long term. So that's going to be something that's going to be simply pushed down the road. This is a deal to have a deal and we see how hard it is to get this one. Imagine how hard it's going to get when we actually have to deal with the real substance of the disputes between the United States and Iran.

[00:05:11]>> Okay. If the best we're doing is making a deal to one day make a deal, then what do you make of this report, General, that the president is frustrated frustrated that he cannot get a deal and he's mad about how it makes him look, but he doesn't actually want to restart combat operations. like none of it really lines up.

[00:05:31]>> Well, I I don't think we're going to restart combat operations. It' be a political disaster. And look at the after 21,000 strikes on Iran, we were down to hitting three IRGC troops on a road checkpoint. Uh so the targets aren't there. They've gone underground with a substantial number of their ballistic missiles. Uh they have suffered devastating losses. There's no question. Uh but we're just not in a position to, you know, follow unconditional surrender, the end of a civilization forever, the kind of bellose nonsense that the president was articulating. The Iranians correctly think they've got the upper hand. Uh so again, I think this nuclear weapons program, it was the key objective of this entire operation. were not achieving an outcome that's likely to to end their capability. At the most, we may there's 10 tons of fizzile material, I might add. People keep talking about a,000 pounds of 60% HU, but they've got a massive uh industrial capability to produce nuclear weapons.

[00:06:40]If you don't have inspectors on the ground, you don't have a way to stop the Iranians from going nuclear. Leanne, take us to the Hill because my MS colleagues have pointed out in a new piece that Trump has only achieved one of his five stated goals for the war and it has obviously had a huge financial cost for our country, for the American people, and we've been starting to see some Republicans on the Hill speak out about it and how the war is going to end. What are you hearing?

[00:07:10]>> Yeah, there's a lot of consternation on the Hill about this. um they want this to wrap up immediately. Um Democrats, of course, Republicans do. Uh as we inch closer to these midterm elections and the president is solely focused really on this well and his renovations in DC and at the White House um when they want the president to focus on the midterms and that's just absolutely not happening. And so while they want this to end because they are worried about their own political survival, there's also the subset of Republicans on the Hill who want to make sure that the president doesn't make a bad deal, a deal just for the sake of a deal. And there's growing concern on Capitol Hill that that is exactly what the president is going to do. And so they're kind of stuck in this really awkward place where they want it to wrap up, but they also don't want the president to set himself up for failure. And so, uh, you know, Democrats are going to continue to force these votes on a a war powers resolution. Um, it passed or the a motion to proceed passed in the Senate recently, so they're going to keep advancing that. That was the first time it happened. A a sign that a growing number of Republicans are increasingly concerned with this.

[00:08:39]>> Peter, meanwhile, Axios is reporting that the administration is already wargaming military responses for Cuba as early as this summer if the regime falls there. Is there a feeling of just how high Cuba is on Trump's priority list?

[00:08:54]I'm sure he wants to erase sort of the Iran track record and get back to the bravado of the Venezuela move, but with the midterms around the corner, is that really what the American people want?

[00:09:06]>> Well, I I think you're right to ask that question. I think the American people are focused on their own pocketbooks and I think they're focused on their own communities and they are wondering why it is that we are spending so much time and treasure and and and in some cases lives uh on these foreign you know adventures when the president of the United States ran for office telling us he wasn't going to do this. He said he wasn't going to go uh around the world looking to you know change regimes and and get into wars uh with foreign adversaries. This was specifically his promise in 2024, no new wars. Now we're talking about multiple new wars. So I think that it is politically problematic. Obviously, there is a constituency for wanting uh Cuba to change. Cuba has been, you know, a repressive and and and awful society for its residents there for now decades. Uh if this regime were to collapse and something better were to take its place, I think a lot of people would cheer that. But we've seen with Iran that no matter how much you say you want to do that kind of thing, no matter how much power you have to bring to bear, and the United States obviously is an unrivaled power, it isn't so easy. And the idea that we're going to be able to do that, you know, in Havana when we haven't been able to do it in Thran begs the question of what we think is going to be different there. All right, Leanne. In the category of let Trump be Trump, no one is surprised that the president doesn't stay on message. But just how badly could his focus on DC renovations and things like his slush fund, how much could that hurt his party in the midterms? Because those issues do not matter to voters.

[00:10:38]>> No, they don't matter at all. And I wrote a piece over the weekend that said exactly that, that Republicans are resigned to the fact that the president actually doesn't care about the midterms, that they don't think that he cares about their electoral prospects.

[00:10:56]He cares much more about loyalty within his party than he does about Republicans as a whole winning. And that is evidence of the war. It's evidenced through the $1 billion that he's trying to get Congress to pass for his ballroom, a $1.8 billion or trillion dollar or excuse me, billion dollar slush fund uh for people he says were wronged by the federal government that he wants them to approve. Um and so it's just a growing list of things that the president is doing which is counters the interest of the Republican party um from what he wants them to do legislatively to what he is doing through the executive to what he is doing politically as well by for example endorsing Ken Paxton in Texas instead of the person that they wanted John Cornin who they thought would have an easier chance of winning that state in a bad political environment. And so Republicans generally are just resigned to the fact and extremely frustrated. And I'm finally for the first time seeing this shift and this split between the administration and Republicans on the Hill where it is absolutely jeopardizing that relationship and it also could very well jeopardize the president's agenda too. Steph.

[00:12:22]>> All right. Well, let's talk about something else that the president and his allies are interested in yet. I don't know of any voters who are. Some of his allies are pushing a new bill to put the president's face on a $250 bill.

[00:12:36]Now, there is an actual law that prevents a living person from being depicted on US currency, but this bill has found a way to work around it. In fact, the person in the Treasury Department who would be in charge of something like this tried to stop it and she was moved out of the department.

[00:12:51]Today, Scott Besson said he didn't see anything unourred about the idea. Peter, what are the chances that this actually happens? Because something like this just ticks people off.

[00:13:02]>> Yeah. Um I mean, look, this is of a piece, right? Look what we've seen in the last year and a half. We have seen this president's face slapped on the the side of buildings. You drive around uh Washington DC and you pass the federal buildings, you're going to see a giant banner with his face on it. His face is going to be it's already on the uh uh tickets if you want to go to national parks. The the annual pass has his face on it. His signature is soon going to be on the currency. Never happened before with any sitting president. His face is going to be on a commemorative coin at the 250.

[00:13:32]>> To be clear, I just want to interrupt for one second. None of these things happen for free. So when you think about all the annoying places your tax dollars go, when they go to things like this, it does nothing to advance any American person's life. It's pure vanity. Like even if you love the Trump accounts that Michael Dell put all that money behind.

[00:13:50]Can you imagine any other administration, any other president where people would say, "Yeah, totally fine. Let's just call let's just name it after the current president." Any >> No. And and even this president do it didn't do it in his first term. Why?

[00:14:02]Why? Because he wanted to win a second term. No. No. No president running for reelection would, you know, make it all about himself like that because of course it's a turnoff to voters. But he's not running again. He obviously, as Leanne was just talking about, doesn't seem to care too much about whether his fellow Republicans uh win in the fall.

[00:14:19]Uh he is out to write history or rewrite history as the case may be. And he wants his face, his name, his image, his likeness uh and his arch uh to be lasting monuments to his greatness.

[00:14:33]>> I'm going to dis it's very rare, but I'm going to disagree with Peter Raker. I don't think President Trump did it in the first term because he was worried about a second term. He didn't do it in the first term because there was actually people in the first administration that said, "No, Mr. President, that's absurd. No, Mr. President, that's illegal." And this time around, it's Yes, sir. You look great.

[00:14:54]>> Thank you all for starting us off this evening. I appreciate having you. When we come back, right after the break, the government is investing millions of our tax dollars in a rare earth mineral startup. might not be a bad idea, except of course it happens to be the very same company tied to Donald Trump Jr. You think that's a coincidence? We're going to take a closer look at money, power, politics. And later, you know, you know what time it is. Money, power, politics.

[00:15:20]And as usual, we're asking the question, is this White House for sale? A deal between the Pentagon and a 2-year-old rare earth mineral startup is facing fresh scrutiny. Last year, the Pentagon announced it would give a $620 million loan to Vulcan Elements, a company you might not know, but here's something.

[00:15:40]It's linked to Donald Trump Jr. At the time, the president's son, the Pentagon, and the company's founder all denied any allegations of political favoritism that swirled around the deal. But interviews and records reviewed by ProPublica tell a very different story. According to ProPublica, the request to loan hundreds of millions of dollars to Vulcan was made by a one Peter Navaro, a White House adviser and longtime friend of the Trump family. Of the dozens of companies the Pentagon was considering funding at the time, Vulcan was the only deal initiated by a top aid to the president.

[00:16:14]That is according to an official at the Pentagon who was not authorized to speak publicly. One person involved in the deal said that after defense officials got the White House request, they asked Pentagon staff to move at an unusually rapid pace and that staff worked late nights with little sleep to get the loan through in a matter of weeks. Neither Navaro nor Vulcan responded to requests for comment. And a White House spokesperson said the administration is working quote in the best interest of the American people end quote. Back in January, Democratic senators sent a letter requesting information on whether the Defense Department's decisions on contracts associated with the president's son, including Vulcan, may have affect may have been affected by conflicts of interest. Now, I want to be absolutely clear. It is smart policy for the Trump White House to encourage development of rare earth minerals here, much like the Biden White House did by promoting US semiconductor manufacturing here. But here's the problem. If people in or close to the White House profit off these investments, you know what that is? It is corruption. And by taking direct stakes in companies, it is raising concerns that the administration is picking winners and losers. And some of those winners could have closed ties to some of them. Roit Choper joins me now. A former director of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau and starting this summer, California's next consumer cop. And my dear friend Brendon Greley, contributing editor for the Financial Times. His new book, The Almighty Dollar, 500 Years of the World's Most Powerful Money, is out now. Okay, Roit, what is your reaction to that?

[00:17:49]>> Well, we actually, like you said, need to have rare earths in this country. We need to be able to do everything with it to make everything we need. But >> we don't want to be uh dependent on other countries, certainly not China.

[00:18:01]>> But here's what's going on, though.

[00:18:03]Every single company now sees a big business opportunity to put Donald Trump Jr. on its board.

[00:18:12]>> We have seen even my former agency, the CFPB, just dropped an investigation on a company that Donald Trump Jr. has joined the board of. We know that he has sent the Commodity Futures Trading Commission to sue states trying to regulate prediction markets where Donald Trump Jr. is an adviser >> to both Koshi and Poly Market, not just one.

[00:18:35]>> That's right. And now we are seeing them screw around with our defense budget at a time when we should be actually using that money ever more carefully.

[00:18:47]>> Brendan, it is fair to say, or okay, I'm only going to speak for myself. I I I'm I'm a lifetime fan of smart capitalism.

[00:18:56]I happen to love free markets. Now, we hear over and over that this is a pro business administration. However, when the government takes direct investments in companies and are picking winners and losers, especially in a new industry, this could put taxpayer dollars at risk for companies that might not deserve it and companies that would b and investments that would benefit the president and his family. That is not how free markets work.

[00:19:23]>> Yeah. First of all, I can confirm Steph, I've known you for a long time. You do love free markets. Absolutely.

[00:19:29]We're all clear on that. Look, we have to make these investments as Rohit pointed out like these are important investments. Um there has to be a process in place to distinguish between the appearance of corruption and the existence of corruption. Now these process ex they exist. Um one thing that we could do is get in touch with the inspector general for the department of defense. The problem is that was one of the inspector generals that was fired days after the second Trump administration came into power. So now we don't have that avenue. They've installed somebody who's a lawyer in the first Trump administration and doesn't have any experience as an inspector general. It's very clear that he is designed to prevent these kinds of investigations and not lead them. Okay?

[00:20:09]So then Congress could exercise its oversight. The Democrats have requested that Donald Trump Jr. appear before them to explain this. They were blocked by Republicans in Congress. So we don't have the tools to distinguish between the existence and the appearance of corruption. And that makes this kind of procurement, which is so important, so hard to figure out. Look, Hunter Biden was problematic. It looked bad. This is Hunter on an industrial scale, and we don't have the tools to get to the bottom of it.

[00:20:38]>> I want to talk about Dell. New topic.

[00:20:40]The company just won a nearly 10 billion dollar deal with the Pentagon. And this is just a few months after Michael Dell and his wife, Susan Dell, donated more than $6 billion to launch the president's Trump accounts, you know, for American children. Now, the Pentagon told reporters it was a competitive bidding process. They didn't get special treatment. But the problem is, given all that's swirling around all of this, Vulcan is just one example. Doesn't that make one question every possible deal?

[00:21:08]Like, man, this seems convenient.

[00:21:09]>> Yeah. This is the problem is you lose all trust in it. And you signal to every single company big and small that if they want to support our defense department that they need to suck up to the president, give a donation to a banquet table at a ballroom or otherwise pay someone in the family off. This is going to create a huge cloud. And I will tell you, I think you're going to see a lot of people, including a lot of Democrats, look to want to unwind every single one of these deals if power changes hands. Listen, we heard Jamie when J when JP Morgan didn't write a check for the ballroom, Jamie Diamond said Trump's not going to be in power forever. And come a new administration, whenever that is, they will come knocking and say these deals stank.

[00:22:00]Brendan, let's stay on Dell, though, because Dell shares popped 27%. Okay, almost 30% tonight after the company reported its fastest pace of revenue growth for any period since it returned to the public market. That makes Donald Trump, who just bought Dell shares, a huge slug of them in the first quarter, according to his own filings with US Office of Government Ethics, a giant financial winner. And just this month, earlier this month, the president was at a White House event and he looked out and said and urged people, he said, "Go out and buy a Dell." What do you make of this? Again, this is not how free markets capitalism is supposed to work.

[00:22:40]>> I think what's so fascinating about this, Steph, is that Trump can't prevent himself from the smallest of grifts. He doesn't need this, right? the president, he he he is maybe he's not as wealthy as he says he is, but he is by all objective standards a wealthy man. He does not need to frontr run day trades on Dell. He just doesn't. And so what's so fascinating about this administration and terrifying about this administration is that they're not even concerned about the appearance of impropriy. And Donald Trump cannot stop himself from picking up nickels off of the sidewalk on what are essentially day trades. Um, I I I I don't know how you build a political coalition against an administration that is so disinterested in avoiding the appearance of corruption that they can't even even be bothered to to sort of attempt to mask >> but Brendan like here's why they don't care because they are legitimately laughing themsel they're laughing all the way to the bank almost not literally but figuratively for real they It makes you realize that the only thing that was holding this up was restraint by previous presidents. That's it.

[00:23:51]>> That's bananas. Brendan Greley, Roa Chopra, thank you for being here tonight. Next time Roa joins us, he's going to be a West Coast boy and I'll be a morning lady. When we come back, as data centers fan out across this nation, many Americans are saying, "Not in my backyard." And now some I'm going to underline highlight and circles. Some Republicans were even threatening to vote Democrat because we are tracking growing backlash to AI data centers across the country. Recent Gallup polling shows that seven in 10 Americans oppose one being built in their neighborhood. And that opposition is actually bipartisan. I normally ring a bell when that happens. Take the state of Texas for example. It has at least 464 data centers listed, the second most in the country. The local communities there say that skyrocketing electricity costs, water usage, and noise pollution far outweigh any benefits that were promised by the developers. And it has become a major issue in the state Senate race. Here's what a few voters told MS Now reporter Josh Inger.

[00:24:52]>> Question is, are data centers going to flip the Senate seat?

[00:24:56]>> Absolutely, yes, 100%.

[00:24:59]You're willing at this point to forego basically every conservative issue and let the Senate fall into the hands of Democrats if that's what it takes to kill data centers.

[00:25:12]>> Yep. My entire community is going to break rank.

[00:25:14]>> People are just realized they're being sold out. They're being sold out to Wall Street. They're being sold out to Silicon Valley. And they're mad. I mean, we're losing our food, our land, and our water because of big tech. And they're starting to rise up. This is the most crosspartisan issue I've ever seen in my life.

[00:25:28]Josh Hininger, MS Now senior transportation and aviation reporter joins us now. Tell us more about what you heard from the community. I mean, right there, the woman said, "We're all going to break rank."

[00:25:38]>> Break rank. You know, they weren't really promised much of anything. All of a sudden, these data centers started arriving. And you know, it's not really clear what the benefits are. No one's actually presented any potential benefits to these folks. What they've gotten is higher electricity bills. We talked to one lady whose bill tripled per month, you know, $200 to $600 per month. They have noise all across their their neighborhood if they live too close to one of these places. And the real thing they're very concerned about is their lack of representation. They feel like they've elected officials at the local level, at the state level, and in Washington. And you know, at every level, these data centers are being supported except for at the grassroots.

[00:26:21]>> And why are they being supported?

[00:26:23]Because they because these cities and states want to have the data centers there. because so many of them are in opportunity zones. So the developers aren't even paying big taxes.

[00:26:32]>> No, they're not. They're not. Look, I mean, let's be clear. These things need to be somewhere. You know, we all have these devices. We all use AI and we're in the cloud and it's not actually just in the air. They are computers that have to be somewhere, right? It's cheap.

[00:26:44]There's open land. And a lot of these states, this is a and these are initiatives that are supported explicitly by the president. A lot of red states have welcomed them with open arms. Specifically Texas, Governor Abbott has has made it very, you know, friendly to these companies to come in.

[00:27:02]And then the counties, the unincorporated counties are basically fighting to get these companies to come in. They give them tax abatements. They pay less in taxes than they would if they were just to, you know, set up shop on their own. They come in, they buy up a ton of land for a big premium to the lucky ranchers who happen to be where they want to be. And everybody else says they're just paying the price. I want you to stay uh put for just a minute.

[00:27:23]Don't go anywhere. But I want to bring into the conversation consumer advocate Aaron Brockovich. She's the author of the Brochovich Report newsletter on Substack. It is a mustread. But you most likely know this name from the very famous movie in 2000 starring Julia Roberts which brought her fight against an energy giant over groundwater contamination in California to the big screen. She is an extraordinary woman.

[00:27:46]We are lucky to have her here. She launched a new public tracking website where residents can report concerns about data centers in their own communities. Aaron, it is great to see you. This work you're doing is something else. You have been mapping the construction of these new facilities and found that transparency, no surprise, is lacking across the board.

[00:28:07]>> Yeah. Hi, Stephanie. It's nice to see you. Yes, that's exactly what's going on. I've been listening to, you know, your discussion currently and that's exactly what people are reporting to me.

[00:28:20]What had happened was I got overnight 30 emails from the same community with the concern. So, I'm one of those people that likes to see the bigger picture.

[00:28:30]So, I decided to create a map where people could self-report who were living in and around these facilities, what was going on in their own backyard. And I was shocked to see within three days that 49 states were all reporting the exact same issues that you are and the concerns that they had. Number one was at a local level nondisclosures. They weren't included. There wasn't a seat at the table and how did this happen? Two, for people that are already in the areas that are up and running with data centers is the rise in electric bills and everyone has the same concern about what about the water? What about the loss of land? Noise is a big issue in the ones that are running and affecting people, what's going to happen to the wildlife. So, there's so many unanswered questions at the community level, not getting it from the city council. And as you showed tonight, they're upset.

[00:29:35]>> Have any of these big data center companies responded to your tracking website or to any of these communities directly?

[00:29:43]>> No, you know, not that I know of. What they are reporting back, which is fabulous to actually see. I believe it's about 69 municipalities have said, let's take a pause here for 6 months. There's a lot of things that are unknown and we certainly have our communities very upset and we also have states now getting involved that are taking some pauses. Let's stop here for a second and get the information we need. What type of environmental studies need to be done? What are we going to do about these raising electric rates? And how can Listen, these people aren't being heard. They aren't being seen in their own backyard. and they deserve to know what's happening. And I think shutting them out of that conversation is one of the biggest problems of all.

[00:30:33]>> But assuming these companies are acting in good faith, assuming they want to be part of these communities, are there any examples of seeing any major executives show up at community board meetings, look to meet with these towns and say, "How are you being hurt? What can we do?" Right? These companies in theory are saying we want to now not just be large land owners but we want to be part of these communities. How can we work together? Are there are any doing that?

[00:31:00]>> No. And it I'm about 6,000 submissions and about 2,000 more have just come in and they none of them have indicated at all. This is what's happening to them in their backyard. So I like to hear from them. They have not reported that there's been any contact that you know hey let's talk about this other than I have heard that farmers and people are being approached to buy the land but no conversation beyond that.

[00:31:28]>> Yeah I I'm here with a big fat publishers clearing house check that I could buy your land.

[00:31:33]>> Okay but like isn't that let's just think if you if I was moving next door to you I'd come over with an apple pie, right? So they're saying I'm this big massive data center. Yes, I'd like to cut you a check because I want your land, but Aaron, the next door neighbor, she can go fish. Have any companies responded to your reporting?

[00:31:51]>> So, there is an organization called the data center coalition, which is sort of like the lobbying arm that represents a lot of the companies behind these these businesses and uh we've been talking to them for the last couple of weeks when it came time to respond to us for today.

[00:32:07]We have not yet gotten an official response. I will say stuff that there's been a move in the last, you know, recent past. I think they've realized that the toothpaste is sort of out of the tube here, that they have a terrible reputation. They've kind of realized what's going on. Uh the president had an event a couple of months ago with the heads of various tech companies where they signed a pledge that they're going to >> create their own energy. And we saw Are they doing that?

[00:32:31]>> Well, well, the ones that exist now, no.

[00:32:34]Right. But the ones that are in development now, we saw too. I mean, I can't tell you how big these these places were. I mean, there's not a lens wide enough to shoot how big these things are that are under development, but part of them, one of them had, in fact, that's the that's drone video there in the background in the shot just before that, you saw sort of a black expanse, which looked to us like a solar array, right? There's another one that we saw that is building out, further building out a natural gas refinery that's that's sort of attached to the data center. So, this is the new trend.

[00:33:08]They're trying, they say, to generate their own power, but who's regulating it? Who's watching? Are they going to be net zero in the end, or are they still going to go to the power grid? These are the big question here is there's no transparency. No one knows what's going on, who actually lives there. And and that is why the people we talk to, they're fed up and they're they're willing to vote for sort of anyone who who who might solve the problem.

[00:33:33]>> There's not a lend wide lens wide enough to shoot. Erin, what are you hoping to achieve with this website? Why are you doing this?

[00:33:40]>> Uh, it's just a it's a place for self-reporting. You know, people uh everywhere don't always have a place where they can go self-report. And when these communities get involved in these actions, often times they don't feel they are supported at all. But when they come to the map and they see so many people are reporting, they can see the statistics that we're pulling out based on what the people are telling us is happening in their backyard. They they almost feel like somewhat relieved. I'm not alone in this. And it's very obvious. You know, we all can kind of get stuck in our own little area or bubble and not always thinking that this is affecting everyone else. So for them to be able to self-report what's happening in their backyard and see that they are far from alone in this issue is it's the whole country. And so that gives them some support. We're monitoring it. We're taking in information. We're learning. And it helps the communities to be able to see they're not alone in this. And I'm stunned at the number of reports that continue to come in. But I'm even more shocked that it is an absolute consistent concern whether it's up and running, whether it's proposed or whether it's under construction is at the local level. NDA left in the dark, not included in the conversation. And they're extraordinarily worried about their property loss, the diminish of property value. What about our water?

[00:35:14]What about these raising electric bills?

[00:35:16]What about our wildlife? what about everything? And so that's why we continue to allow them to have a place to come self-report. We will learn from them and then from there we can help get information back to them. They can begin to network with each other and they're becoming a very strong coalition across >> Brochovich. People often wonder what does a patriot look like? This woman's face. Great to see you Josh. Thank you for your reporting. When we return, a major overhaul of CBS's flagship show 60 Minutes, less than 2 weeks after wrapping its last season. Why it matters. Latest season.