Return to Transcripts main page

CNN News Central

Rep. Marlin Stutzman (R-IN) On Extra Funding For War With Iran; Ousted Venezuelan Leader Maduro To Appear In Court Today; OpenAI Says Its AI Breached Another Company's Model. Aired 7:30-8a ET

Aired July 22, 2026 - 07:30   ET

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

[07:30:00]

KATE BOLDUAN, CNN ANCHOR: The administration's strategy there and overall, let's face it, is now facing new scrutiny after Defense Sec. Pete Hegseth and the chairman of the Joint Chiefs, Dan -- Gen. Dan Caine. Caine faced tough questions from both Democrats and Republicans on Capitol Hill.

Hegseth saying that the war has already cost the nation more than $37 billion. That's the latest estimate, he says. The White House now asking Congress for tens of billions of dollars more in order to fund the continued war effort.

CNN's Brian Todd has much more on this. Brian, there were a lot of questions, as I said, from both sides of the aisle, especially to the defense secretary. Did they got a lot -- did -- how did they go by way of getting answers?

BRIAN TODD, CNN CORRESPONDENT: Well, they got answers, Kate; they just didn't get the answers that they really wanted. You know, I've covered a lot of hearings where Pete Hegseth has testified over the past several months. They have all gotten heated at some point. None of them got as heated as this one yesterday.

As Kate mentioned, the context was Pete Hegseth telling senators that the war has already cost $37.5 billion and he's there asking for $67 billion more to fund the war in Iran. Well, as a result of that he got really hammered by a couple of Democratic senators, including Jon Ossoff.

But then, Sen. Gary Peters got up, and this was at the very end of this hearing yesterday after almost three hours of testimony. Senator Gary Peters pretty much hammered Hegseth, saying that the war, in Peter's mind, has been an utter and complete failure and asking Hegseth what the strategy is going forward if he wants this money.

Take a look at this exchange.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

SEN. GARY PETERS (D-MI): So what's different, Mr. Hegseth -- Sec. Hegseth? PETE HEGSETH, SECRETARY OF DEFENSE: I think your characterization of

this incredible effort as a failure is reckless, and I think it's irresponsible, and I think it smears the sacrifice of the troops that are out there making on behalf of the American people to ensure that Iran never gets a nuclear weapon. Shame on you and others who call this a quagmire and a failure, and then you want to turn around and say you support the warfighter. Either you do or you don't.

PETERS: Is the nuclear material still there, sir?

HEGSETH: I can get you a ticket out to CENTCOM and talk to what those Americans are doing. How committed they are to this effort and how they want to ensure that Iran never threatens their families with a nuclear weapon. It's -- it is that -- that's the kind of intensity that our warfighters have about making sure that Iran isn't capable of doing that.

PETERS: Secretary Hegseth, did you -- if you listened to my comments, you told -- you would have heard me say how amazing our warfighters are.

HEGSETH: I heard failure.

PETERS: If --

HEGSETH: I heard -- I heard exactly what you said.

PETERS: I will tell you how I used the word "failure"

HEGSETH: I heard exactly what you said.

PETERS: -- because I used the word "failure" to their leaders. You, sir, are the failure; not the men and women who are on that front line. Not the men and women who hold up their honor with distinction.

But if there's a lack of a winning strategy and they're in harm's way, their leaders have failed them -- and that's what's happening. We have political leadership -- you. You don't have a strategy. You don't have a long-term plan to actually win this war -- win the war. The men and women are going to be able to do it, but they need to have leadership. When will you show leadership?

HEGSETH: Of course, we have leadership. Of course, we have leadership.

PETERS: When will you show leadership?

HEGSETH: Why don't you show some leadership and stand up to your fellow Democrats who won't fund the troops? Who stand and play partisan politics while you don't give us the money.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

TODD: So that was the most heated it got. He also got into some heated exchanges with Democratic Senators Jon Ossof and Kirsten Gillibrand over the money and over the declarations that both he and President Trump have made over the past several months. That the war was won and that Iran's military had been depleted.

Hegseth also, Kate, claimed that the U.S. has maintained some control over the Strait of Hormuz for some time through a covert effort to guide ships through the strait even though much of the strait has been closed as the U.S. and Iran have exchanged fire over the past several days. Hegseth saying that this covert effort has pushed between 400 and 500 million barrels of oil through the Strait of Hormuz even though most of the strait has pretty much been closed off -- Kate.

BOLDUAN: Hmm.

Brian Todd, thank you so much -- John.

JOHN BERMAN, CNN ANCHOR: All right. With us now is Congressman Marlin Stutzman, a Republican from Indiana. Congressman, good morning to you. It's always great to see you.

Listen, the situation in Iran is this. They still have nuclear material. They're still firing missiles that are killing U.S. troops. The Strait of Hormuz is now effectively closed -- mostly closed -- not fully open. It was open before the war. And Bab al-Mandab, another strait, is threatened to be closed.

So how do you tell your constituents in Indiana that this $37 billion has been well spent and that $67 billion more will be worth it?

REP. MARLIN STUTZMAN (R-IN): John, great to be with you this morning. Thanks for having me.

You know, I was actually just talking to constituents this past weekend. In fact, it was a mother of military personnel who had strong feelings about that we've -- that fact that we need to finish this. Now, you now, what does that mean?

We know that Iran was not going to be as simple or as easy as what happened with Venezuela and Maduro -- obviously, two very different regimes, both dictators.

[07:35:00]

But we know that -- we know that Iran has a lot of weapons, a lot of money with their oil and gas revenue. The IRGC is -- it's broad, it's wide, and it's deep. But the fact is that we have taken out a bulk of their nuclear capability. There's still some work to do. Also, the Strait of Hormuz continues to be contentious.

But, you know, I know that a lot of people in my district say we've got to finish the job. Now, younger folks -- they don't like the idea of war, and I think that's very typical. None of us do. But in the long run we have to take out the IRGC. I think that's where the coalition has to be built to do that and I think President Trump and Marco Rubio are working hard at that and it will come together at some point. And we have to win this.

BERMAN: Was there a reason you left out Sec. Hegseth in that?

STUTZMAN: No. I mean, there's obviously a lot of great personnel in the cabinets. I -- we actually met with Secretary Hegseth --

BERMAN: OK.

STUTZMAN: -- last week.

And a lot of the money that you mentioned is not only going towards, you know, backfilling the artillery for the war but also, it's forward-looking money as well. It's not just for the Iranian situation. We also -- we need to catch up on drones. We are behind on shipbuilding. So there's money that's going to be going forward for new equipment; not just for the Iranian conflict.

BERMAN: There was a quote in Politico this morning attributed to a person close to the White House. And this person close to the White House described the administration's handling of the war as "badly mismanaged" and driven increasingly by the president's refusal to acknowledge a loss. They don't have a plan here," the person said. And then their quote goes on to talk about fears about an escalation and endless war. But they don't have a plan here.

What do you think their plan is this morning?

STUTZMAN: You know -- and I've heard that several times on the Hill and I just -- why would the president and why would Secretary Hegseth -- why would they reveal a plan publicly anyway? I mean, we're not going to reveal the playcalling when, you know, we have to protect our troops. If there was a plan that was released, you know, there would be an outcry that we're putting our troops in harm's way because there would be an appropriate response from the Iranians.

So I think that there is a plan here and the plan is to defeat the IRGC. To take out their nuclear capability. But at the same time, we've known the IRGC is -- as I said earlier, it's a much more sophisticated regime. They've had 40 years in power in Iran -- in Iran.

They've had billions and billions of dollars of oil and gas money, putting the economic pressure on, putting the military pressure on, all without putting troops on the ground. That's what I think people need to be reminded of is that there aren't troops on the ground that we all fear the most. The Iranians know that as well and they're using that against us and trying to prolong this situation as long as possible even through the elections.

But we have to do the right thing to protect our troops, to protect our country, and finish the job. I have been calling for a regime change in Iran all along because as long as the IRGC is in power we're going to always have this problem.

BERMAN: Congressman, we woke up to the news in The Wall Street Journal and The New York Times today that the White House appears to be close, if not already agreeing to a deal with Saudi Arabia to help them developing a nuclear program and ultimately for them to enrich their own uranium.

Now, you came out opposed to selling F-35s to Turkey and the grounds you stated at the time were because of security concerns in the region and also because of some of Turkey's foreign policy positions toward Israel.

Given that, how do you feel about giving Saudi Arabia a nuclear program?

STUTZMAN: You know, the Saudis are really the stable balance in the Middle East between, of course, Saudi Arabia, Iran, and Turkey.

The problem that I have with Turkey is you just continue to see this rhetoric -- this antisemitic, this anti-Israel rhetoric towards Israel almost on a daily basis. And Turkey is a powerful country. And, of course, with the relationship between Israel -- or the proximity between Israel, Syria, and Turkey.

Syria is a little bit of a free agent in this situation with Assad being gone. I -- you know, we keep hearing good reports that al-Sharaa is stabilizing the country, trying to unify the country. There's a lot of work to do.

But I just think if Turkey has the F-35, which is our most sophisticated aircraft, it gives them the ability not just also to their self but also it would affect Greece as well. They've got conflicts with Greece.

BERMAN: Sure.

STUTZMAN: So I think Saudi Arabia really would be the balance -- could be a balancing mechanism here to keep everything a little aligned there.

BERMAN: So no concerns with helping or giving Saudi Arabia the power to enrich their own uranium?

STUTZMAN: Not my initial reaction. I'd, you know, of course, want to hear more intelligence.

I've visited Saudi Arabia. They've come a long way from where they were before. Obviously, the crown prince is a friend of the West and he's a friend of America. And we also know that they are always keeping a check on Iran. Iran and -- you know, the Arabs and Persians, the IRGC, and the Saudis have always been at each other.

[07:40:08]

And, you know, I think it's -- we want to be careful where nuclear weapons go, but it's at the same time Turkey becomes more powerful. The Saudis are truly becoming a friend to the West. And also with the Abraham Accords -- if they can pull the Saudis in with the Abraham Accords in relation to Israel and really build an economic relationship between several of those countries there, that could really be the balance that brings accountability to everybody there.

BERMAN: Well, they're not there yet. They're not in the Abraham Accords yet. And in terms of being a friend of the United States --

STUTZMAN: Right.

BERMAN: -- there are those who would suggest they're not particularly a friend of human rights or journalists in the past.

But Congressman Marlin Stutzman, I do appreciate --

STUTZMAN: No, I --

BERMAN: -- the conversation. I do appreciate talking to you. Thank you very much -- Sara.

SARA SIDNER, CNN ANCHOR: All right. Thank you so much, John.

Happening today, Venezuela's ousted leader Nicolas Maduro and his wife back in court in New York. They both face drug trafficking and narcoterrorism charges, which they have both denied. Today's hearing is expected to focus on pretrial motions, procedures for turning over evidence, and a trial date. This, as Maduro's defense prepares to challenge the legality of the capture by the United States.

Joining me now is CNN senior legal analyst and former assistant U.S. attorney for the Southern District of New York, Elie Honig. And CNN legal and national security analyst Carrie Cordero. Thank you both for being here.

First to you, Elie. Maduro and his wife are going to be back in court this morning. Both sides expected to ask for trial in 2027 -- so, like, mid-2027.

What should we be watching for in this particular hearing, and what does the timeline tell us? Because I think both sides, if they've agreed to the timeline, you kind of get some sense of where we're going here.

ELIE HONIG, CNN SENIOR LEGAL ANALYST, FORMER FEDERAL PROSECUTOR, FORMER ASSISTANT U.S. ATTORNEY, SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK: This case has been moving very slowly so far. The arrest happened back in early January and here we are 6 1/2 months later. The parties don't even yet have a concrete deadline for their pretrial motions, including those motions to dismiss.

So the one thing I'm mostly looking for today is what will the timeline look like, but also sometimes in a proceeding like this you can get a preview of what the defense motions will be. The judge will often turn to the defense lawyer and say what kind of motions are you thinking of filing? And so that's something that I want to listen very carefully to.

With respect to the trial date, if I'm the prosecutor at this point, I am very eager to set a trial date. It's good that the parties have agreed roughly but that's not the final word. The judge is the final word. He's got to find time in his schedule. But what could be a higher priority than getting this case tried?

SIDNER: It is a case that is being watched around the world. And to that end, Carrie, there is the defense saying hey, this whole thing was illegal in the first place. They called it basically a kidnapping where the United States went in and picked up Nicolas Maduro from his own country -- and his wife.

How does that argument, to you at this moment, hold up do you think?

CARRIE CORDERO, CNN LEGAL AND NATIONAL SECURITY ANALYST (via Webex by Cisco): Well, I think the Maduros will probably make a number of arguments on the basis that he's going to argue he was the head of state. He's going to argue that he had immunity. So I think there's a -- he could argue international law issue. So I think there's a range of potential ancillary legal arguments that the Maduros could make.

But, you know, as to this timing of the -- of potential trial in mid- 2027, I think that it's possible, but I think it's pretty ambitious. Working in the government's favor is the fact that most of the information that the government would use in this case should be done through criminal authority. So it would be a lot of unclassified information that they obtained through criminal investigations over many, many years. So there should be less on the classified side that they would need to use.

But against the government's favor in terms of meeting that deadline would mean that there's a range of witnesses that they will have to get to cooperate in a potential trial. And the charges cover many, many years of alleged conduct, and so the volume of discovery and information that they would need to provide to the defense is going to be considerable.

SIDNER: Yeah. You'd have to wonder if there are people within his own administration who are now -- have taken over the government will have to testify in some of this because they may have information that the government wants to bring out.

But the charges are about this huge cocaine trafficking conspiracy. So far, what kind of evidence have prosecutors kind of put out in this case?

HONIG: Well, we don't know exactly what the evidence is because sometimes in an indictment prosecutors will say we have this evidence.

SIDNER: Yes.

HONIG: We have a recording of this --

SIDNER: Show it out, yeah.

HONIG: -- right?

SIDNER: Yeah.

HONIG: This indictment is long and detailed in its narrative, but it doesn't specify what the sources of evidence are.

Are prosecutors going to rely on cooperating witnesses? I'm sure. There's no way you can make a massive narcotrafficking case against a boss without cooperating witnesses. [07:45:00]

Do they have incriminating recordings? If so, we've not seen any indicator of that yet. So that's another thing that we're looking for today. It's hard to prove a case against a boss -- against someone at the top of a massive conspiracy. You need to get cooperation from people below and smart bosses -- they know how to insulate themselves.

SIDNER: Yeah. And, I mean, this is going to be a really fascinating case, and I think a lot of people will be watching the details as they come out because they will be interesting.

HONIG: We'll learn more today.

SIDNER: That is right.

HONIG: For sure.

SIDNER: All right. Thank you, Elie.

All right. Over to you, Kate.

BOLDUAN: New this morning is - -- well, an unprecedented AI security incident. ChatGPT creator OpenAI says two of its models escaped controls and successfully hacked into another AI company. OpenAI says they are -- the way they describe it is responding accordingly. But they also say this involves state-of-the-art technology and is unprecedented.

Let's get over to CNN's Clare Duffy for more on this. Clare, it does not sound like good news.

CLARE DUFFY, CNN BUSINESS TECH REPORTER: Yeah, Kate. This kind of sounds like the plot of a sci-fi movie but it is, indeed, happening in real life. This is the first major example that we've seen of an AI model independently conducting a hack outside of human control. And this something that experts have been warning about. This is also driving some of these conversations that we've heard, including at the White House, about increasing controls and oversight of AI models because of the risk of exactly this sort of hack.

Now, what happened here is that OpenAI was testing these models. It had lowered its normal safeguards in order to test these two models. It was GPT-5.6 Sol and also a new unreleased, more advanced model. It had lowered its safeguards because it thought it was testing in what is called a "sandbox," a contained, essentially, virtual lab.

But when it gave these models a task to test their hacking capabilities the models went to such great lengths to complete that task that it found vulnerabilities that allowed them to access the open internet outside of this controlled testing environment.

They then hacked into Hugging Face, which is a platform that hosts all kinds of AI models. They used stolen credentials to learn logins to navigate that platform. And ultimately, this hack was identified by Hugging Face in part because of artificial intelligence, which they used to shut it down.

But this a huge warning sign for this industry. In a statement, OpenAI said "We consider this incident to be an unprecedented cyber incident involving state-of-the-art capabilities and are responding accordingly. We are sharing preliminary findings at this stage to help defenders understand what happened and to help calibrate on what models are now capable of."

I think that is the real key here is that models are now capable of conducting these kinds of hacks independently.

The CEO of Hugging Face said that the company is working with OpenAI to figure out exactly what happened here. In a statement, he said that they suspected last week's cyberattack may have come from a frontier lab given the sophistication of this agent. He also went on to say that "We strongly believe there was no malicious intent on their part. It's quite mind-blowing that all of this happened autonomously."

Kate, I think mind-blowing is one word that you could use for this. Terrifying, perhaps another word that could describe this situation.

BOLDUAN: Yeah, and the statements from both the companies seem to be somewhat in awe that it actually happened.

But it's -- it is terrifying because -- is there anything that they've said that could -- will stop this from happening again?

DUFFY: Yeah. I mean, I think if you talk to safety experts within the industry there is real concern that this sort of thing will start happening more frequently and that the model -- the big model labs just don't have the capability to control these models that they need to have at this point.

Now, OpenAI also said that it believes AI will be helpful in detecting these kinds of hacks. That is certainly what Hugging Face saw in their instance in this case. But I do think this is going to start another round of conversations about how we make sure that we have the controls in place so that AI isn't autonomously conducting these hacks outside of human control, Kate.

BOLDUAN: Yeah. And honestly, the "we" -- like, how we figured it out is truly just these AI companies because the rest of us are just sitting here along for the ride very clearly.

It's good -- it's good to see you, Clare. Thank you so much -- John.

BERMAN: All right. So my phone was like a symphony -- the steady stream of severe storm warnings. We had torrential downpours, dangerous flash floods. Where these storms are headed now.

And then what it took to rescue a maintenance worker trapped 130 feet up in the air in a gas station sign. Cozy, sort of.

(COMMERCIAL)

[07:54:43] BERMAN: So as of this morning, 25 percent tariffs now in effect for thousands of imports from Brazil. The Trump administration says an investigation found that Brazil engaged in "unfair trade practices." This is one of the first new tariffs after the Supreme Court ruling that struck down the basis of most of its import taxes of the president earlier this year.

[07:55:05]

CNN senior business reporter David Goldman is with us now for what we're going to see here, David.

DAVID GOLDMAN, CNN BUSINESS SENIOR REPORTER: Yeah. So we're kind of rebuilding the tariff regime that the president is trying to impose. Remember, the Supreme Court, to your point, got rid of Trump's emergency powers, so now we're kind of getting a sense of what this is going to look like. Twenty-five percent on all Brazilian goods with a couple of exceptions. I'll get into that.

And what they need to do to get these tariffs is they need to cite a reason now, according to these new statutes. So they're saying they're unfair with digital trade, and ethanol, and access, you know, to -- well, illegal deforestation. Certainly, I'm sure the president is concerned about that. But this is something that they have to come up with in order to put tariffs on things like furniture, and ethanol, and footwear. And sugar is a big import.

But notice the things that are not getting the tariff -- beef. A big, big exporter of beef. You have coffee. We get a ton of coffee -- there's an awful lot of coffee in Brazil. Orange juice and crude oil. We certainly don't want that to go any higher.

So there is some political elements to this as well. And, you know, what does the administration say about it? Well, they're not negotiating in good faith and so they need to have these tariffs. Lula's administration is, you know, bad for Americans, bad for Brazilians.

Lula fighting back, obviously, saying there's no justification for any of this. And, you know, he is probably right. That it's not just a 25 percent tariff. We could be looking at a 37.5 percent tariff at the end of the week as the president tries to reinstate some of the tariffs that have gone away. Now there's another unfair labor practice tariff that could get into effect by the end of the week.

Brazil could be facing something very, very steep, which is a little ironic because Brazil is actually a net importer of American goods unlike most of the countries that we are targeting with tariffs.

BERMAN: Yeah. The balance here will be interesting to watch. It's all so interesting to watch the administration build this back out again. They have to do it piece-by-piece and there processes they have to go through. It's much more difficult to get to where they want to go --

GOLDMAN: That's right.

BERMAN: -- than it was before, but they can get some of the way back.

GOLDMAN: Yes.

BERMAN: David Goldman, thank you very much.

GOLDMAN: Thank you.

BERMAN: Kate.

BOLDUAN: So House Speaker Mike Johnson is getting on board with a proposal to bar members of Congress from dating staffers.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

REP. MIKE JOHNSON (R-LA), SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE: I can't believe it would be acceptable in any situation. Yeah, I -- you have a role where you have members of Congress and their subordinates and staff members. I think it's inappropriate, as it would be in any workplace, and most companies have that. We should -- we should at a bare minimum in Congress have, you know, rules and traditions that are adhered to in corporate America, so that's an easy one for me.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

BOLDUAN: The rules change is still being debated. Not yet a done deal but could be included in a package of reforms from a bipartisan sexual harassment task force in the next few weeks. It was formed -- the task force -- after Congressman Eric Swalwell and Congressman Tony Gonzales resigned their seats amid sexual misconduct investigations.

Now, it is already against House rules for members to pursue or date their own staff, but this would take it a step further and bar members from dating people who work for other members of Congress as well. Some say what took you so long, but there has been some criticism that policing consensual relationships is beyond the bounds of Congress' duties -- Sara.

SIDNER: All right. Thank you so much, Kate.

In Wisconsin, and on our radar for you this morning, a sanitation worker survives a terrifying explosion. You guys, watch this after two oxygen tanks -- look -- blow up in a trash can because they were improperly disposed of. Video released by the city of Milwaukee shows a man get thrown to the ground from the blast. He was hospitalized with a concussion and an eye injury after getting hit in the face by some shrapnel there.

Dumping pressurized canisters in the trash is forbidden and carries a $5,000 fine -- and you can see why.

All right. The FAA now investigating what caused a cargo plane to scrape the runway at the Northern Kentucky-Cincinnati Airport. What this.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

Cargo plane scraping runway.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Whoa, whoa, whoa, whoa -- golly.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

SIDNER: Golly is right. You can see sparks there. You see it in the back of the plane flying as the plane skids while trying to land. The man who shot this video says he watched the plane fly around before landing safely again.

And now to Illinois where a worker gets trapped 130 feet in the air inside a cramped gas station sign. You can see him there kind of doing some sign language down to the bottom there. It took fire crews several hours to get him down. Officials say he was doing maintenance work when the elevator he used to get up there broke. There's also no ladder inside that structure. Crews eventually did manage to get him down, but he had to go down in one of those crane baskets.

I mean, you know, at least he got down, Kate. You know, I'd stay up there, frankly, but anyhoo.

BOLDUAN: Like, I need a nap anyway.

SIDNER: A new hour of CNN NEWS CENTRAL starts right now.