Return to Transcripts main page

CNN News Central

White House Faces Question Over Trump Family Crypto Company's Links to UAE Firm; Top U.S. and Iranian Officials Plan to Meet in Turkey Friday; Epstein Survivors Slam Redaction Failures, Demand DOJ Take Files Down. Aired 2:30-3p ET

Aired February 02, 2026 - 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: New reporting from the Wall Street Journal says the Trump family's cryptocurrency company sold a $500 million stake to a firm tied to the United Arab Emirates royal family. It's a deal that was signed by the president's son, Eric, just four days before Trump's inauguration last January. The paper says the buyers, lieutenants of the UAE's national security advisor, also known as the spy sheik, purchased 49 percent of the Trump family crypto company, and this is raising all kinds of conflict of interest questions.

CNN's Kevin Liptak is at the White House. That's a lot of money there, Kevin. What are the details you're learning?

KEVIN LIPTAK, CNN SENIOR WHITE HOUSE REPORTER: It is a whole lot of money, half a billion dollars. It amounts to a 49 percent stake in World Liberty Financial, which is the crypto firm that is founded by members of Trump's family, and this is really almost unprecedented in modern U.S. politics to have a foreign government-linked fund and officials now involved and in business with the family of the U.S. president. As you said, it took place four days before the president was sworn in last year.

These lieutenants of the Emirati national security advisor, who also runs that country's largest wealth fund, now on the board of World Liberty Financial, we should note that in addition to members of President Trump's family, members of Steve Whitkoff's family, he's President Trump's foreign envoy, are also involved in World Liberty Financial. Now, a spokesman for this firm confirmed this deal, but he said that neither Trump nor Steve Whitkoff had any involvement whatsoever in this transaction and that they have no involvement in World Liberty Financial. It's the timing here that I think is causing so many questions, including among Democrats on Capitol Hill.

You know, the administration was in the process and is in the process of determining whether to sell some of these advanced semiconductor chips that power AI to the UAE. There had been a lot of national security concerns about those sales. They eventually went through.

It's leading to a lot of questions of whether this deal helped kind of grease the wheels here. With the World Liberty Financial's concerns about those sales, they eventually went through. It's leading to a lot of questions of whether this deal helped kind of grease the wheels here.

What the World Liberty Financial spokesman said was that any claim this deal had anything to do with the administration's actions on chips is 100 percent false.

KEILAR: And what are White House officials -- what else are they saying about it?

LIPTAK: Yes, and they're very much trying to tamp down on the idea that there is any conflict of interest here. What Anna Kelly, who's a White House spokeswoman, said is that President Trump only acts in the best interest of the American public. She said that President Trump's assets are in a trust managed by his children.

I think very interestingly, we also got a statement from the White House counsel, you know, the top lawyer inside the White House when it comes to Steve Whitkoff. And the White House counsel said that Mr. Whitkoff, like all administration officials, takes seriously his compliance with the government ethics rule as special envoy for peace missions. He has not and does not participate in any official matters that could unpack his financial interests.

So all of those explanations, I think, not putting to rest the questions that a lot of Democrats have about all of this. Senator Elizabeth Warren has called for congressional scrutiny into this deal. She's calling it, quote, corruption, plain and simple.

KEILAR: Kevin Liptak, thank you -- Boris.

BORIS SANCHEZ, CNN HOST: This just into CNN. Sources say top U.S. and Iranian officials are planning to meet in Turkey on Friday amid efforts to reestablish nuclear negotiations. The development comes during a U.S. military buildup in the region that President Trump calls a massive armada that he could use to attack the Iranian regime. Iran's foreign minister tells CNN his country is open to nuclear talks with the U.S. and is hopeful for a resolution.

Let's get some perspective now with CNN political and national security analyst David Sanger. David, thanks so much for being with us. Your reaction to this news about talks in Turkey? Is there room for optimism?

DAVID SANGER, CNN POLITICAL AND NATIONAL SECURITY ANALYST: Great that they're doing this, Boris, but there is not a whole lot of room for optimism. There are three major things the administration is looking for. One is an end to uranium enrichment by the Iranians.

He probably can get a significant reduction. If he does, he will have just brought about the same terms that were in the 2015 nuclear agreement that you'll remember he pulled out of. That was the Obama era agreement.

The Iranians have said that they will not give up their missiles or put restrictions on their range. That's their only defense against Israel. So they say they will negotiate on nuclear issues, but not non-nuclear. And then the last part is that they won't support any of their proxy forces, unclear how you'd even police that.

SANCHEZ: A number of experts and Trump administration officials have made the argument that the regime in Tehran is at its weakest point ever. What do you make of the posturing now from the foreign minister saying that they're open to some kind of resolution that's diplomatic? Do you see this as perhaps the nadir of the regime in Tehran?

SANGER: So President Trump is clearly doing this because he judges, I think accurately, that the Iranians are incredibly weak. You know, they've lost Hamas. They've lost Hezbollah.

They've lost President Assad in Syria. All of these were regional allies. They've lost a lot of their missile capability after the Israelis attacked in June.

And of course, the uranium they have that is closest to bomb grade appears to be still buried in Isfahan after the U.S. attacks. So the president is acting because he thinks the Iranians are weak. And the trick here, the question is, is the Iranian system even capable of responding that quickly?

President Trump's used to sort of one-to-one negotiations with a single leader. That's not how Iran works.

SANCHEZ: There's also the question of, to your point, an agreement not taking shape because both sides want things that the other deems impossible. In speaking to experts recently, they've raised the potential for kinetic action in Iran that specifically targets the regime. Is it clear that the administration has a plan for that to happen?

And then what comes after?

SANGER: So I'm sure they've got a plan for it to happen because they've got plans for everything. We heard Secretary of State Rubio tell the Senate last week that no, they'd have to give a lot of thought to what the aftereffects of regime change would be. Well, one would hope they had been thinking about that.

Many other previous governments have for some time. But I think his overall point is right, which is, this is a lot more complicated than, say, Venezuela. In Venezuela, they left the structure of the dictatorship in place.

[14:40:00]

Hard to imagine that they would leave the Ayatollahs and the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps, the military elite, in place. And I think the last part of this that's really complicated for them is it's not even clear to me that military action is necessarily the best way to bring about change.

The Iranians are very sensitive to the fact that the CIA ran coups there in the 1950s. There are a lot of people in Iran who can't stand the current regime, but don't want to see the United States coming in to take over.

SANCHEZ: I also want to ask you about other relations when it comes to the U.S. and the Middle East. What do you make of this reporting in The Wall Street Journal about the UAE and the sale of this crypto fund with ties to the Trump family?

SANGER: Well, it's a remarkable scoop. I think the journal has to be commended for breaking this out. The most interesting thing is the timing.

You heard the White House explanation that there is no conflict of interest here because it's the president's kids, not the president himself. But it's also his children who are running that trust. You know, in past governments, if you were going into office as the Treasury Secretary or the Secretary of State, and you had significant assets, you'd put it in a blind trust run by people you don't know to make separate decisions.

And that's happened across Republican and Democratic administrations. That's not quite what's happened here. When we interviewed President Trump early in January and asked him about these conflicts of interest and so forth, and the fact that in the first term his family did not do any international work, he said, that's true, but we didn't get any credit for not doing that.

So he thought that in the second term, why not?

SANCHEZ: Wow. David Sanger appreciate the analysis.

SANGER: Thank you.

SANCHEZ: Still plenty more news to come this afternoon. An accuser is speaking to us about the fallout from the release of the unredacted Epstein files. How are survivors coping with sensitive information now being exposed?

[14:45:00]

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

KEILAR: We're back now with new backlash against the Justice Department for its latest release of the Epstein files and its decision not to hold anyone else accountable in the matter. Deputy Attorney General Todd Blanche signaling yesterday, DOJ will not pursue additional prosecutions related to Epstein. Today, survivors of his abuse are demanding millions of newly released files be taken down.

Their lawyers saying, quote, thousands of redaction failures have triggered an unfolding emergency. Epstein survivor Haley Robson is with us now. Haley, thank you so much for joining us.

And I do want to mention that your attorneys who represent a number of victims have sent this letter to DOJ asking the documents be taken down because of DOJ's failure to redact so much identifying information of victims. Tell us what it's been like for victims because of that. HALEY ROBSON, JEFFREY EPSTEIN SURVIVOR: Unfortunately, it's been devastating. I think we have been intentionally further abused by the DOJ. It feels like we're in this hostage toxic, you know, situation where we're being pulled in so many different directions.

And this is clearly not what transparency was designed for. You know, and I don't think this is what Congress intended as well. It's been heartbreaking.

I have been on the phone with some of my survivor sisters. I've been up late night crying with them on the phone. They are devastated.

They are heartbroken. Personal information has been leaked that had absolutely -- there's no reason for it. But yet the men and some of the defining evidence has still been redacted.

So at this point, we're feeling this is extremely intentional and it's very harmful. And this is not what we meant when we said we wanted transparency.

KEILAR: So can you explain that a little more? Because you heard, I know you heard Deputy Attorney General Todd Blanche saying Friday, and this was before we learned of all of these instances where you all are pointing out that there's very clear identifying information that is out there that should not be out there. He said it would be inevitable that there weren't mistakes given the volume of documents.

Why do you think it's intentional? Is it just the amount of revelations? Is it the failure of DOJ to respond in a timely matter to how you all are raising these objections?

What are the different data points you're seeing?

ROBSON: It's all of the above. First and foremost, we should have had a voice in how this was going to be done. And if they can cross boundaries, even breaking the law with the deadline, it's not, no, that's not OK.

You released 3 million documents in one day. So in 30 days, you could have done 3 million a day and released 90 million documents. And even at that, I don't think there's 90 million documents.

So I just feel like they are full of excuses. I feel like for you to go above and beyond to redact certain details regarding certain individuals that have been accused and to redact certain people that were involved as accusers, and you're taking the time to redact their information, their names. Some of the men in the files that have been named, I don't see their address.

I don't see their social security number. I don't see any other documents non-related to Epstein being released. So you're taking the time to redact for them, but you're literally pushing our personal data and information on a public platform because why?

We came out and said, we're demanding transparency and you're just -- there's no care. That just seems like it's reckless. And it seems like in order for you to be reckless, that means it would have to be deliberate.

KEILAR: And as Blanche is highlighting that even back in July, DOJ said, as they'd reviewed the files, there was nothing in there that allowed us to prosecute anybody.

[14:50:00]

What's your reaction to this expectation that there will be no one else held accountable?

ROBSON: So I saw this coming. I mean, I had to prepare myself for this because in Florida, it was so corrupt with what his 13 month deal was. So we already dealt with corruption here in Florida.

I was already mentally prepared that nothing was going to come of this. But in my mind, I was hoping for at least the shame and embarrassment to fall on the men that were being accused, as well as the individuals that are covering up for those individuals. And so I think it's total BS.

I think this was deliberately supposed to be demonstrated in chaos, confusion, and frustration deliberately, because then it brings reasonable doubt to the files. And I have a hard time with credibility when it comes to Todd Blanche.

KEILAR: I do want to note a DOJ spokesperson responded to CNN. We inquired about a lot of this, and they said, "The Justice Department takes victim protection very seriously and has redacted thousands of victims' names in the millions of published pages to protect the innocent. The Department had 500 reviewers looking at millions of pages for this very reason to meet the requirements of the act while protecting victims.

When a victim's name is alleged to be unredacted, our team is working around the clock to fix the issue and republish appropriately redacted pages as soon as possible. To date, 0.1 percent of released pages have been found to have victim identifying information unredacted."

But your complaints, Haley, are loud and clear. And we're not just hearing them from you. We're hearing them from a number of victims. I do also want to note that while there's no public evidence that any of the allegations against President Trump contained in the new documents were deemed credible by the FBI, in fact, DOJ says they're false and Trump has long denied any wrongdoing, DOJ did quickly remove what were salacious allegations about Trump and then, after significant media focus on their absence, put them back up.

How are you viewing that?

ROBSON: I mean, it's detestable. I think people are getting the picture that they're painting very clear. I think it's very obvious what's going on.

I think the American people are catching on. They're getting smart with what the DOJ is doing. Again, you're redacting certain individuals' names and you're not redacting victims' personal information.

I mean, of course, you're going to take the time to redact certain people that are named. And he's one of those people, unfortunately, that are named in the Epstein files. But this is where the survivors are having an issue, is these are allegations and accusations that are being released by our government, OK.

This is not like a gossip blog. This is an actual government releasing documents. And the whole point of this was so that we can bring transparency to the table and figure out which men should be held accountable.

And in order to do that, we have to have investigations. So if they're not willing to investigate any of these allegations, then our justice system just keeps failing the American people at every turn.

KEILAR: Haley Robson, thank you so much for taking the time to be with us today. We really, really appreciate it.

ROBSON: Thank you for having me.

KEILAR: And we'll be right back.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

SANCHEZ: Super Bowl 60 just days away. The New England Patriots, the Seattle Seahawks are in San Francisco right now preparing for what is sure to be a heck of a game. CNN's Andy Scholes joins us now. Andy, what can you tell us?

ANDY SCHOLES, CNN SPORTS ANCHOR: Well, Boris, you know, welcome to Super Bowl week here in the Bay Area. And Super Bowl 60, I mean, it's one that no one could have predicted before this season.

The Seahawks, they had 60 to 1 odds to win it all before the season started. Patriots, 80 to 1. You have to go all the way back to 1978 to find a Super Bowl that featured two teams with that long of odds to win it all before this season.

But it just goes to show how much a difference a new coach and quarterback can make. And Mike Vrabel and the Patriots touching down here to San Francisco yesterday. Vrabel, in his first year in New England, is looking to become the first former player to win a Super Bowl, coaching his former team.

And his quarterback, Drake Maye, at 23 years old, he could become the youngest quarterback ever to win the big game. Now, Sam Darnold, meanwhile, he is the favorite to win Super Bowl 60 MVP. And what a comeback it's been for Darnold.

You know, he's gone from bust with the New York Jets to leading the Seahawks to the Super Bowl. He would be the first ever QB to play for five different teams and win a Super Bowl. Now, this game, it's being called the Malcolm Butler Revenge Game. [15:00:00]