Return to Transcripts main page

CNN News Central

Egypt Criticizes Referee Decisions in Loss to Argentina; Trump Says Ceasefire With Iran Over but War Won't Start Again; Trump Again Threatens to Take Over Kharg Island; Sources Say Platner, Team Discussing Exit From Maine Senate Race; Manhattan High-Rise Stabilized; ICE Officer Fatally Shoots Man During Traffic Stop; Trump Says We'll Give Ukraine the Rights to Make Patriot Missiles. Aired 2- 2:30p ET

Aired July 08, 2026 - 14:00   ET

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

[14:00:00]

DON RIDDELL, CNN SPORTS ANCHOR & CORRESPONDENT: -- for us, you're not prepared to look at it. So that's the inconsistency.

Egypt, you know, beyond all of that, will be concerned with perhaps what Gianni Infantino, the FIFA President, said to a reporter after the game. He said, tonight I suffered with Argentina, but I'm neutral. He added one of the Egyptian players, Mostafa Ziko, said strange things happened on the field. So, I mean, they really feel as though they were hard done by, but they're out of the tournament and that's that.

BRIANNA KEILAR, CNN CO-ANCHOR OF "CNN NEWS CENTRAL": Yeah, it's a tough one for sure. Don, thank you so much for the latest there. A new hour of "CNN News Central" starts right now.

Mixed messages. President Trump says the ceasefire with Iran is over and the U.S. military could strike again tonight, but he also says he doesn't believe the war will start again.

And the long goodbye. Democrat Graham Platner isn't quitting the main Senate campaign yet, but a person close to the campaign tells CNN, "This could and should end today." And fatal shooting. An ICE officer shoots and kills a man while conducting a traffic stop in Houston.

We're following these major developing stories and many more, all coming in right here to "CNN News Central."

We have Breaking News on the war with Iran. President Trump just a short time ago appearing to soften his tone after saying the ceasefire agreement was over. The president giving this response when he was asked if the war was fully back on following back and forth attacks over the past day.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

DONALD TRUMP, (R) PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: I don't think it's going to start again. I think it's going to go very quickly. They hit a couple of ships, and so we hit them much harder. When they hit, we hit ten times harder. You know, we hit much harder than they do.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

KEILAR: CNN's Nic Robertson is live in Ankara, Turkey, where the president made those remarks before leaving the NATO Summit. Nic, there was a lot of mixed messages from President Trump today, not only on the state of the ceasefire, but also on his threat to strike Iran again tonight. Tell us what you're learning.

NIC ROBERTSON, CNN INTERNATIONAL DIPLOMATIC EDITOR: Yeah, I really felt at the start of the day as if he sort of came out really hard, saying for him the MOU was effectively over, that the ceasefire was effectively over, and that he just didn't trust the Iranians at all. And then by the end of the day, as you say there, he did seem to sort of leave the option open. There's a possibility of this not being a return to full-scale war, that there is a possibility of the diplomacy coming into play.

He talked about Steve Witkoff, Jared Kushner, Vice President J.D. Vance as being the sort of smart people who can deal with this issue. So it did seem very much that it felt like posturing, if you will, to send a message to Iran that the United States was capable and willing to hit again tonight. We don't know what's been happening in the diplomacy behind the scenes.

We do know or believe that Pakistani mediators, Qatari mediators, are doing what they've done in the past when there's been difficult moments like this, trying to sort of bring the two sides down, trying to sort of talk over the differences. But the Iranians have been using very strong language, saying that they will hit back.

And President Trump indicating that he was looking at targeting and had targeted last night a key strategic important island for Iran, the island that they export most of their crude oil from that has the deep water port facilities for the massive super tankers.

This is how the president explained that.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

TRUMP: We attacked Kharg Island last night. We knocked it out of peace. I said, don't touch the oil because maybe we'll take over Kharg Island. We may take over Kharg Island. There's not a thing they can do about it. But I said, don't hit the pipes, just hit everything else, and they hit it. They may hit it again tonight.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

ROBERTSON: Which is interesting that the president picked on Kharg Island because that is a long way up the Arabian Gulf, the Persian Gulf as the Iranians call it. We were aware last night from Iranian media reporting that Qeshm Island, that's actually on the bend, if you will, in the Strait of Hormuz, that it was that area, Bandar Abbas, Qeshm Island, that were targeted.

But this would be a very, very high-value target. The Iranians would consider it such that the president is saying the United States hit last night. So the stakes are high for the Iranians. That's the message from the president, if they don't back down.

KEILAR: We'll see how they understand that. Obviously, a lot of back and forth. Nic Robertson, thank you so much. We're also standing by, right now, to hear from embattled Maine Democratic Senate nominee, Graham Platner. Sources telling CNN he's expected to announce a decision on the future of his campaign as soon as today.

Platner has been under immense pressure to exit the race after a woman that he previously dated alleged that he raped her back in 2021.

[14:05:00]

It's an allegation that he denies. The Maine Democratic Party says it is working to develop a process to replace Platner that is open, inclusive, transparent and fair.

We're joined now by CNN Contributor, New York Times journalist, and host of "The Interview" podcast, Lulu Garcia-Navarro. Lulu, thank you for being with us. And I can't help but see this late exit and this compressed time table that the Platner potential expected exit is creating here, and wonder how you are seeing that in light of the other late exit that, of course, we think of, which is Joe Biden that resulted in his vice president taking his place on the ticket to an unsuccessful result. How are you seeing this?

Yeah, I mean, this is giving Democrats a huge hangover from 2024, and not only Democrats in office, in Washington, in Maine, Democratic leaders, but Democratic voters who really want to take out Susan Collins. And so, what you are hearing from Maine voters is how is this exactly going to work, what is the process going to be, because they're promising -- the Democratic Party is promising a very inclusive process, a transparent process.

LULU GARCIA-NAVARRO, CNN CONTRIBUTOR: But let's be honest here, they have weeks to get this sorted out, and they've already been through a primary. So this is the worst possible timing.

KEILAR: Can they do that in any satisfactory way?

GARCIA-NAVARRO: I mean, we'll see. They haven't come out with their plan yet. They say that they're not going to release their plan until Graham Platner officially drops out. What we're hearing from Graham Platner's team and the people around him is that they want to influence how that process plays out, because they want someone that more resembles him that will sort of take the mantle, than maybe someone who is a more traditional Republican.

So this actually speaks to the civil war that we've seen pretty much in many places across this country when it comes to left-leaning and more centrist Democrats. It's playing out right now in Maine. But the fact of the matter is, what real options are Maine voters going to have?

KEILAR: This whole thing has, I think there's so much soul-searching that needs to happen, right? CNN's Laura Coates spoke with Nirav Shah, who ran for governor in Maine, is now thinking of throwing his hat in the ring in lieu of Platner.

She asked him what it was about Jenny Racicot's allegations, she's the one who said that Platner raped her, which he denies, that led him to withdraw his support for Platner, as opposed to earlier allegations of assault from another woman in June in The New York Times. Here is -- here's what he said.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

DR. NIRAV SHAH, (D) FORMER MAINE GOVERNOR CANDIDATE: There were a few things that are different here. Number one of them is the severity of them, alleged forcible rape. The other is the documentation that accompanied it. And of course, there's also this phenomenon of more at some point becomes the straw that breaks the proverbial camel's back. There were too many lines here that were crossed.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

KEILAR: Now, Platner, of course, denies all of these allegations. But what do you think about his answer?

GARCIA-NAVARRO: I think there is going to be a lot of soul-searching. Clearly, he was not that -- I interviewed Graham Platner before all these --

KEILAR: Yeah.

GARCIA-NAVARRO: -- sexual assault allegations came out. He denied that anything more was coming. At the end of the day, first of all, has he lied to the people of Maine about his own background and what he knew was coming his way? Has he put Democratic voters in a situation now where they won't have a candidate that embodies the promise that he held for them?

I mean, he animated so many people in Maine that, you know, is he leaving them high and dry? But beyond that, the people who supported him, the Democratic -- you know, not the establishment, but some of these progressives who really rallied behind him, Bernie Sanders and others, there were a lot of red flags on the way here.

We didn't get to this point out of the blue. There were many, many, many red flags along the way that I think should have been a warning sign that this potentially was what was going to happen.

KEILAR: It was a very good interview that you did with him. And in your interview with him, you always explore, I think, so many textural things. And I think that's really -- it's really important to kind of get a sense of things, and especially now you've got so much to look back on in light of this moment. You talked to him about his PTSD diagnosis.

He explained the specific moment in combat when he believes that started for him. And that's actually something, that diagnosis is something -- or certainly his experience in war is something that has come up in some of these allegations from his past partners who are alleging rape or abuse by him. I think it's important to be clear that trauma is not an excuse, right? We should be clear about that.

But I do wonder how you were seeing his PTSD as a dynamic in the discussion about his behavior.

GARCIA-NAVARRO: I do think that his service to this country -- he did four tours in Afghanistan and Iraq. And his explanation as to how he experienced the aftermath of that, his struggles that so many veterans have had, I think did lead people to give him more leeway.

[14:10:00]

He explained it that way too. He asked for that leeway to be given to him. He said, I went through some terrible times. I've come out the other side of that. I am a better man for it. And I think that actually resonated. So I do think this is part of the conversation. This all doesn't happen in a vacuum.

That said, PTSD doesn't, you know, make you an alleged rapist. PTSD doesn't, you know, allow you to be violent towards women. Those aren't the things that we should expect in our elected leaders.

KEILAR: Is it possible he abused the leeway? The grace that he was given?

GARCIA-NAVARRO: I mean, that certainly is going to be a question for Graham Platner going forward. You know, in that conversation that I had with him, I suffered PTSD. I spent many, many years in Iraq, so it was a point of commonality.

You know, we talked about this extensively in that interview, and I think he wanted people to understand that this was, you know, the reason why he was, as he called it, you know, putting those messy messages on Reddit and, you know, all this behavior that had been kind of brought up.

He used it as a sort of get-out-of-jail-free card. And I think looking back on that now, maybe overused or even abused might be a question that could be put to him going forward.

KEILAR: Lulu, it's great to speak with you. Thank you so much.

GARCIA-NAVARRO: Thank you.

KEILAR: Such a critical day, perhaps. We'll have to see where it goes in Maine. Thank you.

Still to come, President Trump striking a different tone at the NATO Summit after some controversial comments about the alliance. We're going to discuss with a former U.S. ambassador to NATO. And officials in New York are working to stabilize that high-rise after earlier fears that it would possibly collapse. We're going to look at next steps there.

And later, an ICE officer fatally shoots a man in Texas during a traffic stop. Those details and much more coming up on "CNN News Central."

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[14:16:38]

KEILAR: While President Trump called Iran's leaders "scum," the president took a more positive tone toward his NATO allies after lashing out at them earlier in the day. He said that he and his counterparts had a great meeting. He downplayed their refusal to join the war with Iran saying, quote, "They just had a bad moment."

Let's talk about that relationship now with Ivo Daalder former U.S. Ambassador to NATO. He's now a Senior Fellow at the Harvard Belfer Center and hosts the "World Review with Ivo Daalder" podcast.

Ambassador thanks for being with us. Trump kept saying that NATO countries during the summit, they praised him. He said that they said, sir, we love you. I think we maybe should be skeptical of the exact language that he's representing but I do suspect that they actually were kind to him.

I guess, my question for you then is, are they you know still trying to win him over or are they really just trying to draw out what they may see as the U.S. abandoning its leadership role in this decades- long world order. I mean how do NATO countries see it, do you think?

IVO DAALDER, FORMER U.S. AMBASSADOR TO NATO: More on the second way. I think the flattery is seen as a way to keep the president on side to make sure that he doesn't withdraw from NATO, which is something he said he was seriously considering just a few months ago, and to keep to the extent possible America committed to NATO and hope that at some point a new administration comes in and a new basis can be laid.

But also, because they need time, they need time to build up their capabilities. They have been wasting away their defense spending for far too long. They've under invested in defense for well over a quarter century now and only now are they starting to invest the kind of resources necessary to build up the capability, but you can't do that on day one. The commitment is there.

I think they're fulfilling that commitment, but buying the equipment and finding ways to build up the forces and to take more and more responsibility for the defense of Europe is just a question that takes time and the United States in the meantime needs to remain engaged. So I think there is both flattery that is designed to help Trump to stay on side and it seemed to have worked in this meeting, but then also a realization that something very fundamental has changed.

KEILAR: So Trump diminished this rift with Europe today but I do wonder, considering this is a tough day for Trump when it comes to the Iran war. He was very clearly angry by what has transpired as he's talking about restarting the naval blockade, maybe hitting Iran tonight militarily. How does that European, that those kind of concerted actions to not act when it comes to joining the U.S. in the Iran War, how are those aging as this plays out? DAALDER: So I think the reality is the United States did not consult any of the European allies on when it started to go to war and it didn't ask them to join until well into the fighting when it turned out that the optimistic assumptions that this would be a war of a few days turned out to be wrong.

I also think that the president, although he doesn't like to admit it, realizes that actually having access to European bases having access to European airspace is absolutely critical to continue to afford war itself and to continue to hold Iranian targets at risk.

[14:20:00]

You can't just do that either from the United States or from Israel, which is the other place in which they have some forces and of course in the Gulf countries. You need access to European bases and as the NATO secretary general pointed out to President Trump about 5,000 sorties were taken off in the six weeks of the war from European bases. And so he, while he was unhappy with the fact that the Europeans didn't do what he wanted them to do, after the fact, he also realizes you know the United States that wants to be a global power will need access to Europe which is a pretty central place from a geographical location in order to achieve the objectives that we set ourselves, including to hold at risk targets in Iran.

KEILAR: In his bilat with Volodymyr Zelenskyy of Ukraine this morning, the president said he will now give Ukraine the ability to make Patriot missiles, those defense systems. And this is something that Zelenskyy has wanted for a really long time. How significant is that?

DAALDER: Well, I think it's significant in the long term, it's not going to help in the short term. In the short term, Ukraine just doesn't have the interceptors it needs in order to deal with the ballistic missile threat that is raining down on Ukrainian cities each and every day. You've seen that the number of casualties inside Ukraine, the number of deaths in particular, but just overall casualties is rising markedly.

It used to be one or two or three, now it's in the tens per day, and the reason is there are not enough interceptors there. So it is a good thing that the president is willing to grant licenses, although of course it's something that Raytheon, the corporation building these systems, needs to be part of as well. But it doesn't solve the problem in the short term. In the short term, what we need -- what the Ukrainians need is interceptors as many and as quickly as possible being shipped into Ukraine so they can defend themselves.

KEILAR: Ambassador Ivo Daalder, thank you so much for being with us.

DAALDER: Always a pleasure, Brianna.

KEILAR: New York officials say significant progress has been made at that Manhattan high-rise that previously raised fears of a possible collapse. Still ahead, what we're learning about how they stabilized it. (COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[14:27:02]

KEILAR: Newly released images show temporary steel shoring and support beams installed inside of that Manhattan high-rise that was evacuated after structural columns buckled. The city's Department of Building says crews installed light-duty shoring posts as an emergency measure to stabilize the structure. Additional steel columns are arriving today.

They will replace the temporary supports on all floors. The emergency stabilization effort is being overseen by the building owner's engineer and an independent third-party engineering firm. The project's developer insists, quote, "At no time was the building or any portion of it at risk of collapse." But that assessment differs very much from what city officials said as the emergency unfolded yesterday.

They described the building as unstable. They established a "collapse zone" after detecting movement in the structure. We're joined now by structural engineer, Matthew Roblez.

Matthew, great to see you again. First off, what are you making of these --

MATTHEW ROBLEZ, STRUCTURAL ENGINEER: It's good to see you.

KEILAR: -- competing -- yeah, it's great to talk to you about this because the story continues. What do you make of these competing stories about whether there was really ever a major problem here at all?

ROBLEZ: Well, I truly believe that you have a gentleman who's just trying to save face. That's just my opinion. The fact of the matter is, if the columns were stable and the whole building was stable, they wouldn't have buckled. Now, was there a tremendous chance the building would come collapse down? No, but there was a problem that had to be dealt with.

And this should be looked at as a success. It was identified. A zone was determined. They measured it. It stabilized. And the problem's being solved. But, yeah, there was danger.

KEILAR: There was danger. So tell us how they stabilized it with these beams and how we're now expecting them to be using even stronger material to further fortify it.

ROBLEZ: It looks like that they were using the structural H-piles which are, like I said, light-duty. And you start at the ground floor and just start building up the beams because the floors are pretty much mirrored all the way up. And they continued building those up to shore up those all the way down to the floor.

And now, new columns are being brought in. Now, these old columns were built, I believe, when the building was built in 1960 or thereabouts. So now, we're going to have even stronger 50-grade steel or stronger steel being put in its place.

But the key is to identify why it happened. And that's what's going to take the time, so that it doesn't repeat itself.

KEILAR: Yeah, why could this have happened?

ROBLEZ: Well, it could be any number of things. It could be at the beginning, back in 1960, these columns had a weak zone during construction and it wasn't until they started doing the addition and the conversion that it became aware and manifested itself in that. It could have also been people --