What made you confident that you could do something that hadn't been done before? I have no fear of failure. Trailblazing women changing the game. One of my favorite pieces of advice, think about what your boss's boss needs. Leadership can look in many, many different forms. It really does come down to just trusting yourself. Life is short and you just got to think big to accomplish big things. Julia Borsten hosts CNBC Changemakers and Power Players. New episodes every Tuesday, wherever you get your podcasts. Bring in show music, please. Hi, I'm CNBC producer Katie Kramer. Today on Squawk Pod, New York Times columnist Tom Friedman on the AI revolution. We're right on the edge of basically changing the physics of geopolitics, and that's going to affect every small actor and every big actor. He calls them weapons of mass disruption, And he's hoping for progress in President Trump's upcoming meeting with China's President Xi. We in the Soviet Union reached agreements on limiting nuclear weapons through arms control. I don't see why that same approach can't work for the U.S. and China on this limited domain. Plus, the hopes for a peace deal with Iran change by the day. CNBC's Dan Murphy. You've heard of the taco trade, right? Now the desks are talking about nacho. This is not a chance Hormuz opens. And creepy AirPods are watching you. And Anthropics Billions are impressive. But how do we say the name of its new large language model? Is it Mythos or Mythos? It's Friday, May 8th, 2026. Squawk Pod begins right now. Stand back goodbye in three, two, one. Cue it, please. Good morning, everybody. Welcome to Squawk Box right here on CNBC. I'm Becky Quick, along with Andrew Ross-Sorkin. Joe is out today. It's Friday, and we're ready for it. What has turned out to be a new round of fighting breaking out in the Middle East in the latest test now to this U.S.-Iran ceasefire. I want to get straight over to our own Dan Murphy. He joins us this morning from Abu Dhabi. Good morning, Dan. Andrew, good morning once again to you. Well, we have seen U.S. and Iranian forces exchanging fire near the Strait of Hormuz. This is probably the most direct confrontation that we've seen since the ceasefire began, and it's certainly adding a fresh layer of uncertainty for markets this morning. We saw three U.S. Navy-guided missile destroyers coming under attack as they moved through the strait towards the Gulf of Oman. CENTCOM saying Iran launched missiles, drones, and deployed small boats as well, but no U.S. vessels were hit. The U.S. responded with what it's calling self-defense strikes targeting Iranian missile and drone launch sites along with command and control positions. And now President Trump is trying to walk a very fine line here as well. He's called this exchange just a love tap and also insisting that the ceasefire is still holding. But at the same time as well, warning Iran, and I quote here, will knock them out a lot harder and a lot more violently if there's no deal. And all of this is not just happening at sea as well. We've also had developments in the UAE earlier this morning. The Defense Ministry here saying it intercepted Iranian missiles and drones, triggering emergency alerts for residents. No confirmed damage on the ground at this point, but the details are still coming in. And we're also following reports here that Saudi Arabia and Kuwait have now lifted restrictions on US military access to bases and airspace. That could potentially pave the way for Project Freedom. Remember that? The US-led effort to secure the strait to restart as soon as this weekend. That comes after some earlier pushback from Gulf allies, at least according to reports. So where does this leave the markets right now? Well, traders are, of course, focused on whether or not Iran responds to that reported 14-point framework now on the table and whether, of course, diplomacy can keep place with what is apparently some rising military pressure in this part of the world. Back over to you. Dan, so the big question, we won't even get into the lub tap of it all, but the big question, I think, is just where you think these talks stand. Are you surprised and what's the feeling on the ground just about, A, how the markets have been, I would say, shockingly resilient in the face of all this? And even, you could argue, oil prices have been resilient on a relative basis. Well, I think this is really interesting. And it's interesting you ask, Andrew, because you've heard of the taco trade, right? Now the desks are talking about nacho. This is not a chance Hormuz opens. And a great piece on the CNBC website this morning, one analyst actually telling CNBC that the market is starting to price in higher oil for longer with some real skepticism growing around any kind of quick resolution to this. So heading into the weekend, it's pretty clear tensions are elevated. The positioning still pretty cautious. And the big question right now, I think, is whether this stays contained or whether it spills over even further. In terms of the feeling on the ground as to which direction this is going, there's some cautious optimism here. We are, of course, waiting for that Iranian response and whether or not any of these 14 points are going to land in order for both sides to narrow the gap and get a deal done before the president arrives in China. Okay. Dan and Abu Dhabi, this morning, we appreciate it as always. Thank you. In time, President Trump's tariff agenda suffering another setback. A U.S. trade court now ruling that the president's 10 percent global tariff isn't allowed under Section 122 of the Trade Act of 1974. U.S. Court of International Trade ruling was two to one, but only two private importers in the state of Washington are affected by that ruling. Now, all other importers will be unaffected during any appeals by the White House. President Trump imposed that Section 122 tariff after the Supreme Court had ruled that the prior tariff plans were illegal, but the newer tariffs were by definition temporary and set to expire in just about two months, Becky. But another setback. But nonetheless, as we've talked to Representative Greer, for example, I think we're going to start to see a whole number of tariffs that are going to be put in place and probably done in a way that I don't think could be contested legally. Right. That had been their backup plan as they were waiting for all of that to go through the Supreme Court. In the meantime, President Trump threatening the European Union with potentially higher tariffs as well by this summer. The president said he will give the EU until July 4th to ratify its trade agreement with the United States But if a deal can be reached he would ratchet up tariffs to what he calls much higher levels In a post on Truth Social the president said that he held a productive call with the European Commission president Ursula von der Leyen. On X, von der Leyen said that the EU remains fully committed to implementing those trade deals and both sides are making progress. President Trump getting ready for a high-stakes visit to China next week to meet with the country's leader, Xi Jinping. Sources telling CNBC that Boeing CEO Kelly Ortberg and Citigroup CEO Jane Frazier are among the executives that will accompany the president on his trip. Boeing expected to sign a large aircraft order. Semaphore reporting that the White House also planned to invite CEOs from NVIDIA, Apple, ExxonMobil and some other companies on that trip as well. Reuters put the potential CEO delegation at about a dozen people. That would be much smaller than the group during Trump's 2017 visit to China. And just a side mention is a fascinating piece, Becky. I don't know if you saw it in Politico this morning, just about the debate inside of the White House, inside the Treasury Department about which CEOs should be invited, how many CEOs should be invited, whether they by bringing these CEOs to China, they would be sending the wrong message to the business community in America about the idea that we don't want to be doing business with China. But at the same time, trying to suggest to China that we want to do enough business. It was this sort of sort of threading of the needle is fascinating. And to sort of hear the players talking about how to do it in the right way. And there seems to be a massive debate about the White House wanting more CEOs to come. The Treasury Department wanting less CEOs to come. And then, of course, who's on the list and then whether they can even go. Some of them can't make it. Yeah, a little bit last minute timing on some of these things. But this is kind of the way diplomacy works in all of these high stakes meetings like this and meeting with China at the highest levels, most important at this point. Remember back to the trip to Saudi Arabia earlier this year, I guess it was. Time moves pretty quickly. So this year was it last year? Maybe it was last year. But all of those trips, President Trump seems to feel more comfortable having a lot of those business leaders around. We will see how things shake out. It's really the Middle East that's going to be a big negotiation, too, because China does have some sway over what happens with the Strait of Hormuz and does have some sway over Iran. And I think that's going to be very closely watched there, too. Anthropa considering a fundraise now that could make it more valuable than OpenAI. The Financial Times reporting the company is fielding interest from several large investors and could raise as much as $50 billion. It would value the firm at $900 billion before the new infusion. Paper site sources say they expect Anthropoc's annualized revenue to soon grow to more than $45 billion. That's up from just $9 billion at the end of last year. Anthropoc was valued at $380 billion just in February, Becky. And so it's unbelievable to think about just how quickly that business is growing. It is. But again, we were talking, was it just yesterday, the day before? Or hearing revenue grow 80x, 80 times, you know, not the up to 10 times that they'd been anticipating. When you see demand growing like that, I guess it's not as surprising to see these valuations grow like this. But, man, you've got to be paying attention and watching closely to keep up with everything that's happening. Open AI rolling out a new model for cybersecurity about a month after Anthropic shocked the tech world with Mythos. Is it Mythos or Mythos? Because in the last week, I've heard Jensen Wang call it mythos and Dario Amadei call it mythos. You know? You know, I'm going with mythos. I've been saying mythos. Dario's been saying mythos. I figure it's his model. OK, you're right. He's got to be the one who knows that. So mythos. You're right. That's what we're going with. OpenAI says that the upgrade, specifically vetted cybersecurity teams, will have an easier time using the company's latest model for things like identifying tech vulnerabilities and analyzing malware. The generally available GTP 5.5 has more safeguards that are built into it. Tomato, tomato, tomato. But I think you're right. It's his model. He gets to call it what he wants. He does. But you know what? Jensen gets to call it whatever he wants. So when Jensen said it, I was like, what? Apple has now reportedly reached a late stages of development for new AirPods with built-in cameras. Now, a Bloomberg report saying the cameras will act as eyes for the Siri digital assistant and are not designed to take photos or videos. They're going to allow the device to see the space surrounding a user and provide information. The product will resemble the current AirPod Pro 3s, but will have longer stems to accommodate the cameras. And Becky, I think we're moving into this idea of sort of a persistent helper or watcher. I know some people will think this is creepy to some extent. I think this is maybe the answer a little bit to what OpenAI and Johnny Ive have been talking about for a long time, which is trying to have a persistent device that you just walk, you know, seeing and listening around you at all times. It's a little bit like what Meta is trying to do with its glasses to some extent. Of course, those cameras can be used for pictures and video and all of that. But the idea we've talked about sort of the idea of having sort of an AI helper with you at all times. And I think this is a bit of that. How quickly this device ultimately comes out. I don't know if this is a September situation or we're longer out, but I think we're moving there. I mean, it is a little creepy to think of somebody listening and watching all the time. I don't know if I'm 100% comfortable with that. Maybe there's a way you can shut it off. It's listening already, Becky. It's been listening the whole time. It's listening right now. Hate that. Hate that. It's going to be a time when we regret it. I do agree there are some useful things. It's just there are also, you hear the stories all the time about people not realizing that it's listening. Things going out, mistakes going out. People, you know, and sometimes cameras being on when they're not anticipating it either. When they're changing or their partner's changing or different things. You know, that's the point where it gets a little creepy. Because it's there all the time, you forget that it's there. It's not like it's a person and you can see them and they're paying attention. Any of these things, particularly with cameras that are paying attention all the time. I've read reports about this with the glasses. You know, you mentioned Meta's glasses. Somebody leaves them on the counter and then takes off their clothes and changes. They forget it's there. You know, that's why it's creepy. But yeah. I have a pair of the glasses, though. I will say I have a pair of the glasses. It's cool because you can video when you walk out, but I don't want it videoing me all the time. There got to be like an on switch that you remember to click or to hit or to do something because yeah I don know Living with this technology we still kind of forging our ways with it Cheese will be next. Still to come on Squawk Pod, Pulitzer Prize-winning New York Times columnist Tom Friedman warns us that the U.S. and China might need an arms deal when it comes to artificial intelligence, the geopolitics of tech, plus the competition underway for energy and where the U.S. might be falling behind. You win in the turns. You win in the turns. In other words, you win in the big technological terms. That's when you overtake your rival. I think we're in such a turn right now. On the AI part of it, we're clearly in the lead, thank goodness. But I think in some of these other realms, we're going to get overtaken. What made you confident that you could do something that hadn't been done before? I have no fear of failure. trailblazing women changing the game. One of my favorite pieces of advice, think about what your boss's boss needs. Leadership can look in many, many different forms. It really does come down to just trusting yourself. Life is short and you just gotta think big to accomplish big things. Julia Boorstin hosts CNBC Changemakers and Power Players. New episodes every Tuesday, wherever you get your podcasts. Welcome back to Squawk Pod from CNBC. And this morning, our Andrew Ross Sorkin had to run a little early. He swapped places with Steve Leesman about two-thirds of the way through our TV broadcast. Becky Quick remained at the desk. Let's get back to it. In his latest piece, New York Times opinion columnist Tom Friedman says that the United States and China must stop acting like rivals and start acting like partners to try and prevent the next generation of AI from falling into the wrong hands. Joining us now is Pulitzer Prize winner and bestselling author Tom Friedman. And Tom, good morning. It's good to see you. Good to be with you, Becky. You lay it out pretty starkly in your column on this. You say that this is perhaps the most important meeting between the United States and China since Richard Nixon met with Mao Zedong back in 1972. Why do you think the stakes are so high right now? Well, Becky, we're basically in a phase change. We're moving from the age of information to the age of intelligence. And in the age of information, we used information technologies as individuals to extend our reach. But these tools required you to have some expertise to direct them and some skill. And they always had a kind of human in charge. We're moving in the age of intelligence, driven by AI, where the system does everything for you. And all you need to do is not have knowledge per se, but just express your intent. Now, where you really see this transition was with the release of the mythos model by Anthropic, where it discovered or it proved that it could find errors in code and exploit them at a speed, scope and scale that no human could possibly match. And it could be done with the littlest natural language instruction. In other words, a 15-year-old with a Starlink terminal and a laptop could attack any company, any water system, any electricity company, which is why Anthropic responsibly didn't release it. Same with OpenAI. They have a similar one. You can bet Gemini of Google has a similar one. So we're right on the edge of basically changing the physics of geopolitics, and that's going to affect every small actor and every big actor. Yeah, Tom, yesterday, we had Paul Tudor Jones on the set with us. He had just come from a conference last week that had 50 of the largest players in AI, from the large language models to the chips to many of the other tech-facing creators on this. And he said, based on that, that 20 percent of the room last year was in favor of government regulation. This year was 80 percent of the room. And then he went on to say, clearly, we need to regulate AI. We should do it tomorrow. We're late already. We should have done it. We need to do it. And it sounds like you're echoing that same urgency. Well, the way I think about it, Becky, is imagine it's the 1940s and we need to develop a nuclear bomb to finish the war. And the Los Alamos project was actually in the hands of private companies. One was led by Mark Zuckerberg, one by Elon Musk, one by Sam Altman, one by whoever runs the Google's Gemini. And these four companies were manufacturing nuclear weapons. AI tools are not. And we had to then negotiate with them. Hey, when do you release it? Where are you? Whatever. Now, I'm not saying AI is per se a nuclear weapon. Of course, it's not. But its ability to create mass disruption, if not mass destruction, is going to be profound. So I agree with Paul Tudor Jones. I don't know that we're going to nationalize these companies. But the idea that the government has to negotiate with them on when they release weapons of mass disruption, I don't think that's a sustainable kind of thing. You know, Jensen Long, earlier this week in speaking with him, he disagrees with you on the idea of these things being nuclear weapons. He'll fight back on all of those. But he does say that this needs to be regulated by the government. And he believes that the United States needs to be talking to China about this. Look, if you can get those in the industry to agree that regulation is needed, it seems like it would be an easy step to get governments on board with that. But, of course, you and I know that it's not that simple. Well, you know, it's going to happen. The only question is, does it happen after a giant disaster or before? but this stuff will get loose. Malign actors will use it. And, you know, look, we in the Soviet Union reached agreements on limiting nuclear weapons through arms control. I don't see why that same, you know, approach can't work for the U.S. and China on this limited domain. You know, not on, you know, we're not going to, we're still going to compete, but in this limited area, We're going there, you know, whatever anyone in the industry thinks, because something bad is going to happen at some point Hey Tom if we could turn to your other area of expertise which is the Middle East the market seems to be trading with this notion that the Strait of Hormuz will open. It's just a question of when and what price. Would you walk us through your thinking? Is the market right about that? Or is there some longer term issue here that you think might keep it closed for longer than seems to be in a $94 West Texas price of oil right now? Well, it's a good question, Steve. This war is going to end, I'd say, in one of three ways, which will then affect Hormuz. One is the big deal, which the president has been talking about. We open the Straits of Hormuz. Iran gives up its most dangerous fissile material, and we then lift sanctions on Iran. And that is a conclusion that will actually strengthen this Iranian regime. So anyone who was hoping for a regime change, you'll get just the opposite. A second would be a smaller deal, Steve. I call it Hormuz for Hormuz, that we succumb to the pressure of higher oil prices. Iran succumbs to the pressure of our blockade, which is starving them of money and all the resources they need to run their economy. I could see that as a possibility. A third possibility is that you get no deal and it limps along and we get on and off openings in Hormuz. But and I couldn't tell you where we are right now, Steve, because I see signs of all three. And the president is clearly talking up a deal because he's trying to talk down oil prices. But eventually the laws of gravity here will apply. And as you know, the oil we're consuming now is oil that was basically on the high seas. a lot of it before the war even started. So with every week that goes by, the price is definitely going to tighten. Tom, I want to turn to one other thing which you were very much on top of, which is generally this notion of globalization. And America has decided to kind of step out of that game. Do we turn around and see Canadians and Mexicans driving electric vehicles, see other countries pulling ahead using alternative energies and other countries benefiting from the cheaper Chinese goods and foreign goods that we decided we don't want to use so much anymore and say, wait a second, maybe we're making a mistake here or do we get by just fine without it? Well, Steve, I think history will look back on three Obama-era deals that Trump tore up. One is the nuclear deal. We're seeing the effects of that now. A second is the Trans-Pacific Partnership, which would have created a broad trade alliance based on the most updated standards that we would then have been able to use as leverage against China. Also would have stimulated reformers in China. And the third is the Paris Climate Agreement, which would have driven the clean tech industry. I mean, to me, it is the height of insanity that we're actually closing down wind projects in this country that are giving us these clean electrons at a time when we need all the electricity, all of the above that we can get. But Steve, I'll just give you one figure. It may not be exactly up to date, but pretty much. So Ford Motor, 40% of their business is outside the United States. Outside the United States, the future is in electric vehicles. It was before this war. it will be massively as we go forward. And China is cycles ahead of us on that. In fact, if we want to have that industry here, we're going to have to have tech transfer from China in the battery realm the way we give tech transfer to them in the 70s and 80s. So it's so clearly the future. This war is reinforcing it. I'm going to cut you off, Tom, because we both lived through when the Japanese really overtook the American industry. And it feels like not what's happening in America, what's happening in the rest of the world is that same process again, where we fall behind. And that seems like a pretty big deal. Well, you know, it's clear, you know, clean tech, broadly speaking, is going to be one of the next great global industries. And please raise your hand if you think America can be a great economic power if it doesn't lead in the next great global industry. And again, China is doing all of the above. That's what we should be doing. It's not an either-or thing. So, you know, Steve, Infosys, the Indian outsourcing tech company, back in the early 2000s, they had an ad campaign. It was called You Win in the Turns. You win in the turns. In other words, you win in the big technological terms. That's when you overtake your rivals. I think we're in such a turn right now. On the AI part of it, we're clearly in the lead, thank goodness. But I think in some of these other realms, we're going to get overtaken and we're going to look back at this moment as the moment where we made that huge mistake. Hey, Tom, thanks for joining us today. Always back. Thanks so much to you. Okay, take care. What made you confident that you could do something that hadn't been done before? I have no fear of failure. Trailblazing women changing the game. One of my favorite pieces of advice, think about what your boss's boss needs. Leadership can look in many, many different forms. It really does come down to just trusting yourself. Life is short and you just got to think big to accomplish big things. Julia Boorstin hosts CNBC Changemakers and Power Players. New episodes every Tuesday, wherever you get your podcasts. That is Squawk Pod for today and for the week. Thanks for listening, and thank goodness it is Friday. Squawk Box is hosted by Joe Kernan, Becky Quick, and Andrew Ross Sorkin. They will be reunited next week. Tune in to Squawk Box weekday mornings on CNBC at 6 Eastern, or get the best of our show in an easy-to-listen-to podcast when you follow Squawk Pod. We'll meet you right back here on Monday. Have a great weekend. We are clear. Thanks, guys. What made you confident that you could do something that hadn't been done before? I have no fear of failure. Trailblazing women changing the game. One of my favorite pieces of advice, think about what your boss's boss needs. Leadership can look in many, many different forms. It really does come down to just trusting yourself. Life is short and you just got to think big to accomplish big things. Julia Boorstin hosts CNBC Changemakers and Power Players. New episodes every Tuesday, wherever you get your podcasts.
