Return to Transcripts main page

The Brief with Jim Sciutto

CNN International: Trump: u.s. to Hit Iran's Pickaxe Mountain "Pretty Soon"; Pentagon Chief Testifies Before u.s. Senate; Ukrainian President Fires Military Chief; Russian Warship Conducts Live-Fire Exercise Off U.K.; FT: U.S. Preparing New Tariffs on Trading Partners; U.S. Announces New 50 Percent Tariffs on Canadian Imports; Lebanon's President Visits White House; U.S. Airlifts Aid to Cuba. Aired 6-7p ET

Aired July 21, 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, the U.S. secretary of defense testifies before the Senate asking for billions more dollars for the war in Iran. Ukrainian

President Volodymyr Zelenskyy fires his country's military chief. Following days of public protests, we're going to bring you the latest on his

replacement. And the U.S. airlifts aid to Cuba as the island's economy buckles under a U.S. blockade.

President Donald Trump warned that the U.S. will soon be hitting Iran's pickaxe mountain.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

DONALD TRUMP, U.S. PRESIDENT: We follow the material. That's where the action is. And we'll be hitting that area very -- probably pretty soon. And

there's not a not a thing they can do about it. You know, normally, I wouldn't say that. If I thought they could do something about itm I would

never say that. But we'll be hitting that area pretty soon and very heavily.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

SCIUTTO: A source tells CNN that Israel now believes Iran has moved centrifuges and part of its enriched uranium stockpile into Pickaxe

Mountain after the 12-day war last year.

Earlier today, Iran launched three new attacks on three U.S. allies in the region, Kuwait, Bahrain and Jordan. The attacks came after the U.S. carried

out a 10th consecutive night of strikes on Iran. America's top two military officials appeared on Capitol Hill today asking lawmakers for tens of

billions of dollars in additional money, mostly for the Iran war.

Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth and the Joint Chiefs chairman, General Dan Caine, are still answering questions now about the war. They want to know

how U.S. stockpiles of missiles and other munitions are doing, why U.S. servicemen and women are dying in the fight and how much longer the

Pentagon thinks the conflict will last.

The hearing of the Senate Appropriations Committee was briefly interrupted by protesters. You see them there.

The White House is asking for $87 billion, most of it earmarked for the war. Hegseth told the committee why, in his view, the administration needs

so much money.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

PETE HEGSETH, U.S. DEFENSE SECRETARY: Without these funds, we face critical shortfalls that threaten our ability to also simply pay our

service members, rapidly replenish equipment and munitions and sustain vital operations without disruption.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

SCIUTTO: Joining us now live at the White House, Kristen Holmes, I wonder, given Kristen, how many open questions, unanswered questions, frankly, from

that hearing, including about the expected length of this war, is it likely that the administration gets the money that it's asking for?

KRISTEN HOLMES, CNN SENIOR WHITE HOUSE CORRESPONDENT: Well, it certainly seems unlikely at this point. It was clear that the sales pitch for the

administration was we need this money or more U.S. servicemen and women could die. And that's obviously what they're going to do to push

Republicans to get on board with this money. It's just unclear if they'll have the votes. We have not had been able to talk to any of these senators

since they've been leaving this committee meeting.

But again, it doesn't seem as though it is a starter at all for Democrats. But in terms of Republicans, they might be able to get on board,

particularly with this sales pitch. There were a number of answered questions for the first time.

Now, a lot of it was grandstanding by members of Congress, not answering questions directly by both General Caine and Secretary Pete Hegseth. But

one thing we did learn is that so far, the war has cost $37.5 billion. We also learned that the reporting that we have had that China and Russia were

cooperating with Iran against the United States was true. Both Hegseth and General Caine admitting that and the other part of this that was so

fascinating was this inability to answer when this war was going to be over or what was going on, admitting that.

[18:05:00]

And the other part of this that was so fascinating was this inability to answer when this war was going to be over or what was going to happen to

actually lead this to an ending. And both Hegseth and Caine kind of danced around that question.

Caine specifically was asked if, even if they got all of this money, would it be enough to end the war? And he didn't have an answer. It seemed as

though he didn't really know whether or not this would bring an end to the war. And that's going to leave a lot of questions for these lawmakers.

SCIUTTO: Kristen Holmes at the White House, thanks so much. Please stay with us. We'll be right back after a short break.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[18:10:00]

JAKE TAPPER, CNN ANCHOR: -- Maggie Goodlander, she's on the House Armed Services Committee. Congresswoman, what did you make of Hegseth calling

Democrats cowards in that fiery exchange at the end of the hearing when he was pressed on what the exact plan is for the Iran war?

REP. MAGGIE GOODLANDER (D-NH), ARMED SERVICES COMMITTEE: Jake, once again today we saw in such crystal-clear terms why Pete Hegseth has absolutely no

business serving as secretary of defense. He lacks the judgment. He lacks the experience. And he clearly lacks the temperament to be holding one of

the most important positions of public trust in the world.

Today's hearing was another really disheartening and disturbing performance by Pete Hegseth and proves the point that he has no business serving in

that job.

TAPPER: Hegseth repeatedly said that the money that they're requesting, this $87 billion, is about cleaning up the Biden administration's mess and

equipping U.S. troops with the best possible technologies. You know a little bit about the Biden administration. What's your response?

GOODLANDER: My response is this. Look, the president made a choice on February 28th to launch a war in Iran. He did this just a matter of hours

after coming here to the United States Congress and delivering the longest State of the Union in American history where he did not make the case for

war in Iran to the American people and he did not make the case for war in Iran to the Congress.

We are living with the consequences of this war of choice every day. And what we heard again today from the secretary of defense was a shifting set

of objectives and rationales without any clear strategy moving forward. It's just plainly unacceptable.

And they've come to ask for the biggest defense budget in American history but cannot explain how this money is going to be put to use for the

American people at a moment when we are facing a profound affordability crisis and hard-working Americans are feeling the pain as a direct result

of this war at the gas pump, at the pharmacy, at the grocery store. This is not what anyone signed up for.

TAPPER: Today, House Speaker Mike Johnson said he does not think Congress needs to vote to authorize the Iran war also known as the AUMF, the

Authorization for Use of Military Force. Johnson went on to say this, take a listen.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

REP. MIKE JOHNSON (R-LA), HOUSE SPEAKER: Iran is now fired on all of its neighbors and they're turning everybody in the world into an enemy and I

think this is an important moment of history for all of the world community to decide how they want to handle this. It shouldn't just be America's

obligation. My view is that everybody needs to play a role.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

TAPPER: What's your thought?

GOODLANDER: My reaction to this is the President has been waging a war of choice unilaterally without congressional authorization, a war that has

cost us the lives of American patriots. We've seen 17 service members die in this war, hundreds wounded. The least transparent Pentagon in American

history. We're still trying to get the full picture, Jake.

But the fact is that there are very good reasons that the Constitution gives Congress these war powers. If the President wants to continue this

conflict, he's got to make the case to Congress. He should get our authorization and do this on the up and up.

TAPPER: Congresswoman Maggie Goodlander, a Democrat from the great state of New Hampshire. Thank you so much, good to see you.

GOODLANDER: Thank you, Jake.

TAPPER: We heard a Democrat call the secretary of defense, Hegseth, a failure. Hegseth called on Democrats to show courage. Much more reaction of

the explosive hearing we just witnessed.

Also, the stunning admission today from the State of New Jersey. How in the world did more than 6,000 non-U.S. citizens end up on the state's voter

rolls? How on the earth did nearly 400 of them vote in elections? How the governor, a Democrat, is explaining this major error. Stay with us.

SCIUTTO: We continue to cover events in Iran, but also hearings on Capitol Hill, where the defense secretary, Pete Hegseth, but also the chairman of

the joint chiefs, General Dan Caine, were asked questions by senators as they were demanding 87 billion more dollars to fund the war.

Joining me now, House Republican Michael Baumgartner. Congressman, thanks so much for taking the time.

REP. MICHAEL BAUMGARTNER (R-WA): Thank you.

SCIUTTO: So, the simplest question is, listening to Hegseth and Koehn today, do you believe they successfully made the case, not just to

Congress, but to the American public for 87 billion more dollars for this war?

BAUMGARTNER: I do. They certainly make a compelling case. I mean, look, the Iranian terrorist regime having a nuclear weapon would be like Osama

bin Laden or Hitler having a nuclear weapon.

[18:15:00]

That is a threat that would cause so much damage, it would dwarf the $90 billion that they're asking for. You know, also this appropriation request

about more than just the war in Iran. Warfare is changing quickly as we have artificial intelligence coming online and some of the drone warfare

you're seeing in Ukraine. We do need to update our forces. And they're also attempting to purchase beyond just one year to try to fix the industrial

military complex procurement model. So, there's a lot of important things in this appropriation request and I expect it will pass.

SCIUTTO: But the president said last year after the 12-day war that the U.S. had already obliterated, his words, Iran's nuclear program. Why should

the American people believe that they needed not just these weeks and months of this second Iran war, but also this additional money and perhaps

weeks and months more of war to eliminate a program that he said had already been obliterated?

BAUMGARTNER: Well, certainly no one has been tougher on the Iranian terrorist regime than President Trump, dating back to his first term when

he eliminated terrorist leader, Qasem Soleimani, and certainly last summer putting their nuclear -- one of their nuclear sites under a mound of dirt.

What hasn't been eliminated is the terrorist regime itself and their determination to acquire a nuclear weapon.

And as Secretary Rubio and others have explained, if they are allowed to pursue a ballistic missile program and a drone program that can shield that

development of that nuclear weapon program, we'll essentially have a situation like we have in North Korea where we can't get at the nuclear

program.

So, again, you know, this is a very dangerous regime. We're making a lot of progress, putting a lot of pressure on them. I would like to see the

president announce that specifically tie the blockade that we're enacting to the long-term strategy of Iran turning over its nuclear material. I

think that's a strategy the American people will support and understand and work on the political will aspect of this force. But I do think we've made

a lot of progress and it's extremely important.

You know, the only people that are celebrating, you know, the way the Democrats are taking this discussion really is our enemies. And really

behind every Democrat comment about this appropriation request is really their fear of their radical base, the Democrat socialists --

SCIUTTO: I'm sorry, Congressman. This is not about domestic politics because the U.S. intelligence agency's own assessments have shown that the

president's claimed success has not been accomplished, right?

You go back to the 12-day war, he said obliterated. In fact, they said much of the program remains. Earlier in this war, while I was in Israel myself

watching Iranian missiles fall on Tel Aviv, when the president said the missile program had been eliminated, clearly it hasn't. And clearly Iran

still has the ability not just to strike Gulf allies in Israel, but to strike U.S. forces and to penetrate U.S. air defenses.

So, my question is, you listed and the president has listed a number of goals. Regime change, ending the nuclear program, eliminating the missile

and drone capability, and opening the Strait of Hormuz. None of those goals have been accomplished. So, how much more will it take is the fundamental

question.

BAUMGARTNER: Well, the president also lists the goals of eliminating their -- reducing their ballistic missile program, eliminating their Navy. We've

made tremendous progress there. Again, the terrorist regime is well ingrained in Iran. They only have about 10 percent of the support of their

population. And so, we need to turn up the heat and have a sustainable strategy.

But I disagree with you that it's not about domestic politics. We've seen in these elections with the Democrats that they're scared of the radical

socialist base, and this is a socialist base that's controlling their party and wants to support America's enemies. So, that is absolutely why the

Democrats, these are the same Democrats that voted to support the war in Ukraine.

They allowed President Obama to launch attacks on Libya for over seven months without saying a word. But now, President Trump and Republicans are

in charge and things have changed.

SCIUTTO: Yes. My point was that the questions about the success of this war are not political ones because they're ones coming from a number of

quarters, including members of your own party.

Before we go, there was one point that the defense secretary, Pete Hegseth, made. He acknowledged that Russia and China are helping Iran, and CNN's own

reporting that that includes targeting information, imagery that helps them target, among other things, U.S. forces in the region. In recent weeks,

President Trump has downplayed Russian help for Iran, saying that, well, the U.S. helps Ukraine, for instance, against Russia.

Given that U.S. forces have died from Iranian strikes, should the president demand that Russia and China stop helping Iran?

BAUMGARTNER: Well, we need to look at the situation in Iran as part of an axis between Russia, China, Iran, and North Korea, and to a lesser extent,

Cuba. Those are America's most significant enemies at the moment, and they are working in coordinated fashion.

Obviously, we have a multifaceted regime, but we're doing a lot regarding Russia right now in Ukraine, and it looks like we'll be doing a little bit

more when it comes to helping Ukraine in some things. So, you know, that's the way this stuff works. But what we need to do is work in U.S. interests,

and right now those U.S. interests are to make sure a terrorist regime does not get a nuclear weapon. And that's pretty simple, and the American people

can understand it.

[18:20:00]

SCIUTTO: Congressman Michael Baumgartner, we appreciate you joining and taking the hard questions.

BAUMGARTNER: Thank you.

SCIUTTO: Well, another story we're following, Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy has now fired the country's military chief, General

Oleksandr Syrskyi, after widespread public protests. President Zelenskyy said that Mykhailo Drapatyi, the commander of Ukraine's Joint Forces, will

now take his place. He also said that the former defense minister, Mykhailo Fedorov, has been offered a prominent new role. Fedorov's dismissal just

last week sparked those massive public protests.

Well, the U.K. is now condemning Russia for holding a live fire exercise from a Russian warship just off the British coast. This happened on Monday

during British Prime Minister Andy Burnham's first day in office, as he was at the same time reaffirming U.K. support for Ukraine. The drill did take

place in international waters, but just forty nautical miles south of the coast of Plymouth. British Defense Secretary Wes Streeting said this about

the Russian exercise.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

WES STREETING, BRITISH DEFENSE SECRETARY: Firstly, we should see yesterday's events as performative and irresponsible. It's not the first

time that Russia has behaved like this, and frankly, it's the tip of the iceberg of the daily threats that this country faces and our allies face.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

SCIUTTO: Joining me now is Bob Seely. He's a former conservative member of the British Parliament and a retired captain in the British Army. Thanks so

much for taking the time. Oh, author, I should say, of "The New Total War," a book that I think bears reading, given where we are today. Thanks so much

for taking the time to join us.

BOB SEELY, FORMER BRITISH CONSERVATIVE MP AND AUTHOR "THE NEW TOTAL WAR": Good evening, Jim, and good evening to your viewers.

SCIUTTO: Russia is calling this routine, but let's be frank, the timing is notable. The new U.K. prime minister's first day in office, but the

location. There, there are a lot of places they could do live fire exercises, and 40 miles off the coast of Plymouth is not one of them. Do

you consider this a provocation?

SEELY: Absolutely, yes. The Russians are sending a message. It's slightly testing the government. They're saying, we're here, we're watching you,

we're out to cause trouble. You are Ukraine's number one supporter. Not necessarily anymore in terms of money, but certainly in alerting the world

at the early days of the invasion. We are very embedded in many ways there and doing some important and good work, along with our German and U.S.

allies there as well, and indeed Scandinavia, the Baltic many countries.

So, for Russia, we are, the U.K. is currently their number one enemy, and you see that in the state propaganda, you see that in the hostility. So, if

they could find a way to really damage U.S., I think they would.

But as we know, Jim, the Russians send messages, and this one was a very blunt message that, we don't like you and we're out to damage you if we

can, because that's what we think you're doing to us by helping Ukraine.

SCIUTTO: As you know, a number of European officials and leaders have been warning of the possibility of a Russian escalation, up to and including

some sort of attack on a NATO ally. Whether that be a hybrid attack, and we've seen a great deal of that already, but something more serious. Would

you put this in that category?

SEELY: I think this is a bit of a one-off. I think if there is going to be -- but it's a -- look, it's a very important question, maybe one of the

most important questions of this year. There are a number of scenarios, and the Russians are not just going to line up tanks World War II style, Jim,

and come over the border. The test will fundamentally be a political one.

There will be some violence involved. It may be that they will have Ukrainian-marked drones and fly it into a school in Kaliningrad, and

children will be killed. It'll be the Russians who'll be attacking their own people, but they will then say that these Ukrainian drones are coming

from Polish bases because NATO is attacking Russia. And the Russians will then strike back, maybe on an empty building, maybe in an airfield

somewhere. And they will be sending a very provocative message to Poland. That's one option.

And another option is that they may try to seize an island in the Baltic Sea. There may be an accidental mistake or a provocation in sea that gets

out of hand related to their shadow tankers. So, there are many options. But I think we need to take the chances of a Russian provocation outside

Ukraine very seriously. I would put the Plymouth incident slightly separately to that, but let's see what happens in future.

SCIUTTO: As you know, there was a great deal of domestic consternation over Volodymyr Zelenskyy's decision last week to push out Fedorov because

of this internal dispute between him and another senior general.

[18:25:00]

What you see now the promotion to the most senior ranks of a very popular Ukrainian general with roots going back to the early days of the war and

offering this other position to Fedorov. Do you think Zelenskyy has somehow flipped the script here?

SEELY: I think he's trying to ride a ship that became unbalanced. I mean look Fedorov is a great guy, really impressive young minister, did lots

great work at the Ministry for Digital Transformation. He led the sort of organized the Ukrainian cyber army, he set up the sort of army of drones

and he did lots of very, very creative things about driving drone innovation, and if you like gamifying drone warfare so it made it

accessible but also, he drove to make it as effective as possible in deterring and frankly killing Russians.

I would be wary about saying that Fedorov is the good guy and Syrskyi the former commander is the bad one. Clearly there was not a meeting of minds

but Syrskyi didn't fail in this job. He may have been in it a bit too long now.

But, you know, he has led the Ukrainian army effectively to fight Russia to pretty much almost -- certainly almost a standstill in the east and south

of the country and even if there was now a clash between them it sounds like Fedorov is back in in some guise and the new guy, General Drapatyi, he

was a fighting general. So, our equivalent he would have been a lieutenant colonel at the start of the war, had his own battalion.

And so, he is from that generation that have fought with drones but also fought on the ground and fought hard against the Russians back in 2014 and

then from 2022 onwards. So, it's actually probably a pretty good choice. And I think for Ukraine and Zelenskyy, I think, so far, it's a good outcome

respecting the good work that Syrskyi did.

SCIUTTO: And it certainly shows the power of popular protests in Ukraine, doesn't it? Those protests seem to have delivered. Bob Seely, thanks so

much for joining the program.

SEELY: Thank you.

SCIUTTO: Still ahead, why President Trump's new 50 percent tariff on Canadian goods could be a warning for the rest of the world.

(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.

President Donald Trump has warned the U.S. will strike a fortified underground facility in central Iran. Pickaxe Mountain, as it's known, was

declared to the U.N.'s atomic agency in 2020 as a future facility to assemble centrifuges to make nuclear fuel. The president made a similar

threat last week.

Canada says it will intensify trade talks with the U.S. after President Trump announced a new 50 percent tariff on about 5 percent of Canadian

imports to the U.S. It is one of the highest tariff rates come out of the White House. As the Supreme Court ruled earlier this year that President

Trump's sweeping emergency tariffs were illegal, Canada's prime minister, Mark Carney, says he wants to secure a comprehensive trade agreement with

the U.S.

Ukrainian president, Volodymyr Zelenskyy, says that Mykhailo Drapatyi will now be the country's commander in chief. This comes after the firing of

Ukraine's popular defense minister last week. The controversy revealed a public split among the country's leaders of the war's strategy.

In today's Business Breakout, across-the-board gains for U.S. stocks, with the S&P 500 snapping a three-day losing streak. All this despite another

rise in oil prices, this time 2 percent. Strong earnings reports helped the market mood. The NASDAQ rallied more than 1 percent as chip stocks gained.

The Financial Times is reporting the Trump administration is preparing new tariffs to replace a temporary 10 percent tariff that expires on Friday.

U.S. Trade Representative Jamieson Greer was asked about the story. He says an announcement is coming soon, and that the tariffs will be tied to

administration claims of forced labor.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: The FT reports that this would be much broader than just a small number of countries, that this would be a significant

expansion. Is that not right?

JAMIESON GREER, U.S. TRADE REPRESENTATIVE: Well, it covers 60 countries, 6-0, and about 99 percent of our trade. And that actually illustrates the

scale of the problem we're facing. For years, again, the United States has had on the books this law where we prohibit the import of goods made in

whole or in part with forced labor. And we enforce it rigorously.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

SCIUTTO: All this comes after, as we reported earlier, the White House announced new 50 percent tariffs on a wide range of Canadian goods. Here's

what Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney said about his hopes to reach a comprehensive deal with the U.S.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

MARK CARNEY, CANADIAN PRIME MINISTER: That it's open with the president. We agreed to intensify discussions. We'll begin that right away. And this

is -- you know, this is part of the negotiation. So, the first objective is to get a comprehensive agreement that benefits, obviously, both countries.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

SCIUTTO: President Trump has threatened separate tariffs against Canada in response to the wildfire smoke blowing into the U.S.

Joining me now is Candace Laing. She is the president and CEO of the Canadian Chamber of Commerce. Thanks so much for taking the time.

CANDACE LAING, CEO, CANADIAN CHAMBER OF COMMERCE: Thanks for having me, Jim. Good to see you.

SCIUTTO: So, first question, just a practical one here, the prime minister has noted that Canada has 30 days now to negotiate before the tariffs take

effect. But this is not the first time, as you know, this president has imposed tariffs on Canada, some of them very damaging. Do you believe

there's a path to negotiation here?

LAING: Absolutely, we believe there's a path. And now, we have 29 days where, as our prime minister said, we will intensify those discussions.

But today, Jim, we're still digesting, you know, what are we looking at? What are we dealing with, with these new Section 338s? And I'll say new,

but actually old, because they come from Tariff Act from 1930. But they are, in fact, a very different tariff to deal with. There are three areas

that are cited in which these tariffs are invoked.

But how they work is that the pressure can be applied at a broader and more discretionary basket of goods that don't relate to those specific three

areas that were cited. And in fact, the reason the tariffs were invoked.

So, this is new territory. It's meant to offset discrimination against U.S. commerce. It does not include the lengthy investigation process that you

see with 301 tariffs. So, it's, in fact, a very different beast in terms of a tariff threat.

[18:35:00]

SCIUTTO: Do you think that the president has found, in effect, a new legal pathway to impose tariffs despite the Supreme Court's ruling? I mean, I

imagine these might be you could see them challenged in court, but that doesn't necessarily move very quickly.

LAING: Yes. Unfortunately, that doesn't help businesses in Canada or the U.S. that will be impacted by such tariffs. They are untested. You know,

this is the first -- Canada is the first to be processing, digesting what this all means. But as you say, the legal process will take a long time and

be on a different timeline. So, we're very much focused on the immediate digestion of what those impacts could be.

But as you say, turning to, as our prime minister said, intensifying discussions, really stepping up those negotiations to get to a

comprehensive deal over the next 29 days. And in some version of this, I hope that that's the spirit of the action taken here is that it's meant to

set a timeline, speed things up, if you will, and get things over the line in terms of getting to a deal that works for both Canada and the U.S.

SCIUTTO: Can I ask for your specific reaction to President Trump imposing tariffs for wildfire smoke? I mean, listen, the nature knows no borders, as

we all know. Can you imagine Canada imposing tariffs on the U.S. if U.S. wildfire smoke went north?

LAING: Oh, I absolutely cannot. And in fact, when you look at what action Canada has taken in the exact scenario, when it goes the other way, we send

resources, we send aid, we send help. And that's what good neighbors do, especially when you have a shared geography. And it's, of course, what I

would hope to see reciprocated.

SCIUTTO: Big picture. I've heard from Canadian officials myself, and Mark Carney has referred to this in the past, too, in the midst of this ongoing

trade war, really, well, imposition of U.S. tariffs on Canada, that this is not so much about coming to a trade agreement, but that it's about

punishing Canada, in effect, extorting Canada via economic damage. And I wonder if you share that concern, or at least that fear.

LAING: It's a really, really good question, Jim. And I answer this question almost every day, how should we be thinking about what's hitting

us and how we're approaching this? And in fact, I go back to last year, when these, in fact, were very separate conversations. We had the review of

USMCA, or CUSMA, coming up in a certain timeline. But we had the original actions out of U.S. trade policy being enacted, to which Canada had a

reaction of, why are we being treated like everybody else?

And what I mean by that is, tariffs apply, because we have a list of grievances, and we want to extract some movement on those from all

countries. And we have sort of this difference of opinion, where Canada got upset, because we were treated like everybody else. And out of the U.S., we

might hear, why is Canada upset? We didn't single you out or treat you any differently than anybody else.

But I, in fact, think the objective has remained constant, which is, there's a list of grievances, Canada is included in that, these are made

very transparent in the trade barriers report, and some things are added to that, OK. And we, in fact, have to negotiate through that, because those

are presented as barriers to our trade and our trade relationship. And Canada's perspective is, we also see barriers to our trade relationship,

and we call those Section 232 tariffs.

And so, getting to a deal, and a comprehensive deal for Canada, means broader resolution on that level. And that's what we really hope to see

happen in the next 29 days.

SCIUTTO: Well, if only that World Cup spirit, right, had extended into the trade sphere. I mean, it seems like only days ago, you guys, they were

standing on the same stage handing out trophies. Candace Laing, we appreciate you joining.

LAING: Thank you for having me.

SCIUTTO: Still coming up on "The Brief," Lebanon's president visiting the White House to discuss not just how to end the war there, but how to deal

with Hezbollah. We'll discuss.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[18:40:00]

SCIUTTO: President Trump says his administration will allow all U.S. airlines to fly direct to Lebanon this afternoon with the Lebanese

president, Joseph Aoun. The Lebanese leader visited the White House to discuss plans to disarm the Iran-backed militant group, Hezbollah. Lebanon

hopes this will lead Israel to withdraw its forces from large parts of southern Lebanon, which is part of a U.S.-brokered agreement.

Joining me now is Fadi Nicholas Nassar. He's a senior fellow at the Middle East Institute. Fadi, thanks so much for joining.

FADI NICHOLAS NASSAR, SENIOR FELLOW, MIDDLE EAST INSTITUTE: Thank you for having me.

SCIUTTO: So, President Trump says that the U.S. has concrete plans to help Lebanon remove Hezbollah from southern Lebanon. As you know, a lot of folks

have talked about that for a long time, and Hezbollah is not just a militia. It's deeply embedded in society in the south. Is that an

achievable goal?

NASSAR: Definitely. Right now, Lebanon and Washington want the very same thing, and that's what makes this a real opening. President Aoun, Lebanon's

president, and not just him, the state and the Lebanese people, believe that the Lebanese state must take Lebanon's future. It can't remain held

hostage by an Iranian militia. And President Trump also sees an opening here, that he can be the first U.S. president to achieve a lasting peace

between Israel and Lebanon.

And you could really feel that in the room if you saw those smiling faces, two leaders who believe this could be part of their legacy. But that belief

and that alignment, as important as it is, it's not what shapes history. What shapes history is whether, because of your point, whether these two

governments, these two leaders, decide to really see it through, to finish the job, and not let this be another missed opportunity that we've seen

time and again.

SCIUTTO: But how do you do it? I mean, Hezbollah's not going to go voluntarily, and Israel's spent decades attempting to defeat Lebanon via

airstrikes, ground operations, you know, decades-long occupation. Who's going to do it? Lebanese armed forces? Will it be a war? Will it be a

negotiation?

NASSAR: This is exactly what we lay out in our new Middle East Institute report, a strategy to win in Lebanon. But I'll give you the 30-second

version.

Only the Lebanese State can reclaim their country. And we heard from the Secretary of State, Marco Rubio, what you need now is not just to defeat

Hezbollah, but make sure nothing can replace it. And you do that with a sovereign Lebanese state.

But you know how you mentioned we've been here before? Here's what's different. Hezbollah has been discredited. It has fought Iran's wars at

Lebanon's expense. And those campaigns you're talking about, they've really degraded Hezbollah. And again, what we've seen is this new initiative, this

new movement and alignment.

[18:45:00]

But to your point, if this is going to succeed, you've got to see a shift in U.S. backing. And what I heard from that meeting, what stood out to me,

look, the Lebanese are saying we're going to own 90 percent of the fight. This is our fight. We have to lead it. We have to offer our people a new

future. But America can add that 10 percent.

And what that looks like, to your point, is one, you know, we saw in that trilateral framework, and maybe I can speak about it later, that the U.S.

can be the guarantor. Israel will withdraw. The Lebanese army will, you know, come in and make sure Hezbollah stays out. And what makes it

different is that this time the Lebanese state is given those capabilities to keep Hezbollah at bay and finish the job.

SCIUTTO: Well, let me ask you about the U.S. commitment to this. Because as you laid out in your plan here, there are a number of steps, a sovereign

Lebanese State, ending the Israel-Lebanon war for good, dismantling Hezbollah as the sort of main pieces of this. It sounds a lot like the Gaza

peace plan, right, on a larger scale. But we're many months out from the ceasefire.

And while they were able to achieve the ceasefire there, all those goals that were promised in that peace plan, disarming Hamas, hasn't happened.

Setting limits on Israel's occupation of Gaza territory, those have only expanded. There is no international peace force as promised there.

So, do you have -- why would you have confidence that the U.S. would have the follow-through in Lebanon, bigger problem, bigger area, bigger

population, after at least not delivering yet in Gaza?

NASSAR: It's a fantastic question. Because the reason I have optimism is because we have everything that we don't have in Gaza in Lebanon. You do

have a state that is making these commitments. It is the Lebanese state that took the initiative to come to agreement and the Americans that they

want Iran out. They want this problem solved, not managed.

We also see the Lebanese people rallying behind that. They view Hezbollah today as an occupation by proxy, not a resistance movement. That has

shifted. So, again, you've got a willing partner in the Lebanese state and a willing partner in the Lebanese people. And I think that's what stands

out.

SCIUTTO: Fadi Nicholas Nassar, we hope your vision comes true. Thanks so much for joining.

NASSAR: So, do I.

SCIUTTO: Well, despite tensions between the Trump administration and the Cuban government, a first batch of U.S. aid has now arrived in Cuba. We're

going to have a live report.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

SCIUTTO: A U.S. cargo flight of humanitarian aid has now arrived in Havana as part of a $100 million support package for Cuba. U.S. officials say the

supplies of food, medicine and fuel will be distributed directly to the Cuban people through charitable organizations. The move comes as the island

deals with a crippling energy and economic crisis. The Trump administration has effectively placed an oil blockade on Cuba.

[18:50:00]

Joining us now, Juan Carlos Lopez, anchor and chief correspondent for CNN Espanol. He is with us from Havana. Juan Carlos, thanks so much for

joining.

JUAN CARLOS LOPEZ, CNN ESPANOL ANCHOR AND CHIEF CORRESPONDENT: My pleasure, Jim. And just to put things in context, we're in downtown Havana,

the CNN bureau is. Today was a special day. We had power all day and we just lost power about an hour ago and we have backup power and there are

those in Cuba who have either generators or solar panels or batteries but that's a very small part of the population.

Now, the Cuban government on social media confirmed that the plane had landed in Havana International Airport and that the aid was being unloaded.

Now, according to the State Department, it's 700 kits of food and hygiene products for 700 Cuban families, a country of 11 million people and as you

said, going through a very deep crisis with the lack of oil, the lack of electricity and the rolling outages.

SCIUTTO: What is your sense as to whether this pressure campaign is working what appears to be its intended goal, which is to either bring down

the Cuban government or get it to give up, to make a deal with the U.S.?

LOPEZ: If you go through the streets of Havana, life goes on. Now, Cubans are very resilient and they've been adapting for decades. Now, there is

frustration. You will hear it from people. Let's say we've driven around Havana and Old Havana at night and you'll hear the protest but so far

nothing that shows that at least the strategy for now is getting people to turn against the government. The government has control. You see daily life

going and people going back and forth to work.

Obviously, it's very challenging. When you lose power and you can't depend on a refrigerator or you can't even have a fan to sleep at night, then

people have to sleep outside at the entrance of their buildings or their houses. Children have a rougher time. Hospitals don't have the resources.

So, they are very difficult times.

At least for now, you see life going on as normal in a country used to challenges and used to having very few resources.

SCIUTTO: Congressman Mark Pocan, who just returned from Cuba himself, he told CNN the new State Department report on Cuba portrays it as a security

threat and that it appeared to him like a blueprint for an invasion. I mean, is there genuine concern there of U.S. military operation?

LOPEZ: There is that uneasiness of the uncertainty of what can happen. Now, a military operation in Cuba, it's not -- it won't be an easy task.

The Cuban government has said, they've told U.S., the foreign minister told us that a lot of lives would be lost and that Cubans would defend their

country. So, that is a predicament that weighs on people's minds.

But I think the immediate reaction is not having power, having to get home, not having, not being able to keep food in storage. So, a lot of -- I mean,

it's a very resilient country. People are very proud and strong, but obviously frustration grows, people are upset. And at least the strategy

doesn't seem to be turning things around, at least for now.

SCIUTTO: Juan Carlos Lopez, good to have you there, thanks so much.

Well, in a growing international trend to protect children from digital content, France has become the first country in the European Union to adopt

a social media ban for all those under 15 years old. The French Parliament adopted the bill just a few hours ago. It also bans the use of cell phones

in high schools. The French president says he wants the law to go into effect at the start of the school year.

In December, Australia became the first country in the world to restrict social media use for anyone under 16. As Melissa Bell explains, other

European nations are now considering similar laws to protect young people.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

MELISSA BELL, CNN SENIOR INTERNATIONAL CORRESPONDENT: France has become the first E.U. country to ban social media for under 15s, following in the

footsteps of Australia, who banned social media for under 16s, and the United Kingdom, which had announced a similar project for children there.

The idea is that children under 15 will, from September 1st, no longer be able to set up any accounts on social media, and from January 2027, any

existing accounts will be discontinued.

The idea was one of the ones that Emmanuel Macron had announced would be one of his flagship measures for his second term. It's expected to take

effect from September. We had a chance to speak to some schoolchildren at the International School here in Paris about what they thought.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: I use certain apps to see what people are doing, to see where they've been and what the kind of things that they're doing are.

BELL: So, do you think you're going to miss it?

[18:55:00]

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Yes, I think I would, yes.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: With social media, people often compare themselves with other people, and that's just unhealthy, and it's bad for people's mental

health.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: I'll probably have a little bit more free time, which I might be able to spend with friends, which I think is, you know, a little

bit better than on social media. But I think I won't be able to do, like I like gaming, and I like social media. Like, I like doing those things. So,

it's a little bit sad not to be able to, like, share my accomplishments or not to be able to, like, update, get updates as quickly on things, you

know.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

BELL: Other European countries like Spain, Greece and Denmark are also looking at similar legislation. And E.U.-wide, there is the possibility

there may be a block-wide ban at some point. Ursula von der Leyen has set up a panel to look into the question of how better to protect children

online.

Melissa Bell, CNN, Paris.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

SCIUTTO: Well, 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