Return to Transcripts main page

The Brief with Jim Sciutto

CNN International: Trump Changes Saudi Nuclear Deal Terms; War Escalates as Houthis Target Ships in Red Sea; U.S. Announces New Tariffs on Dozens ff Trading Partners; U.S. Justice Department Dropping Subpoenas Against NYT Reporters; Clashes Between China and Philippines Intensify in South China Sea. Aired 6-7p ET

Aired July 23, 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 changes the conditions for the Saudi nuclear deal. A day after it was signed, he's now tying it to the Abraham

Accords. The Trump administration finds a new way to keep tariffs alive, as it plans to charge dozens of countries with rates up to 12.5 percent. And I

take an exclusive look inside two NORAD operations centers acting as the first line of defense for the U.S. and Canada in the Arctic, despite

differences on the ground. Those stories and plenty more coming up.

Well, just one day after touting a big nuclear deal with Saudi Arabia, President Trump is now threatening to call it off unless the kingdom first

joins the Abraham Accords, which would require normalizing diplomatic relations with Israel. The White House insists that demand is not new.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

KAROLINE LEAVITT, WHITE HOUSE PRESS SECRETARY: This is a condition that the president has spoken about many times with our Gulf and Arab allies. He

wants to see these countries sign the Abraham Accord. It was one of the most historic accomplishments of his first term, and it continues to be a

long-term goal of his to expand those accords, to ultimately come to a place where the Middle East can be a peaceful and stable region.

And, yes, this deal with Saudi Arabia, the energy deal, is contingent on this condition as far as the president is concerned.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

SCIUTTO: Israeli prime minister, Benjamin Netanyahu, is applauding that new requirement. Saudi Arabia has previously said it will join the Accords

only if there is a clear path to a Palestinian State.

Kevin Liptak is at the White House. And, Kevin, is it clear to you whether this was always a requirement or if the president heard pushback, blowback

to his announcement yesterday and then added this requirement?

KEVIN LIPTAK, CNN SENIOR WHITE HOUSE REPORTER: It sounds like it's more of the latter, although we should say these two things have been connected

before. The Biden administration was pursuing a similar deal, linking normalization between Saudi Arabia and Israel and this civilian nuclear

agreement. And they had gotten fairly far along until the October 7, 2023 terrorist attack occurred in Israel, which threw the thing totally off

track.

When the Trump administration came into office, they continued discussions on the nuclear arrangement, but seemed to have divorced it from the idea of

normalization, even though President Trump very much wants to see that happen, which is where and how we ended up with this announcement that took

place at the Energy Department yesterday. But it does seem as if there was some wires crossed between that department and the White House.

And then you saw the president, I think, responding to some of the criticism that we heard, including in the Wall Street Journal editorial

board and including on Fox News and making that new stipulation known this morning. Now, when he did that, I think the assumption from a lot of people

was that perhaps he had gotten an intervention from Benjamin Netanyahu, although the White House said today that the two men had not spoken about

it, although the Israelis had made their displeasure with this arrangement pretty well known.

And so, I think now it's an open question of whether this is ever going to materialize. You know, you mentioned that Mohammed bin Salman, you know,

the very powerful crown prince, has made pretty plain that he does not see normalization happening with Israel until there's a viable pathway to

statehood for the Palestinians. Netanyahu has more or less said that is not on the table because that would be untenable for Israeli security.

And so, unless the president finds a way to bridge those pretty serious differences, it's not clear that this deal is going to happen at all. And

the Israelis have made pretty clear that they don't want to see it happen because they think it would set off a nuclear arms race.

[18:05:00]

And so, the president really throwing quite a significant wrench in these plans and no clear path, at least from the White House today, about how

that all plans to be resolved.

SCIUTTO: Kevin Liptack at the White House. Joining me now is Michael Ratney. He's a former U.S. ambassador to Saudi Arabia, as well as former

charge d'affaires to Israel. Ambassador, thanks so much for joining.

MICHAEL RATNEY, FORMER U.S. AMBASSADOR TO SAUDI ARABIA AND FORMER U.S. EMBASSY CHARGE D'AFFAIRES TO ISRAEL: Thank you.

SCIUTTO: So, let's be frank here. I mean, this is quite a reversal. Big announcement yesterday, major deal reversal today, or at least utter

confusion as to what was actually agreed to. Is this any way to do diplomacy between the U.S. and one of its closest allies and an agreement

that, of course, affects many other allies in the region?

RATNEY: Yes, it's a confusing moment. I think it was quite clear what was agreed to, you know, the U.S. Energy Department and the Saudis negotiated

an agreement. They negotiated it. They signed it and they announced it. And it was within 24 hours that President Trump added a new condition to it.

Now, I think your correspondent is right. I think the president started to hear criticism of this deal less because of the aspects of it that allow

Saudi Arabia to develop a nuclear power industry and more because I think fears that it could eventually lead to nuclear weapons development, which,

as far as I could tell, is not really in the cards. But nonetheless, the president heard the criticism and somehow decided to attach this

normalization condition to it, leaving the entire thing in limbo.

SCIUTTO: So, where does this leave Saudi Arabia? Because you have written about how the Iran war has disrupted Saudi priorities. I mean, it's got an

issue now, right, because not only is the Strait of Hormuz effectively closed or at least challenged, but you have the Houthis now firing in the

Red Sea, another path to international oil markets for Saudi Arabia. It's got to spend a lot of money that it intended to spend on Saudi Vision 2030

on just defending itself, right, air defenses, et cetera. And it must have questions about the solidity of its relationship with the U.S. after such a

quick reversal here. Is it uncertain as to exactly where it stands with the U.S.?

RATNEY: Yes, it's a confusing time for them. I think this nuclear issue and the sort of general status of the war and their relationship with us,

they're not totally connected, except to the degree that this kind of incoherent policymaking in Washington affects them very directly. You know,

the war, they never wanted it. They found themselves in the midst of it with everything getting worse, including the Strait of Hormuz controlled by

the Iranians, and they just wanted it to end.

Now, I do think they're sort of all in with the United States on the security partnership. They don't have a lot of great options, and it goes

way back. But I do think they're frustrated and very concerned that this kind of incoherence and unpredictability that comes out of Washington,

which, you know, for a lot of people is just something that's a very faraway issue for them that's here and now. It affects their livelihood,

their economy, the global economy.

And throw into that, you know, what happened with this nuclear deal where they thought they had, you know, a significant piece of diplomacy with the

United States that will result in their ability to develop nuclear energy. And now that's called into question as well. And I think it just leaves

them confused.

SCIUTTO: Now, what about the path to normalization between Israel and Saudi Arabia? Because what you hear consistently is right on the eve of the

October 7th attacks that the Biden administration had finally brokered this. And then, of course, the Hamas attacks happen and war follows. Is

there any near-term prospect for this? Because, of course, if they're looking for some guarantees on a path to Palestinian Statehood, you

certainly don't have a government in Israel right now that is open to that, it seems, at all.

RATNEY: Right. Let me answer that in two ways. One is that Saudis have always made it clear that one of their conditions for normalizing relations

with Israel is going to be a path to statehood for the Palestinians. And the Israeli government has ruled that out, at least this Israeli

government. And no nuclear deal, no diplomacy from Trump, no pressure is going to change that basic calculation for the Saudis. So, in that sense,

we're stuck.

The other way to look at it is this, which is that under the Biden administration, there was a fairly detailed negotiation about a grand deal

that would involve Saudi-Israel normalization. It would involve a U.S.- Saudi mutual defense treaty, a civil nuclear agreement, and some package of measures that would pursue statehood for the Palestinians. And altogether,

that package would pass the U.S. Senate. It would need to be ratified. And you would get everything, something for everybody.

[18:10:00]

What President Trump seems to have done, at least in this administration, is pick off pieces of that, an upgraded security partnership with Saudi

Arabia that came out of the MBS visit, the Crown Prince's visit to Washington a few months ago, now this nuclear arrangement, a separate

arrangement about artificial intelligence, he sort of picked off pieces of this and done it directly with the Saudis, leaving less of an incentive for

them to normalize with Israel.

SCIUTTO: Michael Ratney, we'll see where this one ends up, we appreciate you joining.

RATNEY: Thank you.

SCIUTTO: Well, the U.S.-Iran war is now threatening to spill over from the Strait of Hormuz into the Red Sea. President Trump now threatening to hold

Tehran accountable for any more attacks by the Yemen-based Houthi rebels, after the group says it attacked two Saudi oil tankers in the Red Sea.

In a major rebuke to President Trump's war powers, the U.S. House has voted to stop the Iran war, absent congressional approval. However, even if it

were to pass the Senate, it does not compel Trump to end the war. Seems far more symbolic than anything else.

Joining me now, military history professor and retired U.S. Army Colonel, Peter Mansour. Peter, good to have you back.

COL. PETER MANSOOR, U.S. ARMY (RET.) AND SENIOR FELLOW, MERSHON CENTER FOR INTERNATIONAL SECURITY STUDIES: Great to be on, Jim.

SCIUTTO: So, first, let's look at what the U.S. options are regarding the Houthis in the Red Sea, because we've been down this path before. Last

year, the U.S. expanded rather an enormous amount of money and munitions, striking Houthi rebels, you know, sending up multi-million-dollar missiles

against thousand-dollar drones, and just calculated, you know, we can't beat them and it's way too expensive to try. What do they do now?

MANSOOR: Well, I think expanding the war with Iran to the Red Sea and to Yemen would be exactly the wrong thing to do. We've already proved that we

can't bring them to terms. We did that, you know, as you said, a year ago. I think this cries out for some sort of deal to be cut with the Houthis,

quite frankly, and to cut our losses in the Red Sea.

That should not include allowing them to exact tolls or anything of that nature, but there should be something that the Saudis could offer them to

get them to back off.

SCIUTTO: Is that possible to separate them from Iran? Because Secretary Rubio said, in his view, the Houthis, quote, got snookered into this thing

by the Iranians. I mean, would the Houthis be willing to make their own deal?

MANSOOR: Well, unless you ask them, you don't know. So, clearly Iran wants them as part of the war. It puts a lot of pressure on the world economy to

cut off the Strait of Bab el-Mandeb and force Saudi oil to go north through the Suez Canal. So, you know, I think this, you know, you send some

negotiators to Yemen and you see what they want.

SCIUTTO: Tell me your view of what happens next with Iran, because the Trump administration, President Trump is threatening an expansion of the

war and seems to be following the same strategy, which is up the military pressure and that'll bring Iran to the table. That hasn't happened. And

even if you do bring him to the table, the question remains as to what Iran is willing to concede, you know, what an agreement would look like. Does

the president have viable military options at this point?

MANSOOR: He does not. It's possible that the blockade of Iran could eventually bring Iran to the table. But that is a very long-term struggle.

And it's not clear that the Iranian Revolutionary Guards, which are in charge of the government in Tehran, care about the Iranian people and their

sufferings with the blockade.

But, you know, we've already had 13,000 airstrikes on Iran and they have not really done much to force Iran to concede. So, I'm not sure how doing

more of the same is going to be any different.

SCIUTTO: Why can't the blockade accomplish what it needs? I mean, the you know, because the administration will say, well, you know, they can only

last so long. We can choke them. We can you know, whether they care about the Iranian people or not, the RGC, they need their money right to stay in

power and to, you know, buy their weapons, et cetera.

MANSOOR: Well, the blockade clearly will have an impact and more as time goes on. The question is who folds first, because the world economy is

under great pressure with the rise of oil now above one hundred dollars a barrel. It's unclear how long the world economy can make adjustments to the

lack of oil flowing out of the Gulf. And then on the other hand, Iran is under great pressure with the blockade.

So, both sides think they have the upper hand with in the long-term, which is why I think right now this war is going to go on.

[18:15:00]

SCIUTTO: You're a military historian, in addition to being a veteran of the U.S. war in Iraq. When you look at what's playing out right now, is the

obvious question that President Trump ignored history, and I'm not even talking ancient history or 20th century history, 21st century history here

in getting involved in a Mideast war, calculating that overwhelming military power can accomplish his strategic ends?

MANSOOR: Well, absolutely. I mean, the last country that decided it could overwhelm Iran quickly was Iraq in the 1980s. And it ended up fighting an

eight-year war with Iran, which ended up in a stalemate. You know, the fact that the United States has better weapons and greater air power and so

forth doesn't mean anything unless you cause regime change in Tehran and force a change in their behavior.

And the only way to do that is boots on the ground, something that Trump promised the American people he wouldn't do, get into stupid wars in the

Middle East. And so, here we are. I think he's not only ignored history, but probably warnings from the chairman of the Joint Chiefs and others that

Iran is going to counter an attack on its homeland with this sort of action that we see playing out now.

SCIUTTO: Sad fact, Colonel Peter Mansoor, thanks so much for joining.

MANSOOR: Thanks, Jim.

SCIUTTO: Still ahead, the White House announces yet another sweeping tariff plan, which it hopes will hold up in court. Will it?

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

SCIUTTO: Welcome back. In today's Business Breakout, a sharp sell-off on Wall Street with the NASDAQ tumbling more than 2 percent. Stocks dragged

lower, over, renewed concerns about A.I. spending, but also a sharp rise in oil prices. Both Brent and U.S. crude spiked more than 6 percent after

Houthi fighters in Yemen claimed to have attacked two oil tankers in the Red Sea. Brent is trading now above $100 a barrel for the first time since

May. That helped push benchmark U.S. bond yields to their highest levels in more than a year and a half.

Well, the Trump administration in other economic news has just announced new tariffs on dozens of U.S. trading partners on a new legal basis, this

time accusing them of failing to ban goods made with forced labor. The tariffs range from 10 percent to 12.5 percent. They take effect in less

than six hours. That is Friday when the others were supposed to expire.

[18:20:00]

This is the latest move by the Trump administration to replace the temporary 10 percent global tariffs which expire on Friday. Those tariffs,

if you remember, were announced immediately after the Supreme Court struck down the Trump administration's Liberation Day tariffs in February. Here's

how U.S. Trade Representative Jamieson Greer justified the latest tariffs on CNN.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

JAMIESON GREER, U.S. TRADE REPRESENTATIVE: So, for over a hundred years the United States has had a law on the books prohibiting the import of

goods made with forced labor. This is common sense and we've enforced this law to prohibit it. What seems like common sense, I think to you and me,

others haven't done. In other countries no one really has these types of laws and even in that small handful of countries that have them, they don't

really enforce it.

And so, we have gone to the world over -- frankly over years and across administrations to try to get other countries to act on this. Finally, we

have put our foot down.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

SCIUTTO: Well, earlier this week the U.S. announced it put its foot down to the tune of 50 percent tariffs on many Canadian imports, claiming the

country discriminates against U.S. made goods. 25 percent tariffs on Brazil as well.

Joining me now, Wendy Cutler, she's the senior vice president of the Asia Society Policy Institute and a former acting deputy U.S. trade

representative. Good to have you back.

WENDY CUTLER, SENIOR VICE PRESIDENT, ASIA SOCIETY POLICY INSTITUTE AND FORMER ACTING DEPUTY U.S. TRADE REPRESENTATIVE: Thank you.

SCIUTTO: All right. So, here you go. You lost in the Supreme Court, the Trump administration. Then they had tariffs that they put in the place of

those, 10 percent, which expire tomorrow. So, now, they've found another method, another legal justification for tariffs under Section 301, forced

labor, et cetera. Is that a substantive argument -- first of all, is it true that all these countries use forced labor or don't police it enough in

their products to justify these?

CUTLER: Look, this is the third attempt by the Trump administration to get it right when it comes to the legalities of the tariffs they want to

impose. Now, they're using Section 301, which I believe is going to be a lot more sustainable. There's a lot of flexibility in the statute. And

under the leadership of Ambassador Greer, who's an experienced trade lawyer, I think they've checked all the boxes. Nevertheless, I'm sure the

administration will be challenged in the courts on this.

With respect to the specific unfair trade practice, if you ask the 60 countries that were hit with these tariffs today, many of them will tell

you, we did not get it right. Many of them feel they have a law in the books and they are enforcing it. Or in response to U.S. pressure, they put

a law into effect. So, they want the administration to back off. They don't appreciate being called unfair traders.

SCIUTTO: So, what is their challenge then? I mean, they can complain all they want. That hasn't worked with this administration so far. Do we expect

foreign countries to challenge these new tariffs in court? Do those challenges go anywhere?

CUTLER: No, I think for our trading partners, they're just going to suck this up, basically. But they're not happy. I think we're going to see legal

challenges from importers and others in the United States with interest here that will challenge the use of the statute, both with respect to

process, but also with respect to substance.

SCIUTTO: How do you think -- I can't ask you to get inside the minds of the Supreme Court, but if this were to work its way to the Supreme Court,

which already rejected the sweeping tariffs that President Trump attempted, would they look on these any more favorably?

CUTLER: I think so. Again, Section 301 is a flexible statute. Administrations from both sides of the aisle have used this statute

repeatedly to get fair and unfair trade practices. What the difference is this time is that the Trump administration has used Section 301 to hit 60

countries or 60 economies at the same time. 59 countries plus the European Union and all of the member states.

So, again, I think there will be challenges, but I think the administration will prevail this time around.

SCIUTTO: So, how about the general question? Is this good for the U.S. economy? Because we've had a lot of economists on who've measured -- who

pays for them. You and me, we pay for them. Importers pay for them. There has been no reshoring of manufacturing jobs, et cetera. Is this a good

thing in economic terms?

CUTLER: Absolutely not. But this time around, too, the administration has learned and they've entered and agreed to a lot of product exceptions. So,

for example, if this time around, if we don't make a good, they're not going to put a tariff on it if we don't grow it or produce it in the United

States.

[18:25:00]

So, I think what we're going to see is the product coverage of this statute, which is spelled out in like tens of pages in the Federal Register

notice that was just released an hour ago. I think we're going to see that the coverage of this statute and these tariffs will be more limited and

therefore I think will hurt U.S. interests less than some of the previous tariff actions.

But look, it's going to result in higher prices for final consumers, but also for businesses who need to import inputs and machinery to make the

stuff that we want to make here in the United States.

SCIUTTO: Can I ask you a basic, just no BS question, though? The administration has tried a dozen ways, right, to get at big tariffs that

the president likes. Does anybody, including the court's buy, that these new tariffs are because the administration has suddenly found God on forced

labor practices and therefore want rigorous enforcement? Do they not see through this being just another pathway to get a restrictive trade and

tariff policy through?

CUTLER: Well, again, I think the administration has made enough tweaks to the outcomes and they have gone through kind of this rigorous procedural

process that this statute calls for, which will make them less vulnerable and I think will allow them to defend this action.

Personally, they should have started with Section 301 from the get-go. It was a mistake to use IEPA and now they're trying just to catch up with that

mistake.

SCIUTTO: Wendy Cutler, thanks so much.

CUTLER: Thank you.

SCIUTTO: Checking some of today's other business headlines now. Shares of U.S. chip giant, Intel, are rallying in after-hours trading after strong

quarterly results. The company reported revenue growth of 25 percent in the second quarter, its fastest pace in more than 15 years. It's also raising

its profit forecast. Intel sales are booming due to strong demand for its chips in what? A.I. infrastructure.

E.U. officials announced a new round of sanctions against Russia Thursday due to its ongoing invasion of Ukraine. It's the 21st package of sanctions

against Russia since it started the war, the largest in four years. It imposes new curbs on the Russian banking sector and keeps its $44 a barrel

price cap on Russian oil sales in place for another year.

The U.S. Justice Department says it is now withdrawing subpoenas against several reporters at the New York Times. Prosecutors made the announcement

at the end of a hearing in which the judge rigorously questioned their investigation. The government was trying to force the reporters to reveal

confidential sources over a story about President Trump's new gifted Air Force One.

I want to bring in Brian Stelter here. And Brian, it seems that the judges could see from -- sorry, the prosecutors could see from the judges'

questions about those subpoenas that they were going to lose, right? Is that the story behind them withdrawing?

BRIAN STELTER, CNN CHIEF MEDIA ANALYST AND AUTHOR, "NETWORK OF LIES": Very much. That's right. The prosecutors felt that they were losing in court.

This judge was going to throw out the subpoenas altogether. And so, these prosecutors have backed off for now. But we received a statement from the

Justice Department afterward, a very aggressive statement, saying the investigation will continue. And it goes on to criticize the judge.

But we've seen that oftentimes, Jim, from the Trump administration. They'll say one thing very aggressively out of court and then they'll take a more

modest posture in court. And that's what happened in this case today.

So, for now, the New York Times is taking a victory lap, saying these subpoenas never should have been granted in the first place, never should

have been sent in the first place. But it's good news that they've been withdrawn.

The head of the Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press, Bruce Brown, said targeting reporters to appease the White House has reached a dead end

yet again in the federal courts. He said the judge saw the Justice Department's effort for what it was, a brazen and careless government

overreach.

There are some indications that the Justice Department rushed to try to target these reporters and obtain their phone records and compel them to

testify. This all took place over a period of just two days after President Trump was said to be very angry about the news reporting pointing to

security concerns about the new Qatari-gifted Air Force One.

So, it seems to me the president was embarrassed by the news reporting. He was mad about the leaks. He wanted to find out who inside his government

was contradicting him and undermining him. And as a result, there is a sprawling leak investigation going on by the Justice Department. But at

least for now, these New York Times reporters will not be compelled or challenged to testify under oath and cough up their sources.

The reporters, of course, would not have done that. So, it would have become quite a legal battle and could have stretched on for a while. But at

least for now, the New York Times proven victorious.

SCIUTTO: The investigation, though, is not dead, is it? Because there are other paths that the Justice Department is using to investigate these

leaks.

[18:30:00]

STELTER: Oh, yes. Absolutely. You know, we don't know exactly what those paths are. These leak investigations are usually shrouded in secrecy.

That's the way the government likes it. In this case, the New York Times worked really hard to push this out into public view, so we're seeing some

of it. But we don't know exactly how exhaustive that leak probe is.

CNN has reported that some officials of the White House were asked to turn in their phones as part of this probe. So, it is ongoing, and it points to

President Trump very personally wanting leakers rooted out of the government.

SCIUTTO: OK. Other story, and that is that the Paramount-WBD merger -- of course, WBD, our viewers may not know, is a parent company of CNN --

delayed another two weeks for an evidentiary hearing. Can you explain the significance here? Because it's a delay, which suits those attorneys

general who are challenging this, but also the Paramount lawyers had asked for this hearing, did they not?

STELTER: That's right. This just came in in the past few minutes, and it's another delay, keeping this deal, this mega-merger, in limbo involving

CNN's parent company. A federal judge says more time is needed to resolve all of the scheduling issues that are at play.

There are two lawsuits against the deal, one from Democratic state attorneys general in the U.S. in 12 states, and another from the Writers

Guild, saying that this merger will hurt writers in Hollywood. So, the judge is pairing up the cases. She's scheduled to hear arguments on August

3rd.

But Paramount wants to slow things down a little bit and wait until later in August and have a three-day hearing, a mini-trial, so that Paramount can

bring in its own evidence and bring in its own witnesses. The states might push back. We'll see what happens. But for now, a judge has ordered all the

parties involved to get together to figure out a schedule to do that in late August.

So, for now, the merger, again, delayed through August 17th. Frankly, Jim, Paramount was hoping to take control of CNN and the rest of Warner today or

tomorrow. So, this is on hold for about a month. In the grand scheme of things, it might not matter. But if a judge does put a preliminary

injunction in place, and that's what the states and the writers want, if she does do that in late August, that could delay the deal for many months

and actually call the entire deal into jeopardy. So, once again, more limbo for this mega-merger.

SCIUTTO: And raise the cost for Paramount, the ticking fees, et cetera. Brian Stelter, thanks so much.

STELTER: Yes. Thanks, Jim.

SCIUTTO: Coming up next, we take you inside NORAD to examine how U.S. and Canadian forces are still working together in the air, despite the insults,

the tariffs, and the politics on the ground.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[18:35:00]

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

The future of the nuclear agreement, signed between the U.S. and Saudi Arabia, very much in doubt, after President Trump placed an entirely new

condition on it. Trump now says the agreement is contingent on the Kingdom joining the Abraham Accords, which would require Saudi Arabia normalizing

diplomatic relations with Israel. Saudi's crown prince has said he is opposed to such a move unless and until there is a clear pathway to a

Palestinian State.

The Trump administration says that dozens of U.S. trading partners will face a new kind of tariff of up to 12.5 percent starting tomorrow. This, as

temporary levers, which he imposed after the Supreme Court beat him months ago, are set to expire on Friday. The White House appears to be using a

legal workaround with a law meant to punish forced labor. The Supreme Court struck down most of Trump's sweeping tariffs earlier this year.

Ukraine's former defense minister has rejected a new role offered to him by President Volodymyr Zelenskyy. Mykhailo Fedorov was fired by Zelenskyy this

month after clashing with top Ukrainian general Oleksandr Syrskyi. His ousting sparked protests across the country, which then pushed Zelenskyy to

fire Syrskyi and offer Fedorov a new job. Fedorov says he will not accept any position other than defense minister.

As President Trump escalates his trade and rhetorical war on Canada, I went to NORAD bases in Alaska, in Anchorage and Fairbanks, where U.S. and

Canadian pilots are joined at the hip in protecting both nations from threats and adversaries across the Northern Hemisphere.

So, how do they view the ongoing dispute between U.S. and Canadian leaders? We went there to file this exclusive report.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

SCIUTTO (voice-over): While the U.S. and Canada trade tariffs and insults on the ground --

DONALD TRUMP, U.S. PRESIDENT: What I'd like to see Canada become our 51st state.

MARK CARNEY, CANADIAN PRIME MINISTER: But Canada doesn't live because of the United States.

SCIUTTO (voice-over): In the air, they still fly side by side. NORAD, the North American Aerospace Defense Command, is the first line of defense for

both the U.S. and Canada against aircraft and missiles from Russia, China, North Korea and beyond.

SCIUTTO: Tell me how important and how that partnership works.

COL. MICHAEL MULLEN, FORMER DEPARTMENT COMMANDER, U.S. AIR FORCE 354TH FIGHTER WING: That partnership is fantastic, right? So, if you look at it

as we go to work in protecting the, really, Alaska, the Pacific region, really our Northern Hemisphere, you saw that map. Again, if you look down

the top of the world where the Arctic is and everything gets out there. So, we are working constantly together with our Canadian allies. We really

can't do this homeland defense piece for the Arctic region without our two nations working in collaboration with each other.

SCIUTTO (voice-over): Here, everything is a combined effort. Joint mission, joint commands and joint sorties, often scrambling to intercept

Russian and Chinese aircraft testing North American airspace. And those flybys can be close and dangerous, like this one involving a Russian

fighter jet in 2024.

LT. COL. NATHAN MONDUL, FORMER SQUADRON COMMANDER, U.S. AIR FORCE 18TH FIGHTER INTERCEPTOR SQUADRON: That was one of my pilots. I'd say that I

don't know who that Russian pilot was, but I'm sure that they probably got some talking to and they got back to their base. I would hope they did.

SCIUTTO: Eielson Air Force Base is first to respond to any air incursions by Russian or Chinese aircraft. And it's home not just to F-16s, but also

state-of-the-art F-35s.

SCIUTTO (voice-over): Inside NORAD's operations center, the wall is decorated with stars marking each intercept of a Russian or Chinese

aircraft. And that list is growing. Since January 2025, U.S. fighter aircraft have conducted some two dozen intercepts in the Alaska Air Defense

Identification Zone, where U.S. and Canadian fighters respond to any threats in the air.

SCIUTTO: What is the operation tempo up here lately?

BRIGADIER GEN. MARK LACHAPELLE, CANADIAN AIR FORCE: Yes, the operation tempo has been pretty heavy. I've lost count, to be frank and honest. But

we do it and it helps us demonstrate our ability to defend our theater and operate in the environment, which we know Alaska is challenging.

[18:40:00]

SCIUTTO (voice-over): It's a challenge U.S. and Canadian commanders still make clear they can only meet together.

LT. COL. JONATHAN BLENKUSH, ALASKA AIR NATIONAL GUARD: Absolutely essential here. Not just from Alaska being, you know, a lot of common

interests with Canada, but from a mission partner perspective, showing that combined effort in defense of the homeland of North America, keeping

integrated on that is absolutely essential for us.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

SCIUTTO (on camera): -- there from Eielson Air Force Base in Alaska.

Coming up next, a CNN exclusive report live from the South China Sea. We're going to look into escalating tensions between China and the Philippines.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

SCIUTTO: As global trade faces disruptions in the Persian Gulf due to the Iran war, another dispute is putting an even more crucial waterway at risk,

the South China Sea. The standoff between the Philippines and China is heating up. The flashpoint, a tiny atoll, 120 nautical miles, 220

kilometers, off the Philippine coast.

CNN's Ivan Watson was aboard a Philippine government vessel trying to reach Scarborough Shoal, surrounded by Chinese military vessels, the Fisherman

Militia, as it's called, and the Philippine Coast Guard. Ivan joins me now, live from the South China Sea, 25 nautical miles off the Scarborough Shoal.

So, Ivan, tell us what you witnessed there.

IVAN WATSON, CNN SENIOR INTERNATIONAL CORRESPONDENT: Right. So, dawn just broke about an hour ago. We're on this Bureau of Fisheries ship from the

Philippines, which is traveling basically in a convo. Boy, there are three other of these ships. And we're being shadowed by at least two China Coast

Guard vessels. And Dan can pan over to one of them right over here, as you can see.

And this is a rare view, Jim, of the kind of confrontations and the jockeying that is happening at sea pretty much on a daily basis between

China and the Philippines, which have a number of competing claims to some of these uninhabited rocks and shoals and atolls in the South China Sea,

many of which are far closer, if you look at a map, to the Philippine archipelago than they are to mainland China.

[18:45:00]

The Scarborough Shoal, the one that this ship is trying to approach, has effectively been under the control of the Chinese security forces, maritime

security forces, for years.

Despite that, the Philippines is not willing to give up its claim to that area. And what I'm witnessing right now is basically the Philippines,

Manila, trying to demonstrate that it can still come close to this disputed area. The disputes have been going on for decades.

China, without question, Jim, has more resources. It has the world's largest navy. It has an enormous fleet of Coast Guard ships and maritime

militia ships. It dwarfs the Philippines economically. And when we look at the other ships, and there's another China Coast Guard ship off to stern

over here, and I believe we can see more China Coast Guard ships in the distance in front of us, China, without question, has bigger boats.

But the Philippines, a much smaller power, has demonstrated for years now it is not willing to give up its claim to these areas to its much bigger

rival. We've been listening to the crews of the China Coast Guard vessels and the Philippine Bureau of Fisheries ships hailing each other back and

forth, with the Philippine crew saying, hey, we are in the Philippines' economic exclusion zone. It's about 200 nautical miles from the

Philippines. We're allowed to be here.

Meanwhile, China is responding, saying, you are in our waters. You are coming close to our island, the Scarborough Shoal, and neither side is

backing down. Twenty-four hours ago, the China Coast Guard ships fired water cannons at a ship very much like this in this area.

And we have witnessed confrontations in the past on board a Philippine Coast Guard ship, for example, in 2024 where water cannons were used. There

have been ramming that has taken place. The Philippines say lasers and sonic kind of weapons that have been used as well as the Chinese maritime

security forces are determined to keep Philippines ships out of areas that they've claimed for themselves.

So, in the end, you know, there are tensions here. Accidents can happen. There have been injuries. And governments like the U.S. have a mutual

defense treaty with the Philippines. So, if one of these Philippines ships is sunk, if sailors, if crew members are hurt, the U.S. could potentially

be called upon to defend the Philippines against China.

Why is China doing this? Well, there are good strategic reasons, Jim. China claims almost all of the South China Sea for itself. There are trillions of

dollars' worth of trade that move through this body of water. And there are untold riches beneath the seabed that could be drilled for in the future

potentially.

Meanwhile, for the Philippines, going to a place like the Scarborough Shoal is valuable simply for the fishing industry, which is a big part of the

Philippines industry. It employs more than two million people. And they say they should have access to these rich fishing areas. Jim.

SCIUTTO: Ivan, this is, of course, a phenomenon we've seen for years now. You think of the Spratly Islands and Chinese activities around there. How

has the U.S. reacted to these latest encounters between its treaty ally, the Philippines, and China around Scarborough Shoal?

WATSON: Right. Well, the U.S. government comes out with statements accusing China of destabilizing the area with some of its activities here.

On a past trip in 2024 towards the Spratlys with the Philippine Coast Guard, I saw a U.S. Navy ship operating in that vicinity. We haven't seen

that thus far here.

Right now, so far -- Dan, I'll ask you to pan over again. So far, we're seeing a number of China Coast Guard ships, and there's one that's been

shadowing us for some time now. We also believe that we've identified further off in the distance the gray hull of a People's Liberation Army

Navy ship. That's the Chinese Navy further off in the distance.

What does that demonstrate? There are large government ships operating in these waters in close vicinity with each other, and this is something that

happens day after day, week after week, a test of wills where two governments are unwilling to give up their claims.

[18:50:00]

And part of the suspicion on the part of the Philippines is that in the past, China, to stake their claims, have simply built man-made islands,

constructed them in rapid time in the Spratlys over some of these, what had been coral reefs and shoals, establishing facts in the water, so to speak.

And so, one of the fears stated by the Philippine government is that this shoal that this ship is trying to head towards, that China could

potentially try to just build a man-made island there and say, hey, look, it's ours, it's our island. And that's part of what is the competition

here, the power struggle at sea, which is potentially dangerous.

SCIUTTO: No question. And of course, those islands in the Spratlys, for instance, were later militarized by China. Ivan Watson and his team live

from the South China Sea, quite a remarkable report. And we'll be right back.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

SCIUTTO: Firefighters in Spain are battling one of the country's biggest wildfires ever. Dozens of villages in central Spain are facing mandatory

evacuations just days after a deadly blaze took hold in the southern part of the country. As CNN's Pau Mosquera reports, a new heat wave is now

making things worse.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

PAU MOSQUERA, CNN CORRESPONDENT (voice-over): Emergency sirens have become an all-too-familiar sound during Europe's summers. Increasingly frequent,

intense and prolonged heatwaves are making scenes like this more common across different parts of the continent.

In the commune of Saumos in southwestern France, a wildfire that broke out on Wednesday forced the evacuation of more than 10,000 people after burning

through 2,000 hectares of land. It's a nightmare that residents of the idyllic Italian island of Sicily have also experienced firsthand.

ANTONELLA DI FRANCO, SANTO STEFANO QUISQUINA RESIDENT (through translator): The flames were beating us against the walls. We felt helpless. We tried to

help each other using hoses and whatever we could find. No one was helping us, nobody. But we're alive. That's what matters. The important thing is

that we survived.

MOSQUERA (voice-over): Dozens of wildfires were reported across the island on Wednesday as temperatures were forecast to exceed 40 degrees Celsius.

In Spain, just days after the country's deadliest wildfire so far this century, which government officials say claimed the lives of 13 people,

another blaze is spreading rapidly through the province of Guadalajara.

[18:55:00]

DAVID PITA, CONDEMIOS DE ARRIBA RESIDENT (through translator): Well, it's very sad, very sad, very sad. It's a real shame. But as long as there are

no casualties, I suppose you could say things are going as well as they can.

MOSQUERA (voice-over): The fire has been burning since July 16th and has so far consumed more than 30,000 hectares, making the Guadalajara fire one

of the worst wildfires ever recorded in the country.

PEDRO SANCHEZ, SPANISH PRIME MINISTER (through translator): More than 100,000 hectares have been burned as a result of the wildlife or wildfires

across Spain. To put that into perspective, this the annual average that Spain experienced over the past decade.

MOSQUERA (voice-over): Authorities fear that threats like this could become more widespread before the end of the summer, as wildfire risk is

expected to remain high across Western Europe in the coming days.

Pau Mosquera, CNN, Madrid.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

SCIUTTO: We hope those firefighters can get things under control. 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