Return to Transcripts main page

CNN Newsroom

Trump Now Pushes For Ukraine-Russia Peace Deal, Not Ceasefire, After Putin Meeting; Zelenskyy Set To Meet With Trump At White House Monday; Putin Says Summit Was "Timely And Very Useful"; California Dems Ready For Redistricting To Counter Texas; Interview With Representative Eric Swalwell (D-CA); New Orleans Mayor Indicted After Long Corruption Probe; Govt Orders Air Canada Flight Attendants Back To Work. Aired 4-5p ET

Aired August 16, 2025 - 16:00   ET

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

[16:00:37]

OMAR JIMENEZ, CNN HOST: Welcome to the CNN NEWSROOM, everyone. I'm Omar Jimenez in New York. Jessica Dean has the night off.

We're going to start this hour with breaking news. Russian president Vladimir Putin wants to claim all of Ukraine's Donbas region in order to end the war. That is according to European officials familiar with Trump's accounting of his meeting yesterday with Putin. Now, Putin reportedly said in exchange he would be willing to freeze the current frontlines in Ukraine. It would promise not to attack Ukraine or other European nations again.

Meanwhile, European leaders also said Trump was open to providing U.S. security guarantees for Ukraine once the war ends, but that the specifics were not clear.

I want to bring in CNN senior White House reporter Kevin Liptak, who joins us now.

So, Kevin, what do we know about how President Trump sort of has gotten to this point here?

KEVIN LIPTAK, CNN SENIOR WHITE HOUSE CORRESPONDENT: Yes, and it's the view of some of these European officials that I've been speaking to that President Trump is trying to piece together some of the puzzle pieces that would allow for a peace agreement that would bring this war to an end. And at least in the president's view, from his conversation with Vladimir Putin, the Russian leader has not backed off some of the maximalist demands that it would take to end this conflict, namely, that Ukraine give up the entire eastern Donbas region, which has been for so long kind of a nonstarter for the Ukrainian president, Volodymyr Zelenskyy.

And at least in the view of some of these European officials, the addition of some of these security guarantees could potentially make it easier for Zelenskyy to agree to some of those territorial concessions to bring this war to an end. But what those security guarantees look like precisely is really not clear. And in fact, you know, leading into the summit, we got a better picture from President Trump about what those security guarantees would not look like, a better picture of that than what they would actually look like.

So the president saying, for example, that Ukraine would not be able to join NATO. That was essentially a nonstarter for him. He also has been clear that it would be on the Europeans to take the forefront of these guarantees, that they would have to provide the bulk of these assurances to Ukraine. And this has been something of an important detail for the Europeans and for the Ukrainians throughout all of this.

They say that there does need to be some sort of guarantee that once a peace agreement is reached, that Putin is not able to sort of use that time to regroup and then go after the rest of Ukraine in two or three years, that there does need to be some guarantee from the U.S. and from Europe that that's unable to happen. It seems unlikely that the U.S. would provide any security forces on the ground in Ukraine. That's almost impossible to imagine the president agreeing to.

What does seem an open possibility is some sort of, you know, financial or military agreement or commitment to provide support to the Europeans, providing that sort of security force. And so the president remaining open to that in his conversations with the Europeans, but not really providing any details at this point.

JIMENEZ: And you know, Kevin, there's a similar dynamic being considered. The last time Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy visited the White House, obviously it ended in the shouting match that it did in the very public display that we all saw play out on camera. But President Trump is set to visit with Ukrainian President Zelenskyy again this time Monday in Washington.

What do we know about this meeting and any next steps with Putin that could come afterward?

LIPTAK: Yes, and President Trump invited Zelenskyy to come visit him in the Oval Office when they spoke late last night as the president was returning from Alaska. And you're absolutely right. One of the backdrops to that explosive meeting in February was Zelenskyy's request for a U.S. backstop, essentially having some sort of guarantee that the U.S. would protect Ukraine if a peace agreement was reached.

That's part of why that meeting kind of devolved into the shouting match where you saw the president, the vice president, kind of berating Zelenskyy and essentially kicking him out of the White House. Of course, the hope among the Ukrainians is that doesn't happen this time. And the belief among many European leaders is that Zelenskyy won't be alone in this.

[16:05:02]

They have an expectation that there will be at least one other European leader joining Zelenskyy in the Oval Office. They have a few names in mind, but they are not specific.

President Trump also told Europeans in that phone call that if this meeting on Monday goes well, that he wants to arrange a trilateral summit between himself, Zelenskyy and Vladimir Putin, potentially by the end of the week.

JIMENEZ: All right. Kevin Liptak at the White House, appreciate it.

I want to go now to the Kremlin's response following Trump and Putin's meeting. Let's bring in CNN senior international correspondent Fred Pleitgen, who joins us now live from Moscow.

So, Fred, what are you seeing and hearing on the ground in the wake of this summit?

FREDERIK PLEITGEN, CNN SENIOR INTERNATIONAL CORRESPONDENT: Hi there, Omar.

Well, first of all, Vladimir Putin is back here in Moscow. It took him a while to get back. He visited the east of Russia before flying back here, and he's already had a meeting with some of his senior staff members and also some of the senior ministers and Cabinet officials here in Moscow, where he sort of laid out the way that he saw the summit with President Trump. He said that it was timely and very important and also very productive.

He also then said, Omar, that the Russians were able to lay out their version of things and their view of how the conflict could be brought to an end. He also said that he respects the U.S.'s position, obviously meaning President Trump's position, wanting a ceasefire as fast as possible. But obviously the Russians are saying that they have their view on things as well. And it now obviously seems as though the U.S., specifically President Trump, is adopting that view as well.

We're at the beginning, he kept saying that he wants an immediate ceasefire. And now the president is saying that he wants a peace process, at the end of which there would be a larger agreement. That is what the Kremlin has said it wants the whole time. Now of course, the thing about all of that is, is as long as those negotiations for a wider peace deal would be going on, the fighting in Ukraine would also still be going on.

And one of the people who picked up on that is the former president of Russia, Dmitry Medvedev, who of course, he had a big spat with President Trump, say about a week, maybe 10 days ago on social media. But he's now saying that the Russians are now in a position where they can start a diplomatic process. But at the same time continue what they call their special military operation, obviously meaning the fighting that is going on in Ukraine.

And also one of the things that the Russians are celebrating as well is the fact that at least the threat of those severe sanctions that President Trump had put out there before the summit in Alaska, that, at least for the time being, is off the table.

The Russians also, of course, very happy about the way that the summit went down, the way that President Trump received Vladimir Putin on the tarmac there in Alaska. Russian media calling it a historic handshake.

And the spokeswoman for the Foreign Ministry, Omar, she came out and said, look, people have been saying for three years that Russia is isolated on the international stage, and now they're coming out and seeing President Putin on the tarmac, on the red carpet in the United States. So clearly, as far as the imaging is concerned, the Russians are saying big win for them -- Omar.

JIMENEZ: Fred Pleitgen, live from Moscow. Thank you so much.

I want to bring in Ukrainian member of parliament, Kira Rudik.

And thank you for joining us. Going into yesterday's summit, it did seem the priority, at least from a European and Ukrainian perspective, was working toward a ceasefire. But now, coming out of his meeting with Vladimir Putin, President Trump is instead focusing on a lasting peace agreement. Some see that as another opportunity for Putin to keep pushing deeper into Ukraine. How do you see it?

KIRA RUDIK, UKRAINIAN PARLIAMENT MEMBER: Hello, Omar. And thank you so much for having me. Indeed, when people say that there will be negotiations that bring peace right away instead of immediate ceasefire, my first question is, how many of us will survive up to this point?

We know how Putin usually reacts on the calls or discussions with President Trump. It results in massive attacks on Kyiv as it was on July 4th when he launched the most massive attack on Kyiv since the beginning of full scale invasion right after the call with the American president. So right now, when Russia keeps pushing at the battlefield, we are expecting the next week to be really tough. Russia attacking our peaceful cities again.

So no. The discussions without the ceasefire is not a bad deal. And President Trump was going into this meeting promising severe consequences if the immediate ceasefire was not reached. Where are those consequences?

President Zelenskyy have agreed to immediate ceasefire right away when it was offered back in spring. So we have so many questions to President Trump and how he changed his opinion right after talking to Russian dictator.

JIMENEZ: And so, you know, one of the things we are hearing from European officials familiar with Trump's accounting of the Putin meeting, to his counterparts afterward, is that it included Putin insisting that the Donbas region in Eastern Ukraine be given up in exchange for freezing the current front lines in the rest of Ukraine, and promising not to attack Ukraine or other European nations again.

[16:10:15]

I imagine that is not something you would accept, but what are the implications of a potential deal like that.

RUDIK: That this deal would be almost impossible. Look, first, we have agreed to immediate ceasefire and it would be, absolutely again, impossible to ask President Zelenskyy to give up territories for freezing the conflict without the security guarantees. It's absolutely the worst deal that Ukraine can get, and it will not pass. And I'm sure that president would not agree to that. And Ukrainian people didn't give him a mandate to capitulate. Right?

We did not capitulate in 2022. We do not intend to do it right now. The deal, the promise that President Trump made was that we will agree on a ceasefire and then continue negotiating. Important point here is that Russia did not move from their intentions that they publicly announced in 2022. They wanted to take now four regions of Ukraine plus Crimea. They wanted the specific requirements about Russian language and Russian church and many others.

Limitation of Ukrainian Army. And they are standing their ground. And us, who are the victims of this aggression, who has done everything that President Trump asked by the book, agreeing to a ceasefire, we have voted for a rare minerals deal in Ukrainian parliament so that the United States will have an interest in Ukraine's economic future. We have done everything and right now the ball is back onto our court saying, well, this is what Russia wants and President Trump looks at this as a good deal for Ukraine.

No, this will not pass. And I see right now that it's not going to lead anywhere. You know, the most disappointment is that at this meeting, Putin has gotten his way. His goal was to escape sanctions for Russia, and he's done it and not to agree to ceasefire. And he has done it. President Trump wanted to look Putin in the eye, and he has done it. And Ukraine, well, Ukraine will not be the price of the meeting in Alaska.

JIMENEZ: And, you know, here comes this potential, I guess, opportunity. President Zelenskyy coming to Washington, D.C., to meet with President Trump, likely to relay a lot of what you just told me here. But what are you most looking for heading into this meeting between President Trump and President Zelenskyy?

RUDIK: We hope that President Zelenskyy is not getting into this meeting alone. He needs to go there with the leader from the European Union. Sorry. About security of all Europe. The issue that everybody is emitting right now, and nobody can give a clear answer, is, what are the security guarantees that are being offered?

We have been in these ceasefires with Putin since 2014. We do not trust it. We will never trust them. So we need a clear understanding what's being offered as the security guarantee. And that should be the main point of discussion, because everything else comes afterwards. If the security guarantees are not workable, then all the discussions about territories, anything else, they just meaningless.

They just waste of time. The time that Ukraine also doesn't have, the time when Russia will continue attacking us. So the goal that we hope President Zelenskyy will be able to achieve is to ask this clear question and have a definite answer from President Trump. If there is no answer, then it will go on to our European allies to make the bold decisions that will need to be made to proceed with trying to get peace, knowing that United States have the position that is very close to Russia's position.

JIMENEZ: I've got to leave the conversation there. But Ukrainian parliament member Kira Rudik, thank you so much for taking the time. I really appreciate you being here.

RUDIK: Thank you, Omar, and glory to Ukraine.

JIMENEZ: Good to see you.

Still ahead, California Democrats are making good on their promise to fight fire with fire, rolling out a plan to get the party more seats in Congress as a redistricting arms race heats up. We'll have more on that. Plus, tracking Hurricane Erin. The storm is intensifying rapidly, jumping to a category five as it bears down on the Caribbean. It is expected to double in size in the coming days. We'll bring you some of the details on that.

[16:15:00]

And travelers around the world are left stranded after Canada's biggest airline stopped its operations because of a massive strike.

You're in the CNN NEWSROOM. Stay with us.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

JIMENEZ: Texas Republicans are renewing their push to get congressional lines redrawn in their favor ahead of the 2026 midterms. And California is fighting back. Democrats, they are now moving forward with plans to offset any potential changes in Texas.

[16:20:02]

This is the -- you can see the proposed districts on the right. Current districts on the left. This is a new map unveiled that would strip Republicans of five of the nine seats they currently hold in the deep blue state. The political makeup changes and ratings shown on the map are based on one analysis of the proposal, shared with lawmakers and obtained by CNN.

I want to bring in CNN's Julia Vargas Jones, who joins us now.

This has turned into a battle between the nation's two most populous states. What more are you learning?

JULIA VARGAS JONES, CNN CORRESPONDENT: Well, for sure, Omar. This redistricting effort is a direct retaliation of what's happening in Texas. But even so Democrats here are defending the new map. They're saying that it allows for more compact districts and fewer cities being split in half, and that it makes minimal disruptions to the existing map. Currently, California has 43 Democratic seats, and stay with me, nine Republican seats, and that would bring it up to 48 versus four.

That is a five-seat difference that matches exactly the number of seats that Texas Republicans want to add. But unlike in Texas, where the GOP can pass new U.S. House maps as soon as enough of those Democrats return to Austin, California Democrats will need to get approval of voters in a November referendum. And Republicans here are already saying that they will put up a fight, particularly, of course, the five Congress members whose seats are at stake.

One of them, Doug LaMalfa of the First District of California, slammed the proposal on X yesterday, saying, quote, "How on earth does Modoc County," which is that county at the very corner there of the map, as he says, Nevada and Oregon border, "have anything in common, any interesting comment with Marin County and the Golden Gate Bridge?" As we saw, that goes all the way down to San Francisco.

He says, "That is naked politics at its worst." And you may say, well, it's only five seats out of more than 400, but the majority in D.C. is so thin that these California seats, Omar, they will matter. And President Trump has already made it so clear that he wants to do more, that he wants more legislative wins to enact his agenda. So he will need that majority to do so.

JIMENEZ: And what do we know about -- I mean, look, clearly Governor Gavin Newsom has been very central and out in front on this issue, using it to stand up to Texas Governor Abbott, to President Trump. Do we know more about Governor Newsom's strategy here politically, to position himself nationally as the Democrats standing up to Trump?

JONES: Yes. This is not the first time that he's doing this, right? We've seen this for months now. Gavin Newsom trying to position himself as the anti-Trump with lawsuits here in California about the National Guard when the fires happened here in Los Angeles. But more and more, what we're seeing is that Newsom is actually using the president's language, talking about Trump, quote, "trying to rig the election" by asking those Republican governors to enact other voter legislation in their own states, telling fellow Democrats to stop being weak.

And then these posts on X, Omar, clearly tongue in cheek, where he posted in all caps very much like the president, saying, "Many people are saying, and I agree that I, Gavin C. Newsom, America's favorite governor, deserved the Nobel Peace Prize." He says that he's made the most incredible maps in history of mapping even Columbus.

And I'll just finish with this. Another development in this battle. Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger has entered the chat, posting yesterday this picture of him with a T-shirt that says, "F the politicians, terminate gerrymandering." Of course, the former governor has been a longtime advocate of nonpartisan redistricting. So just another voice being added to this fight, Omar.

JIMENEZ: A fight that's not going anywhere. We'll see what happens with the votes on this map this week.

Julia Vargas Jones, really appreciate it.

I want to bring in Democratic Representative Eric Swalwell from California, who joins us now.

And, Congressman, you posted, quote, "Too often Dems fight with one hand behind their back. Not anymore. We are coming in full force to fight for and save our democracy." There is a counter argument that this is about a grab for power. So

how is this redistricting going to help save our democracy to use your words?

REP. ERIC SWALWELL (D-CA): This is a grab for power. It's a grab by Donald Trump going to Texas and Indiana and Florida and Missouri and telling them to get as many seats as possible. He's not telling them, go defend the big, brutal bill that he passed. He's not telling them to defend the deportation policies that are dividing and deporting our friends and neighbors. He's saying, just make it harder for the Democrats to win next November.

So I'm not going to wake up the day after the election and look at democracy in ashes and say, well, at least we protected California's Independent Redistricting Commission. No. I'm going to support fighting fire with fire, because that's the only way I can protect the most vulnerable.

[16:25:03]

The neighbors who have been deported, the people who've lost their health care, the people who are seeing their rights taken away like women under the Dobbs decision. The only way to protect them is to fight this fight with both hands. And we're all in. And Donald Trump will regret doing this.

JIMENEZ: Do you have any concerns that, you know, it seems -- it seems like ancient history at this point, but obviously when in the earlier Obama years there was the, of course, old adage that at this point is old, when they go high or when they go low, we go high. It seems that fighting fire with fire sort of meets them at that low point, I guess, to use that metaphor.

SWALWELL: Yes, when --

JIMENEZ: Do you have any concern that this could overreach or could backfire?

SWALWELL: No. When they go low, we're going to bury them below the Capitol. That's what we're going to do because this is about protecting democracy. And right now, as you see, D.C. has been militarized, and we were weak as Democrats frankly. We passed under Speaker Pelosi in the House of Representatives in April 2021 D.C. statehood, and what happened in the Senate? A few in the Senate refused to break the filibuster. And look where we are today.

So we have paid the price for our weakness in the past, and we can't be so weak next time we have power. Gavin Newsom is making Donald Trump react to him with the lawsuits, with this new map to match what's happening in Texas. And the way I see it is either we're on our heels and the most vulnerable are on their heels reacting to Donald Trump, or he's on his heels reacting to us.

JIMENEZ: And, you know, one of the -- one difference between you all and Texas is once the maps are passed, you all need voters to approve the maps in a new referendum in November. SWALWELL: That's right.

JIMENEZ: Are you confident Californians will be with you when essentially the district level representation will overrepresent the percentage of people in the state who actually voted Democrat in Governor Newsom's last election, for example, which is still at about a 60-40 margin? But do you have any concerns about the voters being with you on this?

SWALWELL: The great part about this is the voters get to decide, it's not politicians deciding, like what's happening in Texas and Indiana and Florida and Missouri. This goes to the voters. So we have to make a case. And if we don't make the case, they won't be with us. But I had a town hall in Hayward, in my district earlier this week. I talked about Miguel Lopez, who'd been in the country for 29 years, raised three kids in the town of Livermore, had a wife who also raised those kids with him.

Miguel is not at the dinner table and hasn't been at the dinner table for the last couple of months because he was deported when he showed up to check in at a court date for his immigration proceeding. This is about protecting people like Miguel, and I can't do that if they're going to do this redistricting around the country to make it harder for Democrats to very fair fairly achieve a majority next November.

JIMENEZ: And, Congressman, while I have you, I want to switch gears a little bit and ask about the Trump-Putin summit that we just saw take place. Trump now moving to make what appears to be a longer term peace deal over a more immediate ceasefire.

Do you see any hope or any path to a longer term peace deal from where we stand? Or do you have any concerns about the process moving forward?

SWALWELL: Putin completely played Trump. This is entirely about Donald Trump refusing to release the Epstein files and putting forward this scripted counter-programming to that, he made America weaker as perceived by the rest of the world, and he humiliated himself.

I want peace in the region, and the best way to achieve peace is to band together and show strength against a bully like Russia. Instead yesterday we saw Donald Trump toast Vladimir Putin like he was receiving some lifetime achievement award. That doesn't make us stronger. And right now, having talked already today and yesterday, two leaders over in Europe, they are very worried about what's next, not just for Ukraine but for democracies across the West, because the United States is shirking its responsibility to stand up and defend democracy everywhere.

JIMENEZ: And of course, all this as we await meeting between President Trump and President Zelenskyy come Monday.

Congressman Eric Swalwell, appreciate you being here. Thank you.

SWALWELL: My pleasure. Thank you. JIMENEZ: All right. When we come back, President Trump now floating

the idea of some security guarantees for Ukraine ahead of his Monday meeting with Vladimir Zelenskyy. Next, we're going to talk with the former U.S. ambassador to Ukraine about maintaining what is going to be a tight balancing act.

You're in the CNN NEWSROOM.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[16:33:59]

JIMENEZ: In a few hours, Ukraine's key European allies will meet ahead of President Volodymyr Zelenskyy's Monday visit to the White House. Now, European leaders are calling for strong security guarantees for Ukraine as President Trump appears to be shifting focus. We're joined now by former U.S. Ambassador to Ukraine William Taylor. He's also a distinguished fellow at the Atlantic Council.

Ambassador Taylor, good to see you. I just wonder, what is your assessment of this turnaround? I guess we've seen from Trump, going from the priority, seeming to be a more near-term ceasefire, to what would be a longer-term peace deal. What do you think that means for President Zelenskyy on Monday?

WILLIAM TAYLOR, FORMER U.S. AMBASSADOR TO UKRAINE: Well, Omar, I think they -- I think the key is what you said about short-term, long-term. If the goal -- if -- as President Trump has said, is to stop the killing. If the goal is to stop the killing of Ukrainian soldiers, Russian soldiers, Ukrainian civilians, then a ceasefire does that. The switch to a longer-term solution, resolution, agreement to this war will take time.

[16:35:07]

Those are complicated issues. We're talking about reconstruction. We're talking about compensation. We're talking about boundaries, territories, and these kinds of things. Those take time. And if there's not a ceasefire during that time, more people are going to die.

President Trump is rightly focused on that. So, I hope there will be recognition that you can have these conversations. You need to have these conversations. I don't have much hope for them because the sides are too far apart, the Russians and Ukrainians. But do the ceasefire -- don't give up on the ceasefire. Give that a try right now, so the killing can stop.

JIMENEZ: You know, we're hearing from some European officials familiar with what Trump told his European counterparts after his meeting with Putin. And they say Putin insisted on getting all of Ukraine's Donbas region in the east in exchange for freezing the current front lines in the rest of Ukraine and essentially promising not to attack Ukraine or other European nations again. What are the implications of a deal like that? Is that something that's even workable in the current political climate? TAYLOR: All right, that's nonsense. It is just nonsense for the president, President Putin, to say, look, give us territory -- give us Ukrainian territory where the Ukrainian people are living. Give that territory to us. Give us control over those people. And then we promise that we won't fight again, that we won't attack again, that we'll freeze the front line. It makes no sense. This -- I -- this is a nonstarter as far as the Ukrainians are concerned.

JIMENEZ: You know, there is this question of, you know -- not taking a promise from Putin again at face value, as you just said. So, then the question becomes, if there is some sort of deal struck, what are the security guarantees that are going to come with it? Who is going to move those forward? Who is going to spearhead those?

So, I guess from where you sit, Putin won't agree to NATO-led security guarantees, at least from what we've seen to this point. Who takes the lead here just based on -- and who takes the lead from the standpoint of a position that both Ukraine and Russia would agree to?

TAYLOR: So, first of all, Putin doesn't get a say in the security guarantee for Ukraine. A security guarantee for Ukraine is between Ukraine and whoever offers it. And it might be -- getting to your question, it might be the Brits and the French and the Germans who are talking about a coalition of the willing with other nations -- other European nations as well, willing to provide troops and ammunition and weapons on the ground in Ukraine.

They're talking about a coalition with a chain of command, with a goal, with a mission, with forces in Ukraine to back up. Not to be on the front lines, but to back up the Ukrainians as they defend themselves against the Russians. So, the coalition of the willing, the Germans and the French and the -- and the Brits.

Actually, the Brits and the -- and the French have been in the lead organizing that. That is going to be important. But the Russians don't get a say in that. The Russians don't have to agree.

They won't agree. That is not the issue. The issue is how Ukraine can secure itself and defend itself from the Russian attack, which is likely to come if there's not one.

JIMENEZ: And, you know, as we look ahead to this meeting between President Zelenskyy and President Trump on Monday, Zelenskyy says he pushed for a trilateral meeting with Trump and Putin. The Kremlin says this wasn't raised in talks with Trump. But beyond -- let's put that to the side for a second. What do you believe needs to come out of this meeting between President Trump and Zelenskyy for a successful trilateral meeting to even happen?

TAYLOR: So, I think it's a good opportunity for President Zelenskyy to have this direct conversation with President Trump. Direct conversations. Person-to-person conversations are so much more effective. As we've seen, President Putin got a lot of what he wanted by the direct conversation.

President Zelenskyy has the opportunity to follow that up and to make the strong case that security guarantees, yes, from the Europeans in the first instance, but also from the Americans -- backup from the Americans. There are capabilities that the United States has that can contribute to a very effective security guarantee. So, I think that should be a real part of it.

But also, I think President Zelenskyy and President Trump need to be on the same sheet when they're talking about what you and I were just talking about in terms of a ceasefire and a longer-term settlement. The longer-term settlement, again, will be very difficult. Why? Because the Russians don't want there to be a sovereign Ukraine, and Ukraine wants to be a sovereign nation. There's no overlap in that.

JIMENEZ: Ambassador William Taylor, I appreciate you taking the time. Thanks for being here.

TAYLOR: Thank you very much, Omar.

JIMENEZ: All right. Coming up. The years-long scheme that prosecutors say led to federal charges for the mayor of New Orleans just months before she is supposed to be leaving office. We'll bring you the details coming up. You're in the CNN NEWSROOM.

[16:40:09]

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

JIMENEZ: We're following some breaking developments out of the Atlantic where Hurricane Erin has intensified into a category five with sustained winds near 160 miles per hour. It is one of the fastest-rapidly intensifying storms in Atlantic history and is expected to double or even triple in size by the middle of next week. This is a live Earth cam footage showing the British Virgin Islands as a storm churns forward.

[16:45:11]

Erin is expected to produce life-threatening surf and rip currents along the beaches of the Bahamas. But much of the U.S. East Coast and Canadian coastline next week is -- look at that. It does appear it's going to miss the mainland, which is a good sign according to the National Hurricane Center. But again, those currents still a matter of concern.

We're also following this. The mayor of New Orleans has been indicted on federal charges. LaToya Cantrell and her former bodyguard are now facing 18 felony counts, including conspiracy, fraud, and obstruction. Now, prosecutors accused the pair of trying to hide their romantic relationship, exchanging encrypted messages over WhatsApp, and using taxpayer money for their personal use.

Now, the mayor and the bodyguard say their relationship is strictly professional. But I want to bring in CNN's Rafael Romo, who's been following this story for us. So, Rafael, what are you hearing from the mayor right now?

RAFAEL ROMO, CNN CORRESPONDENT: Yes, Omar, not a whole lot at this point other than a brief statement from her attorney that doesn't really address the allegation. But let me tell you, local media reports about the relationship and the couple's alleged conduct began circulating in November 2022. But it was not until yesterday that a federal grand jury indicted New Orleans Mayor LaToya Cantrell on 18 counts, including conspiracy to commit fraud, obstruction of justice, and making false statements.

According to Michael Simpson, acting U.S. Attorney for the Eastern District of Louisiana, Cantrell and her former bodyguard, identified as Jeffrey Vappie, engaged in a nearly three-year fraud scheme that, in his words, exploited their public authority and positions. The city of New Orleans told the Associated Press in a statement that it was aware of the indictment and that the mayor's attorney is reviewing it. Until this review is complete, the city will not comment further on this matter, the statement said.

We tried to reach the mayor by phone and e-mail, but there has been no response. According to Simpson, the couple took many steps to hide their alleged scheme and perpetuate their fraud, including, Omar, using WhatsApp to exchange over 15,000 messages, pictures, and audio clips in an eight-month period. Using the platform to intimidate subordinates, harass the citizen, and lie to colleagues and associates.

They are also accused of lying to FBI agents and giving the government an affidavit with false statements. According to the indictment, the scheme started as early as October 2021, when the relationship began until June 2024, when Vappie retired from the police department. Simpson said he wanted to make clear that the indictment does not allege that a relationship constitutes a crime, or that the alleged criminal activity occurred on merely a handful of days or involved discrete actions.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

MICHAEL SIMPSON, ACTING U.S. ATTORNEY FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA: Rather, it reflects the prosecution of two public officials alleged to have engaged in a years-long continuing fraud scheme that used public money for personal ends by exploiting their power and their authority.

JONATHAN TAPP, FBI SPECIAL AGENT IN CHARGE: Citizens of New Orleans work hard to provide for their families, and they expect our public officials to be honest stewards of those funds. And today's indictment outlines a betrayal of that trust by Mayor Cantrell and Mr. Vappie.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

ROMO: Vappie, who retired from the police department in 2024, was already facing charges of wire fraud and making false statements, and as the Associated Press previously reported, has pleaded not guilty. Cantrell was known for being the first female mayor in New Orleans' 300-year history, and was elected twice with this indictment, Omar. She has also become the first mayor to be charged while in office, less than five months before her term comes to an end. And lastly, Omar, Cantrell was listed as a guest speaker at an event launching new Amtrak service to New Orleans today, but did not show up. Now, back to you.

JIMENEZ: All right. Rafael Romo, appreciate the reporting.

Coming up. Not a single Air Canada flight in the air after 10,000 of its flight attendants went on strike. How the government is now stepping in, though, to avoid potential economic damage. We'll explain. Coming up.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[16:54:05]

JIMENEZ: Tonight, more than 10,000 striking flight attendants at Air Canada have been ordered back to work by Canada's jobs minister. Now, the flight attendants walked off the job early this morning, bringing Air Canada's fleet to a grinding stop and stranding about 130,000 travelers. I want to bring in CNN's Paula Newton, who joins us live from Ottawa. Paula, how are flight attendants responding right now?

PAULA NEWTON, CNN CORRESPONDENT: Not well. They really oppose this. They believe that Air Canada did not bargain in good faith, at least their claim. And they believe that the government is playing into that. The government, though, says, look, we had no choice, that the economy is really taking a hit here. And it was more the travelers can bear.

And, Omar, I want to make clear here. About 700 flights today will be canceled. 130,000 passengers up to impacted in one day alone. And it's not just Air Canada passengers. It's really straining capacity on certain routes and raising prices on others. I want you to listen now to the jobs minister here in Canada and what she said just a few hours ago.

[16:55:12]

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

PATTY HAJDU, CANADIAN MINISTER OF JOBS AND FAMILIES: Canada's economy has seen unprecedented attacks on trade and significant tariff actions. In a year where Canadian businesses and families have faced too much disruption and uncertainty, they shouldn't have to shoulder another blow. We will not leave them behind. This is not a decision that I have taken lightly, but the potential for immediate negative impact on Canadians and our economy is simply too great.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

NEWTON: You know, what happens now between the airline and the union is they go back to the -- they don't go back to the bargaining table. There is an arbitration, right? Someone who's supposed to be impartial and neutral that decides what the right issue is here to really focus on. And again, this was about wages. Specifically, it was about unpaid wages.

And, Omar, you know, even in the United States, there are some flight attendants that are not paid. Not all that are not paid until they're actually flying in the air. This was a huge issue and remains so for Air Canada flight attendants.

I really do want to underscore it might be back to work in the coming days, but it is not back to normal. We have no response from the union about their action, exactly when the flight attendants would be going back to work. We do not have any further comment from Air Canada either, except that they said a few days ago, Omar, that this is going to take somewhere between three days and a week in order to get their capacity back up to normal.

JIMENEZ: Obviously, a huge dynamic to watch here. Paula Newton, really appreciate the reporting.

Still to come for us tonight. We're taking you live to Kyiv with how President Zelenskyy is likely to approach Monday's Oval Office meeting with President Trump after Trump's summit on Friday with Putin. You're in the CNN NEWSROOM. Details ahead.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)