Transcript: Shyam Sankar, chief technology officer of Palantir, on “Face the Nation with Margaret Brennan,” Oct. 11, 2026

2026-10-11T10:31:11-0400 / CBS News

The following is the full transcript of the interview with Shyam Sankar, chief technology officer of Palantir, a portion of which aired on “Face the Nation with Margaret Brennan” on Oct. 11, 2026.

*

MARGARET BRENNAN: And we’re joined now by the Chief Technology Officer of Palantir, Shyam Sankar. Welcome to Face the Nation.

SHYAM SANKAR: Thank you for having me, Margaret.

MARGARET BRENNAN: It’s good to have you here in person. We’ve been talking a lot about technology, artificial intelligence, and public perception of it right now, and that’s where I want to start with you because our polling shows there’s a problem here. 50% of those polled by CBS say AI will create more problems than it solves. 29% say it’ll solve more than it creates, and 21% just really don’t know. Like 45% of Americans want the government to restrict use and development of AI. Is your position there should not be any guardrails at this moment?

SHYAM SANKAR: No, not at all. That’s not my position. I think the- the burden is absolutely on the technology industry to show the American people that there are real benefits to AI and not kind of ephemeral sort of benefits like it can help me schedule travel, but actually meaningful benefits that result in job growth and prosperity for the American people. I think one of the things that’s really complicated in the current discussion, is that there’s an unseen force driving the narrative around AI safety, and it’s- it’s really this millenarian doomsday cult meets messianic complex called effective altruism. The most famous effective altruist that most Americans know is Sam Bankman-Fried, and the effective altruists are, it’s almost like a religion that they’ve been thinking about doomsday scenarios from AI since the early 2000s.

MARGARET BRENNAN: He was–he is jailed. He was the crypto investor—

SHYAM SANKAR: Correct.

MARGARET BRENNAN: Who defrauded investors. But this sounds very academic. Like, what makes you so focused on this?

SHYAM SANKAR: Because there’s only really roughly 2,000 AI researchers in America, and the vast majority of them believe in this sort of worldview around effective altruism. And if you hear someone like Jacob Coxon telling you that AI has a 10% chance of ending humanity, and you believe—

MARGARET BRENNAN: A researcher who had this warning recently.

SHYAM SANKAR: Yes, correct. And you believe he’s speaking as a technically informed individual who does this work, it’s a scientific critique. I think the American people would be right to be quite panicked and worried about what’s going on here. But if you understand that it’s actually a theological critique, then you can- you can kind of weigh it against the empirical facts of what is actually happening out there. You know, I take—I think there’s a profound truth to Pascal’s saying that every human has a god-shaped hole in their heart, and it’s important to understand that many of these folks in Silicon Valley who are building this technology have filled that hole with the machine God of AGI. And I mean, there’s so many interesting stories around this. Like, for example, so many AI researchers have started smoking as a way of signaling to other researchers how much they believe in AI. I believe so much— (CROSSTALK)

MARGARET BRENNAN: What? That makes no sense. What do you think—

SHYAM SANKAR: I believe so much in AI that it’s going to cure cancer. So I will—I’m showing you my chips are all in. So there is kind of this mass psychosis, social delusion around it, and I think it’s getting in the way of actually what is happening with AI. Where is it meeting the American worker in industry? What are the results of doing that, and the doomsdayers have basically been wrong. Everything they predicted, they- they told us that ChatGPT 2.0 was too dangerous to release. They told us at this point in the timeline, we’d already have mass unemployment and job displacement, and the economists see that actually we’re having job growth in areas that we wouldn’t have predicted doing exactly that. So the technology industry has two burdens. One is to show very clearly to the American people that- that AI is going to result in economic prosperity and security for the nation. And two, to actually do and absorb the burden of engineering. You cannot abdicate this idea that designing safe products is your job. You can’t hand wave around it. If you look at the kind of narratives that come out of the doomsdayers, they seem like two contradictory narratives. One narrative is this technology is going to end humanity.

MARGARET BRENNAN: Right.

SHYAM SANKAR: And simultaneously, they say, “But I believe it has some chance of creating utopia.” So at first blush, this seems contradictory, but it has one thing in common, which is that you, as a human, have no agency. The machine god is going to decide the future, and only perhaps a small number of us can try to avoid the horrible outcome. And I think it obfuscates the more profound reality that we have a huge amount of human agency over how we’re going to use this technology to deliver the outcomes the American people expect.

MARGARET BRENNAN: Well let’s talk about that because the other part of this argument would be, and no one who wants- the people who don’t want guardrails are simply in it for commercial reasons. They want to keep selling chips, or they just want access to market. So that would be the counter argument to the idea that you know what you’re saying, which is an ideological opposition to guardrails.

SHYAM SANKAR: Maybe we could just back up and who’s on the side of no guardrails?

MARGARET BRENNAN: Well, when- I want to get into the specifics here, because even just defining what guardrails is seems really complicated, and there’s not even common agreement on that right now. But Jay Clayton, who is the new DNI and the new AI czar, said this week the focus is on control and monitoring of technologies with the potential to do harm. So, what does that look like to you? Because it sounds like he’s not even sure yet.

SHYAM SANKAR: Well, I think there’s a very clear view that we should be regulating the application of the technology. So if you’re going to use this in medicines, you know the FDA- As a republic, we have 250 years of rich laws and history on how to manage liability. I don’t want to trivialize the metaphor, but you know, if I buy a car and the car is defective, that’s the car maker’s problem. If I then use that car to go drive into my neighbor’s house, that’s my problem. And you know, this sort of obfuscation. The narrative is this technology is a total difference of kind. I don’t think so. I think it’s a difference of degree.

MARGARET BRENNAN: Well, in that humans aren’t in control of it, it would be a different kind.

SHYAM SANKAR: No, humans are in control of it. Even if we look at the kind of salacious reporting around Hugging Face, the models did not do anything they were not instructed to do. You know, they were- the- the real first, you have human error. They- they were not in a sandbox. They had access to the internet. It was a horrible cybersecurity configuration. Then, from that perspective, they were asked to- to- succeed at a specific benchmark, and they were not given constraints on how to do that. And they said, “Oh, the best way to succeed at the benchmark is to get the answers to the test, and to do so.

MARGARET BRENNAN: So, for that, who should take action to–

SHYAM SANKAR: –I think it’s a defective product. Like, if–

MARGARET BRENNAN: –Is it up to the Justice Department to then bring suit, like on the programmers, like who’s liable for the technology not, you know, staying within the sandbox–

SHYAM SANKAR: –The AI companies of course. In that, in that specific case, it would be the AI companies. If another company had licensed that technology to use in another in an application, and the product worked as expected, but you misused the product, then it would be you that are responsible for that.

MARGARET BRENNAN: So you believe that, am I understanding you, the existing laws on the books should be able to handle technology as it develops?

SHYAM SANKAR: I think it is a massive running head start. I think the laws on the books speak to a lot of the current considerations. Might we need a few more things on the margin? Sure, but I think we’ll figure that out as we go through it.

MARGARET BRENNAN: So let’s talk about some of those things because you were with the president when he summoned some of these AI leaders recently, and he asked them all to sign a pledge to implement robust internal controls, partner with an external auditor and establish a committee to evaluate reports from auditors. That was Google, Anthropic, OpenAI, Nvidia, Elon Musk. They all signed it. Palantir, your company didn’t. Why?

SHYAM SANKAR: Well, those accords were for companies that actually make AI models, which we do not, so–

MARGARET BRENNAN: But you help to use them and build out platforms. Like you don’t see a reason for constraints there.

SHYAM SANKAR: Oh, we- we do have those constraints. In fact, that- part of that’s our entire business, is how do you safely deploy these models in specific use cases. We’re just not a party that- we weren’t asked to be a part of the accord.

MARGARET BRENNAN: But you were there at that meeting.

SHYAM SANKAR: I was.

MARGARET BRENNAN: So, what happened? Like, what was the conversation?

SHYAM SANKAR: The conversation was really an assertion that the American people expect AI to generate economic prosperity and to do so securely, and that we as companies have an affirmative obligation to deliver on exactly those things, and that we have existing laws to look at this, and that we should be all taking this quite seriously, very productive conversation.

MARGARET BRENNAN: Because it sounded like the White House was saying something more should be done, and now you have this new AI Czar Jay Clayton going out to Silicon Valley this week. He said he’s launched this 120-day review of AI policy. What do you hope comes from that, or is this another one of these like blue ribbon commissions that doesn’t produce any–

SHYAM SANKAR: –No, I think a lot will come up to it, which is really focus and energy, and using the existing agencies and regulatory apparatus to make sure we’re on top of this stuff and providing support where it’s needed. I think one of the challenges, going back to my comments on effective altruism is, today, the so-called independent research organizations that are overseeing this are not really independent. They have conflicts with the labs. They are made up of people with a singular worldview around effective altruism, looking for the doomsday scenarios. You know, you have evaluators who are essentially pointing a loaded gun at a target, saying, “I can’t believe the gun worked.” When they should really be saying, “What guardrails do we have in place? You know- are you know are these products working to the specifications we designed, and what- what are the opportunities for misuse?

MARGARET BRENNAN: So I’ve spoken to people, for example, in the financial industry who say we did need some regulation here, but there’s the SEC, there is you know the CFTC, they oversee certain operations here. Don’t you think within the current institutions there could be some sort of entity that oversees technology?

SHYAM SANKAR: I think there’s going to need to be an incident response and reporting regime that creates more visibility and transparency into what you’re learning in the testing, well ahead of product launches that give visibility and transparency to the government of how people are doing and implementing exactly the existing laws.

MARGARET BRENNAN: Who does that, or who could do that?

SHYAM SANKAR: I will defer to Director Clayton on that, but I think that’s one of the things that I- I suspect they will be driving towards.

MARGARET BRENNAN: He’s got to figure that out. Well, we look at the last administration- President Biden and Xi Jinping came to like, a very limited agreement, but at least on one principle, which was humans, not AI, should retain control over decisions to use nuclear weapons. Would it be sensible–

SHYAM SANKAR: Well, that seems obvious.

MARGARET BRENNAN: Well, that seems terrifying, first of all, that they had to come to a conversation about that, but shouldn’t that be expanded elsewhere in the defense space? Would you agree with that? Is that one of the areas–

SHYAM SANKAR: Well, the current part of the policy is there’s two parts of it. There’s the kind of military doctrine, which is that a human is always accountable for every decision that’s made, and the other part of it is that humans are in- in the decision-making processes that- that relate to lethal force here.

MARGARET BRENNAN: But in terms of the things where you think there should be more guardrails, is the defense space one of them? Biotech, I’ve heard others.

SHYAM SANKAR: All spaces need to- need to have a thought around safety of application.

MARGARET BRENNAN: But that’s still- who does that and how?

SHYAM SANKAR: Well, I think the Department and the Congress should do it with defense. The Department of Transportation should do it with transportation. The FDA should do it with medicines.

MARGARET BRENNAN: But so, watch for that possibly happen. Because you know, I hear from people in the technology space this argument that we need to just go so furiously forward to compete with China. China is pushing for AI to be integrated into all of its industries, but they have the ability to also delay things to get government- governance to catch up, they’ve done that. They’ve tapped the brakes themselves before. So, do you think the U.S. should also consider tapping the brakes in certain areas, just slow things until they have some idea of the guardrails?

SHYAM SANKAR: You know, we have this beautiful, messy process in America, but I would argue, as frustrating as it might look, it’s kind of working. So, we have frontier models now that have not been released because people have realized maybe we’re not ready to release them. That would have been an unimaginable thought a year ago. And so as people are starting to wrap their heads around whether it’s the labs, government- I think it is a consequence of our messy process and the discussions that people are having that we’re evolving how we’re doing this, and the pace is naturally changing.

MARGARET BRENNAN: Let’s talk a little bit about DOD, the Department of War, Department of Defense. They have recently ceased using Anthropic products as part of this dispute over the firm’s insistence on safeguards for military use of AI. I know you’re aware of this case. Anthropic’s Claude was part of the Maven platform, which Palantir uses. How much of an impact will this decision here have, and who replaces them?

SHYAM SANKAR: Well, the- the Department today has a wide range of model providers, everything from XAI and OpenAI to open-weight models like Nemotron from NVIDIA, so I don’t think- I don’t- there’s been no operational impact from that. I think there’s a kind of a broader statement which really has been powering the growth of our commercial business, which is companies are realizing, and it equally applies to the government, that you’re not going to pick any one model provider. That actually, your sovereignty and agency as an institution comes down to your ability to kind of control, decide which models you’re going to use in what context, have the ability to switch models, to be able to control the weights themselves, where you need to feel that control over them. It is your alpha. It is what makes your institution special.

MARGARET BRENNAN: So you don’t know yet who’s going to replace them, but you don’t see a big impact from this kind of decision. It was certainly a huge story for Silicon Valley and the defense space to hear that–

SHYAM SANKAR: It’s already been replaced. It’s already been replaced, and users who are building AI applications get to pick the models that they’re using. It’s a suite of models that are available from, you know, Google, from XAI, from OpenAI. And what was the second part of your question there, sorry?

MARGARET BRENNAN: Yes, I was asking about the impact. It sounds like you don’t think it’s- it’s a big one. Look, I can move on here.

SHYAM SANKAR: No impact.

MARGARET BRENNAN: You have said recently that the war in Iran is the first major conflict where AI played a central role, particularly for targeting. Do you see risks for that?

SHYAM SANKAR: Well, you know, targeting is this- is kind of this very salacious word. Really, targeting is a process, and if you think about military operations, you know, the ability to execute 1000 strikes in a single day would have taken two weeks of planning by 50 people before, and being able to do that with one person in four hours provides you a significant battlefield advantage against your adversaries. So, it’s really not about, you know, people jump immediately to something like AI picking the targets. That’s not what’s happening. It’s really given a set of effects that you want to create- I want to be able to take out the enemy’s air defenses. Okay, what targets relate to that? Okay, how do I then push them through a process where I understand are any of these targets on the no-strike list? Are any of these targets too close to civilian infrastructure? How do you do all the things that are so susceptible to human error under the time crunch- what’s doing in a way that has much higher repeatability and accuracy, so you can get more throughput to the system?

MARGARET BRENNAN: Well, that goes to a broader argument about the elimination of some of the people who were involved in mitigating civilian impact from strikes. That was a Pentagon decision by Secretary Hegseth. In the case- you just talked about the thousands of strikes, and there were so many successful strikes in terms of the targeting in Iran. But there was also, as you know, this horrific one in Minab that killed at least 123 schoolchildren. Bloomberg reported some personnel relied too much on the AI in the Maven system made by Palantir using AI-enabled software. Have you determined what happened there?

SHYAM SANKAR: Well, we should wait for the final report. But what I can say is that reporting is inaccurate.

MARGARET BRENNAN: The reporting from Bloomberg, you’re saying, is inaccurate?

SHYAM SANKAR: Yeah, it’s inaccurate, and actually, the likely cause is human error. And then- and quickly following that, we actually built additional AI agents that did more checking. That’s part of the process we don’t own, but responding to the urgency of the moment, we built additional AI that actually double checks more of the work outside the process that we own to ensure things like that couldn’t happen again.

MARGARET BRENNAN: So you’re suggesting it was outdated intelligence or human error that fed information into the computer system. Is that what you’re saying?

SHYAM SANKAR: Well, we should wait for the final report, but I think we will find–

MARGARET BRENNAN: Do you know when that’ll be released?

SHYAM SANKAR: I don’t.

MARGARET BRENNAN: Because the initial reports have been widely reported on, including by this network. Do you see a harm in that being made public soon, or is it helpful to what you say are improvements you want to make?

SHYAM SANKAR: Well, I- I will defer to the Department on the- on the timing of how- I have no control over that. But yeah, I would love the- the truth to get out there.

MARGARET BRENNAN: But you believe that it was human error. That’s what you’re saying, not what they’re reporting, which is that they were relying too much on the AI.

SHYAM SANKAR: The Bloomberg reporting is wrong. Yeah.

MARGARET BRENNAN: There are 120 House Democrats who wrote to Secretary Hegseth about this particular case and the use of AI in the strike, including Maven. Do you have any intention to go brief Congress about it or to share information?

SHYAM SANKAR: We have given briefings to Congress, and- and they can, you know, Congress is well aware of the capabilities of Maven.

MARGARET BRENNAN: But in terms of this strike and what went wrong, obviously something went wrong.

SHYAM SANKAR: I would defer to the Department on that. That’s- that’s not our place.

MARGARET BRENNAN: But it is because you are such a- Palantir is such- so interwoven with the U.S. government. I mean, it’s billions of dollars of government contracts right now, do you think more information should be briefed to Congress about the benefits along with the risks?

SHYAM SANKAR: Sadly, I’m just a technologist. I mean, on these policy issues, I would defer to others.

MARGARET BRENNAN: Well, I want to quickly ask you before we go about the modernization efforts, which you are part of. I understand you are lieutenant colonel in the Army Reserves in the Army Executive Innovation Corps.

SHYAM SANKAR: Correct.

MARGARET BRENNAN: Which is new.

SHYAM SANKAR: Yeah.

MARGARET BRENNAN: There are also executives from Meta and OpenAI. So, what are you working on there?

SHYAM SANKAR: My principal role is to help with Army human resourcing in the G-1 department here. So, strategies on how do we, you know, the Army is drowning in talent, what we would call green suiters who actually know how to code, and they’re- they’re- they’re exceptional. How do we employ them? You know, they don’t fit in the kind of industrial era model, the Napoleonic codes. Their skills are kind of rank blind. You might have an E-4 who’s an exceptionally good coder. There’s not an obvious career path for them within the Army. The Army doesn’t know how to manage that talent. So, how do we identify who these exceptional people are? How do we protect them? How do we put them on projects that fully utilize their skills and turn them into valuable assets for- for the military?

MARGARET BRENNAN: So that’s your role within this Corps?

SHYAM SANKAR: That’s right.

MARGARET BRENNAN: So for people who look at that and say these big corporations could have a conflict of interest because they’re also doing business with the U.S. government. How do you respond to that?

SHYAM SANKAR: Well, it’s carefully managed by- by the- the lawyers in the Department. We’re only allowed to work on projects where we don’t have conflicts.

MARGARET BRENNAN: And do you think–

SHYAM SANKAR: I would just say, more broadly, I mean it is the greatest honor to be able to serve in our U.S. military. You know, as an immigrant to this country, it’s one of these- My father, my late father, would have loved to have seen me go to a service academy. Life worked out the way it worked out. Arguably, I hope I have more to give back to my country in this capacity at 44 than I did at 24, and it’s a great pride.

MARGARET BRENNAN: Thank you for your time today, Shyam.

SHYAM SANKAR: Thank you.

MARGARET BRENNAN: We’ll be back in a moment.

泽连斯基：俄若同意全面停火60天 乌克兰可举行选举

2026-10-11 22:23 / 联合早报

乌克兰总统泽连斯基星期天（10月11日）说，如果俄罗斯同意全面停火60天，乌克兰就可以举行选举。 （路透社）

乌克兰总统泽连斯基说，如果俄罗斯同意全面停火60天，乌克兰就可以举行选举。他回应美国总统特朗普要求乌克兰更换领导人的言论时，强调乌克兰领导人应由本国人民决定。

泽连斯基星期天（10月11日）接受美国广播公司（ABC）节目访问时说，他已向特朗普团队表明，如果美方希望乌克兰举行选举，就应该要求普京同意停火。

他说：“请告诉普京，给我们两个月，也就是60天的全面停火，我们就能组织选举。”

特朗普：俄乌战争进入“能源停火”状态

特朗普星期天则在社媒发文称，即刻起，俄乌战争进入“能源停火”状态，双方均已同意。

不过，泽连斯基随后接受美国新闻网站Axios简短访问时说，特朗普的宣布对他而言也是“新消息”。

但他表明，“如果俄罗斯同意能源停火，乌克兰也会同意”。

他进一步指出：“如果特朗普总统已与普京谈妥，请告诉我们停火何时开始。我们已经准备好，也会接受。”

特朗普星期六（10日）在白宫告诉记者：“我认为乌克兰是时候换一位新总统了。”

对此，泽连斯基强调，选择国家领导人“应由乌克兰人民决定”，并指出普京同样希望乌克兰更换领导人。

特朗普也批评乌克兰袭击俄罗斯炼油厂，导致燃油价格上涨。此前一天，美国宣布暂时放宽对俄罗斯的战时制裁，以换取俄罗斯供应大量柴油。泽连斯基批评美国是给普京送礼，指这不利于结束俄乌战争。

泽连斯基反驳说，当全世界都明白燃油价格上涨是受到中东战争影响时，却很容易把责任归咎于乌克兰。

泽连斯基星期天早些时候也提出，只要俄罗斯停止袭击乌克兰能源基础设施，乌方就愿意停止打击俄罗斯炼油厂。他强调，任何缓和局势的措施都必须是对等的，并获得实际保障。

By Jake Tapper, CNN

Updated 10:33 AM EDT, Sun October 11, 2026

https://www.cnn.com/2026/10/11/politics/video/mullin-ice-shooting-sotu

Mullin on if ICE body camera footage will be released: ‘I’m sure it will be’

Homeland Security Secretary Mullin discusses the investigation into the New York ICE shooting and when the ICE body camera footage could be released.

0:43 • Source: CNN

Democrat Chris Pappas says “we’re taking nothing for granted” amid “tough race” in New Hampshire

2026-10-11 11:19 AM EDT / CBS News

Washington —
Democratic Rep. Chris Pappas, who’s running to represent New Hampshire in the Senate, said on Sunday that “we’re taking nothing for granted” as Election Day approaches, amid a “tough race” in the Granite State.

“I’m hopeful about where we’re going to end up at the end of this thing, but we’ve got to put in the work over the next 23 days,” Pappas said on “Face the Nation with Margaret Brennan.”

Pappas, who’s represented New Hampshire in the House since 2019, is facing off against former GOP Sen. John Sununu in a race that could be key to determining which party controls the Senate. And although Republicans have been eyeing a possible opportunity to flip the seat, after Democratic Sen. Jeanne Shaheen announced she wouldn’t seek reelection, CBS News rates New Hampshire as leaning Democrat.

But Pappas said given New Hampshire’s status as a purple state generally and the state’s lack of early voting options, his campaign is taking nothing for granted. The focus now is on “how we get to those independent, swing voters, how we energize the base, how we reach out to Republicans over the next 23 days to win a tough race,” he said.

Pappas noted that the 2016 Senate race in New Hampshire came down to just over 1,000 votes, and acknowledged how his opponent’s family has been dominant in Granite State politics.

“I’m up against a candidate with a very famous political pedigree in New Hampshire. He’s been a U.S. senator before,” Pappas said. “But this isn’t about going back to the failed politicians with failed ideas from the past, it’s about looking ahead to the future.”

Sununu, the son of former Gov. John H. Sununu and brother of former Gov. Chris Sununu, represented New Hampshire in the House and Senate until he lost his reelection bid to Shaheen in 2008. And with a record of breaking with President Trump, he’s distanced himself from the president as he campaigns to return to the upper chamber amid an unpopular war with Iran and high gas prices.

But Pappas tied Sununu’s campaign to the president’s agenda more broadly, and positioned the contest as a larger fight for the Senate majority.

“The fact is, Donald Trump has said this, that ‘pretend I’m on the ballot,’” Pappas said. “He’s on the ballot through candidates like John Sununu, who will maintain his majority in the U.S. Senate, will make it harder for us to hold this administration to account to address the culture of corruption in Washington and fight to lower costs for New Hampshire families.”

Asked about Democrats’ priorities should they win control of the House and Senate, Pappas said “we have to focus like a laser on the economic challenges that people are living right now.”

“We have to put some wins on the board for workers and the middle class,” he said. “We can do that by building on the success of the housing bill that we passed to invest in the affordable housing stock that we need, to work to end this war and lower energy prices, to restore the cuts to healthcare that are kicking thousands of Granite Staters off of their health insurance and making it harder for people to access the care that they need.”

On immigration enforcement, Pappas has emphasized the need for reforms, while other Democrats have called for Immigration and Customs Enforcement to be disbanded entirely.

“We have to be realistic — Donald Trump’s going to be president for the next two years. We got to find every point of leverage we possibly can to rein in the disgusting abuses we have seen from ICE,” Pappas said. “We have to make sure that we are going after the worst of the worst criminals that are violating the law, while also respecting due process rights and making sure that immigrants are part of our extended American family. And people in New Hampshire support that.”

Mullin on if ICE body camera footage will be released: ‘I’m sure it will be’

10:36 AM EDT, Sun October 11, 2026 / CNN

By Jake Tapper, CNN

https://www.cnn.com/2026/10/11/politics/video/mullin-ice-tactics-sotu

Mullin on if ICE body camera footage will be released: ‘I’m sure it will be’

Homeland Security Secretary Mullin discusses the investigation into the New York ICE shooting and when the ICE body camera footage could be released.

9:25 • Source: CNN

沙特首都利雅得再传两声爆炸 防空系统拦截导弹

2026-10-11 23:02 / 联合早报

沙特领导的阿拉伯联军星期天（10月11日）说，防空系统在利雅得哈立德国王国际机场附近拦截并摧毁一枚巡航导弹。图摄于9月19日的哈立德国王国际机场。 （法新社）

沙特阿拉伯首都利雅得星期天再传出两声爆炸巨响。沙特领导的阿拉伯联军说，防空系统在利雅得哈立德国王国际机场附近拦截并摧毁一枚巡航导弹。

联军发言人星期天（10月11日）在社媒发文说，哈立德国王国际机场第四客运大楼遭不明飞行物袭击，袭击引发的火势正由现场有关当局处理。

联军也通报，防空系统在机场附近成功拦截并摧毁一枚巡航导弹。

法新社记者星期天在利雅得市中心听到一声震耳欲聋的爆炸声，随后有三名居住在首都北部的居民称，也听到另一声爆炸巨响。

一名住在利雅得北部阿里德区（Al-Aarid）的居民说：“巨响过后，鸟儿都惊慌乱飞，整栋房子也跟着震动。”

目前尚不清楚居民听到的爆炸声是否与联军通报的袭击及导弹拦截行动有关。

也门胡塞武装星期六（10日）袭击哈立德国王国际机场，造成12人死亡、300多人受伤。

特朗普：俄乌同意“能源停火” 乌克兰否认

2026-10-11 23:20 / 联合早报

• 特朗普宣布俄乌已同意停止打击彼此能源基础设施，实施“能源停火”，但未透露细节。 – 泽连斯基称该声明对他而言是“新消息”，但表示若莫斯科同意，基辅也会接受。 – 特朗普此前宣布放宽对俄制裁以换取柴油供应，并指责泽连斯基袭击俄炼油厂推高油价。 – 泽连斯基回应称，若俄罗斯同意全面停火60天，乌克兰将举行大选。

美国与俄罗斯就俄柴油出口的协定，不但引发了国际社会的批评，更引来一场美国总统特朗普（右）和乌克兰总统泽连斯基之间的隔空互批。图为两人9月22日在纽约举行的联合国大会期间会面。 （法新社档案照片）

（华盛顿/基辅综合电）美国总统特朗普在指责乌克兰总统泽连斯基执意袭击俄罗斯炼油厂的行为推高了全球油价，并建议乌克兰换个新总统之后，突然宣布俄乌双方已同意停止打击彼此的能源基础设施，但泽连斯基否认。

特朗普星期天（10月11日）在他的社媒平台Truth Social上发文说：“即刻起，俄乌战争实施‘能源停火’。双方均已同意。切勿破坏！”

特朗普未透露细节，但泽连斯基随后告诉美国新闻网站Axios，特朗普关于能源停火的声明对他来说是“新消息”。不过他也说，如果莫斯科同意“能源停火”，基辅也会接受。

美俄柴油协定引发美乌领导人矛盾

特朗普星期五（9日）与俄罗斯总统普京会谈后宣布，放宽对俄罗斯的战时制裁，以换取俄罗斯供应大量柴油，以期在美国中期选举前压低能源价格，缓解共和党选情压力。俄罗斯次日便宣布部分解除柴油出口禁令，先向全球市场供应50万吨柴油。

泽连斯基批评美国此举是给普京送礼，指这不利于结束俄乌战争，甚至将俄军星期六对乌克兰东南重镇扎波罗热的袭击，归为“对美国的谢礼”。这场袭击造成了20人死亡，其中包括三名儿童。

特朗普星期六（10日）在白宫对媒体讲话时，则反指泽连斯基执意袭击俄炼油厂的行为损害了全球柴油供应、导致美国柴油价格飙升，并要求乌克兰停止这类袭击。

特朗普说：“我跟他（泽连斯基）说过，‘你想干什么就干什么，但别打炼油厂。目标有的是，别打炼油厂。’可他还是跑去打了。他最好赶紧给我打住。”

他补充道：“我建议（乌克兰）找一个能达成协议的新领导人，因为他本可以达成很多协议，但出于某种原因他从不这么做。”

特朗普也说，普京“强烈”希望看到一项和解方案，“但不知出于什么原因，泽连斯基不想达成协议”。

泽连斯基星期天接受美国广播公司（ABC）访谈时回应说，如果俄罗斯同意完全停火60天，乌克兰就将举行大选。

泽连斯基对特朗普喊话道：“请告诉普京，给我们两个月，60天的全面停火，只要60天，我们就会组织大选。”

英国与欧盟表态支持基辅

特朗普与普京的柴油协定，引来美国国内及以欧洲为主的国际社会批评。

阿拉斯加州共和党籍参议员穆尔科斯基（Lisa Murkowski）批评特朗普此举是在给战争输血。她在社媒写道：“战争结束后我们可以讨论俄罗斯重返全球能源市场的问题，但在此期间，我们需要断绝一切为战争输血的东西。”

欧盟外交与安全政策高级代表卡拉斯批评，解除对俄罗斯的制裁只会助长俄罗斯的战争势头，并强调欧洲不会这样做。

英国首相伯纳姆也在星期六与泽连斯基通电话，向他重申英国完全支持乌克兰，并承诺将继续加强对俄罗斯的制裁。

Transcript: Rep. Chris Pappas on “Face the Nation with Margaret Brennan,” Oct. 11, 2026

2026-10-11T11:28:58-0400 / CBS News

The following is the transcript of the interview with Democratic New Hampshire Senate candidate Rep. Chris Pappas that aired on “Face the Nation with Margaret Brennan” on Oct. 11, 2026.

*

MARGARET BRENNAN: We turn now to Congressman Chris Pappas, who’s running for the U.S. Senate in his native New Hampshire, and he joins us from Manchester. Good morning to you.

REP. CHRIS PAPPAS: Hi, Margaret. Good morning.

MARGARET BRENNAN: Well, CBS projects that New Hampshire is no longer a toss-up but lean Democrat. So, what are you focused on in these final weeks of the campaign?

REP. PAPPAS: Well, we’re taking nothing for granted in this race because New Hampshire is a purple state, and we’re an all-election-day state where we don’t have early voting generally in New Hampshire. So, it’s focused on how we get to those independent swing voters, how we energize the base, how we reach out to Republicans over the next 23 days to win a tough race. Our Senate race in 2016 in New Hampshire was decided by 1,017 votes. I’m up against a candidate with a very famous political pedigree in New Hampshire. He’s been a U.S. senator before, but this isn’t about going back to the failed politicians with failed ideas from the past. It’s about looking ahead to the future, how we muster the courage to stand up to a reckless administration that’s making life more expensive, how we fight to lower costs–

MARGARET BRENNAN: Yeah.

REP. PAPPAS: –how we connect with everyday Granite Staters about the kind of future we can build together. So, I’m hopeful about where we’re going to end up at the end of this thing, but we’ve got to put in the work over the next 23 days in order to change things in Washington and deliver the results New Hampshire deserves.

MARGARET BRENNAN: Well, Democrats do seem nationally to be running on an anti-Trump agenda. In your particular race, you mentioned John Sununu, your opponent. He doesn’t make that strategy easy because he used to be a never-Trumper. He criticizes the trade war with Canada. He doesn’t like Trump sending $5,000 checks out. He said it was a mistake to start the war with Iran without a strategy for the Strait of Hormuz, I mean, he has distanced himself in some ways from the president, though he is endorsed by Mr. Trump. How do you split that in the minds of the Republicans that you are trying to win over?

REP. PAPPAS: John Sununu has said it out loud. He said that this race is important to Donald Trump’s agenda and to protect the gains that Donald Trump has made for the American people. Now I don’t know what those gains are because if you’re paying 1,000 bucks to fill up your home heating oil tank, or $6.50 to put diesel in your car for every gallon, or housing costs that are through the roof, you’re not feeling like you’re winning right now. So the fact is, Donald Trump has said this- that “pretend I’m on the ballot.”

MARGARET BRENNAN: Yeah.

REP. PAPPAS: He’s on the ballot through candidates like John Sununu, who will maintain his majority in the U.S. Senate, will make it harder for us to hold this administration to account to address the culture of corruption in Washington and fight to lower costs for New Hampshire families. So John Sununu stands with Trump in this campaign. He’s been supporting his agenda. The fact is, the last time he was in office, he stood with George W. Bush for forever wars, privatizing Social Security, and tax cuts for the rich. That didn’t work for New Hampshire then, and he doesn’t represent the kind of future we need to lower cost and get this economy working for everyone.

MARGARET BRENNAN: But if Democrats flip control of Congress, what specifically does the party want to do to stop Mr. Trump, as you just laid out? I mean, is- is that impeachment? Is that investigation?

REP. PAPPAS: Certainly, there has to be accountability, and the American people deserve to know what’s going on in the government, and any sort of corruption has to be rooted out. But we have to focus like a laser on the economic challenges that people are living right now. We have to put some wins on the board for workers and the middle class.

MARGARET BRENNAN: How do you do that?

REP. PAPPAS: We can do that by building on the success of the housing bill that we passed to invest in the affordable housing stock that we need, to work to end this war and lower energy prices, to restore the cuts to health care that are kicking thousands of Granite Staters off of their health insurance and making it harder for people to access the care that they need. So, we do have to focus with everything we’ve got on the affordability agenda- that starts in January, and I think that’s both a short, medium and long-term strategy to take on the way this economy has been rigged and deliver results for middle-class families and workers.

MARGARET BRENNAN: You said restore cuts to health care. I think you mean in the enhanced premium subsidies, so you want more government spending on healthcare- is that your platform?

REP. PAPPAS: I want New Hampshire families to be able to get a healthcare premium that makes sense for them, that will allow them to provide for their families. 17,000 folks in my state have dropped their insurance because of the failure to extend the ACA premium subsidies, and we’re looking at a huge cut with respect to Medicaid that’s going to devastate our hospitals, health centers, and nursing homes- cynically, timed to kick in just after this election. So, it’s a focus both on making the Affordable Care Act work, taking the insurance companies and pharmaceutical companies to account to lower prices, and making sure we’re backstopping these cuts to Medicaid so that rural healthcare, healthcare for people in underserved areas doesn’t get disrupted, and you know, destroyed by these MAGA cuts that were–

MARGARET BRENNAN: Well–

REP. PAPPAS: –part of the Big Beautiful Bill last year.

MARGARET BRENNAN: Well, if Democrats do take control, there’s also going to be that question of what is the unified vision for the party and can you unify your party? There’s been a lot of focus on ICE, Immigration and Customs Enforcement. You sponsored a bill that would redirect $75 billion in ICE funding to local law enforcement agencies. You say ICE needs reform. That’s different from some of your Democratic colleagues who are saying “disband ICE entirely,” including just right next door in Maine, where Troy Jackson, who’s running for Senate, says you got to break it up. Why is he wrong? Why is your approach the way to go?

REP. PAPPAS: Well, we have to be realistic. Donald Trump’s going to be president for the next two years. We’ve got to find every point of leverage we possibly can to rein in the disgusting abuses we have seen from ICE. From next door in Biddeford, Maine, to Minneapolis, to Texas, this is unacceptable to people in New Hampshire, and it’s unacceptable to voters across the political spectrum. So, we need accountability. We need to take back the extra money that they were given in that slush fund last year, $75 billion, with no strings attached by Congress, with no meaningful oversight. We need to make sure that ICE officers are conducting themselves like our trusted local law enforcement does, making sure that they’re identified, that they have de-escalation training, that they have body cameras. All of that would be a step in the right direction. But the fact is, this is a nation of immigrants, and we have to make sure that we are going after the worst of the worst–

MARGARET BRENNAN: Yeah.

REP. PAPPAS: –criminals that are violating the law, while also respecting due process rights and making sure that immigrants are part of our extended American family.

MARGARET BRENNAN: Okay.

REP. PAPPAS: And people in New Hampshire support that. And I hope we can get to the point where we’re talking about immigration reform that will allow immigrants to follow a path, to work hard, to earn–

MARGARET BRENNAN: Right.

REP. PAPPAS: –their citizenship, and to ensure that our businesses can benefit from that.

MARGARET BRENNAN: Right, and then you’d have to work with a Republican president on those things. Congressman Pappas, thank you very much for your time. We’ll be back in a moment.

苏丹边境金矿遭空袭 数十名矿工恐丧命

2026年10月11日 23:39 / 联合早报

苏丹靠近埃及边境的一处大型金矿遭到多次空袭，数十名矿工恐已丧命，数百人被迫逃离现场。

两名幸存者星期天（10月11日）告诉法新社，空袭发生在星期六（10日）上午，地点是苏丹东北部靠近红海的乌韦纳特山（Jabal al-Uqaydat）非正规金矿区。

幸存矿工优素福说，当天上午约8时，一架战机飞抵矿区上空，随后发动五轮空袭。“战机袭击了五次，很多人被炸死。”

他说，由于现场一片混乱，他无法计算死亡人数。“我们吓得往山上跑，生怕还会有下一轮空袭。”

另一名幸存者阿里说，空袭发生时，矿区有数千人正在工作。袭击后，矿工四散逃命，有人逃往安萨里市场，也有人往其他方向撤离，因此至今无人能确定死亡人数。

安萨里市场位于哈拉伊卜三角区以南。哈拉伊卜是苏丹与埃及均宣称拥有主权的边境争议地区，当地山区绵延数百公里，蕴藏丰富金矿资源。

两名幸存者说，他们逃离时看到地上有遗体，担心还有更多人被埋在废墟下。由于矿场距离最近的城市也有数小时路程，救援工作面临困难。

苏丹当地媒体报道，空袭造成数十人死亡、数百人受伤。

Inside Israel’s plot to kill Hezbollah chief as Netanyahu warned Biden aide would ‘jump out of his skin’

The Israeli security-hatched plot to eliminate Hezbollah’s top terror chief sparked a debate over whether to alert Washington.

2026-10-11T06:00:18-04:00 / Fox News

By Efrat Lachter Fox News

Published October 11, 2026 6:00am EDT

Netanyahu feared Jake Sullivan would ‘jump out of his skin’ over Nasrallah strike, author reveals

In the War Room co-author Elliot Kaufman tells Fox News Digital about secret Israeli leadership debates, tensions with the Biden administration and the decisions that shaped the wars against Hezbollah and Iran.

NEW You can now listen to Fox News articles!

blob:https://www.foxnews.com/95abd113-6210-4a5c-886a-3a48abe2e896

Listen to this article

8 min

As Israel prepared to assassinate Hezbollah leader Hassan Nasrallah in September 2024, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and his senior defense officials disagreed over whether to notify the Biden administration ahead of the operation, fearing Washington could try to stop the mission, according to Wall Street Journal editorial writer Elliot Kaufman and a second source familiar with the deliberations.

“140%, they won’t approve of the mission,” Netanyahu told senior Israeli defense officials, according to Kaufman, co-author of “In the War Room: The Inside Story of Israel’s Fight Against Hamas and the Iranian Axis,” who recounted the exchange in an interview with Fox News Digital.

Then-Defense Minister Yoav Gallant and IDF Chief of Staff Herzi Halevi favored informing Washington, believing the Americans might support a strike against a Hezbollah leader linked to the deaths of U.S. service members, according to Kaufman. Netanyahu, however, warned that then-U.S. National Security Adviser Jake Sullivan would “jump out of his skin” if he learned of the plans.

The disagreement reflected a widening divide between Jerusalem and Washington over Israel’s military campaign against Iran’s regional proxies, as the Biden administration sought to prevent the fighting from escalating into a broader regional war.

‘BIBI’S HAIR ON FIRE’: TRUMP-NETANYAHU PUBLIC ‘RIFT’ MASKED UNIFIED FRONT AGAINST IRAN, ANALYST SAYS

fireball rises from the site of an Israeli airstrike that targeted an area in Beirut’s southern suburbs overnight March 10 to 11, 2026.(Fadel itani / AFP via Getty Images)

Hezbollah: Netanyahu’s warning about Washington

When Israeli jets struck Hezbollah’s headquarters in Beirut on September 27, 2024, the Pentagon said it had received no advance warning. Gallant spoke with then-Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin while the operation was already underway.

The strike killed Nasrallah, who had led the Iranian-backed terrorist organization for more than three decades, marking a major turning point in Israel’s campaign against Hezbollah, which opened a second front against Israel on October 8, 2023, a day after Hamas’ deadly attack in southern Israel, and had since launched repeated rocket and missile attacks on northern Israeli communities.

Kaufman argued that Israel had spent nearly a year waiting for American diplomacy to end Hezbollah’s attacks on its northern communities, without success.

“From Israel’s point of view, it had been sitting and waiting for 10, 11 months while Hezbollah had been pounding the north of Israel with rockets and with anti-tank missiles, waiting for American diplomacy to succeed,” he said. “It didn’t work. Something had to change on the northern front.”

Kaufman said the confrontation exposed a fundamental difference in how the two governments approached the war.

“The United States may not have been in Israel’s war room, but it could never be denied a seat at the table when it asked,” he said.

“What I was told from the Israeli prime minister’s office is ‘America’s goal is to de-escalate the war. Our goal is to win the war,’ and we saw that clash at every point, especially during the Biden administration.”

VP JD VANCE ADDRESSES US-ISRAEL RELATIONSHIP, WHETHER IRAN IS TRYING TO ‘PLAY’ THE UNITED STATES

Hamas fighters secure an area before handing over an Israeli-American hostage Keith Siegel to a Red Cross team in Gaza City on Feb. 1, 2025, as part of the fourth hostage-prisoner exchange. Ranks of Hamas fighters formed up on Gaza’s beachfront in a show of force against the dramatic backdrop of breaking waves.(SAEED JARAS/Middle East Images/AFP via Getty Images)

October 7: Netanyahu’s reluctance and the question of accountability

The book, written by Kaufman and Jerusalem Post senior military analyst Yonah Jeremy Bob, also describes how Netanyahu initially resisted launching a full-scale ground invasion of Gaza following the Oct. 7, 2023, Hamas massacre, only to emerge later as one of the strongest advocates for continuing the war.

“Prime Minister Netanyahu had just seen the IDF, Israel’s military, fail miserably on Oct. 7, and Israel’s intelligence services fail miserably on October 7,” Kaufman told Fox News Digital.

Senior American generals dispatched by President Biden also warned Israeli leaders that a ground invasion could end in military defeat, even in Gaza City, according to Kaufman.

Netanyahu eventually approved the ground operation on Oct. 27, 2023, after weeks of internal debate.

“Over time, he would gain confidence in the IDF, regain confidence in the military, in Israel’s intelligence services, and end up outlasting, exhausting, or simply firing all of his war room rivals,” Kaufman said.

Kaufman was more critical when asked about Netanyahu’s accountability for Oct. 7.

“I have spoken to Prime Minister Netanyahu several times in person, even more on the phone. I had a three hour conversation with him extending well past midnight in Israel,” Kaufman said. “I have not heard him take responsibility for what happened on October 7th.”

Instead, Kaufman said, Netanyahu consistently points to the failure of senior military officials to alert him before the Hamas assault began. “What he says is, 6:29. They didn’t wake me up until 6:29 in the morning on the day of October 7th,” Kaufman recounted.

Those remarks came as a new controversy erupted in Israel over the official record of Netanyahu’s actions on the morning of the attack.

In a lengthy interview broadcast Thursday by Israel’s Channel 12, retired Maj. Gen. Avi Gil, who served as Netanyahu’s military secretary at the time, said that the prime minister’s chief of staff, Tzachi Braverman, attempted to alter the official record of a telephone call between Gil and Netanyahu.

EXPERTS URGE EXTREME CAUTION ON IRAN’S ‘CROWN JEWEL’ HEZBOLLAH — TERROR GROUP WITH US BLOOD ON ITS HANDS

Israel’s President Isaac Herzog, Israel’s Defence Minister Yoav Galant and IDF Chief of Staff Herzi Halevi attend a memorial ceremony marking a decade for Israeli fallen soldiers of the 2014 Gaza War also known as Operation Protective Edge, in the Hall of Remembrance at the Mount Herzl Military Cemetery in Jerusalem, 16 July 2024.(Abir Sultan/Reuters)

Gil said a stenographer told him she had been instructed to change the recorded time of their first secure telephone conversation from 6:40 a.m. to 6:29 a.m. Gil said he had raised concerns about irregular recordkeeping with the attorney general’s office in real time. Braverman has acknowledged seeking to change the recorded time but denied wrongdoing.

Gil also challenged the completeness of Netanyahu’s public account of the events preceding the massacre, saying there were significant gaps between what occurred and what had been presented to the Israeli public and in his written statements.

The Likud party dismissed the alleged attempt to falsify the record, saying “the matter had been investigated by police two years earlier and that police had recommended closing the case because it lacked substance.” However, prosecutors have not announced a decision to close the case.

Gil also said that opportunities to secure hostage agreements earlier in the war had been lost because of political considerations.

Asked by Channel 12 whether some hostages who died in captivity could have been brought home alive, Gil replied, “We could have.”

He indicated that opposition to ceasefires and hostage deals from far-right ministers in Netanyahu’s coalition influenced the prime minister’s decisions.

While acknowledging that senior Israeli military officials believed Netanyahu was prolonging the war for political reasons, Kaufman challenged the argument that political survival was his sole motivation, pointing to Israel’s subsequent campaigns against Hezbollah and Iran. “There were real strategic interests to be pursued,” he said.

“Almost all of the real achievements of this war came later in the war,” he said, arguing that the subsequent weakening of Hezbollah, the collapse of the Assad regime in Syria and the attacks on Iran’s nuclear facilities complicated claims that continued fighting served only Netanyahu’s political interests.

IDF ANNOUNCES ELIMINATION OF HEZBOLLAH COMMANDER BEHIND MURDER OF 5 AMERICAN SOLDIERS

President Donald Trump and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu announced joint military action targeting Iran.(REUTERS/Kevin Mohatt)

Iran: How Israel helped convince Trump to strike

The book also examines how Israel’s early military successes against Iran helped persuade President Donald Trump to authorize U.S. strikes on Iranian nuclear facilities during the 12-day war in June 2025.

Kaufman described how a Trump administration official showed him a map of Israeli airstrikes that had opened a route toward Fordow, Iran’s heavily fortified underground nuclear facility.

According to Kaufman, Israeli military chief Eyal Zamir subsequently made the case directly to Vice President JD Vance that American forces had an extraordinary opportunity to strike.

“You have a straight shot to Iran’s nuclear sites. You will never have a better opportunity than this,” Kaufman said, recounting Zamir’s message to Vance.

Kaufman said the Israeli military chief told Vance that Israeli aircraft were already operating over the area, but that the U.S. possessed the heavy bunker-busting bombs necessary for the Fordow mission.

He credited the vice president with helping secure Trump’s final authorization for Operation Midnight Hammer.

“Vice President Vance played a critical role in ultimately securing American participation in the highly successful 12-day war,” Kaufman said.

The account challenges the notion that Trump was reluctantly drawn into the conflict by Netanyahu, Kaufman argued, portraying the president instead as responding to an opportunity created by Israel’s demonstrated military capabilities.

CLICK HERE TO DOWNLOAD THE FOX NEWS APP

The Commander of the United States Central Command (CENTCOM), Admiral Brad Cooper, recently visited Israel as the official guest of the Chief of the General Staff, LTG Eyal Zamir. The Commander of CENTCOM and the Chief of the General Staff first held an extended one-on-one meeting. This was followed by a meeting attended by additional commanders. The IDF says the meeting serves as another expression of the relationship between the commanders and constitutes an additional step in enhancing the close strategic relationship between the IDF and U.S. military and in strengthening defense cooperation between the two nations.(IDF Spokesman’s Unit.)

Jake Sullivan’s response was not received by the deadline.

Efrat (Effie) Lachter is a reporter for Fox News Digital with more than 15 years of experience covering conflict, global affairs, human rights and political accountability.She has directed and produced more than 200 documentary segments across more than 40 countries, documenting conflicts, humanitarian crises, corruption, human trafficking, gender-based violence and the human stories behind major world events.

Lachter’s reporting has taken her into conflict zones and crisis areas across the Middle East, Europe, Asia and Africa. Her work has included uncovering human trafficking networks, revealing an ISIS underground torture prison in Syria, documenting the war in Ukraine and interviewing senior political figures and world leaders. She was also among the Western journalists who entered Russia after the war began to bring testimonies from Putin’s opposition. Lachter is the recipient of the 2022 Peres Center for Peace Award and was a 2023–2024 Knight-Wallace Journalism Fellow at the University of Michigan. She also won two Rockower Awards for Excellence in Reporting. She holds a bachelor’s degree in communication and a master’s degree in political science.