Return to Transcripts main page

The Brief with Jim Sciutto

CNN International: U.S. Missile Interceptor Stockpile; Iran Seeks Control of Strait of Hormuz Route in Oman Talks; Ukrainian Food Vendor Chased by Russian Drone; SpaceX Shares Falling in After-Hours Trading; Fighting to Block Trump's Tariffs; Senate Committee Advances Blanche Nomination as U.S. Atty. General; Mourners Honor Climbers Killed in Avalanche. Aired 6-7p ET

Aired August 04, 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 at this hour, sources tell me and my colleagues that the U.S. military has now used up nearly 80 percent of some key missile interceptors, mainly

during the war with Iran. A Ukrainian street vendor describes how he was chased by a Russian exploding drone, surviving what's been called a human

safari attack. And taking on tariffs. We're going to hear from Arizona's attorney general, who is among those trying to block the Trump

administration's attempts to bring tariffs back. That story and many more coming up.

We begin with the news. Multiple sources tell myself and colleagues, Zachary Cohen and Haley Britzky, that the U.S. military has now exhausted

almost 80 percent of its interceptors for the THAAD missile defense system and roughly half its interceptors for the Patriot system, all since the

start of the war with Iran. Commanders are warning that the munitions stockpiles are now dangerously low.

After ending the war, Qatar says its mediators, along with those from Oman and Pakistan, are now working to bring Iran and the U.S. back to the

negotiating table. Oil prices fell after the U.S. Treasury Secretary told CNBC a deal to reopen the Strait of Hormuz could happen today or tomorrow.

U.S. Secretary of State Marco Rubio was also cautiously optimistic about a deal.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

MARCO RUBIO, U.S. SECRETARY OF STATE: I think that there's a conversation and a negotiation that we are involved in between Oman and Iran on how more

ships can be able to go through there safely in the short term as we move towards these longer-term talks about denuclearization. And sufficing to

say there's been progress made in those talks, but not finality yet. We're hoping that will happen very shortly.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

SCIUTTO: The disclosure of the low missile inventory had not been previously reported. Pentagon Chief Pete Hegseth has just responded,

denying the reporting.

Stephen Collinson joins me now. Well, this is not the first time we've heard the administration say that a deal is just around the corner. In this

case, just for the focused issue of reopening the Strait of Hormuz. And it's not the first time we've heard the president say that, well, I stopped

the strikes because we're going to negotiate now. What's the evidence that this time is different?

STEPHEN COLLINSON, CNN POLITICS SENIOR REPORTER: There isn't much evidence. I think the one hopeful thing, if you're looking for a deal, is

that you're now seeing regional states getting into this a little bit more. The Saudis, for example, we understand, got in touch with the president

this weekend and asked him to hold off on these strikes. You see the Qataris involved again, the Omanis.

If there is ever a lasting solution on the Strait of Hormuz, it's probably going to end up being a regional compact to manage that with Iran. That

obviously is some way down the road. I don't really see if there's any reason to be optimistic that this supposed deal will be any more enduring,

perhaps, than the Memorandum of Understanding that didn't last very long, because there's no sign.

And even in these talks today, what's coming out of it, there's no sign that the Iranians are giving up what has been their major gain from this

war, which is their desire to control the Strait of Hormuz. And let's face it, we're almost to the end of the 60-day period, which was supposed to be

under the MOU, when we would solve everything, including Iran's nuclear program. We're still talking about the thing that was open, the Strait,

before the war started.

SCIUTTO: Yes, and it seems the agreements acknowledge at least some Iranian power over it, whether the U.S. would ever grant Iranian control.

You have a piece out saying that Donald Trump, if he were to find his way, or unless he finds his way out of his box in Iran, that this may be a

presidency-defining error, this war. But you also say that he has at least avoided a greater escalation.

COLLINSON: Right. And I think he's been very loath to go further than his self-inflicted ceilings on the military action that he's prepared to take.

[18:05:00]

He's gone after mostly military targets in Iran, even during the most intense bombing earlier in the war. He hasn't gone after those civilian

targets, energy targets. He hasn't put troops in the ground. You know, a few weeks ago or months ago, everyone was talking about will Trump try and

invade Hague Island, the big oil-exporting hub that is very important to Iran's economy. He hasn't gone there because there's a long history, I

think, of American presidents getting down slippery slopes of mission creep into wars they can't get out of.

When you -- waging an air war is one thing. When you have troops on the ground and troops die, that tends to lead you into more protracted

conflicts because you have to justify the sacrifice you're making, and it makes it even harder to get out of a difficult war. So, that's one reason.

But your reporting today on the missile interceptors, what we've seen in the markets this week, I think is another reason for Trump's caution. Does

he have the ability, for example, to protect American forces, to protect allies now in the Gulf if he does escalate? And you see Iranian responses.

SCIUTTO: And frankly, beyond the Gulf --

COLLINSON: Right.

SCIUTTO: whether that be in Ukraine, in Europe, or in Asia. Stephen Collinson, good to have you.

COLLINSON: Thanks.

SCIUTTO: For more now, joining us, Democratic Congressman Suhas Subramanyam. He's a member of the House Oversight Committee. Congressman,

thanks so much for taking the time.

REP. SUHAS SUBRAMANYAM (D-VA): Thank you.

SCIUTTO: So, I want to begin with the Iran war. Do you have any confidence in the president saying, well, now we're going to make a deal?

SUBRAMANYAM: Absolutely not. I mean, it's been at least 35 times by my count that the president has said we're going to have a deal. And he's

trying to bomb his way out of this. He's trying to scare the other side out of this. And the reality is the president has gotten himself into a huge

mess. This was a war of choice that he started that he didn't need to start.

This is what happens when you send your son-in-law to go negotiate a peace. This is what happens when you refuse the judgment of military leaders and

people who know the region really well. And he was warned about this. But in the end, we're depleting our missile stockpile. We're depleting our

defenses. We are spending billions of dollars every week in this war. And there's no end in sight.

SCIUTTO: Given those shortages, as we reported just a short time ago, has that left the U.S. vulnerable in other areas of responsibility, whether

that be in Europe or Asia?

SUBRAMANYAM: Absolutely. I mean, our allies around the world are deeply concerned. Our adversaries are licking their chops. They're looking at what

they can do now that we are more vulnerable than we were at the beginning of this war. It's a huge mess, and it's going to lead to more conflicts.

And so, we need to figure out a way out of this war and into it.

He should have come -- President Trump should have come to Congress from the very beginning to authorize this war. This is an illegal war. And

legally and factually, this is way past the 60-day mark where he needed to get approval from Congress. And so, there's no buy-in from the American

people. There's no buy-in from Congress. And the president has created a huge mess.

SCIUTTO: You and your colleagues sent a letter to the defense secretary, Pete Hegseth, alleging -- well, messing with casualty figures. As you know,

the Defense Department has claimed that this was just a clerical error or administrative changes. But you allege something more serious, that

casualty reporting may have been changed to support the administration's legal position under the War Powers Act. What specifically makes you

believe that?

SUBRAMANYAM: That's exactly right, because they said there was 14 casualties. They left four out at first. Then they said it was 18, and they

moved it back to 14. And they said the other four are part of casualties of a new war. And so, to legally justify this illegal war, they basically had

to separate this into two separate wars and say that the president's ceasefire in the middle marked the end of this first war.

So, the second war only has four casualties. And this is a way to cover up for the president's failures. It's a way to save face. And it's lying to

the American people. And so, we have questions about how they could justify this. And we want to know the truth about everything that's going on, not

just the service members who died, which is horrible, and their families deserve better, but also those who have been injured, seriously injured. A

lot of those numbers may have been underreported as well. And so, there's a lack of trust in this administration.

SCIUTTO: Does that dishonor the service and sacrifice of members of the U.S. military?

SUBRAMANYAM: Absolutely. The actions of this president to underreport casualties, underreport injuries, is an absolute dishonor to the military

families and to those who serve our country.

[18:10:00]

They deserve so much better than the way this president has talked about them and treated them, and the way this president has started this war of

choice that was never needed in the first place. And so, the American public doesn't trust them, and neither should service members.

SCIUTTO: Another question your letter specifically raises is that if you do not get answers to your questions about the tallying of war casualties

by August 18th, which is just weeks away, what happens at that point, and do you have confidence that they will answer by then?

SUBRAMANYAM: We are going to continue to push war powers resolution votes. They are important, even if the president is going to veto them, because it

shows that Congress doesn't approve of this war either. It signifies that this war is illegal in the first place. So, we're going to continue to push

that.

And then we're going to continue, at least on my side of the aisle, to vote against any funding for this war at this point. And we vote against it

consistently, and then if there's a Democratic majority next year, we're going to bring a swift end to this war.

SCIUTTO: The trouble is, though, let's say you win the House. You know, let's say even at the outside, Democrats win the Senate. You need a lot of

votes, right, to overrule the president, because presumably, you know, the president would veto any such measure. Why should folks watching this

believe that even with success in the midterms, that Congress can actually limit the president's war powers here?

SUBRAMANYAM: We may not be able to successfully override a veto, but we can prevent more funding to go towards this war. Certainly, we will do what

we can to make sure that we are safe, that our country is safe, that our allies are safe, and replenish any stockpiles, but we will not support this

war at any point anymore. And Republicans have rubber-stamped it from the very beginning, and that's why they will have a reckoning this November.

SCIUTTO: Congressman Suhas Subramanyam, we appreciate you joining the program again.

SUBRAMANYAM: Thank you.

SCIUTTO: Well, in a stark reminder of just how quickly entire regions can be dragged into conflict, the top Iranian military adviser, Mohsen Rezaee,

says the country was recently ready to strike three sites in Ukraine. Iran had accused Ukraine of attacking one of its commercial cargo vessels in

late July, or something they described as a commercial cargo vessel. It happened in the Caspian Sea. Iran says one sailor died, three others were

hurt.

Rezaee said Iran halted its response after Ukraine said it was a mistake. He said publicly it conducted drone strikes on Russian vessels carrying

military cargo. But even if it was a mistake, Rezaee says they're still expecting compensation.

Well, from day one of its invasion, Russia's war on Ukraine has deliberately targeted and killed civilians. It's unleashed missiles,

drones, cluster weapons on cities, taken Ukrainian children into Russia, and conducted mass killings. It's also allegedly used rape as a weapon.

Now, Russia is reporting that its civilians are coming under fire. According to Russian officials, Ukrainian strikes killed at least 61 people

and wounded more than 300 others last week. Per Ukraine, Russian attacks killed at least 377 civilians and injured more than 2,100 in July. It was

the deadliest month for Ukrainian civilians since April 2022. Russian leader Vladimir Putin's war of choice has turned into a tragedy for

families grieving loved ones on both sides of the border.

Our Clare Sebastian has more.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

CLARE SEBASTIAN, CNN CORRESPONDENT (voice-over): At first, it looks like a game. The man, a vegetable seller, tries to duck behind his van, the drone

whining ever closer. But this, Ukraine says, is how Russia likes to spread fear in the frontline City of Kherson.

Unbelievably, the 52-year-old victim survived with injuries and hours later was able to recount his experience.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE (through translator): My wife started running away and it started circling over the car. I gestured to her, look, these are

vegetables. It started charging at me. So, I started running around the car. Then we were side by side. It hit me and I just fell. My back is all

torn.

SEBASTIAN (voice-over): CNN has reached out to the Russian Ministry of Defense for comment. Moscow regularly claims it doesn't target civilians.

Three and a half years on from these euphoric scenes as Kherson was liberated from Russian occupation. Daily life in Ukraine's largest

frontline city is increasingly dangerous. Of the 32 civilians killed here in July, 29 died in drone attacks, authorities say.

[18:15:00]

This from late July shows a near miss. Anti-drone nets covering streets, now the new normal here.

And so-called human safaris, Russian drones seeming to hunt down civilians in the open, a tactic first used at scale in mid-2024, are happening now on

a daily basis here, President Zelenskyy said Tuesday. This a lucky escape in a war where civilians are paying an ever-higher price.

Clare Sebastian, CNN, London.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

SCIUTTO: Ukraine is now accusing Russia of a war crime over this incident, and in Russia on Monday, debris from a Ukrainian drone fell onto a crowded

Black Sea beach, killing at least seven people.

Joining me now, former Executive Director of Human Rights Watch, Kenneth Roth. Good to have you, Kenneth. Thanks so much for taking the time.

KENNETH ROTH, FORMER EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, HUMAN RIGHTS WATCH AND SENIOR FELLOW, YALE UNIVERSITY: Great to be with you.

SCIUTTO: The U.N. says June was the deadliest month for civilians in Ukraine since 2022. Nearly 2,000 civilians injured, hundreds killed. This,

of course, taking place as Russia amps up its missile attacks and as Ukraine runs short of crucial air defense missiles. Is that the key reason

for this uptick in civilian casualties?

ROTH: Well, I think the Russian military is very frustrated because, you know, this is traditionally at the time of the summer offensive, and it has

made virtually no progress along the front. The Ukrainians have really mastered drone warfare. They are ahead of the Russians. And, so in

frustration, Putin seems to be just launching missiles at Ukrainian cities. You know, these are blatant war crimes. The laws of war allow you to shoot

at combatants, not at civilians.

And so, this is an effort, I suppose, to try to break the wheel of the Ukrainian people by just killing civilians. There's no evidence that it

will work, and it clearly is legally unjustified.

SCIUTTO: Of course, Russia has claimed since the beginning of its full- scale invasion that it is targeting military sites, et cetera. I mean, every day we see evidence that contradicts that. Apartment buildings,

hospitals. Well, this human safari phenomenon, which is just shocking.

Is there any evidence that Russia will be held accountable? Because I know there are groups in Ukraine that are quite deliberately gathering evidence

for potential future war crimes trials. But as you know, the history of prosecuting perpetrators for war crimes is at best mixed.

ROTH: Well, I think it's important to recognize that the International Criminal Court has already charged four Russian military commanders for

targeting Ukrainian civilian infrastructure. They also have charged Putin himself for kidnapping Ukrainian children. And so, this is a step in the

right direction. There clearly are efforts underway in national courts in Europe using universal jurisdiction to prosecute people who are responsible

for these war crimes. And as you mentioned, Ukrainian authorities as well are making these cases.

Now, it's obviously one thing to file a charge. It's another thing to bring the perpetrator to justice. But it's very difficult to ensure impunity for

life. You know, Putin is unlikely to be president for life. And there are plenty of historical examples where, you know, somebody thought that they

were home free, somebody like Slobodan Milosevic, the former Serbian president who committed war crimes in Bosnia, thought nobody would touch

him. But the government changed. The new government wanted to get rid of sanctions, show that it was reforming. And they handed Milosevic over to

The Hague, where he died on trial.

So, it's very difficult to avoid prosecution forever. And that's, I think, what, you know, Russian military commanders now have to worry about.

SCIUTTO: Russia is now accusing Ukraine of targeting Russian civilians. You followed the progress of this war very closely. Is there any evidence

to back that up?

ROTH: I mean, there's nothing like -- this video you just showed of a Russian drone operator deliberately trying to target a Ukrainian street

vendor in Kherson. I mean, that kind of stuff takes place all the time, that human target practice. Those are blatant war crimes.

But the flip side, you know, there now has been a video emerging showing a Ukrainian drone landing on a Russian Black Sea beach, which hit a whole

bunch of civilians around sunbathing. And, you know, a number of civilians were killed there. I don't think there's any evidence we have that that was

deliberate targeting.

If you listen carefully to the video, there's a bunch of gunfire before the drone hits the ground. Apparently, Russian anti-aircraft fires on the drone

and forces it to crash. So, I don't take that as evidence of deliberate targeting on the Ukrainian part of civilians.

Now, you know, most of the Ukrainian drone attacks are aiming at oil facilities, at other sources of revenue for the Russian military.

[18:20:00]

In the last, you know, week or so, Ukraine has also been targeting so- called Wildberries warehouses. And Wildberries are kind of the equivalent of Amazon.

Now, these seem like civilian structures. They seem like they'd be inappropriate targets, but Ukraine says no, they actually are also being

used to distribute military equipment. So, you know, that's a factual assertion that needs to be proved.

SCIUTTO: And we should note, CNN's own analysis of that drone strike in Russia corroborated what you said, that there was gunfire and that the

Ukrainian drone veered off course after it was apparently struck by such fire. Ken Roth, it's always good to have you on.

ROTH: Thank you.

SCIUTTO: Still ahead, SpaceX shares plunge back to earth after the company's high-profile IPO. Can a new profit report turn things around?

We're going to dive into the latest numbers.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

SCIUTTO: Welcome back. In today's Business Breakout, another record day on Wall Street. The Dow and S&P closed at record highs thanks to market-

friendly earnings reports and a sharp drop in oil prices. Both Brent and U.S. crude fell more than 5 percent to under $80 a barrel on hopes, yet

again, that new diplomacy will finally reopen the Strait of Hormuz. We'll see.

Elon Musk's SpaceX is out with its first quarterly earnings report since going public. The company reported a better-than-expected 92 percent jump

in revenues compared to last year, but it lost more than $540 million. And it is burning through cash, with CapEx spending up by greater-than-expected

$18.5 billion. That is helping pressure SpaceX shares after hours. Shares currently down, as you see there, more than 7 percent.

And shares have fallen sharply since the IPO in June. They face further challenges later this week when lock-up expirations end and insiders will

get their first chance to sell their shares.

Joining me now is Ross Gerber, president and CEO of Gerber Kawasaki Wealth & Investment Management. We should note he and his firm hold shares in

SpaceX. Ross, good to have you back.

ROSS GERBER, PRESIDENT AND CEO GERBER KAWASAKI WEALTH AND INVESTMENT MANAGEMENT: Yes, thanks for having me.

SCIUTTO: So, what was your read of these earnings here and the capital spending? Does it give you any pause about SpaceX going forward?

GERBER: No, no, it's the exact opposite. I mean, when you're investing in SpaceX, you have to understand that they're investing all this capital that

they've raised for the future and for growth. And their three core businesses are excellent businesses. And so, it's really just about

accepting what investing is.

[18:25:00]

There seems to be this really negative connotation to businesses investing in CapEx that has very high returns. But you have to just be patient. And

that's how it is when you build factories or data centers or spaceships. You make a big investment up front to then make revenue and income over the

long-term. And that's the stage we're in now. We're in the investment stage. So, they're doing everything that they can, and I think they're

executing quite well.

SCIUTTO: Yes, I mean, we used to give companies grief for just buying shares back with their money. Now, to be fair --

GERBER: Right. I mean, that's the other option, right?

SCIUTTO: So much investment in SpaceX, of course, is a bet on Elon Musk and his endeavors, not just in space, but, you know, in A.I., et cetera.

Given how much he controls, right, of three major listed companies, does that ever worry you, you know, in terms of your investment, that his focus

isn't on building the business enough? Are you confident in the structure and his leadership?

GERBER: Well, I think I've well long been one of the critical people on Elon Musk's distractions and really how it's affected Tesla more than

SpaceX. You know, I would argue that SpaceX has extremely good management and does not need Elon. Remember, Elon spent a lot of time over the last 10

years at Tesla. And Gwynne has just done a phenomenal job managing the business.

So, Elon does a lot less. He's a very visible member of SpaceX, but he does a lot less than what people perceive. And the team at SpaceX is excellent

and they're executing well. So, I think that they're in pretty good shape. It's more that Tesla needs Elon more than SpaceX does. And so that's, I

think, the bigger issue is that Tesla is struggling while SpaceX is executing quite well.

SCIUTTO: Where do you stand on A.I. and the enormous premiums on A.I.- related stocks? Also, with questions about how much money they're pouring in and are they going to get return for all that investment in A.I. data

centers, et cetera? Do you see a frothiness to that end of the market?

GERBER: You know, I'm not sure why everybody says there's this huge bubble in A.I. when NVIDIA trades at 15 times its forward earnings, Micron chains

at five times. I have never seen stocks so cheap with so much opportunity. Google trades at 27 times, Microsoft 25 times earnings, and they're

crushing it and they're growing and they have a monopoly on the most important technology that's been created in the last 30 years, if ever.

And so, you know, there's no bubble. In fact, there's this massive opportunity for people to invest. I highly recommend that you invest your

money. And I think most Americans could benefit greatly by investing in the great innovation that our country has. It's like the one thing we do so

well.

So, you know, I grew up in the dot-com era where we had stocks trading at absurd valuations with no business models at all. But if you're going to

tell me Google is trading at some crazy valuation at 25 times earnings while they have Waymo, Gemini, and YouTube, I'm like, I'm sorry, these are

opportunities for investors. And that's why I think it's so important to work with a financial advisor like myself or whatever. What's appropriate

for you or at risk you're comfortable taking, but this is a time to be investing if you're an American. No question in my mind.

SCIUTTO: I know I always bring this up, this example, and not to beat down on pets.com, but yes, they're not pets.com. Ross Gerber, thanks so much, as

always, for joining.

GERBER: Thanks for having me.

SCIUTTO: Checking some of today's other business headlines now. Another setback for the pending merger of Paramount, Skydance, and Warner Bros.

Discovery, which is the parent company of CNN. The judge hearing the legal challenge to the merger has now set a trial date of March 2, 2027.

Paramount wanted the trial to start in November. It had originally hoped to complete the deal this summer.

Saudi Aramco is reporting a 33 percent rise in profits in its latest earnings report. The world's largest oil exporter benefiting from the sharp

rise in energy prices during the Iran war. It says the world has lost more than 2.5 billion gallons of oil since the start of the conflict and warns

it will take 18 months to rebuild depleted inventories if and when the war ends.

McDonald's is reporting its slowest quarterly growth in a year. The fast- food chain says U.S. sales rose less than 1 percent in the second quarter. It is blaming the weak results on a more cautious consumer as well as World

Cup promotions that led to less efficient service.

Coming up on "The Brief," more than two dozen U.S. states challenging President Trump's latest tariffs on 60 countries. The attorney general of

Arizona, one of those joining the case, will join me live.

(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.

Multiple sources tell myself and my colleagues that the U.S. military has now burned through nearly 80 percent of its key missile interceptors. Two

sources say that during the war with Iran, the U.S. has fired nearly four- fifths of its THAAD missile inventory, and roughly half of its Patriot interceptors. In the last hour, Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth denied the

story.

A man has been arrested and charged with first-degree arson in connection to one of the wildfires blazing in Spokane, Washington. This as

firefighters continue battling three fires which started on Saturday. A state official says 17 major fires have burned more than 260,000 acres in

Spokane County. Nearly 65,000 people have been forced to flee their homes. A Washington National Guardsman says the areas hit by fires look like a war

zone.

Five states are holding primaries to determine which candidates will be on the ballot in November. The most closely watched race is in Michigan, where

two factions of the Democratic Party are presenting starkly different visions. Moderate establishment Congresswoman Haley Stevens is battling

progressive Abdul El-Sayed to be the party's Senate nominee. Support for Israel has been a big issue in the race, with pro-Israel groups spending

tens of millions of dollars to boost Stevens and prevent El-Sayed from winning the nomination.

President Trump's former lawyer Todd Blanche has cleared a major hurdle toward becoming the next U.S. attorney general. The Senate Judiciary

Committee voted to send his nomination to the full Senate. Blanche won the backing of two Republican holdouts by rescinding the so-called Anti-

Weaponization Fund. That $1.8 billion fund could have used taxpayer dollars to pay allies of the president. Blanche now needs the vote of nearly every

Senate Republican to be confirmed as head of the Justice Department.

President Trump's tariffs on more than 60 trading partners are now facing a major legal challenge.

[18:35:00]

A group of 25 states, along with Democratic governors or attorneys general, are suing to overturn these latest tariffs. They say the administration is

once again exceeding its authority, and they've asked the U.S. Court of International Trade for relief. That lawsuit is the latest to take aim at

what is the president's signature trade policy.

He announced his first tariffs with great fanfare in 2025. They were imposed under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act, struck down

by the Supreme Court. The administration then moved on and imposed temporary 10 percent global tariffs, these based on Section 122 of the

Trade Act of 1974. Those expired last month. The president is imposing the latest tariffs under Section 301 of the same law. The U.S. says the tariffs

are in response to countries who fail to crack down on trade of goods made by forced labor.

Joining us now is Kris Mayes, attorney general of Arizona, co-leader of the state's new lawsuit. Thanks so much for joining.

KRIS MAYES, ARIZONA ATTORNEY GENERAL: You bet, Jim. Good to be with you.

SCIUTTO: All right. Let's begin with the basis of the legal challenge. Your suit argues these tariffs violate the Administrative Procedure Act,

which requires agencies to make evidence-based decisions. In layman's terms, can you explain the legal argument here?

MAYES: Sure. So, basically, what has happened is that the Trump administration is attempting to reimpose tariffs on the American people

that are illegal. And, you know, under Section 301, Congress said that if a president is to impose these tariffs, then they have to do a number of

things procedurally, including prove that the tariffs are necessary to address the issue that they're supposed to address.

And in this case, the Trump administration rushed the studies. They're imposing tariffs on 80 countries, basically almost all of our imports,

almost all of our trade with the rest of the world. And obviously they didn't do those necessary studies. They're doing it unlawfully yet again.

And this is having a huge and terrible impact on our economies as states.

SCIUTTO: As you noted, and as we noted in the introduction, this is the third time the president has opposed tariffs under three different

authorities. He's lost on the first two, so now he's launched under a new authority. I just wonder, as he claims a different justification for these

tariffs, does that undermine the administration's claimed legal justification? In other words, the courts, as they're considering this, do

they look back and say, well, you said this was the reason, now you're saying this was the reason, or is the law written in such a way that, well,

it grants the president this leeway?

MAYES: Well, you're making exactly the point that we are making in our lawsuit, which is that this is just a pretext. They knew that once the

tariffs were struck down under IEPA, by the way, the Supreme Court struck those down. And again, Section 122, they said out loud, they said the quiet

part out loud that, hey, we're going to do it under Section 301. So, it was an absolute pretext.

They wanted to impose these tariffs, which are taxes on the American people, on the people of Arizona, who I represent. This is a $1,500 a year

tax on the people of my state that is wreaking havoc with our small businesses. We have hundreds and hundreds of small businesses on the verge

of bankruptcy because of these tariffs. And they've done it illegally.

So, we're going to -- we've obviously are taking them back to the Court of International Trade, and we'll take it all the way to the Supreme Court if

we have to.

SCIUTTO: Can you give a sense of the timeline here? Because there's some cynicism, right, in these exercises of terror power and that the court

process could take so long that while it is going on, you know, the tariffs are in place, these countries are paying the tariffs and the U.S. is trying

to negotiate trade agreements with those tariffs as, in effect, leverage as a cudgel. How long is it going to take to get a decision on this?

MAYES: Well, it's a great point. And that's why we are going to, you know, really prosecute this case with urgency. We're going we're asking the Court

of International Trade to do an injunction to give us a stay to put a stay, essentially, on these tariffs. We want to get this done as quickly as

possible. Hopefully over the next, I would say, few months at the most to try to get a stay in place.

[18:40:00]

Because this is having such a terrible impact on our economy, it's driving up costs for Arizonans, for all Americans, at a time when they absolutely

can't afford it, the cost of gas is already up. So, we're going to prosecute the case as fast as we possibly can.

You know, and it's just absolutely crazy, the Trump administration right now is having to refund people the tariffs that were illegal under IEPA,

just as they're trying to reimpose these tariffs.

SCIUTTO: I want to ask you as well about another case that you're a part of, and this is the challenge to Paramount Skydance's acquisition of Warner

Bros. Discovery, which I should note is the parent company of CNN. As you know, the judge has just set a March 27th trial date for next year. Can I

ask your reaction to that decision and where this case goes from here?

MAYES: Well, look, we are looking forward to getting into court and really making the case here that this merger would drive up costs on the American

people. It would cause a situation in which, you know, movie theaters, for instance, which are an important part of many states' economies, could be

threatened. It will drive up cable costs. It will drive up streaming costs. And it will drive up and it will cause a loss of competition in the media

space generally. It's a terrible idea.

And it's another example of corporate consolidation that will hurt the American consumer. And that is why we think it's so important to stop this

merger. And we're going to do everything we can to stop it.

SCIUTTO: I want to ask you a question that Rob Bonta, California attorney general, has also been asked. And he's also, of course, a party to this

suit. Is there any consideration from the state attorney's general side that if CNN were to be sold out of the merger, in effect, that that would

be the end of your case? In other words, that would satisfy what you're pursuing here. What's your response to that question?

MAYES: You know, I'm not going to make a statement on that. I mean, that's certainly something that is way down the road. And this is a bigger case

than just CNN. That's an important part of it, obviously. But this case is about consumers, really, first and foremost, and the fact that we think

this merger will drive up costs for Americans. And that is our bottom line. That has to be addressed.

And I think that our lawsuit proves that this would be bad for consumers, bad for our economy, and therefore it violates our antitrust laws.

SCIUTTO: Arizona Attorney General Kris Mayes, we appreciate you joining the program.

MAYES: Thank you so much. Thanks for having me.

SCIUTTO: Well, coming up next on "The Brief," people gather to honor the climbers killed in last week's devastating avalanche in Pakistan. My

conversation with a friend of several of those involved right after the break.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[18:45:00]

SCIUTTO: Many gathered in Nepal's capital for a candlelight vigil, honoring the 10 mountaineers who were killed last week in Pakistan. Nirmal

Purja, known as Nims, and his fellow climbers, were killed when an avalanche struck their expedition on Broad Peak. Purja had become famous

for climbing the world's 14 highest peaks in a record six months back in 2019.

I spoke with mountaineer, Shehroze Kashif, after our conversation was interrupted by technical problems yesterday. I asked him what this tragedy

meant to the climbing community.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

SHEHROZE KASHIF, MOUNTAINEER: I consider this day as the darkest day in the history of mountaineering. For sure, we lost a legend. A person who

have climbed all the 14 peaks and set a legacy of nothing is impossible. Part of that, one of my really good friends, Sohail, and Nadhira, and even

Gelu.

Gelu was a really, really great friend of mine. Me and Gelu have climbed Kanchenjunga together. And, in fact, me and Gelu just met two months ago.

And we were making this -- we are making a lot of fun and having fun on Everest Space Camp. It's really hard to believe that he's no more.

SCIUTTO: I'm sure you, yourself, have climbed Broad Peak before. You've described it, and others have described it, as one of the more

approachable, more climbable 8,000-meter peaks in this area here. Do you have any sense of what the conditions were like the day of the avalanche?

Were they unusual? Was there something unexpected?

KASHIF: I think sometimes it's just meant to be happen because avalanches are something which comes in a really unexpected manner. We are not

expecting some kind of avalanches, and they appear. And it's always a big disaster after that.

So, you know, it's -- we are never sure about this, when the avalanche is going to hit us or not. But crossing the avalanche area, we have our

precautions that we don't rest in this kind of areas. We cross them really quick. And, you know, this kind of precautions we take before crossing an

avalanche area. But we are never sure when it's going to come.

SCIUTTO: You've had your own harrowing experience on the mountain when you were climbing Nanga Parbat, known as the Killer Mountain. You spent 28

hours stranded during the descent. Can you describe what it's like to be in danger in those already deeply, deeply difficult conditions?

KASHIF: I think when you know when you're about to die, you're already dead. But, you know, as Nim said, the giving up is not in the blood, sir.

And that's what we did. We escaped the death and came alive to the base camp.

It was -- we were all stranded that time. And for a moment, I just lost all the hope of living. But, you know, suddenly I just saw my partner, he was

shouting that, God, please just send some angels to protect us. And then, you know, suddenly I woke up and I was like, now I know the way where is

that. So, my partner was kind of confused that, am I that angel?

SCIUTTO: Yes.

KASHIF: But, you know, once you're stuck there, it's really panicking situation. I was hallucinating that time. At night, it was super cold and

we were super stranded. And I used to see people that they were calling me to sit in the helicopter.

And the moment I go for it, it was nothing and just an empty valley. And my partner used to hold my hand. And same like with my partner, he used to

talk with his daughter. And he used to, you know, talk in the local language. And he used to think I'm the daughter.

[18:50:00]

SCIUTTO: A small sign is sparking a big debate on one of America's most picturesque islands. In Nantucket, Massachusetts, one shop's No Influencers

message has gone viral. But the owner says it's less about excluding people and more about setting some lighthearted boundaries. Ivana Scatola has the

story.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

IVANA SCATOLA, CNN PRODUCER: This sign has the internet divided.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: It's time we talk about the infamous, no influencer sign at the store in Nantucket.

SCATOLA: It hangs in Four Winds Craft Guild, which is a long-established shop specializing in antique and traditionally handcrafted baskets. It's in

Nantucket, which is a popular summer vacation island 30 miles south of Cape Cod.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: What happened to humor? Like it's just like a little bit like a bit like local like humor. Like, it's just funny.

SCATOLA: John Sylvia's family owns the store and he told CNN that it was just a light-hearted way to set boundaries. Nothing more.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: What actually is an influencer in 2026? This sign isn't describing a behavior, it's labelling a group of people.

SCATOLA: It all started when influencer Paige Paul called the store out on Instagram and some of the discourse that's followed has called the sign

anti-successful women. Others have pointed out that the sign is basically a modern version of a no-photos or no-filming sign.

Legally, private businesses can generally refuse service to some customers, but can't discriminate based on factors such as race, religion, sex or

national origin. The onus of the sign wasn't directed at any group or individual, certainly not women.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

SCIUTTO: Little sign causing a lot of trouble.

[18:55:00]

And in tonight's Good Brief, a lucky escape in Florida, where a small plane made a daring landing on a highway. Just 30 minutes into the flight, the

pilots noticed the engine was losing power, it became clear they could not make it to the nearest airport.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: We are not making it to the airport, we're going down on I-10. Just to let you know, we are lined up with I-10, trying to avoid

the cars.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

SCIUTTO: Wow. I mean, not just on the road, but under that traffic sign. Thankfully, no one was injured.

And 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