Return to Transcripts main page

CNN News Central

Trump Slams Zelenskyy For "Inflammatory" Comments On U.S. Peace Proposal; Sources: Trump Soliciting Feedback On Hegseth Amid Chaos; Mohsen Mahdawi Hearing Ends Without Decision On His Release; FDA Unveils Plan To Remove Some Artificial Dyes From Foods. Aired 2:30-3p ET

Aired April 23, 2025 - 14:30   ET

THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.

[14:30:00]

BRIANNA KEILAR, CNN HOST: -- Volodymyr Zelenskyy said his country would not agree to a U.S. peace deal that includes giving up territory to Russia.

The president posted on Truth Social today, accusing Zelenskyy of making inflammatory comments. He said, quote, "We are very close to a deal, but the man with no cards to play should now finally get it done."

A European official telling CNN the U.S. is pushing for that deal to happen within President Trump's first 100 days in office, which ends next week.

That comment, coming after Secretary of State Marco Rubio skipped peace talks. He canceled them last minute, his appearance anyways, between Ukraine and European allies in London.

And after Vice President J.D. Vance gave this ultimatum.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

J.D. VANCE, VICE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: We've issued a very explicit proposal to both the Russians and the Ukrainians, and it's time for them to either say yes or for the United States to walk away from this process.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

KEILAR: CNN chief national security correspondent, Alex Marquardt, is here in studio with us.

This is a big moment for this to fall apart.

ALEX MARQUARDT, CNN CHIEF NATIONAL SECURITY CORRESPONDENT: It is. I think it's a really important moment. These talks are really important.

And that is highlighted by the fact that this American patience is really growing thin. We see that in the Trump posted on Truth Social. We see it in J.D. Vance's comments, saying that the U.S. will walk away if these talks fall apart.

Because, Brianna, we don't know what happens next. Does that mean that the U.S. completely abandons Ukraine? Do they lift sanctions in order to further economic deals with Russia? Do they apply more sanctions on Russia to -- to punish them and to try to get them to the table?

It is very notable that Rubio and Steve Witkoff, who has been engaging with the Russians, are not there at the table today.

I think it's less a punishment of the Ukrainians and kind of a reflection of the fact that Ukraine and Russia likely know what the U.S. position is, because the framework has been transmitted to them.

And Keith Kellogg is really the guy who's in the weeds, the Ukraine envoy. And so he's going to be talking to the Ukrainians about the specifics of a potential ceasefire, a potential peace deal.

Brianna, we don't even know if the U.S. is still working towards a ceasefire. It appears that they are trying to bulldoze through and get to a peace deal. As you noted, their goal has been to do that within 100 days.

There was a remarkable comment from J.D. Vance today talking about the lines of this conflict, that you can see right there, being frozen at some level close to where they are today with some territorial concessions.

Among the other things that we believe they'll be discussing as part of a broader peace deal, recognition of Crimea there in the south, which Russia has occupied since 2014, and which the U.S. has shown some willingness to recognize as -- as Russian territory.

There's -- there's a lot that needs to be discussed or that is being discussed in London, but I think we really need to keep our eyes on the meeting in the next few days between Steve Witkoff, who is going back to Russia for the fourth time this year to meet with Vladimir Putin.

And despite the U.S. insistence that Russia does want a peace deal, we have not seen Putin negotiating in good faith or any indication that he is giving up on his goal to eventually take over all of Ukraine.

KEILAR: Yes, that's a very good point.

Alex, thank you for that.

Boris?

BORIS SANCHEZ, CNN HOST: Happening today. Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth is again attempting to defend his tenure leading the Pentagon. It comes as some of his former top advisers have sounded the alarm about his leadership.

And as he reportedly included his wife, lawyer and brother in a second Signal group chat where he shared sensitive details about a military strike in Yemen. Listen to this.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

PETE HEGSETH, SECRETARY OF DEFENSE: It's a lot of change, very quickly. Now, as you may have noticed, the media likes to call it chaos. We call it overdue.

How are the men and women responding to this, to this call? Well, I can tell you, personally, it's going better than we could have ever expected.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

SANCHEZ: Sources tell us that President Trump is unlikely to dismiss Secretary Hegseth at this point in his term, but that Trump has been soliciting feedback about his performance.

We've also learned that the prominent role played by Hegseth wife, Jennifer Hegseth, is drawing scrutiny at the Pentagon.

Besides being included in that second Signal group chat, she's been a constant presence around her husband, attending his confirmation hearings with Senators on Capitol Hill.

And attending a bilateral meeting at the Pentagon last month between Hegseth and the British defense secretary.

Let's discuss with Leon Panetta. He served as defense secretary under President Obama.

Secretary, thanks so much for being with us.

I remember after news dropped of that first Signal group chat, we had a chance to speak soon after, and you walked us through some of the potential dangers of sharing details of a military strike via Signal.

The Pentagon, of course, remains adamant that none of what's been shared by the secretary over Signal is classified. I wonder, then, why it might be problematic to send this via Signal on a personal device.

[14:35:08]

LEON PANETTA, FORMER SECRETARY OF DEFENSE: Well, it's -- it's pretty obvious that when one looks at the substance of these discussions that he was actually using details from an attack plan, talking about targets, talking about timing, talking about weapon systems, all of which is highly classified.

In my day, attack plans would be top secret. And if he's discussing those kinds of details on an open-net communication system, then what's happening is that that information is now vulnerable to being taken by our adversaries.

Because if there's one thing they're going to do is, when they read the headlines that he's talking on an open net, they are going to pay attention to that open net to get the kind of information that will help them and hurt the United States.

SANCHEZ: I wonder what you think of the fact that his brother, Phil Hegseth, and his attorney, Tim Parlatore, are among those in the chat. They both do work at the Pentagon. Are there any issues with that?

PANETTA: You know, look, this is all a little goofy, to be truthful.

I've never, in my experience, heard of a secretary of defense, who's having conversations about top secret attack plans, not only with individuals that were on an open Signal net which was vulnerable and not only with a journalist who was part of that -- that group.

But now we have a second report that he was discussing these details with his wife, with his lawyer, with his brother. That's just unheard of.

And what it does is it sends a real message of weakness. I mean, this combined with what's going on in the office of the secretary of defense, the firing of a number of individuals and the disruption that's occurring means that the Defense Department is not being well managed right now.

And this becomes a matter of national security. And that's what the president has to be concerned about.

If the national security is not being defended and protected by the secretary of defense, then we send a message of weakness to our adversaries that somehow our Defense Department is not being properly managed.

SANCHEZ: Secretary, I wonder what you make of his argument that this is part of bringing cultural change to the Pentagon and these leaks and the media reporting around these Signal group chats are just kind of a way to block the cultural change that he's trying to create.

PANETTA: Well, you know, again, I think his comments are trying to do everything he can to somehow defend what is indefensible, which is for a secretary of defense to commit a security breach.

Let's face it, that's the issue. What has happened here is that a secretary of defense took details from an attack plan and talked with people who were not cleared for that kind of information.

That tells me that the basic requirements that a secretary of defense has to adhere to, which is protecting our most classified information, is something he doesn't pay a lot of attention to. That's not about change. That's about chaos.

SANCHEZ: And you obviously served not only as defense secretary, but in a number of roles, including White House chief of staff.

I wonder, if you we're Susie Wiles watching all of this unfold, and President Trump asks you what you thought, I mean, I imagine you would counsel him to ask for the secretary's resignation.

PANETTA: The president of the United States is not just president of the country. He is commander-in-chief, which means that he is responsible for protecting our security and protecting our national defense.

And the most important cabinet member who's responsible for seeing that that happens is the secretary of defense.

[14:39:59]

And if you have a secretary of defense who's consumed by disruption in his office, winds up blaming people for all kinds of problems that he's incurring, and then also commits a security breach by revealing secret information on casual phone calls, there's something terribly wrong.

And the president has to act in order to make sure we protect our national security.

SANCHEZ: Former Defense Secretary Leon Panetta, appreciate you sharing your point of view.

PANETTA: Thank you.

SANCHEZ: Still to come this afternoon, attorneys for a Palestinian student leader say the Trump administration set a trap for their client when they arrested him during what he thought was his final interview for U.S. citizenship.

We'll be right back.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[14:45:08]

KEILAR: Right now, a Columbia University student who led campus protests against Israel's war in Gaza remains behind bars in Vermont. A hearing for the release of Mohsen Mahdawi ended this afternoon without a decision.

The judge, directing parties to file additional briefs as Mahdawi supporters gathered outside the courthouse demanding his release.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Free Mohsen, free political prisoners and free Palestine.

(CHEERING)

(END VIDEO CLIP)

KEILAR: Mahdawi has not been charged with a crime. He was arrested last week after showing up to an interview about finalizing his U.S. citizenship. His attorneys say he was essentially lured there as part of a trap.

CNN's Gloria Pazmino is following this story. Gloria, what happened in court?

GLORIA PAZMINO, CNN CORRESPONDENT: Well, Brianna, we were expecting to get some sort of decision today on whether or not the judge would agree to releasing Mahdawi on bail, which is what his attorneys were hoping for.

But as you said, all we got from the hearing today is the judge directing both his attorneys and attorneys for the Department of Justice to file more briefs, specifically on this question of whether or not the court has jurisdiction to make a ruling on this case.

We have seen this over and over in the cases of students who are detained, where the government tries to challenge jurisdiction.

Now, we heard from his attorneys after the hearing. They told us in part, quote, "We intend on being back in one-weeks' time to free Mohsen. The government has provided no basis whatsoever other than an admission that they detained Mohsen on the basis of his speech."

So remember, this is what his attorneys are challenging. They want the court to release him because they say that his detention is unconstitutional and based on his -- on a violation of his constitutional right to free speech.

Now, in the meantime, we're also hearing from Mahdawi directly. He wrote a letter from inside the detention center in Vermont, where he is currently held, talking about conditions in the facility.

Asking his supporters to stay hopeful. Letting them know that he is hearing them and seeing just how much support there has been out there for him.

And he said also, quote, "I am in prison, but I am not imprisoned. A system of democracy guarantees freedom of speech. Speaking of Palestine does not only qualify as freedom of speech, but it is also about our humanity."

Now, Mahdawi, as you said, Brianna, another Columbia University student who appears to be targeted for deportation by the Trump administration after playing a high-profile role in last year's protests against the Israel-Hamas war -- Brianna?

KEILAR: Gloria Pazmino, thank you for the report.

Next, Dr. Sanjay Gupta answers your questions about the FDA's plans to phase out artificial food dyes.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[14:52:21]

KEILAR: The FDA plans to phase out the use of these petroleum-based dyes in the U.S. food supply due to health concerns.

Commissioner, Dr. Marty Makary, made the announcement on Tuesday. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

DR. MARTY MAKARY, FDA COMMISSIONER: In summary, we are simply asking American food companies to replace petroleum-based food dyes with natural ingredients for American children, just as they already do for children in other countries. American children deserve good health.

Thank you.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

SANCHEZ: Yesterday, we asked you to share your questions about these dyes.

So let's bring back our chief medical correspondent, Dr. Sanjay Gupta, for some answers.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

DR. SANJAY GUPTA, CNN CHIEF MEDICAL CORRESPONDENT: Well, Brianna, Boris, we got a lot of questions about this. A lot of people interested in these food dyes. I'll get right to it.

This is from Matilda in Lafayette, Colorado. What's the difference between red dye number three and red dye 40? And why is only one outlawed?

First of all, this is what red dye three is -- you take a look over here. These cherries, if you're seeing colors that you don't typically see in nature, they're likely these petroleum-based dyes.

So red dye three, first of all, people have heard of this one. It's been around for a long time. And even when it came out some 30 years ago, there was concerns about this because of potential links to cancer in animals.

There was even a law that said, if there's any such link, these sorts of additives cannot be approved. And yet, here we are, 30 years later.

Just -- just this past few months, this red dye three was finally banned, as you're alluding to Matilda.

Now, red dye 40, that's this in the strawberry frosting over here. There is less evidence around this in terms of its relationship to cancer.

There has been some evidence showing that there might be neurobehavioral issues that are caused in children as a result of eating red dye number 40. And that's why it was banned in California.

But as you know, many of these dyes, eight or nine of these dyes are likely to be banned over the next several months or years.

Get to another question here. This one is from Lulu, Winter Haven, Florida. Why does the United States continue to use dyes and additives that Europe has banned? All right, look, this is almost a philosophical question in some ways.

In the United States, the sort of standard is to try and find cause and effect.

If the -- if the cause is from these dyes, what is the effect and can you establish that link very clearly? That is how the FDA has, has operated.

That is part of the reason I think so many of these dyes have been around for so long. It is hard to find a cause, in this case, the dyes leading to a very specific effect.

[14:55:01]

Now, in many countries around the world, countries in Europe, even in Canada, they really abide more by the precautionary principle.

Look, we're worried about this a little bit. We think there's some concern. We're not entirely sure. Let's just be cautious. That's what we're hearing from many countries around the world.

I should point out as well, when you look at these dyes, there is really no nutritional value to these dyes whatsoever. So you're not missing out on any nutritional benefits. This is purely for esthetics.

Get to one more question. Chris asks: Just what will replace these colors?

Well, you look at something like this, look at this cereal over here. Just about every color in that cereal is a petroleum-based dye. They're bright colors. They last a long time. That's part of the reason they use petroleum.

But they can be replaced with natural food colorings as well. Think watermelon juice, blueberry juice, carrot juice, things like that. They can -- that's likely what we're going to see.

And that's part of what we're hearing from the FDA as well -- Boris. Brianna?

(END VIDEOTAPE)

SANCHEZ: Some major changes coming to our favorite snacks. We'll see if it changes the experience or the taste at all.

KEILAR: Maybe celery juice cereal. Yum.

SANCHEZ: Good times.

(LAUGHTER)

SANCHEZ: Dr. Sanjay Gupta, thank you so much.

So markets rally after President Trump reverses course on tariffs against China. So just how low will they go and when? The latest on the trade war with Beijing right after this. (COMMERCIAL BREAK)