Return to Transcripts main page
The Brief with Jim Sciutto
Trump Tries To Fire Fed Gov. Lisa Cook; Cook Says She Will Not Step Down From Fed; Pritzker And Trump Feud Escalates; Trump Threatens To Send National Guard To Chicago; Protests Across Israel Demanding Ceasefire- Hostage Deal; Israel Kills Five Journalist In "Double-Tap" Attack On Gaza Hospital; Court Tosses Trump Administration Lawsuit; Trump Admin. To Seek Death Penalty In D.C. Murder Cases; Taylor Swift Gets Engaged. Aired 6-7p ET
Aired August 26, 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 Washington. And you are watching
"The Brief."
Just ahead this hour, President Trump attempts to fire Federal Reserve Governor Lisa Cook. Does he have illegal grounds to do so? A nationwide day
of protests across Israel. Demonstrators demanding the release of hostages and a ceasefire deal in Gaza. And a Swift surprise/ Taylor Swift's
engagement to sports superstar Travis Kelce.
We do begin though with President Trump's latest attack on the U.S. Federal Reserve and its historic independence. The president today defended his
efforts to fire Fed Governor Lisa Cook on unproven charges she committed mortgage fraud. Trump says he already has a replacement in mind and he
appeared to say the quiet part out loud, that his real motivation for firing Cook is to get a majority on the Fed that will do his bidding and
cut interest rates.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
DONALD TRUMP, U.S. PRESIDENT: We just put a very good man in that -- in one position. We might switch him to the other, it's a longer-term, and pick
somebody else, but we're very happy with the person we have in there. And we'll have a majority very shortly. So, that'll be great. Once we have a
majority, housing is going to swing.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
SCIUTTO: He's talking about interest rates there. Cook's lawyer says he will be filing a lawsuit against Trump on behalf of his client, quoting,
"His attempt to fire her based solely on a referral letter lacks any factual or legal basis." Cook for her own part says she is not going
anywhere. And he believes the Supreme Court will ultimately have to decide the issue, as so many issues. Tom Foreman takes a look at those
accusations.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
TRUMP: We need people that are a hundred percent above board, and it doesn't seem like she was.
TOM FOREMAN, CNN CORRESPONDENT (voice-over): President Trump says the deed is done, he has fired Federal Reserve Board Member Lisa Cook. But Cook and
her lawyers say he can't do that because the president has not built the case to give her the boot.
TOM DUPREE, FORMER DEPUTY U.S. ASSISTANT ATTORNEY GENERAL: Under the law, the president clearly does have the legal authority to fire a member of the
Federal Reserve for cause. I think what's a closer question though is whether what the president has at this point amounts to cause.
FOREMAN (voice-over): At issue, in 2021, Cook purchased a home in Michigan, then another home in Georgia, declaring both to be her primary residence
based on a CNN review of mortgage documents, potentially double dipping on financial incentives for home buyers. But analyst note, she has denied
wrongdoing. She was never charged. That might not be a valid cause to fire her anyway, and she may have an explanation.
DUPREE: She could just say she made a mistake.
FOREMAN (voice-over): However, Trump has been fuming at the Fed for months for refusing to drop interest rates to head off rising inflation, which
many economists expect to get worse as Trump's tariffs settle in.
TRUMP: The job he's done is just terrible.
FOREMAN (voice-over): So, he's tried and failed to shove aside Fed Chairman Jerome Powell. He's trying to push Cook out so he can name her replacement,
and most of all, he's trying to make the seven-member independent board bend to his will, which some economists say is an awful idea.
JUSTIN WOLFERS, PROFESSOR OF ECONOMICS AND PUBLIC POLICY, UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN: We want the Fed to make decisions in the best interest of the
American people rather than the political interests of the president. If he proceeds down this path, then we get a step closer to a Banana Republic.
FOREMAN (voice-over): Still, Team Trump has flung mortgage fraud accusation that New York Democratic Attorney General Letitia James, who convicted
Trump for falsifying business records, and Democratic Senator Adam Schiff from California.
TRUMP: I think Adam Schiff is one of the lowest of the low. I would love to see him brought to justice.
FOREMAN (voice-over): They both deny any violations, but Trump didn't even accuse Tulsi Gabbard of wrongdoing when she simultaneously claimed homes in
Texas and Hawaii. Trump made her his Director of National Intelligence.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
SCIUTTO: Our thanks to Tom Foreman. For more now, I'm joined by David Zaring is professor of Legal Studies and Business Ethics at the Wharton
School at the University of Pennsylvania. David, thanks so much for joining.
[18:05:00]
DAVID ZARING, PROFESSOR OF LEGAL STUDIES AND BUSINESS ETHICS, WHARTON SCHOOL: It's a pleasure to be here.
SCIUTTO: So, the president can remove a governor for cause. In plain terms, what qualifies as cause and does this allegation of double dipping on a
primary residence for mortgage purposes, does that qualify?
ZARING: It is not really clear what for cause removal means in the government. Before the Trump administration for cause removal protections
for certain agency heads had been around for a hundred years. And the only time it had ever been used was in the Taft administration, when somebody
the -- at the -- in his last day of office, President Taft removed two officials who had for cause removal protections for malfeasance in office.
But a Fed governor has never been removed for cause with the possible exception of one chair, who Harry Truman said he'd lost confidence in that
chair, wasn't fired, but then, subsequently resigned. But resigned in conjunction with the passage of a deal between the Federal Reserve and the
Treasury Department promoting Federal Reserve independence.
So, it's not clear what exactly for cause protections gets you. The Fed governing statute defines those protections a little differently than do
the for cause protections enjoyed by the leaders of other agencies. And I think it's fair to say that the Trump administration is being pretty
uncomfortable with the idea that parts of the administrative state could be run by people who, you know, can't be removed by the president and so,
therefore, don't have to enact his policies.
SCIUTTO: Listen, it's pretty clear what's going on here given Trump has been attacking the Fed for months, including the Fed chairman, Jerome
Powell. He wants to pressure the Fed to cut interest rates. He wants more power to pressure an institution that, by tradition at least, is
independent.
Basic question, is the Fed's independence a law or a, quote/unquote, "norm"? In other words, is there something institutional that makes the Fed
independent or is it just a tradition we've kind of enjoyed, and Trump's going to break it if he wants to?
ZARING: It is a little bit of both. So, the Fed officials have enjoyed these for cause removal protections, and that has always been thought to
give them a little bit of independence. When the Fed was passed, who was created in 1913, the chair of the board of governors was the treasury
secretary, who is very, you know, tied in with any presidential administration. And in the 1930s, they reformed the Fed statute to get
those political appointees, the treasury secretary, and the control of the currency off the board to make the board a little bit more apolitical.
But the only real guarantee of independence to set interest rates comes in this pretty obscure memo memorializing this agreement between the Fed and
the Treasury Department in 1951, that was associated with the firing or the -- you know, the loss of confidence in the Fed chair, Thomas McCabe.
And then, since then, the Fed has really operated really quite independently. I'd say many presidents have tried to put some pressure on
many Fed officials, almost always in an effort to get them to cut interest rates. Presidents like low interest rates because they think it's good for
the economy in the near-term and, you know, the potential of inflationary pressures is something that can be dealt with by the next guy or the
presidents in the future.
So, that's kind of the dynamic here. We've got some statutory protections that can't be ignored and we've got some traditions which really don't rest
on a really strong legal basis. And it's that mix of protections that's guaranteed Fed independence so far.
SCIUTTO: Yes. Listen, we're seeing a whole host of them dissolve before our eyes. Question, could one make an ethical case that it would be unethical
for -- given your -- given what your purview is at Wharton there that it'd be unethical for a president to put his own short-term, you know, interest
in cutting interest rates over the health of the economy? I mean, he wouldn't be the first president to do so.
ZARING: He would not. Presidents often want to do that. George Bush fumed that, you know, Alan Greenspan was ruining his reelection bid. And people
felt the same way about Paul Volcker when he was the chair of the Fed during the beginning -- the end of the Carter administration and the end of
the Reagan administration.
[18:10:00]
The president, of course, has a duty to follow the law, obey the Constitution, and my view, put the interest of the American people first.
But it's not always clear what that requires. And you know, presidents who think of themselves as stewards of the economy have often being very
frustrated at the unwillingness of the Fed policymakers to listen to them on aspects of monetary policy. But I would submit to you that that's what
Central Bank independence is all about. The whole point is to give Fed officials some guarantees that they'll won't get fired if they want to
raise interest rates higher than whoever's currently occupying the Oval Office would like. That's the Paul Volcker approach to curing inflation in
the late '70s and early '80s, was all about raising interest rates so painfully high that we had a pretty serious recession. And the idea was
Ronald Reagan couldn't make him stop.
SCIUTTO: Yes, listen --
ZARING: And that's what Central Bank independence is all about.
SCIUTTO: A lot of investors who count on that.
ZARING: Yes, go ahead.
SCIUTTO: There are a lot of investors who count on that independence. David Zaring, thanks so much for walking us through it all.
ZARING: Happy to talk.
SCIUTTO: Well, in another category, President Trump's threat to deploy National Guard troops to Chicago has reignited a feud with the Illinois
governor. The president called the governor, JB Pritzker, a slob at his cabinet meeting today. Not clear what he bases that. On for his part,
Pritzker's already called the president a wannabe dictator. He says this domestic use of the military is unconstitutional and has nothing to do with
fighting crime.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
GOV. JB PRITZKER (D-IL): The president and those folks in Washington who are thinking about sending troops to the -- on the ground in a major
American city is that they understand that no one wants them to come, that crime is down. Also, if they decide to do it, you know, we're going to make
sure and go to court about it, because frankly, you're not allowed, according to Posse Comitatus Act to send armed troops into an American city
to fight crime.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
SCIUTTO: Joining me now, Stephen Collinson, who's written an analysis of this for cnn.com. I mean, he's not wrong there. I mean, there's a reason
why U.S. troops have not traditionally been used on the streets except in the rarest of circumstances in the past, and Trump seems to be making
something of a habit of this. I mean, it's not the first time we've heard from Democratic leaders in states trying to push back against this kind of
thing, but is there any evidence that their pushback is working?
STEPHEN COLLINSON, CNN POLITICS SENIOR REPORTER: Not so far. And if you look at what Trump has done, back in June, he sent troops into Los Angeles
when there were protests against his deportation drive. He just sent them to look after federal buildings. Fast forward a few weeks, he sent troops
into the streets of Washington, D.C. He has much more power to do so because Washington is a federal district, as you know.
SCIUTTO: Saw them today on my way to work.
COLLINSON: Yes. And not a state, right? Now, he's escalating up the ladder again. This a much bigger deal, to try and send federal troops into a
state. Generally, he doesn't have the power to do that because the National Guard reservists are under the command of the governor of the state, in
this case, JB Pritzker. He does have the power and the law in the case of an emergency, in the case of a rebellion, or if the laws of the land are
not being enforced to take control of those troops. But it's the same thing, as we were talking about with the Federal Reserve governor right
there, it's unclear if he's got the authority to fire the Federal Reserve member, it's unclear he's got the authority to do this, but what Trump does
is he pushes and pushes and pushes and he says, try and stop me. I'm going to do it. And that's what we can see in Chicago.
SCIUTTO: So, what are the legal -- what is the legal recourse that the governor of Illinois has right now and over what? I mean, the other --
because the other thing, of course, is how long it takes for that to play out.
COLLINSON: Exactly.
SCIUTTO: Yes.
COLLINSON: And what he would do was -- would be to file a lawsuit. That's what Gavin Newsom, the governor of California did in the case of Los
Angeles. That is still playing its way through the courts. But as you say, the troops went into Los Angeles, they spent a few weeks there, and now,
they're gone.
So, what happens with, you know, cross lines of command? If suddenly, federal troops show up in a neighborhood in Chicago, which is used to being
policed by the city police, who's in charge of those troops? Is it the president? Is it the governor? Is it the mayor of Chicago? I mean, it's an
absolute mess.
And I think what the governor has right there is, it's not necessarily about fighting crime, it's about politics. If you wanted to fight crime in
Chicago, you could try and get guns off the street. You could send more FBI agents in there to do, you know, more long-term investigations. But this a
lot about politics and ultimately about Trump expressing his own expansive view of the role of the president.
[18:15:00]
SCIUTTO: Well, you might also send troops into cities in red states.
COLLINSON: Right?
SCIUTTO: Where they have quite high crime rates, but this -- based on his behavior so far, that's doesn't appear on the table.
COLLINSON: And what you have seen is you've seen troops from red states like South Carolina, West Virginia, they've come into Washington, D.C. The
reservists from those states have been sent into Washington, D.C. which is a very blue state, a Democratic state, which has repeatedly rejected Trump
in federal elections. So, you know, Trump is trying to impose his power in states where he's very unpopular and which rejected him. And it's a classic
test, if you like, that we've seen throughout American history between dueling power, federal power from the central government in Washington and
state power, states standing up. Normally, Republicans are very jealous about state's rights and keeping control of the states.
SCIUTTO: Not when it's a blue state. That certainly seems to be the new rule. Stephen Collinson, thanks so much for joining. His analysis, as we
noted is on cnn.com, definitely worth a read.
President Trump says there is no need to send national troops to Republican-led cities, to the point of our discussion, that's because he
claims just about every city with a crime problem is controlled by Democrats. While it is true that most major U.S. cities have Democratic
mayors, some of the cities with the worst crime rates in the country are in fact in Republican-led states. Take a look at this FBI data from 2024. 11
cities in the six Republican-led states that sent National Guard troops to the nation's capital have a higher crime rate than D.C.
D.C. had 931 violent crime cases per 100,000 residents last year. Memphis, Tennessee, which tops the list, had some two and a half thousand cases of
violent crime per 100,000 people. Shreveport, Louisiana, home district of House Speaker Mike Johnson, had 1,200 cases. Homicide rates in
Mississippi's capitol versus Washington, D.C. tell a very similar story. Mississippi has committed to sending some 200 state troops to D.C. FBI
numbers show that Jackson, Mississippi had 77 homicides per 100,000 residents last year compared to only 27 per a hundred thousand residents in
D.C. Those are the facts.
Coming up, hundreds of thousands of Israelis go out into the streets to protest, demanding their government agree to a hostage deal and ceasefire
in Gaza. More on Israel's day of struggle, next.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[18:20:00]
SCIUTTO: Demonstrations erupted across Israel earlier as part of a nationwide day of protests. Activists blocked highways, they burned tires,
calling for a Gaza ceasefire deal that would release remaining Israeli hostages. Oren Liebermann spoke to some of those protestors out on the
streets.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
OREN LIEBERMANN, CNN JERUSALEM BUREAU CHIEF (voice-over): The fires on the roads burned as hot as the anger on the streets. Across Israel, protestors
blocked major highways, burning tires, shutting down traffic.
This sign in Tel Aviv says, we're stopping everything until everyone returns. The demonstrations marked the beginning of what organizers called
a Day of Struggle, demanding an end of the war, and the return of the remaining 50 hostages held in Gaza. Yehuda Cohen's son, Nimrod, is among
the 20 hostages, believed to be alive.
YEHUDA COHEN, FATHER OF ISRAELI HOSTAGE NIMROD COHEN: Another day for protest, another day to make sure the issue of the hostages stays in high
priority, another day to pressure Netanyahu and force him to end the war and get a hostage deal.
LIEBERMANN (voice-over): Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu held a two-hour security cabinet meeting Tuesday afternoon, but according to two sources
familiar with the discussion, the latest ceasefire proposal was not on the agenda.
HAIM WEISS, ISRAELI PROTESTER: This a shame. This beyond words. There are no words to describe this government anymore. This government should deal -
- be dealing with one and only thing, ending the war and bringing back the hostages.
LIEBERMANN (voice-over): On Monday, President Donald Trump said in the Oval Office, there's a diplomatic push underway to end the war, but one day
later, he walked that back.
TRUMP: There's nothing conclusive. But hopefully, we're going to have things solved very quickly with regard to Gaza and also with regard to
Ukraine and Russia.
LIEBERMANN (voice-over): It's a promise these protestors have heard too many times to believe. Even so, Itid Ohel holding a sign with the face of
her hostage son, Alon, says it's up to Trump.
IDIT OHEL, MOTHER OF ISRAELI HOSTAGE ALON OHEL: We still need this -- you know, the United States to be with us. We still need Trump's administration
to push to it. Make sure that all the hostages return. I think he has the power to do it. I think he has the power to talk to Netanyahu and tell him
about how urgent it is.
LIEBERMANN: Organizers say this isn't a one-time protest. And in addition to the weekly Saturday night protests we have seen that appear to have
grown in size over the past recent weeks and months, they will plan continued protests and disruptions to let the government know and frankly
to let the world know that they're calling for a ceasefire to end the war and bring home the remaining hostages.
It was President Donald Trump who said just a couple of days ago that there might be a conclusive end of the war in the next two to three weeks, that
is something that people here desperately want to believe.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
SCIUTTO: Our thanks to Oren Liebermann. Well, there is growing condemnation of Israel's back-to-back strikes on Monday against the Nasser Hospital in
Gaza. The two-part attack, known as a double-tap, killed first responders and journalists who had responded to the initial strike. Dr. Zaher Sahloul
is the president and co-founder of MedGlobal. He previously worked at Nasser Hospital as part of a medical mission there, and he joins me now.
Doctor, thanks so much for joining.
DR. ZAHER SAHLOUL, PRESIDENT AND CO-FOUNDER, MEDGLOBAL: Thank you for having me, Jim.
SCIUTTO: So, first, I want to begin with this strike known as a double-tap. There's a first strike and then there's a second one that appears to be
deliberately time to strike those who respond to. This pattern you said you've witnessed in Syria, you've witnessed it in Ukraine. Do you believe
this was a deliberate double-tap strike by Israeli forces that we witnessed on Monday?
DR. SAHLOUL: First of all, this a horrible way to kill first responders. We usually respond to a bombing. And we know that the first bombing or
shelling happened at the hospital, which is by itself violation of Geneva Convention. And then, when people gathered, including members of the media
and first responders, the Israeli army shelled them one more time and killing 20 people. And this a war crime according to any definition.
Because even if you have injured people from the first strike, you should not be bombing them again.
And I've seen this in Syria, I've seen it in Ukraine. This a tip -- one page of the playbook of the Assad regime and the Russians. And it's
horrible because first responders, doctors, nurses, medics, should not be bombed. And the period between the first bombing in Nasser Hospital, where
I worked last year, and the second one is only 10 minutes, which means that it is intentional. And I have no reason not to believe that it is
intentional, especially with the pattern of violations of war rules and norms throughout this war in the last 22 months by the Israeli.
[18:25:00]
SCIUTTO: Now, Israel will say in cases such as this, although the Israeli government did say that this was a mishap, they will say that they were
targeting terrorists. When you see that, in your experience being in Gaza, do you see the Israeli military in these strikes take precautions to avoid
civilian casualties?
DR. SAHLOUL: Definitely no. And this not only my opinion, but the opinions of many doctors who visited Gaza and work in Gaza from all over the world.
And of course, the local doctors and the nurses that we interacted with.
So far, in Gaza, more than 60,000 people were killed, including 18,000 children. More than 150,000 people were injured. We're seeing tactics of
siege and blockade that is causing famine. So, there is no reason to believe that what the Israeli are doing, and they don't provide any
evidence. They sometimes provide commentary like what they did on this attack. But then the media forget about what happened, and then nothing
happened and there is no accountability.
More than 500 healthcare providers were killed in Gaza so far and more than 700 attacks on healthcare facilities were documented by the World Health
Organization.
SCIUTTO: And in this attack, of course, journalists as well. Your group, MedGlobal, has been tracking the humanitarian crisis in Gaza as well, in
particular malnutrition among children. And I believe we have some data we can put up on the screen that shows the percentage of children in Gaza
suffering from acute malnutrition. Tell us the impact of this and what's necessary to reverse this trend that we're seeing on the screen?
DR. SAHLOUL: I mean, first of all, I think everyone understands that severe acute malnutrition is a medical emergency. Up to 30 to 50 percent, half of
the children who have severe acute malnutrition will die if they do not -- if they're not provided with food supplements. And we're seeing accelerated
death in the last few months.
In the month of July, the total number of children below age of five who died is equal to the number of children who died in the previous six
months. And we have seen in our report, in our study, 2,000 percent increase of global acute malnutrition compared to the pre-war percentage.
One out of six children in Gaza now below age of five have severe acute malnutrition. It's present in every governorate. And also, pregnant women
and lactating women have high level of severe acute malnutrition. If this not treated, children will die and those who are treated will have lifelong
consequences on their physical and mental and cognitive health.
SCIUTTO: There have been -- there has been some talk from world leaders, particularly in Europe. You've even heard occasionally President Trump
describe that he doesn't like what he's seeing on the ground in Gaza in terms of humanitarian suffering. Have you seen any action taken? Is there
any real action that's bringing about change to the humanitarian crisis in Gaza or is the situation continuing along the same awful path?
DR. SAHLOUL: Jim, it's the opposite. Last year we met with the Biden administration, and at that time, we warned them in April of last year that
famine is coming to Gaza. And we've been hearing about all of these measures to improve access and increase food shipments. And what we're
seeing is the opposite. With the replacement of the international system, the international NGO and U.N. system to provide aid to the Gaza -- to the
Gazans with what's called Gaza Humanitarian Foundation. We're seeing people being killed while getting food. We're seeing increasing rates of famine.
We're seeing less trucks entering Gaza every day.
So, I hope that President Trump -- because he can influence the situation. And I know that he does not like children dying because of famine under his
watch, and this happening under his watch, to reverse this. And the reverser is very simple, increasing trucks that are full of food and
supplements to the children and medicine to the sick and the needy to Gaza, not with the current trade of 70 or so, but at least 600, 700 trucks every
day.
[18:30:00]
SCIUTTO: Yes. It's a fraction of what was going in prior. Dr. Zaher Sahloul, we appreciate the work you've been doing there. Thanks so much for
joining.
DR. SAHLOUL: Thank you.
SCIUTTO: Coming up, a court has tossed the Trump administration's lawsuit against Maryland's entire federal bench. What the judge, who we should note
was actually nominated by President Trump, had to say about the case.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
SCIUTTO: Welcome back to "The Brief." I'm Jim Sciutto. And here are the international headlines we're watching today.
President Trump has taken the unprecedented step of trying to fire a Federal Reserve governor. A lawyer for the governor, Lisa Cook, says she
will challenge that move in court. Federal Reserve said in a statement, it is committed to its independence. It also said it will abide by any
eventual court decision.
Australia is expelling the Iranian ambassador after linking Iran to at least two anti-Semitic attacks on Australian soil. Prime Minister Anthony
Albanese says Iran's Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps orchestrated arson attacks on a Sydney restaurant and a Melbourne synagogue. The ambassador
and three diplomatic staff were given seven days to leave Australia.
Spain has declared emergencies and areas affected by more than 110 wildfires this summer, 15 of those are still active, including one in the
hardest hit region of Galicia. A record setting heat wave has helped fuel one of the country's most destructive fire season in decades. Prime
Minister Pedro Sanchez says he wants government policy to address a climate emergency.
[18:35:00]
Back here, the Trump administration is now appealing the court's dismissal of a lawsuit against 15 federal judges in Maryland. The trial judge called
the lawsuit a, quote, "constitutional free for all." Judge Thomas Cullen, a Trump appointee, said quote, "Although some tension between the coordinate
branches of government is a hallmark of our constitutional system, this considered effort by the executive to smear and impugn individual judges
who rule against it is both unprecedented and unfortunate." The Justice Department sued the judges after a court order blocked the government from
deporting detainees who had asked simply for a hearing.
Katelyn Polantz now has the details, so a loss in court, a rare one for this administration. Consequential?
KATELYN POLANTZ, CNN CRIME AND JUSTICE CORRESPONDENT: Pretty consequential in that this was a very novel and shocking to a lot of people in the
federal judiciary approach from the Justice Department. This judge today is essentially get -- saying, get this out of court. If the Justice
Department, the Trump administration wants to fight judge's orders like this, this not the way to do it.
SCIUTTO: Right.
POLANTZ: What this judge wrote, this Thomas Cullen. He was brought in specially for this case because it's such an unusual case. He's a judge in
Virginia in the federal district court. He had to come in because the Justice Department is suing all of the judges in Maryland. So, none of them
can --
SCIUTTO: And of course, not only -- they couldn't do it. Yes.
POLANTZ: Right. And Cullen, he's notable for a couple reasons. He's essentially the -- part of a family of conservative royalty in the State of
Virginia, and he also is someone who was a two-time Trump appointee, both as a prosecutor previously, and now as a federal judge. In this situation,
the judges of Maryland put in place a policy for their court that said that if a detainee was in the State of Maryland and was going to be removed or
risked being removed, sent out of the U.S. by immigration authorities, that if they went to court, the -- there would be an automatic pumping the
brakes on having that person sent away for two days. That's it.
Then the Justice Department didn't like this order. They sued the entire bench of Maryland. What Judge Cullen said today in looking at this was, he
said, you could appeal, which the Justice Department is doing now, but he also said, this case cannot be the way that you challenge something like
this. And he also said, you want me to stop judges that are at my same level in the trial courts from the rulings they're doing? That just isn't
how it works. You can't pose the branches of government up against one another like this.
SCIUTTO: Now, this a lawsuit. So, it's -- I mean, there are other ways that the Trump administration is attempting to expand its powers and winning
some cases in court. I mean, is -- can they appeal the judge's decision by normal processes, right?
POLANTZ: They can.
SCIUTTO: I mean, that seems what Judge Cullen is telling him to do, right?
POLANTZ: Right. So, what he's saying is that you can have a bunch of options in appealing, you can go to Congress, you can appeal these
individual cases when an immigrant detainee comes to the court and says, I don't want to be sent out of the country, you can appeal those findings if
the court doesn't allow it immediately. But then, the Justice Department, they're also appealing this on the whole.
SCIUTTO: I mean, listen, what we're seeing -- I mean, half the stories we do these days, right, are how this administration is trying to expand its
legal power and a number of different -- we kind of -- they kind of push against doors and see if they'll open up and this appears to be a door
that, at least for the moment, didn't open.
POLANTZ: And former and current federal judges have told me that things like this are contributing to a climate of what they believe may be
harassment, retaliation, intimidation toward judges.
SCIUTTO: And not the first time we've heard that. Katelyn Polantz, thanks so much. Coming up on "The Brief," how energy could play a key role in
peace talks over Ukraine. Insight from a Russian opposition politician who once served as deputy energy minister.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[18:40:00]
SCIUTTO: Welcome back to "The Brief." On Wall Street, U.S. stocks bounced back from Monday's losses. Tech stocks leading the way ahead of Wednesday's
highly anticipated earnings report from NVIDIA. Investors also monitoring volatility in the bond market, this after President Trump's move to fire
Fed Governor Lisa Cook on unproven allegations, as we reported earlier, of mortgage fraud. Wall Street shrugging off Trump's most recent attack on Fed
independence for now.
Officials in the U.S. and Russia reportedly discussed energy deals on the sidelines of Ukraine peace negotiations earlier this month, this according
to Reuters. It's sources to say the deals came up while U.S. envoy, Steve Witkoff, was in Moscow. Russia has been cut off for most international
investment since its invasion -- full-scale invasion of Ukraine in February, 2022.
Vladimir Milov was a Russian deputy energy minister, and an adviser to the late opposition leader Alexey Navalny, and he joins me now. Thanks so much
for taking the time.
VLADIMIR MILOV, RUSSIAN OPPOSITION POLITICIAN AND FORMER ADVISER TO ALEXEY NAVALNY: Hello. Thanks for having me.
SCIUTTO: So, first, the idea of the Trump administration floating business deals, trade deals, energy deals in larger negotiations is -- it's not new,
it seems to come up in virtually every negotiation. I guess my first question is, is Russia actually seeking energy deals with the U.S. or more
than anything else, is it really after sanctions relief?
MILOV: Sanctions relief is big on the agenda, but I think the top priority for Putin will be a peace agreement or a ceasefire on his terms. So, that's
a priority. And definitely, if something is achieved on that front, he would want to see a very fast sanctions relief from the U.S. side because
he would want to replenish his worn-out financial reserves and so on.
But I think, again, maximalist demands from Ukraine, this comes first and business deals and sanctions relief, this probably truly secondary.
SCIUTTO: There's some talk that while Russia's economy has survived better than many expected under the weight of western sanctions that now the
sanctions are beginning to hurt more. And is that true in your view? Is -- are there real cracks forming in the strength of the Russian economy?
MILOV: Definitely. There are no miracles and this sort of resilience that everybody talked about in the past three years since the full-scale
invasion, it was largely explained by the fact that when Putin invaded Ukraine, he still got a lot of financial reserves accumulated. So, he was
simply depleting that and financing his budget deficit, keeping his military economy running, that is largely expired now.
So, Russia is in a full-blown budget crisis. There's not enough money left in stash in the government's rainy-day fund to finance even the current
budget deficit. We're not even talking next year and the subsequent years of the war continues. We also have growth slowing down. Russian Central
Bank officially projects that the GDP growth will possibly zero out in the fourth quarter of this year, it's been notably slowing down recently.
[18:45:00]
We still are not or not through yet with inflation and it may yet rise again in the fall because of, again, the budgetary deficits and excessive
fiscal stimulus to the economy. So, troubles are mounting on different fronts, and I think in this regard, sanctions relief is an important thing
for Putin to keep his mind on.
SCIUTTO: So, how does Putin then interpret Trump's repeated delays of imposing new sanctions on Russia? It seems like every week or two there's a
new week or two deadline for new sanctions.
MILOV: First, Putin has really developed some resilience to deal with the sanctions regime over the years. So, I think he understands that while he
continues the war in Ukraine, he will face more sanctions pressure from the west, not less. We see that Europeans have been announcing in pretty
impressive sanctions packages lately.
So, so far, I think he's continuing what he's doing on the battlefield. But at the same time, he wants to use this poker face demonstrating that he can
withstand the pressure, demanding maximum concessions from Ukraine, maximum concessions from Trump. That's his tactics.
The cracks that we have discussed, the economic cracks, they really are beginning to bite at the moment, but Putin believes that he will be able to
stand the pressure for some more time, just about right to get more concessions out of Trump.
SCIUTTO: Is there a scenario where, let's say Europe and the U.S. split, that the U.S. decides it wants to make a deal, including offering sanctions
relief, but Europe opposes or is not ready for such sanctions relief? In that case, does Russia get virtually all it needs or does Europe have real
leverage here?
MILOV: That is a real scenario, and Europe does have a real leverage because it was Russia main investor and major trading partner, United
States was just less than 1 percent of the total accumulated foreign, indirect investment in Russia before the war. It's even less now. And just
about 4 or 5 percent share in Russia's foreign trade, United States. So, Europe definitely was the big partner, half of the trade, two-thirds of
international direct investments. So, Europe holds the keys here.
However, I think if U.S. does relieve some sanctions, Putin probably has a plan to quickly capitalize on it, to do whatever he can to replenish his
reserves, at least partially taking the opportunity that some of the U.S. sanctions may be lifted. So, he would get partial benefits. However, again,
Europe holds a lot of leverage on him still.
SCIUTTO: Vladimir Milov, thanks so much for helping us understand. We appreciate you joining.
MILOV: My pleasure.
SCIUTTO: Just ahead, the news, Taylor Swift got engaged. We're going to tell you how Travis Kelce proposed to the pop superstar, and crucially, of
course, what their ring looks like.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[18:50:00]
SCIUTTO: What was said to be a triumphant return to the court has come to an end now for Venus Williams. After two years away, the tennis legend
delivered powerful ground strokes and big serves before losing in three sets at the U.S. Open.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
VENUS WILLIAMS, PRO TENNIS PLAYER: When you play unhealthy, it's in your mind. It's not just how you feel it, you get stuck in your mind too. So, it
was nice to be freer.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
SCIUTTO: A roaring crowd welcomed Williams to Arthur Ashe Stadium as she went on the court Monday. At 45, she's the oldest player to compete at the
U.S. Open since 1981, when Renee Richards played at 47 years old.
It's a love story, baby, and she said, yes. Taylor Swift has announced her engagement to U.S. football star, Travis Kelce. The billionaire singer, and
her fiance, made the announcement on the respective Instagram accounts just a short while ago, writing, quote, "Your English teacher and your gym
teacher are getting married." Swift and the Kansas City Chiefs star started dating back in 2023. That was already a big headline.
Joining me now, Rob Sheffield, Rolling Stone contributing editor, author of, "Heartbreak is the National Anthem: How Taylor Swift Reinvented Pop
Music." All right. So, I mean, there's some big celebrity weddings in recent years, but I mean, this pretty darn big, right? I mean, the biggest
pop star brand at this point and one of the biggest NFL stars as the NFL itself is just growing in enormity. I mean, what is the merging of these
two folks mean?
ROB SHEFFIELD, CONTRIBUTING EDITOR, ROLLING STONE: It's gigantic because they were both so independently famous before they met. Taylor had her own
fame and Travis had his own fame, and they didn't have a lot of overlap between their audiences, since in those days there weren't a lot of
Swifties who were also NFL fans. So, it's sort of a beautiful uniting of the entire country.
SCIUTTO: Yes. I mean, I'll tell you how I knew that when my wife and daughter asked to watch a New York Jets game because they were playing the
Chiefs and then he would be there. And I was like, you want to watch a New York Jets game?
Anyway. So, I mean, she's famous for leaving clues for her fans that they try to decode. I mean, were there any Easter eggs she dropped out there to
foreshadow this?
SHEFFIELD: Well, interestingly, when she announced her new album, there's a song called "Elizabeth Taylor," who is a movie star that she's sung about
before. Of course, she's the ultimate Hollywood legend who was raked over the coals in public for having too many romances as Taylor was in the
beginning of her career. So, she's always identified with Liz Taylor, and maybe that was a hint that she was about to finally take her first marital
plunge.
SCIUTTO: So, listen, they're getting married, they're clearly in love, they're happy, but they're also big business people. We have seen them
cross-promote before. I mean, example, Taylor Swift announced her new album on the Kelce Brothers podcast. I imagine we'll see more of this going
forward. I mean, might that be part of the plan?
SHEFFIELD: It might be. They enjoy each other's audiences. Taylor made a funny joke about going on their podcast, she said, because if there's one
thing that male sports fans want more of in their life, it's me. And that was a funny joke. They're aware that they don't necessarily have the same
core audience, but the fact is people love them together and everybody who loves Taylor loves that this boyfriend was always really into the role of
being Taylor Swift's boyfriend.
He was very, very brash about pursuing her in public in ways that she obviously very liked. She said that putting her on blast in public, as she
put it, was metal as hell. And she always liked that he really was a bit of a ham in the role of Taylor Swift's boyfriend. So, imagine him now as her
fiance. It's just going to get better.
SCIUTTO: Yes. I would imagine a lot of those songs playing in the locker room, Chiefs' locker room. I mean, she's of course written some breakup
ballads. We can say that. I mean, are we going to expect some we together ballads going forward perhaps in the next album?
[18:55:00]
SHEFFIELD: Absolutely. She's always loved telling love stories, especially ones that are long love stories. On her first album, she had a song called
"Mary's Song," which is about a couple who fall in love as little kids and by the end of the song, they're 87 and 89. And she was 16 when she wrote
that song. That wasn't the way I thought about love when I was 16. But she's always been into those kinds of long running romances. And so, it
totally fits her sort of -- the romantic way she sees the world in her music, dor sure.
SCIUTTO: Yes. Well, it's a great story. Nice to have a happy one. Rob Sheffield, thanks so much for joining.
SHEFFIELD: Thank you.
SCIUTTO: And finally, headphones on, that is the message greeting millions of commuters in London this week. The city's mayor is launching a new
campaign on public transport to discourage people from using their phones on speaker mode. Research shows that 70 percent of people find loud music
and phone calls a nuisance. I do as well. It can be especially stressful for people with heightened sensitivities and autism. A friendly reminder to
travel kind with your fellow passengers in mind. I agree with that one.
Thanks so much for joining us today. I'm Jim Sciutto in Washington. You've been watching "The Brief." Please do stay with CNN.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[19:00:00]
END
