Return to Transcripts main page

CNN News Central

Oil Tops $100 a Barrel as War in Middle East Widens; Trump Says Iran "Not Ready Yet" to Make a Deal; House Judiciary GOP Chair Asks DOJ to Consider Charging Jack Smith; Source: Vance Secret Service Agent Now on Leave 3-3:30p ET

Aired July 23, 2026 - 15:00   ET

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

BRIANNA KEILAR, CNN HOST: ... responsible for future Houthi attacks on ships, and now oil prices are surging higher.

Plus, the White House ramping up efforts to crack down on leakers. A Secret Service agent is now under investigation for possibly sharing information with the press about the Vice President's travels.

JIM SCIUTTO, CNN HOST: And later, there is a reason they call them killer whales. New video shows a group of orcas slamming into a large fish so hard, well, it explodes into pieces.

We are following these major developing stories and many more all coming in right here to CNN NEWS CENTRAL.

KEILAR: Happening now, President Trump just spoke at an event near the White House, and moments ago he said this about the Iran war.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

DONALD TRUMP, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: Very well against the Islamic Republic of Iran. We're doing extremely well. They would like to do something, but I say they're not ready yet. They need more of the same. They're not ready yet. They got some evil intentions. We cannot let them have a nuclear weapon. If we did, all this that I'm talking about, about your data centers, isn't that important? When they start blowing away communities one by one, we cannot let them ever even think about having a nuclear weapon. And that's exactly what's happening. They'll never have a nuclear weapon under the ...

(END VIDEO CLIP)

SCIUTTO: Those comments there followed his threat today to punish Iran if its allies, the Houthis in Yemen, launch future -- future attacks on ships. The escalation pushing oil prices even higher. Once again, Brent Crude hitting a hundred dollars a barrel for the first time in two months. CNN's Kristen Holmes is live at the White House with more.

And Kristen, you know, President Trump has declared victory in this war many times. He said many times that Iran is ready to negotiate, eager to get back to the table. But as I listened to his comments there just then, it sounds to me like he's almost resigned to going back to, well, a hotter phase of this war. KRISTEN HOLMES, CNN SENIOR WHITE HOUSE CORRESPONDENT: I mean, it

certainly sounds like that. He's shown no appetite for an immediate ceasefire. A reminder that last week we reported that mediators had floated this idea to the White House of a 10-day ceasefire. Since then, there have still been consecutive strikes every single night in Iran.

And President Trump kind of mentioned this when he was saying that they weren't ready to make a deal yet. He said that they need more of the same, likely referring to the fact that there have been these 12 consecutive days of strikes in Iran that he has ordered. Now, the big question is, what is going to happen next? And what is the President's long-term plan here, particularly after we have seen these assessments now from the CIA, from the DIA, saying that these continuous strikes, the way that the U.S. is striking Iran right now, is unlikely to move the Iranians' negotiating position.

So, if President Trump is saying they need more of the same, but his own intel agencies are saying more of the same isn't really going to bring about any kind of different result. President Trump has said that Iran is begging to come to the table. But yet, at the same time, he seems, as you noted, resigned to escalating this.

And we have seen all movement towards a potential escalation. We saw fighter jets being brought from European bases into the Middle East. We saw The Wall Street Journal reporting that medics were being moved over to Germany to an air force base there. All of this kind of coming together for a picture that President Trump is ready for some kind of escalated military option. But at the same time, the door is still open when you talk to U.S. officials about a potential deal, about some kind of potential negotiation, diplomacy.

It's just unclear, though, how we get there from here. There is clearly a deadlock. And President Trump has shown no kind of indication of what he plans to do or what the White House plans to do with the administration as a whole to move forward from that deadlock.

SCIUTTO: Kristen Holmes at the White House.

We're joined now by someone else who covers the White House, CNN Political and National Security Analyst David Sanger, also correspondent for The New York Times.

David, good to have you here.

The facts are that this administration has ratcheted up military pressure before, claiming that that was going to change the balance, force the Iranians back to the table. And the fact is, it hasn't worked. In fact, what it's done is it's led to further escalation from the other side. When you speak to officials in the White House, do they believe genuinely that this time will be different or do they feel perhaps they don't have a choice?

DAVID SANGER, CNN POLITICAL AND NATIONAL SECURITY ANALYST: You know, I think they are split on this question. But there is this feeling that we're in Groundhog Day here a little bit, right, that ... SCIUTTO: Yes.

SANGER: ... they've taken techniques, they tried them, they failed, they went to a ceasefire, they came together with an ill-put-together agreement. It fell apart. And now we're rinsing and repeating the cycle, right?

SCIUTTO: What's the definition of insanity?

[15:05:06]

SANGER: Yes, right. So, they still seem to be working from a theory that what Iran wants the most is to get its oil flowing again, get that revenue and -- and get the money unlocked. I'm sure there are many in Iran who want to go do that. I'm not sure the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps, which seems to be calling the shots here, is among that group. They want to show that they can survive up against the biggest military power on earth. And so far, they've done a pretty good job of spreading the war through the region.

SCIUTTO: Yes.

KEILAR: It's really interesting. This deal, this nuclear deal that the U.S. has brokered with Saudi Arabia, how are you seeing this? Because Trump has added the Abraham Accords condition to it. And the Press Secretary was pressed today on if Saudi Arabia would agree to this without Palestinian statehood. How does this change the contours of coming to some kind of negotiation?

SANGER: Well, Brianna, it's the most remarkable thing, because, you know, the usual way you do these kind of things is each side raises an issue, they negotiate them out, then they sign the deal. But if you're Donald Trump and you're used to operating in New York real estate and so forth, you sign the deal and then you begin negotiating anew, right?

So, what he is doing right now is going back to what Joe Biden did, right, which is trying to link -- I'm sure the President's eager to hear that, but, you know, he's trying to link the nuclear deal with a recognition of Israel. And, of course, the other part of that was that Israel, in return, was supposed to acknowledge getting on the pathway to creating a Palestinian state.

So, it's not clear where the Saudis go right now. They've signed their deal. They're waiting for the President to send it up to Congress, which triggers a 90-day review. I'm not sure he's sending it.

SCIUTTO: Can I ask -- I mean, there's a common thread here, is there not? When you look at -- it was a deal with Saudi Arabia yesterday, then a tweet today raises a question about whether that's a deal. There were claims that they were on the precipice of a deal with Iran, Iran less serious than at least the President describes. I mean, every trade deal you talk about, the President claims agreements or lasting agreements that aren't actually that lasting.

I mean, in your conversations on a whole host of issues, does any party believe that they, through negotiation, can get to an outcome that is lasting, that they can trust, that they're -- that they're -- they're negotiating with someone on the other side, on the U.S. side, that is substantial and arguing -- are negotiating in good faith?

SANGER: You know, there is a pattern here, right? He started in on Greenland. They allegedly ...

SCIUTTO: Yes.

SANGER: ... found a mechanism to go deal with this in January. He opened it up again before NATO. He's been negotiating this Saudi nuclear deal the entire term. Actually, it started in this first term and -- and yet seems to throw a wrench into it the day after it signed. So, there's a degree of whim here that leads many, particularly in Europe, to say to us, why would we start negotiating if we think that the day that we conclude this, it's upended?

SCIUTTO: Yes.

SANGER: And you've, by the way, seen it on trade as well.

SCIUTTO: Yes.

SANGER: Yes.

KEILAR: You said the IRGC wants to appear as if it can stand up to the U.S. military. When the U.S. now, it's days and days in a row of these renewed strikes against Iran. What does it achieve for the U.S. besides the appearance of, oh, we're actually doing something, we're reacting, we're responding or punishing Iran for what they're doing?

SANGER: You know, it's a little bit like the histories you read of Vietnam, where every response -- every attack led to some kind of an escalation. And yet at the end of the day, we weren't able to ...

SCIUTTO: Yes.

SANGER: ... fully win the war.

KEILAR: To one end, right?

SANGER: And toward -- toward one end, same question you could ask about Afghanistan, where ultimately we gave up and left. The problem right now is the President doesn't have an easy way to leave, right? Because oil has been cut off in one strait. It's being constricted now in another strait. The world is significantly worse off in this region of the world anyway than it was when he started the war.

So, the -- that Donald Trump need to be able to get out and claim a victory out here, which, you know, and then move on is getting pretty hard to pull off.

SCIUTTO: Yes, with -- with genuine domestic consequences, too, right? Because folks, as much as they might imagine, well, that's way over there. They're feeling it in their pocketbook. SANGER: That's right. And, you know, it's interesting, because some of

his aides are obviously very deeply focused on the coming midterm election. Doesn't seem like the President is ...

SCIUTTO: Yes.

SANGER: ... as much. He's not acting in ways that would make you think that it was the election that was driving his decision making.

[15:10:09]

KEILAR: Yes. And you're hearing that split in rhetoric between some ...

SCIUTTO: Yes.

KEILAR: ... congressional Republicans who are really facing the numbers ...

SANGER: Yes.

KEILAR: ... this November. David, thank you so much. Really appreciate it.

SANGER: It's great to be with you both.

KEILAR: Still to come, Republicans formally ask President Trump's DOJ to prosecute former special counsel Jack Smith. Ahead what they're accusing him of.

SCIUTTO: Plus, a Secret Service agent who is part of the Vice President's security team under investigation now for allegedly leaking information to the press.

And later, we will have much more on the price of oil surging after Houthi attacks on shipping in the Red Sea, what this could mean for your wallet. That's coming up on CNN NEWS CENTRAL.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[15:15:10]

KEILAR: A new push to prosecute the prosecutor. The Republican chair of the House Judiciary Committee, Jim Jordan, is formally asking the Justice Department to consider criminal charges against former special counsel Jack Smith, who previously prosecuted President Trump.

SCIUTTO: The DOJ says it has now received the referral and will, quote, "investigate" all evidence of criminal conduct. CNN's Katelyn Polantz, she's been examining the details here.

Katelyn, do they have evidence of criminal conduct?

KATELYN POLANTZ, CNN CRIME AND JUSTICE REPORTER: Jim, there is a piece of testimony that Jack Smith gave where if you read sentence by sentence, word by word, he answers truthfully. But Congress, and specifically Jim Jordan on the House Judiciary Committee, they are accusing Jack Smith of potentially making a false statement there because he wasn't forthcoming enough, because he gave a, quote, "half- truth." And they want the Justice Department to look and see whether that could qualify as a false statement charge.

Now, just to take a step back, the Trump administration and the Justice Department, we know, have wanted to potentially find something to investigate Jack Smith on. They've wanted to scrutinize his work as special counsel when he prosecuted Donald Trump for January 6th and the Mar-a-Lago case, they've really wanted to bear down on this. And so, this is how Jim Jordan serves that up to the Justice Department.

What happens next, still a question. But the allegation here from Jim Jordan, it is that Smith specifically would have made a false statement or given a half-truth when he said that he wasn't seeing or seeking the content of text messages of members of Congress. The members of Congress are quite angry that the special counsel's office did see text messages between members of Congress and White House officials when they got access to White House official phones from the National Archives after people left the Trump administration.

But what Smith was actually asked about during his deposition in December, he was asked of whether he was seeking search warrants for content of text from members. He said, no, that is indeed truthful.

KEILAR: How's the President reacting to this?

POLANTZ: Well, Donald Trump is cheering it on with several exclamation points. He shared this story and then said, "Justice at last," question mark, question mark, question mark. That is how the President has underlining something that he's been saying for a long time, that he wants to see Jack Smith brought to justice. He wants to see him prosecuted in some way. We just are going to have to wait and see if the Justice Department does what Trump wants here or if they do anything to try and look at this.

And we have seen this U.S. attorney's office in Washington, D.C. look at cases we know the President was interested in before, Jerome Powell, the Reflecting Pool case recently. So, we'll see exactly what happens next with this, but it's a long way to a charge or a trial.

SCIUTTO: Yes. And the success rate once they -- they hit, well, even before they get to court is often pretty low, right? Because the evidence doesn't stand up. Katelyn Polantz, thanks so much.

Coming up, a Secret Service agent is now on administrative leave suspected of leaking information to the media. We'll have more. Please do stay with us.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[15:23:04]

SCIUTTO: A source tells CNN that a Secret Service agent for Vice President Vance is under internal review now, suspected of leaking details about the Vice President's travel to a news outlet. The agent is now on leave, according to the source. The Secret Service would only confirm that there is, quote, "an administrative investigation and potential criminal inquiry involving allegations of compromising operational and information security." Last week, MS NOW reported that some members of the Second Family security detail are, quote, "fed up" with their last minute or even excessive requests, including Vance using a Marine Corps helicopter to get to his son's golf lesson. Let's speak about this now with CNN Senior Law Enforcement Analyst Andy McCabe, former deputy director of the FBI.

So, first, Andy, good to have you here. The Secret Service says the investigation involves allegations of compromising operational and information security. Based on what you know about this story, would details about a vice president using federal resources for family needs, would that qualify as compromising security?

ANDREW MCCABE, CNN SENIOR LAW ENFORCEMENT ANALYST: You know, technically, Jim, any information about where the Vice President is going to go, when he's going to go and how he's going to get there is operational information. Those are the operations that the detail does, right? Their -- their operational responsibility is to protect him, to transport him, to do it safely. So, yes, I think that that information does fit that description. And compromising information security is just kind of a way of saying the same thing, like he is being at least accused of sharing information that he was supposed to hold confidential.

SCIUTTO: The review is being conducted by the agency's Internal Affairs Department. I'm sure that strikes fears in -- in the hearts of any officer involved.

[15:25:06]

Can you explain what that process would look like for the Secret Service?

MCCABE: Sure. And that is, you know, I should say that's the appropriate way to handle this. This is someone who is thought to maybe have shared operational details about his assignment, which is the -- the Vice President's detail, with the media. So, that needs to be substantiated. It has to be investigated by someone. It's appropriate that it should be investigated by their internal, you know, Internal Affairs Division or Bureau because what you're looking at here is most likely a violation of policy that could be characterized as workplace misconduct, if in fact it's substantiated.

The reference in the public statement to possibly criminal seems like a bit of an overkill at this point. It's hard for me to imagine what criminal statute, even if he shared those sorts of details, it's hard to imagine how that would allegedly violate a criminal statute.

SCIUTTO: There's -- there's a common thread between this case and the one involving the President's new Air Force One and how they're now going after the New York Times for confidential sources in that you can understand the security element, right, because you wouldn't want any information out there about how the Vice President and his family travels or where or when or under what circumstances, just as you wouldn't want to expose anything that might threaten the President's safety as well regarding, well, his aircraft.

However, in both cases, are there not legitimate questions, right, that the public might want to -- want to know? I mean, if you look at the New York Times case, if the -- the -- the jet that was gifted from Qatar does not keep the President adequately safe, is there a compelling public interest in -- in some of that information getting out there?

MCCABE: Absolutely there is. And -- and I think, as you've noted, there is a very consistent thread here between these two stories, and that is the information that's made its way out to the public is information that's basically embarrassing to the protectee, either the Vice President or the President himself. And this administration does not like to be embarrassed. None -- no administration does.

SCIUTTO: Mm-hmm, yes.

MCCABE: But this administration has decided to be very harsh on the people involved in things that they perceive as being undermining their image or their reputation. And so you're going to -- I think this Secret Service agent is going to go through a very rough experience and a tough investigation here, because if they were willing to subpoena the toll records of journalists at the New York Times and family members of those journalists to get to the bottom of who leaked that piece of information about the jet, there's no limit to what they'll try to do to an actual employee of the Secret Service. So, this one -- this one's not going to go away very quickly.

SCIUTTO: Yes. Folks who are employed by governments are more exposed, are they not, to this kind of thing? I mean, not just getting fired, right, or administrative penalties, but potentially criminal penalties?

MCCABE: Absolutely. They're very exposed. And, you know, what you mentioned before, like the legitimate public interest in these stories of either danger or abuse of government resources, things like that, there is no question there's a legitimate public interest there. But it's always tough on the government employee, because as a government employee, your first responsibility is to do your job. And that may mean protecting that information and keeping it confidential. It's not really your job to satisfy the legitimate public interest. That's the role of the media, of course. And therein lies the persistent tension between members of the government and members of the media.

And honestly, that tension is a good thing, right? We have to have information security about information involving the safety and security of the President, the Vice President, good examples there, but also waste, fraud, abuse, things that the taxpayers should be aware of. That's certainly well within the media's realm to pursue those stories. So, you know, I think you're seeing that tension come to life in a very extreme way under this administration.

SCIUTTO: No question. Andrew McCabe, thanks so much for joining.

MCCABE: Thanks. SCIUTTO: Well, just ahead, the price of a barrel of oil has now hit

$100 for the first time since May. This after oil tankers in the Red Sea were struck. This now threatened to cut off another major oil shipping route. We'll take a look coming up.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)