Return to Transcripts main page

The Situation Room

Sources Say, CIA Carried Out Drone Strike on Port in Venezuela; D.C. Pipe Bomb Suspect Due in Federal Court for Detention Hearing; CDC Says, Flu Cases on the Rise Across the Country. Aired 10-10:30a ET

Aired December 30, 2025 - 10:00   ET

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

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[10:00:00]

WOLF BLITZER, CNN ANCHOR: Happening now, breaking news, major escalation. President Trump intensifies his pressure campaign on Venezuela with the U.S.'s first known strike inside the country. CNN's exclusive new reporting on the attack, that's coming up.

Plus, deep sea search, the new technology now being used to search for MH370 more than a decade after it vanished without a trace.

And winter nightmare, a brutal and widespread storm completely shuts down traffic on major highways across parts of the United States.

Welcome to our viewers here in the U.S. and around the world. I'm Wolf Blitzer. Pamela Brown is off today. You're in The Situation Room.

We begin with a CNN exclusive, new reporting reveals the CIA has carried out the United States' first known strike within Venezuela. Sources now say a drone struck a Venezuelan port this month, marking a major escalation in President Trump's campaign against the country and its leader Nicolas Maduro.

Late last week, President Trump appeared to reference the attack during an interview with a New York radio show. Listen to this.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

DONALD TRUMP, U.S. PRESIDENT: And we just knocked out -- I don't if you read or you saw they have a big plant or a big facility where they send the -- you know, where the ships come from. Two nights ago, we knocked that out. So, we hit them very hard.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

BLITZER: All right. I want to bring in CNN's Senior National Security Reporter Zach Cohen and CNN Senior White House Reporter Kevin Liptak.

And, Zach, let me start with you. You were one of our reporters who broke this story. What more can you tell us about these developments? It seems like a major escalation. ZACHARY COHEN, CNN SENIOR NATIONAL SECURITY REPORTER: Yes, Wolf. A source is telling us that the CIA drone strike targeted a remote port facility located on the Venezuelan coast. And this is a site that the U.S. believes is used by a Venezuelan gang that they've linked to Nicolas Maduro, the Venezuelan president, used to load and unload drugs from ships. And, essentially, those ships would then carry the drugs to the US. and other places around the world.

And now we're told that this facility was vacant at the time that it was hit by the CIA drone strike, meaning that there were no casualties on board. One source describing this attack as successful in the sense that it did destroy the facility and the boats that were located there, but at the same time saying that the strike itself is largely symbolic in that there are several different ports that are used by drug traffickers in Venezuela to push those drugs around the world.

And so destroying this one facility may not make a significant impact in stemming the overall flow of drugs, but, still, as you mentioned, this does mark a significant escalation in that pressure campaign against Venezuelan Leader Nicolas Maduro.

And it'll be interesting to see how Maduro responds to these revelations. Sources noting that after this strike was carried out by the CIA, really, there was no indication that anyone inside of Venezuela was even aware that it had happened.

So, now that Donald Trump has been discussing or alluding to this strike publicly and given this reporting today, we're going to be watching to see how Nicolas Maduro responds and ultimately what the Trump administration decides to do if he does not bend to the pressure that they're currently applying.

BLITZER: All right, Zach Cohn, thanks to you and our other reporters for breaking this exclusive reporting.

I want to go right now to CNN's Kevin Liptak. He's traveling with President Trump. Trump is spending the holidays at his Florida home at Mar-a-Lago, that's in Palm Beach. Kevin, what else are President Trump and the White House saying about this attack?

KEVIN LIPTAK, CNN SENIOR WHITE HOUSE REPORTER: They're not saying much. They've been extraordinarily tight-lipped about this. You know, CIA operations ordinarily shrouded in an extraordinary amount of secrecy. And I think unless President Trump had let this slip in a radio interview, which I should note which was with a billionaire Republican donor, I think it's entirely possible that we may not know that this had happened at all.

And when we were over at Mar-a-Lago yesterday asking the president more about what he said in that interview, even there, he was not particularly forthcoming. Listen to a little bit of what he said.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

TRUMP: There was a major explosion in the dock area where they load the boats up with drugs. They load the boats up with drugs. So, we hit all the boats and now we hit the area. It's the implementation area. That's where they implement, and that is no longer around.

[10:05:01]

LIPTAK: Was the facility taken out by the U.S. military, was it another entity, like the CIA?

TRUMP: Well, I don't want to say that I know exactly who it was. But, you know, it was along the shore,

(END VIDEO CLIP)

LIPTAK: So, you hear, I asked the president whether it was military or CIA, and he refused to say. Of course, now we know from our sources that it was a CIA operation. President Trump, we reported at the time, authorized CIA covert action in Venezuela earlier this year. We had not heard much about what that agency was up to until now. Really, the focus for the administration had been on these strikes on alleged drug boats.

We just learned yesterday that the 31st boat was struck in the Eastern Pacific. What the Pentagon said, it was transiting known narco- trafficking routes. They say that two male narco-traffickers were killed. But as with the previous boat strikes not providing any evidence, Wolf, to back up those claims.

BLITZER: Kevin, what is the White House saying about the fact that this was a covert, highly classified CIA operation, which is supposed to remain secret, of course. The president was discussing, it openly potentially could undermine what are called sources and methods and make it more difficult and make it even potentially very dangerous for U.S. CIA operatives down the road. What are they saying about the fact that the president of the United States openly spoke about a covert classified operation?

LIPTAK: Yes. And once the president had put this out there, you really didn't hear the White House saying much, essentially, allowing the president to say everything that he wanted to say about this.

But, Wolf, it's not the first time that the president has revealed a classified information when he thinks it seems to serve his own ends. Remember during his first term, he put out on social media a satellite image of Iran that at the time was still considered highly classified.

You know, the president does have the prerogative to declassify information at will if he thinks it's necessary. It doesn't seem as if any sort of process was in place when the president sort of let slip in that impromptu radio interviewed that the U.S. had knocked out this facility. But it does contribute to a pattern that we have seen from President Trump.

But, certainly, I think the White House has been quite wary of discussing this operation in public. It took more than a week for the president to reveal it and for people to start noticing that he had talked about this in the radio interview.

And it does, I think, stand in quite stark contrast to how they have dealt with these boat strikes. Every single one of them they put out a release, they put out video of what is happening there in the Caribbean Sea. And so it is an interesting comparison of how they are dealing both with the covert action when you have the president revealing it in a radio interview and then revealing virtually nothing else.

And the overt action, which you see them dealing with in the Caribbean Sea, two very different approaches. As part of this pressure campaign inside Venezuela.

BLITZER: All right, Kevin Liptak down in West Palm Beach, Florida, for us, Kevin, thank you very, very, very much.

I want to discuss more on what's going on with CNN Global Affairs Commentator, the former deputy Pentagon press secretary, Sabrina Singh. Sabrina, thanks so much for joining us.

Just how significant is this latest action against Venezuela by the Trump administration?

SABRINA SINGH, CNN GLOBAL AFFAIRS COMMENTATOR: Well, it's certainly significant escalation in terms of what this administration is willing to do. I mean, Donald Trump did not rule out land strikes. And so the fact that this was revealed, and as Kevin and Zach were both mentioning, you know, this was revealed in a radio interview with Republican donor, you know, I, it leaves a lot of questions of how many have there been additional strikes on land that we don't know of? And also, what is the long-term endgame here and why are these now covert actions being taken under Title 50 authorities instead of Title 10 authorities, which have been used when we've been striking those, you know, narco terrorists and the drug boats.

And also, you know, the seizure of those oil tankers, I think what you're seeing is just this ratcheting up from this administration to put pressure on Maduro more and more to leave power. And, you know, it remains to be seen if that will work. But it's certainly it's certainly putting the pressure on him again with this land strike.

BLITZER: Quick question, Sabrina. You're a former deputy press secretary at the Pentagon. You had top secret security clearances. What would've happened to you if you had said publicly to a bunch of reporters that the U.S. had launched a strike like this, The CIA, covert operation? What would've happened?

SINGH: Well, Wolf, I mean, you know, I almost have to laugh because I have no doubt I would've been immediately fired. I mean-- this is the, there are, there's reasons why we don't talk about covert actions that certain entities in our government take. And this being one of them, you know, it does reveal some of our sources and methods. It also reveals the administration's intentions and potential other targets that they might look at down the line.

[10:10:45]

And for the -- you know, the president to just nonchalantly, very casually, aAlso reveals the administration's intentions and potential other targets that they might look at down the line. And for the, you know, the president to just nonchalantly very casually in a radio interview with a donor just mentioned that this happened. You know, I hope that the Gang of Eight in Congress have been briefed. I hope that the relevant lawmakers are tracking this strike. But I think you're seeing, you know, calls on both sides of the aisle asking for more questions, demanding, answers. And, you know, there's still a lot that we don't know, whether it's from that, you know, double chap strike where there were survivors and then they were eventually killed again to this, you know, covert action that was taken.

There's going to be a lot of questions on what is the battle damage assessment, how successful was this strike? And kind of, you know, more realistically, what is the plan that this administration has long-term when it comes to Venezuela?

BLITZER: Yes. And I just as a former Pentagon correspondent myself, I don't think you just would've been fired. I think you would've been prosecuted for breaking the law and releasing that kind of highly sensitive information to the public.

CNN has reported, as you know, Sabrina, that President Trump expanded the CIA's authorities to conduct these kinds of operations inside Venezuela, but it's certainly not clear if the drone used in this attack was owned by the CIA or was actually borrowed from the U.S. military.

Are there any possible legal ramifications for something like this?

SINGH: Well, because we don't have a lot of information. It's hard to understand, you know, kind of how this is all operating right. You know, I think if the CIA, if this was a CIA-conducted strike and it had support -- potentially intelligence support from the U.S. military. I Mean that, that is something that we have seen in other operations.

But I think there's a lot of questions. And so, you know, I would hope that this administration immediately briefed those on the Hill that need to know about strikes like this, then that would be that gang of eight. But I think because there's so many outstanding questions about our operations in Venezuela, how do we even know that this wasn't the first one? Have there been others?

I think these are the questions that, frankly, lawmakers are probably going to ask, and I know our reporters are as well,

BLITZER: Sabrina Singh, as always, thank you very much for joining us.

SINGH: Thanks, Wolf.

BLITZER: Still ahead, the U.S Justice Department accuses him of planting pipe bombs around Washington, D.C., back in 2021 and now. Lawyers for Brian Cole Jr. Have a new argument for why he shouldn't stay in jail before his trial.

And later why. Millions of Americans right now are hoping for anything other than cold and ice to ring in the new year, but they may be disappointed severely.

Stay with us, lots going on right here in The Situation Room.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[10:15:00]

BLITZER: Happening now, the man accused of planting pipe bombs here in Washington, D.C., on the eve of the January 6th insurrection is now set to appear in court. Prosecutors said in a memo this week that Brian J. Cole Jr. gave a detailed confession after he was arrested on charges of placing pipe bombs outside both the Republican and the Democratic Party headquarters here in Washington before the Capitol attack.

I want to bring in CNN Senior Legal Analyst Elie Honig. Elie, this morning, Brian Cole's attorney filed a motion arguing he should not be detained because he is autistic and is not a danger to the community. How much weight do you think that will hold?

ELIE HONIG, CNN SENIOR LEGAL ANALYST: Wolf, I just read through this motion and I really do not think it's going to carry the day for Mr. Cole. His lawyer is arguing that he should be released on bail because he is not a danger to the community because he will not flee.

The fact that he is autistic has really nothing to do with either of those factors. It might mean that he needs to be housed separately in the Department of Prisons. It might mean that he needs to receive certain treatments, but it's really irrelevant to the actual bail factors. And so that bail argument will happen today.

Prosecutors have asked for him to be detained pending trial based on the seriousness of the crimes and the strength of the evidence. I think it's overwhelmingly likely that the court will agree and will hold Mr. Cole without bail before trial.

BLITZER: In court records, Elie, the FBI details a confession the suspect made and that bomb-making materials were found in his home. How strong is this case right now?

HONIG: So, that new evidence, Wolf, that we're learning of now that this individual confessed really makes the government's case here, I think, impenetrable and very strong.

Now, before this, there was circumstantial evidence tying Mr. Cole to purchases of the same type of components, which appeared in those pipe bombs, and there was evidence placing him around the scene of the placement of those bombs on January 5th, 2021. But now with this confession, now you have direct evidence. Now you have a direct admission by the defendant that he did it and why he did it, and you have direct links to components in his home and this bomb.

So, I think the evidence started off solid, but circumstantial, and now I think it's substantially more, even more serious than that.

BLITZER: The bombs did not explode, but the Department of Justice says that was due to luck, not lack of effort. What is the importance of that distinction legally?

HONIG: Right, important point. DOJ says, these were not sort of dummy bombs that he planted just to make a statement. These were actually intended to explode. If they had gone off, it actually would have increased the potential punishment Mr. Cole faces, as is he's charged with attempting to use a destructive device to cause property damage. He faces a minimum of 5 years and a max of 20.

If those bombs had gone off and caused damage, those numbers would've been increased to a 7-year minimum and a 40-year maximum. And if, God forbid, he had killed somebody, then he would be subject to life, imprisonment or potentially even the death penalty.

So, DOJ says, essentially, it's just good luck and happenstance that these bombs did not go off. If they had, he'd be looking at even more serious penalty.

BLITZER: Do you expect at all to see a plea deal emerge in this case or is this case likely, almost certainly heading to trial?

[10:20:03]

HONIG: So, the vast majority of federal cases, over 95 percent actually resolving plea deals and not trials. But I'm not sure I see any room for a plea deal here. First of all, I doubt prosecutors are going to want to give him a plea deal. You saw the announcement by the attorney general, by the U.S. attorney, Jeanine Pirro in D.C., they do not seem inclined to give him any sort of leniency. I think his defense lawyer, the best he can hope for here is to work out some sort of deal to something less than the maximum punishment. But it would not at all surprise me, Wolf, to see prosecutors in no mood to bargain and to see this case head to trial in 2026.

BLITZER: Apparently, he was motivated by what he thought was a stolen 2020 presidential election that Joe Biden won. If he is convicted, what are the chances that the president, President Trump, assuming he's still president, could pardon him as he's pardoned others who were involved in the riot and the insurrection?

HONIG: So, that's a really interesting question. Of course, Donald Trump has the power as president to pardon in Mr. Cole today, if he wants, or anytime in the future. Will he do it? I mean, we all remember that on his first day back in office, January 20th, 2025, Donald Trump issued this blanket pardon to people who had been convicted of crimes relating to the storming of the Capitol on January 6th.

There's actually even an argument the defendant can make that he's already covered by that pardon. I don't think he actually technically is, but don't be surprised if he argues that he's actually covered by the pardon that Trump already has issued. But if not, then Trump does have the power to pardon him specifically.

I think it's probably unlikely that that happens. If you look at the strength with which DOJ came out and announced these crimes, if you look at the potential death and destruction that could have resulted, it would surprise me if Donald Trump pardoned this individual, but then, again, Wolf, it surprised me when Donald Trump pardoned people who had been convicted of violent assaults on law enforcement officers as well.

BLITZER: Yes, and good point. Elie Honig, as usual, thanks very much for joining us.

HONIG: Thanks, Wolf, Happy New Year.

BLITZER: Happy New Year to you as well.

And up next, flu cases are on the rise across much of the United States right now as health officials are warning of the very dangerous combination of low vaccinations and a so-called super flu variant.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[10:25:00]

BLITZER: Happening now, we're waiting on new data tracking flu cases across the country from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. The CDC is expected to release those numbers later today. The last batch of data released on December 19th showed cases on the rise across the country just this holiday travel was ramping up.

Joining us now is Dr. Michael Osterholm. He is the director of the University of Minnesota's Center for Infectious Disease Research and Policy. Dr. Osterholm, thanks so much for joining us.

How does this year's flu season compare to previous years, based on what we've seen at least so far?

DR. MICHAEL OSTERHOLM, DIRECTOR, CENTER FOR INFECTIOUS DISEASE RESEARCH AND POLICY, UNIVERSITY OF MINNESOTA: Well, let me say that, really, the flu season is just getting started. So, I think it's really hard to say exactly what it's going to look like. It's much later than it was in previous years, but what we're seeing right now is a very rapid escalation in cases. Five states, for example, Louisiana, Colorado, New Jersey, Rhode Island and New York are all at high or very high levels, exceeding what they've seen in previous years.

And so I think over the next 20 to 30 days, you're going to see this continue to evolve, and I think we're going to see many parts of the country are going to get high or very high levels within days.

BLITZER: Why is the numbers increasing so dramatically and so dangerously?

OSTERHOLM: You know, Wolf, if I could explain that to you, I'd probably win a Nobel Prize. You know, we don't really always understand why flu virus does what it does. This is a strain that's different than what we've seen in previous years. Some people have called it a super strain. I wouldn't do that. I would say it surely does challenge our previous immunity in terms of protecting us. But what's happened right now is a combination of that virus now entering into North America and with, as you just noted, all the holiday travel, all the mixing that's occurring right now, we're seeing a very rapid increase in cases. And we're seeing also a major increase in hospitalizations, emergency room, department visits and even deaths.

BLITZER: What do we know about flu vaccine rates across the country this year? Are they going down? And how might that potentially impact the U.S. experience with flu during this upcoming winter season?

OSTERHOLM: Wolf, this is a very important point. You know, this administration since last February has done nothing to promote seasonal vaccine use, like flu. And that is a real challenge because each year, it does take the gentle and sometimes even more than gentle reminder to those particularly at high risk, older, younger populations, how important it's to get the flu. And because there's been none of that this year, anything that's come out promoting flu vaccines has come basically from the medical community or public health, but not from the U.S. government or the Department of Health Human Services.

Right now, as we stand today, we're about 3 million doses short of administering vaccine than we were a year ago at the same time. About 2.1 million people who would've gotten at their doctor's office have not, or almost 900,000 people who have normally would've gotten it at the big box pharmacies have not. And so it's not too late to get your flu shot, but I'm talking about hours to a few days to get it because this is wiping through.

So, I hope one message that comes away from this, it's not too late. Please get your flu shot if you haven't. It could be the difference from keeping you out of the hospital or dying.

BLITZER: Because even if you get a flu shot and wind up getting flu, you'll have a milder case because you got the shot, right?

OSTERHOLM: Exactly. Right now, we're seeing on average about a 70 to 75 percent reduction in emergency room visits for those who have had their flu shot.

[10:30:01]

We've also seen a 30 to 35 percent reduction even in hospitalizations. So, you're right, it doesn't guarantee you won't get flu. It doesn't guarantee it is --