Return to Transcripts main page

CNN News Central

W.H.: Trump Hopes for "Future Trilateral" Meeting with Zelensky & Putin; W.H.: Putin Meeting is "A Listening Exercise" for Trump; Inflation Holds Steady But Trump Tariffs Driving Some Costs Up; White House: Hope Monthly Jobs Reports Continue; W.H.: Washington, D.C. "Is a Great Place to Begin"; W.H.: Fed Takeover of D.C. Police Will be Reevaluated in 30 Days. Aired 3-3:30p ET

Aired August 12, 2025 - 15:00   ET

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

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[15:01:06]

DANNY FREEMAN, CNN HOST: From peace talks to a listening exercise, the White House plays the expectations game ahead of Friday's summit between Presidents Donald Trump and Vladimir Putin. Ukraine is warning that Russia appears more interested in war, though, than peace, as the Kremlin's forces advance in one critical region.

Plus, new inflation worries. The latest report shows the inflation rate did not rise as much as expected last month. But we dig into those numbers, and there is reason for concern.

BORIS SANCHEZ, CNN HOST: The Taylor Swift economy, meantime, has never been better. Fans are ecstatic as they learn about the star's plans for a new studio album. We're pumped, too, as we follow these major developing stories and many more, all coming in right here to CNN NEWS CENTRAL.

FREEMAN: A one-on-one meeting. It will be held on U.S. soil in Anchorage, Alaska, and it's now being referred to as a, quote, "listening exercise." These are just some of the major new developments coming in from the White House as the world waits for President Trump's face-to-face with Vladimir Putin.

For more on this, let's get right over to CNN's Kristen Holmes.

Kristen, more pieces of this puzzle are now coming together. What can you tell us?

KRISTEN HOLMES, CNN SENIOR WHITE HOUSE CORRESPONDENT: That's right, Danny. So, we have learned that this is going to take place in Anchorage, the exact place in Alaska had not been known before we heard from Karoline Leavitt today. The other part of this, as you mentioned, is at least a portion of the summit will be one-on-one, meaning direct conversations with President Trump and Russian President Vladimir Putin. This is not the first time the two of them have met one-on-one, but, of course, there's a lot of scrutiny on their relationship right now. Now, the other part of this is that Leavitt was asked specifically why

Zelenskyy wasn't invited or why President Trump wasn't going to invite Zelenskyy. Here's what she said.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

KAROLINE LEAVITT, WHITE HOUSE PRESS SECRETARY: He hopes in the future there can be a trilateral meeting with these three leaders to finally bring this conflict to an end. But this administration has really used every lever, has taken every measure to achieve peace through a diplomatic solution. And I think the President of the United States getting in the room with the President of Russia, sitting face-to-face rather than speaking over the telephone, will give this president the best indication of how to end this war and where this is headed.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

HOLMES: And that is something that President Trump does truly believe, that he needs to be sitting face-to-face with Putin. We know the last several phone calls that the two leaders have had have not gone well, at least from the President's eyes. In fact, early on, he was putting out his own readout of his conversations with Putin. That stopped. And recently, when he's been asked about conversations that we know they've had, he essentially said that Putin was tapping him along at points, saying that he didn't know if he could believe him, that he was all talk.

Now, we also heard the Press Secretary there describing this sit-down as a listening exercise. So, reiterating what we heard from President Trump yesterday, that this is not necessarily about making a deal, but trying to see where exactly the Russian president stands. Danny?

FREEMAN: Kristen Holmes, thank you so much for breaking it all down. Appreciate it. Boris?

SANCHEZ: With us now to discuss these developments is Jill Dougherty. She's an adjunct professor at Georgetown University and a former CNN Moscow bureau chief.

Jill, thanks so much for being with us.

What do you make of the White House seeming to lower expectations, calling this meeting a listening exercise after threatening these third-party sanctions on China and India for buying Russian oil?

JILL DOUGHERTY, CNN CONTRIBUTOR & FORMER MOSCOW BUREAU CHIEF: Well, this is the way the White House is conducting this. This is a very different approach to having a summit. You know, usually things - some things are worked out in advance. You have a pretty good idea of what you're going in with. You have a pretty good idea of what the other guy is coming in with. And here, it is very, very unpredictable.

[15:05:01]

And I think the Russians don't have any better idea. In fact, some of the Russian media were saying, yes, Mr. Trump respects Russia, et cetera. But he can zigzag, as they said in this one article.

So, I think the idea would be to - for President Trump to define as well as he can what Putin is saying, figure out whether that makes sense. And then if he thinks it is fair, then he would give it to Mr. Zelenskyy. But the challenge for President Trump, I think, will be to really understand the details. And that's not often what the President talks about. He's big picture. Vladimir Putin is big picture, but he also is a person who usually is in very good command of the facts, in fact, very detailed facts.

So, even trying to understand what he's saying, remember just a few days ago when the President's emissary, Mr. Witkoff, went to Moscow, he misinterpreted what President Putin had said. So, this is complicated, and we'll have to see in the end. Right now, it is a race to Friday.

SANCHEZ: Yes, and the crux of this disagreement at this point appears to be that the White House position is that there has to be some land swapping, some land that Ukraine concedes. Vladimir Zelenskyy has rejected that idea altogether. Do you think that's part of the reason he's not being invited to this summit on Friday?

DOUGHERTY: Well, I think probably the White House feels it's much more controllable to get Putin in a room and talk directly with him and then go to Zelenskyy. It's a - the relationship, number one, Putin is never going to meet with Zelenskyy at this stage. Putin does not consider, you know, Ukraine a country, certainly not a sovereign country. He does not like Mr. Zelenskyy, to put it mildly. He would like Zelenskyy out of the presidency. So, it would not - it could be volatile if it happened. But obviously, it's not going to happen.

SANCHEZ: We're learning more about the setup for this meeting. Karoline Leavitt confirming to CNN's Kaitlan Collins that Trump and Putin are going to meet one-on-one. At the same time, we're hearing that Russia is making some advances in the Eastern Front. And I wonder whether this is an attempt, and the way that the White House is setting expectations for this, is an attempt by the Kremlin to further drag this out as they accomplish more of what they're aspiring to militarily.

Is this Putin, again, just stringing Trump along, as the President himself is suggesting?

DOUGHERTY: Well, I think that part of it, Boris, is more that, you know, Friday is coming very soon. So, the Russians and the Ukrainians now are in a race to get as much land as they can. Because if you're talking about territory, you have to grab as much as you can. And I think Mr. Zelenskyy, President Zelenskyy did say they are planning, you know, another offensive and it doesn't look like they want peace.

But I think it's to be expected that that is what the Russians would do. Because if it comes down to what kind of land is given, then you're going to want to grab as much as you can. I think, Boris, also, you know, when you get into the land, we don't know how this is going to end up. But essentially, what Ukraine does not want to do is accede to the Russians taking land that the Russians don't even hold, Ukrainian land that the Russians don't hold. And I think that's one of the sticking points.

SANCHEZ: Are you anticipating that after this meeting, it's likely Trump is going to pursue some of those sanctions on nations that trade with Russia?

DOUGHERTY: I would not expect it unless everything goes south. If he believes that Putin is just stringing him along, as he has said before, he might just, you know, pull the trigger on more sanctions. But I think if he feels that there is something that he can present to Zelenskyy and then push Zelenskyy to accept that, then you can see what the Russians want. And we've heard already there could be another meeting, another meeting maybe in Russia.

So, this, I think, when you talk about dragging things out, I think that's what Putin wants to do. Get in Trump's ear, convince him that Zelenskyy is the problem, Russia is not the problem, I, Mr. Putin, am not the problem, it's Zelenskyy who is the problem, and then say, let's have another meeting, because we have to restore our relationship.

[15:10:07]

I think that's the strategy that Putin's using.

SANCHEZ: Really important point there.

Jill Dougherty, thank you so much. Danny?

FREEMAN: Today's inflation report offered really something for everyone. The White House noted the annual rate of inflation largely held steady, but the report also showed that the President's tariffs are driving up the cost of some things, like toys and ground beef. Now, these reports give us critical insight into the economy, just like the jobs report do, so some were concerned to find out that the President's choice to leave the Bureau of Labor Statistics could suspend the monthly jobs report. The White House responded to that report earlier today. Take a listen.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

LEAVITT: What I'll tell you about the Bureau of Labor Statistics, I believe that is the plan and that's the hope, and that these monthly reports will be data that the American people can trust.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

FREEMAN: All right, I'm joined now by former Trump economic advisor, Stephen Moore, who worked with Antony for four years at the Heritage Foundation and elsewhere. Again, that's E.J. Antoni, the new acting head of the BLS, that's right before he gets confirmed. Thank you so much for being here. Really appreciate it.

STEPHEN MOORE, FORMER TRUMP ECONOMIC ADVISER: Thank you.

FREEMAN: Let's start with the jobs - excuse me, the CPI numbers, if that's okay. MOORE: Yes.

FREEMAN: You heard that a little bit for everyone there. Some good signs overall with inflation, but some mourning signs, too, with some consumer goods. What's your take?

MOORE: Positive report, you know, we're finally seeing that inflation rate come down to what I call the sweet zone, which is we want the CPI to be somewhere in the 2- to 2.5 percent range, and we're in that zone right now. I'd like to see it a little lower, but it's pretty good.

Now, people, you know, if you look at the polling, people are still concerned about the price of groceries, they're concerned about gas prices, and they're concerned about how expensive it is to buy a house.

FREEMAN: True.

MOORE: But I'm very optimistic about this number. I think it will signal to the Fed that they can do maybe a 25 or 50 basis point reduction in rates when they meet in September. That's one of the reasons I think you saw that big jumbo increase in the stock market today. So, good sign.

Now, you mentioned the idea that tariffs may have driven up some of the costs, and you may very well be right about that.

FREEMAN: Clothing, beef, other things like that.

MOORE: Yes, exactly. I mean, look, if you put a tax on something, some of that's going to be borne by the consumers. But don't forget, though, that, you know, the gas price is now as low as it's been in a long time. That's a good signal. So, all in all, it's been a good day for Trump in terms of the news we're getting on the economy.

FREEMAN: All right. I want to talk about the newly appointed BLS commissioner.

MOORE: Yes.

FREEMAN: Last time, just a week ago, you were on the show. You spoke with Brianna about this. I want you to take a listen to ...

MOORE: Yes.

FREEMAN: ... what you told her about your hopes for this commissioner. Take a listen.

MOORE: Sure.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

MOORE: We don't know who the new person will be, but I don't want him to be a political person. I don't think anyone was - does. I think we want somebody who's a really, really smart statistician who can completely revise the way we measure jobs each month. (END VIDEO CLIP)

FREEMAN: Okay, we have the answer now, E.J. Antoni for the moment. Does he fit that profile?

MOORE: Well, I recommended him to the President, so I think he was a really good choice. I think that E.J. ...

FREEMAN: He actively - this was a discussion you and the President had perhaps last week.

MOORE: Well, a lot of people were recommending E.J., but I did - so when he asked me, I said, you know, E.J. would be an excellent choice. Look, he's not going to be political. He - the most important thing for E.J., and he knows this, is he's got to come up with accurate, reliable numbers. If he were to, you know, try to jigger the numbers in Trump's favor or something, that would come back to haunt him, and he would not be seen as successful.

He will be successful, and I think he will, if he can come up with numbers that are reliable and accurate and honest. The problem I have with the BLS, and the reason I told President Trump I think he did the right thing in firing this woman, who, by the way, I've never met. I know nothing about her.

FREEMAN: Yes.

MOORE: I just think that we're not - I follow this jobs report. I've been following it for 30 years, every first Friday of the month, and we're seeing these numbers go up and down and up and down. We're seeing massive revisions. We're seeing discrepancies in the one survey versus the other, and here's the problem I have with that. As an economist, the most important number we get each month on how the economy is doing is that jobs report.

FREEMAN: Right.

MOORE: And lately, we just can't trust the numbers because they're just all over the place. So, let's get it accurate.

FREEMAN: Okay, before I go on to the jobs report itself, though, Antoni, though, he's been on Steve Bannon's podcast in the wake of this recent news. He said that he thinks one of the problems was that there wasn't someone close enough to Trump or the MAGA influence. Does that not sound political to you?

MOORE: That doesn't sound like something. I mean, I'd have to see that. That doesn't sound like something.

FREEMAN: He said that part of the - one - part of the problem with the BLS is that it hasn't been led by a MAGA Republican who Trump knows and trusts.

MOORE: Well, I'm not familiar with that quote, but I think what we're going to get from E.J. is accurate numbers. And by the way, if they're not, you know, then he should be fired. We need somebody to - who can put out reliable numbers. Give him six months. Let's see how he does. I'm very confident.

[15:15:08]

FREEMAN: I want to ask you about actually what was also said at the press briefing just a little while ago.

MOORE: Yes.

FREEMAN: Because it was reported that Mr. Antoni, your friend and colleague, he had noted that he might consider not doing monthly job reports. The White House said that they - their plan and hope is to release monthly job reports. What's your take on that?

MOORE: I think it's a bad idea to do that. In fact, I've talked to E.J. about it and he's not going to do that. We need monthly numbers. Now, what he's talking about is we do a quarterly number that's much more accurate than the monthly one. He's saying, well, maybe we - but he's backed off that we're going to continue to do monthly numbers.

FREEMAN: And then just specifically, because I think this is important, to your point, right, because you said that the firing should have happened regardless of politics earlier. What can Antoni do to make this a better process?

MOORE: I think what he should do is like have an independent commission come in and say, here's how we got to fix this. And if you look at the way numbers are calculated now, this is also a problem with the census numbers. It's a problem with all these. We're still in polling, for example. We're using 1960s technology and this is 2025. Let's update these, so we get really good, honest numbers.

FREEMAN: And is that - you said it might take a couple of months to try and do that?

MOORE: I think - well - oh, yes. I mean, that's a twenty-five-hundred- person agency. We've been doing it this way for a long time. It's going to take a while to fix it.

FREEMAN: Do you think that he should be worried that if perhaps there's a job report that is weak, that he should fear that President Trump might fire him.

MOORE: Trump (INAUDIBLE) numbers, too?

FREEMAN: Yes.

MOORE: Yes.

FREEMAN: And you feel that he will be able to deliver that?

MOORE: It's going to take a while to fix this situation. But in the end of the day, he'll get it fixed.

FREEMAN: Let's go back to the inflation numbers at the moment, because the other thing that Press Secretary said during that press briefing in response to small business concerns about tariffs and the creep of some of these consumer goods is have faith in the President. There's - we're here to make America wealthy again. All those different things.

I guess my question for you is, as some of these numbers, though, do tick up, even though gas is down, how long can the White House maintain - have faith that we're going to right the ship here, even as the tariffs start to have some impact?

MOORE: Look, all the numbers are headed north right now. You've got strong consumer confidence. You've got good business confidence. You've got a record stock market. You've got prices falling. We've just passed that tax cut that's just kicking in. I'm pretty bullish right now. I - look, I mean, who knows what the economy is going to do next?

FREEMAN: True.

MOORE: And you're right. Look, I've been a critic of the tariffs, so I ...

FREEMAN: Right.

MOORE: ... I am concerned about some of those things you're mentioning. But all in all, he's getting pretty good trade deals. I mean, what he got with the Brits was pretty good. The European deal is good for America. It's going to bring hundreds of billions of dollars capital in. So, so far, so good. But I'll be keeping an eye on those tariffs because you're right, they may cause some increase in prices that we don't want to see.

FREEMAN: And like with so much of this, we shall see.

MOORE: Yes.

FREEMAN: Thank you, Stephen, for coming in. Really appreciate it.

MOORE: Thank you.

FREEMAN: Still to come in just a moment, the White House touting President Trump's takeover of D.C.'s police department. The Press Secretary now making the case that it could serve as a model for the rest of the country.

Plus, we have new reaction from the White House on a federal judge's decision to reject the administration efforts to unseal grand jury materials in Ghislaine Maxwell's sex trafficking case.

And later, it's the beginning of a new era for Taylor Swift. We'll tell you what we know about the new album she just announced, that and much, much more coming up on CNN News Central.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[15:22:50]

SANCHEZ: Today, new questions are swirling involving President Trump's federal takeover of the police force in Washington, D.C. Earlier, D.C.'s police chief met with justice officials as she says that decisions are now being made over how the city plans to use hundreds of National Guard troops. Many are now arriving for their deployment, as our cameras captured this morning.

So, what is the White House's plan after the 30 days that this takeover is allotted for legally? Listen to what Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt said earlier today.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

LEAVITT: The President wants to see all of our nation's cities be safe. But I think starting with our nation's capital is a great place to begin and it should serve as a model for the rest of the country.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

SANCHEZ: With us now to discuss, CNN Senior Legal Analyst Elie Honig.

Elie, always great to have you.

So, the A.G. in D.C. says that the Home Rule Act gives the President authority over D.C. But, quote, "those invocations can only occur while there is an emergency in place." Is there a precise definition in the law for what constitutes an emergency? Is it subjective, as Muriel Bowser has said?

ELIE HONIG, CNN SENIOR LEGAL ANALYST: Emergencies are in the eye of the beholder under this particular law, Boris. There is no definition provided in the law itself. And yes, there is subjectivity as evidenced by the fact that Donald Trump has declared an emergency and the mayor disagrees.

Now, the way this is going to get resolved is one of two ways. One, if nobody does anything, if there's no lawsuit, then Trump has declared an emergency and the D.C. Metro Police will be federalized. Two is there could be a lawsuit, in which case the courts will decide. And, Boris, this is what lawyers and judges do all the time. We are sometimes served with very broad, vague words and then we have to go fight out what they do or do not mean.

SANCHEZ: Yes, that's a really good point. And it sort of speaks to a broader argument that the administration is having, because in their view, the protests earlier this summer in California in which Trump authorized national forces to intervene rose to the level of a rebellion, right? They were arguing that local officials couldn't handle that despite the argument from state and local officials that it was under control.

[15:25:05]

I wonder what you view as the legal strategy here from the White House as President Trump threatens to replicate this intervention in other major cities like Chicago.

HONIG: So, this is a very common tactic of this White House, Boris. As you note, the President has declared either emergencies or rebellions or insurrections in that instance, you talk about in California, in various instances relating to deportation and the Alien Enemies Act, even in instituting the tariffs, he declared an international economic emergency.

With respect, though, it's important to understand when we hear the administration talking about using a similar model in Chicago or New York or L.A., this will not work in other cities. D.C. is legally unique. There's a specific law that gives the President the ability to take over the Metro Police Force, and also he can control the National Guard in D.C., unlike in the states, except for in emergencies. So, this talk of spreading this to other cities is simply not doable.

SANCHEZ: Do you foresee any legal issues or at least legal challenges that may come up over the question of chain of command? Because D.C. officials have emphasized that the police chief, Pamela Smith, here in the nation's capital, continues to be in charge of MPD, but the White House Press Secretary just said that the head of the Drug and Enforcement Administration is functionally in charge of D.C.'s police force. I mean, I imagine there is going to be potentially some dispute over chain of command.

HONIG: Yes, there absolutely will be certainly practical and operational problems there, Boris. Police departments like prosecutors' offices are chain of command, hierarchical organizations. You have to know who's in charge. And we're hearing from some that it's the chief of the Metro PD. We just heard that it's the head of the DEA. Donald Trump said the same thing yesterday.

Ideally, and by the way, police departments, federal and state, do work together frequently, sometimes by choice, sometimes they're sort of forced together. And what you do then is de-conflict. You get together and you coordinate. But they're going to have to work this out. And ultimately, if there's some sort of standoff as to who's the boss, then yes, that could end up in the courts as well. But you hope they work together and come to some sort of reasonable, practical solution. There's real streets and real lives at stake here.

SANCHEZ: Yes, no question about that. And it's not just the concern over conflict on the official side, but also during patrols. If you're going to have military troops on the street responding to typically police-led interactions, there is an army official - Guard - who told CNN that Guard troops are not expected to openly carry rifles as they patrol the streets. I wonder if there are limitations on what, if any, these troops actually can carry, what they can do.

HONIG: So, traditionally, there is a strict wall of separation, Boris, in this country between the military and law enforcement. It's called posse comitatus, I guess, in Latin. But that basically means military troops. They can support law enforcement, but they can't conduct law enforcement operations, arrests, search warrants, that type of thing.

So, there is an exception, though, important to note. The National Guard in D.C., according to a DOJ opinion from the 1980s that's been on the books for 40 some years, the National Guard in D.C. can perform law enforcement functions. It's a very narrow exception. But Boris, this brings up more practical issues, right? You're talking about different entities here, National Guard, sometimes the FBI, in some instances, Metro PD. Each of these organizations has different training, different policies about when they use force, when they can use lethal force. Do they have to wear body cameras? When do they have to activate them? Who do they report to?

So, these are all things that, again, are going to need to be worked out, negotiated and deconflicted. Otherwise, it's going to be a confusing, counterproductive mess. I have faith they'll be able to do it. And the onus is really on the leaders of those - each of those entities.

SANCHEZ: It's going to be an interesting 30 days, if not more, in the nation's capital. Elie Honig, appreciate the analysis.

HONIG: Thanks, Boris.

SANCHEZ: Coming up, the White House reacting to a federal judge's decision to keep grand jury testimony in the Ghislaine Maxwell case under seal. We have the latest on the Epstein file saga when we come back.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)