Return to Transcripts main page

CNN News Central

Ex-U.K. Ambassador to U.S. Arrested Amid Epstein Probe; FBI Investigates Shooting Death of Accused Mar-a-Lago Intruder; Delta Flight Engine Trouble Sparks Grass Fire; U.S. And Iran to Hold Nuclear Talks Thursday in Geneva; U.S. Orders Some Personnel Out of Beirut Embassy. Aired 1:30-2p ET

Aired February 23, 2026 - 13:30   ET

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

[13:30:00]

ELIE HONIG, CNN SENIOR LEGAL ANALYST: Well, I see a starkly different approach, Erica. What it appears that the U.K. authorities have done is taken the documents or some of the documents that are in the Epstein Files library, which was put online by our DOJ just about 23 or 24 days ago. And they've taken some of those documents, some of those emails back and forth between Jeffrey Epstein and Andrew and Mr. Mandelson, and used them, at least in part, it appears, to build the arrest case -- the case leading to these arrests.

On the flip side, what is our Justice Department doing with its own information? Now, they've given us notably mixed signals on that. Pam Bondi has at times said there is an investigation, at times has said there's not. Todd Blanche has suggested there's not. We just don't know. But I'll tell you this, there's no overt indicator that our DOJ is engaged in any type of forward-looking investigation, whether based on financial crimes like here, based on crimes relating to the sex trafficking ring for which Jeffrey Epstein and Ghislaine Maxwell were charged. There's no subpoenas flying. There's no search warrants being executed. We're not hearing of anyone being questioned.

So, it does seem that the U.K. authorities are taking a much more aggressive proactive approach to these investigations.

ERICA HILL, CNN CO-ANCHOR OF "CNN NEWS CENTRAL": Is there a role that you can foresee for the DOJ in this U.K. investigation, given, of course, that Jeffrey Epstein was a U.S. citizen?

HONIG: So there actually could be, because we have a mutual legal aid treaty, meaning, called an MLAT, between the United States and the U.K., which basically says that we will share information with one another, the two countries, and each country will assist the other in obtaining evidence and information that the other country may need. So if the U.K. authorities come over here and say, hey, we need you to serve a subpoena. We need you to grab financial records or phone records that may be of interest to us. We need you to compel somebody to testify, that's all stuff that we as DOJ are required to help them with under this treaty.

So it could be that DOJ gets called upon by U.K. authorities to help with investigation here in the United States against either Mandelson or against Andrew as well. So, there could be an ongoing role for DOJ in this.

HILL: So you note, Elie, that DOJ is required, right, by this treaty, but is that something that the current DOJ could somehow get around if they wanted? I mean, I think you're probably one of my best sources on this. Things are perhaps not operating as we're used to, as they maybe have in years past over there.

HONIG: Yeah, I mean, I suppose they could disregard the treaty, but this is part of the reason that I think anytime Pam Bondi or Todd Blanche appears in public or in front of Congress or at a press conference, they need to be pressed on this. Have you received any requests for assistance from the U.K. authorities? And if they answer that or not, you can ask them, they should be asked straight up, if you receive such a request, will you abide by the MLAT? Will you abide by the treaty and will you honor those requests?

There have been complaints in the past, going both ways, that either side has not been fully forthcoming with the other side in terms of getting information that they need around the Epstein case writ large. So, I do think that's fair game. I think that's something that needs to be asked of Pam Bondi and Todd Blanche, whether they will abide by this treaty.

HILL: All right, excellent questions as always, and the excellent answers from my friend. Elie, appreciate it. Thanks. Brianna?

BRIANNA KEILAR, CNN CO-ANCHOR OF "CNN NEWS CENTRAL": As President Trump prepares for his State of the Union address tomorrow, he is facing a public that's increasingly critical of his priorities and expressing doubts about whether his policies are helping the country.

A new CNN poll shows the president's approval rating has now dropped to just 36 percent, with 63 percent of those polled disapproving of the president's job performance. With us now is Republican Congressman, Kevin Kiley of California. Congressman, thank you so much for being with us.

These are key groups that the president made inroads with in 2024 that CNN's poll is finding he's bleeding support with, down 19 points with Latinos, down 18 points with voters under 45. He's at his lowest approval rating in either term with independents. What is that going to mean for Republicans like yourself in the midterms?

REP. KEVIN KILEY, (R-CA): Well, the approval rating of a president, fairly or unfairly, tends to be determined most by how people feel about the economy. And there's no doubt that right now, even though I think we've made a lot of progress in certain ways, the issue of affordability is a big one for people all across the country. And it's just way too hard for too many people in this country to get by.

And so, you know, in my state, this problem is particularly acute, where we have the highest cost of living in the country. I'm from California. And I think there's good reason for that in California, by the way. We've massively overregulated sectors like energy. We're importing gasoline from the Bahamas. We've made it way too hard to build houses. We've made it way too difficult to build water infrastructure.

So, I think that there's a lesson to be learned there, that if at the federal level, in Congress, we can have a proactive affordability agenda that learns the lessons from jurisdictions that have driven costs up really high, like in California, then we can do a lot of good. And I think that that would then be reflected in poll numbers and in the midterms.

[13:35:00]

KEILAR: So -- and Americans want to hear that economic message. The same poll finds 57 percent of Americans want Trump to focus his State of the Union speech on the economy. What should he say?

KILEY: Well, I think that, you know, he can rightly point to ways in which things have improved. You know, I think that we are seeing some encouraging signs, generally speaking, when it comes to jobs and GDP growth and, you know, certain sectors are driving a lot of that. But I do think he to level with the American people and say that he understands that across the country, a lot of people are really struggling right now more than they should.

And so I think that we've taken some positive steps in the House so far. There's been measures to expand domestic energy production. That's bringing down costs. It's brought down gas prices in most places across the country. We just passed significant housing legislation last week. But, you know, I think that if the president can have a unifying message that if we work together in a bipartisan way to make life better for the American people, there are really extraordinary things that we can accomplish.

KEILAR: Do you -- so, are you saying that he's not empathizing enough? Is he not validating what people are feeling enough?

KILEY: I don't know that that's necessarily the case, but I think that all of us have a responsibility to make sure that we understand what people are really going through on a day to day basis. Like in my state, you know, our governor likes to say, oh, we're the fourth largest economy in the world and rattle off a lot of numbers. But that doesn't change the fact that we have the highest poverty rate in the country.

We have the highest cost of living in the country. We have the highest unemployment in the country, which makes it very difficult for people to get by and provide for their families. So I think that everything we do from a policymaking perspective needs to be grounded in the lived experience of the American people and understanding as well sort of some of the turbulent times we're going through right now.

The country and the world are going through a lot of changes when it comes to global affairs, when it comes to the rapid advancements of technology. And so, you know, it's very important right now that we really are in touch with what folks are going through and that we're crafting policy accordingly.

KEILAR: On tariffs, what's your reaction to the president writing in part? Most recently, he said, I do not have to go back to Congress to get approval on tariffs, echoing what he said right after we learned of the Supreme Court's decision. What's your reaction to that?

KILEY: Well, even the president acknowledges that ultimately the authority to impose tariffs and taxes lies with Congress. He's arguing that under particular statutes that have been passed by Congress in the past, it gives him, it's delegated to him authority to impose tariffs in specific circumstances. Now, of course, the Supreme Court disagreed with that when it came to the specific statute of IEEPA. And now, he's going to be relying on other statutes.

So, for example, there's Section 302 investigations that the U.S. trade representative can do, where if there's unfair trade practices by other states, then maybe the U.S. can try to counteract those, which actually is a fairly narrowly tailored authority that makes some sense in some circumstances. However, with this 15 percent across-the- board tariff, that's relying on something called Section 122 of the 1974 Trade Act, relying on this issue of balance of payments, which really kind of predates the current international monetary system that we have.

And so, that issue may be tested in court as well. But the fundamental point is this, that the Congress does retain ultimate authority here, and there's nothing to stop Congress from playing a proactive role in trade policy.

(CROSSTALK)

KEILAR: Can I ask you, how do you see him acknowledging that? You said he has 150 days only under that section, but you said he acknowledges that this is a role that is Congress'. Can you point to how he's acknowledging that? Where do you hear him stressing that?

KILEY: Well, because he's relying on statutes that have been passed by Congress, whether it's IEEPA, whether it's the 1974 Trade Act, whether it's the statutes that provide authority under (inaudible).

KEILAR: OK. So, let's go back to where he keeps saying he doesn't have to go back to Congress to get approval of tariffs. He's actually -- he continues to stress, and you've had a couple votes here recently where you've been asserting Congress' role when it comes to tariffs, but he seems to be asserting repeatedly that he doesn't have to go back to Congress.

KILEY: Yeah, so that's the point I was trying to make, is that there are specific circumstances where clearly Congress has delegated some authority in this area. And what those circumstances are may well be further tested in court. But regardless of that, Congress does retain the ultimate authority here.

And so, we can proactively at any time assert that authority and play a more proactive role in trade policy. And I think that's what we should do. As Justice Gorsuch explained in his opinion, the policymaking process just works better when the representatives of the people across this country are involved and bring our different perspectives and expertise to bear. KEILAR: Congressman Kevin Kiley, thanks so much for being with us.

KILEY: Of course, thanks for having me.

KEILAR: Erica?

HILL: Taking a look at some of the other headlines we're watching this hour. Right now, President Trump's Florida resort is at the center of a crime scene investigation. Secret Service and Palm Beach County officers shot and killed an intruder at Mar-a-Lago, who is described as a white man in his 20s.

[13:40:00]

Authorities say the man raised this gun to a "shooting position" after entering the secured perimeter of Mar-a-Lago. This happened around 1.30 a.m. yesterday. The sheriff says the man was also carrying a fuel can. The president and the first lady were in Washington.

Special Counsel, Jack Smith's final report on Donald Trump's alleged mishandling of classified records and obstruction of justice at Mar-a- Lago will not be released. That decision made today by the Trump- appointed judge, Aileen Cannon, who previously threw out the case that Smith had brought against Trump before he was re-elected.

Smith originally turned over a two-volume report of his findings to the attorney general. That happened in 2025. The first part detailing Trump's alleged efforts to overturn the results of the 2020 election was released before his second term. Judge Cannon's ruling on the second part, known only as volume two, is being appealed by public transparency groups.

And a Delta Airlines flight forced to return last night after engine trouble sparked a large grass fire near the runway at Savannah/Hilton Head International Airport. Take a look at those images. This was Flight 1067. It had just taken off when the pilot declared an emergency, reporting the plane's left engine had failed.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: It's yours. Unfortunately, when the engine blew, it set the whole grass on the left side of the airport on fire."

(END VIDEO CLIP)

HILL: The plane was able to land back at the airport about 30 minutes after takeoff. No one on board was injured.

President Trump's special envoy warning Iran could be just a week away now from having industrial-grade bomb-making material, as President Trump says he is considering military action against the regime. We'll take a look at what's actually on the table next.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[13:46:10 KEILAR: It's the all-important question, will Marty reign supreme? That is the big question in the run-up to Hollywood's biggest night. Timothee Chalamet looks to win his first Oscar, but standing in his way are screen icons like Leonardo DiCaprio, Ethan Hawke, and Michael B. Jordan. CNN's Harry Enten is with us now.

HARRY ENTEN, CNN CHIEF DATA ANALYST: Did you say Harry Enten?

KEILAR: I think I Timothee Chalamet-ed your name a little.

ENTEN: Perfect.

KEILAR: It's sort of like a French --

ENTEN: A French?

KEILAR: A French version.

ENTEN: Bonjour.

KEILAR: Or maybe a Spanish version.

ENTEN: Either way.

KEILAR: Either way, Harry. --

(LAUGH)

KEILAR: It's great to have you here in studio. OK, so Chalamet won the Golden Globe last month.

ENTEN: Yes.

KEILAR: I mean, that's kind of a good indicator here, but what does that mean for his chances?

ENTEN: OK, so this to me is so interesting. If you go back over time, since the beginning of the 21st century, and you look at the person who won Best Actor for either a musical or comedy, get this, only one of them -- one of them -- one of them then went on to win the Oscar for Best Actor. It has, in fact, not been a good indicator.

KEILAR: Oh, wow.

ENTEN: That was Jamie Foxx back when he was playing Ray Charles in, of course, the movie "Ray." That was the only time this century that the person who won the Golden Globe for Best Actor in a musical or comedy actually went on and won the Best Oscar. So it turns out, not that good of an indicator.

KEILAR: OK, so he should just --

ENTEN: He should go --

KEILAR: He should not write a speech --

ENTEN: No.

KEILAR: -- to, you know, like play with the situation. If he doesn't write, that's probably the only way that he could actually make this work. OK, so he also won the Critics' Choice Award for Best Actor. How predictive has that award been?

ENTEN: Ah, ah, now we're cooking. We're cooking with gas now, Brianna. We're cooking with gas now. If you go back since the beginning of the 21st century, get this, 17 times the Critics' Choice Best Actor actually then went on to win the Oscar for Best Actor. So the Golden Globes, not an indicator.

But then all of a sudden, you combine it with the Critics' Choice Award, hello, that's an indicator. So now, maybe Timothee Chalamet should, in fact, be writing his speech for the Best Actor at the Oscars.

KEILAR: OK, so not winning an Oscar after getting nominated a bunch, what does history say about that?

ENTEN: OK, so we're hoping, if we're big Timothee Chalamet fans, and I am, thank you very much. We're hoping that he turns into a Marlon Brando who took a few times to finally actually win. But it turns out there's a history of folks who actually got nominated a ton and then never won.

I mean, look at this. Peter O'Toole, eight times, eight times and never won. Richard Burton, six times and never won. You don't want to be in the Peter O'Toole or Richard Burton camp when it comes to the Oscars because you get so close -- you get so close, and then they take it right away from you on the big night.

KEILAR: Yeah, and then you feel like an O'Toole. About Timothee (ph), right? That's not how you want to feel. OK, what do the predictive markets show his chances to be here?

ENTEN: OK.

KEILAR: Because I mean, that's what really matters, right?

ENTEN: That's what really matters. OK, so if we look at the predictive markets, we look at the cache (ph) predictive market, this is where it all comes together for Timothee Chalamet fans such as myself. Look at that, that the chance that he wins the best Oscar -- Best Actor in the Oscars. I couldn't get it out.

KEILAR: The best acteur. Let's combine it.

ENTEN: Let's combine it. I love it. I don't even know what language we're speaking anymore. Half the time I'm talking Yiddish anyway. I feel like a putz. Anyway, the point is, he is the clear favorite at this point to actually win the Oscar for best actor. I actually got it right this time.

The Critics Choice Award, I think, will reign supreme in its predictability, at least if the predictive markets have their say. KEILAR: All right, we're going to know soon enough.

ENTEN: We will know soon enough. Time always marches forward. And I think that's true no matter what language you speak.

KEILAR: It really is. Harry Enten, thank you so much.

ENTEN: Thank you.

KEILAR: And we'll be right back.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[13:54:51]

HILL: Fresh protests against the Islamic regime erupting in the streets of Iran today as U.S. forces continue their largest military buildup in the Middle East in two decades. This Thursday, a new round of talks between the U.S. and Iran are planned in Geneva.

[13:55:00]

President Trump says he is considering military action if Tehran does not agree to the terms he set for a new nuclear deal. Here's more from the president's special envoy.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

STEVE WITKOFF, U.S. SPECIAL ENVOY TO MIDDLE EAST: He's curious as to why they haven't, I don't want to use the word 'capitulated', but why they haven't capitulated.

(LAUGH)

WITKOFF: Why under this sort of pressure with the amount of sea power, naval power that we have over there, why they haven't come to us and said, we profess that we don't want a weapon, so here's what we're prepared to do, and yet it's hard to sort of get them to that place.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

HILL: Joining us now to discuss retired, General Wesley Clark. He, of course, is the former NATO Supreme Allied Commander. General, always good to talk to you.

In terms of those comments from Steve Witkoff, do you think that the president, that the United States are somehow misreading Iran in this moment and where they are in terms of moving forward in the regime's resolve, I would say, in some ways?

GEN. WESLEY CLARK (RET.), FORMER NATO SUPREME ALLIED COMMANDER: I don't think they're misreading Iran. I think that Iran is very, very stubborn about its right to have nuclear energy, to enrich uranium, and I think there's going to be a real struggle. And once the strikes begin, the outcome is uncertain. You just can't tell what's going to happen and you don't know what you can do to find a so-called off-ramp once the strikes begin, so I think a lot depends on what happens on Thursday. Clearly, the Iranian regime knows that it's at risk. It knows that President Trump is somewhat unpredictable.

It knows that the United States has a tremendous amount of combat power out there and yet, it clings to what it wants and it may believe that it can play turtle on us, pull in the head, hide under the shell and wait this out.

HILL: Wait it out in terms of maybe there's a first strike, wait it out, see what happens?

CLARK: Well, maybe there's a first strike after maybe the negotiation now on Thursday, maybe what they are proposing is not adequate. Maybe it's worth discussing and so maybe there's no strike right after that, but maybe eventually they harden their position. But then once the strikes begin, then what happens? That's the question.

So, can you immediately finish them off? Will the regime completely collapse? Seems unlikely unless there's a real fissure inside the leadership of the Revolutionary Guards Corps and we've never seen that before, at least not publicly. So, I think the Iranian regime probably believes they can make a sort of a halfway offer and dare the United States not to take it.

HILL: When we look at this, obviously a lot, as you've noted, a lot is riding on what happens Thursday, right, in Geneva, these talks in Geneva. But we also, of course, learned today that the U.S. is ordering non-emergency U.S. government personnel and eligible family members in Lebanon that they should leave the country. What does that tell you about further preparations in this moment?

CLARK: I think it's precautionary. It also sends a certain signal of intent to Iran that we are prepared to protect our own people, that we are still considering going ahead. So, it goes along with the continuing convergence of military forces on the region to put pressure on the Iranian government. But I wouldn't expect that the proposal they offer Thursday is a final solution.

I think it'll open the door to more talks and more talks and more talks. And the question is, at what point does the United States lose patience with this? Because if what Steve Witkoff says is actually correct, that they're within a week of having a nuclear device, then a stall is in their interest.

HILL: It also raises question, Steve Witkoff saying they're within a week of a nuclear device. The president, of course, back in June had said that they had completely obliterated, essentially, Iran's nuclear capabilities. So, that raises additional questions. How much does that muddy the waters?

CLARK: Well, we -- most of us knew that, or thought we knew that not all the material was destroyed in the June attack. But a lot of it may have been sealed up. Maybe there was another setup somewhere. We've seen reports of it in the press. Maybe there are other sites that we don't know about.

So, it raises the question of how good our intelligence is, really. And whether we, with a few strikes, we could eliminate their nuclear potential or set it back for several years. We thought we had done that. Officially, we thought that in June. But it looks like we've now revised our intelligence estimate.

HILL: General Wesley Clark, always appreciate your insight and your expertise. Thank you. Brianna?

KEILAR: A bomb cyclone --