Return to Transcripts main page

The Brief with Jim Sciutto

Putin Meets With U.S. Envoys in Moscow; Trump: U.S. Strikes Inside Venezuela To Begin Soon; Trump Hosts Cabinet Meeting; Costco Sues Trump Admin. Over Tariffs; Smartphone Warning For Parents. Aired 6-7p ET

Aired December 02, 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're watching

"The Brief."

Just ahead this hour, President Putin hosts Steve Witkoff and Jared Kushner, the president's son-in-law, in Moscow for closed-door talks on

Ukraine. A Kremlin aide says no compromise on the plan for Ukraine has been reached between Moscow and Washington, though they do cite some progress.

Costco is suing the Trump administration over tariffs and contends that the president overstepped his emergency powers. And a warning for parents about

the health dangers of smartphones for children. That story and plenty more coming up.

For almost five hours in Moscow, U.S. Special Envoy Steve Witkoff and President Trump's son-in-law, Jared Kushner, met with the Russian President

Vladimir Putin. They discussed a peace plan backed by the White House to end Russia's ongoing invasion of Ukraine. Recent talks between U.S. and

Ukrainian officials led to changes to the original proposal which Ukraine, Europe and even many Republicans in this country viewed as favorable to

Moscow. The meeting at the Kremlin ended just a short while ago with a Russian foreign policy aide saying there is still more work to be done.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

YURI USHAKOV, KREMLIN FOREIGN POLICY AIDE (through translator): Are we closer to the settlement? I would say for sure that we did not move further

away from the settlement, that's for sure. And that's the feeling both in Washington and in Moscow. And the contacts will continue.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

SCIUTTO: Matthew Chance joins me live now from Moscow. And Matthew, of course, this is not the first time we've heard of constructive talks

between the U.S. and Russia. And then afterwards, we learned that no real progress was made. What are you hearing from Moscow today as to whether the

Russian side believes there was progress?

MATTHEW CHANCE, CNN CHIEF GLOBAL AFFAIRS CORRESPONDENT: Well, they're certainly saying there was progress. But, I mean, as you heard from Yuri

Ushakov there, I mean, they're not very enthusiastic about it, basically saying that, you know, we're not further away from an agreement than we

were before. The other sort of language he used is, you know, that the talks were constructive. They were useful. They were highly substantive.

They were an opportunity to work on achieving a long-term settlement for the Ukraine crisis.

But, you know, there were no compromises that were reached. No meeting between President Trump and Putin is being planned. They agreed on some

things, but not on others. So, not exactly a sort of gushing, you know, enthusiasm for this U.S.-backed process.

Remember, they were sitting opposite each other for nearly five hours, you know, talking about the detail, the compromises that have been hammered out

in, you know, excruciating negotiations between the U.S. and the Ukrainians over the course of the past week in Geneva and more recently at the weekend

in Florida, to try and find a sort of way to tiptoe around some of the red lines in these attempts to sort of broker a lasting peace between Russia

and Ukraine.

Things like the surrender of territory by Ukraine to Russia, which Russia is demanding. Territory it has annexed but not yet conquered, something

that's been a red line for Ukraine all along and still is to some extent. Things like Ukraine's aspirations to join NATO, the Western military

alliance. That's a red line for the Kremlin, but it's also not something the Ukrainians are prepared to sort of give up in principle.

So, it was a way of -- you know, a way of sort of wording around that, which the U.S. delegates, you know, Steve Witkoff, the envoy, the son-in-

law, Jared Kushner as well, were presenting to the Kremlin to see if there's an appetite, to see if Putin, President Putin, has an appetite to

sort of embrace that, take it and sort of take it as a victory.

SCIUTTO: Yes.

CHANCE: We don't know, basically, whether, you know, what the real attitude of Putin was, except that they're prepared to continue talking.

SCIUTTO: One question before we go. Oftentimes, as you often note, Russian state media and conversations on Russian state media communicate messages

or positions from the Kremlin to a wide audience. How were they covering these talks?

[18:05:00]

CHANCE: Well, they're definitely covering them as, you know, serious, serious negotiations. I mean, there is I mean, I hesitate to use the word

optimism. But I mean, there's a real sense that, you know, the fact that President Trump is so energetic in his engagement on the issues of Ukraine

and the U.S. and the U.S. and the U.S. and on this issue has not gone unnoticed. The fact that Jared Kushner was sent as part, you know,

alongside Steve Witkoff, was seen as a positive step sign. You know, obviously, he's seen as being, obviously, very close to President Trump.

And that was seen as a sort of personal extension of that negotiation from Trump into the Kremlin. So, he was sort of embraced and welcomed as part of

that negotiating team.

But I think there's also a sort of sense in Russia, and it's kind of shared by officials and by many Russians that I've spoken to as well, which is

that these negotiations are fine. A peace deal is fine, as long as it gives us, gives the Kremlin, gives the Russians everything we want when it comes

to the war in Ukraine.

We -- you know, they believe they're winning on the battlefield. If they can get that victory through diplomacy, great. But if not, they've made it

quite clear they're prepared to fight on.

SCIUTTO: Matthew Chance there in Moscow, thanks so much. We will have much more on this with the president of the Renew Europe Group in the European

Parliament, who will join us later in the program.

Well, President Trump back here in the U.S. is defending U.S. attacks on alleged drug boats in the Caribbean as the White House and Pentagon face

scrutiny over a deadly second strike on a boat back in September. During a cabinet meeting today, the president said he and Defense Secretary Pete

Hegseth did not know about that follow-up or double-tap strike, as it's often known.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

DONALD TRUMP, U.S. PRESIDENT: Somebody asked me a question about the second strike. I didn't know about the second strike. I didn't know anything about

people. I wasn't involved in it. I knew they took out a boat.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

SCIUTTO: U.S. military has killed at least 83 people in attacks, which the White House says are an effort to stem drugs coming into the U.S. Sources

tell CNN that the first strike in September did not kill everyone on board, but the follow-up strike then killed survivors of the first strike. That

fact has brought bipartisan backlash on Capitol Hill, some lawmakers even saying it may amount to a war crime, both Republican and Democratic

lawmakers. Here's how Hegseth defended himself.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

PETE HEGSETH, U.S. DEFENSE SECRETARY: I watched that first strike lot. As you can imagine, at the Department of War, we got a lot of things to do.

So, I didn't stick around for the hour and two hours, whatever, where all the sensitive site exploitation digitally occurs, so I moved on to my next

meeting.

A couple of hours later, I learned that that commander had made the -- which he had the complete authority to do, and by the way, Admiral Bradley

made the correct decision to ultimately sink the boat and eliminate the threat.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

SCIUTTO: Joining us now is retired Brigadier General Mark Kimmitt. He was also the former U.S. Assistant Secretary of State for Political-Military

Affairs under George W. Bush. Thanks so much for joining the show.

BRIG. GEN. MARK KIMMITT, U.S. ARMY (RET.) AND FORMER U.S. ASSISTANT SECRETARY OF STATE FOR POLITICAL-MILITARY AFFAIRS: Sure, Jim.

SCIUTTO: So, first of all, explain your understanding of the law as it relates to strikes like this, whether that be the War Crimes Act of 1996,

international law, or even, for instance, commander's guidelines. If there is a strike and there are injured people from that strike, is a second

strike to kill those wounded in the first strike legal?

KIMMITT: Look, Jim, I'm not a lawyer, you know that, but I use common sense. American soldiers, sailors, pilots don't kill noncombatants, we

don't kill prisoners, and we don't torture prisoners. I'm not sure that the law books say any more than that.

SCIUTTO: So, based on what you heard in the White House today, the explanations from the president, from the secretary of defense, did they

answer all the questions that needed to be answered? Were those satisfying explanations in your view?

KIMMITT: Well, the first question is, were there in fact survivors on that boat? And second of all, were they clearly identified by those that were

targeting that boat? We'll find that out on Thursday when they go in front of the Intel Committee and what Admiral Bradley has to say. I think the

media reporting on this has been atrocious up to this point because what is being yet to be determined, the facts are being stated as facts.

[18:10:00]

But let's go back to your point about what I heard. Look, as said earlier, there is this issue between authority and responsibility. The fact remains

is you can't duck responsibility. You can delegate authority. So, I don't think anybody that's had any military experience misunderstands that fact.

The president is the ultimately responsible for it. Then the secretary of defense bears responsibility for those operations.

They did delegate as Secretary Hegseth did, he said, I gave complete authority to the commander on the ground. However, that does not absolve

him of the responsibility of those strikes.

SCIUTTO: Would you be concerned if you were Admiral Bradley right now because we should note that initially, Hegseth and others, the White House,

denied the Washington Post reporting on this as false, but then they said, well, actually, it did happen or they acknowledged it happened? They're not

contesting those allegations today, but they are saying that the decision was made by Admiral Bradley. If you were Admiral Bradley today, would you

be concerned that they are shifting ultimate responsibility to him and not to the commander in chief?

KIMMITT: No, listen, what I heard as a military man, former military man, is that, yes, I had the authority if I was Admiral Bradley to order that

second strike. The consequences of that, the responsibility for those, of course, go all the way up to the president.

SCIUTTO: OK. So, are you saying that Hegseth -- neither Hegseth nor the president can say, we were OK with the general operation, but if there was

a second strike, not our problem, it's the Admiral's problem? You're saying that's not acceptable?

KIMMITT: Well, if that's what they're saying, but again, that's not what I heard. What they said is, we delegated the authority. And, Jim, you know

that authority is delegated down to the individual squad leader at times to conduct operations, but that company commander always bears the

responsibility for the actions of his troops.

I think we're quibbling with words. I think the more concerning issue is what happened that day. To me, if I can state for a point, look, this

happened in September. If in fact there were any irregularities such as shooting at non-combatants, you're suggesting that the military for the

last 90 days has been engaged in a conspiracy to prevent information about a potential war crime from getting to the chain of command, and that -- I

don't believe the collective conspiracy theory that is being suggested here.

SCIUTTO: I didn't suggest a conspiracy. I'm going based on the public comments of the president and his defense secretary just in the last 48

hours, initially denying this, then acknowledging it, but not saying, I can imagine in your shoes, a platoon commander or a battalion commander can

say, the guys on the ground did this, but I'm ultimately responsible, we didn't hear that from either the president or the defense secretary. They

didn't accept responsibility. The president said he had no knowledge of it, and Hegseth seemed to be very careful to say, I wasn't in the room. Is that

acceptable?

KIMMITT: But they didn't deny responsibility either. They simply said, we weren't there. At the end of the day, just like as you and I both know

about Abu Ghraib, it goes all the way up to the secretary of defense. And the only thing I can say from those days is there was absolutely no time

lag between the time that the commander on the ground was informed that there were torture allegations that the secretary of defense didn't know

about it. It was in a matter of minutes.

Why? Because we knew if there was any information held up, there would be some question of about a conspiracy to deny the information. That's all I'm

saying here.

SCIUTTO: No, I get that. But as you know, in Abu Ghraib, it was the lower ranking folks who paid the price ultimately, not those higher up. General

Mark Kimmitt, thanks so much for joining.

KIMMITT: Thank you.

SCIUTTO: Joining us now, Senate Democrat Peter Welch from the state of Vermont. Senator, I wonder if you were hearing that earlier conversation,

but you certainly heard the comments from the president and the defense secretary earlier today. Are you satisfied with the administration's

explanation of and justification for that September 2nd strike and second strike?

SEN. PETER WELCH (D-VT): Well, which explanation? We've had several. So, what's really clear is there was a second strike and that killed two people

who were no longer a threat and that's a violation. And the bottom line here is that we have to get the information. We should have the video and

we should have the audio in order to get to the bottom of this.

[18:15:00]

But, you know, keep in mind that the secretary of war as he likes to refer to himself now, he summoned generals from all over the world to give them a

lecture on not being hung up by those pesky rules of war, but just to get out there and be tough and be a war fighter. So, what you're seeing is the

effects of that attitude that he brought to this second strike or the tap on following strike.

SCIUTTO: The Republican chairs of both the Senate and House Armed Services Committees, as you know, have now vowed to investigate. Have you seen

concrete steps to do so, to carry out a genuine investigation of this?

WELCH: Yes, step one. I am absolutely so appreciative of Senator Wicker and Senator Reid working together. And both of these people care deeply about

our defense and they care deeply about the men and women who serve. And they want to get to the bottom of this. And I think what I share as a sense

of alarm is essentially the blame shifting that seems to be going on from the secretary, Hegseth, who's a tough talker, but now appears to be hiding

behind a lot of obfuscation in the so-called fog of war.

You know, the fog of war did not order a second strike. That was ordered by somebody either at the time or before. And the before order would have been

kill everybody. If there's any survivors, strike them again.

SCIUTTO: So, let me ask you the same question I asked General Kimmitt before you, if you were Admiral Bradley, the commander of Special

Operations Command, who both the president and Hegseth said it was his decision to carry out that second strike, if you were him, Admiral Bradley,

would you be concerned right now that you were perhaps being thrown under the bus?

WELCH: Yes. I mean, I'd be very concerned because it's clear that Hegseth is selling them out. I mean, Hegseth has a reputation that he's proud of

and that he's, quote, "a tough guy." He summoned all of these generals and told them to just forget about those rules, get tough. And then what we saw

here is a manifestation of that. And that order had to be given at the time when they found out there were survivors or it had to be a standing order,

wipe everybody out in however many strikes it takes.

So, you know, one of the admirable qualities of our men and women in uniform is that they accept responsibility. They have very dangerous jobs,

but they're stand-up people. And now, they've got a secretary of war, in my view, selling them out.

SCIUTTO: Senator Rand Paul said today that Hegseth is either lying or incompetent with his explanations. He's of course a Republican. Roger

Wicker, who you mentioned there, he's a Republican, chairman of the House Armed Service Committee, also Republican, demanding an investigation here.

Are you finding that your Republican colleagues are demonstrating they're more willing to publicly challenge President Trump than in the past? In

this case, and we saw recently the Epstein vote as well over the president's objections.

WELCH: And they are in this case. And the fact that you've got this bipartisan effort by the leaders of our Armed Services Committee indicates

that they do care about the men and women who are serving us and their dedication to them and the valor of those folks is making them focus on

Hegseth in an effort to get to the absolute bottom of what happened and who gave the order and who's responsible.

SCIUTTO: Final question before we go. Of course, that enormous show of force, the American military remains off the coast of Venezuela and around

it, largest aircraft carrier in the world, air assets, et cetera. Do you believe President Trump is going to take the U.S. to war in Venezuela?

WELCH: I have a major apprehension about that. I mean, you have what, 30 or 40 percent of our Navy down there, enormous number of assets. The president

saying that the airspace over Venezuela is closed and I understand he's saying that we're going to strike some people on the ground. So, this is a

regime change effort on the part of the president as he's describing it, and I believe very strongly that if he is going to take any action that

involves war powers, he has to come to Congress for authorization.

SCIUTTO: Senator Peter Welch, we do appreciate you taking the time and joining the show.

WELCH: Thank you.

SCIUTTO: Well, President Trump made several false claims during his cabinet meeting, most of which have been previously and repeatedly debunked. Our

own Daniel Dale identified 13 inaccurate assertions. Here are just five of them. The president once again claiming that grocery prices are down. They

are not, they're up more than 2.5 percent year over year based on the consumer price index from earlier this fall.

[18:20:00]

The old classic, Trump once again calling the 2020 election rigged. You already know the answer. Trump lost that election to Joe Biden fair and

square. Republicans and Democrats acknowledging that. Trump also exaggerated how much aid the U.S. has given to Ukraine under President

Biden. In reality, the U.S. spent less than half the amount that President Trump claimed. Trump also touting his record overall on inflation, claiming

that since taking office, his administration, quote, "stopped inflation in its track." We should note inflation is up year over year. Lastly, Trump

once again claimed he has ended eight wars. The president has definitely sought out a role as peacemaker, but eight is an exaggeration. In fact, two

of those wars are still ongoing.

Still ahead, Costco is going to court. The giant U.S. retailer is suing the Trump administration over tariffs. We're going to tell you how and why

next.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

SCIUTTO: Welcome back. In today's Business Breakout, green arrows across the board on Wall Street. Stocks bouncing back after Monday's losses.

Boeing was a big winner, up more than 10 percent. It is out with an optimistic jet delivery forecast for the next year.

Costco, it's taken the Trump administration to court over tariffs. The retailer says the money it is paying out in tariffs must be refunded if the

U.S. Supreme Court rules against Trump's tariff policy. The Supreme Court is weighing that issue right now with a decision expected soon. Matt Egan

reports.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

MATT EGAN, CNN REPORTER: Yes, Jim, this is a rare example of a large public company willing to do battle with the Trump White House over tariffs. Now,

it's true that dozens of other companies have also sued in an effort to safeguard potential tariff refunds, including Kawasaki Motors, the parent

company of Ray-Ban and Bumblebee Foods. But Costco does appear to be the highest profile company to file a lawsuit here.

Now, in the lawsuit, Costco says it wants the court to hold that those so- called reciprocal tariffs that the president started imposing on imports back in February, that those tariffs are unlawful.

[18:25:00]

Now, remember, most Supreme Court justices during oral arguments last month, they did sound skeptical about the president's use of a 1977 law

known as IEPA to apply those tariffs. Costco is trying to ensure that if the court rules that those tariffs were unlawful, that it will be in line

for refunds.

Of course, even if the Trump administration loses at the Supreme Court, it's not clear whether or not other companies beyond those five plaintiffs

in the Supreme Court case will be eligible for tariffs. IEPA accounts for the vast majority of the new tariff revenue that the Trump administration

has brought in, and refunding tens of billions of dollars of tariffs would be complicated, to say the least. This is an issue that came up during oral

arguments. Take a listen to Supreme Court Justice Amy Coney Barrett talk about how complicated this would be.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

JUSTICE AMY CONEY BARRETT, SUPREME COURT: If you win, tell me how the reimbursement process would work. Would it be a complete mess? I mean,

you're saying before the government promised reimbursement, and now you're saying we know, well, that's rich. But how would this work? It seems to me

like it could be a mess.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

EGAN: Now, even the lawyer representing the businesses suing the Trump administration did concede that this would, of course, be complicated. And

we reached out to the White House, and a White House spokesperson said that the Costco lawsuit underscores the, quote, "enormous economic consequences"

if the president's tariffs are not upheld.

Of course, the White House has other tariff authorities that they could lean on if IEPA is struck down. What stands out to me, though, here is that

Costco is willing to fight the Trump administration at a time when a lot of other companies are not. A lot of companies right now, they feel they seem

to be avoiding conflict. They seem to be avoiding poking the bear. And now, you've got to wonder whether or not this provides the political cover for

other companies to do the same. Back to you.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

SCIUTTO: Checking some of today's other business headlines. Reports say the head of artificial intelligence giant OpenAI is issuing a code red alert to

his employees. Sam Altman warning workers that the company must improve OpenAI's ChatGPT as it faces growing competition from firms such as Google

and Anthropic. Altman is ordering employees to prioritize their work to improve the chat bot over other corporate projects.

Tech billionaire Michael Dell is announcing a sizable donation to one of President Trump's financial initiatives at the White House today. The

founder of Dell Computer and his wife said they are giving more than $6 billion to help fund investment accounts for millions of eligible American

children. President Trump announced that program earlier this year.

Sources say President Trump is set to announce a rollback of Biden era fuel economy standards on Wednesday. Those fuel standards were put in place to

help reduce America's dependence on fossil fuels and help car makers over time to transition to electric vehicles. This latest move will make it

easier for the big three to continue selling big gas-powered cars. The president hopes it will also lower car prices.

Coming up on "The Brief," no agreement on Ukraine. More details from the meeting between U.S. envoy Steve Witkoff and the president's son-in-law and

Russian president Vladimir Putin, next.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[18:30:00]

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

U.S. Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth is defending his actions as the White House and Pentagon come under fire for a second strike on an alleged drug

boat which reportedly killed survivors. This took place back in September. Hegseth and other Trump officials say an admiral ordered that follow-up

strike, which they claim was within the law, Hegseth said the strikes, in his words, have only just begun.

The death toll from recent flooding across parts of Asia has now risen to more than 1,200 people. Two cyclones and heavy monsoon rains have caused

damage from Indonesia to Sri Lanka. Hundreds are still missing after floods and landslides. More than 1 million people have been displaced.

A Kremlin aide says the U.S. and Russia did not reach a compromise during today's meeting in Moscow. Special Envoy Steve Witkoff and President

Trump's son-in-law, Jared Kushner, met with Russian President Vladimir Putin at the Kremlin. You see them there. Russian media is reporting the

meeting lasted some five hours as they discussed a peace proposal backed by the White House to end Russia's ongoing invasion of Ukraine.

Ahead of that meeting, Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy described the current situation as a challenging one, but an optimistic moment.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

VOLODYMYR ZELENSKYY, UKRAINIAN PRESIDENT (through translator): America is taking serious steps to end this war, one way or another. And our task, and

I'm sure that this is our common task for everyone in Europe, is to really end this war, the war, not just to get a pause in the fighting. We need a

decent, dignified peace. And for that to happen, everyone must be on this side of peace, everyone in Europe and all nations that value peace.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

SCIUTTO: Joining me now is Valerie Hayer. She's the president of the Renew Group in the European Parliament, a member of the European Parliament.

Thanks so much for joining today.

VALERIE HAYER, RENEW EUROPE GROUP PRESIDENT, EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT: Thank you.

SCIUTTO: So, you have been in Washington meeting with members of the administration, lawmakers. What have they been telling you about the U.S.

position on negotiations? Have they given you confidence that the U.S. will support a fair peace proposal?

HAYER: That was one of main requests to them, meaning we have strong, long, common history and we continue, I hope, to share strong values. So, one of

our key values is to respect the international law, and in this very specific situation, to help Ukraine. And as Volodymyr Zelenskyy said, no

dictated peace would be acceptable. That's clear from our side, and in the discussion we had with a member of the Congress, I think we share this

common objective.

SCIUTTO: OK. I spoke yesterday to a Ukrainian member of Parliament, Halyna Yanchenko, who said Ukrainians do not trust Steve Witkoff to negotiate,

that they see him as biased towards Russia. And I wonder, seeing Steve Witkoff across from the Russian president again today, do you, do your

fellow members of Renew Europe trust Steve Witkoff to negotiate?

HAYER: I must tell you that this 28th peace plan that has been proposed, in our view, is a Russian peace plan. Meaning, it's Russian conditions.

[18:35:00]

What are -- the Trump administration, what are they asking to Vladimir Putin? This is not a peace plan. A real peace plan should be put on the

table with very concrete situation. First, nothing about Ukraine without Ukraine. Second, nothing about European security without Europeans. And

then we should start with a ceasefire. How do you want to negotiate under the bombs? This is not possible.

And then, for something which is fair and just, we should just respect Ukraine's sovereignty. We should make sure that Ukraine borders are

respected. We should make sure that Ukraine still has a choice, a freedom to choose its alliance or alliances. And then we should be clear with the

aggressor, with Russia, with Putin.

Meaning, Putin has to pay for its aggression. Meaning we can't reward the aggressor. Otherwise, the political message that U.S. would convey to

Russia, to authoritarian regime, would be devastating for all the global security.

SCIUTTO: Are you confident that President Trump agrees with the view you just described?

HAYER: I'm confident that all the people we met today conveyed the message to him that this is an issue for American security and that we cannot sell

Ukraine's identity, Ukraine's future, and also European's future. We are linked. This is interlinked.

SCIUTTO: Does Europe have a plan B? If the U.S. comes back with a plan to Europe and to Ukraine, which you don't believe is sufficient, do you

believe Europe can say, no, we'll go our own way?

HAYER: We will have -- and that is what we have done until several months now. We speed up and we enforce our support to Ukraine, but also our own

defense capabilities. And then we have to make sure that U.S. is still on board. And I'm confident that it will be the case. But we have to convince

Donald Trump. I can imagine that we can count on Rubio's understanding on that. And we should be on the table all together to work also on the

security guarantees.

And with the Coalition of the Willing, that has been put in place by President Macron and also Keir Starmer, we have strong willingness to move

on and to have security guarantees.

SCIUTTO: There's been concern today that the plan to access frozen Russian assets in Europe is being abandoned, perhaps under U.S. pressure. Is there

still a plan to access those assets, in particular to rebuild Ukraine?

HAYER: I can confirm. There is a strong willingness among Europe to mobilize this Russian frozen asset as a reparation law for Ukraine. And I'm

sure and I'm pretty confident that our leaders will find a solution at the next summit, which will be at the end of December.

SCIUTTO: OK. Also, today, President Putin of Russia, he said that if Europe wants war, and I'm paraphrasing here, that Russia is ready for war with

Europe. Do you believe that's an empty threat or do you believe that Russia is genuinely threatening Europe with the possibility of war?

HAYER: It only confirms what we all know now, that means that Putin has no interest and doesn't want to go through peace. He is threatening us

already. Ukraine with this military aggression, but already Europe with hybrid attacks, with drones, with sabotage. All that what we know, and we

should be strong together and organize the deterrence.

SCIUTTO: Do you believe that Europe is doing what it needs to do quickly enough to defend itself?

HAYER: We are really speeding up on this. We did a lot since 2022, and now we have on the table 8 billion euros readiness to reinforce our armies, our

capabilities. And we do as much as we can and as speed as we can. And now, we are really in a good speed.

SCIUTTO: Is there anything different, before we go, about this latest U.S.- Russia meeting? Because we've had so many conversations. We've had Trump- Putin phone calls. We had the summit in Alaska. I was there where the U.S. administration says, oh, we can make peace here. But Russia does not move.

It does not move from its fundamental demands. Do you believe that Russia has any interest in actually coming to some sort of compromise?

[18:40:00]

HAYER: It's clear that Vladimir Putin doesn't want to go, he doesn't want to have peace. He's just playing with time and he's playing with Donald

Trump. So, I hope that tomorrow, as soon as possible, Donald Trump will understand that the only way to make sure and to re-establish peace in the

European continent and in the U.K. is to help and to support Ukraine and to have very tough sanctions against Vladimir Putin's regime to make sure that

they are in the bad situation and so that they can come and go at the table of the negotiation.

SCIUTTO: Yes. Valerie Hayer, we appreciate you taking the time.

HAYER: Thank you.

SCIUTTO: And thanks so much for joining us.

HAYER: Thank you for your invitation.

SCIUTTO: Just ahead, researchers are warning parents about the effects of smartphones on their children's health. I'm going to speak to the lead

author of a new study about some concerning things they found.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

SCIUTTO: A new study in the Journal of Pediatrics raises alarms about the effect of smartphones on kids' health. Researchers looked at more than

10,000 12-year-olds. Those who had smartphones were far more likely to suffer from obesity and depression, less likely to get enough sleep. The

researchers then followed up with the kids who received their first smartphone at the age of 13. Once again, worse sleep and mental health

compared to their peers who did not have smartphones.

Joining me now, Dr. Ran Barzilay. He's lead author of the study, assistant professor of psychiatry at the University of Pennsylvania. Thanks so much

for taking the time.

DR. RAN BARZILAY, ASSISTANT PROFESSOR OF PSYCHIATRY, UNIVERSITY OF PENNSYLVANIA: Thanks for inviting me. Good evening.

SCIUTTO: So, parents have been worried about this for a long time. I know I've been worried about it as a parent. Tell us what was new about this

study. We've seen some warnings for some time. What struck you most about what you found here?

DR. BARZILAY: So, the -- indeed, there's been -- there have been many experts recommending that one should delay the acquisition of smartphones

by kids. But we didn't really have compelling data to support this recommendation so far. And what we tried to do here is use the largest

available longitudinal study of American teens and really try to nail this question through leveraging the large study, the longitudinal design, and

we had a lot of data that allowed us really to tease apart potential confounders like parental factors, sociodemographic factors, that one would

think they may influence the association between smartphone and health.

[18:45:00]

And, indeed, as you said, we found some compelling evidence that smartphone ownership, at least at age 12, is associated with worse health across the

board, depression, obesity, and insufficiency.

SCIUTTO: Let me ask you this, is there a better age, or is the truth that really just any age is better? Is there something particular about the age

of 12 and 13?

DR. BARZILAY: So, shortest answer is we still don't know because we need to generate the evidence, and with this evidence, we try to generate the

clinical insights. We try to follow the rule or the principle of evidence- based medicine before we make recommendations.

And I think that we can only speak currently to age 12 and 13 because in this specific study, this is the age range of the kids that we could have

access to. What we're doing now in my lab in Children's Hospital of Philadelphia, we're trying to look at older ages and, at the same time,

trying to go down to younger ages so that we can widen the scope and get some insight on different age ranges.

However, I will say that age 12 marks the developmental period between childhood and adolescence, so the kids are still relatively young.

SCIUTTO: Australia, as you know, is implementing a social media ban for children under 16 starting in December. That's a social media ban as

opposed to a phone ban, but you do see other measures. I know, for instance, my children's school, they don't allow phones in the school. Do

you think things like that, social media bans, bans during school time, do they make a difference?

DR. BARZILAY: So, I think it takes a village, and I think that it should be something that is not put entirely on the parents. It's good that we see

some movement in terms of legislation and regulation, but at the same time, I think that it also has a lot to do with the parents, and we cannot put it

all on the legislator.

SCIUTTO: Sure.

DR. BARZILAY: At the end of the day, we will need the scientists to generate the data, and based on the data, we need to take decisions that

support the health of our kids, and this will probably involve both parents who feel empowered to take decisions regarding their kids, and it starts by

understanding that giving your kid a smartphone has health implications, as we've shown in the current study. And at the same time, we need states,

governments, regulations to help us take care of the kids by perhaps imposing some regulation that makes sense, will benefit the kids.

SCIUTTO: Final question, do you have things that parents can say to their kids to help them? Because kids don't like to hear this, right? But is

there a way to explain this to children as to why it's better for them to leave the phone aside?

DR. BARZILAY: Yes. Well, that's the million-dollar question, always a challenge, especially when they become adolescents. But I would say that if

we have a discussion with our kids, with our teens, about health, we know that technology is part of life these days. We know that eventually all

teens or almost all teens will get their smartphones.

All we want to do is take care of their health because we can show them now this study, this research that says there is something going on. So, if we

approach this from the perspective of helping them build habits that will be good for their health long-term, taking some very, I would say, low-

hanging fruit decisions, like not taking your phone, your smartphone into the bedroom at night, having some time off it when you have, hopefully you

get a chance to have family dinners, making sure that you have enough time off your phone so that you can do physical exercise, so that you can engage

with friends or family offline. These are small things that can be done together with the kid, check in with the kid, see how the phone impacts

their lifestyle.

And I think that once the kid or the teen understands that we're all on the same page for their own health, it makes the conversation much easier than

just telling them what to do.

SCIUTTO: Good advice. Dr. Ran Barzilay, thanks so much for joining.

DR. BARZILAY: Thank you.

SCIUTTO: And we'll have more news right after the break.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[18:50:00]

SCIUTTO: It is just about eight weeks into the Gaza ceasefire. And while it has not been perfect, we are seeing students begin to head back to class at

the Islamic University of Gaza. They are surrounded by rubble, but their goals and dreams have survived somehow two years of war and death and

destruction. Oren Liebermann met some of them.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

NADA QUWAIDER, GAZA STUDENT (through translator): I never imagined that I would return to university and continue learning. I had dreams that I am

now surprised could be coming true.

OREN LIEBERMANN, CNN PENTAGON CORRESPONDENT (voice-over): For two years, Gaza's students thought they would never return to school. Since the war

began, schools turned into shelters for the displaced. Amid the rubble wrought by Israeli airstrikes, Gaza's Islamic University is now reopening.

TALEEN HUSSEIN, GAZA STUDENT (through translator): My feeling is very sad seeing the university like this. All the beauty, its architecture, and its

wonderful buildings, to see it now destroyed like this.

LIEBERMANN (voice-over): More than 90 percent of the school and university buildings in Gaza were either damaged or destroyed by Israel's bombardment,

drawing accusations of scholasticide. Education became virtually impossible. Israel has always maintained that Hamas embedded its military

infrastructure within schools, an accusation the militant group has denied.

TAL AI-MADANA, GAZA STUDENT (through translator): We tried, with the bare minimum of resources, to carry on, because we have this passion to keep

going and to become something in the future. I hope to become a major and successful architect and to achieve all my dreams.

DR. BASSAM AL-SAQQA, PROFESSOR, ISLAMIC UNIVERSITY OF GAZA (through translator): Honestly, it a very, very, very wonderful feeling that we, as

the people of Gaza, are starting to return to normal life. The first thing to come back in Gaza is education.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

SCIUTTO: Nice to see them back in school. Well, to the Field of Play now. Manchester City striker Erling Haaland became the fastest player to reach

100 goals in the Premier League in history. He scored the opening goal in City's win at Fulham. Don Riddell has all the details. How are you doing,

Jim? He's pretty darn good.

DON RIDDELL, CNN WORLD SPORT: Hey there, Jim. This has been a special day, of course, for the Norwegian football star Erling Haaland. If you've been

following his extraordinary career to date, I don't think you'd be surprised to hear that he has just broken another record. And this one

really is impressive.

That thunderous finish gave Man City the lead at Fulham. That is his 100th Premier League goal, and he did it in just 111 games. Good night, in the

end, for City. Phil Foden's hot streak continued when he made it 3-nil here just before the halftime break. And that -- at that moment, you would have

thought had wrapped up all three points for City. But Fulham had a little bit of fight in them. This diving header from Emile Smith Rowe gave their

manager something to build on in his halftime team talk. An impressive diving header there.

Early in the second half, though, City quickly restored their comfortable advantage. A second for Foden meant he had a brace for the second game

running. City had a 5-1 lead in this, but there was much more to come. And Fulham, well, they just wouldn't die. A quick-fire brace from Samuel

Chukwueze pulled it back to 5-4. He had never scored a Premier League goal before this game. City were rocking.

Only one Premier League game has ever finished 5-all. This one almost did. City needed Josko Gvardiol to clear it off the line deep into injury time,

as Manchester City held on to claim a breathless three points.

[18:55:00]

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

ERLING HAALAND, MANCHESTER CITY FORWARD: I think if you're sitting home now, you enjoy that game. It was chaos game and nine goals in a game is a

lot. So, yes, and we win and we're happy. But it's not the best game though.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

RIDDELL: Let's just quickly rewind to the start of the night. Let's go back eight goals to the opener. Haaland's 100th Premier League strike. As I

said, he did it in just 111 games. And for context, that is 13 games faster than Alan Shearer took to get his ton. And look at the other names on that

list. Kane, Aguero, Henry, Salah. Erling Haaland is head and shoulders above some Premier League legends.

Three very valuable points, Jim, for City means they're now just two behind the leaders' Arsenal, but the Gunners are in action themselves on Wednesday

at home to Brentford. Back to you.

SCIUTTO: Don, I didn't see you on that list, but, you know, I'll give you some more time.

RIDDELL: I was great in the backyard.

SCIUTTO: Thanks, Don Riddell. Well, one of the Faberge eggs in private hands has gone under the auctioneer's gavel. Thankfully, not literally.

Christie's sold the winter egg for more than $30 million. The House of Faberge only made about 50 eggs. Most are now either missing or in museums.

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