Return to Transcripts main page
CNN's The Arena with Kasie Hunt
5 Soldiers Shot At Fort Stewart, Suspect In Custody; Soon: Vance Hosts Admin Officials To Discuss Epstein Fallout; Just In: Trump Says He Intends To Meet Putin & Zelenskyy As Early As Next Week, Following Envoy's Moscow Trip. Aired 4-5p ET
Aired August 06, 2025 - 16:00 ET
THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.
[16:00:00]
BORIS SANCHEZ, CNN HOST: A lot of avenues of investigation remain, namely, how this suspect was able to bring that weapon into the base. And what sparked this? Clearly, something that investigators are going to focus on as they likely interview not only the suspect, but his victims.
BRIANNA KEILAR, CNN HOST: Yeah, these were his coworkers who they say -- the Army says he targeted and who also tackled and subdued him in quite an act of heroism. All five of those shot in stable condition and expected to recover. That is the good news.
And THE ARENA WITH KASIE HUNT starts right now.
ANNOUNCER: This is CNN breaking news.
KASIE HUNT, CNN HOST: Breaking news here on CNN. Five U.S. soldiers are hospitalized after being shot on base by a fellow service member.
Welcome to THE ARENA. I'm Kasie Hunt.
Just moments ago, officials at Fort Stewart in Georgia provided new details about this shooting. The suspect, 28-year-old Quornelius Radford, is an active duty army sergeant. This photo is from a previous arrest in May for DUI.
He is in custody at this time. Authorities say they believe he used a personal handgun and not a military weapon. The victims, all of them soldiers, remain hospitalized, although all are in stable condition and are expected to recover.
The first shots rang out just before 11:00 a.m., with the base locked down and medical personnel dispatched. Less than 15 minutes later, FBI agents are investigating, as are the military police.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
BRIG. GEN. JOHN LUBAS, COMMANDER, ARMY 3RD INFANTRY DIVISION: What we know is the soldier. The shooting occurred at the soldier's place of work. It did involve his coworkers. We're still not certain about the motivations, but again, he's been interviewed by army investigators, and we believe we'll gain more information here shortly. (END VIDEO CLIP)
HUNT: All right. I'm joined now by a team of CNN reporters and analysts.
Let's go first to Josh Campbell.
Josh, we have learned some new details about what unfolded here at this hour. Walk us through what we know now.
JOSH CAMPBELL, CNN SECURITY CORRESPONDENT: Yeah. Some important details that we just learned from Brigadier General John Lubas there at Fort Stewart, describing a bit of a timeline here. We know that just before 11:00, law enforcement officers in the area received reports of a possible shooting. The base then went into a lockdown shortly thereafter, medics dispatched. Officials learning that five people were indeed injured.
Now, the shooter apprehended about 11:35. Interestingly, the Brigadier General Lubas said that it was the soldiers coworkers, other military members who were able to subdue him. This individual, as you mentioned, Quornelius Radford, armed with a personal handgun. Of course, when we cover these incidents, you know, we always have to stop and think, well, how worse could this have been? As terrible as it is, obviously with five injuries, but the quick action of those other soldiers appears to have possibly stopped this from being much, much worse.
Now, the general said that all five of those service members, thankfully, are expected to recover. But as you mentioned, a lot of questions right now as far as the motivation.
Our colleague John Miller reported that in May, the suspect here had been arrested for driving while under the influence. It appears that happened off post because the general during the press conference said that military officials were not aware of that arrest. And so, you know, there's this question about what -- how that may have impacted this person. Again, we don't know a lot about his background, what the motivation is.
Because the five victims appears they will survive, authorities will be able to interview them to determine do they did they know this person? Was this something that was targeted against them? Was this someone who had exhibited various stressors?
Again, a lot of questions right now, but the good news that we're hearing on all of this, it appears all five are expected to recover.
HUNT: Josh, can I ask you, were you surprised or how unusual might it be that a service member might be arrested off post and U.S. military leadership not be made aware of it?
CAMPBELL: Yeah, that will be a big question. I mean, typically what happens is that obviously if you're on base, the military police will notify your chain of command. But there are various memoranda, memorandums of understanding between law enforcement and military officials, particularly in areas that are quite known to the military community. When, you know, in the navy reserve, for example, in large installations, local law enforcement, they work very closely.
And so, if they pick up a service member, they'll actually call the base and say, look, we have your person, and this is what they're being accused of. It doesn't appear that happened here. Again, were talking about an incident that allegedly happened back in May.
So, there will be that question about whether a notification, you know, was actually was actually made. Maybe it was in progress. We don't know what happened after that arrest, whether there was potential charges or fines and the like, but that is certainly something that the soldiers themselves have to report to their chain of command. Obviously, it appears that didn't happen.
HUNT: All right. Very interesting.
Natasha Bertrand, what are you hearing from your sources over at the Pentagon about the suspected gunman in his background?
[16:05:02]
NATASHA BERTRAND, CNN NATIONAL SECURITY CORRESPONDENT: Well, Kasie, we actually just got the official service record for Sergeant Quornelius Radford from the Army. It doesn't provide a whole lot more information from what the commander at Fort Stewart previously disclosed. But I'll just read it to you.
It says that Sergeant Quornelius Radford from Jacksonville, Florida, joined the regular army as an automated logistical specialist in January of 2018. He is currently assigned to the second brigade combat team at Fort Stewart, Georgia, and he has no deployments.
So, confirming that he joined the military in 2018 and that he is assigned, of course, to that brigade combat team that was essentially targeted in that shooting earlier today. But he has no deployments on his record, so he has been stationed there essentially since he joined the military.
And so right now, we don't know a whole lot more other than that, in terms of his motivation, what may have prompted him to actually carry out the shooting, but it was essentially a workplace shooting, according to the commander, when he was speaking to reporters earlier, he was able to bring a personal handgun, which you are not allowed to have technically on a military installation to his place of work, where he then opened fire.
And of course, his fellow soldiers actually had to subdue him before law enforcement was able to come and arrest him. Now, one question is, of course, is this going to result in tightened security when it comes to bringing personal weapons on base that is already not allowed? But again, another question that has to be asked here is whether it might be loosened, whether there might be a push to actually allow additional soldiers to carry concealed handguns in the event of something happening like this. Again, this individual, the shooter was not supposed to have this gun.
He was able to kind of illicitly bring it on base to his place of work. So, all of these questions will likely be answered as part of this investigation -- Kasie.
HUNT: All right. I want to bring in to our conversation now, Juliette Kayyem. She is with us.
We're also joined, of course, by CNN senior law enforcement and former D.C. and Philadelphia Police Commissioner Charles Ramsey.
But, Juliette, first to you, we, of course, watched this news conference together. What stood out to you? And, of course, Natasha was talking there about the use of a of a personal weapon here.
JULIETTE KAYYEM, CNN SENIOR NATIONAL SECURITY ANALYST: I think the main takeaway is the ability of him to get in a personal weapon which is in opposition to all the rules regulations, training, everything, having to do with force protection and fort security. The military has a very, very good in the sense that shouldn't be loosened good and rigorous series of policies around the ability to bring in extra weaponry, given that there is already so much weaponry.
So, I hope that the military doesn't sort of overreact to this. This was a horrible incident. They're not happening regularly because it's that discipline of not having sort of extra, unregistered, unknown weaponry at these bases that are essentially mini cities that that has kept our bases relatively safe from these kinds of incidents. The only other takeaway is, is there's no -- we can't still quite can't figure out sort of this triggering issue. If this was someone who was clearly under some kind of duress, that was reflected in -- in his criminal background, why today and why this particular group?
But overall, sometimes these things, we -- it's not that we know less, but sometimes these are hard to say -- well, this is the reason for the moment that that the suspect went after essentially his colleagues.
HUNT: And, Chief Ramsey, on that point, I mean, several of our reporters and analysts have now talked about this as a workplace shooting. Of course, in this case, we know that his coworkers tackled him and were able to subdue him. And, of course, thank God this was not worse. Of course, five people injured at although in stable condition and expected to recover.
What stands out to you here?
CHARLES RAMSEY, CNN SENIOR LAW ENFORCEMENT ANALYST: Well, I mean, there are a couple of things that really stand out. I mean, and Juliette mentioned it, you know how the individual actually got the weapon onto the base. And I also think we shouldn't overlook something. She said it was very important. And that is I hope that's not an overreaction to this.
You certainly have to look at your security and you tighten it wherever possible. But this is a handgun for an example. So unless you're planning on pulling everybody out of the car and patting down every single person that comes through there, there's -- I mean, the possibility of it happening again is always there. And so, you take reasonable steps in order to keep things as safe as possible.
The one question that hasn't been answered is what led up to the shooting.
[16:10:00]
Was there an altercation of some kind? Was there something that took place before that led him to, you know, get a -- get his gun and come back and shoot?
I mean, that's something that typically happens whenever we have shootings that I've been familiar with. Unless this was just a totally random act of violence, for whatever reason that might have set him off.
But all these things will be questions that will be answered as time goes on. The more information they get from friends, from colleagues, from -- if there's any video of what took place, if he's willing to speak with investigators. I mean, there's still a lot of unanswered questions, but the bottom line is he's in custody and the victims will survive and that's good news.
HUNT: That is good news for sure.
Josh Campbell, if you are still with us, since, of course, you've served in the military, you still serve in the reserves. Can you talk a little bit about the culture in the military around personal firearms and this prohibition on bringing them onto military bases?
CAMPBELL: Yeah, I mean, the base will set its own rules and regulations as far as the carrying of firearms. Typically that's only allowed for people who have a justifiable purpose. So, we're talking about the military, police and criminal investigators and the like.
Obviously, within the military, because soldiers actually use weapons in combat, they're obviously on base, but they're typically stored in an armory and tightly controlled as far as bringing them out and putting them back in. But I have to tell you, this is the one issue here and, you know, as Chief Ramsey pointed out specifically and very perfectly just now, this is something that you almost cannot control, bringing something like a handgun onto a base by someone who has authorized access to be on that installation just because of the size and the like.
And so, you know, some bases require people to register weapons very quickly if they do bring them on. But sadly, it's very -- it's not difficult to unlawfully bring a firearm onto a base if you have a purpose to be there. But there will be a question here as authorities actually look into this person.
One thing that I'm really interested to learn, because I know after so many of these incidents at all, five of us here have covered, the FBI will actually go back and study different active shooter incidents. And they've actually determined that, you know, people don't just snap, they don't wake up one day and say, okay, I'm going to do something nefarious. There is this pathway to violence.
And so, a big question for this individual, if he's willing to talk or those who knew him, were there warning signs. Is this someone who was clearly on that pathway? But nothing -- nothing was done about it.
HUNT: Well, and Chief Ramsey, in your experience and of course, we can think about this through the military lens, but also more broadly, I mean, we have seen at workplace shootings in civilian areas as well. I'm sure you've worked on them.
To Josh's point, how often do you see a situation where this happens without those warning signs being present?
RAMSEY: Well, I mean, most of the workplace shootings that I've been involved in or that I've observed there's some kind of grievance or there's some kind of altercation or something that led to that.
Now, there are times when an individual, for whatever reason, as Josh mentioned, I mean, there are signs along the way that were overlooked or ignored and that individual decides to actually, you know, resort to violence. But as far as workplace shootings, usually there's something that causes it. And the more they dig into this, I think they're going to start to find information that will lead them to that pathway toward violence in this particular case.
One thing I do want to go back to, to was mentioned earlier, and that is this whole issue of the DUI that occurred off base. And apparently, the military was not notified. There are protocols in almost every jurisdiction I can think of that would be a notification.
Now if he didn't have any ID on him. The arresting officers may not have known he's part of the military, but that's a criminal offense in almost every jurisdiction. And certainly, information will come back when the fingerprints came back. And so that's another thing that they're going to have to take a look at, just to make sure that they tighten everything, not just the base, but also they tighten the procedures that surrounding jurisdictions are using if they come in contact with members of the military.
HUNT: Well, and, Juliette, I mean, how do you look at that? What is your perspective on what the chief is outlining here? Because, you know, it does seem remarkable that the military wasn't aware this -- that this had happened, especially because it could potentially have serious ramifications for a service member.
KAYYEM: That's exactly right. This is -- to me, this is the sort of lesson learned things that we can tighten up. The jurisdiction that the base is in generally has some sort of notification process to tell the military who has been in custody and for what reason.
[16:15:06]
And the reason why is because we do expect better behavior from our service members, and we want better behavior for our service members. And there is behavior that you simply don't want in the military. Someone who beats their wife, for example, several times. You want the military to know that for, for obvious reasons.
So, that -- that seems to me to be a little bit a loophole here, or maybe a mistake. The military, I mean, come on, we're in -- we're in the, you know, 2025, the military certainly can do name searches relatively easy of public documents to determine whether the 10,000, 20,000, 30,000 people who work at the base have had any altercations or arrest records over that last weekend. This is relatively easy to do.
But we -- that seems to me to be something that that would be hard to disagree is an important relationship that we want between our local and state law enforcement and the military's insistence, as it should, that the behavior of service members off base is relevant to their service.
HUNT: All right. Josh Campbell, Natasha Bertrand, Juliette Kayyem, and, of course, Chief Ramsey -- thank you all very much for starting us off today. And we're going to continue to monitor this story throughout the hour for any developments.
Up next, we do have two other breaking stories unfolding right now. Who president Trump is saying he'll meet with in person, maybe as soon as next week.
But first, new CNN reporting coming in right now on a dinner set for tonight hosted by Vice President J.D. Vance. And why it's more than an opportunity to talk about how to handle the Jeffrey Epstein headlines.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[16:21:13]
HUNT: All right. Welcome back.
In just hours, some of the highest-ranking officials in the Trump administration are supposed to be meeting at the vice president's residence to strategize around the Jeffrey Epstein story. Sources say that this gathering is viewed as a chance for attorney general Pam Bondi and FBI Director Kash Patel to clear the air after weeks of division around this story.
Also expected to attend, the White House Chief of Staff Susie Wiles and the Deputy Attorney General Todd Blanche, who you may remember, interviewed the Epstein accomplice, Ghislaine Maxwell, last month. But now, after significant news coverage of this scheduled meeting, sources say it may be moved, rescheduled or canceled entirely.
Our panel is here. They're going to weigh in in just a moment.
We're going to get started with CNNs senior White House correspondent Kristen Holmes.
Kristen, I will say, as we have been covering and thinking through this dinner, I mean, I was honestly floored to learn that it was happening. The details of the guest list, all of this. I mean, this is very unusual to have this level of detail about a private gathering like this in Washington.
Can you enlighten us as to why it is that we may know all the things that we do know? The reaction to the coverage of it today that's led to our new reporting that apparently might not even happen.
KRISTEN HOLMES, CNN SENIOR WHITE HOUSE CORRESPONDENT: Yeah, Kasie, what we learned is that the White House was also kind of floored that this information got out there from a number of sources, to my colleague Alayna Treene and I and a number of our White House team members, that there was going to be a dinner at all. That was going to be this sit-down, this opportunity for these cabinet members to really realign. And, of course, as we reported, a focus of that would be on the Epstein response.
One of the things to note is the last time we talked about a meeting involving Susie Wiles, Kash Patel and Pam Bondi, it didn't end well. In fact, it ended with the FBI deputy director, Dan Bongino, saying that he wasn't leaking stories about Bondi and storming out of the meeting. We know that there has been an enormous amount of tension between Patel and Bondi, between the FBI and the Department of Justice over the handling of the Epstein case.
And particularly, the rollout of that information, starting with the first part where Bondi brought in those influencers and gave them binders to a number of television appearances that Bondi did, that there were FBI officials who were a little bit wrinkled about, wrinkled about. They were not happy with what she was saying on air, and they didn't think it aligned with the information that they actually had.
So, this would be putting all of these key power players and the people who are really responsible for the messaging around Epstein together at a table in an intimate setting. As you said, we now don't know if this is actually happening, given the intense coverage here. We know that they were not happy that details of this leaked or that they would be talking about Epstein at all.
But one of the things to keep in mind here, they are doing a lot right now to prepare their strategy on responding to the Epstein scandal, to the ongoing situation. Because remember, one thing, they have spent a number of weeks really on the defensive. They are trying to take back the narrative, and they believe they all need to be on the same page in order to do that.
HUNT: All right. Kristen Holmes, thank you very much for that remarkable reporting.
Our panel is now here in THE ARENA: CNN contributor, "New York Times" journalist and podcast host Lulu Garcia-Navarro; CNN political director, Washington bureau chief David Chalian; CNN political commentator, Xochitl Hinojosa; and the former Republican governor of Wisconsin, Scott Walker.
Welcome to all of you. Thank you all for being here. [16:25:00]
David Chalian. I just want to start with you because, I mean, you've -- you've seen a lot in this town, right? Have you seen anything like what this was supposed to be?
DAVID CHALIAN, CNN POLITICAL DIRECTOR AND WASHINGTON BUREAU CHIEF: No. Do you mean the dinner itself or this entire Epstein saga?
HUNT: I mean, kind of all of it taken together.
CHALIAN: Yeah. It is -- I am sure there were some White House officials not happy that this leaked out. As Kristen said, no doubt. But also having this out there is also part of a potential attempt at a detente, not just with your internal players, but with the base itself that you're trying to work on a strategy here to bring this to a resolution.
I think what we've learned in the last five weeks of this story, there is no fast resolution to this matter. This is a story that now is going to have to be managed day to day, week to week, and month to month. This is going to be with this administration for some time to come. Theres no band-aid to just put over it and put it to bed.
HUNT: Governor Walker, I mean, how do you assess the job that the administration has done in managing this mess?
SCOTT WALKER (R), FORMER WISCONSIN GOVERNOR: Well, I tell them, instead of at dinner, here's the simple solution -- maximum transparency. You know, I know consistency is not a commodity in this town, but I've said it repeatedly on your show right here.
HUNT: You have.
WALKER: I've said, just spread it all out. Tell exactly what you can. If there's some condition, a court order, whatever it might be legally that prohibits you, explain that. Don't keep saying, we can't do that. Tell people everything you can, release everything you can under the law. And if there's some reason you can't because of a court order, explain what that is in the details.
The less people know, the more they speculate whether the Republican, Democrat, liberal, conservative, everybody's upset about this. It's because there's not enough transparency. You don't need a special strategy to do that.
Just lay it on the table.
XOCHITL HINOJOSA, CNN POLITICAL COMMENTATOR: Well, this is all political. This is a political meeting. This is the top cop of our country going to a messaging meeting at the White House to figure out how to solve a political problem.
WALKER: Or was it at the White House or was it --
HINOJOSA: Or at the VP's office or at the VP's residence to solve a political problem. You don't want your FBI director or your attorney general dealing with this right now. You want them to deal with taking down terrorists, fighting violent crime, things like that, not trying to solve a political problem or trying to figure out what the base wants.
You want them to follow the facts and the law. You want them to make decisions on what's going to be best for an investigation, not what's going to be best for Donald Trump. And this meeting with the vice president signals to me that they are doing what is best for Donald Trump, not doing what is best for the country, not doing what is best for the victims or the investigation, or to protect any other uncharged person in those documents.
And so, it's very troublesome, and I'm not sure how long Pam Bondi is going to be able to play this game where she is the top cop, but she is also the defender and protector of Donald Trump. And those two things right now, I think are colliding.
HUNT: Well, one thing about this dinner, Lulu, is that it does highlight something that -- we've talked about it. We talked about it a lot at the beginning of this. Epstein saga, but there are divisions inside the administration about what to do here, right? And Kash Patel and Pam Bondi have been on opposite sides, you know, that that piece of it still is something that, for the Trump team needs to be fixed if they're going to handle this.
LULU GARCIA-NAVARRO, CNN CONTRIBUTOR: Yeah. I mean, this is, I think, the most serious breach that's happened between all of these different figures and the very fact that Susie Wiles is kind of coming in as Trump's sort of representative there. I think signals a lot. Also, I find it fascinating that this is happening at Vance's house. I really, really do.
He has become the sort of mess fixer of this administration. He's the one who gets sent out to the base to kind of placate them about the Epstein issue. He's the one who's trying to bring these people together and talk about it. And so, you know, he's taken ownership of this in a very interesting way, I think.
That being said, I agree that this isn't going away. I think with everyone here, everyone said it. This isn't going away. And they can't manage this. The only way they can manage this is by actually releasing some stuff and letting us see what's there.
WALKER: Well, that's why it's high risk. I mean, on one hand, he'll be the fixer if this gets done. If they follow that recommendation I made and are extremely transparent, contrast that with a couple of years ago under the Biden administration, where they gave Vice President Kamala Harris the border and it was an absolute failure. It was a huge block for her in her election effort because we had a massive invasion going on at the border.
So, it is high risk if they succeed. If they cleared up, it will be, you know, certainly a high mark for him. If they don't, it's a challenge. HUNT: This Vance question, David, I mean, he was one of the most
aggressive people out there saying that the Epstein files needed to be fully released, right, that this would be something that they should do if they were in office. I want to play something that the president said last night about whether J.D. Vance is his heir apparent, so to speak. Let's watch.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
REPORTER: Do you agree that the heir apparent to MAGA is J.D. Vance?
DONALD TRUMP, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: Well, I think most likely, in all fairness. He's the vice president. I think Marco is also somebody that maybe would get together with J.D. in some form. I also think we have incredible people. Some of the people on the stage right here.
So, it's too early, obviously, to talk about it, but certainly he's doing a great job and he would be probably favored at this point.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
HUNT: What do you make of the Vance of it all?
CHALIAN: First of all, I think his political analysis is correct. I mean, so I do think you would have to call J.D. Vance, sort of the 2028 Republican frontrunner at the moment. I do -- it's interesting to hear the president speak that way, Kasie, because when Kristen Welker asked him about that on "Meet the Press", he didn't go nearly that far. This was as close as you're getting to an endorsement before its season for endorsement here.
And I do think it raises one of these questions inside the Republican Party about the party moving post-Trump and where the MAGA movement goes to here, because I think there's the potential here that even though it might be an open race, maybe Donald Trump sees a handing of the torch as a way to solidify his legacy and perhaps wants to shut down an open race and actually try and name a successor here.
I don't think he wants to do that so soon. He doesn't want to be a lame duck, like, instantly, but I do think that is something to watch in the months ahead.
GARCIA-NAVARRO: That went very well for President Biden when he did that to Kamala Harris, didn't it, when the sitting president actually points and says, hey, my VP is the person that needs to be where the crown. People want to have their say. If there's one thing that the last election showed us, is that.
HUNT: Fair enough.
All right. Coming up next here, the presidents plural that Donald Trump says he wants to meet face to face, maybe as soon as next week.
Plus, why the president is renewing a threat to take over Washington, D.C. (COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[16:36:16]
HUNT: All right. Welcome back.
We now have more breaking news this hour. President Trump is saying that he intends to meet with Russian President Vladimir Putin as soon as next week. Sources telling CNN that on a call with European leaders, the president said that could be followed by a trilateral meeting with both Putin and Ukrainian President Vladimir Zelenskyy.
I'm joined now by CNN national security correspondent Kylie Atwood at the State Department, and CNN's chief international security correspondent, Nick Paton Walsh. He is in Kyiv for us.
But, Kylie, let me start with you, just because this meeting, it would be a remarkable development. We're three years into this war. Obviously, this is something that President Trump wanted dispatched on day one of his second term. That did not happen.
What are you learning?
KYLIE ATWOOD, CNN NATIONAL SECURITY CORRESPONDENT: Yeah. So what we've learned is that following this meeting that special envoy Steve Witkoff had with President Putin earlier today, President Trump had a phone call with President Zelenskyy and European leaders. And that is where he said that there's the possibility of him meeting with President Putin, followed by a meeting trilaterally with Putin, Trump and Zelenskyy as soon as next week. We don't know where the location of this would actually occur.
We should also note that according to White House officials, it was Putin who suggested this meeting during his conversation with Steve Witkoff. Their fifth meeting that took place in Russia today, though, the first in many months.
And we should note that it would be logistically very challenging to stand up a meeting like this between these two leaders in such a short amount of time. But according to White House officials, talking to our colleague Kaitlan Collins, Trump is urging them to move swiftly, to try and get this meeting stood up quickly.
We should note it comes as Trump is casting the meeting between Witkoff and President Putin as highly productive. But simultaneously, the administration is taking a very different approach to Russia and trying to pressure them to end the Ukraine war. In the early months, of course, of the administration, they were saying that even threatening sanctions would push Russia away from the negotiating table would be highly unproductive in trying to get them to end the Ukraine war.
Well, now the Trump administration announced earlier this morning they're going to be putting 25 percent tariffs on India for importing Russian oil. That's going to go into effect in 21 days. They're also going to be putting new sanctions on countries who are importing oil separately. That's going to happen on Friday. We'll have to see where the rubber hits the road. If they actually move forward with those tariffs and those sanctions -- Kasie.
HUNT: So, Nick Paton Walsh, you have obviously covered so much of this war from the front lines in Ukraine. We have seen Vladimir Putin be very reticent. President Trump has tried to push him. It sounds like privately we've definitely seen him do that in public. You have a really deep understanding of the context that all of this is going to come in.
Is there something that has changed on the ground there that might incentivize Putin to act differently than we've seen him act for the last three years no.
NICK PATON WALSH, CNN CHIEF INTERNATIONAL SECURITY CORRESPONDENT: No, and ultimately, what its incentivized Putin to do is potentially try and buy more time because, look, impossible to dictate how front lines go, but they are making more than incremental progress now, and they may be weeks away from some kind of strategic gain on the eastern front lines. A lot of key Ukrainian hubs, military hubs under real threat of encircling here. So, bear that in mind.
Bear in mind also, too, that the timing of this is so important. Do these sanctions later on this week really hurt Russia's allies? Do they really have the bite that Ukraine and its allies wanted to see in order to sort of feel that Putin dragging his feet over peace has really had consequences for Moscow?
[16:40:01]
Could there be a meeting next week between Putin and Trump?
Well, look, remember that many believe Putin has long sought a bilateral meeting with Trump anyway, to try and reestablish the U.S.- Russian relationship.
So, it's not really a loss or a concession for the kremlin. It's kind of something that they may even have been angling for remotely. That's been more distant while peace has been elusive. But the idea of a trilateral meeting with Trump, Putin and Zelenskyy -- well, that was floated for Istanbul months ago now, didn't really happen.
And so we've been hearing the kremlin as well, talking about the need for multiple technical meetings to arrange the kind of protocols and format for Putin, Zelenskyy meeting all of this suggests we're not looking at a particularly rapid set of developments. No matter how optimistic or fast paced, Trump managed to make it sound in his phone call with European leaders.
What it does feel like, if indeed it was the initiative of Vladimir Putin, is a fantastic opportunity for Moscow to buy itself more weeks, maybe take some of the sting out of the sanctions later on this week? Who knows? But certainly prioritize a Trump Putin meeting first, allowing Putin to perhaps talk his narrative again to Trump and then the ultimate complexity of Trump, Putin, Zelenskyy and maybe peace here in Ukraine. Well, that could be weeks, if not months off -- Kasie.
HUNT: All very interesting.
For more perspective, let's bring in CNN political and national security analyst David Sanger, who we actually find in Greenland, a dateline that is not un -- not irrelevant to any of these story lines.
David, what do you make of all of this? You've seen so much of this play out before.
DAVID SANGER, CNN POLITICAL AND NATIONAL SECURITY ANALYST: Well, a few things, Kasie.
First of all, we've heard President Trump say several times this can only get resolved if it's a sit down between him and Putin. He's very much the believer in the concept that you have two leaders who cut the deal at the top, you know, as if it's a real estate deal. This is what led him to his famous diplomacy with Kim Jong Un in the first term. Remember, he had three meetings with Kim, and at the end of the day, Kim did not disarm, and in fact, now has more nuclear weapons than he had, many more than when they first met.
So, the very fact that you're just having a leader-to-leader meeting is no guarantee.
Second, I agree completely with Nick that for Putin, this is a great way to delay things because even if the president announces new sanctions to go into effect in three weeks or some other period of time on Friday, this would be a way for the president to say, well, were making progress and push this down the road. Weve seen it happen with Europe. We saw it happen with China and so forth.
And third, there's always the possibility here, now that the president -- President Putin could dangle something else beyond Ukraine. That's a trade-off. And, you know, that could include an arms control agreement.
HUNT: All right. David Sanger, Nick Paton Walsh, Kylie Atwood, thank you very much for jumping in on this breaking story. Really appreciate all of you very much.
Coming up next here, President Trump is again going after one of the nation's biggest cities, saying he has the ability to take it over, not technically incorrect, but might not be so easy.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
DONALD TRUMP, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: Either they're going to straighten their act out in terms of government and in terms of protection, and we're going to have to federalize and run it the way it's supposed to be run.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[16:48:13]
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
TRUMP: I have to say that somebody from DOGE was very badly hurt last night. You saw that a young man who was beat up by a bunch of thugs in D.C., and either they're going to straighten their act out in terms of government and in terms of protection, or were going to have to federalize and run it the way it's supposed to be run.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
HUNT: President Trump once again making comments about federalizing, taking over Washington, D.C., after former DOGE staffer Edward Coristein, also known as -- his online name, is "Big Balls". He was assaulted trying to stop a carjacking. Tough pictures.
So, what would it take to take over D.C.? Congress would have to overturn the Home Rule Act of 1973. It granted residents the right to elect their own local government. On Truth Social, President Trump also claimed crime in the district is totally out of control.
Now, earlier this year, the Department of Justice said that crime rates in D.C. are the lowest that they've been in 30 years. Last night, recently confirmed U.S. attorney for the District of Columbia, Jeanine Pirro, was not exactly on the same message as President Trump.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
JEANINE PIRRO, U.S. ATTORNEY FOR WASHINGTON, D.C.: Let me say this, crime is going down in D.C. It's going down in D.C. because of you.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
HUNT: All right. Our panel is back, and we have a number of a couple D.C. residents, a couple non-D.C. residents over here. Lulu, let me start with you, because I know you have strong feelings about what the president is talking about here.
GARCIA-NAVARRO: Well, I am a D.C. resident. And what I will say is that 700,000 people live in the District of Columbia. That is more than in the state of Vermont and in the state of Wyoming. And so, we are already disenfranchised.
[16:50:01]
We cannot vote in federal elections for, you know, have it -- to have it actually count. We don't have a senator. We only have a sort of performative representative in Eleanor Holmes Norton, who is 88, and --
CHALIAN: You get three electoral votes in the presidential race.
GARCIA-NAVARRO: We do, but it doesn't -- but it doesn't, it doesn't -- it doesn't quite -- it's not the same thing.
And so, what I would say about this is, is, you know, whether you -- I mean, all sympathy to Big Balls, it is terrible what happened to him. Crime is a terrible thing. But I do not think it is indicative of a wider issue. And I do think that disenfranchising even further, the residents of the District of Columbia, by federalizing the government. The government is not the right path.
CHALIAN: What I am so intrigued by in this story is the relationship between Trump and Mayor Bowser over these last many months, because Mayor Bowser has clearly been trying to work the Trump relationship.
He wants to be involved in the stadium deal, right, with the new home for the football team. He made that clear as one reason he may want to, like, take over. He's made this before about the crime issue and want to take over. And yet, she has successfully sort of kept him at bay from doing that, and he has said like complimentary things of her in this term.
GARCIA-NAVARRO: She has very much moderated her --
CHALIAN: Her approach to him.
HUNT: We have -- yes, so here she was. This was her at a White House press conference. Now she looked I remember watching this conference. I think it actually may have taken place during this hour. And there's some B-roll of her behind him looking sort of deeply uncomfortable. But there she is at the White House.
We also can put up the pictures of Black Lives Matter Plaza, which was right near the White House. She painted over -- she -- the letters of Black Lives Matter Plaza when they renamed it when Trump came in. This was definitely a concession that she made to him.
CHALIAN: No doubt. This is what I mean. Part of her trying to work a relationship that that keeps this notion of the federal government taking it over at bay.
HUNT: Well, and let's talk about the crime piece of this for a second, because we can put up and carjacking in particular, if you and I -- full disclosure, was a D.C. resident for 20, basically 20 years. I recently moved out of the district.
But look at that spike in 2023, 2024. There was one of my neighbors was actually killed in a carjacking attempt on K Street waiting to pick up his wife after work in downtown D.C. during this period. Clearly, it has started to come down.
But, Xochitl, I mean, you worked at the department of justice. There does seem to be, at the very least, a perception for a lot of people who live in this city that crime actually has become a bigger problem in recent years, especially since COVID.
HINOJOSA: Yeah. Absolutely right since COVID and the last attorney general put resources in place to have a program to fight violent crime, you saw there that violent crime has been down in 2024. It's at a 30-year low.
But the reality is, during the warmer weather months, violent crime goes up. And this is seen across cities all across the country. And D.C. is no exception. The ultimate problem Donald Trump is also having, in addition to the weather being warm and people being out in crime, being committed, is that people that worked on the violent crime initiative at the FBI and the D.C. U.S. attorney's office have now left.
They were either pushed out, fired because they were career professionals, or they left because they saw the politicization.
So, you don't have the institutional knowledge anymore at the FBI who would normally deal with this? I think that while the federalization and all of this stuff is a lot of rhetoric, what they need to do is surge resources and find a way to take FBI agents off of immigration cases and bring them back here.
And I think Mayor Bowser would actually welcome that. She wants the help to fight violent crime.
WALKER: The problem with crime in Washington, D.C., in New York City and Portland and Seattle is because there's not consequences. If you don't put violent criminals away, you're going to continue to have problems.
These big cities are full of not just mayors, but prosecutors who aren't enforcing the law. When you don't prosecute. I mean, we saw in New York City decades ago when you started prosecuting smaller crimes. Crime overall went down. That's the bigger.
HUNT: The broken window.
GARCIA-NAVARRO: The thing that complicates this in D.C., I think, at the moment is especially this thing of carjacking, and these were juveniles that did this. And we have seen a huge problem since COVID of young offenders --
HUNT: Change the law that punish them less in D.C.
GARCIA-NAVARRO: Yeah.
HUNT: That was part -- that's part --
GARCIA-NAVARRO: That's true. But part of this is that we're not talking about adults. We're talking about 14-year-olds, 15-year-olds.
HUNT: Kids who should be in school.
GARCIA-NAVARRO: They absolutely should. But what I'm saying is that that becomes a more complicated issue than just like, lets throw the book at them. Let's, you know, we need to surge resources.
WALKER: If the word is on the street, we see the same thing on California. If you don't punish for shoplifting, people run their cars in the Walmart and fill up with stuff, no matter what age.
GARCIA-NAVARRO: I'm not denying it. It's just that when you're dealing with kids, I think it just becomes a slightly more complicated.
WALKER: I think you're right about that. The other interesting thing living outside of D.C. is on most issues, we see D.C. as a city surrounded by a bubble where reality lives outside of there. But on this issue, I think Americans say it should be safe in our nation's capital.
[16:55:02]
HUNT: All right. We -- actually, it sounds like we could talk about this all afternoon, but we do have to take a quick break.
We'll be right back.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
HUNT: All right. Thank you very much to my panel. We've been having this very spirited conversation in the break. I wish I could let you into it. Unfortunately, we're out of time here.
Thanks to all of you for joining us today. And if you did miss any of today's show or any of our shows, you can always catch up by listening to THE ARENA's podcast. You can scan the QR code below, follow wherever you -- wherever you get your podcasts.
You can also follow us on X and Instagram @TheArenaCNN.
Jake Tapper is standing by for us for "THE LEAD".
Jake, welcome back.
