Return to Transcripts main page

The Brief with Jim Sciutto

CNN International: Sources: U.S. and Iran Finalize Text on Tentative Deal; U.S. Officials: Trump Has Yet to Sign Off on Deal with Iran; Israeli PM: Directed Military to Take Over 70 Percent of Gaza; CNN Sues Perplexity Over Alleged Copyright Infringement; Estonian Foreign Minister on Russian Aggression; Justice Department Targets E. Jean Carroll; Sinner Crashes Out of French Open. Aired 6-7p ET

Aired May 28, 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, U.S. officials say the U.S. and Iran have reached a tentative agreement to open the Strait of Hormuz and restart talks on the

nuclear issue. However, the two nations' leaders have yet to sign off. CNN is suing A.I. firm Perplexity for alleged copyright infringement. And the

world's top-ranked tennis player Jannik Sinner succumbs to the heat and his second-round opponent at the French Open.

We begin with Iran and what the U.S. treasury secretary is calling perhaps the makings of a deal. We're told that Tehran and Washington have agreed on

the text of a tentative deal to at least reopen the Strait of Hormuz and begin nuclear talks. However, it hinges on a sign-off from both President

Trump and Iran's supreme leader. It is not clear if either of the two men is currently on board.

President Trump said he was not satisfied with the current state of talks. During Wednesday's Cabinet meeting, he is facing pressure from his own

party and from the Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu not to ease pressure on Iran. When asked about rising gas prices as a result of the

war, Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent said he did not want to preview this deal, but that it hangs on what the president decides to do.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

SCOTT BESSENT, U.S. TREASURY SECRETARY: The teams have been going back and forth, and President Trump has made it very clear. He talked about it at

the Cabinet meeting that he has several red lines And Iran has to turn over their highly enriched uranium. They cannot pursue a nuclear weapon. And the

Strait of Hormuz, back to your question on energy, has to free transit. Navigation of the seas has to be free and open as it was before.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

SCIUTTO: Well, despite some guarded optimism, fighting around the Strait of Hormuz has erupted yet again. Iran has announced it fired warning shots

at four vessels trying to cross the Strait. The U.S. reports it carried out its own strikes on Iranian targets, and that Iran fired a missile at

Kuwait.

Alayna Treene is at the White House. And, Alana, it's not the first time we've heard White House officials and others say that there's progress

towards some framework of at least a ceasefire deal. Is it your sense that this moment is more serious?

ALAYNA TREENE, CNN WHITE HOUSE CORRESPONDENT: That's what they're arguing, and I think you make a great point, and I will say as well. And my

conversations even today with sources who confirmed that there is a tentative agreement, at least on some of the key language that we know that

they've been squabbling over regarding the short-term memorandum of understanding or framework, really, I think we should refer to it as.

They're still skeptical, of course, because really any movement by President Trump himself or the Iranians, if they don't like a certain line

in this MOU or if there's something that they want to change, that could just blow up this entire process once again repeatedly. What I'm hearing in

my conversations, Jim, is that nothing is really agreed to, one, until you get the sign-off of both leaders, but also until it's actually on paper and

signed.

And so, you know, keep that in mind as we have this entire discussion. Now, we did hear the most recent comments we have are from the vice president,

J.D. Vance, who's obviously been very involved in the entire negotiating process, who said he doesn't know when the president may sign it or if he

will sign it at all. Listen.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

J.D. VANCE, U.S. VICE PRESIDENT: I think it's hard to say exactly when or if the president is going to sign the MOU. We're going back and forth on a

couple of language points. I do think that we've made a lot of progress here. It's very clear that I think the Iranians, they want a deal and they

want to open the Strait of Hormuz.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

TREENE: So, not very definitive either way there. It's very unclear. But I will say I think probably the most sign of, you know, confirmation that

we've got that they are really closing in on this thus far from any official who is commenting publicly.

[18:05:00]

But, look, one thing I think, again, you have to keep in mind is that this MOU, this framework, is just a very small step in what would ultimately and

what they're hoping, officials are hoping, would be a much longer-term, more permanent deal.

There are still so much, I'm told, that they need to work out on the two biggest issues that are dominating the conversation, which is the

commitment to no nuclear weapon, if that is in the framework, which as it is, as of today we're told it is. Well, they have to work on an enforcement

mechanism to hold Iran to their word. They also have to deal with what specifically and how are they going to go in and retrieve the highly

enriched uranium. Does it go to a third country? Those are things that have not been decided that will be decided later on the road.

So, for people listening back home, this isn't the end of the negotiations, just kind of almost a firm starting point that they're working with.

SCIUTTO: Alayna Treene at the White House, thanks so much. Well, joining me now is CNN Political and Global Affairs Analyst Barak Ravid. Barak, good

to have you here. You've been reporting on the outlines of this agreement all day now. Of course, the devil is in the details. What is your

understanding of the details as they've been agreed to so far, or at least as the framework has been agreed to so far?

BARAK RAVID, CNN POLITICAL AND GLOBAL AFFAIRS ANALYST AND GLOBAL AFFAIRS CORRESPONDENT, AXIOS: So, I think first maybe let's go to the bottom line

before we dive into the details. At least from what I hear from people very, very, very close to President Trump, at the moment at least, I think

it will be safe to say that he's leaning towards approving this deal. Nothing is final, obviously, and he didn't do it. But that's the impression

I got from speaking to several people very close to the president.

The party's already on Tuesday. The negotiators, Steve Witkoff from the U.S. side and Araghchi, the foreign minister from the Iranian side,

basically reached with the mediators on Tuesday night sort of an agreed- upon draft memorandum of understanding. The Iranians, according to U.S. officials and according to a source who was involved in the mediation from

one of the countries in the region, the Iranians on Wednesday told the mediators and through the mediators to the U.S. that they're ready to sign,

for whatever that means.

And now, I think people are waiting for President Trump to decide. I think a lot of the reason he hasn't signed off on it yet is that he's waiting to

see how all of this is playing out domestically. I think he wants to see how much pushback there is, and I think this will be a main factor in his

decision.

SCIUTTO: Well, one reason for the pushback is that, OK, if you've agreed to open the Strait and the U.S. naval blockade will be lifted, as you've

been reporting, the thornier issues are left for another time. Sure, Iran can say it's not going to pursue a nuclear weapon. How do you enforce that?

And what do you do with all those hundreds of kilograms of highly enriched uranium? Have they punted in this framework on those most difficult issues?

RAVID: So, it's not only those are the thorniest issues, those are the issues that President Trump and the U.S. went to war for.

SCIUTTO: Yes.

RAVID: Iran's nuclear program, one of the goals of this war, maybe the most important goal of this war, is to prevent Iran from getting a nuclear

weapon. In order to do that, the U.S. will have to, either through force or through diplomacy, get Iran to give up on its enriched uranium stockpile

and agree to suspend its uranium enrichment.

To be honest, the Iranians don't have, after the war in June, they don't really have an enrichment program, but they can resume it. So, that's the

big issue. That's the most important issue. If this war ends without a solution to this issue, then that's a big problem.

But, on the other hand, what this agreement does is that, for the first time, it gets both parties into the room to discuss the details of how to

dispose of the enriched uranium and how to limit Iran's enrichment program. This does not mean that it would end up with a deal.

I personally am very skeptical that the Iranians eventually would agree to give up on their stockpile of enriched uranium. But that deal will enable,

for the first time since the war started, obviously, to get into the room and discuss this directly.

SCIUTTO: Yes. I mean, listen, the Iranian approach, it seems, has been to drag this out as best they can. So, in the current state of negotiation, so

you might imagine a similar approach with the larger issues down the line. In your context, with people close to the president, is he concerned at all

that this goes on and on with no real resolution?

[18:10:00]

I mean, we have precedent for this, ceasefire in Gaza, but the big picture issues have not been addressed. Multiple ceasefires in Lebanon, but the war

goes on. Does he have a realization that perhaps he can't end this conclusively?

RAVID: I think that's the biggest concern, that you're going to get a Gaza scenario in Iran. When it's Gaza and it's Hamas that is not willing to give

up on its weapons, it's a problem, but it's a limited problem. If it's Iran that is not ready to give up on its enriched uranium, that's a huge

problem.

And I think what I hear from U.S. officials who are involved in these negotiations is that they say, if the Iranians in the negotiation room act

according to the indications and to what they told us until now, then maybe we'll be able to get a deal. If not, we will see it pretty quickly and

we'll be able to basically reverse everything and we'll still have all the tools in our disposal, both military tools, economic tools, diplomatic

tools, to resume the pressure on Iran.

Because I think the most important thing is that the U.S. military is, at least at the beginning, until Iran delivers on something, is not pulling

out, is not withdrawing any of the forces that it mobilized into the region before the war, ahead of the war. Therefore, the forces will still be there

and we'll be able to resume the war if Iran doesn't deliver on its commitments.

SCIUTTO: True, although that has its own cost to those forces and also to the oil markets and therefore gas prices. Barak Ravid, thanks so much.

Well, to another front of this conflict, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu says that he has directed Israel's military to take over at least

70 percent, 7-0 percent of Gaza. Have a listen.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

BENJAMIN NETANYAHU, ISRAELI PRIME MINISTER (through translator): Right now, we are tightening our grip on Hamas. Yes, we are now in 60 percent of

the territory in the Gaza Strip. We were at 50 percent, we moved to 60 percent. My directive is to move to -- take it step by step. First of all,

70. Let's start with that. We are tightening our grip on them from every direction and we will deal with the remnants.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

SCIUTTO: What does that mean? That means that some 2 million Palestinians would be forced to live on an ever-shrinking bit of Palestinian land under

last fall's ceasefire between Israel and Hamas. Israeli forces withdrew to a demarcation line encompassing a little bit more than half of Gaza.

In Lebanon, the country's health ministry says that Israeli strikes have killed dozens of people, including two children. That despite a ceasefire

there, at least a claimed one. Israel's military has declared more of southern Lebanon a combat zone, telling yet more residents to leave.

Jasmine El-Gamal is the founder and CEO of Averos Strategies, as well as a former Middle East advisor for the Pentagon. Jasmine, good to have you back

on.

JASMINE EL-GAMAL, FORMER PENTAGON MIDDLE EAST ADVISER, FOUNDER AND CEO, AVEROS STRATEGIES AND HOST, "THE VIEW FROM HERE" PODCAST: Good to be with

you, Jim.

SCIUTTO: I mean, I guess I'm wondering what do ceasefires mean, right? If in Gaza, I mean, the Israeli operations continue and continue to take more

land there. In Lebanon, Israel taking control of more territory in southern Lebanon. The firing continues. I mean, I suppose big picture, it's not the

most hopeful precedent for any ceasefire that might come to be with Iran, which, by the way, has been violated multiple times as well in recent days.

EL-GAMAL: That's right. I mean, look, this is obviously a really, really worrying situation for me. When I look at everything that's happening in

the region right now, I see a massive potential for further escalation, further conflict and further spillover effects, not just within the region,

but outside the region as well.

So, you've correctly identified the fact that the ceasefire agreements on paper have meant very little for people living on the ground. 900 people in

Gaza, over 900 people, according to multiple Reuters reports, have been killed in Gaza since the ceasefire. The almost 2 million Gaza residents,

Palestinians in Gaza, are being squeezed, like you said, into ever shrinking areas.

And if that 70 percent number comes to bear, it'll be about 42 square miles for almost 2 million people. And remember that not all of that remaining 30

percent is inhabitable because Gaza has been completely destroyed, as well as all its facilities, hospitals, health care facilities and so on.

[18:15:00]

In Lebanon, one fifth of Lebanese territory is being has been evacuated and over one fifth of Lebanese. The Lebanese population has been forcibly

displaced. Now, of course, Jim, these are not just numbers, right? These are people. These are people's lives and livelihoods and children and

futures that are being destroyed.

And so, what I see, though, you know, we've talked about the humanitarian situation, but in terms of the security situation, Israel, both by the

Biden administration and the Trump administration, have said that a reoccupation of Gaza was a red line. Remember, that was one of the three

no's under Biden administration. And that was part of the 20-point plan under Trump is for Israel not to reoccupy Gaza.

So, we're seeing that happen. And my question is, and I know you're probably thinking the same, is what does a greater and greater occupation

of Israeli forces of Palestinian territory means? Because we've seen this before. It means a greater insurgency. It means a potential insurgency. It

means more clashes with Israeli forces, which invites more retaliation by Israeli forces against the local population. It means whatever is left of

Hamas or whoever Israel considers to be Hamas are in that 42 square miles or equal, which --

SCIUTTO: I mean, that was going to be my question.

EL-GAMAL: -- means that when you go --

SCIUTTO: Netanyahu is framing this as tightening pressure on Hamas step by step. But what has recent experience shown us? Has increased territorial

control translated into leverage over Hamas and military success? And I might ask the same question about Hezbollah in Lebanon. I mean, Israel, I

don't have to tell you, doesn't have the most hopeful history of military occupations in Lebanon.

EL-GAMAL: No one does. Not even -- you know, we don't either. I was talking to an Israeli peer of mine at Chatham House the other day, and we

were just marveling over how many times do we have to learn the same lessons? 1982 Israeli invasion of Lebanon, the U.S., you know, invasion of

Iraq, the U.S. invasion of Afghanistan. I mean, we could go on and on.

But, you know, what do we have to see to know that this not only does not work, but that it creates future problems for future generations to deal

with?

SCIUTTO: Let me ask you this, because in the midst of this, President Trump has expanded his ambitions beyond not just a ceasefire with Iran, but

a larger deal to expanding the Abraham Accords and raising to America's Gulf allies normalization with Israel.

You have commented that this is from a long gone time, right? That sort of moment from the first Trump administration when Gulf nations were

interested in perhaps not just normalizing relations, but other nations coming on board. What's different now?

EL-GAMAL: What's the same? I would ask you, you know, what's not different now? The Abraham Accords initially, when they were negotiated in the first

Trump administration, it was pre-October 7th. Of course, so much has changed since October 7th. Probably the biggest thing that's changed is

that Saudi Arabia has now said that there is no chance that it will normalize with Israel, particularly with this Israeli government under

Prime Minister Netanyahu, without a tangible and credible pathway to a Palestinian State.

And, you know, I'll tell you something, because this is not just about the Trump administration, Jim. The Biden administration refused to listen to

what Saudi Arabia was saying. They saw what they wanted to see and heard what they wanted to hear. And their Middle East policy was continued to

center Israel in their relationship with other Arab countries and Arab Gulf states.

And so, what's really changed now, to answer your question in one sentence, is that the Arab relationships with the United States no longer revolve

around the relationship between the United States and Israel or their own relationship with Israel. They have their own bilateral relationships with

the U.S. and are going to continue to move forward in that direction.

So, any normalization that happens with future administrations, future Israeli governments, will not be called the Abraham Accords. It'll be

framed differently because it'll be a new relationship.

SCIUTTO: Well, the Iran War also, you know, pierced the bubble that U.S. military relationships would entirely protect you, right, from Iran and

other attacks. We've seen the holes in that. Jasmine El-Gamal, thanks so much.

[18:20:00]

An A.I. lawsuit filed by CNN. Why our network is taking A.I. company perplexity to court. That's next.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

SCIUTTO: Welcome back. In today's Business Breakout, U.S. stocks rose to yet more fresh records on hopes for an Iran War ceasefire extension. Brent

Crude also fell. Stocks advanced despite more troubling U.S. economic data. New numbers show the Fed's preferred measure of inflation rose to a three-

year high. First quarter GDP growth was also revised down.

U.S. consumer spending weakened, and the personal savings rate dropped to a four-year low. Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent admitted today that things

could be better.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

BESSENT: Look, the economy, it is challenging now, but unemployment is still low. Tax refunds were high, and consumer spending is still quite

high. So, in my private business over the years, I always looked at what were consumers doing, not what they were saying. And I'm in constant

contact with the banks, and every income quintile is still doing well.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

SCIUTTO: Also Thursday, Anthropic says it completed a new $64 billion funding round, making it the world's most highly valued A.I. startup. It's

a competitive space. It is now worth more than its rival, OpenAI, which is, of course, the company behind ChatGPT.

Turning now to the ongoing fight between content creators and A.I. firms. Our network, CNN, is suing the A.I. search engine Perplexity, alleging

copyright infringement. Other media companies, including News Corp, the New York Times, and the Chicago Tribune, have also sued Perplexity, accusing it

of unlawfully distributing their content.

However, CNN's suit is believed to be the first such action by a television network. Perplexity is pushing back, saying, quote, "That you cannot

copyright facts."

Joining me now is Sara Fischer. As you know, CNN has said they attempted to reach a deal with Perplexity, and have done so with companies such as Meta,

to license their content. Why is Perplexity not willing to make such a deal?

[18:25:00]

SARA FISCHER, CNN MEDIA ANALYST AND MEDIA CORRESPONDENT, AXIOS: Well, because you set a precedent, Jim. Once you pay one company a certain

amount, then it's expected that anytime you're referencing anyone's content, you're going to have to pay them as well. And of course, for a

company like Perplexity, which has a very small market share compared to some of these giants like an OpenAI with ChatGPT or a Google with Gemini or

Amazon and Claude, Perplexity does not have that same treasure trove of funds to be able to pay out publishers.

So, for them, this is sort of a de facto response. You can't copyright facts or whatever it is. It's their way of saying, essentially, we don't

want to pay you because we don't want to have to pay everybody else.

SCIUTTO: Yes. I mean, tell me your answer to that defense. You can't monopolize facts. I imagine you could look through and see that it's the

content itself, right, that CNN is defending here.

FISCHER: OK. Here's how it works. When you are a media company and you file for copyright of your IP and somebody violates it by directly lifting

it and including it either to train their algorithms or in an output, meaning in an answer to a query from a user, then you are by law entitled

to statutory damages, which is a certain amount of money that's set aside by law that you should get. If a court can, of course, prove that your

copyrighted works were used. In this case, CNN is showing examples.

And by the way, the New York Times has done this. Wall Street Journal's parent news course has done this. They showed examples where the exact text

from their reports appear in the outputs to user queries.

So, one, CNN is saying you owe us actual statutory damages. Then the other thing that they're saying is you owe us actual damages, meaning not damages

that are set by law but damages that we hope a court can decide to our business. You know, the lost revenue from advertising against our content,

for example.

And so, this actually really isn't about facts versus not facts, it's about, do you have protection by law and did somebody steal your property

by law?

SCIUTTO: Yes. I mean, the exact phrasing inside your intellectual property. I mean, there is precedent here if you look at, for instance, the

settlements that some of these large language model firms made with book authors, right, in that they drew on the content to help educate their

models there. And they have -- and I know this because I'm one of those authors, but they have paid out. I mean, is that -- they didn't do that out

of the kindness of their hearts, right? I mean, I imagine they did that because courts, have they tended to find in the favor of the content

creators?

FISCHER: Yes. So, right now it's wild, wild west. There's no laws really being passed by Congress. So, in order to protect yourself, most people are

striking these lawsuits. And what we've come to find is that the courts have mostly favored these content companies.

We are waiting on a critical decision, Jim, between a lawsuit that was filed by The New York Times against OpenAI and its backer Microsoft. That

case, which is still going through the legal process, will set a precedent for so many of these other cases. And I'm inclined to believe that The

Times believes it has a very strong case.

And so, I think that what's been settled for books is now starting to be litigated for music and for digital publishing. And I think that the

copyright owners in all of those cases have very, very strong legal arguments to make. I think we'll probably start to see either some of these

settlements or results within this year.

SCIUTTO: We know you'll be watching. Sara Fischer, thanks so much.

FISCHER: Thank you.

SCIUTTO: Just ahead, my conversation with Estonia's foreign minister on Russian threats, growing threats toward members of NATO. His take on

whether Russia might actually attack a NATO ally. That's just after the break.

(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. officials say the text of a tentative agreement between the U.S. and Iran has been finalized. Big caveat, though, U.S. President Donald Trump

still needs to sign off on it. The tentative deal would open the Strait of Hormuz and begin talks on Iran's nuclear program. It's unclear whether

Iran's supreme leader has approved of it either.

Thai rescuers say they have located five of seven Lao nationals so far, those that were trapped in a flooded cave. They say the five people are

alive but cannot be brought out yet because of narrow passages, many of which are underwater. Divers are bringing them food and water. Villagers

entered the cave last week looking for gold.

An Austrian court has sentenced a man to 15 years in prison for planning an attack on a Taylor Swift concert in Vienna nearly two years ago. The plot

was foiled. However, three of the singer's Eras Tour concerts were canceled as a result. The accused 21-year-old was found guilty of terrorism-related

offenses.

And now, to Ukraine, which announced a deal to buy 20 new fighter jets from Sweden. Sweden will donate 16 more of an older model of that jet next year.

Ukraine has, of course, remained a top security issue for countries, particularly those within striking distance of Russia, which is showing

more and more willingness to act aggressively towards members of NATO and make quite dangerous threats.

Earlier I spoke to Margus Tsahkna. He's the foreign minister of Estonia. He's been a strong advocate for solidarity with Ukraine, writing on social

media, it is crucial for, quote, "the security of Ukraine and Europe." I began by asking Tsahkna if Estonia is worried that Russia might imminently

attack a NATO member.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

MARGUS TSAHKNA, ESTONIAN FOREIGN MINISTER: What we see is that actually the tone around Putin has changed dramatically during the last couple of

months because Russia is not doing well during this aggression war against Ukraine. And as well, Ukraine is hitting deep in Russia very heavily. So,

they are suffering economically. And let's be honest as well, domestically, the tensions are high.

And in that regard, of course, Putin is using all the leverages to spread information operations about playing with the fear of escalation, as he has

done very successfully already before. But what we see, there is no changes the other side of NATO borders about military capabilities.

So, Russia is stuck in Ukraine. So, they are running out of capabilities on the battlefield as well. And they're waging more and more aggressive

attacks against the civil people. In Kyiv, we have witnessed the crazy, crazy attacks.

[18:35:00]

But what may happen, we see more tension on the Baltic states, Finland as well. Putin is waging the fake narratives as we are allowed to use our

territories, NATO territories for Ukraine to launch the attacks against Russia. It is fake news. But I won't be surprised that he could provoke

something or test something, NATO unity.

But much more I see that he's just playing the typical hybrid game and trying to divide the NATO and the Western part of the world as well, to put

us in the position to put more pressure on Ukraine to stop these deep strikes. But we won't do it.

SCIUTTO: If this is not purely an information operation, propaganda, what do you consider the most likely scenario? I know there's a lot of attention

to the Swedish island of Gotland as a possible point. But is there a kind of operation that you believe would be most likely if he were to try to

test NATO's unity in response?

TSAHKNA: You know, we have witnessed during the last couple of weeks more of these drone accidents, that Russia is pushing the Ukraine drones from

Russia to the Baltic states and Finland. Maybe they would like to use this opportunity if they will get some control over some drones and then, you

know, accuse NATO or the Baltic states that we are part of this kind of provocation or attacks against Russia and trying to play with this fear of

escalation that NATO is at war directly against Russia. But we prepare for that.

I mean that we need to be very much united. We must remain calm. I don't see any kind of straight military operations. So, a very clear picture

which is really calling in Article 5. Because Russia is afraid as well of NATO.

We saw it last 19th of September when Russia waged this territorial -- you know, they came into Estonian territory with three fighter jets. And then

we called in the Article 4 consultations. And as well NATO put the Eastern sentry mission on the Eastern flank as well. But we saw less and less this

kind of provocations by the fighter jets later on.

So, I think that it is much more the game that Putin is playing with our unity. But I don't believe that he's actually going to wage any kind of

real military operation because he's really stuck in Ukraine. But you never know.

SCIUTTO: As you know this is happening as the U.S. has been reducing its military deployments in Europe. Do you believe that those reductions make

it more likely that Putin would try to test NATO?

TSAHKNA: The most important is that whatever the U.S. is doing with the troops in Europe we must do it in a coordinated way. And I just met

Secretary General Rutte a couple of days ago and NATO is responsible for this coordination. But the most important is that there won't be any kind

of confusion or actually we don't let Putin to make a miscalculation about our unity and as well the military capabilities.

So, in that regard it is clear that Europe must do more and we are doing more. And we need to follow as well not only this 5 percent promise for the

future but as well during this Ankara summit we need to check again the capability targets plans what we have given all the member states. Though

we have, you know, remarkable capabilities in our borders and also NATO works well.

So, the most important is to not give this kind of confusing messages from NATO side about unity. Though Putin could miscalculate as he did actually

in 2022, 24th of February.

SCIUTTO: Do you believe that NATO forces in Estonia specifically, Estonian and NATO forces are sufficient today to deter a Russian attack or to defend

Estonia?

TSAHKNA: Yes, if I said before as well, we don't see actually the full- scale of Russian troops the other side of our borders. Actually, this is pretty empty. When I was defense minister 2016-'17 we saw 120,000 troops

ready to go within 48 hours. They are all gone.

[18:40:00]

So, in that regard, I think that these troops, the NATO capabilities are enough, but we need to now speed up with our defense plans capabilities,

what we adopted in Vilnius two years ago, and we have plans for that.

So, we (INAUDIBLE) moving the troops. One day they will be able, because of the -- some kind of peace, what is happening, though we must be ready to

have more capabilities on the NATO eastern border.

SCIUTTO: Given the reduction in U.S. forces, but also the comments that you hear from the U.S. president and other administration officials about

NATO, the criticism, sometimes even dismissive, of the alliance, are you confident, is Estonia confident, that if Russia were to attack, whether

that be a military attack or some other hybrid warfare attack, are you confident that the U.S. would support NATO, help defend NATO?

TSAHKNA: I'm very confident that NATO is working. And also, we saw last week when a Romanian fighter took down the drone. And as well, I repeat

again and again that we don't see the full-scale capabilities from Russian side to start anything against NATO. And with this hybrid test or whatever

we call them, NATO managing to respond. So, I'm really confident on that.

SCIUTTO: Margus Tsahkna, foreign minister, thanks so much for joining.

TSAHKNA: Thank you very much.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

SCIUTTO: Estonia's foreign minister there. Coming up on "The Brief," targeting another Trump foe. The U.S. Justice Department has launched an

investigation now into E. Jean Carroll, who won two civil lawsuits against the president.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

SCIUTTO: The Justice Department has opened a criminal investigation into E. Jean Carroll, marking another case involving an adversary of President

Trump. This, according to multiple sources. The probe focused on whether Carroll committed perjury in a deposition tied to her cases against the

when she said her lawsuits had not been funded by outside sources. Her lawyers later disclosed that a nonprofit linked to billionaire Reid Hoffman

had covered some legal fees and expenses.

We should note Carroll won a civil case in 2023 when a jury found the president liable for sexual abuse and defamation, awarding her $5 million.

[18:45:00]

She also won her second defamation case the following year when a jury awarded her more than $83 million. The president has appealed both of those

verdicts.

Joining me now, former U.S. attorney Michael Moore, partner with Moore Hall, litigation firm in Atlanta. Michael, good to have you back.

MICHAEL MOORE, FORMER U.S. ATTORNEY AND PARTNER, MOORE HALL LAW FIRM: Glad to be with you, Jim.

SCIUTTO: So, Michael, what's going on? First, let's begin on the specifics of this case. Then I want to get to the broader pattern here, but it hinges

on Carroll committing perjury in answers to questions about how her cases were funded. They, of course, would need to prove beyond a reasonable doubt

that she willfully made a false statement. Based on what you know, do they have a case?

MOORE: Well, I am glad to be with you. This is a pretty slim investigation. It looks to me like from the outset. They have to not only

prove that she had the knowledge and the intent to make the statements and that she knew that they were false, but that it was a material statement,

that is material to the inquiry that was before the fact finder. That's going to be a stretch for them here.

You know, it would be -- this is almost like finding a needle in a haystack, frankly, with the false statements and mistruths that have been

spread around Washington, D.C. to suddenly come in and now claim that this type of inquiry justifies a DOJ perjury case. I'm not saying that perjury

cases can't be serious, they can be. I mean, we expect people who are under oath to tell the truth.

But this is one of those that once you peel the first layer of the onion back, you know, it really does start to stink. And that's going to be, I

think, what we find with this case at the end of the day.

SCIUTTO: Is the timeline important here because the jury found Trump civilly liable for sexually abusing Carol and made that decision in 2023.

So, why is Trump pursuing this case now?

MOORE: Yes. This -- all of these timelines are important. And you remember, this is not the first case that he's come back in and tried to

prosecute somebody. That's why you've had courts come say, look, you know, this is a vindictive case. This is something where you've just said

blatantly that you're going to seek retribution.

Well, here he's made some pretty public statements about her, about the case and otherwise. And then, of course, he faces a significant money

judgment that while it's on appeal now, this case has really been brought into different courts. I realize the cases are a little different. But

essentially, you know, there have been two courts that have heard sort of the factual basis of these cases.

And so, the timeline is crucial to understand that this was not something that anybody was worried about before a judgment was entered against Trump.

But again, his words, the things that he said in the past about her, the things that he's talked about seeking retribution, all of that will be

ultimately by court, I expect will find that a judge is not patient.

SCIUTTO: Now, Trump's track record in these suits where he's gone after people who investigated him or who he just doesn't like. I mean, if you

look at two cases against the New York attorney general, Letitia James, that they were thrown out and failed to reindict, the case against James

Comey, which I know the administration is appealing, that didn't go anywhere.

Should we -- when you look at the broad, you know, pattern here, not just of the president targeting his opponents, but has he had any success?

MOORE: He really hadn't had any success. I mean, remember, this is a DOJ and an administration that's prosecuting somebody for a message in

seashells. I mean, that tells you about what you need to know. The Department of Justice has gone from being sort of the great fighter for

civil rights, the fighter against organized crime, fighter to make sure that, you know, people could vote and otherwise. We've now gone to where

we're prosecuting particular personal enemies in an administration.

So, I wouldn't -- if I were a betting man and I'm not, but I will tell you that this -- my money would be on the side that this case is going to find

its way to the same fate that we saw the Comey and James cases. And I think, frankly, we will find the new case involved in Comey as well.

There's -- the department has not done the things, whether it's, there's this sort of this sham recusal that we've seen from the acting attorney

general. This is not serious work going on at the Department of Justice. And finally, maybe we're seeing courts saying enough is enough. And you're

seeing sort of a willingness now to push back on the bogus efforts by the administration to use the Department of Justice as its own weapon.

SCIUTTO: Is there something -- I mean, the circumstances of this case just strike me as different in that you have a woman who accused Trump of sexual

assault many years ago and convinced a jury, I mean, granted civil, civil trial, not criminal trial, so lower, lower standard of evidence, but

convinced a jury that he was liable.

[18:50:00]

And now, the U.S. Justice Department is dragging her into court, right? Accusing her of perjury, not even on the details of the case, right? But on

the funding. Have you seen something like this before?

MOORE: No, I haven't. And that's because I think we expected the Department of Justice to act within certain norms. And that those are just

out the window with this administration. Remember though, this case is not about Trump actually getting a conviction over E. Jean Carroll, this is

about messaging. It's about throwing red meat to his base. And frankly, it's about using the process as the punishment.

It's the misery of a person being investigated by the department, having to hire a lawyer, go through the shame, the reputational harm of it in this

type of case. And so, that's what I think the department is after here.

SCIUTTO: Which is exactly how Trump is justifying this, quote/unquote, "anti-weaponization fund," saying that, you know, you've got to compensate

these people for being unfairly prosecuted.

MOORE: Yes.

SCIUTTO: Michael Moore --

MOORE: He's created a new eligible person, it looks like to me, with this investigation. It looks like Ms. Carroll probably ought to be lined up at

the door to seek a little bit of the fund.

SCIUTTO: Michael Moore, always good to have you. Thanks so much.

MOORE: Great to be with you, Jim. Thank you.

SCIUTTO: Coming up on "The Brief," a shock at the French Open. World number one, Jannik Sinner crashing out due to the heat. But he's not

blaming the heat.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

SCIUTTO: The world's top-ranked tennis player, Jannik Sinner, lost his second-round match at the French Open amid extreme heat. That upset

snapping his 30-match winning streak. Don Riddell joins me now. So, Don, was it because of the heat?

DON RIDDELL, CNN WORLD SPORT: It seemed like that, although he has a different explanation. I mean, just an extraordinary upset though, Jim.

There is no such thing as a sure thing in sport, even when it seems like there can be only one winner. And Roland-Garros absolutely stunned on

Thursday as Sinner crashed out in the second round.

The Italian, world number one, arrived, as you said, on a hot, red-hot 30- match winning streak. But he wilted in what was unseasonably hot conditions in Paris. Sinner, remember, was the heaviest favorite to go all the way

here in more than 15 years.

Things seemed to be going well when he was leading Juan Manuel Cerundolo by two sets, up 5-1 in the third. But then the wheels came off. He said he

felt dizzy on court, he said he wanted to vomit, and he never recovered from that, losing the match in five sets and exiting the stage in the

second round.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

JANNIK SINNER, FOUR-TIME MAJOR WINNER: I woke up this morning, didn't feel very well and tried to keep the points very short. Also, in the beginning,

I was hitting very clean, very good, and then I just kind of hit the wall. I didn't have energy, really. I was very, very flat, you know, the whole

body. I don't remember the last time I felt this weak, you know.

[18:55:00]

But, yes, look, it's -- it is what it is. I tried to stay there with all I had today and this was the maximum I had. Of course, a pity because I was

playing really well the first couple of sets and also the third set was playing really well. But, yes, that's the sport.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

RIDDELL: With the two-time defending champion Carlos Alcaraz already sidelined with injury, this was supposed to be Sinner's big chance to

complete the career Grand Slam. As I say, he arrived in a 30-match winning streak. He'd won five Masters Series titles in a row.

This is the earliest defeat suffered by a world number one here since 2000, and it means that for the first time since the U.S. Open in 2023, somebody

not named Sinner or Alcaraz will win a major title. And, Jim, that could pave the way for the 39-year-old Novak Djokovic. He's been trying so hard

to win what would be a record 25th Grand Slam title. He's never been able to get past either one or both of these guys in a major for over two years

now, so maybe this now is his big chance. We'll see.

SCIUTTO: Yes, with both of them out. Don Riddell, thanks so much.

And thanks so much to you for joining. I'm Jim Sciutto in Washington. You've been watching "The Brief." Please do stay with CNN.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[19:00:00]

END