Return to Transcripts main page

The Brief with Jim Sciutto

Trump Files Labor Statistics Chief; Fed Governor Adriana Kugler Steps Down; White House Announces New Global Tariffs To Take Effect August 7; Trump Orders Nuclear Submarines Repositioned; Ghislaine Maxwell Moved To New Prison; Paul Whelan's Year Of Freedom; Steve Witkoff Visits Aid Distribution Site In Gaza; Hamas Won't Negotiate Until Conditions In Gaza Improve; NASA's Crew-11 Mission Underway. Aired 6-7p ET

Aired August 01, 2025 - 18:00   ET

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

[18:00:00]

JIM SCIUTTO, CNN ANCHOR: Hello and welcome to our viewers joining us from all around the world. I'm Jim Sciutto in New York. And you're watching "The

Brief."

Just ahead this hour, Donald Trump fires the commissioner of the Bureau of Labor Statistics, accusing her of manipulating jobs numbers. President says

he will reposition two. U.S. nuclear submarines after what he called highly provocative comments from the former Russian president, Dmitry Medvedev.

And I speak to Paul Wheeler about his life back in America one year to the day after he was released from a Russian prison.

We begin with President Trump's stunning attack against the U.S. government agency which collects some of the country's most important economic data.

Trump today fired the head of the Bureau of Labor Statistics, the department that released today's weak U.S. jobs report. The president

charged without evidence that today's numbers were manipulated for political purposes given that the head of the BLS is a Biden appointee.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

DONALD TRUMP, U.S. PRESIDENT: I think her numbers were wrong, just like I thought her numbers were wrong before the election. Days before the

election she came out with these beautiful numbers for Kamala, I guess Biden/Kamala, and she came out with these beautiful numbers trying to get

somebody else elected. Then right after the election, I think on the 15th, November 15th, she had an eight or $900,000 massive reduction. Said she

made a mistake. No, that woman -- something is off. Yes.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

SCIUTTO: I think he meant jobs, not dollars. To be clear though, President Trump had no problem when the BLS released good job numbers last month,

posting a comment from a CNN reporter that the jobs market is, quote, "an energizer buddy that keeps going and going."

Here are the numbers that triggered Trump's anger today. The U.S. economy added just 73,000 jobs last month, well below expectations of 115,000 jobs.

Arguably, the more shocking part of the report was the downward revision in job gains from the previous two months, May and June, as you could see in

this chart. In fact, 258,000 fewer jobs created in those first two months - - the last two months than first thought.

Earlier today on CNN, the head of the White House Council of Economic Advisers had a perfectly plausible explanation for the weak numbers.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

STEPHEN MIRAN, CHAIR, WHITE HOUSE COUNCIL OF ECONOMIC ADVISERS: About 40 percent of that is due to seasonal adjustment quirks around teachers. Some

of it is due to declining foreign-born employment, even as we created more American-born employment. Finally, there's the uncertainty, right? Don't

forget, we were in the midst of restructuring the global trading system in a way that hasn't been done in decades.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

SCIUTTO: Note, he didn't claim there that the BLS made up the numbers. Unfortunately, for President Trump, these were not the only dismal economic

indicators out today. Manufacturing activity contracted for the fifth straight month with factory employment now at five-year lows. This data,

however, came from a private firm, not from the U.S. government.

Jeff Zeleny joins me now. And, Jeff, given that the president and this administration has praised economic data when it went their way, does

anyone actually believe the president's claim that these numbers were rigged? Are they just going with the boss' line?

JEFF ZELENY, CNN CHIEF U.S. NATIONAL AFFAIRS CORRESPONDENT: Definitely going with the boss' line after he finally gave it. Jim, it was notable

today that President Trump was oddly quiet for hours after that jobs report. You heard his top economic adviser there trying to explain away the

numbers, and you're right, not mentioning any notion that these numbers were rigged.

So, that gives us a sense that this was fairly a new explanation that the president was searching for. It was about six hours later that the

president -- after the numbers were released, that the president suddenly announced that he would fire the commissioner of the Bureau of Labor

Statistics. An extraordinary move for someone who is confirmed by a bipartisan overwhelming margin, a vote of 86 to 8, which does not happen,

including at the time Senator J. D. Vance, now the vice president, Senator Marco Rubio, now the secretary of state. So, there's been no suggestion

that she is political at all.

[18:05:00]

The Bureau of Labor Statistics has long been an apolitical body. But the president insists the numbers were rigged. We asked him about it as he left

the White House a short time ago.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

ZELENY: You said the jobs report today were rigged. What evidence did you have that were rigged -- they were rigged?

TRUMP: Oh yes, I think so. And if you look at before the election, the same kind of thing happened. And I think you'll see some very interesting

information come out. But we got -- you have to have honest reports. And when you look at those numbers or when you look at just before the election

and then after the election, they corrected it by 800,000 or 900,000 jobs. Yes, I would say so.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

ZELENY: So, Jim, what we're seeing here is the president beginning to spin a narrative that something was rigged. We have seen this before in several

cases, most notably that he won the election in 2020, which of course he did not.

But as for the actual specifics of the numbers, regardless of who's leading the Bureau of Labor Statistics, that does not change the underlying issues

in the economy. It's the revisions from May and June. And revisions are something that happened under every administration. These reports work that

a sample is taken of jobs and then they go back and give it a further look by state unemployment to results and others. There are always revisions

that's trying to get the process right/ And the revisions showed a weakening economy. That's the bottom line here.

So, the president can dismiss or fire the messenger, but that does not change the underlying facts here. So, as we stand here this evening in

Washington, there are calls for Congress to investigate this firing. We'll see where this goes. But an extraordinary move for all the government

employees who've been fired or let go. This is one more example of a non- political, a longstanding branch of government that suddenly has been politicized by President Trump. Jim.

SCIUTTO: Yes. Along with the Federal Reserve. And by the way, the people who lost their jobs, they know they lost their jobs. Jeff Zeleny at the

White House, thanks so much.

ZELENY: Sure.

SCIUTTO: Well, the big economic story today before Trump attacked the Bureau of Labor Statistics was his new tariff hikes against major trading

partners. The White House announced higher tariffs on dozens of countries beginning August 7th. The highest tariffs America has imposed since the

1930s. The hardest hits countries include Switzerland, hit with a 39 percent tariff. Myanmar and Laos, 40 percent. Canada, 35 percent. South

Africa, 30 percent. 26 trading Partners will now have rates higher than15 percent.

Global stocks fell on the news. French, German, and Italian indices dropped more than 2.5 percent. U.S. stocks pulled back as well. The NASDAQ was

hardest hit down more than 2 percent, as you can see there.

Joining me now, former U.S. trade representative Michael Froman. He is the current president of the Council on Foreign Relations. Mike, good to have

you on the show.

MICHAEL FROMAN, FORMER U.S. TRADE REPRESENTATIVE AND PRESIDENT, COUNCIL ON FOREIGN RELATIONS: Good to see you, Jim.

SCIUTTO: First, if I can, before I get to trade, just given you have a long history in government, including in economic roles. This government relies

on factual economic data to make policy decisions. The markets rely on factual economic data to make investment decisions. What is the damage of a

president attacking numbers that he just doesn't like? Right. And even firing the head of the BLS as a result what does that do to confidence in

the system?

FROMAN: Well, these numbers are very important. And as you said, the market participants, businesses others very much rely on these numbers. Now,

luckily, we've got other sources of numbers. The private sector has a lot of analytic capacity. The Federal Reserve does as well. But the Bureau of

Labor Statistics has been one of those institutions that had -- through Republican and Democratic administrations, has worked to provide neutral,

unbiased reporting based on the facts. And it's going to be important that we still have that capacity to report those facts, whether the

administration likes them one month or dislikes them the next month.

SCIUTTO: You, like many others, have been measuring the effects of Trump's trade war and increased tariffs. And I've been speaking on this program to

a whole host of folks for weeks and months now. Small businesses, medium sized businesses, large businesses, and many countries. The officials from

many countries are saying, listen, the numbers may look good now, but when the real effects strike, there will be economic damage.

And I wonder, do you see in these latest job figures kind of the end of that lag period between tariffs and economic effect?

FROMAN: Well, I think the -- one of the explanations of the job numbers is that a lot of businesses sat on the sidelines given all the uncertainty

going around in the world before they made decisions as to hire new employees or whether to invest in new businesses or new factories.

[18:10:00]

I think now that the tariffs are becoming clearer, certainly the direction of travel is clearer, without respect to a particular level or a particular

date, we know we're going to be living in a world with higher tariffs. Now, businesses are going to -- have to decide how does that affect their

business models and can they afford to expand their business? Do they need to expand their business and hire more people?

There tends to be a lag between when tariffs actually imposed. And of course, a lot of these tariffs haven't been imposed yet. They'll be imposed

on the 7th or perhaps on the 12th when the China truce is over or down the road with Mexico. And there tends to be a lag between when they're imposed

and when they show up in inflation and as well as when they show up in slower growth.

But most economists expects that if you raise prices through tariffs, it's going to have an effect on inflation, on productivity, and on global

growth. Including the ability of other countries to buy our exports.

SCIUTTO: Yes. You wrote an op-ed talking about how the tariffs are likely to damage Trump's goals of these tariffs, including reindustrialization

that it will undermine import substitution and also undermine reshoring jobs. Can you explain why that is?

FROMAN: Well, a lot. About half of what we import from the rest of the world aren't consumer goods, they're inputs into manufacturing. So,

companies, factories in the United States relying on parts coming in from around the world that they put into their manufacturing process. When that

supply chain is disrupted, either prevented from coming in or coming in at a very high price, it affects their ability to compete. They can't produce

the same products at the same price. And so, it actually makes it more difficult to reindustrialize.

Now, the president has a theory of the case that behind a wall of tariffs, companies will ultimately be forced to move their production to the United

States and move their supply chains to the United States. That may or may not happen, but if it does, it may be years from now. And in the meantime,

the cost of those tariffs, people are going to see them quite visibly in the nature of inflation on consumer goods, and manufacturers are already

seeing it in terms of the increased costs of inputs.

And that may be one of the reasons why, as you noted, there's been a 26,000-person reduction in manufacturing employment recently. So, we're not

seeing the increase in manufacturing that the president hoped to achieve with tariffs, at least not yet.

SCIUTTO: You also make the point that, for instance, with A.I. infrastructure, of course, there's so much attention now on the A.I. race

that tariffs, for instance, on copper will impact U.S. leadership there because there's such a big copper input to A.I. infrastructure.

FROMAN: That's right. I mean, I was pointing out that there are tensions between one Trump objective and another Trump objective, and that's one of

the challenges of policy making is to connect the dots here. So, if you put 50 percent tariffs on copper, which is what the president has announced, at

least on certain copper products, copper is an absolutely integral input into the electricity infrastructure that data centers need. And we are in a

huge boom right now of investing in data centers. And the shortage of copper at a reasonable price is one of the chokepoint issues.

So, if you put tariffs on, it's going to take years to develop new mines in the United States. A new refining capacity for copper, if we can do it at

all. In the meantime, we may make it more difficult for us to compete in the race with China for leadership in the A.I. area.

SCIUTTO: Michael Froman, former U.S. trade rep., thanks so much for joining.

FROMAN: Thanks for having me.

SCIUTTO: President Trump issued a rare threat today in the national security space, posting on social media that he had ordered two U.S.

nuclear submarines moved. Trump said why later in the day.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

TRUMP: A threat was made and we didn't think it was appropriate. So, I have to be very careful. So, I do that on the basis of safety for our people.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

SCIUTTO: A threat from whom? Trump says he was responding to this man, Dmitry Medvedev. Former Russian president who has been sparring with Trump

online. He was not immediately clear if the subs that Trump moved are carrying nuclear weapons or were merely nuclear powered, as most U.S. subs

are. The Pentagon keeps its nuclear capabilities and their movements typically under very tight wraps.

Joining me now, former deputy assistant secretary of defense, Evelyn Farkas. Thanks so much for joining.

EVELYN FARKAS, FORMER DEPUTY ASSISTANT SECRETARY OF DEFENSE: Thank you, Jim, for having me.

[18:15:00]

SCIUTTO: So, for those of us who are aware of the former Russian president and his tweeting habits, he is known for making outlandish statements on

social media and sometimes quite threatening statements. Is a tweet a reasonable cause for the U.S. commander in chief to move U.S. nuclear

forces?

FARKAS: I would argue no. And especially not a tweet from former President Medvedev, because he's been known -- as you just said, he's been known for

these not very sober minded, and there's a pun intended there because there are some allegations, you know, in the social media sphere with regard to

what's behind his rhetoric, you know, his very explosive tweeting.

And so, in no circumstance, frankly, I think even if President Putin himself tweeted something to President Trump, would I advocate for moving

nuclear forces around. However, if President Putin did move a nuclear asset somewhere where it signaled to the United States that we needed to take

action in order to ensure that we had deterrent posture against Russia, that would be a different story.

SCIUTTO: Yes. Listen, the concern, right, a wider concern is that when the U.S. does something like this, Russia might very well respond, right? And

feel that they have to position forces to respond to a repositioning of U.S. nuclear forces, particularly when we're talking about nuclear forces

here. Is there some risk here of sparking a further escalation?

FARKAS: No, I don't really think so, because this is signaling, Jim, this is not the beginning of some kind of military action. This is President

Trump telling Dmitry Medvedev that he's serious because the reason that Medvedev tweeted was because he was trying to tell President Trump that you

can change the deadlines for us to come to a ceasefire agreement with Ukraine, we are not taking you seriously. And then he said, remember, we're

a nuclear power. And he was trying to say, you can't make Russia do anything, right.

The answer to that is not really to signal with our nuclear forces, it's actually to take concrete action to really pressure the Russians to the

negotiating table. And what do I mean by that? Weapons really fast and really publicly to Ukraine and sanctions immediately. So, there are things

that President Trump can do that are actual actions, not signaling.

SCIUTTO: I mean, that is the concern, right, that as it relates to Ukraine, that President Trump has been more willing to make statements and set

deadlines, right, for actions and then change those deadlines, at least so far, than he has been shown himself, willing to actually impose those new

costs.

FARKAS: That's right. I mean, moving these submarines does not inflict any kind of pain or damage on Vladimir Putin frankly. He can laugh it off. I'm

sure they're already making jokes about it on Russian television. You know, even though, of course, it's not really laughable. But at the end of the

day, what Putin cares about is whether Trump can stop him on the battlefield today.

You know, the Russians are making advances against Ukraine. Yes, they're very small, but they're adding up. And of course, the Russians are killing

citizens of Ukraine, especially in Kyiv and other cities, because they're targeting them deliberately. And the air defense that we have given Ukraine

is not sufficient to protect the civilians.

So, if we could provide air defense and really get it in there fast, and if we could provide offensive weaponry to the Ukrainians that could put the

pressure on Russia that we need to get them to the negotiating table.

SCIUTTO: Yes, you had that just awful attack on that apartment building in the last couple of days, showing the continued threat from Russian attacks.

Evelyn Farkas, thanks so much for joining.

FARKAS: Thank you, Jim.

SCIUTTO: Straight ahead, Jeffrey Epstein accomplice, Ghislaine Maxwell, has been moved by U.S. authorities to a new prison. What her accusers have to

say about that coming up.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[18:20:00]

SCIUTTO: The U.S. federal government moved Ghislaine Maxwell, longtime accomplice of Jeffrey Epstein, to a lower security prison in Texas today. A

spokesperson for the Bureau of Prisons declined to explain why she was moved. This comes after Maxwell met privately with a deputy attorney

general and former Trump personal lawyer to answer questions amid widespread renewed interest in the case.

U.S. Attorney General Pam Bondi briefed Trump telling him that his name appeared in the Epstein files. Maxwell is currently serving a 20-year

sentence for helping Epstein groom traffic and sexually abuse girls. Many of them underage. Some of their accusers issued a joint statement today,

calling her a, quote, "sexual predator." Adding that her move, quote, "smacks of a coverup." Epstein died in 2019 while awaiting trial.

Joining me now former FBI special agent Asha Rangappa. Thanks so much for joining.

ASHA RANGAPPA, FORMER FBI SPECIAL AGENT: Thanks for having me, Jim.

SCIUTTO: So, first, under what circumstances would a move like this normally happen? What would need to be the case for someone to be moved

from -- well, from one prison to a lower security prison?

RANGAPPA: Well, for one thing, it would probably happen in the later stages of someone serving their sentence. Definitely not in the first few years.

So, maybe as someone gets more elderly, they're serving a very long sentence, they're at the end of it. And where the underlying crime doesn't

pose a risk to public safety.

So, sex offenders in the Bureau of Prisons have something called a Public Safety Factor, a PSF, which I believe makes them ineligible to be moved to

minimum security. And in this case, that factor would've had to have been affirmatively waived by someone within the bureau in order for her to get

this transfer, which again, is already unusual because she was only sentenced a few years ago.

SCIUTTO: So, this happens notably within days of Maxwell and her attorney meeting with the deputy attorney general for discussions in the midst of,

as you know, I don't have to explain the circumstances to you, broader interest in the Epstein files here. Does it at least create the air of some

sort of connection between those two events?

RANGAPPA: It certainly creates a sense that there's a connection. I mean, it's happening right after these, you know, almost two days of talking.

What I find incredibly unusual, Jim, is that it's not really clear who accompanied to Todd Blanche from the Department of Justice to have this

conversation.

You know, if -- ordinarily, if you were really trying to get new information and to attest to its credibility, you would take people who are

deeply familiar with the case. And in this case, the prosecutor who actually prosecuted the case, Maurene Comey, was fired just a couple of

weeks ago. It's not clear whether any FBI agents. So, we don't even know what took place, but then this is coming on the heels of that.

[18:25:00]

She also has an appeal in the Supreme Court that is contesting, you know, the fact that she was prosecuted at all. And it will be interesting to see

if there are any steps taken by the Department of Justice on their position in that case, which is right now opposing her appeal to the Supreme Court.

SCIUTTO: Bloomberg is reporting that a FOIA review team at the FBI redacted Donald Trump's name and other prominent figures from Epstein related

documents citing privacy protections. That, of course, was before senior officials at the Trump Justice Department decided no further disclosure was

warranted. Is that something that typically happens with files such as these, to redact a name like that?

RANGAPPA: I don't think it's unusual. If they're anticipating a release and there are people who are uncharged or, you know, for whom there may create,

you know, a cloud of suspicion and they're not planning to actually charge them and there may other be -- may be other privacy reasons, they might

redact them.

I think what makes this unusual is that, A, there's a big public interest here in terms of, you know, the people that are named in these files. And I

think the question is, were they, you know, selectively doing this for Trump only or were they doing this for everyone? But I think that there

could be an argument made that, you know, these redactions are not necessarily warranted in a case like this. But it's not necessarily

unusual.

SCIUTTO: Regarding the conversations between the deputy attorney general and Ghislaine Maxwell and her attorney, Ghislaine Maxwell's attorney has

spoken quite publicly about her desire for a pardon or commutation. President Trump has said, yes, I have the right to pardon her if I were to

decide to do so. What are your concerns about just the circumstances of this conversation and those public comments? Because it seems to be

creating, at least the potential for some sort of exchange.

RANGAPPA: Yes, it does smack like of some kind of deal. And that is really not the purpose of the pardon power. The pardon power is supposed to be

there in cases of what Alexander Hamilton called unfortunate guilt, when there's been a miscarriage of justice or, you know, an excessively, you

know, long sentence or something.

I mean, we need to remember that Ghislaine Maxwell was a mastermind in Epstein's scheme. She was the one actively recruiting the hundreds of

victims in the scheme. And also, according to the victim statements in the sentencing report, in her trial, she actively participated in the abuse

herself.

So, you know, the fact that the pardon is being floated out there is clearly not because of any kind of miscarriage of justice, it does seem

like there is something expected in exchange. And of course, Ghislaine Maxwell probably knows more than what is in those Epstein files. That's in

the possession of the Department of Justice. So, I would conclude that maybe there is something that the president is worried about.

SCIUTTO: Asha Rangappa, thanks so much for joining and walking us through it all.

RANGAPPA: Thank you.

SCIUTTO: Coming up right after the break, despite being freed from jail one year ago, the punishment continues for the man wrongfully accused of

espionage by Russia and locked up in a Russian jail for nearly eight years. My interview with Paul Whelan, who's still fighting for a return to a

normal life. That's coming up.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[18:30:00]

SCIUTTO: Welcome back to "The Brief." I'm Sciutto. And here are more international headlines we're watching today.

President Donald Trump is fired a top labor department official following the release of weaker than expected jobs numbers. Trump, without evidence,

accused the official of manipulating the monthly jobs reports for, quote, "political purposes." The U.S. economy added just 73,000 jobs in July and

revised downward previous months as well.

The deadline has passed and President Trump wasted no time signing an executive order. It slaps tariffs on dozens of countries around the world.

U.S. trading partners had until midnight to reach a deal. Those who have not face tariffs ranging now from 10 percent to 41 percent kicking in next

week.

Trump says he is disgusted, his word, with the Russian president over Moscow's increased attacks on Ukraine. Vladimir Putin said earlier today

that Russian forces are advancing along the entire line of contact in Ukraine. Indicating no change in Moscow's position one week ahead of the

Trump administration's latest ceasefire deadline.

A year ago, today, Paul Whelan was welcomed by President Joe Biden as he stepped off a plane at a U.S. military base. You see it there, this

following Whelan's released from five and a half years in a Russian prison. His freedom, part of a sweeping U.S.-Russia prisoner exchange.

Since his return to the real world in Michigan, however, Paul has faced major challenges. He lost his job. His home. Suffers from post-traumatic

stress disorder following his violent arrests in Moscow on espionage charges in 2018 when he was there for a friend's wedding.

Paul joins me now live. Paul, good to have you on.

PAUL WHELAN, FORMER AMERICAN PRISONER HELD IN RUSSIA: Thanks for having me. I appreciate it.

SCIUTTO: So, can you believe it's been a year since you've been out?

WHELAN: You know, it's strange. The year has gone by quickly. A lot has happened. We've done a lot of advocacy for hostages. But just personally,

getting my life back together, just sorting things out, you know, I'm sitting in my Ford Escape. You know, it reminds me of escaping from Russia.

There's just a lot to do, a lot to go forward with.

SCIUTTO: You've applied for jobs, you've applied for benefits, and so often you've been turned away. I just wonder, is our system built to welcome

people like you back, particularly after how much time you were held abroad?

WHELAN: You know, the system really isn't meant to deal with people like me. But Congress did pass a five-year healthcare provision in the Hostage

Recovery Act, the Levinson Act. The problem is that Congress didn't fund it. So, the State Department doesn't provide those benefits to people like

me coming home. So, that's one of the things we're working on, having Congress fund that five-year healthcare piece.

[18:35:00]

You know, there are some other things we're working on with taxes, Social Security, you know, hopefully compensation as well. It's difficult because,

you know, we're out there by ourselves trying to do the best we can.

SCIUTTO: That's the Levinson Act you're talking about there. I just wonder when you go to the Hill, what kind of response do you get from lawmakers

when you make this case? Of course, they all welcomed you back, celebrated your release. Are they backing that up now with action or at least promises

of action?

WHELAN: They are. Congresswoman Haley Stevens, Congresswoman Debbie Dingell, Elissa Slotkin, our senator, they're entrenched in this issue. And

I talk to them all the time, texts back and forth. We have e-mails and conversations and whatnot. They're trying to do everything they can for not

just people from Michigan who are held hostage, but Americans who are held hostage.

And there are actually a lot of people in the House and Senate, on both sides, it's a bipartisan issue, and they're working tirelessly to get this

done. Unfortunately. It's just one of many things that need to be accomplished.

SCIUTTO: You've stayed in touch with others still imprisoned in Russia and elsewhere. Tell us what they're facing today and what are your hopes for

them to get their freedom soon too?

WHELAN: Well, you know, this is hostage diplomacy. Countries do this because they want to exact a price from the United States. So, you know,

there's a Michigan resident being held in Russia. He's wrongfully detained right now. There are others that are in -- countries around the world being

wrongfully detained. And it's just a matter of the State Department working out these issues getting them home.

We have to get to the point where countries are deterred from taking American citizens hostage. And then, once they're home, you know, we need

to take care of them a lot better.

SCIUTTO: Yes. I mean, to your point, you see so many countries participating in this, China, Iran as well, expecting something in return.

You're working on a book. I wonder what message you want Americans to take home and to learn from your story and your experiences there.

WHELAN: Well, you know, at this point, I would say that if you have to go to a country where you have to obtain a visa, I wouldn't go. I would be

very wary about going to third world countries. You know, I went on vacation and, you know, five years, seven months, five days later I came

home. That wasn't the plan. So, you might go easily, but you may not come home easily.

You know, there's a lot that will be in the book. I think some things will surprise people. You know, my involvement with the government, you know, my

past, things that are happening now. I think it'll be eye-opening. But the bottom line is, you know, this doesn't just affect the hostage, it affects

the hostages' family.

SCIUTTO: Yes.

WHELAN: You know, parents, children, dogs, cats, everyone.

SCIUTTO: Yes. It's a lot of stress, a lot of suffering to go around. Well, Paul Whelan, we celebrate your one-year of freedom and please do come back

when the book is out.

WHELAN: I'll do that. Thanks very much.

SCIUTTO: If you want to read more about Paul's story, there is a full article about him on cnn.com. It's worth a read.

And now to Gaza. In a five-hour visit by President Trump's special envoy, Steve Witkoff, and the U.S. ambassador to Israel, Mike Huckabee, to Gaza,

the official purpose of that trip was to give Witkoff a better understanding of what he calls the humanitarian situation there.

Palestinians say that during that visit, Israeli forces shot at them while they waited to receive food nearby. The IDF says they were just warning

shots. The images from today's visit seem to paint a very different picture from what the world has been witnessing in recent weeks. Those images of

desperate Palestinians scrambling in crowds to get food in what has been described as a worst-case famine scenario.

Israel is now allowing airdrops of food into Gaza, but rights groups say those airdrops are ineffective, costly, and symbolic. Jeremy Diamond has

the story.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

JEREMY DIAMOND, CNN JERUSALEM CORRESPONDENT: Well, as starvation grips Gaza, President Trump dispatching his special envoy, Steve Witkoff, to go

on the ground and see a distribution firsthand.

Witkoff was inside of Gaza for about five hours, assessing conditions on the ground, meeting with Gaza humanitarian foundation officials, as well as

receiving a briefing from the Israeli military. Witkoff said that he was aiming to give President Trump a clearer understanding of the humanitarian

situation on the ground in order to inform U.S. plans to address those very conditions themselves.

But Witkoff was on the ground to witness a very specific model of aid distribution. And that is that of the controversial private American Gaza

Humanitarian Foundation, which is backed not only by the U.S. government, but also by Israel itself.

[18:40:00]

And the Gaza Humanitarian Foundation has been heavily criticized by the United Nations and pretty much every other NGO actually operating on the

ground because they say it has increased risks for Palestinians.

But the United States seems to be doubling down on this GHF model. We heard the U.S. ambassador to Israel, Mike Huckabee, who joined Witkoff on the

ground saying that GHF has delivered a hundred million meals in two months. He was touting this GHF model. But one figure that he didn't mention was

the number 600, and that is the number -- more than 600 actually number of people who have been killed as they've been trying to make their way to

these GHF sites shot by Israeli forces according to eyewitnesses on the ground and a CNN analysis of Palestinian Health Ministry data.

And in fact, as Witkoff was on the ground today, yet another deadly incident took place near the very same GHF site that Witkoff was visiting.

Three people were killed, six injured by gunfire near that very same GHF site, according to Nasser Hospital. Eyewitnesses on the ground said that

the Israeli military opened fire on people who were headed to that site.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

AHMAD ABU ARMANAH, GAZA RESIDENT (through translator): As soon as Witkoff arrived in the area, there was random gunfire. The shooting intensified

along with drones and quadcopters in the air, and they started firing at people. Bodies are scattered all over the place. We can't survive like

this. Open the crossings. We want a truce. We want to live. For the sake of God, we want to live. People are literally battling each other. Witkoff and

his visit are nonsense.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

DIAMOND: A U.S. embassy spokesperson told me that they have not heard, quote, "any reports of clashes or injuries near the vicinity of the visit."

The Israeli military, however, confirmed that they fired what they described as warning shots at a, quote, "gathering of suspects" who they

said were advancing towards Israeli troops in Rafah, in that southern part of the Gaza Strip. But they said they were not aware of any casualties.

The question now is what will Witkoff take away from this visit today and how will it actually improve the situation on the ground? Because for now,

even as we have seen Israeli restrictions that have been in place for months now that led to this starvation crisis, many of those restrictions

have been relaxed. We're seeing about 200 U.N. trucks per day getting distributed inside of Gaza, but that's still well short of the 500 to 600

trucks a day that U.N. officials say are needed.

Jeremy Diamond, CNN, Tel Aviv.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

SCIUTTO: A new crew is scheduled to arrive at the International Space Station in just hours. What they'll be doing there and for how long? We'll

check in, coming up.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[18:45:00]

SCIUTTO: NASA launched four crew members into space from Florida today for a six-month mission called Crew-11.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: One. Mission. Mission's full power and lift out.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

SCIUTTO: Still cool to see them lift off. The SpaceX Falcon 9 Rocket carrying the crew. Two Americans, one Japanese, one Russian is set to dock

at the International Space Station in about nine hours. The group will be researching microgravity and space exploration as more humans take a giant

leap into the cosmos. Thursday's launch was scrubbed seconds before liftoff due to bad weather.

Joining us now to understand the mission is the editor of NASA Watch Keith Cowing. He's also done much of the training an astronaut goes through

before going into space. Keith, good to have you on.

KEITH COWING, EDITOR NASAWATCH.COM, FORMER NASA ASTROBIOLOGIST AND ROCKET SCIENTIST: My pleasure.

SCIUTTO: So, first question is, tell us what Crew-11's mission is going to be there for the next six months.

COWING: Well, it's to do what they do up there, which is a range of science and exploration things. It goes from biology to mineral, metallurgical

science, human physiology, looking out the window with cameras, looking out the window, just to look out the window, and all the -- you know, all the

stuff you do up there. And it's a full schedule. And despite the fact that they look like they're floating around and not doing much, they're working

really hard.

SCIUTTO: Yes. And it seems like so much of the focus now given the aspirations of other manned missions to the moon and then further missions

to Mars in the coming years, that it's really a lot of study about how humans can survive and handle that much time in space.

COWING: Absolutely. You got it perfectly right. It's like flight certifying humans. And right now, for example, one of the people who's up there is

Zena Cardman. She's only 37. She's an astrobiologist. And she's of the right age that if she plays her cards right, she could be one of those

first people on Mars.

But when you go to Mars, it's seven or eight months each way, and you have to land in and so forth. One of the easiest ways to understand what it's

like to just make the trip out and back is to spend that much time in space -- on a space station. It's a spaceship in space. It has the same risks,

the same, you know, removal from home, and yet, you're looking out at the universe around you, and you add that all together such that when we do

make the decision to go to Mars, we'll at least be able to check the boxes of how our bodies and our minds make it from, you know, here to Mars and

back.

But then you got to land and do all the geology and the biology. And that's a different type of training, which they also do.

SCIUTTO: So, are we learning that humans can handle this? I mean, it's a long way to Mars, it's a long way back. And presumably you'd spend some

time there, right? I mean, this is a lot of time outside of Earth's atmosphere.

COWING: Yes. You know, it's sort of like -- I've been on -- you mentioned my training is kind of ad hoc, but I've done centrifuges and all that, but

the real important thing of stuff I've done is I've spent several long one- month expeditions up near the North Pole, and then I spent another month at Everest Base Camp And that's where the rubber eats the road. You're by

yourself or with a lot of people. It's difficult. You get sick, it's hard to communicate home, and there's a lot of stuff going on and, you know,

it's actually kind of risky. So, you have to sort of build that in.

That's what the real issue is of going there, the machinery and all that, and figure that out. And so, you got to practice what it's like to really

be at risk in an expeditionary environment, which is what they're doing. And at some point, we'll think we've got it, we've got the money, the

plans, the program, and the commitment, and we'll go.

SCIUTTO: Yes. I mean, ultimately, its human beings, right? And you know, they're delicate creatures. Yes. Before we go, how are they going to get

back from the International Space Station? Because there have been some issues with that in recent months.

COWING: Well, that was with another -- they're -- they've gone up on a Dragon spacecraft and they're coming back, and it's utterly reliable. It

has had a flawless flight record. The other mission was with a Boeing spacecraft, which is not ready for prime time. And I don't know if that'll

fly anytime soon. At least not with people. But they're in a really good spaceship right now. It's -- you know, I think that's the least of their

worries.

SCIUTTO: Keith Cowing, thanks so much for joining.

COWING: My pleasure.

SCIUTTO: Well, it's an auction that shocked the fashion world. Just ahead, we hear from the new owner of the original Birkin bag. Why he thinks it was

worth every penny, and there were lots of pennies.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[18:50:00]

SCIUTTO: New research is offering fresh insight into the dangers of lightning. A study in the Bulletin of American Meteorological Society found

that bolts can travel quite far from the storm where they originate, most lightning travel -- lightning travels less than 16 kilometers, about 10

miles. But scientists found one bolt East Texas that crossed 828 kilometers in just seconds. It's called mega flash lightning. And new technology is

giving scientists the chance to learn more about it. The studies' authors say the research shows lightning can pose dangers that reach much further

and faster than previously thought.

Well, buying a Birkin bag less dangerous than lightning, but it can't set you back tens of thousands of dollars, even hundreds of thousands. This one

though tops them all. French Luxury House Hermes made the original bag for the English actress Jane Birkin. That original went under the auctioneer's

hammer at Sotheby's last month. The opening bid alone, $1 million, automatically made it the most expensive handbag ever. By the time the dust

settled, one mysterious buyer had forked over $10 billion.

Now, CNN reveals exactly who bought the bag. And why? He says the purchase made him sick to the stomach. Saskya Vandoorne has more.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

SASKYA VANDOORNE, CNN SENIOR PRODUCER (voice-over): This is the moment a bag made history. The original, Hermes Birkin, designed for a 60s icon,

smashed auction records in July, selling for an eye watering $10 million and this is the mysterious buyer on the other end of the phone.

SHINSUKE SAKIMOTO, CEO, VALUENCE (through translator): I was sitting in this very chair. It was the most expensive purchase I've ever made per

item. So, to be honest, it was very exciting, but it really made me sick to my stomach.

VANDOORNE (voice-over): Tokyo based Shinsuke Sakimoto is a businessman and collector. In an interview with CNN, he revealed what was really going on

behind the scenes in that dramatic 10-minute bidding war.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: We now come to the Star Lord Mako. Do you want to bid Mako 6 million? At 6 million euros?

SAKIMOTO (THROUGH TRANSLATOR): Are there many enemies? It's a one-on-one match. They gave up. Here it comes.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: 7 million euros.

SAKIMOTO (THROUGH TRANSLATOR): Wow, amazing. For real.

VANDOORNE (voice-over): A former professional soccer player, the auction appeared to bring out Sakimoto's competitive nature.

SAKIMOTO (THROUGH TRANSLATOR): We were almost at the upper limit. And those few minutes, we were actually strategizing to inflict a certain

psychological damage on our opponents. And force them to give up by making a bid without delay.

VANDOORNE (voice-over): His company, Valuence, specializes in circular design and the purchase and sale of rare, pre-owned luxury items. But this

bag won't be resolved anytime soon.

[18:55:00]

SAKIMOTO (THROUGH TRANSLATOR): I think it's a truly artistic piece. We will like to exhibit this at museums and venues to convey this value and

background to the next generation and to inspire people.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

SCIUTTO: Our thanks to Sasya Vandoorne for that story. And thanks so much for all of you for your company.

I'm Jim Sciutto. You've been watching "The Brief." Have a great weekend and do stay with CNN.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[19:00:00]

END