Return to Transcripts main page

The Situation Room

Pentagon Fires Leaders of 'Stars and Stripes'; Trump Starting Trade War With Canada?; Hakeem Jeffries Meets With Jared Kushner. Aired 10:30-11a ET

Aired August 24, 2026 - 10:30   ET

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

[10:30:00]

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[10:32:32]

WOLF BLITZER, CNN HOST: Happening now: CNN is learning more about a meeting between the House Democratic leader, Hakeem Jeffries, and President Trump's son-in-law and very close adviser Jared Kushner.

A source familiar with the matter says the two recently gathered privately in New York to discuss ways the White House can collaborate with Democrats on key issues like immigration, housing, and the cost of living.

CNN is out to the White House for comment on the meeting first reported by "The New York Times."

Joining us now here in THE SITUATION ROOM is CNN political director and Washington bureau chief David .

David, what does this meeting signal to you about how the Trump world views the upcoming midterm elections?

DAVID CHALIAN, CNN POLITICAL DIRECTOR: Well, I don't think it's any mystery how the Trump world views the upcoming midterm elections, because President Trump talks about it quite often publicly.

He talks about he is confounded by the history that shows the backlash that the incumbent party receives when they have the White House. Throughout the course of history, you can see the opposition party tends to make gains in the midterms, and Donald Trump is clearly bracing for that.

The significance of the meeting, of course, is that Jared Kushner, his son-in-law, who doesn't have an official role inside the administration, but is clearly one of the president's top advisers, especially for, like, the thorniest issues, whether it is the Russia- Ukraine war or the Iran situation, and dealing with allies in the region, Gaza-Israel, this is somebody that Donald Trump sort of uses and utilizes, who did serve in his first term, as a real negotiator, sounding board, fixer in many ways, if you will. And so I think one potential outcome of this midterm season is that

Democrats are going to win control of the House, and that would create yet another thorny issue for Donald Trump, which is navigating the second half of his term no longer having sort of the trifecta of Republican control of Congress.

BLITZER: Yes, the president recently sent Jared Kushner to Jerusalem to meet with the prime minister, Benjamin Netanyahu. That's a big deal.

CHALIAN: Exactly, yes. I mean, they have a prior relationship.

And here too, with Hakeem Jeffries, Jared has a relationship with him. I mean, first of all, Jeffries is a more centrist, moderate kind of Democrat. So they see someone that maybe they could potentially do business with. The president said that himself in an interview recently, Wolf.

And it goes back to Trump one, when Kushner was in the White House and they worked together on things like criminal justice reform. So it's not an unprecedented meeting, these two, but it does, I think, indicate they are preparing for one potential outcome here.

[10:35:06]

BLITZER: The House speaker, Mike Johnson, is downplaying the idea that this meeting, which was pretty extraordinary, signaled an acknowledgement by President Trump that he may have to work with a Democratic majority in the next Congress. What do you read from that?

CHALIAN: Yes, I think Speaker Johnson said, OK, they're hedging their bets here, but he did what obviously you would expect Speaker Johnson to do, which is be the top cheerleader for House Republicans and say, hey, no, there's a plan here for Republicans to maintain their House majority, win those -- he talks about the 19 toss-up races and win the great majority of those.

Listen, history, polling indicate right now that this is a tough climb for House Republicans to maintain their majority in this environment with the president so unpopular nationwide, not an impossibility, and no doubt Speaker Johnson wants to lean into that.

I would just note this is -- while we don't see this kind of meeting often, it's the kind of thing you could imagine other White Houses doing too, like putting sort of an oar in the water or extending some kind of channel of communications, if indeed Congress does change hands.

What does that mean, Wolf? It means Democrats are going to have gavels in their hand in the House that's going to launch a ton of investigations from their oversight function, potential impeachment number three of Donald Trump. And having some line of communication with somebody who has Donald Trump's ear is going to be important for this White House if that comes to be.

BLITZER: And, potentially, Hakeem Jeffries could be speaker if the Democrats become the majority.

CHALIAN: No doubt. Likely so, yes.

BLITZER: Yes, so we will see what happens.

Thank you very much, David Chalian...

CHALIAN: Sure.

BLITZER: ... in THE SITUATION ROOM.

And, tomorrow, the House minority leader, the Democratic leader, Hakeem Jeffries, will join me here in THE SITUATION ROOM. That will be at 10:00 a.m. Eastern right here on CNN, of course.

Also happening now: The U.S. and Canada are barreling toward a much deeper trade war after last-ditch efforts to strike a deal completely collapsed. Only moments ago, President Trump posted on social media that tariffs on Canadian cars, automotive parts, and steel will be increased to a whopping 50 percent on January 1 of 2027.

The president enacted a 50 percent tariff on approximately $20 billion worth of Canadian goods this past weekend, while Prime Minister Mark Carney of Canada announced that Canada is preparing to retaliate with dollar-for-dollar tariffs beginning September 8. That's soon.

Joining us now is Jean Charest. He previously served as the premier of Quebec and Canada's deputy prime minister.

Jean Charest, thanks so much for joining us.

As we all know, Canada is an extremely close, if not the closest ally, the second leading trading partner of the United States, and not to mention for many, many years the closest ally once again. Just how concerning is this situation right now to you when it comes to the broader relationship between the United States and Canada?

JEAN CHAREST, FORMER PREMIER OF QUEBEC, CANADA: Canada is the biggest customer of the United States, no holds barred. We are the one who buy the most goods and services from our American neighbor, with whom we get along very well.

But this trade war, Wolf, has completely gone off the rails. I mean, this started with the president announcing a new round of 50 percent tariffs on $20 billion worth of goods. For example, Wolf, the president wants to tax Christmas decorations, Christmas decorations.

I mean, I don't know what it is about being obsessed by these kind of things, but it means for American families, on average, $1,000 more in expenses every year since he's put in his tariffs, because the tariffs are a tax. And the tariffs increase the cost of living.

It increases inflation, and then it increases interest rates on Americans. None of this, absolutely none of this makes sense. And the reality of our relationship with the United States is that both countries have the most integrated economy in the world. We have a trade agreement now that works very well, to the benefit of both countries.

And if you're in the most integrated economy in the world -- 70 percent of what we sell to Americans is either natural resources, raw materials, or inputs that go to American products. If you impose a tariff on that, you're imposing a tax on Americans, more inflation, higher interest rates.

But you're also creating an obstacle to the efficiency of this economy. It doesn't -- it doesn't make sense. Canada, of course, it's going -- is going to stand up for its sovereignty as a country. And it's regrettable, but we're in a position now where we have no other opportunity -- no other choice, I should say, in Canada, but to stand very firm in front of this commercialist trade dispute with the Americans.

[10:40:00]

BLITZER: It's hard to believe this is going on between the U.S. and Canada.

The Canadian prime minister, Mark Carney, said the terms proposed by the U.S. simply asked too much of Canada and offered too little in return. Do you support his decision to walk away from these talks right now, or is that too risky right now when it comes to dealing with the Trump administration?

CHAREST: The Canadians are totally behind the prime minister in the decision to walk away from the table. We're ready to reengage at any moment, by the way. It's not an issue of not wanting to deal with our American neighbor.

Again, I mean, we have a deep respect for our American friends and neighbors. That's not the issue. And we will always be each other's biggest clients. But we also want to be treated fairly, equitably, and with respect. I will give you another example.

The president is tariffing aluminum at 50 percent. I mean, this is -- it's completely nonsensical. You have no capacity right now in the United States to produce the aluminum that we are exporting to your economy. And it's energy-intensive. It would take five Hoover Dams to replace the aluminum that we're sending you, when in fact you're in the midst right now of an energy -- close to an energy crisis to be able to supplement or to deal with the energy you need for A.I. and for data centers.

How can this happen? But the end result is that American consumers, families are going to be paying more. And you have to wonder whether the Grinch isn't in the -- the White House when you're actually taxing Christmas decorations with your best friend and neighbor, Canada.

BLITZER: Yes, inflation was going up with the war with Iran, and now it's going to go up with this trade war with Canada.

The president posted on social media this morning these words. Let me read -- quote -- "Canada has been ripping off the United States and will now be treated like a state no longer." He added -- quote -- "On trade and in other ways, they are among the worst nations in the world to deal with."

Those are the words from the president of the United States. What's your response to those words?

CHAREST: The United States will never have a better friend, partner, reliable supplier than Canada. We supply 60 percent of all the oil that goes into the United States, and the Americans import, what you import.

The Americans -- United States produces 13.7 million barrels a day. You consume 20 million barrels a day. We send four to five million barrels a day. And we sell that oil, Wolf, at a discount to our American neighbor. I mean, does it get any better? That is -- that's the truth of the relationship between both countries.

We're reliable. We're friends. We are your biggest customer. And so this trade war is something that is going to hurt American consumers and families. It already does. And if it's going to increase inflation, well, then it's going to increase interest rates, and everyone will be a loser as they come out of it.

BLITZER: There are growing calls, as you well know, Jean Charest, among Canadians to expel the current U.S. ambassador to Canada, Pete Hoekstra, from the country, in part because of the strained relationship between the Trump administration and Canada.

The State Department spokesperson tells CNN that President Trump -- quote -- and I'm quoting him now -- "has the right to determine who represents the American people, as well as our interests around the world" -- end quote.

Where do you stand on this current controversy that's generating a lot of excitement in Canada and here in the U.S.?

CHAREST: Well, this petition on the American ambassador is an expression of the frustration of Canadians.

And, Wolf, every time the administration of the president talks about the 51st state, what he's saying, and what Canadians hear is that you do not exist. That you, Canada, as a country, don't have a right to exist. That's what they're hearing.

And the ambassador is in the middle of all of that, having to defend those positions. That being said, Canada is not going to be expulsing the American ambassador. People are expressing frustration.

I have met Ambassador Hoekstra, quite liked him, by the way. And he is in a difficult position of having to defend what I believe to be the undefendable on the -- from the administration.

But, rest assured, we are not going to be expulsing him, and he will be able to do his work. And the issues we have is with the White House. It is not with the ambassador.

BLITZER: Well, let's hope this U.S.-Canadian relationship gets back to where it was, strong and vital for both countries. Jean Charest, thanks so much for joining us. We appreciate it.

CHAREST: Thank you, Wolf.

BLITZER: And coming up: major changes at the leading military publication, the Pentagon firing many of the leaders of "Stars and Stripes."

[10:45:01]

We're going to speak to the former editor in chief of the newspaper on the growing pressure campaign against the press.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

BLITZER: Happening now: The Pentagon is now making sweeping changes at the historic "Stars and Stripes" military newspaper. It has fired its publisher, its editor in chief, and a reporter.

The Pentagon has now appointed an active duty public affairs officer to oversee the publication. Last week's firings came after the paper reported on conditions on board the USS Abraham Lincoln aircraft carrier.

"Stars and Stripes" editor in chief Erik Slavin is here with me. He was told he was being fired for insubordination after giving media interviews on potential censorship at the publication.

Erik Slavin, thanks very much for joining us.

[10:50:00]

Sara Fischer, our media analyst and media correspondent for Axios, is also with us as well.

Well, let's talk a little bit about what's going on.

For me, this is very personal. I was a Pentagon correspondent, a military affairs correspondent for CNN during the first Gulf War, spent a lot of time reading "Stars and Stripes." Why is this happening? What's going on?

ERIK SLAVIN, FORMER EDITOR IN CHIEF, "STARS AND STRIPES": Well, it's hard to say.

I can tell you that I received a notice of proposed separation on Friday afternoon, which stated that, because of a CBS interview I gave, I was up for separation.

What I stated was that, in my personal opinion, censorship would be a red line.

BLITZER: You think what you were mentioning, the hardships aboard the USS Abraham Lincoln aircraft carrier, which has been there for so long -- it's now on its way back to the United States -- was that the reason they didn't want to hear what the editor in chief of "Stars and Stripes" was saying?

SLAVIN: Well, that wasn't in the notice of proposed separation.

I can say that the reporting came out on the 11th, and we were the first to break a lot of the details regarding what happened aboard the USS Abraham Lincoln. And I'm very proud of the reporting that we did. The separation notice came approximately 10 days later.

BLITZER: Our Pamela Brown, my co-anchor, who's on assignment now, she did a lot of reporting on that because she was on -- on board the Abraham Lincoln for a while as this controversy was just beginning to erupt.

What do you make of this latest violation of a free press?

SARA FISCHER, CNN MEDIA ANALYST: Well, the Pentagon itself has been one of the harshest critics of the free press. They have limited a ton of access.

And this dates back to last year, Wolf, when Pentagon officials asked news organizations to sign a pledge basically saying that they wouldn't run information unless it was vetted by the Defense Department. It's notable that a lot of news organizations, including conservative outlets like FOX News, refused to sign that pledge.

Now, in the time since, "The New York Times" has sued the Defense Department. They actually won that lawsuit. They have done since a second lawsuit. But it comes to show you that, for Defense Department reporters, this has been a very tough and tenuous environment. It's a lot more closed off than it ever has been before.

BLITZER: Yes, for me, once again, this is very personal, because I remember my days walking the halls of the Pentagon on the E-Ring.

And I would just walk over, see some general or colonel, we would talk. Nowadays, you can't even do that.

SLAVIN: No, the public affairs officers are in what's called in military parlance a SCIF, essentially a closed access area. So that relationship that I think was cordial at one point and...

BLITZER: It was great, that relationship.

SLAVIN: Yes. Yes. It's just not there anymore.

BLITZER: Yes, they would invite me into their offices, brief me on what's going on, and very often say: "You have reported this. Let me give you some more information."

It was the way a free press should be operating, and apparently that's gone now.

SLAVIN: Yes, and I think that really benefits the American public. The military is just too important an institution to have it behind closed doors. And I think it's a real concern that, at a time where you have all

this happening in Iran and Ukraine and flash points in the Asia- Pacific, that these types of conversations aren't really happening.

BLITZER: The Pentagon, Sara, says that "Stars and Stripes," the paper will retain its editorial independence. How much faith do you have in that statement?

FISCHER: Well, not much.

I mean, if they are terminating employees and leaders within that organization, and they're not providing much detailed elaboration, other than that it was insubordination for an interview that you gave a few weeks ago, that, to me, suggests that they want to control the editorial of this independent organization.

And although "Stars and Stripes" does receive funding from the Pentagon, that's really just to help distribute the paper and its journalism to military and their family abroad. It's not meant to be a controlling mechanism for the types of journalism that you produce.

I would just say, Wolf, one thing that I have found inspiring is that, when come across adversity, the free press has found incredible ways to double down on its investigations. In fact, every time the Defense Department puts up a new wall trying to keep reporters out, reporters find even more creative ways, often banding together, to continue to probe the administration.

It makes me feel as though the administration's efforts to target the press are backfiring.

BLITZER: You agree?

SLAVIN: Well, it's certainly a chilled environment at this point. We're...

BLITZER: At the Pentagon.

SLAVIN: At the Pentagon.

BLITZER: For the news media.

SLAVIN: I have never come across this before, but this is a fairly new one. We have asked questions, and I will hear the answer "On background, as a U.S. defense official, I have no comment."

And that's just stunning to me.

BLITZER: Yes.

SLAVIN: It's gotten to the point where so many are so unwilling to speak to us about what's happening, that they don't even want it known that they don't want to comment.

BLITZER: It's really heartbreaking, especially for someone who spent years at the Pentagon working with officials there, getting information, trying to inform the public out there, the American public, who are watching CNN what was going on. And now to see all this censorship going on, it's really sad.

[10:55:00]

CNN's analysis shows, by the way, Sara, that the Pentagon hasn't held a formal briefing on the Iran war since May. What do you make of that, in tandem with all of these other steps being taken by the Pentagon right now when it comes to news coverage?

I remember, during the first Gulf War, when Operation Desert Shield started and Operation Desert Storm, every day, there were briefings. I was there. We had live coverage on CNN. And, in many respects, it helped build up CNN,the fact that we were showing the world what was really going on.

And now they haven't had a briefing since May.

FISCHER: It shows that they don't want to speak to their policies, that they don't want accountability for things that are happening.

You mentioned the USS Lincoln in the great reporting that "Stars and Stripes" did. They don't want to speak about this publicly because they don't have great answers. I think, if you zoom out broadly, the Pentagon has been one of the most restrictive in terms of what they have been doing to the press, but we're also seeing this across the administration with the White House.

We're seeing it in other places. And it's not, by the way, the only place where there is government-funded news that's being punished. You saw with the government-funded broadcasters such as the VOA, Radio Free Europe, all of those outlets too -- they're all now in lawsuits with the administration -- also face issues where their executives were being fired because of what they were reporting.

And so I think you just have this broader situation right now where we are facing the most limited access probably that we have had from this administration compared to many others in the past, but especially at the Defense Department.

BLITZER: And when I was there during the years I was at the Pentagon, it was one of the most open areas for the news media to get information. Everybody was willing to talk to us and explain what they thought was going on. And it was so important for the public out there to learn what was really going on.

Sara, thank you. Erik, thanks to you as well.

And good luck to both of you, especially to you, Erik.

SLAVIN: Thank you.

BLITZER: You got any plans now, what you're going to do?

SLAVIN: Still trying to figure that out.

BLITZER: All right, well, let us know.

SLAVIN: OK.

BLITZER: Thanks very much, Erik Slavin and Sara Fischer. Excellent, excellent analysis.

And we will have more news right after this.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)