Return to Transcripts main page

The Brief with Jim Sciutto

Trump Blasts Supreme Court for Striking Down Tariffs; Oregon Government Hails High Court Ruling Against Trump Tariffs; Trump Says He's Considering Limited Military Strike On Iran; U.K. Government To Consider Removing Andrew From Line Of Succession. Aired 6-7p ET

Aired February 20, 2026 - 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, "THE BRIEF": 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 Trump insults the Supreme Court justices who struck down his tariffs, calling them lapdogs and fools. The president

says he's considering a limited military strike on Iran, and British lawmakers are now looking at whether they can remove the king's disgraced

brother from the royal line of succession.

We begin with President Trump's fiery reaction to the U.S. Supreme Court striking down his sweeping global tariffs, a major rebuke to his signature

economic and, in many ways, national security policy. At a news conference a few hours ago, Trump blasted the ruling, calling it disgraceful.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

DONALD TRUMP, U.S. PRESIDENT: The Supreme Court's ruling on tariffs is deeply disappointing, and I'm ashamed of certain members of the court,

absolutely ashamed, for not having the courage to do what's right for our country. They're very unpatriotic and disloyal to our Constitution.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

SCIUTTO: After weeks of anticipation, the high court ruled by a 6-3 margin that the bulk of President Trump's tariffs are illegal because the

president imposed them without the approval of Congress. Trump argued today that the ruling will not constrain his efforts to impose tariffs. He's

announcing a replacement 10 percent tariff on trading partners using a different method, different authority than what the Supreme Court struck

down today. However, that authority is limited to just 150 days. We're doing something in a different way.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

TRUMP: We're doing something in a very powerful way, and we're using things that some people thought we should have used in the first place. But it's

more complicated. It's a little more complicated. The process takes a little more time, but the end result is going to get us more money, and I

think it's going to be great.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

SCIUTTO: Fact is, lots of uncertainties remain after the Supreme Court ruling which said nothing about exactly how the money collected from

Trump's tariffs would be paid back. A new study says the U.S. may owe more than $170 billion in tariff refunds now.

Larry Sabato joins me now. He's the director of the Center for Politics at the University of Virginia. Larry, just on the politics of this, tariffs

are at the core not just of Trump's economic policy, but his trade policy. He's used tariffs as a threat to, well, for instance, say, I want to take

Greenland. How big of a loss is this for him politically?

LARRY SABATO, DIRECTOR, CENTER FOR POLITICS, UNIVERSITY OF VIRGINIA: Oh, it's a tremendous loss, except for possibly immigration and deportations.

This has become the most controversial part of the Trump presidency, and as we all know, he likes to win and not to lose, and this is a gigantic L.

It's a big loss for Trump.

SCIUTTO: OK. So, tell me on the politics going forward here, because the fact is, as you know, tariffs are not popular. A January NPR poll found the

majority of Americans say they generally hurt the economy, and the White House, to be fair, has seemed to be aware of that because it's been quietly

softening some of these tariffs in recent weeks and months. Could this ruling oddly help him politically?

SABATO: Well, it might if somehow coordinated with this tariff decision, prices decline or at least don't go up as they have been going up. That's

at the heart of the economy for the average American. The average American doesn't really even understand what a tariff is, and I can understand that.

It's very confusing. So, they have to see a real change in the total that they're having to pay in the grocery store twice a week.

SCIUTTO: Did you see a President Trump at all humbled? He didn't say it out loud. Of course, he attacked the court. He always does when he loses

decisions. Does he have to see that this is a limiting decision for him?

[18:05:00]

SABATO: Well, it would be helpful if he did. But, Jim, we all know Donald Trump at this point. And by the way, I've looked at what presidents have

said about Supreme Courts and Supreme Court justices when they lose a big case. And, of course, they're critical, but no one has ever said the things

that Donald Trump said today about individual justices.

You know, the argument -- he cannot elevate an argument. It always ends up in the gutter, and I don't think that helps him, not just with the judges,

with the justices, but with average Americans who look at this and think, that's really inappropriate.

SCIUTTO: Yes. Larry Sabato, always good to have you. Thanks so much.

SABATO: Thank you, Jim.

SCIUTTO: Well, today's decision is the most important Supreme Court ruling on the economy in years. It's also a major blow to a core component of the

president's economic and foreign agenda, as we noted. After months of last- minute emergency rulings, this one was on the merits, and it shows the Supreme Court is still willing to say no to the president, sometimes.

For more on this, I'm joined by Joan Biskupic, who was in the room for this decision. Tell us what the reaction was.

JOAN BISKUPIC, CNN CHIEF SUPREME COURT ANALYST: It was so dramatic. You know, we'd been expecting this ruling for about two months, but we'd had a

lot of, you know, dashed expectations over the months as it didn't come, it didn't come, it didn't come. And, you know, the chief justice comes in with

the eight associate justices. He takes the bench. The room was not packed.

The solicitor general, John Sauer, who defended these tariffs very aggressively, happened to be sitting below the bench where the solicitor

general usually sits. One of the lawyers who had argued for the challenges to these tariffs happened to be there.

But, you know, there were plenty of seats throughout the room. And then the chief says that he had the opinion to announce in this case. Now, we

suspected that the chief would have it, but he went on for 10 minutes in a way that really shot down every single argument that the administration had

put forward, mainly based on the fact that the Constitution gives Congress the power to levy taxes. And what are tariffs, after all, as the chief said

from the bench? But a tax on imported goods.

So, this was really, to the majority justices, a very straightforward ruling. And I'll mention that, you know, a lot of times when we have a very

high-stakes case, dissenters will read part of their opinions from the bench. But the three dissenters here, Clarence Thomas, Brett Kavanaugh, and

Samuel Alito, they just listened quietly while the chief spoke. Obviously, Donald Trump made his dissent very clear.

SCIUTTO: And quite personally, as he often does. Now, the president noted other authorities he has to impose tariffs under certain circumstances, not

as broadly as he did. Section 232, Section 301, Section 122, which do have limits. For instance, 122, they can only last 150 days. How will courts see

or view him using those powers to impose tariffs?

BISKUPIC: Well, if he does not go through the proper channels, we will be back in court. But there are proper channels. He can impose tariffs if he

follows certain rules. Durational limits, or he has to do kind of investigative issues before he would apply something. There are all sorts

of prerequisites to that path.

What he tried to do under this Emergency Powers Act from 1977 that had never, ever been used for tariffs. It had been used for some sort of

economic sanctions against foreign governments, but never in this way. He tried to sidestep Congress. If he does it under the proper paths, he can do

it. But he doesn't -- you know, he said he would, but if he deviates, we're going to be right back to where we started.

SCIUTTO: You've covered the court for a long time, and you've seen this Supreme Court, with this conservative majority, give an enormous amount of

leeway to this president. Most notably, perhaps, the immunity decision, but a whole host of other ones.

BISKUPIC: Right.

SCIUTTO: So how unusual, and therefore, how important was this particular decision?

BISKUPIC: This decision was very important, because it was the first time, as you said in your introduction, Jim, that the court had given a firm no

in a big case. And it was, as I said, in many ways, it was straightforward because President Trump had so exceeded the bounds of executive authority

here.

But it stands alone. It does not mean that Donald Trump is going to lose the cases he has trying to have great power to remove the heads of

independent agencies. He's probably going to lose that case. He might also lose the -- I mean, he's probably going to win the case to be able to

remove independent agency heads. The court is going to give him that.

[18:10:00]

The court's going to give him plenty, just as it has already, but he lost this big, and he's probably going to lose the other one that's coming up

later this session, that, where he's tried to lift birthright citizenship across the board.

And those are really big, big cases that will gather a lot of public attention, but there are there are literally dozens of other ones where

they've prevailed. And I think that for the chief justice, he has not wanted to be seen as in lockstep with this president. And he knows that

that has been kind of the narrative that's out there.

This fights it in a big way, and it should, because it wasn't an area where Donald Trump just completely overstepped.

SCIUTTO: Joan Biskupic, I know there's more to watch up at that court. Thanks so much.

BISKUPIC: Thanks.

SCIUTTO: Well, joining me now on the politics, Democratic Congressman Stephen Lynch. Thanks so much for joining.

REP. STEPHEN LYNCH (D-MA): Good to be with you, Jim.

SCIUTTO: I wonder, from your perch, and you heard my conversation with Joan here, just how unusual it is, has been for this court to limit the

president's powers. Do you see this as a win for the law?

LYNCH: I do, for the rule of law, and it is reassuring that there are still at least six votes on the Supreme Court to say no to the president. And

that will be increasingly important when we get to other issues like the independence of elections and, you know, especially with, you know,

President Trump saying he wants to nationalize elections. And there's real fear that he'll try to use federal agents to go into Democratic cities and

intimidate people into not coming to the polls to vote.

So, there are a lot of bigger decisions. This was a big one. But there are other, you know, core Democratic contests that will come in the succeeding

months. And it is reassuring that at least six of those justices were able to say no to the president.

SCIUTTO: President Trump told reporters today he does not need to work with Congress to impose tariffs under other authorities. But, as you know,

that's exactly what Chief Justice said he needed to do big picture. I just wonder, is there any support in Congress, whether Democratic or Republican,

for legislation to either give the president power to impose broad tariffs or to restrict that power going forward?

LYNCH: Ironically, I think it's country by country. I think most of Congress feels that it is inappropriate to treat Canada worse than you

treat China. But there is a general sense in Congress that China has used dumping practices and unfair trade practices against us for decades. And I

think there is an appetite to correct that within Congress.

But that would require, of course, President Trump to come to Congress and actually have a conversation. And he has not done that in the past.

SCIUTTO: President Trump has said the court was swayed by foreign interests in this decision. You heard him attack the justices individually as

unpatriotic. It's not the first time, of course, he's attacked a court or a judge for a decision that goes against him. What's the impact of those

attacks collectively on the institution as Trump, well, he's made a habit of this?

LYNCH: Yes, well, it's shameful. It is certainly, you know, an attack on what for the balance of our history in the United States has been a

balancing between Congress and the executives. So, he's undermining another important institution in our democratic system. He was clearly out over his

skis on this. He had no authority to do this. He should have seen this coming, that there was no basis or authorization for him to do these

without the support of Congress. So, he should not have been surprised.

And I guess his reaction is so visceral and personal and low that it's not surprising, unfortunately. But it serves to take us to a dark place in

terms of respect for our institutions. We would like the Supreme Court to be respected and that their integrity would not be questioned by the

president of the United States, especially this theory that they are in the lap of foreign interests.

[18:15:00]

SCIUTTO: I want to ask you two questions related to DHS now, given that they're Democrats are still blocking further DHS funding. I wonder, do you

see you and other members of your caucus sticking to, sticking to this position going forward?

LYNCH: Absolutely. We can't abide by secret police. We just can't do that, right? We can't have people masked, you know, scooping U.S. citizens,

executing them on the streets of American cities. They need to act within the law. So, there's -- we don't have any choice here.

The president has to come to the table. We have to have major changes, major reforms in ICE. They have to start acting like every other police

force in the country and come back within the law. We really have no choice on this.

And I think the American people, the majority of them, are in support of our position. I really do believe that that that even the people who are,

you know, anti-immigrant and, you know, complain about the volume of people coming into the country, even they realize that, look, you have to treat

people humanely. You cannot run amok in the -- on the streets of American cities and have people acting like goon squads executing U.S. citizens.

I think that whole -- those two shootings in in Minneapolis, I think, really caused people to stop and think about what the president is doing

here and how offensive it is, not just not just in that context, but for their own rights and security as citizens.

You know, ICE going through Minneapolis saying, you know, show us your papers. I mean, that had such a -- you know, a Gestapo like flavor to it

that I think it woke a lot of people up. And, you know, it's regrettable, but it had to happen. America -- Americans have to wake up to what's going

on here.

SCIUTTO: OK. To the point of those shootings on President's Day, a group of 22 dancers staged a performance at the Lincoln Memorial and also outside

the Kennedy Center as both a form of protest, but also a tribute to Renee Good and Alex Pretti. I want to show a clip of that just right now.

To date, the FBI has refused to share any information or evidence in Pretty's killing. Do you believe that the deaths of Renee Good, as we're

seeing that memorialized there on the screen and Pretti will be properly and thoroughly investigated?

LYNCH: That's one of the items that we are demanding. Look, we saw in both those killings, we saw the secretary of DHS, Kristi Noem, lie about the

circumstances of both those killings. So, we know they are lying. They lied about this. And now they are investigating the same things that they lied

about. So, that just does not hold water. That that has no credibility.

You know, Kristi Noem has -- and also Pam Bondi, have lost all credibility on this issue. They chose to perpetrate a lie, spread, you know, just

malicious rumors about Alex Pretti causing great pain to his family. I think people realize that we cannot allow them to investigate their own

misdeeds.

And so, an independent review, I think, would satisfy the demands of not only members of Congress, but I think of the American people as well.

SCIUTTO: Congressman Stephen Lynch, we appreciate you joining the program again.

LYNCH: Thank you, Jim.

SCIUTTO: Well, still ahead, President Trump insists that U.S. tariffs are key to U.S. economic growth. New data this week and a lot of data over the

last several weeks and months show the exact opposite. We'll discuss Trump's tariff legacy after the break.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[18:20:00]

SCIUTTO: Welcome back. U.S. stocks closed Friday session with modest gains after the Supreme Court struck down most of President Trump's global

tariffs. The President continues to insist that his tariff policy remains on course, calling tariffs key to U.S. economic growth.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

TRUMP: Steve Moore, a highly respected economist, came into my office yesterday. He said, you've done something nobody's ever done. 22 Nobel

Prize winners in economics said we would right now be in a recession, and you said, no, we're going to have a booming country. We're going to have a

booming country. You were right. All 22 were wrong, and you were right.

This country is booming, and it's booming because of the election on November 5th, and it's booming for another reason. It's booming because of

tariffs.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

SCIUTTO: The facts show otherwise. In fact, tariffs have failed to achieve virtually all of the President's stated objectives for them. Let's take a

closer look. New numbers today show the U.S. economy grew at 1.4 percent in the fourth quarter, brought down in part by the government shutdown. GDP

rose just 2.2 percent for all of 2025. That is the slowest pace since 2020.

Tariffs, as you heard there, were supposed to raise growth significantly. The U.S. trade deficit spiked in December, and for all of 2025, imports

rose to record highs. Tariffs were supposed to reduce or eliminate the U.S. trade deficit.

Manufacturing employment fell by 5,000 in November to the lowest level since March 2022, and was down seven months in a row each month since Trump

rolled out his Liberation Day tariffs. Trump, you'll remember, promised a massive reshoring of manufacturing jobs from overseas due to tariffs.

And who paid for them? A new study by the New York Fed shows that U.S. consumers and businesses footed the bill, paying some 90 percent of the

tariffs, which is exactly what many economists predicted. President Trump has insisted that foreign governments and companies would pay for his

global tariffs.

As for the debt, the Supreme Court ruling now throws U.S. fiscal policy into confusion. The Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget says the

ruling will increase projected budget deficits by some $2 trillion. Harder to measure is the long-term effect of U.S. trading relationships. Even many

of America's closest allies, including Canada and the E.U., have deliberately pursued trade deals with other nations other than the U.S. as

they seek friendlier and more reliable trading partners.

Joining me now is Adam Posen. He's the president of the Peterson Institute for International Economics. Good to have you, Adam. Listen, you know this

better than me, but all the reasons Trump said tariffs were good, the economic numbers have shown they just haven't delivered. Is the Supreme

Court decision in your view good news for the U.S. economy?

[18:25:00]

ADAM POSEN, PRESIDENT, PETERSON INSTITUTE FOR INTERNATIONAL ECONOMICS: Jim, I want to compliment you and your team. What you just listed was all fact-

based and would summarize the situation very accurately. What the president claimed, what actually happened, the outcome. So, when we look forward from

this decision, we got to remember the Supreme Court is not economists. They make constitutional law. So, the day's decision was about limits on what

the president can do without Congress. It wasn't any judgment on the economics.

The judgment on the economics is for the voters to make based on what you just said. Anyway, going forward, this is a small positive. The small

positive is there will be some relief of this very unfair, arbitrary, regressive, and distortionary tax. And over the long-term, it will give

some of those allies you mentioned, Canada, the European Union, Japan, U.K., and others, hope that there is some institutional memory of rule of

law in the U.S. That's the big message. But economically, for the households and the businesses, uncertainty remains. As the president

indicated, it's going to be litigated forever.

SCIUTTO: The administration, as the president said, is now turning to other authorities, not as comprehensive as he claimed, but still other

authorities. Section 122 for a 10 percent global tariff. I believe that can only last 150 days. Investigations under Section 301 powers. There are some

experts who've estimated that some 70 percent of that tariff revenue could be reconstituted under just 122 alone.

I wonder, do you see the accumulation of these other powers as being able to replace what the Supreme Court knocked down today?

POSEN: I think that number is about right. We had Peterson come up with similar numbers that there are all these other authorities the president

has, as you say, some of them like Section 122 are time limited unless Congress approves them.

The bigger issue, though, is if tariffs stay, and the fact that the president will just put them right back on, and then there were plenty of

tariffs on China, on Canada, on aluminum, on steel, that are going to stay irrespective of the Supreme Court, then the revenues are going to fall over

time anyway, because people start substituting. They start saying, OK, I got to get stuff from Mexico or bring it home, and not from China. I got to

work live without that avocado this time of year, I've got a substitute for steel.

And so, the tariff revenues are going to be on a downward trend over the next few years, even if the president does manage to put all those other

things back in place.

SCIUTTO: Now, how about this $175 billion? As I understand it, the Trump administration could actually return that quite simply in that that there

are methods even electronically that they could do so does not appear the president wants to do that. He says it should be litigated. So -- and it

likely will be litigated. I mean, are the folks who paid those tariffs, which is to say, U.S. importers, companies, et cetera. Are they going to

see any of this money anytime soon?

POSEN: Probably not. So, they -- so, now, the Walmarts of the world and lots of more small businesses are going to find out that what it's like to

be a small individual taxpayer that, yes, you may have legal claim to your refund or something. But once you get into dealing with the IRS dealing

with the Customs Service, you have to submit forms, you have to hire a lawyer, you have to hire an accountant. So, I think this is going to get

dragged out and it's going to take a while.

Now, maybe if the midterms go a particular way, people will be more confident, more insistent, and probably the biggest companies will get into

direct negotiations with, say, Secretary of Commerce, let Nick about expediting the repayments. But for the vast bulk of American businesses who

paid this tax, they're going to have to fight it out. And households are not going to get relief. It's not like the second that these companies get

the tax rebate, whatever prices they put up on the goods that American households bought or that they passed on from more expensive inputs to make

those goods, those are not going to be rebated to American households.

SCIUTTO: Yes. Well, there you have it, small victories over time. Adam Posen, thanks so much for joining.

POSEN: Thank you, Jim.

SCIUTTO: Well, Oregon played a lead role in the legal fight over Trump's tariffs. Its attorney general hailed today's Supreme Court rooting. I'm

going to speak with him next as the U.S. president insists, as we noted, he's going to keep imposing those tariffs one way or another.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[18:30:00]

SCIUTTO: Returning now to our top story. Oregon and its attorney general played a major role in the lawsuit which brought down most of President

Trump's sweeping global tariffs before the Supreme Court. Oregon led 11 other states, including businesses challenging the tariffs as an

unconstitutional and hidden tax on the American people. Joining me now, Oregon Attorney General Dan Rayfield. Thanks so much for joining, Dan.

DAN RAYFIELD, OREGON ATTORNEY GENERAL: Absolutely, good to see you.

SCIUTTO: So, victory for Oregon's businesses, victory for U.S. businesses today?

RAYFIELD: And victory for Americans, right? I mean, it's a huge day. I think in a moment in time when Americans are questioning, you know, a lot

of our democratic institutions, this is a big win. It's a win that says, hey, it doesn't matter who you are, you've got to follow the law in this

country. It doesn't matter if you're the President of the United States.

SCIUTTO: Now, you heard the President of the United States say quite a few times that he's going to use other authorities. Now, the fact is, as you

know better than me, he does have other authorities, not as broad as those that he claimed initially. Do you believe that the collection of those

other authorities to impose tariffs will keep the same weight on Oregon businesses and U.S. businesses that led you, in part, to challenge this

ruling in the first place?

RAYFIELD: Absolutely not, right? And the president is welcome to use his lawful powers to set tariff policy. Most of those policies, as you've

noted, right, really put some strict sideboards, right? You can't just put tariffs in any amount. You can't do them for any length.

The most significant one, I think, the one he's threatening to use right now, for Americans, that's Section 122, you're capped at 150 days. And it

stops. And then Congress has to approve them to keep going. And what we all know is that if the president could have gotten the power to continue to do

the tariffs he was doing, and he could have gone through Congress, boy, he would have done it by now. He knows he can't do that.

So, it's kind of a veiled threat. And these things are really meant to protect our businesses. They're meant to protect consumers. So, it'll be

good to get the president following the law again.

[18:35:00]

SCIUTTO: You have a lot of importers in Oregon, footwear makers, apparel makers, agriculture, technology, who had to pay these tariffs. And now

they're like, hey, I want my money back, right? How are they going to do that?

RAYFIELD: That's how I feel. I think it's how we all should feel. Think about how this story happened, right? The President, he's got lawyers, and

those lawyers likely told him, hey, Mr. President, you're probably going to lose under this theory in the Supreme Court. He did it anyway. Then he got

a lower court order, unanimous. All three judges, one appointed by himself. They ruled against him. He continued to move forward. Then he lost again in

the appellate court and says, uh-uh, I'm going to try my luck at the Supreme Court.

He's been told no all the way along the way. And he has known that that is creating risk as people are spending money out of their own pockets, small

businesses across Oregon, across the country. And now, when you make a mess, you got to make it right, you know.

SCIUTTO: Now, although the Supreme Court, you know, didn't deal with the particulars of how the $175 billion in tariffs collected would be returned

by the U.S. government, the president said, hey, it's going to have to be litigated. Are you prepared to litigate on behalf of Oregon businesses to

get their tariff money refunded?

RAYFIELD: Well, I know that those are the words that came out of the president's mouth, but I also think we need to look at the words that the

President's lawyers put on the papers as they were asking the Supreme Court to stay the actual decisions of the lower courts. And when they put in

their own writing that they are going to pay back with interest the money that the plaintiffs in our cases have spent, I'm going to take them at

their word that file those documents under, you know, penalty of perjury. When he put that signature on the dotted line.

So, I know that's what the president says. I hope he has some time to sit down with his lawyers and talk about how this is going to be a losing

battle. And I don't think any president should be delaying money that is owed to Americans just because he's grumpy about the Supreme Court

decision.

SCIUTTO: Dan Rayfield, good to have you back. Congratulations.

RAYFIELD: Thank you. Good to see you.

SCIUTTO: Coming up on "The Brief," what is the likelihood now of U.S. military strikes on Iran? We're going to get insights from the former chief

of Israel's military intelligence, who's following this very closely. That's next.

[18:40:00]

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

Donald Trump reacted with anger to a bombshell ruling by the U.S. Supreme Court. The court struck down Trump's sweeping global tariffs today, saying

the president must get approval from Congress for that. Trump blasted the court, saying he's ashamed of the justices who ruled against him. He said

he would implement a 10 percent global tariff under a different authority.

British lawmakers are considering introducing legislation to remove Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor from the royal line of succession. The king's brother

and former prince is currently eighth in line to the throne. This comes after his arrest on Thursday on suspicion of misconduct in public office.

He has not been charged and has denied all wrongdoing.

Venezuelan lawmakers have passed an amnesty bill to free hundreds of political prisoners. Acting President Delcy Rodriguez says the law opens,

quote, "an extraordinary door for Venezuela to reunite." Critics say the bill does not go far enough to ensure that activists and opposition members

in exile will also receive amnesty.

A new warning from President Trump to Iran. He says the Iranian government, quote, "better negotiate a fair deal. He added this.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

TRUMP: They were going to hang 837 people. And I gave them the word if you hang one person, even one person, that you're going to be hit right then

and there. I wasn't waiting two weeks and negotiating. And they gave up the hanging. They didn't hang 837. Supposedly, they didn't hang anybody.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

SCIUTTO: Earlier, the president said he is considering a limited military strike on Iran. This is the USS Gerald Ford. The largest carrier in the

U.S. fleet has entered the Mediterranean, heading towards the Middle East. It is the world's largest aircraft carrier.

I spoke to the former chief of Israel's military intelligence, retired Major General Amos Yadlin. He's now the president of MIND Israel

consultancy. I started by asking him how likely he thinks a U.S. attack on Iran is now.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

MAJ. GEN. AMOS YADLIN (RET.), FORMER CHIEF OF ISREALI MILITARY INTELLIGENCE AND PRESIDENT, MIND ISRAEL: I think the military action has to do with what

is the strategic goal. And the strategic goal is to make sure that Iran, as the most negative force in the Middle East, will not be able to use

nuclear, ballistic missiles, their proxies, and above all, to shoot their own citizens in the street.

If the president can bring, or let's say his envoys, Kushner and Witkoff, can bring an agreement that will ensure these goals, there will be no

attack. However, what we see lately is that the gaps in the negotiation are huge. And it seems like that the Iranians are playing chicken with the

president, trying to threaten him. And I think the president will look for legitimacy for the attack and will give some time for negotiations.

SCIUTTO: The president seems to want, or is at least considering, limited attacks. In other words, he doesn't want this to become a major war in the

Middle East. Do you believe that that is an achievable goal, or are you concerned that it could escalate beyond control?

YADLIN: Yes, when you start a war, you never know what will be the unintended consequences. And it much has to do with the Iranians' reaction.

If the Iranians will have the same interest to limit the war in scope and in time, the president may succeed.

But once again, after such an attack, the president will have to see that he is achieving his strategic goal, a better deal, a much better deal, and

stopping the killing of the protesters in Iran. If he can achieve it after a short attack, this will be preferable. The president has an experience,

historical experience. He eliminated Qasem Soleimani in 2020. He attacked Fordow, and he has the Venezuela experience. In all these cases, it was a

short, decisive, and with a minimal cost. This is what he is looking for.

[18:45:00]

However, as I said, there is another player here. It's the Iranians. I think the president, when he goes to such a limited attack, will have to be

sure that he has enough forces. If it will not be short, the Iranians will drag him to a longer war.

You can see that the president, unlike the 14th of January, when his military options were only a very limited attack, he has now deployed a lot

of American military assets to the region. And for the first time, when he said all the options are on the table, it's a reliable, credible threat.

SCIUTTO: As you know, Iran is warning now that military action by the U.S. would, quote, "have disastrous consequences for the region. What is

Israel's assessment of Iran's ability, its capability of retaliating in the region against U.S. forces against Israel? Does it still retain a

significant capability?

YADLIN: I think the Iranians are not 10 feet high. They do have capabilities. It is not the same capabilities because Israel destroyed half

of their ballistic missiles and their nuclear program and their air defense. And I think the Iranian retaliation will be limited and can be

contained with the most -- the two most effective and strong militaries on the globe, which is the U.S. military and the Israeli, the IDF.

SCIUTTO: Would Israel consider participating in these strikes? Because, of course, the 12-day war was, in effect, a combination, right, of Israeli

strikes and U.S. strikes. Might Israel take part?

YADLIN: According to the Iranians, they said that any American attack will be answered with attack on Israel. So, the Iranians basically decided that

Israel is in the game. We are not going to wait, even though we have a very good missile defense system. We are not going to stop the Iranians'

missiles on the sky of Israel or Jordan. We're going to do it on the Iranian launchers. So, if Israel will assess that the Iranians are going to

attack us, we will preempt.

Israel sees Iran as the main threat to its existence in the Middle East. Iran is developing nuclear weapons to attack Israel. Iran is calling death

to America, death to Israel, and they are preparing thousands of ballistic missiles. They are financing, training, giving weapons to all the terror

organizations, Hezbollah, Hamas, Islamic Jihad.

So, in the case that Iran will not continue to be such an enemy, an existential threat to Israel, it's a huge improvement in Israel's national

security. However, it is also a huge improvement in the life of the Iranian people, in the life of everybody in the Middle East. And I think the legacy

of President Trump may be that he changed the Middle East from a place that Iranian dictatorship, extreme, extreme radical regime is controlling half

of the Middle East and destabilizing the rest, Iraq, Syria, Lebanon, the Houthis. And suddenly they disappear. And President Trump can really

promote a different Middle East, prosperous Middle East, peaceful Middle East, a pro-Western Middle East.

This will be a huge achievement in his position vis-a-vis Russia, vis-a-vis China, vis-a-vis North Korea. So, I think Israel will join the U.S. in case

that the war will erupt.

SCIUTTO: Amos Yadlin, appreciate you joining.

YADLIN: Thank you, Jim.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

SCIUTTO: According to a new poll, an overwhelming majority of Britons want former Prince Andrew removed from the royal line of succession. That could

be just one of the consequences he could face in the wake of his arrest. We're going to have the latest from London coming up.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[18:50:00]

SCIUTTO: CNN has learned that British lawmakers are looking into the possibility of removing former Prince Andrew from the royal line of

succession. The U.K. government could introduce that bill once police have finished their investigation. Police searched Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor's

former home, Royal Lodge, on Friday. They also want to hear from his current and former royal protection officers. He is no longer in police

custody but does remain under investigation following his arrest on Thursday. More now from Max Foster in London.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Your Majesty, how are you feeling after your brother's arrest?

MAX FOSTER, CNN ROYAL CORRESPONDENT (voice-over): Keep calm and carry on, Britain's wartime motto, seemingly what King Charles is going with as his

brother Andrew's legal woes unfold. Charles promises full support for the investigation, saying the law must take its course.

We're now learning that London police are now contacting former Prince Andrew's personal protection officers. They're also assessing U.S. DOJ

documents, suggesting that London airports were being used to facilitate human trafficking. But as searches continued at one of Andrew's former

properties on Friday, experts warning the investigation into the former prince could be slow.

GRAHAM WETTONE, RETIRED LONDON MET POLICE OFFICER: Looking for offences relating to any potential misconduct in public office, so documents,

emails, electronic messages, this sort of materials, which obviously these days can be held on like flash drives and USB. So, it would be a very slow

and methodical search.

FOSTER (voice-over): Now released from custody, police haven't said what led to Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor's arrest on suspicion of misconduct in

public office, but it came after a tranche of documents relating to convicted sex offender Jeffrey Epstein were made public by the U.S.

Department of Justice. Some of the emails released appear to allegedly show Andrew sending confidential U.K. government trade material to the late

Epstein.

Whilst the appearance of someone's name in the files is not evidence of wrongdoing, Thames Valley police previously said it was assessing whether

Andrew shared confidential material with Epstein during his time as a U.K. trade envoy from 2001 to 2011. The former prince hasn't responded to the

newest allegations, but he has consistently denied any wrongdoing related to Epstein, even claiming he terminated his friendship with a convicted sex

offender back in 2010.

Still, the sheer complexity and publicity around the case also why some experts believe it may take some time for police to finish their

investigation.

DAL BABU, FORMER CHIEF SUPERINTENDENT, MET POLICE: There's not a great deal of sympathy, but the police have a duty of care to everybody they arrest.

They want to make sure that he receives all the support.

[18:55:00]

FOSTER: Whilst the authorities go through due process, the U.K. government is now coming under more pressure to act, and that's because Andrew,

despite being stripped of his titles, is still eighth in line to the throne. According to a poll released on Friday, 82 percent of Britons want

him removed from the line of succession.

FOSTER (voice-over): So far, the government seems to be keen to see the investigation play out, but with mounting calls from lawmakers and the

public, that resolve may be tested in the weeks to come.

Max Foster, CNN, London.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

SCIUTTO: Before we go, NASA up here is ready to reach back out into space. The space agency said today it is eyeing March 6th for the launch of its

powerful Artemis 2 rocket. Artemis will carry four astronauts away from Earth into orbit around the moon. NASA conducted a key dress rehearsal of

the launch on Thursday. Everything seemed to go well. The Artemis mission will be mankind's first trip into lunar orbit in 50 years. It's a big step

towards putting astronauts back on the moon.

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