Return to Transcripts main page

CNN News Central

Sources Say CIA Carried Out Drone Strike on Port in Venezuela; Search for MH370 Resumes; D.C. Pipe Bomb Suspect in Court for Detention Hearing; Health Care Costs to Skyrocket for Millions. Aired 2-2:30p ET

Aired December 30, 2025 - 14:00   ET

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

[14:00:00]

LISA EADICICCO, CNN BUSINESS TECH EDITOR: -- shook Wall Street and called into question whether companies were moving quickly enough and whether there was really a need for that much money and hardware to train A.I., right? So the industry is constantly changing.

It's really hard to predict. And I think at the same time, you're going to see a lot of competition for technology, a lot of competition for talent and we're already seeing that leading up to 2026 with some acquisitions this week. So, it's definitely going to be a busy year.

BRIANNA KEILAR, CNN CO-ANCHOR OF "CNN NEWS CENTRAL": All right, a busy year for you, Lisa Eadicicco. Happy New Year to you, and thanks so much for joining us on this.

EADICICCO: You too.

KEILAR: A new hour of "CNN News Central" starts right now.

Exclusive new reporting on President Trump's new escalation with Venezuela, a land target hit for the first time. What sources are telling CNN about this CIA drone strike on a remote port facility? And now underway a new search for MH370. An undersea robotics company believes it could finally solve the decade-long mystery about what happened to the missing flight.

And a new winter wallop just in time for New Year's Eve, where millions will be ringing in 2026 with more snow and freezing temperatures. We're following these major developing stories and many more, all coming in right here to "CNN News Central."

We do begin with a CNN Exclusive detailing a U.S. drone strike inside Venezuela, the first known attack on the country since President Trump ramped up his pressure campaign on the Maduro regime and alleged drug trafficking. Sources telling CNN that the CIA carried out the strike on a coast. The remote dock was allegedly being used to store and smuggle drugs.

Operations forces provided intelligence support. It follows months of warnings from President Trump, who has made it clear he wants President Maduro to step down. We have CNN's Zach Cohen here with more on this reporting. All right, Zach, what were you learning about this strike?

ZACHARY COHEN, CNN SENIOR REPORTER: Yeah, Brianna, sources telling us the CIA did conduct a drone strike targeting a facility, a port facility that's in a remote area on the coast of Venezuela. This was a site that U.S. officials believe was being used by a Venezuelan gang, one of the gangs that has been designated as a terrorist group by the Trump administration, to essentially load drugs onto ships for transport.

We're told also at the time, there was nobody physically in the facility and that's why there were no casualties. But one of the sources characterized this strike as successful in that it destroyed the facility and the boats that were present at the time. They're also saying that this strike was largely symbolic. There are several ports that drug traffickers can use to distribute their drugs across the world.

So, ultimately, the impact of this strike remains unclear. It does seem that it was intended to send a message to the Maduro regime. You mentioned that this pressure campaign has been escalating over recent months. Trump has been warning that he would launch strikes against targets on land inside Venezuela, and now we find out that he did, and he is taking that step to escalate even further.

KEILAR: What's the Trump administration saying about all this?

COHEN: Very little. They're letting the president essentially go out there and say what he wants to say, and we've heard him first sort of reveal that the U.S. had conducted a strike inside Venezuela on a radio show when he was doing an interview with a Republican donor. He was asked by reporters about his comments yesterday at the White House and was a little bit vague, not so forthcoming. But take a listen to what he said when he was pushed on the strikes themselves and who carried them out.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

DONALD TRUMP, (R) PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: There was a major explosion in the dock area where they load the boats up with drugs. We hit all the boats, and now we hit the area, that's where they implement, and that is around it.

KEVIN LIPTAK, CNN REPORTER: Was the facility taken out by the U.S. military or was it another entity like the CIA?

TRUMP: Well, I don't want to say that. I know exactly who it was, but I don't want to say who it was. But you know, it was along the shore.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

COHEN: So it's interesting because you have the president essentially exposing a covert operation publicly, but this is something that U.S. officials, White House and other agencies have really not wanted to talk about, and it's especially interesting compared to those boat strikes in international waters that the Pentagon has really been publicizing over the last several months. So sort of a duality of the strategy here by the Trump administration.

KEILAR: No video of this one?

COHEN: Not yet.

KEILAR: As we've noted.

COHEN: Not that we know of. Yeah.

KEILAR: As we've noted. All right, Zach, thank you very much for that. Let's talk about this further now with CNN Military Analyst, Retired Major General James "Spider" Marks.

All right, General, this exclusive reporting and there's a lot to go through here. First off, a lot of presidents, all presidents use covert action. That's not unique to President Trump. I wonder what you think about the objective on this. Is this the right move? Is this the right way to go about this?

MAJ. GEN. JAMES "SPIDER" MARKS (RET.), CNN MILITARY ANALYST: Well, Brianna, I would say at least the behavior that the administration is displaying in terms of the application of force in this case is aligned with the national security strategy, which often we don't see, right?

[14:05:00]

And in this particular case, the national security strategy was crystal clear. Number one priority is Western Hemisphere. Try to eliminate malign actors, get the countries aligned, make sure that there's open lines of communication, distribution lines, et cetera, and get rid of foreign actors.

So at least you have that type of policy alignment with behavior, which is a good thing. Going after a single port, certainly there are no single points of failure in an overarching strategy. So this is part of a number of steps that we've seen.

Number one, the military presence has grown in the region, certainly with increased presence in Puerto Rico, certainly activities that we've taken place -- we've aligned with Panama and in the Caribbean, certainly, our presence there has not changed, and it probably will increase over time. So, you're not going to see immediate adjustments. And I also think it's fair, we probably should not be talking about -- or the administration should not be talking about regime change.

We, you know, to put it in the vernacular, we don't do that very well. We've kind of screwed that up in the past. We should stay away from that. This really, I think, is the alignment of policy and behavior, which kind of makes sense at this point.

KEILAR: I mean, Susie Wiles in that Vanity Fair profile talked about how Trump is hitting boats and trying to get Maduro to cry uncle. So that's raising big questions about the regime change.

But I do want to ask you, we just watched President Trump in Mar-a- Lago yesterday, being a little more cagey about the details of this. But he was actually the one who publicly made us all aware of it on Friday when he went on a podcast with a donor and talked about it. This is a strike that happened earlier this month, and we didn't even know about it until he said something. Is it problematic how he's talked publicly about it?

MARKS: I think so. Look, without getting into too much inside baseball, look, you have Title 10 and Title 50 legislative authorities that describe what type of military operations can take place. Title 10 is all about DOD. That's overt. We do it. We acknowledge it. We conduct an operation. Title 50 is run by the intel agencies. Generally DNI, CIA has that operational arm. That needs to go to Congress, generally the Gang of Eight.

We say we're going to do this, everybody keep the lid on this, which takes place, and then you conduct the operation. There may or may not be -- it could be a covert operation, it generally is, and there may not be an acknowledgment of that until long after the fact.

The fact that the president acknowledges it would be a recognition that this was Title 50, intel run. You had military operations under the authority of the intel world, and then the president declared it. I think it's a little bit bass-ackwards, as they say. It should have been kept -- it should have been declared in closed sessions, and then it should have been released kind of matter-of-factly. You don't need the president to acknowledge it in that particular way -- be the first one to acknowledge it.

KEILAR: Yeah. And I spoke with Secretary Panetta last hour. He also talked about how necessary it is to go to the Gang of Eight, top Democrats and Republicans on the Hill in positions of intel oversight. We should also mention, we don't know exactly the process that has or has not happened around that, right? We don't because, normally, we don't even know sort of the first part of this, that something has happened. So, you know, I think we'll sort of wait and see what happened there.

But, is Congress perhaps, because we don't expect that broadly Congress has awareness of the details of this, are they going to see this as maybe the Trump administration trying to go around them?

MARKS: I would hope not. On both sides, my aspirations would be both Congress and the administration shake hands and say, look, we need to be tightly aligned here. Look, you can brief the Gang of Eight. You're not getting permission from those guys. What you're simply saying is, this is what we know. This is the objective. Here's our intelligence. This is what we're trying to achieve. This is how it aligns with national policy. And here's the threat. We're going to execute this task FYI. You're not asking for permission.

That should take place. That should be the standard. So I'd hope on both sides, that we'd reach a point where you have that kind of recognition that this is an essential step in order to achieve these longer-term objectives.

You should never put anybody in a corner or in a box and intentionally try to obfuscate. That's not -- that's not the intent of all of this. The intent of all of this is to be open, transparent with those that need to know, not to declare it to the world broadly.

[14:10:00]

KEILAR: General Marks, always great to get your insights. Thank you so much and Happy New Year to you.

MARKS: Thanks, Brianna. And you as well.

KEILAR: Still to come, new details on the D.C. pipe bomb case. Lawyers for the man accused of placing those bombs on January 6th of 2021, pushing to have him released from jail today. Plus, Russia releasing a video showing what it says are nuclear capable missiles near the border of Ukraine, what that show of force could mean for peace talks.

And a power failure paralyzing travel in Europe. Train services suspended, causing chaos for thousands of holiday plans. We'll have that and much more coming up on "CNN News Central."

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

KEILAR: Happening now, a detention hearing for the Virginia man suspected of setting two pipe bombs around Washington, D.C., the day before the Capitol riot.

[14:15:00]

Federal investigators accused Brian Cole Jr. of placing explosive devices near the headquarters of both the Democratic and the Republican National Committees. For four years, authorities searched for the suspect and arrested Cole earlier this month.

Today, his lawyers argued their client should be granted a supervised release, pointing out there have been no incidents since the manhunt. But a short time ago, the judge expressed concern when prosecutors said Cole was buying bomb-making materials after January of 2021.

Let's discuss with former Deputy Assistant Attorney General, Harry Litman, who hosts the podcast "Talking Feds." Just first, your reaction to that little factoid, prosecutors saying the suspect bought bomb-making materials after January 2021, and how that could complicate his bid for pre-trial release.

HARRY LITMAN, FORMER U.S. ATTORNEY, WESTERN DISTRICT OF PA: Well, it's not good and there is already a pretty overwhelming case, I think, Brianna, for being detained before trial. But it obviously shows that his criminal activity, which is classified under the federal code as terrorism, wasn't just a one-time deal and he was thinking of doing it more.

That's a fact that weighs heavily against detention. Most of the facts do. The argument a little is whether he would do more violence, but really, even before you get to that point, I think the judge will find a combination of factors that keep him from being released. KEILAR: His attorneys had listed several factors when they argued for it.

LITMAN: Yeah.

KEILAR: And the first two were actually his autism spectrum disorder, that he has high-functioning autism, and that he has obsessive compulsive disorder. Why do you think they argued that?

LITMAN: You know, I'm not really sure. Here in California, it seems like half my kids' classmates could say the same, but it's not as part of the statute, Brianna, if as a result of that it makes him more dangerous, more unpredictable, more likely to flee, there's no kind of OCD exception. I think it's a general kind of play for sympathy that they might make at trial, but I can't see it cutting any ice with this magistrate as far as keeping him out of jail pending the trial.

KEILAR: The defense also argued that the bombs never detonated and because of that, the suspect should be released while awaiting trial. We have come to understand that they were functional though, so I wonder if this just feels to you like the defense kind of grasping at straws.

LITMAN: They are, of course, grasping at straws. That's the job of his lawyer and recall that he himself, in his hour-and-a-half confession, expressed relief that they didn't go off. So, he obviously thought that they were live.

There's apparently going to be a dispute at trial about whether they might have gone off. It'll be a battle of experts. But in terms of his mindset and accounts now for whether he stays detained pending trial, it's quite evident under the -- from the evidence that he thought they were going to go off. Recall that Kamala Harris was in the DNC at the time.

So, again, that happenstance could be a factor at trial. I don't think it cuts any ice at all in terms of his being detained. And as you suggest, the defense attorney is just making any argument that can be made, but I doubt the judge will buy into any of them.

KEILAR: Harry, what did you think about him initially denying that he placed the bombs, but then, after he was shown a still image of himself on a surveillance video, prosecutors say he actually then went on to explain in detail how he had built them.

LITMAN: It's true, and it's really interesting. It's laid out in some detail in the United States motion that he says no. They show him another photo of him in similar garb, and he sort of puts his head down for 15 seconds, understands that the gig is up, and begins to not just confess to the basics of the crime, but sort of every kind of detail of it, including how the bomb was made, where he got the materials, and the like.

And there had already been pretty meticulous police work done to kind of match that up with local stores. So, you know, at that point, I think what they told him is, if you lie to us, things could get worse for you. Many defendants then would say, I'd like a lawyer, please. That would have stopped things.

He felt the pressure, confessed, and I think that will make this an easy case for prosecutors to prove.

KEILAR: All right, Harry, thank you so much. Happy New Year to you, my friend.

LITMAN: Same to you, Brianna. Happy New Year to you and all your colleagues.

KEILAR: Thank you. And still to come, millions of families will soon be hit with skyrocketing increases for their health care coverage. We'll have a look at what some people are doing to prepare.

And then later, a Corvette crashes through a fence, narrowly missing kids playing outside.

[14:20:00]

We'll have that and much more coming up on "CNN News Central."

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

KEILAR: As many of us prepare to ring in the New Year, millions of Americans under the Affordable Care Act are bracing for their health insurance costs to surge. On January 1st, extended subsidies for Obamacare will expire after Congress failed to find a solution despite weeks of back-and-forth talks on Capitol Hill. And for many, the reality now means pay a lot more for health care or go without it.

Joining us now is someone facing this dilemma, Jeremy Koulish. Jeremy, thank you so much for taking time to talk about your situation. I think this really illustrates for people, what folks are going through. And let's start first with why you qualified for the ACA subsidy to begin with.

JEREMY KOULISH, ACA PREMIUM TO SKYROCKET IN 2026: Yes, of course. Thank you for having me on. Happy to share my story.

[14:25:00]

I was -- I'm a software developer and had, for the past six years, was in a senior position at the Census Bureau on a long-term contract until May. And that contract was canceled by the Trump administration as part of the downsizing efforts. And that thrust me into a very difficult job market that I am still navigating and still seeking my next opportunity.

There have been a lot of stressful things about that, but the health care plan that I got through the marketplace and the subsidies that allowed me to afford it have really been a blessing. They were easy to navigate, somebody helped me find the plan I like, and it was a great plan. I'd love to be able to stay on it if the opportunity were there, but --

KEILAR: Yeah, that's a lot. KOULISH: Sadly, it's no longer going to be affordable.

KEILAR: Yeah, that's a -- so talk about that. When you're talking about it's not affordable, what were you paying per month and what would it go to without the subsidy?

KOULISH: So I've been paying $392 a month for my current plan, which is quite a good plan. And it has enabled me to really ensure continuity of care for a couple chronic conditions that I have and that my wife has as well. The plan, when I saw -- last I saw on the marketplace without subsidies, it would be something like $1,608, give or take. That is not a number I can afford, and I can't imagine who could afford that, who is in the position to be needing subsidies.

KEILAR: So tell me, so what are you doing? What are you going to do then?

KOULISH: So, because my situation is still very fluid, I have no demonstrable income that I can show when working -- through determining what benefits are available to me, and that enabled my wife and I to go on to Medicaid. That comes with its own issues. I'm very grateful for it, and Medicaid is extremely important, of course.

But it's -- you know, it's a disruption of my care, and I am actually going to be getting a procedure tomorrow that I had planned for January. I was lucky to be able to -- that there was a cancellation. It's pretty important. It's a long-awaited maintenance procedure.

KEILAR: You know, to get it in on the last day of the year under the old program, and that's incredibly stressful if you have chronic conditions. And I mean, you have care, which is something, right? But I hear what you're saying. You're saying you're worried that it's not going to be what it was this past year for the care for these chronic conditions.

You're looking at this next year. The House will come back. They're going to vote in January on extending subsidies for three years. But then the measure faces a difficult path in the Senate. What's your message to lawmakers who are looking at this issue and considering this bill?

KOULISH: Yeah, I mean, one, it's a little late. The choices have been made already during the open enrollment window, and millions of families have already realized they're going to have to go without coverage or pay a pretty insane share of their income to do it. The main thing though, I believe, is that health care is a fundamental right in an advanced society like this. I truly believe that.

And there are real people's lives at stake here. We aren't numbers on a spreadsheet. We aren't political footballs. We are human beings. And like, we deserve to be treated with respect and have the dignity of being able to care for our health.

KEILAR: Yeah. Jeremy, you've been through a lot this past year. I certainly hope that 2026 brings some bright spots for you as you are looking for work and that you have continued good health management, I will say. Jeremy Koulish, thank you so much for being with us.

KOULISH: Thank you.

KEILAR: And still to come, nearly 12 years after flight MH370 disappeared, a new effort is now underway to find out what happened. I'm speaking with a loved one of a passenger on that flight next.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)