Return to Transcripts main page

Inside Politics

Zelenskyy Says He'll Meet With Trump In Florida On Sunday; Trump Launches Another Military Operation Overseas; Epstein Files Drama. Aired 12-12:30p ET

Aired December 26, 2025 - 12:00   ET

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

[12:00:00]

WOLF BLITZER, CNN ANCHOR: Yeah, we are. All right, Segun, thank you very, very much. Always good to have you here with me in the Situation Room. Appreciate it very much. To our viewers, thanks very much for joining us this morning. Inside Politics today with our friend and colleague, Phil Mattingly starts right now. Have a wonderful weekend.

PHIL MATTINGLY, CNN ANCHOR: A Sunday Summit at Mar-a-Lago. Volodymyr Zelenskyy says he'll meet with President Trump on Sunday. Could we finally be on the verge of peace in Ukraine? I'm Phil Mattingly in for Dana Bash. Let's go behind the headlines and Inside Politics.

Peace talks in Palm Beach. Ukraine's President Volodymyr Zelenskyy says he's going to Florida on Sunday to meet with President Trump. The Ukrainian leader, telling reporters that he hopes the visit will, quote, finalize as much as we can for a peace deal between his country and Russia. Now Zelenskyy struck an optimistic tone this morning writing on social media quote, a lot can be decided before the New Year.

CNN's Kevin Lipstack - Liptak joins me now near the president's home in Mar-a-Lago. Kevin, your weekend got a little bit more exciting in terms of what the expectations could be. What do we know right now as we await this potential meeting on Sunday?

KEVIN LIPTAK, CNN SENIOR WHITE HOUSE REPORTER: Yeah, and what Zelenskyy has said is that this will be a broad agenda, that there are certain pieces of this peace plan that can only be discussed between the two leaders. And so I think if you're the Ukrainians, just getting this meeting on the calendar is a positive development.

You know, President Trump had said not that long ago that he didn't think it would be useful to sit down with Zelenskyy until he thinks a peace proposal is close at hand. And there have been, you know, intensive talks underway, including down here in South Florida, to try and advance this multi-point plan that the President has proposed.

You know, the Ukrainians, or meeting with Steve Witkoff, with Jared Kushner, the President's envoys to all of this just last week. You also had a Russian envoy down here in Florida discussing this peace plan to try and get it across the finish line. And what you hear from American officials is that they're 90 percent there, but that remaining 10 percent is a massive sticking point. One you have the fate of the Zaporizhzhia Nuclear Power Plant, which

is occupied by Russia right now. That's something that they're going to have to sort it out. Perhaps the biggest issue is this idea of land concessions, about what territory Ukraine may need to cede in order for this war to end. You know, there's no indication from Moscow, from President Vladimir Putin, that he's backed off any of the maximalist demands as part of a peace, including that Ukraine surrender the entire Donbas region.

And I think for American officials, it's going to be an effort to try and sort of massage this point with Zelenskyy as they try and get him on board with this peace proposal, Phil.

MATTINGLY: And Kevin, in terms of, like, the base text that's being utilized right now. Obviously there's the U.S. plan. It was a 20-point plan. The Ukrainians also have a version of a peace plan as well. What's kind of the operating baseline here?

LIPTAK: Yeah, and what it seems to be is each side of this has a stack of paper with the points they're trying to work together. What Steve Witkoff and what Jared Kushner are trying to do is essentially merge these points into something that all of the sides can agree to. The Ukrainians do now have a 20-point plan that they're coming back to the table with.

It includes, you know, affirmation of Ukraine sovereignty. That's obviously a red line for Zelenskyy. Security guarantees from the U.S. and the Europeans. I heard from a U.S. official a couple weeks ago that the U.S. had offered what he called a platinum security guarantee for Ukraine. And so in their view, this is about the most they can go on that front, but also a financial development package that Jared Kushner in particular has been working on to try and rebuild Ukraine once this war is over.

And then some questions about the territory. Of course, the big question in all of this is what Russia is going to agree to, and that certainly isn't going to be decided in this Sunday meeting down here in Palm Beach.

MATTINGLY: Yeah, that's a really great point. Kevin Liptak, as always, my friend, thanks so much. I'm joined now by a terrific group of reporters. Hope you all survived Christmas. Everybody's happy. Kids primarily happy, because if they're not, nobody's happy.

Kylie, I want to start with you, because you can kind of tracked this first year of the administration almost through meetings of roller coaster like proportions with President Zelenskyy, from that first meeting back in February 28, the Pope Francis funeral meeting, NATO meeting in June, Oval Office meeting in August, another White House meeting in October.

Now apparently this meeting coming up and -- on Sunday. Have a lot of questions about what a platinum security guarantee like Amex keeps going through my brain here. But what are you hearing right now about the plausibility of peace here?

[12:05:00]

KYLIE ATWOOD, CNN NATIONAL SECURITY CORRESPONDENT: Well, when you talk about those meetings, meetings don't always mean linear or forward progression when it comes to the foreign policy objectives of this administration.

We have seen efforts to try to find a solution to the Ukraine war go backwards as a result of these meetings. So the fact that they are potentially meeting this weekend, according to President Zelenskyy, obviously, is a major development. It's a good thing. We heard from Zelenskyy on social media saying a lot can be decided before the new year.

So he clearly believes that they're getting somewhere here. When you talk to U.S. officials, they also believe that there is momentum. But I think it's also important to recognize that going into a one-on-one meeting, potentially with between President Trump and President Zelenskyy, doesn't necessarily mean that they are on the verge of agreeing to a final solution to this conflict that Trump came into office wanting to actually find a solution to in the first few weeks.

MATTINGLY: Yeah, it's a really important point, given kind of how Trump framed this conflict from the start and what role he wanted to play in it. There's two really interesting poll numbers that I wanted to point out from a recent Quinnipiac poll. First is Trump's approval on Ukraine-Russia, 50 -- or 35 percent approved, 55 percent disapprove. So pretty deep under water there.

And then, whether Trump favors Russia or Ukraine, 48 percent of those surveyed say he favors Ukraine -- 3 percent or sorry, favors Russia, 48 percent. 3 percent favor Ukraine. 36 percent, right balance. 13 percent, don't know. In terms of how the administration is viewing the public perception here, how much do you think that plays a role, Zach?

ZACHARY WOLF, CNN SENIOR SPECIAL POLITICAL WRITER: Well, I don't know actually. You think about the way Trump has treated this, he's gone so hot and cold on Zelenskyy, you almost feel like it -- you know, they don't know, is the perception you get because who knows what's going to happen in a meeting. That's what feels a little bit different always with Trump. It's -- a lot of times with other administrations that you know, you'd go in, you would see principals go to something that every -- all the decisions have been made. And here it's like they don't actually know what the outcome is going to be.

MATTINGLY: Yeah, it's a really interesting point, because, one, it makes it fascinating to cover, because you really -- nothing's baked. There's no like, here are the deliverables that will be coming out of this meeting. We have no idea, it may blow up within the first five minutes. But Annie, it also comes from the frame of this is a president that came in saying, we didn't have wars in my first term, we aren't going to have wars in the second term. I'm going to be the peacemaker. Take a listen to this.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

DONALD TRUMP, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: I don't have wars. I had no wars other than ISIS, which I defeated, but that was a war that we started. We had no wars. I could stop wars with a telephone call.

We will measure our success, not only by the battles we win, but also by the wars that we end, and perhaps most importantly, the wars we never get into.

Our power will stop all wars and bring a new spirit of unity to a world that has been angry, violent and totally unpredictable.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

MATTINGLY: Peacemaker is such a critical component of what the President wants the perception to be, so much so that he put his name on a damn building. The Trump now U.S. Institute of Peace. Also worth noting that, I think in the last couple of weeks, ISIS has been struck twice, including on Christmas Day, as Kylie has been doing great reporting on. When you talk to your sources on Capitol Hill, how do they view kind of this approach?

ANNIE GRAYER, CNN SENIOR CAPITOL HILL REPORTER: I think there's a lot of confusion, because a lot of Republicans on Capitol Hill don't necessarily think this is what they got, what they were bargaining for here. They were expecting a lot more America first, a lot more domestic policy, and this focus across the board on international -- on multiple international fronts, is causing a lot of Republicans on Capitol Hill, I think, to play catch up to what the focus is, what the messaging is, especially when you're going back to that poll about the views on Russia and Ukraine, there's a real split on Republicans on Capitol Hill about where the allegiance for the U.S. needs to be.

There are a lot of Republicans who feel very strongly that the U.S. needs to make a firm position to show their allyship their support with -- with Ukraine, but they're feeling very confused by some of the President's moves that appear to be at least sympathetic to Putin and Russia, and so this really is exposing just broader divides in the Republican Party here.

MATTINGLY: And Sir, I think those divides have been so interesting to watch one because they existed beforehand, and Trump's kind of candidacy and his power over the party covered them up a little bit on some level. And now, as -- you can just put up the map of strikes that the President has overseen and green lit over the course of the last year. It is a muscular foreign policy in terms of unilateral strikes. There is still kind of this divide over Ukraine.

And I think people are trying to figure out, OK, what is the kind of central through line here?

[12:10:00]

SARA FISCHER, MEDIA CORRESPONDENT, AXIOS: Yeah, especially because so many of these Republicans that are vulnerable for the midterms next year are saying, what are we doing to address what our constituents are asking us about right now, which is domestic policy and health care. Democrats are making that their number one message going into next year. They need to have a muscular response to that, as opposed to answering to all of these foreign policy questions.

But to your point of Republicans on Capitol Hill, this is the first major meeting between Zelenskyy and Trump since Trump's administration first came out with this one sided peace plan that was mostly perceived as having Russian talking points. Zelenskyy has done a very good job of walking that back, bringing it more towards the center.

And some people, even within Trump's own cabinet, Secretary of State, Marco Rubio, have kind of helped to hedge this back. This meeting, in my opinion, will be so telling as to where we end the year on that peace plan, whether or not it becomes less imbalanced towards Russia.

MATTINGLY: Yeah, that's a really, really great point. We got a lot more to get to. Coming up, ending the year on a low note, not here at this table with this great panel. We're talking about public officials' approval ratings. They are dismal for the Trump administration, for congressional leaders from both parties. But who is the least popular of them all? That's kind of harsh. We'll tell you right after a quick break.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[12:15:00]

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

MATTINGLY: So who is America's favorite political leader? The answer, apparently, is no one. Like literally no one. At least according to a new Gallup poll, none of the top Trump administration officials or congressional leaders cracked 50 percent approval. The closest not in the Trump administration or in Congress.

Fed Chair Jerome Powell, clocking in at 44 percent. Then comes the most popular members of the Trump cabinet. Secretary of State, Marco Rubio at 41 percent followed by Vice President Vance and Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr., at 39 percent.

Over on the Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts, 38 percent approval. President Trump, 36 percent. Congressional leaders, Hakeem, Jeffries, Mike Johnson, John Thune and Chuck Schumer, yeah, they're kind of in the back of the pack. My panel is back with me now. It's probably sad to say this, but kind of the first thing that popped in my head is Rubio being the most popular person in the -- is that problematic for him on some level?

ATWOOD: That's a good point. Though, he's only two points above J.D. Vance. However --

MATTINGLY: And they're best friends.

ATWOOD: Best friends, but at the same time, two points, when you line them up, you know Rubio at the top of the list like that could be a dangerous spot to be. He's not that many points, though, above the others. I mean, as you said, none of these folks are breaking 50 percent which is just a really jarring thing to kind of digest as someone who is spending all of their days here in Washington covering these leaders and the policies that they're implementing.

MATTINGLY: Which I think the kind of underpinning all of this is the genuine question of like, why does everyone hate everyone? And we could probably -- Sara Fischer talk about this for the next six hours, and there are probably a lot of reasons why. But what's your sense of things?

FISCHER: If you take a look at Gallup polling writ large, not just on political leaders, there has been a huge downfall in trust and favorability amongst all institutions, which includes all three branches of government. It includes the media. It includes, in some aspects, the police force, the only folks that have always been able to escape, it had been small businesses in the military.

But when I think about what's been happening specifically with those congressional leaders, the fallout of trust in Congress is much steeper than the executive branch, and then some of these other cabinet officials. And part of it is because Congress is now coming out and saying, this is the most toxic place. Why should they expect Americans to think that it's any better? So I think that's why you're seeing such low numbers within Congress itself.

MATTINGLY: And Annie, you have a really great piece about, like, all these people who are just like, I'm leaving Congress. I hate -- I hate it here, which has always been like a thread of that underneath the surface, but you've just got people being like, outright like this sucks, I'm not doing this anymore. What's it like -- take people behind the scenes here. when you're talking to these lawmakers who are just flat out telling you this over the course of the last couple of weeks?

GRAYER: Yeah, I think if you think about people coming to Congress, for so many it's like the pinnacle of their career, where they want to get a lot done. They've often come from being leaders in their smaller communities, where they were able to see tangible results happen, either in business or in the smaller scale in politics. And you get to Congress, and there is so much friction to get anything done, and I think especially at the start of this Congress where we have a Republican trifecta, you have Trump, obviously in the White House, Republicans controlling both chambers of government.

There was this expectation that Republicans were going to be able to tick through their lists very quickly of everything they want to do. Now Republican leadership maintains, you know, we are doing the best we can. Mike Johnson often says he's in the consensus building business, but when you have such a narrow majority in this Republican majority, that means that each faction really can speak out or hold up any major piece of legislation.

So you end up getting a lot of incremental changes around the edges, because that seems to be the only thing that will pass right now. And what was interesting in my reporting for The Story yesterday is we are at historic numbers for the number of people leaving Congress to run for governor. And I think that speaks to people, especially Republicans, who are leaving, you know, safe seats. It's not like they're putting their party in a lurch by leaving

Congress, but they think they're going to be able to -- they're going to be able to contribute more at the state level. You know, someone put it to me, it's better to be one of one than one of 435, and I think that sentiment has always been true, but in a very kind of dysfunctional, toxic Washington. The -- the appeal of the governor's mansion is just seemed to be so much more alluring to so many more politicians these days.

[12:20:00]

MATTINGLY: Yeah, it was always like the former governors turn senators who are like, man, I miss being governor, and now it's just going the other way. Everybody's like, yeah, we heard you. Now we're actually going to all go be governors, or at least try to be. Chuck Schumer is at 39 percent with Democrats, 28 percent overall. His approval ratings -- look, leadership having low approval ratings is not a brand new thing.

Mitch McConnell won every six years after every six years after every six years always having low approval ratings. Schumer, though, seems particularly aware of it on some level. And I think Democrats are looking at this and thinking that maybe there's problems for him in the future. What do you think?

WOLF: Well, it's not a job you take in order to be -- win a popularity contest, because you're going to aggravate the half of the country that already is going to not like you, and you're also going to, you know, frustrate Democrats who wanted to see more in terms of the shutdown, you know, things like that. So it's -- you know, it's a very difficult -- he's losing -- losing support on both sides essentially, I think.

It is disconcerting, I think for Democrats that they're going to have to make an argument that you -- you know, you're going to have to support us when it's clear that very few people, including a lot of Democrats, really don't like what they've been doing. That said we should give Chuck Schumer a little bit of credit.

He's not popular for it, but Senate Democrats, and I don't think this has been covered enough, they really did hone in on the affordability argument during the shutdown, and now we're all talking about it, and now voters are thinking about it. So they did accomplish a goal, even if they didn't make themselves popular.

MATTINGLY: Yeah, it's a very underappreciated point. Sara, when you talk about kind of the broader window into this, have you seen anything that people have been able to utilize to get themselves out of it in terms of the trust deficit?

FISCHER: It's a great question. Transparency is always the answer. When we talk about big institutions, whether it's big business or it's big media, the more you can explain to people how your processes work, how your decision making works, that helps. And I think with Congress, where we've had a little bit of transparency in the past few weeks, has been the Epstein files. I know it's probably something we'll talk about. There's been a lot

more transparency from members of Congress around why we need to release these files, why they matter, and I think that's helping to build trust. For a long time when there was such friction around whether or not people in the public were going to get to that, I think it did not do well in getting anyone to trust anyone in Congress or people in power.

Now that we're getting a little visibility into it, I think that's going to help.

MATTINGLY: Yeah, actually applies to us too. How we do our jobs, what actually goes into it would help people understand a lot more. Not that we're redeemable in any way, shape or form. But all right, we got a lot more coming up. President Trump was hoping his Christmas gift would be no more talk of what Sara Fischer was just talking about, the Epstein Files. Santa nor Sara obliged.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[12:25:00]

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

MATTINGLY: President Trump had a very special Christmas message last night. I want to read some of it for our viewers. Merry Christmas to all, including the many sleazebags who loved Jeffrey Epstein, gave him bundles of money, went to his island, attended his parties, and thought he was the greatest guy on earth, to drop him -- only to drop him like a dog.

That part was in quotes. When things got too hot, that part was all caps, falsely claimed they had nothing to do with him, didn't know him, said he was a disturbing person. And then blame, of course, President Donald J. Trump, who is actually the only one who did drop Epstein and long before it became fashionable to do so.

There's a lot more. And then he continues. Now the same losers are at it again, only this time so many of their friends, mostly innocent, will be badly hurt and reputationally tarnished. But sadly, that's the way it is in the world of corrupt Democrat politics. Enjoy what may be your last Christmas. My panel is back. In the spirit of the season, Zach Wolf, what the hell does that mean?

WOLF: I don't know, but it was a really long sentence I was trying to like, when -- when is he going to come up with a period there? I think that that means that nothing is changing about Donald Trump anytime soon. You know, as he sort of enters the last three years of his, you know, political career here, it's the same guy.

I'm reminded of tweets earlier in his career where he was very divisive about, you know, Merry Christmas. Thanks to all the -- all the -- all the haters. We're still there.

MATTINGLY: Bangers, the haters and losers. Those were the early day bangers. I think. Annie, what stuck out to me is, for somebody who has wanted to move, get this behind him. Stop this, let's not talk about this anymore, this is clearly whether there's anything negative at all to do with Donald Trump in these files. This has clearly been something that has been an annoyance, slash friction point for this administration throughout the course of the last six months, is that it's just not going away anytime soon.

GRAYER: And it's not going to go away because Department of Justice was mandated to release all of its files by December 19. We know that that is not happening anymore. We've gotten a couple of releases, and then yesterday, the Department of Justice reveals they have a million more documents from New York that they have to go through. So this is going to be a cloud that is hanging over Republicans well into the new year.

And you know, one of the main questions is how the Department of Justice is handling the redactions in this process. You were talking about before a commercial about is this going to help or hurt the trust that people have towards this administration, and there are a lot of questions about how this redaction process is going.

It was only supposed -- the Department of Justice was only supposed to redact anything that would pertain to victims to protect their identity, their personal privacy. But they have taken it a lot further than that.

And so the members of Congress who push this effort to become law that's mandating this release that we're starting to see are contemplating, when they come back in the new year, how can they push this administration to do more to release everything that they are supposed to be releasing. And this is certainly not how Trump, I think, wanted to end his year.

MATTINGLY: And I think every time that one of those occasions happens, there is a spike in public interest. You can pull the kind of Google trends throughout the course of this year, and you can see the spikes.