Return to Transcripts main page

CNN News Central

Pentagon Policy Could Divert Weapons Built For Ukraine Back To U.S.; Sen. Richard Blumenthal (D-CT) On Trump's Deadline Day For Russia To Agree To Ceasefire; Rep. Kevin Kiley (R-CA) On Deadline Day For Texas Democrats To Return To The State. Aired 7:30-8a ET

Aired August 08, 2025 - 07:30   ET

THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[07:30:18]

JOHN BERMAN, CNN ANCHOR: All right. New this morning billions of dollars' worth of American-built weapons previously earmarked for Ukraine could go back into the U.S. stockpile because of a new Pentagon policy.

CNN's Zach Cohen joins us now. It seems like Ukraine could use these weapons right about now, Zach.

ZACHARY COHEN, CNN SENIOR NATIONAL SECURITY REPORTER: Yeah, John, and they need them urgently.

But this new Pentagon policy was quietly implemented last month that really does seem to add more uncertainty into the status of U.S. arms shipments to Ukraine. And it also seems to undermine what President Donald Trump has said since this was put into place about giving Ukraine everything it needs to defend itself against Russia.

Now specifically, sources are describing a policy that was communicated to Pentagon officials through a memo last month that does give Pete Hegseth the authority and mandates that he personally signs off on every arms shipment of specific weapon types to Ukraine before they're sent out. And also more importantly and more interesting, it also gives Hegseth and his top deputy the authority to divert weapons that are already earmarked for Ukraine and specifically built for Ukraine back to this U.S. stockpile.

Now this does underscore a concern among some senior Pentagon officials about the U.S. stockpiles themselves. Things like Patriot missiles. Things like air defense systems. These are in limited supply, and some Pentagon officials believe that they can't be wasted on Ukraine.

Now, that's obviously a contentious topic and one that is not a consensus among even people in the Pentagon, but beyond. And it's something that we've seen cause some confusion within the administration itself. You may remember a few weeks ago when the Pentagon temporarily paused an arms shipment to Ukraine only to have President Donald Trump reverse that decision just hours later.

So this is something though that this policy remaining in place and raises questions about specific funds that are part of a congressionally funded program. It's one that was -- again, these are products that were specifically built for Ukraine. And now the Pentagon giving itself the option though of diverting them back into the U.S. stockpiles to effectively make up for these shortages and potentially redirect them across other geopolitical priorities.

BERMAN: Yeah, and the timing here is so essential as well.

Zach Cohen, great to see you. Thank you very much -- Kate.

KATE BOLDUAN, CNN ANCHOR: And Russia launched a new wave of drone attacks on Ukraine just overnight, and this is also just as President Trump's deadline arrives today for the Russian President Vladimir Putin to agree to a ceasefire or else, apparently.

To be clear, Russia shows zero signs of slowing or stopping its war in Ukraine today and it's unclear what Trump will actually do about it now. Follow through, perhaps, on his threat to level new so-called secondary sanctions on Moscow, perhaps. But we still don't know.

Both the Trump administration and Russia are now floating a potential summit between the leaders as early as next week -- a summit that President Trump says does not have to include the Ukrainian president.

Joining me right now is Democratic Sen. Richard Blumenthal of Connecticut. Senator, thanks for being here.

It is deadline day -- the deadline set by President Trump.

What's going to happen?

SEN. RICHARD BLUMENTHAL (D-CT): It's deadline day, Kate, and you are absolutely right that Putin has filed to meet it. What should happen is scorching sanctions on the buyers of Russian oil and gas that enable Russians war machine to do the kind of disruption that you just described.

There is zero evidence that Putin has changed either his tactics or his strategy. He is pursuing the murderous, merciless aerial assault against Ukraine's civilians and in the east on the front on Donbas and the north in Sumi. He's continuing to pursue the bloody assault there.

So these sanctions are well warranted now, and they ought to be imposed.

BOLDUAN: So the president announced a 25 percent tariff, if you will, on India as penalty for continuing to buy Russian oil and gas.

Look, your sanctions bill goes much further than that, but do you see that move as the president essentially putting the bill that you've spearheaded with Sen. Lindsey Graham into action without actually signing your sanctions bill in to law without actually saying he wants you to -- he would like to see it voted on in the Senate? BLUMENTHAL: I was encouraged by Trump's announcement that he was going to impose these sanctions. I thought maybe he was breaking the bromance, and he seemed to take Putin's word. But this summit seems to be just another Putin ploy.

[07:35:00]

And the Graham-Blumenthal bill would go farther than the president's order. The Trump order is a hammer. What we apply is a sledgehammer with higher sanctions -- 500 percent as opposed to 100 percent -- and broader. We would go against the Russian shadow fleet.

And most importantly, it would demonstrate to the world as well as our European allies that there is unity between Congress and the president, between Democrats and Republicans. We have 85 co-sponsors. The bill would pass overwhelmingly by more than 90 votes if were simply given a vote, and it will be if Trump gives it the green light.

And its additional advantage is that it would make these sanctions bulletproof legally. Right now, a presidential order could be challenged, and we want to make sure that it is legally invulnerable to any kind of challenge.

So I'm very hopeful that the president will listen to the first lady. You'll remember the conversation he had with her after he came back one day, and he said I just had a wonderful talk with President Putin. And she said oh, that's great. They just bombed another Ukrainian city.

Putin is a blood-thirsty thug. He understands only force. And now is the time for sanctions to be applied.

BOLDUAN: And here's the thing. I mean, this is a conversation that could -- has been had for months and months and months and changed and extended deadlines and I'll talk to you in two weeks is what we have heard from President Trump. He set today as a deadline for Putin to act or else.

If the president doesn't follow through with his ultimatum that he himself set after today, what then, Senator? I mean, does the president then lose credibility in being able to broker peace in Ukraine?

BLUMENTHAL: Absolutely, I believe that his credibility will be damaged if he fails to follow through today on this deadline. There is no excuse for succumbing to this Putin ploy. The president has demonstrated that he means business. He said he's disappointed with Putin.

He ought to impose those sanctions on China, India, Brazil. They are buying Russian oil. They are sustaining his war machine, and they ought to be held accountable. They are selling that oil, by the way, at a profit. It's blood money. And they should pay a price for fueling the kind of merciless and murderous aerial assault that is killing Ukrainians, literally last night, in their homes, hospitals, educational centers. It is atrocities that they should be held accountable for supporting. China, India, Brazil, and others should pay that price.

And the credibility of the president and the United States is at stake. Putin is simply stringing us along.

BOLDUAN: I will say just as a reminder, your bill has more co-sponsors -- I mean, there is nothing bipartisan that anyone can really point to ever these days except for the Graham-Blumenthal bill, which has -- I mean, basically, almost the entire Senate now co-sponsoring it and supporting it. Just a reminder to everyone as it sits there waiting to see if the president actually wants to show his support.

Before I let you go, overnight, what's playing out in Israel. The Israel security cabinet approving this plan from Netanyahu to expand the war effort in Gaza and take over Gaza City now and forcibly evacuate a million Palestinians from the northern part of the enclave to the southern. The plan goes against recommendations of the Israeli military.

What is your reaction to this?

BLUMENTHAL: There's a humanitarian crisis in Gaza. It has to be addressed. Food, water, medical supplies have to be provided to prevent starvation there.

And I am deeply concerned that the Netanyahu plan seems to be at odds with recommendations from his own military. And I'm also concerned that it seems to be very vague as to what the ultimate objective is the day after. The lack of a day-after plan has been --

BOLDUAN: What do you think it is? Do you think that it's --

BLUMENTHAL: -- one of the defects.

BOLDUAN: -- this is just a step to taking over the entire enclave?

BLUMENTHAL: My hope is that ceasefire talks will continue even as the Israeli forces begin to prepare for this supposed new offensive. And I hope that a ceasefire is achievable with return of the hostages -- it ought to be a priority -- and humanitarian aid. I refuse to give up hope on a ceasefire and the United States ought to be press for it.

BOLDUAN: Senator Richard Blumenthal. Thank you so much, Senator. I really appreciate your time especially on an important day like this -- John.

BERMAN: All right. This morning what could be wrong with getting a check? The president's tariffs are generating new revenue, albeit the money comes from Americans as the treasury secretary admitted just yesterday.

[07:40:05]

Be that as it may, one idea is to send some of that revenue back to taxpayers in the form of rebate checks.

CNN's Matt Egan is with us now. What's the problem? MATT EGAN, CNN SENIOR REPORTER: Well John, the problem is that economists warn that this could backfire because it would be potentially inflationary -- maybe very inflationary. Kind of like what happened during COVID where there was too much money chasing after too few products.

But look, the president is absolutely right about the tariff revenue. It is pouring in. We're talking about $30 billion of tariff revenue just last month alone. That is triple the same month a year ago. One hundred billion dollars just since April. And so this is a good problem to have.

There are these calls to try to return some of the money to all of us taxpayers, right? Josh Hawley, the Republican senator -- he actually proposed a bill that calls for $600 rebate checks per adult who is making up to $75,000 a year or for couples who are making up to $150,000. We're talking about $600 per kid. So for a family of four this would be significant, right -- $2,400 a month. This could be a lifeline for people who are struggling to get by right now.

But I've got to tell you every economist that I talk to -- they just said that this would be a bad idea because there's a lot of supply problems right now, right? There's not enough workers. The tariffs have caused supply chain and supply issues.

And so all you would be doing would be stimulating demand, right? If you give people checks they're going to spend it. It would be kind of like if you had a sold-out concert and you just handed people more tickets without adding any seats, right? You could see how it would cause some problems.

Economist Stephanie Roth -- she told me that this idea could be "quite dangerous." Douglas Holtz-Eakin, a former Bush economic adviser -- he said this would be pandering at its lowest form because it would just end up raising prices.

I talked to the White House. They said that, yes, this is something that is under consideration but that there's no formal policy. There's nothing imminent here so it's premature to talk about the inflationary aspect.

But I think the bottom line here is this something that could be popular, but it could also end up having a significant cost.

BERMAN: And again, just remember as the treasury secretary said yesterday, the money is coming from Americans.

EGAN: It is.

BERMAN: -- and would just be going back to Americans and maybe inflationary.

Matt Egan, thank you very much.

EGAN: Thanks, John.

BERMAN: Kate.

BOLDUAN: I mean, you know it's going to be fun when that pops up. It's the dog days of summer, friends, and ahead of the -- of National Dog Day later this month, CNN's Harry Enten is bringing you some highly newsworthy, maybe surprising facts about man's best friend. Harry also our best friend.

HARRY ENTEN, CNN CHIEF DATA ANALYST: Ahh.

BOLDUAN: OK. So one -- you were -- you were -- to begin with what you ponder, which is sometimes terrifying, you pondered where even dog years came from. Where did they come from?

ENTEN: Yeah, OK. So here we are -- National Dog month, National Dog Day later this month.

OK, how do we get dog years? Well, this is all about 1950s math, although it might have actually been a marketing ploy by vets to get folks to bring their dogs to the vet. Back in the 1950s humans lived to approximately 70 years and the --

BOLDUAN: I'm apparently happy about it.

BOLDUAN: You're very happy about it. You think 70 years is quite a long time. You're coming out of the Great Depression. You made it through there.

Humans lived to approximately 70 years. Dogs lived to approximately 10 years. And so you got that 7-1 ratio. But again, it might have just been a marketing ploy by big vets to get folks to bring their dogs to the vet.

BOLDUAN: What is one big problem with using life expectancy and dogs?

ENTEN: OK. So you see this. You see a 7-1 ratio, right? But it turns out different dogs live to different ages based upon the size of the dog, right? So you get those small dogs who the life expectancy is about 14 years on average.

BOLDUAN: Wait. Small dogs live longer than large dogs? I did not know that.

ENTEN: Small dogs live longer than large dogs, and especially your giant dogs like your Great Danes, just 10 years. Your large dogs, 12. Your medium, 13. If you want a dog who is going to live a long time your best bet is getting a small dog, maybe like a Lhasa Apso like my childhood dog Cody over here, or a Cavalier King Charles Spaniel like Chuckster right over here.

BOLDUAN: Chuckster.

OK. You clearly have a lot of problems with life expectancy in dogs. What's the other big problem, Harry?

ENTEN: OK. What's the --

BOLDUAN: What's the 7-1 ratio?

ENTEN: What's the other big problem? Well, how many human years per dog year? Well, dogs, which are very fast, right, in year one, 15 years per human year. How about in year two? It's nine years. But then it levels out at about five years at year three and beyond.

So your dogs get very mature very quickly. They go through their high school years, they go through their college years very quickly, and then it's a long time in adulthood. I actually think that's a pretty good gosh darn thing.

BOLDUAN: Uh, no. That's --

ENTEN: I like --

BOLDUAN: Absolutely, no. College years should be much longer than adult years.

ENTEN: No. I worked way too hard in college. I was a nerd.

BOLDUAN: Yet another thing that is so different about the two of us.

Thank you, Harry.

ENTEN: Thank you.

BERMAN: When do they start shaving, though? That's what I want to know.

[07:45:00]

ENTEN: Cody started shaving when he was about 15, yeah.

BOLDUAN: And as everyone has noticed very morning Harry is yet to start.

ENTEN: Yeah.

BERMAN: What he was shaving.

BOLDUAN: John!

BERMAN: All right.

BOLDUAN: John!

BERMAN: New wildfires in Colorado burning through tens of thousands of acres.

And one reason why Republicans might be working so hard to redraw congressional lines, brand new polling showing their congressional majority could be in jeopardy.

(COMMERCIAL)

BERMAN: All right, it is deadline day for Texas Democrats. They have to come back or go back to the state or the Texas attorney general says their seats will be declared vacant.

Now, as the redistricting battle -- it goes on in Texas, Democrats in other states are responding with their own redistricting efforts, including in California.

[07:50:00]

With us now is Congressman Kevin Kiley, a Republican who could be targeted in California. And Congressman, I appreciate you being with us.

You're proposing a bill that would effectively ban mid-decade redistricting. So what have you heard from either Speaker Mike Johnson or President Trump on your proposal?

REP. KEVIN KILEY (R-CA) (via Webex by Cisco): Well, I've gotten a lot of great feedback from folks on both sides of the aisle. I have also spoken with the speaker several times. You know, I don't want to get into what I spoke about with him in a private conversation. But I've made my views to him very clear both privately and publicly that this chaos needs to be brought to an end.

This is a terrible thing for the country if we have this domino effect of one state after another redrawing their district lines in the middle of the decade.

You know, my -- here's a pretty radical idea. Why don't we try to -- and this goes for both sides. Why don't we try to win elections based upon policy and issues rather than engaging in these ridiculous redistricting games?

So my bill is designed to allow us all to take a deep breath and say enough is enough, and this is not a path that we want to go down.

BERMAN: The president doesn't seem to agree with you, does he?

KILEY: Well, I think the president approached this from the perspective that things are somewhat unfair on the national level when it comes to the way districts are drawn. You have a lot of states, like Illinois, that have gerrymandered their district wildly -- much more so than Texas. And the Census Bureau itself said that there was miscounting in 2020 that gave blue states extra seats.

So you can see how this would be viewed as a way to sort of balance the equities, but I don't know that the president was given full information as to what the ultimate consequences of this might be. And I don't think that he wants to see the congressional delegations in New York or California, or in other places --

BERMAN: You disagree with --

KILEY: -- totally upended.

BERMAN: But Congressman --

KILEY: But I will say as someone who is -- BERMAN: I hear you bending over backwards to justify what the president is doing but the fact remains you disagree with what he's doing, correct?

KILEY: I think that right now it's a bad idea for any state to be engaging in this. And so I think that based upon what we're now seeing I think that first and foremost the responsibility lies with the leadership in the House. And that's why I've called upon the speaker and the minority leader Hakeem Jeffries to come together. Ultimately this is matter of House seats.

And I think that the president, in view of this -- how things have played out and the new information he has could take a different view on this as well, especially when you look at California --

BERMAN: Can I --

KILEY: -- my state. Yeah, go ahead.

BERMAN: I was going to say -- and Texas is going to do this. One way or the other Texas seems like they're going to do this.

What would your advice be to California if Texas does go ahead and do it? Florida sounds like they're going to do it also. Should states lead by -- lead by Democrats just unilaterally disarm?

KILEY: Well, I'm very concerned about my own state of California and what's happening in California is actually much worse than what's happening anywhere else. And as I said, I don't agree with what's happening in Texas either.

But in California we have an independent commission that was established the voters. And so now there's an attempt not just to redraw district maps in the middle of the decade but to abolish that independent commission. To throw out its map and to return power into the hands of politicians even though voters said that's exactly what they don't want.

And I don't think it's any justification to say that something wrong is happening in some other state. I mean, this fails the test of kindergarten logic that two wrongs don't make a right. And just because there's something that we don't like going on elsewhere that doesn't mean that our voters should be punished for it. We should make our elections less fair in California, and we should degrade our politics, which is why groups like Common Cause --

BERMAN: Um-hum.

KILEY: -- and the League of Women Voters have come out and said this is a dangerous move knowing full well what's going on in Texas and other states.

BERMAN: Congressman --

KILEY: They said this is the wrong thing for California. BERMAN: Of course, that would leave states like Texas and maybe Indiana, and maybe Florida all Republican-led states doing it, and then -- and then states that are led by Democrats not doing it.

But I want to get your take on one more subject. You're on the Judiciary Committee. It came out that the Justice Department has --

KILEY: Um-hum.

BERMAN: -- has hired as a senior adviser a man named Jared Wise, who was indicted for his role on January 6. He was a January 6 rioter. He was indicted and charged with civil disobedience and went to trial. His case was dismissed after President Trump took office because every case -- the basic -- the president had basically ended every case.

But it came out he's on tape on January 6 saying that police officers should be killed. "Kill! Kill! Kill!" he says. Listen.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

JANUARY 6 RIOTERS: USA! USA! USA! USA!

JARED WISE, JANUARY 6 RIOTER, JUSTICE DEPARTMENT OFFICIAL: You guys are disgusting. I'm former -- I'm former law enforcement. You're disgusting. You are the Nazi. You are the Gestapo. You can't see it because you're chasing your pension, right -- pension. Your retirement, right? That's what runs your life is your retirement.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: And the sad thing is they're not even going to get their pension.

WISE: Shame on you! Shame on you! Shame on you! Yeah, (bleep) them! Yeah! Kill'em. Yeah!

(END VIDEO CLIP)

[07:55:00]

BERMAN: Now in his own trial he admitted he said those words "kill them, kill them" -- but he said they were said in anger, and he didn't really mean it.

But is this the kind of person that should be on staff or a senior adviser at the Justice Department?

KILEY: Yeah, this is the first I'm hearing about this. I don't know if anything that was just said is true. I couldn't even make out the voices in the video and the video isn't appearing on my screen. So I try not to sound off on issues that I don't have the chance to actually gain all pertinent information on, but I appreciate the opportunity to come on.

BERMAN: Congressman, the -- this man in trial admitted he said those words. It's not in dispute that he said those words. He admits he said everything there.

The Justice Department says that he doesn't -- you know, he's a valued member of the staff now.

Someone who admits to saying that, do you think he should be under the employ of the Justice Department?

KILEY: Again, I don't know the facts in this case. I don't know what he's been hired for. I literally just heard about this the moment that you told me. So if you want to have me back on, I'd be happy to comment after I have a chance to (INAUDIBLE).

BERMAN: All right. We will let you and your office look into it.

I look forward to speaking to you again. Congressman Kevin Kiley, thank you -- Kate.

BOLDUAN: So some young Democratic activists are now trying to win over Gen Z voters by actually taking a page from a conservative activist Charlie Kirk and the success of his group Turning Point USA. The ultimate goal, win elections.

CNN's Donie O'Sullivan has more.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: I just got Kirk. Yes, I just got escorted in for Brian Kirk, baby.

DONIE O'SULLIVAN, CNN SENIOR CORRESPONDENT (voiceover): We are in Tampa, Florida for Turning Point USA's Annual Student Action Summit. TPUSA is a voter-driving juggernaut for the Republican Party, led by 31-year-old Charlie Kirk.

CHARLIE KIRK, FOUNDER, TURNING POINT USA: They're happy. That's why, you know, they haven't been on social media.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: That's right.

O'SULLIVAN (voiceover): But this year's event will be menaced by something called the Un-F America Tour, started by a group of progressive influencers and organizers, including the massively popular streamer, Destiny.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: This is the all roads lead to Rome thing, right? He can do the exact same behavior he said that Biden couldn't get away with doing.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Well, Jessie --

O'SULLIVAN (voiceover): They want to bring progressive debate to Kirk's doorstep. But first they have to get in.

O'SULLIVAN: So, Turning Point has cancelled all of Un-F America's credentials, and now they're trying to sneak in Destiny, so he can debate inside here. All right, he's in. So Destiny has made it inside the building, and we'll see how long he lasts.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: There's a major streamer named Destiny, who's a democratic liberal streamer. He appears to be debating Myron Gaines, who's more of a right-wing red pill guy. They're both sort of creatures of internet trolldom, but it should be a lot of fun. You know, it's like blood sports. It's like watching a cockfight, effectively.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: We love to see it though.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: We love to see it. It's great.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: We are at Student Action Summit. We've got Destiny and Myron here today to have a little friendly conversation.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Oh yeah, mean.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Good to see you, bro.

O'SULLIVAN (voiceover): Young people may be tuning out the news, but this new form of live, provocative political debate is blowing up online. Its cultural significance is something well known to Kirk because he's part of it.

KIRK: Hello, everyone. I am Charlie Kirk, founder of Turning Point USA, and I am surrounded by 20 woke college kids.

O'SULLIVAN (voiceover): Under a tent with the words "prove me wrong," Kirk brought online debater culture directly to hundreds of college campuses during the last election cycle.

KIRK: We have a problem in Black America. The biggest problem is not racism, it's the lack of dads.

O'SULLIVAN (voiceover): And while he uses it to make viral content, its primary goal is to register Gen Z to vote MAGA.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: I love the fact that we are now becoming -- like, we're becoming the cool kids now.

KIRK: But no, I just want to be clear. Is there something wrong with talking to voters?

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: No, there's nothing wrong with talking to voters.

KIRK: Well that's what we're doing here today. It's an open mic --

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: I think that you push a dangerous agenda.

O'SULLIVAN (voiceover): It's a strategy that those behind Un-F America say the DNC has been absent to counter.

STEVEN BONNELL, AKA DESTINY, ONLINE STREAMER: I hate Charlie Kirk. I think he's actually a Satan spawn, but he's very, very strategically minded.

O'SULLIVAN (voiceover): At an event organized by the Un-F America crew down the street from the convention center, both conservatives and liberals packed into a pub to eat chicken wings, drink beer, and watch conservative voices try to take on Destiny.

O'SULLIVAN: Charlie Kirk's been doing this a long time -- more than 10 years. Why has it taken the left so long to catch up, and it still hasn't caught up?

BONNELL: Republicans, vertically, are very well integrated when it comes to making sure that they're winning elections, right?

O'SULLIVAN: Yes.

BONNELL: Those are people who in 2020, they thought the election was stolen in every state, basically --

O'SULLIVAN: Yes.

BONNELL: -- but they still showed up to vote next time.

So something is happening there where they're really big on going out and winning elections. And I think that that shows at every single level to where when people are organizing or when people are creating alternative media networks -- whether you're talking Tim Kool influencing other ones, like Joe Rogan, or trying to do things with college kids like Charlie Kirk -- they're making these events and they're gathering all these different people for Charlie Kirk and school kids, but the single focus is winning elections. It's incredibly important.

O'SULLIVAN: Did Democrats have anything like this?

ZEE COHEN SANCHEZ, DEMOCRATIC ORGANIZER, NATIONAL GROUND GAME: Nothing. And I will say, like, Charlie Kirk is honestly one of the best organizers of our generation. And I think that, you know, as much as I disagree with Charlie Kirk, I believe that what he's doing has worked. And that's why I'm here to replicate what he's doing.