Return to Transcripts main page

The Situation Room

Europe Lifts Weapons Restrictions on Ukraine; FBI Refocuses on Dobbs Leak, D.C. Pipe Bomb Case; Trump Goes to War on Harvard. Aired 11-11:30a ET

Aired May 27, 2025 - 11:00   ET

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

[11:00:00]

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[11:01:26]

WOLF BLITZER, CNN HOST: Happening now, breaking news: Trump versus Harvard. The president is planning to direct federal agencies to cancel all contracts with the prestigious university, the total loss funds from this move, $100 million.

Plus: Public radio fights back. NPR is now suing the Trump administration, claiming attempts to get its funding violate the U.S. Constitution.

Welcome to our viewers here in the United States and around the world. I'm Wolf Blitzer. Pamela Brown is on assignment, and you're in THE SITUATION ROOM.

ANNOUNCER: This is CNN breaking news.

BLITZER: And we begin this hour with the breaking news. The Trump administration delivers yet another blow to Harvard University.

The White House is now moving to cancel the federal government's remaining contracts, all of them with the nation's oldest university. That's about $100 million now in limbo, and it's the latest escalation in this feud.

This morning, a hearing focused on the president's effort to block Harvard from enrolling international students just days after a judge paused the move.

We're hearing from students right now. Listen.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

LEO GERDEN, SWEDISH STUDENT AT HARVARD: I think especially what is hitting the hardest right now at the heart of this community, it is the threat to essentially deport all international students, because without its international student body, then Harvard is not Harvard anymore. If there's one thing we know about Trump by now, it's that he's a

pretty (EXPLETIVE DELETED) poker player. If we start to give in on something, then he's going to send a new letter of demand the next week. And we simply have to hold the line.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

BLITZER: We're following all these latest developments.

CNN crime and justice correspondent Katelyn Polantz is here with us in THE SITUATION ROOM. CNN senior White House correspondent Kristen Holmes is over at the White House.

Katelyn, let me start with you. What's happened in court this morning? Significant developments.

KATELYN POLANTZ, CNN SENIOR CRIME AND JUSTICE REPORTER: Well, Wolf, there are several cases in this big fight Harvard v. Trump or Trump v. Harvard all before one judge in federal court in Boston, Judge Allison Burroughs.

She had a check-in with the lawyers this morning just to sort of plan out how this week is going to go. It's Harvard's commencement week, but it's also a very big week in court because of one of multiple legal fights having a very significant hearing, with evidence, with legal arguments set for Thursday.

That is over the administration's notice to Harvard a few days ago that they were going to revoke their entire student visa program, basically making it so Harvard couldn't host international students on their campus, a quarter of their student body.

The judge has already put a temporary stop to that, but, on Thursday, she's going to have a much more significant hearing about whether that stopped, telling the Department of Homeland Security they can't do this, whether that's going to be more indefinite of a ruling and could go on into appeals, have further court proceedings.

Now, all of this, though, is forcing many of these issues about Harvard that the Trump administration is trying to do with the university out onto the table, because Harvard is claiming all of this is part of the same retaliatory action of Trump v. Harvard wanting to destroy the university in its research, in its student body, as a cultural force, as an academic force in the U.S.

And so all of this is going to be before the judge. We're watching very closely what she said just a few minutes ago in a very brief hearing in Boston with the lawyers. She said, let's get more evidence in. Let's get more legal arguments in.

[11:05:09]

And Harvard's lawyers, they do plan to submit more just about what's happening this week, putting it all before the court.

BLITZER: All right, Katelyn, thanks very, very much. Kristen, you're over at the White House. What can you tell us about

the Trump administration canceling all these remaining government contracts with Harvard, $100 million worth?

KRISTEN HOLMES, CNN SENIOR WHITE HOUSE CORRESPONDENT: Yes, it's a lot of money there. And those are the remaining federal grants.

So, essentially, what we know is that the administration is expected at any moment, as soon as this afternoon, to send a letter to federal agencies telling them to cancel all of their existing federal contracts with Harvard, but it actually goes further than that. It tells them to not consider Harvard, but consider other options in the future, instead of Harvard, which would effectively kill the entire grant program with the federal government.

Now, I want to read you part of the letter that CNN obtained. This is what's expected to go out. It says: "We recommend that your agency terminate for convenience each contract that it determines has failed to meet its standards and transition to a new vendor."

It says: "Going forward, we also encourage your agency to seek alternative vendors for future services where you had previously considered Harvard."

Agencies have time, but just until June 6 to respond, with what cancellations they have actually done. And, remember, Wolf, as you guys have just noted, this is just the latest in an ongoing escalation. I want to take a look at what we have seen from the White House, from the administration when it comes to Harvard really for the last month here, starting back in April 14.

They froze $2.2 billion in grants. April 15, they threatened Harvard's tax exempt status. April 17, they demanded international student records. May 13, they froze another $450 million in funding. May 22, they moved to bar international students. May 26, they considered redirecting $3 billion from Harvard to trade schools.

And then, of course, May 27, we're here, where we are expecting this White House to send this letter, the GSA, General Services Administration, to send this letter to federal agencies to cut those remaining federal contracts, so clearly an escalation here.

Of course, as we know, Wolf, the administration has accused Harvard of having liberal bias, of allowing antisemitic behavior on campuses, among other things.

BLITZER: All right, Kristen Holmes at the White House for us with an update, thank you very much.

Also happening now, the FBI is stepping up efforts to investigate several very high-profile cases from just before and during the Biden era. Director Dan Bongino says the bureau is now doubling down on and pushing more resources to solve cases of what he calls, and I'm quoting him now, "potential public corruption."

CNN senior justice correspondent Evan Perez is here with us in THE SITUATION ROOM.

Evan, one of these cases involves pipe bombs found near the DNC and RNC headquarters on the day before the January 6 insurrection up on Capitol Hill. What more can you tell us?

EVAN PEREZ, CNN SENIOR JUSTICE CORRESPONDENT: Right, Wolf.

Well, these pipe bombs were found -- they were found on the morning of January 6. And it diverted resources, law enforcement resources, if you recall, that morning over to the RNC and the DNC, which obviously coincided with the beginning of the riot, that attack -- the mob that attacked the Supreme -- I'm -- the U.S. Capitol.

And that's one of the reasons why there's been a lot of conspiracy and a lot of conjecture about exactly who did this.

I will read you just a part of what the Bongino social media post said. He said: "The director and I evaluated a number of cases of potential public corruption that understandably have garnered public interest. We made this decision to either reopen or push additional resources and investigate attention to these cases."

And then he mentions the pipe bomb case, obviously, and a couple others. Now, the question here, though, Wolf, is, what new things could the FBI be doing? We know and you and I have talked about the pipe bomb investigations. We have seen them pouring a lot of resources. They have made over 1,000 interviews to try to find the person who placed these bombs there the night before.

And, so far, they have not been able to break this case open. Perhaps a new set of eyes could finally find the suspect who placed those bombs there, Wolf.

BLITZER: And, Evan, what can you tell us about the other two cases that the FBI deputy director, Dan Bongino, wants to reopen?

PEREZ: Right.

Well, there's -- one of them is the Dobbs decision, the leak of the Dobbs decision, essentially the -- what was the draft of what became the decision from the U.S. Supreme Court that overturned Roe v. Wade and the rights of women to have abortions in this country.

The second one is the finding of a small bag of cocaine -- containing cocaine in a cubby inside the White House. And both of those were looked at. The Secret Service could not find who placed the -- who had cocaine in the office there in this section which had a lot of public access, including construction workers and others.

[11:10:07]

They could never find it. And, of course, the Dobbs decision, of course, in the end was verified to be -- the draft was accurate. What's interesting about that, Wolf, is whether the Supreme Court, which is a separate branch, will allow the FBI to come in and, say, do interviews with the justices. That would be an extraordinary step.

BLITZER: It would be.

All right, Evan Perez, thank you very, very much.

PEREZ: Thank you.

BLITZER: There's more news we're following.

But, first, I want to bring in CNN senior law enforcement analyst former FBI Deputy Director Andrew McCabe.

Andrew, what do you make of this announcement from the deputy director of the FBI to reopen some of these cases?

ANDREW MCCABE, CNN SENIOR LAW ENFORCEMENT ANALYST: Yes, Wolf, it's a little bit concerning, I will be honest with you.

It raises some questions about what the deputy director's understanding of public corruption actually is. As we know, public corruption under federal law is basically when someone who's in a position of trust takes something of value in return for executing an official duty.

So it's almost impossible for me to understand how these three scenarios conform with that federal criminal violation, unless he's suggesting that the investigators, which would be the FBI in terms of the pipe bomb case, or maybe the Secret Service in terms of the cocaine in the White House case, had somehow intentionally not done their jobs and reached no conclusion to those cases for some corrupt purpose.

I can't even imagine what that would be. It's a pretty serious allegation to make against his own people and the people of a neighboring partner agency, but I guess we will see how it all plays out.

BLITZER: Are -- I just want to follow up on that. Are those the kind of cases that the FBI would normally look into and reopen in a situation like this?

MCCABE: Not at all.

So, in the case of the bombing, that is one that is -- I would expect is still under active investigation. And it's always good with a case that's gone a bit cold to bring in new eyes to do some sort of a review, maybe to contribute additional resources. But, again, there's no obvious public corruption angle there.

The other two cases are not even really FBI matters. The cocaine in the White House would have been investigated by the Secret Service. We know that they conducted an investigation. They reviewed -- they said hundreds of people had been in that area during that day, and it was impossible to figure out who had actually left the cocaine there. As far as the Supreme Court case goes, that was investigated by the --

by officials within the Supreme Court. As Evan pointed out, that is a separate branch of government. That's the judicial -- the absolute pinnacle of the judicial branch.

They conducted an investigation and ultimately determined that they couldn't identify -- after having looked at the computer network, all the things that had -- documents that have been accessed and printed out, they couldn't determine who was responsible for that. It's really not an FBI matter at all.

The FBI investigates leak cases, but only when those cases implicate national security. That's clearly not the case here. So, I'm not sure what the FBI director would be predicating an investigation of that violation of Supreme Court policy on.

BLITZER: I think it's true that these cases have drawn a lot of attention, especially in conservative media.

Are you concerned at all, Andrew, that they're now becoming politicized?

MCCABE: Very much so. Very much so.

We know that this administration makes a lot of their decisions about what to do day to day based on what they're seeing in the news cycle. And that's really what this feels like. As I said, it's not -- there are no obvious political corruption connections here, from our perspective, but that seems to be the flag that the deputy director is waving.

That's one that's always greeted with some -- received very positively in right-wing media. And so -- and it's also coming at a time when there's not a lot of good FBI news coming out about leadership decisions. We learned last week they're forcing all agents to spend 30 percent of their time doing immigration work, which has never been the case in the FBI.

They are basically eliminating the white-collar crime program, leaving the nation bereft of professional investigators to hold corporate malfeasance to account. So there's a lot of really questionable decisions going on there. And this feels a lot like a convenient distraction.

BLITZER: Interesting.

All right, Andrew McCabe, thank you very, very much.

Still ahead: new fighting power for Ukraine. European allies lift the ban on firing long-range missiles into Russia, as President Trump now considers new sanctions against Vladimir Putin.

Plus, NPR now suing the Trump administration in federal court over funding cuts.

Stay with us. You're in THE SITUATION ROOM. (COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[11:19:40]

BLITZER: Another wave of Russian strikes pounds Ukraine. Officials now say at least two people are dead and some 16 others wounded in these latest Russian attacks.

Meanwhile, Russia is lashing out at Germany and other Ukrainian allies over a decision to lift range restrictions on Western-supplied weapons to Ukraine. That means Ukraine can now strike military targets in Russia, a move the Kremlin calls -- and I'm quoting now -- "dangerous."

[11:20:08]

Joining us now is CNN contributor and former Moscow bureau chief for CNN Jill Dougherty. She's the author of this brand-new book entitled "My Russia: What I Saw Inside the Kremlin," an excellent new book, indeed.

Jill, thanks very much for joining us.

As we know, Ukraine has already struck military targets in Russia over the past many months. So what is the significance of allies now formally lifting this new ban?

JILL DOUGHERTY, CNN CONTRIBUTOR ON RUSSIAN AFFAIRS: Well, it's very important, and you can hear from the Kremlin saying, this is dangerous.

Remember, this is something that the Biden administration did not want to do. They thought it would lead to increased problems with Russia, perhaps even a war. And now that the Russians -- that the Germans and maybe some others will be -- in Europe -- will be saying, yes, you can strike targets inside Russia, Russia is worried because they're already being hit by drones.

In fact, they complained about what they call a massive drone attack just two days ago. So it is significant, and they are worried.

BLITZER: Is it a concern, Jill, that lifting this formal ban will escalate the conflict big time?

DOUGHERTY: You know, it's not necessarily correct. It absolutely could mean that Russia is hit more.

But the problem is, Russia is hitting Ukraine, and Ukraine is unable to really, truly adequately defend itself. And so that's the rationale. And then the other side of this is, you have President Trump over here in the United States, and then the Europeans, and then Russia. And this is where it gets complicated, because of these ongoing negotiations in the middle of this escalation to try to bring the conflict to a close.

BLITZER: President Trump, as you know, has become increasingly impatient with Putin, saying the Russian leader has -- quote -- and I'm quoting Trump. He says that Putin has gone absolutely crazy, his word, absolutely crazy.

How do you interpret that?

DOUGHERTY: Well, he sounded angry. He sounded frustrated.

And so the Russians -- I think it's interesting to see, excuse me, how the Russians are handling this. So, if you look at the Kremlin, they're trying to smooth it over. They're saying, this is a very highly emotional time. Everybody is emotional. Therefore, it's not that big a deal.

But you also have the problem domestically for Putin to be called crazy by the American president. That's not good for Putin. So it is interesting that there are Russian bots that are actually now criticizing, mocking, making fun of President Trump.

So I think they're not happy about it. The Russians are not happy about it. But they are not going to stop these talks with the United States, which they want in order to not necessarily end the war, because it doesn't look like Putin really wants that right now, but they do want to keep the talk going so they can reestablish in some fashion the relationship with the United States.

BLITZER: Yes, I thought it was really significant. Trump calls Putin absolutely crazy, not just crazy, but absolutely crazy.

This morning, Jill, Republican Senator Chuck Grassley, he voiced his frustration with the stalled peace efforts. And I'm quoting him now: "I have had enough of Putin killing innocent people. President Trump, take action, at least sanctions" -- close quote.

Sources tell CNN that Trump is considering new sanctions in the coming days, but also fears these sanctions could push Russia away from peace talks. Is that a valid concern?

DOUGHERTY: At this point, I don't think it is.

The -- taking sanctions -- there are so many sanctions already. I don't think the -- let's see -- the next step would be very serious for Russia, but that's not necessarily going to end things. I mean, President Trump has two options, or actually three. Don't do anything would be one.

But the next would be real sanctions, including on the banking industry and energy, and then also arming Ukraine, continuing to supply weapons, neither of which seems to be happening right now. So there's a lot of rhetoric, and there's a lot of video that we're watching of President Trump looking very angry.

But there aren't really actions. So, until we see that, it's hard to say that the administration is really serious about this.

BLITZER: How do you think imposing tough new sanctions against Russia would impact the so-called peace process, getting this war to end? [11:25:03]

DOUGHERTY: Well, conceivably -- I don't think it's going to stop Putin from wanting to take over Ukraine.

But it could affect his ability to prosecute the war. If there really are sanctions and these so-called secondary sanctions on countries that buy Russian oil and gas, if those really went into effect, it would have an effect on the Russian economy and the ability of the Russian government to continue to pay for this war.

So that could be an inducement, a very serious inducement. But it has to be really, really strong. And, so far, we're not seeing that.

BLITZER: Jill Dougherty, a longtime friend and colleague, we worked together as White House correspondents for CNN during the Bill Clinton administration. She went on to become CNN's Moscow bureau chief.

Her new book, and here it is, "My Russia: What I Saw Inside the Kremlin," is really excellent. If you want to know what's going on inside Russia and know more about Putin, this is the book you should be reading.

Jill Dougherty, congratulations on the new book. Thanks very much for joining us.

DOUGHERTY: Thank you.

BLITZER: And up next: The Trump administration says it plans to cut all of Harvard University's federal contracts. How will this impact the university?

A professor from the university standing by to join me -- that's next.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)