Return to Transcripts main page
What We Know with Max Foster
Zelenskyy Meets With Trump At White House; Trump To Meet Putin In Hungary To Discuss Ukraine; Fragile Ceasefire Agreement Between Israel & Hamas Intact; Trump Critic Bolton Pleads Not Guilty At His Arraignment; Prince Andrew To Give Up Using Some Of His Royal Titles. Aired 3-4p ET
Aired October 17, 2025 - 15:00 ET
THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.
[15:00:28]
MAX FOSTER, CNN INTERNATIONAL HOST: Donald Trump stopped short of committing Tomahawk missiles to Ukraine's war efforts.
This is WHAT WE KNOW.
At the White House this hour, U.S. President Donald Trump is meeting with Ukrainian counterpart Volodymyr Zelensky in what could be a game changer in
his efforts to bring an end to Russia's war on Ukraine. President Trump says he'll discuss the possibility of sending long range Tomahawk missiles
to Ukraine with Mr. Zelensky. But as he points out, it's not a request he takes lightly.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
DONALD TRUMP, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: We need Tomahawks and we need a lot of other weapons that we're sending to Ukraine. One of the reasons we
want to get this war over is exactly that. It's not easy for us to give. You're talking about massive numbers of very powerful weapons. So that's
one of the things we'll be talking about. Hopefully, they won't need it. Hopefully, we'll be able to get the war over with without thinking about
Tomahawk.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
FOSTER: President Zelensky says Ukraine wants peace, something Russian president Vladimir Putin does not want. He says a ceasefire is the first
step towards ending the fighting and helping Ukrainians feel safe again.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
VOLODYMYR ZELENSKYY, UKRAINIAN PRESIDENT: The most important thing, the most important thing for people in Ukraine, which are under each days
attacks to have really strong security guarantees. NATO is the best, but weapon is very important. Allies on our side is very important. And between
us, for us, bilateral security guarantees between me and President Trump is very important.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
FOSTER: CNN chief international security correspondent Nick Paton Walsh is in London, but I want to start with our Kevin Liptak. He's at the White
House.
It really comes down to this debate about Tomahawks, doesn't it, Kevin? Zelensky wants them. It would be seen as an escalation by Putin, but also a
very clear message to Putin.
KEVIN LIPTAK, CNN SENIOR WHITE HOUSE REPORTER: Yeah. And you could almost hear over the course of that meeting, the Tomahawks essentially slipping
through Zelenskyy's fingers. You know, I think he came to Washington of the belief that the president was warming to this idea of providing Ukraine
with this new capability. And behind the scenes, officials have told us that the president had sounded more and more willing to allow Ukraine to
obtain these long-range missiles. They have 100-mile range or 1,000-mile range, would easily put Moscow into Ukraine's targets.
But it was very evident, I think, as President Trump was speaking, that those Tomahawks are not going to be headed to Ukraine at least any time
soon, at least in the near term, and certainly not before President Trump meets with Vladimir Putin in Budapest, which we don't have a date for that
meeting yet. But it was clear that the president doesn't think that this should happen at least before he's going to sit down with Putin and discuss
all of this.
So that was, I think, an interesting moment and probably the biggest takeaway from this meeting, which I should note is still going on right
behind this wall as these two men sort of discuss in private. Zelenskyy's needs for regaining some of the momentum on the battlefield. And, you know,
I think President Trump, in the public part of this meeting did seem willing to hear out what Zelenskyy wanted, eager to hear some of the
dynamics that are occurring on the ground there.
But he did point out that these Tomahawks are not in limitless supply, that the U.S. will need them potentially for any future conflict with Russia or
with China. And, you know, it's not inaccurate to say that the U.S. industrial complex hasn't necessarily kept up with some of what the U.S.
has been providing Ukraine over the course of this war for the last several years.
So, I think that was sort of the notable takeaway. There was a moment, though, when the president did seem to allow that Putin could be stringing
him along here. He was asked if he was concerned that Putin was just sort of angling for more time to complete his war aims, aims, and the president
said, yes, I am, but that I've been played all my life by the best of them, and that he's come out on top in the end.
So, the president, acknowledging that this could be a play for time by Putin, but still sort of going ahead with this attempt at diplomacy that
he's brokered with Putin in Budapest coming up in the next few weeks.
FOSTER: Kevin, thank you.
Nick, it doesn't feel as though this is going to be the big game changing meeting for the -- for what's happening on the ground at the moment.
NICK PATON WALSH, CNN CHIEF INTERNATIONAL SECURITY CORRESPONDENT: Yeah, look, I mean, ultimately, I think the idea that this meeting was suddenly
going to result in a shipment of Tomahawks arriving in Ukraine was a was a little bit of a stretch even before this happened. It would take months to
put them in place. Tomahawks are mostly sea launched, and we've been hearing, you know, the idea that Trump originally positive of thousands of
Tomahawks. He said he mentioned that to Putin in their phone call yesterday. Well, the U.S. doesn't got that.
So, this would have been a limited move when it eventually happened.
[15:05:00]
But the psychological impact would have been significant. Instead, Trump was pretty clear about his recognition that supplying these missiles would
be an escalation. He said a lot of bad things could happen. Ultimately, of course, meaning this is another threat rather than a direct moment in which
military force will be given to Ukraine to use against Russia. But it's important to realize what a transformation we've seen in Trump's thinking
since February, when there was that remarkable oval office blowout with Zelenskyy. The two men's relationship massively transformed as well.
Compliments about Zelenskyy's suit, where his previous dress in February was mocked by parts of Trump's inner circle. And clearly here, a
recognition by Trump that it is potentially the threat of force, or things like Tomahawks that are fast can evade radar. They don't add a range longer
necessarily, than Ukraine's longer range drones that have been hitting inside Russia already. But they are much more formidable type of firepower,
and it essentially is the U.S. saying, we'll give you the best things we have to Ukraine.
Now, that may trouble Putin. He may potentially think this is another hollow Trump threat, but there was a different tone, I think, here in the
relationship with Zelenskyy, as you heard from Kevin, there, recognition that maybe he was being played, but he said he's been played by the best of
them, and it turned out pretty well.
That was Trump's reflection on that. So, while we don't have a date for Budapest. I think there's another change in the dynamics here, too. And
that's that Putin summer offensive. I think much feared by Ukraine in the spring hasn't delivered the tactical gains. The main key towns in the east
that he wanted to take. Yet there's a few weeks left of potentially good fighting weather and that possibly has changed the pressure dynamic here.
Zelenskyy has remarkably weathered that front line storm. It may still go against him in the coming months, but they've held out so far and Putin
hasn't taken the places he felt perhaps that he could, or his top brass told him he might. That's changed. Who's feeling the pressure now?
Potentially its Putin on the battlefield. Will that change his thinking diplomatically? We'll see in Budapest, Max.
FOSTER: Yeah, it's going to be interesting. Nick, Kevin as well, thank you both.
Now, as President Trump and Zelenskyy do meet, Hungary is gearing up to host a summit between the U.S. and Russia. Of course, Mr. Trump says he'll
meet President Vladimir Putin in about two weeks in Budapest. Hungary is the rare NATO and E.U. country that maintains friendly ties with Moscow.
That's in no small part because it depends on Russian energy. The Hungarian foreign minister says it's the ideal location to host the summit.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
PETER SZIJJARTO, HUNGARIAN FOREIGN MINISTER: If the preparatory meeting can take place next week, we will then be able to determine the further
schedule. Then, if appropriate, we will be able to talk about the date and the details. Of course, here in Hungary, in Budapest, we are ready to
provide the suitable conditions so that the American and Russian presidents can negotiate with each other in a safe and calm circumstances.
This is the safest country in Europe, one of the safest countries in the world. So, if anywhere here, the leaders can negotiate in safe conditions,
all technical questions starting from the selection of the venue are still pending. As soon as the date becomes final, naturally, we will provide
information about all the technical matters.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
FOSTER: Matthew Chance is in Moscow.
A lot of people saying it's not going to go anywhere really, this meeting without Zelenskyy. But he's not invited, I gather.
MATTHEW CHANCE, CNN CHIEF GLOBAL AFFAIRS CORRESPONDENT: No, he's not. He's not invited. That's correct. But it is going to be a second summit,
potentially in a couple of weeks. So we're told between President Putin and President Trump.
And I think one of the big questions is how will it be different to the first presidential summit in Alaska? I was at that summit, you know, I was
there in the room when the two leaders came out and refused to take any questions, just short statements. Really, really quite stunning. You know,
Trump had laid on a red carpet reception for Putin and literally got nothing in return beyond a few sort of slaps on the back.
And I was sort of thinking, you know, how is it how is it going to be different in Budapest? You know what, what has changed? For just a few
months later, another presidential summit to, to bring you know, a deal potentially, which is obviously what President Trump says he thinks could
happen as a result of this, this process.
I mean, a few things have changed from a Russian point of view. Nick Paton Walsh was just talking about one of them, the fact that Russia has not
performed as well as it had hoped to, on the battlefield. It hasn't achieved the territory that it wanted to gain inside the Donbas. It's
feeling pressure as well economically here inside Russia, where across the country there have been incidents of people having to sort of line up for
gasoline, for petrol, as a result of Ukraine's long range drone attacks against petroleum and energy facilities in this country.
But beyond that, you know, publicly, President Putin has offered nothing by way of any sense, any indication that he's prepared to compromise on his
core objectives.
[15:10:07]
He still wants all that territory in the Donbas. He still wants to control, essentially the foreign policy of Ukraine postwar and basically undermine
its sovereignty. And unless something else was discussed that wasn't in the readouts from the Kremlin and the White House, after that 2-1/2 hour phone
call yesterday, then it's very possible that we could just see Alaska repeated all over again, even though President Trump has come from, you
know, he's sort of flushed with his victories diplomatically in the Middle East and now believes more than ever that he is very much a peacemaker with
momentum behind him.
We could very well be in a situation where no compromises are made and no peace deal, no ceasefire is offered. And so that's a real issue that I
think everybody sort of outside that bubble of the Kremlin and the White House is looking at very closely.
FOSTER: Okay. Matthew in Moscow, thank you.
Now, despite a delicate ceasefire between Israel and Hamas that appears to be intact so far, aid into Gaza is struggling to reach some of the people
who need it most. The U.N. says an average of 560 tons of food has entered Gaza per day since the ceasefire began, but that's far below what's needed.
Damaged roads and closures are still making it difficult for aid convoys to reach Gaza City, for example.
CNN's Jeremy Diamond has more on how the ceasefire is holding.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
JEREMY DIAMOND, CNN JERUSALEM CORRESPONDENT: One week in and the ceasefire agreement between Israel and Hamas is indeed standing, although there's no
question that it has been a tenuous and fragile ceasefire, one that has been tested in multiple ways over the course of the last week, beginning,
of course, with the release of the bodies of deceased hostages by Hamas. We have seen that Hamas has released nine of the 28 deceased hostages, that it
has been holding inside of Gaza, and Israeli officials, as well as the families of those deceased hostages, have been complaining that that has
been too slow of a pace that they expected to see more remains of deceased hostages be released at this point in the ceasefire agreement.
And as a result of that, we've seen Israeli officials threatening to slow the entry of humanitarian aid into Gaza in retaliation for all of that. But
the reality on the ground is that the ceasefire is holding Israeli officials have, in fact, allowed the required quantities of humanitarian
aid, at least at this point in time. On Wednesday alone, for example, some 700 trucks of humanitarian aid entered Gaza, according to internal Israeli
documents that CNN has reviewed.
Remember that under the ceasefire agreement, it's 600 trucks a day of humanitarian aid that are required to enter. And it does seem like that
surge of humanitarian aid is beginning to take place inside of Gaza.
As for the Hamas side of things, we've spoken with senior U.S. advisers who've indicated that they are satisfied with the pace of the number of
remains of deceased hostages that have been released so far. They acknowledge what Hamas has said, which is that there are very difficult
conditions on the ground, that Hamas is having trouble accessing some of those bodies, which appear to be beneath the rubble of buildings that were
struck in Gaza by the Israeli military.
And so, there is an effort with specialized teams from Egypt and Turkey to try and recover some additional remains of deceased hostages, that has been
made difficult by the lack of specialized and heavy machinery inside of Gaza to sift through the rubble, where there are not only the remains of
some of these deceased hostages, but also believed to be the bodies of thousands of Palestinians across the rubble inside of Gaza.
Now, the humanitarian situation in Gaza still remains dire. There's no question about it. It will take weeks for the situation to stabilize
because the needs are so great. Everything from shelter to food to medical supplies, all of that in short supply at this moment. And then, of course,
there's the question of negotiating the next phases of this agreement. And President Trump has made clear that Hamas must disarm. He has also made
clear that the war could restart at any point on his say so.
But the parties are in the midst of negotiations over all of that. In the Egyptian city of Sharm el-Sheikh to discuss everything from Hamas giving up
power, Hamas disarming and, of course, ultimately the withdrawal of all Israeli troops from Gaza.
Jeremy Diamond, CNN, Tel Aviv.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
FOSTER: Donald Trump's former national security advisor has pleaded not guilty to federal charges of mishandling classified information. John
Bolton made his first court appearance a few hours ago since being indicted on Thursday. During his first term in the White House, President Trump
fired Bolton from his administration. And now, Bolton says he's a victim of Trump's weaponization of the Justice Department.
This is the third time in recent weeks the DOJ has secured criminal charges against one of the president's critics.
[15:15:05]
CNN's senior U.S. justice correspondent Evan Perez joins us now.
I mean, what have we learned today, Evan?
EVAN PEREZ, CNN SENIOR U.S. JUSTICE CORRESPONDENT: Well, Max, we saw John Bolton appear very subdued as he entered this courthouse today. And we
don't yet have a trial, but we know a trial date. But we know that this is a case that's going to take some months, partly because of the national
security information. Some of the classified information that sometimes takes a long time for the two sides to even get access to and for them to
decide what is going to be useful for this -- this court proceeding. And what we know, obviously, is that this is a case that has some very serious
allegations. What Bolton is accused of doing is taking notes that he, while he was sitting in in the Trump administration as a national security
advisor, having some of the top access to the deepest secrets of the United States.
And he was sending notes to himself, to his wife, to his daughter, via a very unsecure system through his AOL account, another private email
accounts. These accounts ended up being hacked by the Iranians, and they threatened to release some of that information. And that's how the FBI
started assessing what kind of damage could have been done by these -- by this sensitive information being held in these AOL accounts.
And so, that's where this case has begun in 2022. And it makes it quite different from some of the other cases that you've talked about. We've
talked about the case against James Comey, the former FBI director, and against Letitia James, the New York attorney general. In those cases, the
career prosecutors essentially stayed away from them and said that they didn't believe that there was enough to bring them.
And in this case, what we've seen is some of the investigators and the -- and the prosecutors involved from the start are still behind it. And that's
what we think seems to make it much different from some of the others.
That doesn't mean, however, that this issue of selective prosecution is going to go away. Certainly, the defense is going to raise the fact that
this administration has had no interest in investigating the use of Signal by Pete Hegseth and some of the top officials in the Trump administration
to share very, very sensitive, active military information. But yet they've gone after John Bolton -- Max.
FOSTER: Evan, thank you so much for bringing us the latest on that.
Breaking news tonight from here in the U.K. Britain's Prince Andrew says he's giving up using his royal titles, most of them. The king's brother has
been dogged for years over his ties to pedophile and sex offender Jeffrey Epstein. Of course, Andrew says he's discussed giving up use of those
titles, including duke of York with King Charles. He's denying the accusations against him. We'll have more on this a little later on,
including the king's response to it.
Now, it's happened again. The U.S. has struck another alleged drug boat in the Caribbean, but sources tell CNN this one is different. We'll tell you
why after the break.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[15:21:24]
FOSTER: Officials tell CNN the U.S. military is detaining two survivors of a strike on an alleged drug boat in the Caribbean. President Trump said a
short time ago, the U.S. had hit a drug carrying submarine. The attack is at least the sixth of its kind since the start of September, as the U.S.
targets alleged smuggling vessels linked to Venezuela.
You're looking at one such boat from early last month, Mr. Trump has announced. The CIA is now authorized to operate inside Venezuela to clamp
down on drugs and migrants. People in the country have spoken about their concerns about that.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
UNIDENTIFIED MALE (through translator): We are experiencing a difficult situation with the government system we have. And unfortunately, that has
caused this whole situation with the United States. I have a lot of faith and hope.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE (through translator): It's all just smoke. That's what there is. I'm not just saying this to invalidate the international
community, but the international community has failed here for a long time.
Here, if you don't work, you don't eat. That's the reality. If you don't work, you don't make it to the end. Other than that, Venezuelans keep
working hard. If you don't work, you don't move forward. And no matter who comes here, nothing is going to change for now.
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE (through translator): I'm praying to God that nothing happens. I hope nothing happens. How are the Americans going to come here?
Who do they think they are?
(END VIDEO CLIP)
FOSTER: Well, Natasha Bertrand is in Washington with the very latest because I gather President Trump has used some quite choice language on
this issue.
NATASHA BERTRAND, CNN NATIONAL SECURITY CORRESPONDENT: Yeah, that's right, Max. He said earlier during a press availability at the White House that
Maduro should not F with the United States. And, you know, the U.S. has a really huge military presence in the Caribbean right now. And they've
conducted multiple shows of force over the last several weeks, including a flyover by a B-52 bomber. Several of them, actually, earlier this week.
That was extremely close to the Venezuelan coast.
You also have the U.S. military carrying out exercises very close to the Venezuelan coast, all an effort, according to experts and sources, that we
spoke to, to send a message to Maduro to really pressure him. And pressure, of course, the narco trafficking groups that the administration has said
that it wants to go after and stop from bringing drugs into the United States.
But at this point, what we're told is that the U.S. doesn't have enough of a military presence in the Caribbean to actually launch any kind of full
scale invasion of Venezuela. The U.S. has about 5,000 to 10,000 troops in the area, including about 4,500 at sea and the rest on Puerto Rico. But
that is not enough to launch an incursion into the country and hold territory.
Instead, what they could do, and this is something that President Trump has alluded to, is they could conduct some kind of land strikes on targets
inside Venezuela that are perhaps valuable to the regime there. And that could perhaps put more pressure on Maduro. And you could do that from sea,
from a safe distance. You could do that using Tomahawk missiles, for example, which have a range of about 1,000 miles, and that can be launched
from really any of the several warships that are currently stationed in the Caribbean.
So, the president does have options here. The question is, how much is he willing to escalate at this point? We're also going to see, of course,
continue continued U.S. military strikes on those boats in the Caribbean, many of which are coming from Venezuela, but at least one of which, as we
reported, came from Colombia last month as well.
So, a really broad military campaign here that does not have an end date at this point, Max.
[15:25:01]
FOSTER: Natasha, thank you so much.
Still to come, all eyes on the White House as we return to our top story and ask the question, is the U.S. ready to supply Ukraine with weapons that
could actually hit Moscow?
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
FOSTER: Back to our top story, then, the high stakes meeting at the White House between Donald Trump and Ukrainian leader Volodymyr Zelenskyy. The
key question of the day is whether the U.S. is ready to supply Ukraine with long range Tomahawk missiles.
Mr. Trump seemed to open or be open to a proposal to exchange Tomahawks for some of Ukraine's advanced military drones, but he said he still hopes to
find a way to end the war without escalating it first.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
TRUMP: We need tomahawks. We need a lot of other weapons that we're sending to Ukraine. One of the reasons we want to get this war over is exactly
that. It's not easy for us to give. You're talking about massive numbers of very powerful weapons.
So that's one of the things we'll be talking about. Hopefully, they won't need it. Hopefully, we'll be able to get the war over with without thinking
about Tomahawks.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
FOSTER: What we don't know is, will Trump allow Ukraine to go on the offensive then in Russia?
Joining me now is CNN global affairs commentator and former deputy Pentagon press secretary, Sabrina Singh.
[15:30:04]
Thank you so much for joining us.
That's really the question here, isn't it? I mean, I know it's all focused around Tomahawks, but it's about allowing Ukraine to go on the offensive by
going into Russia deep.
SABRINA SINGH, CNN GLOBAL AFFAIRS COMMENTATOR: That's right. And thanks for having me on today.
You know, these Tomahawks, if the United States, if Donald Trump does give the authorization to Ukraine, it's just one more tool in their arsenal. I
mean, they can reach cities deep within Russia with some of their drone capabilities.
But this would give them a significant amount of more power and then paired with those drones, of course, that is, you know, a pretty lethal attack
that they could launch further into Russia. But ultimately, it's not one system or one capability that's necessarily going to change the battlefield
dynamics. It's a factor of things. It's how they are knitted together.
When I was in the Biden administration and, Max, you'll probably remember this, during that time, you know, we were having conversations about HIMARS
and then the M1 Abrams tanks that we gave the Ukrainians. And then, of course, the F-16s. And during that time, you know, we tried to remind
people that it's not one capability that's necessarily going to be the silver bullet that changes the battlefield dynamics.
And so, while the Tomahawks would be an incredible system and capability for the Ukrainians to get it, still, how they advance on the battlefield,
both in the short, you know, range with some of their capabilities and then the longer range as well.
FOSTER: But there's also this idea that Putin will only respond to counterpressure.
So just having, you know, just agreeing to send them, even if it's in months, a few months' time will send a very clear message to him. Is that
something that's going to be playing on Trump's mind? Do you think?
SINGH: Absolutely. I think -- I think, you know, given the fact that Vladimir Putin and Trump had this conversation and Tomahawks was brought up
is clearly an indication that Putin is thinking about this and is concerned.
But in terms of what this means for potential ceasefire or peace deal, I mean, that's something that Donald Trump has been pushing for from, you
know, his meeting with President Putin in Alaska. And frankly, that failed. No, no agreement came out of that meeting. There was no ceasefire.
And in fact, what we saw Russia do after that Alaska summit is actually increase their aerial attacks on Ukrainian cities. I mean, there were weeks
there at a time where we were talking about this is now the largest aerial attack we've seen in terms of drones and ballistic missiles that Russia has
used.
So, I think the biggest takeaway here is that even though there is going to be this meeting what does this actually look like? I don't think we've seen
president Putin actually come to the table with a serious mindset for bringing this war to an end and being serious about peace.
FOSTER: What do you think about the idea that the meeting is just a delaying tactic for Putin? And is Trump onto these tactics yet?
SINGH: You know, I mean, Trump sort of in that meeting today, kind of acknowledged that he sort of understands that this could be a delay tactic.
But I think the reality is, is it is absolutely a delaying tactic. And that's what we saw with the Alaska summit.
Putin saying, you know, I want to meet -- I want to meet in person. And then, yet not take any serious steps towards, a peace deal or any type of
ceasefire. And so, Putin is very smart. I mean, this is a master manipulator. I think he has played Trump before, has played this
administration with Steve Witkoff.
He really does own the clock here and is content on running it down and doesn't seem to mind that at every step of the way, even though Donald
Trump has, you know, I think tried to negotiate for, you know, bring the Russians and Ukrainians together, Putin is ultimately delaying the clock.
And that, I think, is a tactic of his and will continue to be.
FOSTER: Why -- how do you think the Europeans are going to be looking at this? He's going into a country that's in the E.U., also into NATO, which,
you know -- I mean, it's great for Putin's optics, isn't it? It's quite threatening to the rest of Europe.
SINGH: I mean, it certainly is great for Putin's optics. I mean, I think this could be considered a win for Putin. I think for European leaders.
Look, I mean, it's obviously concerning, but it was equally as concerning when the United States quite literally rolled out the red carpet for Donald
Trump in Alaska on our own sovereign territory.
So, I think the messaging is the same when it comes to the United States or, you know, a European country. It's a little closer to home. Of course,
in Europe.
But at the end of the day, I think, you know, you see NATO leaders impress upon Donald Trump that Vladimir Putin cannot be trusted and is not serious
about peace. And that's something that we're, you know, of course, saw President Zelenskyy reiterate again today. But whether Donald Trump heeds
those warnings, you know, a lot remains to be seen.
FOSTER: We're all going to be watching it, aren't we? That's for sure.
SINGH: Yeah.
FOSTER: CNN global affairs commentator Sabrina Singh, thank you.
SINGH: Thank you.
FOSTER: It is the final moments of trade on Wall Street. Stocks are up after a really volatile week, spurred on by rising U.S.-China trade
tensions, but it seems investors have shrugged off those concerns for now.
[15:35:06]
This is our business breakout.
The U.S. president says the price of Ozempic will be lowered. This has led shares of the weight loss drugmaker Novo Nordisk to fall. Since returning
to office, Donald Trump has vowed to narrow the gap between drug prices in the U.S. and prices abroad.
So far, this year, nearly half a million women have left the U.S. labor force. This is one of the biggest losses on record. If the exodus
continues, U.S. economic growth could be stifled and it could have raised the historic gains made by women in recent years.
For the first time since April, the U.S. stock market has moved into extreme fear on CNN's fear and greed index. Excessive fear tends to drive
down share prices. Wall Street has been growing increasingly concerned about banking stocks and exposure to bad loans.
Joining me now with more on this is our Paula Newton.
Just explain what was happening because I know things ended as they did at the end of the day, but there was a huge moment, wasn't there, where there
was a flare up of concern around, I think, debt.
PAULA NEWTON, CNN CORRESPONDENT: Yeah. And the markets and market analysts seem to have talked themselves out of it. I mean, look, the week started
with the news that for the last few weeks, the banks, especially regional banks here in the United States, have been parsing the fact that they have
had two bankruptcies. One was called tricolor, the other was called -- pardon me. One was about an auto lender, the other was about an auto parts
supplier.
So, the regional banks got involved in these bad loans. What is the fear here, Max, is contagion, right? So, what they're trying to see is how much
will this affect the entire banking system, if at all? JPMorgan's Jamie Dimon was the man who came up with the cockroach statement earlier on, in
reference to these bad loans, saying, look, if there's one cockroach, there are likely to be more.
You and I might know that from -- if we've dealt with them in kitchens, he says it's also valid in banking, and that really is what spooked everyone.
I do think, though, he's a cautious banker. He is a bit of a doomer, shall we say. He's always so cautious about where the market is going, and he
probably did that, I suspect, to tell people, look, if we've got bad loans on our books anywhere in this banking system, please show your cards now so
we can really get out of the system. That is what spooked the market.
But, Max, I don't have to remind you that, look, there's a lot of things out there. Is this an A.I. bubble? Weve got the trading shocks with U.S.
and China. We've got the overall health of the U.S. economy. There are lots of things worrying a market that, quite frankly, has been on a tear. Some
would say too high for too long.
I want you to look at some of the major indices here. If we look at the six-month chart, I mean, you're looking at the Dow, then we take the S&P,
then we take the Nasdaq. Everything is going basically in a straight line up.
We are only a percentage or two away from all-time highs in any of these indices. And for that reason, people are cautious wondering what is going
to propel this market further. I mean, look, we'll stay tuned in the next few weeks. You know me, Max. You know, I'm also a cautious person.
But when you look at this, this is not the kind of thing that will stir these markets or stir world economies could be something else in the
offing, but likely not this.
FOSTER: Why are the big banks telling wealthy clients to buy gold when it's so expensive then?
NEWTON: Then I call gold a meme stock now, Max. And that should tell everyone anything that they need to know. Look, it has to do with people
not wanting to bet 100 percent on the U.S. dollar when people wanted to have safe money, they would stick all their money or a good portion of
their money into U.S. dollar, even if they weren't earning anything on the U.S. dollar. People are now suggesting, look, stock it in gold. And that is
what has been driving the price of gold up.
It is stratospheric, I'd say, at this point in time, some people are predicting it will go up another 20 percent by the end of the year. But
basically, it is a bit some would have said it was like putting money under your mattress. And yet gold is hyperbolic right now. No one can really
understand that there are where it's going next and the fundamentals behind it. Quite frankly, they're not there.
So, if you take it with a grain of salt, I have no idea where gold is going next. But again, it is a measure of how cautious investors are being and
how they don't want to put all of their money into the U.S. market or to the U.S. dollar. Gold --
FOSTER: OK.
NEWTON: -- is a safe bet.
FOSTER: Paula, more from you at the top of the hour. Look forward to it. Thank you for coming on.
Still to come, for the third time in as many weeks, the U.S. Justice Department secures an indictment against one of Donald Trump's most
prominent foes. The charge is levied against former U.S. national security advisor John Bolton.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[15:42:46]
FOSTER: Former U.S. national security advisor John Bolton has pleaded not guilty to all 18 charges he faces. You see him on the left here leaving a
federal courthouse where he was read his charges and was informed of his rights. He's accused of sharing classified information with family members
via email. The charges date back to his time as national security advisor during President Donald Trump's first term.
Bolton has become the third high profile critic in the last month to be targeted by the president. He denies all wrongdoing. So, what we want to
know is how strong is the case about John Bolton?
Joining me now is CNN legal analyst Joey Jackson.
Thanks for joining us, Joey.
I mean, from what -- from the evidence you've seen, how strong is the case?
JOEY JACKSON, CNN LEGAL ANALYST: You know, so it's still early to tell. Remember the process -- the process involves a grand jury. What is that? A
grand jury consists of 23 people. And those 23 people do not determine guilt or innocence.
They just determine two things. Number one, is there reason to believe that a crime was committed? And number two is the subject of that proceeding?
Did they commit it?
And of course, grand jurors, unlike an actual trial, don't have to be unanimous of the 23. Sixteen constitutes a quorum, meaning to conduct
business, only 12 have to really approve what the actual indictment being sought is. And so again, it's a long way from making the determination as
to whether he's guilty. An indictment is a mere accusation.
Having said that, you look at the nature of what it is, the nature of whether he transmitted that is presented that information to anybody else,
the family members, as you noted at the outset. And number two, whether you retain the information. And so, we will see, based upon the descriptive
nature of the indictment itself, of what the accusations are, whether there's proof moving forward to back that up.
And that involves a whole bunch of information that his attorneys don't have, that he needs to get. And once we see that which is called discovery,
the evidence the prosecutors have will be able to make a better assessment as to whether or not they have what we call the goods, right? Can they
actually get him on this? And there are various issues concerning political motivations for this indictment as well.
FOSTER: Does the fact that this might be a vendetta by the president play into the case in any way at all, as in the outcome of the case?
[15:45:03]
JACKSON: So I think so. I think what you're going to see is you're going to see motions that are filed by his attorneys saying, hey, listen, we live in
a society in which people should be entitled to prosecutions that are just prosecutions that are fair and prosecutions that are not targeted to the
enemies of the president.
Having said that, certainly we know that he has gained, that is Mr. Bolton the ire of the president with regard to him being an enemy. Now he used to
work of course for President Trump national security advisor. But upon leaving, they have not had the best relationship. And of course, it's not a
secret to anybody involved that they haven't.
Although in his case, unlike you could say, Comey's case, he former FBI director, where you had someone just installed in the prosecutor's office
simply to indict James Comey here, you did have and do have career prosecutors who have looked at this case, examined this case, and who
decided it was worthy to go to a grand jury to secure an indictment. Unlike in the Comey case, former FBI director, again, where you have career
prosecutors saying there's nothing to see here.
So, there are distinctions. But again, he is a foe of the president. We've seen also Letitia James. She's the New York state attorney general being
prosecuted. I think there's a long list of others, but I think for sure there will be motions made as we look there at the targets of the Trump
administration. There'll be motions made with regard to it being a vindictive prosecution that's predicated upon him being an enemy and not
high on evidence.
So, we'll see what that evidence is. Once the discovery is turned over to his defense team, and some of it is made public.
FOSTER: Were you surprised to hear that he might have had these secret documents at home? I mean, obviously he would have had top level clearance,
but is it sloppy? I mean, what's your view on that? Just as a process.
JACKSON: So, I think so. I mean, I think his issue really is that he's a person who is a seasoned official and as a seasoned official, he's not new
to government. He knows the ropes. In this case, it works against him. You know what the protocols are. You know the significance of the information.
You know the damage that can be caused by the information, you know.
And his computer was hacked and that presents a problem, right? When you have some foreign source that can get that information, that can do damage
to you. And so, you would think that given the protocols involved with regard to what classified information is, how it should be stored, whether
you should retain it, whether you should take it, should it be on your personal drives? Of course not. That presents a problem.
But let's see the full nature and extent, not just the accusation. What exactly is the evidence? What could be gleaned? What did he have? What did
he do? When did he do it? It's all about the proof.
And again, I'm reluctant at the early stages with an indictment and U.S. attorneys parade in court all the time and say, hey, ladies and gentlemen,
the jury, this is an indictment. That means it's an accusation. And that's the point where we rip up the indictment in front of the jury and say, it's
not about that. It's about the proof.
And so let's see, as we move forward, whether the government indeed does have the proof, but there are distinctions in his case, even though he's a
political foe from the other cases where the president has gone after specifically, as I mentioned, Comey, and specifically, as I mentioned,
Letitia James. Those seem to be far more flimsy, I should say, not a legal term, with regard to the evidence that they have in those cases, they being
the government prosecutors.
FOSTER: Okay, Joey, as ever, thank you so much for your -- your take on this huge case coming up.
JACKSON: Always. Thank you.
FOSTER: Still to come, more on that drastic move by Prince Andrew. He says he doesn't want to be a distraction to his brother, the British monarch.
Broadcast and playwright Bonnie Greer, a friend of the king, joins me next.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[15:51:18]
FOSTER: Our breaking news tonight from the U.K. Prince Andrew says he's giving up the use of his royal titles. The king's brother has been dogged
for years by his ties to the pedophile sex offender Jeffrey Epstein. Andrew says he's discussed giving up the use of the titles with King Charles. He's
denying the accusations against him.
Bonnie's got her view on this because what I've been told by royal sources is that there were these discussions and the king was happy with the
outcome, which suggests that going into the discussions, the king wanted this outcome, which suggests that he might have been pushed.
BONNIE GREER, BROADCASTER AND PLAYWRIGHT: Well, first of all, York, as you know, is a huge, huge dukedom in terms of history and everything else. You
don't give that up, okay, unless you've been convicted of treason or something. As far as the Garter is concerned, the highest order of chivalry
--
FOSTER: So this is one of his other titles?
GREER: Yes. In the gift of the sovereign, you don't give that one up either. You don't give these up unless you have to. You are made to.
FOSTER: Yeah. So, he's -- so just to clarify, he's still got those titles. He's just agreed to stop using them. And I think to be fair to the palace,
this is because it's a long process and some of them would need to go through parliament, and they wanted to do something quickly. So, this was a
quick solution.
GREER: Probably would have to go through.
FOSTER: Yeah, and York I think.
GREER: Yes.
FOSTER: But he's still Prince Andrew. Explain that one. Yeah.
GREER: He's born Prince Andrew. Just like Harry's born Prince Henry. Williams born Prince William.
FOSTER: Yeah. It's that title, like --
GREER: The title prince of the blood.
FOSTER: Yeah.
GREER: So, you don't take that away. But the other ones are granted by the sovereign, and it can be taken away by the sovereign. And if the sovereign
has said its okay, they're gone for all purposes. If he wanted to bestow the dukedom of York on someone else, that would be a process.
FOSTER: Yes.
GREER: But he's been told, and I'm sure it's been by the prince of Wales. You got to let it all go.
FOSTER: Prince William, you're referring to.
GREER: I'm referring to Prince William.
FOSTER: Which we know he was involved in the conversations.
GREER: I'm referring to Prince William. I don't have any insight on this, Max. So, it's an intuition. And I was very struck by the coronation. If you
remember, when William did something that you don't see, British men do in public, William took the made the oath of allegiance to his father, as he
was expected to, and he leaned in and he kissed his father.
That was amazing. It was an oath of fealty to his dad. And it was also love. And you know that William is setting out to slim down that family and
sort it out.
FOSTER: Yeah, and he's talked recently about what sort of king he'd be, which is quite extraordinary.
GREER: It is extraordinary.
FOSTER: From our point of view.
GREER: He's not supposed to even be a --
FOSTER: You're not meant to be talking about it too early, but, you know, you do need to talk about it.
GREER: But no, you're not, you know, and he's old enough now to talk about what he wants to see going forward.
FOSTER: But what does this actually mean? Because -- he had lost his Prince Andrew had lost his working role. He -- we rarely see him in public. We do
see him at family events.
So, they say that's separate from the working thing. But I don't think that's going to happen anymore either, because I'm told that he's not
invited to Christmas.
GREER: No, no.
FOSTER: So, this is over. What's over for him now if it wasn't over for him before?
GREER: What's over for him is being addressed as his royal highness the duke of York. That's done. And he is now his royal highness, Prince Andrew.
And that's it. Mountbatten-Windsor. And that's the end of it.
FOSTER: So he's not allowed to use his royal highness either, as I understand.
GREER: Well, that -- that now, that's even deeper.
FOSTER: Yeah, but the, what does it mean that he's basically lost all public positioning or what?
GREER: He's lost not only positioning, he's lost his position in the family. So, he is the person. He is a guy. He's a man who was born to the
sovereign and her husband. End of it.
FOSTER: What does it mean for his wife? What does it mean for his children?
GREER: Well, it seems to me that William has -- keeps saying William, that's a Freudian slip, but the king has --
FOSTER: You're very friendly --
GREER: I know, I know. No, I'm not, but the king. I would imagine that they feel a bit sorry for the princesses. They're good women. They're doing
wonderful. They do their work, they're not in this.
FOSTER: Yeah.
GREER: So I'm sure that they will be able to be allowed, for whatever its worth, to be called princess. Yeah, whatever that's worth.
FOSTER: Yeah, and they'll be invited to the family.
GREER: Exactly, exactly.
FOSTER: They'll be at Christmas, perhaps.
GREER: They certainly will be there.
FOSTER: Bonnie, thank you so much for your thoughts tonight.
I'm Max Foster. That's WHAT WE KNOW.
Stay with CNN. Paula is up after the break.
END
TO ORDER VIDEOTAPES AND TRANSCRIPTS OF CNN INTERNATIONAL PROGRAMMING, PLEASE CALL 800-CNN-NEWS
