Return to Transcripts main page

The Situation Room

Trump Targets Public Media; Bio-Smuggling Bust; U.S. and Ukrainian Officials Meet. Aired 11:30a-12p ET

Aired June 04, 2025 - 11:30   ET

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

[11:30:00]

WOLF BLITZER, CNN HOST: Up next, U.S. officials meeting with the top Ukrainian delegation right now, as Kyiv sends a strong message with widespread surprise attacks continuing on key Russian targets.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

BLITZER: All right, this just into CNN.

U.S. and Ukrainian officials are meeting here in Washington, as President Volodymyr Zelenskyy says more peace talks with Russia in Istanbul, Turkey, would be pointless, his word, pointless. And he's calling for direct talks with Vladimir Putin.

CNN national security correspondent Kylie Atwood is here with us in the situation. Tell us a little bit more about these meetings.

[11:35:00]

KYLIE ATWOOD, CNN NATIONAL SECURITY CORRESPONDENT: Well, listen, I spoke with a senior administration official last night who said that Secretary Rubio in this meeting with Yermak today was expected to reiterate the posture we've had from the Trump administration for the last few weeks now, that they like to see what Ukraine is doing in these talks with Russia.

They like to see that Ukraine is effectively engaging. They think that is a productive posture. But the thing that they're not going to do in these meetings with the Ukrainians right now is get back to a place where Ukraine should expect unlimited military support from the United States for their war footing right now.

And that's an important area for us to continue watching, because after meeting with Secretary of State Rubio at the White House because he's now acting national security adviser, Yermak tweeted out that one of the things that they did discuss was the need to shore up support for Ukraine's -- on the air defense side.

And that is one of the things that they're talking about with their European partners. It's very clear from this White House that they're not going to be the United States putting up that new support. So we will watch and see where that comes from. But as you guys have been talking about this morning, this comes off

the heels of that drone attack that Ukraine carried out deep inside Russia over the weekend. And a senior administration official yesterday said that does put the situation in a -- put the war in a situation where the risk is leveled up.

And that's because obviously it took out some of those Russian nuclear bombers. But you haven't heard the administration warn Ukraine against those types of attacks. And that's really interesting because they effectively believe that if Ukraine wants to continue fighting until there's a cease-fire, they have every right to do so.

BLITZER: Yes, that's a significant development indeed.

Kylie, thank you very, very much -- Pamela.

PAMELA BROWN, CNN HOST: Yes, that's a really interesting point, Kylie.

All right, let's continue this conversation.

Joining us now is retired General Wesley Clark, a former NATO supreme allied commander.

Hi, General Clark. Thanks so much for joining us.

So what do you think? Do you think that these discussions will provide any significant movement in peace talks?

WESLEY CLARK, CNN MILITARY ANALYST: I doubt it, because what's missing is leverage applied by the United States against Putin.

And as long as the United States withholds that leverage either in sanctions or additional military assistance to Ukraine, Mr. Putin believes he's got a chance of deepening a wedge between the United States and European allies, letting Ukraine sort of slowly be strangled and accomplishing his war aims.

Putin has had these aims. This wasn't just yesterday that he thought about this. This is years and years of planning and organization. So he's not about to be turned off on his aims unless he realizes he's going to really lose.

He's not going to realize that until the United States weighs in more heavily than we have in the past.

BROWN: All right, so let's look at this dramatic video just in that shows this operation Spider Web drone attack where you can see Ukraine's bold strikes on planes deep inside Russia.

What do you think about this video and just how brazen it shows that this attack was?

CLARK: It's totally remarkable. It's an amazing tribute to the ingenuity, resourcefulness, courage, resilience, technological prowess of Ukraine. And, Pamela, I have always thought, before the war ever started in

2022, that the toughest opponent Russia could ever face is Ukraine, because they understand Russia and they're inside Russia. And the truth is that Putin is not going to be able to eliminate these internal threats.

In addition to this, there's reports of sabotage going on. There's train derailments, ships that can't leave, port bridges that collapse, and so forth. And it's only going to be intensified as the Russian structure is put under more pressure internally.

BROWN: Well, and you had talked earlier about how you want the U.S. to be tougher on Putin. It is interesting that, as it pertains to this attack, the U.S. hasn't come out to say, Ukraine, stop it or condemn it, right?

CLARK: Well, there was a sort of passing comment from General Keith Kellogg about, oh, this is always a nuclear thing, it could get into a nuclear business.

Look, these are legitimate targets. And the United States absolutely must not condemn this attack. These weapons are being used against Ukraine to attack civilians. And Ukraine is going after military targets.

So it's a totally legitimate attack. And thank goodness there's no strong U.S. resistance to this.

BROWN: After seeing this video, I mean, how concerned are you that an adversary could do something like that in the United States?

CLARK: It could be done. And we are concerned about drones near our air bases. We do have technology to defend these bases. Whether it would be effective in every case, whether it's alert 24 hours a day or not, if I knew, I couldn't tell you and describe it in detail. We don't want that.

[11:40:05]

But here's the thing, Pamela. Except for the terrorists, we're not at war. So when you hear people say, well, what about the Chinese ships that could come in at -- yes, China could do this. But it would be an act of war by a state. So for the United States, the real concern would be some Iranian terrorist or al Qaeda terrorist would have some drones there that could go after us.

And so we do have to have protection around our air bases. We know that.

BROWN: I want to talk to you about some reporting from our Nic Robertson that Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth is skipping this key meeting on Ukraine. It is the first time in three years that the defense secretary won't be at this meeting.

What is your reaction to that? CLARK: Well, I'm disappointed, but not surprised, because Secretary

Hegseth has all along said he wants to follow President Trump's guidance, reduce forces in Europe, get us out of the way, turn it over to the Europeans, focus on China.

But here's the dilemma that the administration faces. If we aren't strong facing Russia in Ukraine, Xi Jinping sees it. He's an ally of Russia. He's feeding equipment and resources into Russia every day. He's got Chinese intelligence operatives on the ground in Ukraine looking at everything. So it's not that these are two separate theaters.

They are interrelated. And to say or believe that you could sort of walk away from one and say, that's not too important, leave that to the Europeans, we will look at China, let's get realistic on this. We're not going to want to go to war with China.

We have an active war that's a real threat to Europe. If we can deal successfully, stop this war in Europe, then we have got a better chance of managing the Pacific and not fighting a war against China. So there's a lot of elements of what Secretary Hegseth is doing that make a lot of sense.

We do need more strategic defense in the United States. We do have to relook our procurement system. We have got to be more adaptable and so forth. But, by golly, we have got to support NATO and Ukraine if we're going to have a safe and stable peace in Europe and a peaceful world.

BROWN: All right, General Wesley Clark, always nice to have you on. Thank you -- Wolf.

CLARK: Thank you, Pam.

BLITZER: He really knows his stuff.

BROWN: He does indeed.

BLITZER: Yes, he certainly does.

BROWN: That's right.

BLITZER: All right, just ahead: two Chinese researchers charged with trying to smuggle a potentially very destructive fungus into the United States.

What officials worry it could have been used for, that's coming up right here in THE SITUATION ROOM.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[11:47:12]

BLITZER: Two Chinese researchers are accused of smuggling a destructive fungus into the United States. The fungus is very destructive to crops. And an FBI affidavit calls it a potential agroterrorism weapon. CNN security correspondent Josh Campbell is joining us right now.

What can you tell us, Josh, about the this?

JOSH CAMPBELL, CNN SECURITY CORRESPONDENT: Yes, Wolf, this is an interesting case.

And just for the good of the audience to start with, when we talk about agroterrorism, what that means in the law enforcement world is when someone introduces some type of agent or pathogen into the U.S. crop supply, into the food supply in order to try to cause harm.

It's important to note that is not being charged here by the Justice Department. There's no indication that this couple was going to use this material for any nefarious purpose. Nevertheless, they are now in federal custody.

And just to talk about this specific fungus, I will read you from the federal criminal complaint, what they describe as. They say that this fusarium is responsible for billions of dollars in economic losses worldwide each year. The toxins produced by it can cause vomiting, liver damage and reproductive defects in livestock and humans.

And so the import of that is certainly controlled. What the Justice Department alleges is that this couple, two researchers, one of whom was researching in Michigan, had smuggled this material into the United States about a year ago.One of the researchers was stopped at an airport in Michigan by U.S. customs officials who went through his belongings.

And they found kind of in a crumpled-up tissue paper some small portions of this fungus. What they're being charged with is illegally smuggling this into the U.S., as well as lying to federal agents, as well as visa fraud as well.

Now, the attorney general put out a statement saying essentially that they take this very seriously, they're working to stop any potential threats to national security. We will see where this goes from here.

Again, no indication this was being used for nefarious purposes, but something that the feds are certainly taking seriously, Wolf.

BLITZER: All right, Josh Campbell, reporting for us, thank you very much -- Pamela.

BROWN: All right.

And coming up right here in THE SITUATION ROOM: Public radio and TV stations are racing against the clock, as President Trump works to slash their future funding, but that's not stopping them from mobilizing to fight back.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[11:53:31]

BROWN: Well, the countdown is on for the nation's two biggest public broadcasters.

PBS and NPR have roughly 45 days to convince lawmakers to keep their funding. And this comes after President Trump requested Congress cancel more than $1 billion in federal funding that had been set aside for the Corporation for Public Broadcasting.

CNN chief media analyst Brian Stelter joins us.

Brian, how did we get here?

BRIAN STELTER, CNN CHIEF MEDIA ANALYST: Yes, the Trump administration has been pulling lots of different levers trying to defund publicly supported radio and TV stations.

There's an FCC probe. There was an executive order last month. There was an attempt to fire board members. But NPR's CEO says this new rescission proposal is the most serious threat yet. That's because of the 45-day clock you referenced.

This is part of that broader package of DOGE cuts that was sent up to Capitol Hill yesterday. So now PBS and NPR have 44 days to try to lobby lawmakers to ignore the proposal. Remember, if they ignore the rescission proposal, then it doesn't get voted into law and Trump loses on this issue.

And it is notable to see these stations mobilizing in the last 12, 15 hours or so trying to get listeners and viewers to call their members of Congress to keep these stations alive and well, because, remember, this money goes to local stations all across the country.

And a lot of the bigger stations in big cities, they would survive without federal funding. They'd be wounded, but they would survive. It's the smaller stations in more rural areas that would be hurt the most. So this morning, for example, Oregon public radio -- Oregon Public Broadcasting, that is, telling viewers that people living in rural and remote areas would be especially hard-hit.

[11:55:03]

Maine Public Media saying PBS could shut down without federal funding. So they're using LISTSERVs, sending out e-mails, putting alerts on their Web sites, and putting out calls on the air trying to urge their local lawmakers to in this case reject Trump's proposal and keep these stations on the air.

BROWN: So then are there any Republicans who have signaled that they will support keeping this funding? How do we expect this to play out?

STELTER: That's definitely the key question.

And some public media executives are cautiously hopeful that they can sway a few Republican moderates, especially in the Senate. We know the House is going to take up this proposal next week, but, in the Senate, that's the big question mark.

Alaska Senator Lisa Murkowski is already on the record saying that she will fight to preserve the funding for Alaska's radio and TV stations. She has already publicly opposed Trump on this issue. Are there three other senators who might join her? That is a big question.

Like I mentioned, it's the smaller stations that will be hurt the most, but even big stations like New York City, say they would suffer as well. New York Public Radio telling listeners overnight -- quote -- "To put it bluntly, this kind of funding from the feds is what keeps the lights on, keeps our signals on the air and keeps the entire public media system working as a whole."

So those are the arguments that lawmakers are now going to be hearing both from public media officials, as well as possibly from listeners and viewers. We know that Trump and his allies have said that this broadcasting is biased, that it should not be getting federal funds for biased content. PBS and NPR disagree with that, but they say ultimately this is not an issue of saving money.

As PEN America said in a statement today, this is about intimidating journalists and trying to discourage real news. So those are the battle lines. The battle lines are now drawn in this one.

BROWN: They certainly are.

Brian Stelter, thanks so much.

BLITZER: And lots of stake in that department, of course.

BROWN: Yes.

BLITZER: And thanks, special thanks to all of our viewers joining us this morning. You can keep up with us on social media @WolfBlitzer and @PamelaBrownCNN.

We will see you back here tomorrow morning, every weekday morning, 10:00 a.m. Eastern.

"INSIDE POLITICS," today with Manu Raju, is coming up next right after a short break.