Return to Transcripts main page

CNN News Central

Trump to Meet with NATO Secretary General; Turn on Trumps Immigration Crackdown; Rep. Mike Lawler (R-NY) is Interviewed about the Epstein Investigation; Report on Butler Rally Shooting. Aired 8:30-9a ET

Aired July 14, 2025 - 08:30   ET

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

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[08:31:06]

KATE BOLDUAN, CNN ANCHOR: New video just in, we're going to show you right here, to CNN. President Trump's special envoy to Ukraine, Keith Kellogg, meeting with Ukrainian President Zelenskyy in Kyiv this morning. And just moments after this meeting, the Ukrainian air force issued a warning of a missile threat across the entire country of Ukraine.

All of this comes as we are standing by this morning for President Trump to meet with NATO secretary general at the White House in just hours, as he is teasing a "major statement," his words, about Russia coming today. Details on that announcement so far not known. But when asked about the bipartisan Russia sanctions bill being pushed by Congress but waiting for the president to give the green light, President Trump said, quote, "we will see."

Joining me right now is CNN's senior military analyst, retired Admiral James Stavridis. He's also the former supreme allied commander of NATO and a partner at the Carlyle Group.

Admiral, thank you for being here.

You called on President Trump to stand firm with NATO, with the secretary general in town. What would you like to hear that would give you confidence that he is doing that?

ADMIRAL JAMES STAVRIDIS (RET.), CNN SENIOR MILITARY ANALYST: I am very happy at the moment of the U.S.-NATO role. We're on the back of the NATO summit, where almost every one of our European allies agreed to a five percent of GDP. That's more than we spend in terms of GDP. We spend about 3.5. So, Europe is waking up to the need to meet the defense spending.

So, with that as backdrop, here comes the secretary general, Mark Rutte. I know him well. He's a 14-year prime minister of the Netherlands. He has managed the Trump account quite well. And here's the point, Kate. What I'm watching for is Mark Rutte to say, in the presence of the president, yes, we are going to take the weapons systems that the United States is going to provide the Ukraine. We will purchase them, and we will send them on to Ukraine. It's a very nice win-win. That's the key thing to watch as this visit unfolds.

BOLDUAN: What weapons would be most helpful right now? If the president announces it is only defensive weapons, is that enough? Do you think it would be necessary that the president make that shift to, you know, announcing more offensive weapons going in?

STAVRIDIS: I do believe it is important in that announcement. Again, that's what we'll be listening for is to move beyond strictly defensive weapons, such as the patriot missiles, which are the air defense systems that the Ukrainians desperately need. But what I would like to see is a provision for the United States to send more harpoon missiles to go after the Black Sea Fleet, more HIMARS, surface to surface weapons that can reach deep behind Russian lines, more offensive cyber capability and, Kate, maybe some more F-16 aircraft, all of which are very capable offensively. I think that is what could move Putin to the negotiating table, which is what we want on our side.

BOLDUAN: And that kind of also begs the question, I just would love your perspective on. Ambassador Volker was on with me just last hour, and he -- he noted the shift in President Trump's tone towards Putin, saying that he thinks that Trump is realizing that there is no other way than this kind of pressure on Putin and how he has consistently said in the past week, at least, he is disappointed with him. What do you think is behind the shift? Do you think it will actually stick?

STAVRIDIS: I do think it's going to stick. And the reason is not because we're maneuvering brilliantly over here. As usual, democracies take a while to get organized and create a unified front. But I think the reason it will stick is because Vladimir Putin appears to be not smart enough to back down, meaning Putin will continue to provoke the president.

[08:35:10]

I see that happening. If he does that, watch for real NATO unity, additional offensive weapon systems, the spending of $300 billion in Russian money that's parked in western banks, and certainly that sanctions bill that Lindsey Graham is pushing. That will have the effect of keeping Putin backing up. That's what we need to see.

BOLDUAN: I want to turn -- speaking of keeping up pressure, I want to turn to Iran, because you wrote a really interesting piece laying out what you believe it would really take to truly end Iran's nuclear program. Essentially saying that it -- that -- that the Iraq invasion in 2003 all over again would be necessary. How you put it is, "so, what would it actually require? Certainly, more than the American people, their elected officials, and the military would be eager to undertake any time soon."

Talk to me more about why you think it would take that level of U.S. commitment to eliminate the threat.

STAVRIDIS: Sure. Let's put our minds back in a time machine and go to 2003 when we truly, deeply, madly believed that Saddam Hussein had nuclear weapons, weapons of mass destruction. So, we invaded. Turns out that was wrong. But it's a blueprint for what it would take to really dismantle.

And if you look at those statistics, and I was a one-star in the Pentagon reviewing those plans, 300,000 troops, hundreds of warships, 2,000 combat aircraft take over the country, track down every scientist, go to every laboratory. It's a huge undertaking. Didn't turn out especially well.

Now, here's the point, Kate. Iran is four times the size of Iraq. It's a huge country, has twice the population, 80 million to 40 million. So, it's a much bigger undertaking. Point being, bottom line, if we don't want to do that, and I would argue we certainly don't, we ought to use negotiations.

And, by the way, this morning, the Iranians have indicated a willingness to come to the table. That's because they got punched in the mouth as a famous boxer once said, everyone has a plan until you're punched in the mouth. The Iranians have been punched in the mouth. We don't need to invade the whole country. We need to get to the table, keep the pressure on, but not revert to that 2003 blueprint. Let's hope we can avoid that.

BOLDUAN: It was a really interesting read and definitely a walk back into the -- into the time machine. A necessary one.

It's really great to have you, Admiral, as always. Thank you so much.

Still ahead for us, tracking the shifting views that Americans have on President Trump's immigration crackdown as it continues to unfold. Harry Enten is here to run the numbers for you, next.

And several people are injured in Spain's annual Running of the Bulls.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[08:42:50]

BOLDUAN: All right, so, this morning, the president's borders czar, Tom Homan, he says the administration will fight a new judge's ruling stopping immigration arrests without probable cause in southern California. That judge ordering Homeland Security to stop detaining people based solely on race, spoken language or occupation.

For more on that, CNN's Harry Enten is continuing to track, with all of this news, the shifting view of the American people as this immigration crackdown continues.

How is the president doing on immigration at this point?

HARRY ENTEN, CNN CHIEF DATA ANALYST: In a word, Kate, oof! What are we talking about here? Take a look at this. Trump's net approval rating on immigration. Got five numbers for you across the screen here. A lot of focus on Gallup at minus 27. That's horrible. Quinnipiac University, minus 16. That's awful. Marist is bad at minus nine. Ipsos is minus eight. Fox at minus seven. Bad. So, going from your left side, bad, to just downright terrible on the right side of your screen. The American people have turned against President Donald Trump on what was his best issue. One in which he had a positive net approval rating for most of his term, and arguably the issue that got him, of course, the GOP nomination all the way back in 2016. And one of the issues, of course, he used last year to quite a successful degree.

BOLDUAN: Absolutely. Is there signs that this is affecting his overall approval?

ENTEN: OK, so you see this here. And then the question is, does this actually matter to folks? Why don't we zone in on Hispanic voters, right, because, obviously, a lot of the immigrants who have been affected by this have been Hispanic voters in terms of the immigration crackdown.

Take a look here, Trump's net approval rating amongst Hispanics. Remember, Trump put in an historic performance last fall among Hispanic voters, did better than any Republican nominee dating all the way back since we have data in 1972. His net approval rating among Hispanics in February was pretty gosh darn good for a Republican at minus two points. Look at how far it's fallen now. In June, according to CBS News/YouGov, at minus 26 points. And I should note, CBS News/YouGov is not alone on this. This is what we see in the averages as well.

Donald Trump was doing historically well for a Republican amongst Hispanics in terms of his net approval rating, and now he's basically back where he was during his first term, which is quite a low approval rating. One in which has brought his overall approval rating down amongst the entire electorate.

[08:45:08]

BOLDUAN: And one thing that has been very clear is that as this crackdown has continued, it has put immigration enforcement, ICE, in a whole new spotlight in, you know, across the country. What are the numbers on ICE now?

ENTEN: Yes, what are the numbers on ICE? It's not just affecting Donald Trump, it's affecting ICE as well. ICE's net approval rating. In Trump's first term the average was zero points, right. So, right there on the bottom, as many approve as disapprove. Look at where we are now in June of 2025, minus 17 points, all the way down.

So, the bottom line is, this immigration crackdown not being viewed properly by the American public, bringing Donald Trump down and bringing Immigration and Customs Enforcement down with him.

BOLDUAN: Thanks for continuing to track this, Harry. It's really interesting, the trend lines that you've been seeing all along.

ENTEN: Thanks, Kate.

BOLDUAN: Coming up for us, we're going to continue -- continuing to follow the breaking news of at least nine people killed in a fire at an assisted living facility in Massachusetts. The latest that we are hearing from there. We're going to bring that to you.

And a plane crash at a busy London airport. That's coming in just now.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[08:50:19]

JOHN BERMAN, CNN ANCHOR: All right, this morning there is new criticism from the right on the Justice Department's handling of the Jeffrey Epstein case. "Politico" is now reporting that conservative activist Laura Loomer is calling for the appointment of a special counsel to look into this.

With us now, Congressman Mike Lawler, a Republican from New York.

Congressman, thanks so much for being with us.

What do you think a special counsel would accomplish, and how do you feel about it?

REP. MIKE LAWLER (R-NY): Look, as I've said, I'm not exactly one to subscribe to conspiracy theories. So, from my vantage point, if somebody committed a crime, if somebody affiliated with Jeffrey Epstein committed a crime, they should be prosecuted. In the absence of that, frankly, this seems like a colossal waste of time and effort, and frankly, a lot of nonsense.

There are a lot of issues facing this country right now. A dead pedophile ain't one of them. And from my vantage point, you know, the world is a lot better off with Jeffrey Epstein no longer part of it. And as I said, if somebody did something, if there's evidence of a crime committed, then prosecute them. In the absence of that, what are we talking about?

BERMAN: You say there's a lot of nonsense, a lot of nonsense from whom? What do you think? Explain to me what you think the nonsense is here.

LAWLER: Well, frankly, the fact that you're even covering this. I mean, I don't even understand, frankly, what -- why we're spending a lot of time on Jeffrey Epstein. You know, the fact is, he was a pedophile who was arrested. He committed suicide. And his -- you know, fixer, if you will, is being prosecuted.

So, at the end of the day, if there are people who were part of any crimes, then they should be prosecuted. But in the absence of that, what is -- what exactly are we looking to do? The -- the information is -- is there. It is well documented what he did. And beyond that, what exactly are we looking for?

BERMAN: Just -- just so you know, it's being covered because the Deputy Director of the FBI is said to have taken off work on Friday to protest the Justice Department own handling of this. And there have been shouting matches reported inside the White House on this. So, whether or not you think it's important, apparently there are people who are quite agitated about it. But I will move on. I do want to ask, you're on the House Foreign Affairs Committee here.

The president says he's going to make a big announcement about Russia coming up, and he talked about sending weapons to Ukraine. Let me read you from this quote. "It'll be business for us, and we will send them Patriots' -- he means Patriot missiles, 'which they desperately need because Putin really surprised a lot of people. He talks nice, and then he bombs everybody in the evening. Putin surprised a lot of people," he says. How surprised have you been by Vladimir Putin?

LAWLER: Not in the least. Vladimir Putin is a vile dictator and thug. He has engaged in unholy alliance with China, with Iran, with North Korea. He, you know, took drones from Iran. He has taken troops from North Korea all in this effort to seize control of Ukraine. He has wrought death and destruction.

And the loss of hundreds of thousands of innocents and -- and in his case, members of his own military. For what? The fact is, Vladimir Putin is someone who the world will be better off when he is no longer in charge of Russia.

I understand, obviously, the attempt by the president to try and negotiate an end to this war. The continuation of this war is serving no one. And obviously, the death that has been wrought with it. But the fact is, if Putin is successful in Ukraine, it would be catastrophic for Europe. It would be catastrophic for the United States and our allies. And so I support the effort to give Ukraine more weapons, more support with air defense, and to continue to push back.

And I believe fundamentally, we need to enact secondary sanctions on Vladimir Putin on Russia, and on anyone affiliated with them in this effort.

[08:55:09]

And I would also note Europe needs to cease all purchasing of Russian gas. Stop funding the very war that you are trying to prevent.

BERMAN: Congressman Mike Lawler from New York, we do appreciate your time this morning. Thank you.

BOLDUAN: There's a new and scathing report out from the Senate Homeland Security Committee, laying out the failures and breakdowns that they find in communications in the Secret Service leading up to the attempted assassination of Donald Trump last year. One year ago yesterday, a gunman shot at Trump during a campaign rally in Butler, Pennsylvania. And in this new report, senators say there has not been enough accountability at the Secret Service after the fact, saying that the U.S. Secret Service, quote, saying this in part, "did not fire a single person involved in the planning and execution of the Butler rally," that the service "formally disciplined only six personnel, some of whom received their disciplinary decisions as recently as July 2025."

Joining me right now is Jonathan Wackrow, CNN law enforcement analyst, former Secret Service agent, of course. Jonathan, in response to this report and what is said in it, the former Secret Service director, Kimberly Cheadle, put out a statement. I want to read what she put in part. She said, "while I agree that mistakes were made and reform is needed, many of which I was actually in the midst of implementing at the time of my resignation, that fateful day was literally a perfect storm of events." What do you think of that?

JONATHAN WACKROW, CNN LAW ENFORCEMENT ANALYST: Well, good morning, Kate.

And while I understand Director Cheadle's characterization, I fear that it risks oversimplifying the gravity of the systematic failures that were actually outlined in that exact Senate report. I have assessed since day one, and it's been confirmed through numerous investigations since the Butler attack, that this was not a random convergence of issues. This was an exploitation of longstanding vulnerabilities and gaps in leadership, communication, intelligence sharing, I could go on.

But at the end of the day, Kate, many of these failures that have been identified were actually foreseeable and unfortunately preventable.

BOLDUAN: There have been leadership changes at the service since the Butler incident, but one former senior agency official who spoke to CNN about it said "none of those operational people have been held accountable, some were even promoted." This is, again, a former senior agency official who spoke on condition of anonymity.

Like some even promoted. What do you think? What does that say? Is that an example of the problem at hand? If the -- if there are these big problems leading up, Jonathan, what about the after -- the after effect?

WACKROW: Well, that's it. The after effect is where, you know, frustration lies within the Secret Service. And, quite frankly, it's understandable. And here's why. You have line officers and agents, both in the field and assigned to, you know, protective details that are deeply committed to the mission. And when accountability appears to be uneven, it can erode trust internally. And that's what we're seeing.

And while the agency has, you know, since, you know, especially in the last six months, taken steps to reform, the perception that some individuals are being held accountable while others are not creates a morale issue. And that needs to be addressed very quickly. And the leadership needs to communicate why some people were held accountable and others were not. Again, they have to get ahead of this issue before it really metastasizes into a significant problem for leadership.

BOLDUAN: And there's another piece of this in this reporting that may add to what you're getting at right here. Because also in this reporting it said sources told CNN that "the agency also has seen a significant loss of institutional knowledge and expertise as the number of high-ranking officials have left, fueling concerns over potential brain-drain at the Secret Service." Add that up with what you were just saying in terms of morale. What's the impact?

WACKROW: The impact is significant. The loss of institutional knowledge and expertise is critical for the longevity of the service. Lived operational judgment in crisis tested leadership cannot be replaced overnight. The agency also loses the institutional ability when you lose those senior officers and agents, they lose that ability to mentor the next generation. So, the Secret Service leadership today has to address this quickly and prioritize succession planning, investing in leadership development, and really creating a culture where those seasoned and experienced officers and agents, these professionals are, you know, incentivized to stay within the agency and not depart.

[09:00:01]

BOLDUAN: Jonathan, it's great to see you, as always. Thank you so much.

A new hour of CNN NEWS CENTRAL starts right now.