Return to Transcripts main page
The Source with Kaitlan Collins
Trump Claims He's Setting Up Meeting Between Putin & Zelenskyy; Trump Moves To Get Rid Of Mail-In Ballots & Voting Machines; California Dems Kick Off Sprint To Redraw Congressional Maps. Aired 9- 10p ET
Aired August 18, 2025 - 21:00 ET
THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.
ANDERSON COOPER, CNN HOST: A Tropical Storm Watch is now in effect for that area.
Luckily, Erin is not expected to directly hit the U.S. There are rip current alerts for the East Coast. Erin is now a Category 4 storm, with maximum sustained winds of 130 miles an hour, after growing to a rare Category 5 over the weekend. We'll be watching it closely in the days ahead.
That's it for us. The news continues. "THE SOURCE" starts now.
BRIANNA KEILAR, CNN HOST, THE SOURCE WITH KAITLAN COLLINS: Tonight, inside the White House, for a very different round two, between Trump and Zelenskyy, Zelenskyy suited but not booted. And Trump pausing a phone call to go call Vladimir Putin, pausing a meeting to go call Putin.
I'm Brianna Keilar, in for Kaitlan Collins. And this is THE SOURCE.
An unprecedented scene at the White House today. Top European leader, after top European leader, after top European leader, walked into the White House, for a quickly-arranged conference of Western powers, unlike any that we've seen at the White House in modern times. The goal, an end to Russia's war in Ukraine.
And as we come on the air tonight, President Trump is making it seem like a meeting between the Russian and Ukrainian leaders could now actually happen. Trump posting on Truth Social, quote, "I called President Putin, and began the arrangements for a meeting, at a location to be determined, between President Putin and President Zelenskyy."
And Secretary of State, Rubio, was in the room for that call.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
MARCO RUBIO, SECRETARY OF STATE: The President suggested that Zelenskyy and Putin meet. So, we're working on that now to try to set that up for them to meet somewhere, which, again, would be unprecedented.
Just the fact that Putin is saying, Sure, I'll meet with Zelenskyy. That's a big deal. I mean, I'm not saying they're going to leave that room, best friends. I'm not saying they're going to leave that room with a peace deal. But I think the fact that people are now talking to each other, this wasn't happening for three and a half years.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
KEILAR: That meeting isn't set yet, and would need to be followed by another one with Trump in attendance.
As for when it might happen, the German Chancellor says Putin agreed to meet Zelenskyy within the next two weeks.
Keep in mind, as these discussions play out, this is what the Russian military is doing. This is the aftermath of a Russian ballistic missile attack on the City of Zaporizhzhia today, where as many as 18 people were hurt and three were killed.
Here in Washington, President Trump found himself facing a united front.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
DONALD TRUMP, PRESIDENT, UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: I believe a peace agreement at the end of all of this is something that's very attainable, and it can be done in the near future.
MARK RUTTE, NATO SECRETARY GENERAL: President of the United States, dear Donald, for the fact that you, as I said before, broke the deadlock, basically, with President Putin by starting that dialog; and I think it was in February that you had the first phone call.
TRUMP: Right.
RUTTE: And from there, we are now where we are today. And that is, I think, if we play this well, we could end this. And we have to end this.
FRIEDRICH MERZ, GERMAN CHANCELLOR: The next steps ahead are the more complicated ones now. The path is open.
TRUMP: Yes.
MERZ: You opened it, last Friday.
VOLODYMYR ZELENSKYY, UKRAINIAN PRESIDENT: I think that we had very good conversation with President Trump.
TRUMP: Very good.
ZELENSKYY: And it really was the best one -- or, sorry, maybe the best one will be in the future. But it was really good.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
TRUMP: Today's meeting is already noticeably different from the one, Friday, in Alaska. President Trump joined Europe, and Ukraine, in discussing guarantees of Ukrainian security. And Trump, not closing the door on the possibility of sending U.S. troops in to keep the peace.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
TRUMP: I'm optimistic that collectively, we can reach an agreement that would deter any future aggression against Ukraine.
KEIR STARMER, BRITISH PRIME MINISTER: I think, with the right approach, this afternoon, make real progress, particularly on the security guarantees.
ZELENSKYY: This is very important that United States gives such strong signal and is ready for security guarantees.
TRUMP: They are first line of defense, because they're there, they're Europe. But we're going to help them out also.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
KEILAR: With seven fellow European leaders, at the White House, backing him up, President Zelenskyy's Oval Office meeting went more than a little differently than his last visit in February.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
TRUMP: You don't have the cards right now. With us, you start having cards.
ZELENSKYY: I'm not playing cards.
TRUMP: But right now, you don't have your playing cards..
ZELENSKYY: I'm very serious, Mr. President. I'm very serious.
TRUMP: You're playing cards.
ZELENSKYY: I'm the president in a war.
TRUMP: You're gambling with the lives of millions of people. You're gambling with World War III.
ZELENSKYY: You think--
TRUMP: We've had a lot of good discussions, we had a lot of good talks, and I think progress is being made, very -- very substantial progress. In many ways, we had a good meeting.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
[21:05:00]
KEILAR: Let's bring in some of our sharpest insiders. We have Zolan Kanno-Youngs of The New York Times, Shelby Talcott of Semafor, and former CNN Moscow Bureau Chief, Jill Dougherty, with us. I mean, Jill, when you think of this idea, of Vladimir Putin meeting with Volodymyr Zelenskyy, do you really think this is going to happen, as Trump is describing it?
JILL DOUGHERTY, CNN CONTRIBUTOR, FORMER CNN MOSCOW BUREAU CHIEF, ADJUNCT PROFESSOR, GEORGETOWN UNIVERSITY: Well, let's look at what happened.
So, the Kremlin comes out with this statement, as Fred Pleitgen has reported, and it doesn't say, Yes, we are going to meet. It says, Well, the teams, negotiating teams, should meet, continue to meet. And then there's this cryptic little thing about, On a higher level, which seems to indicate the leadership. But they are not saying that there will be a meeting. Now, it's entirely possible that there could be.
But the thing, I think, you know, if -- my take would be that the Kremlin doesn't want to have Putin depicted as kind of behaving according to what Trump wants. He himself is a strong leader, so he has to show that he makes the decisions, and yes, this is a great idea, and maybe we will commit.
And then also, I think there's a lack of predictability about what Trump is going to do, one day or two days from tomorrow. And it's better, the relationship certainly is better between Trump and Putin. They seem more on the same page, especially with the negotiating tactics.
But I'm not convinced that the Kremlin is always comfortable with what's going to happen next, so they're a little cagey on this.
KEILAR: So, it was really interesting to hear this chorus, Jill, of leader after leader talking about these Article 5-like security guarantees.
We heard these -- them talk about these protections over and over. Let's listen.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
URSULA VON DER LEYEN, EUROPEAN COMMISSION PRESIDENT: And indeed, it's very good to hear that we're working on the security guarantees, Article 5-like security guarantees.
GIORGIA MELONI, ITALIAN PRIME MINISTER: I'm happy that we will begin from a proposal which is the, let's say, Article 5 model.
STARMER: Your indication of security guarantees, some sort of Article 5-style guarantees, fits with what we've been doing with the Coalition.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
KEILAR: Is that a poison pill for Vladimir Putin? Or might he be inclined to agree to something like that?
DOUGHERTY: Well, the word, NATO, is a poison pill. Thou shalt not say that.
But I think he could -- if they could finesse it and not describe it as NATO, they could probably do something like that.
But the Kremlin's statement, you know, I looked at it again tonight, and it seems to be saying, No NATO. But again, if you rephrase it as, Individual European countries, et cetera, maybe they could do it. This is all very fluid, at this point.
KEILAR: Zolan, fascinating moment, as I mentioned, where the President pauses this meeting, that he's having, to actually call Vladimir Putin. And there were questions about what that went down like.
And the Finnish leader, the President, told our Erin Burnett, that actually it was the leaders discussing what they wanted, and he sort of called Vladimir Putin to kind of run some ideas by him.
Is that how you understand that it went?
ZOLAN KANNO-YOUNGS, CNN POLITICAL ANALYST, WHITE HOUSE CORRESPONDENT, THE NEW YORK TIMES: Yes. And then also, I believe the Finnish President said that they got a briefing, essentially afterwards, when they all returned to the Oval Office, after that call as well. White House official is also telling us that leaders convened after that call to go over it.
Look, the European leaders, that went to the White House today, have been optimistic about the President and the administration's ability, to push for some sort of diplomatic end here. And part of that, they've said, is talking to Vladimir Putin.
But also, essentially, even with that call, there's been this underlying message, from the President and the administration, to European leaders, to Zelenskyy as well of: You just got to trust us. You got to trust us in our conversations with Putin. You got to trust us when we say that we will be involved with security and protecting Ukraine long-term.
Without the specifics on that call, what he's saying to Putin, but also what they mean by Article 5-like security guarantees, it's really hard to actually discern just how close in the progress that they're making towards a deal. That's the crucial aspect of this.
What do they mean by long-term security guarantees? And can they trust a president as well that, remember, just days ago, flip-flopped? Went into that summit, saying that he was going to impose economic consequences on Russia, if there wasn't a ceasefire. We saw him completely pivot there, and adopt a more Putin-like approach of saying, I want a sprawling peace agreement rather than a ceasefire. It's not the first time he's flip-flopped when it comes to his approach with Ukraine as well.
But you are seeing an optimistic tone from European leaders as well, based off of the effort, to communicate with Zelenskyy and Putin.
KEILAR: And this, Shelby, this hot mic moment, leaders hate them, right, but we love them, because it tells us what is on the mind of a leader, truly. And this is the one that President Trump was caught on, as he was speaking to French president, Emmanuel Macron, about Putin.
[21:10:00]
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
TRUMP: I think he wants to make a deal. I think he wants to make a deal for me. You understand that? As crazy as it sounds.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
KEILAR: --have anything labeled.
So listen to that, as crazy as it sounds, does it sound crazy, as you hear that? And is Putin sort of snowing Trump into thinking this, his sort of dark arts KGB playing into this?
SHELBY TALCOTT, WHITE HOUSE CORRESPONDENT, SEMAFOR: Yes, I think that's the ultimate question.
And now, Donald Trump has long-touted his relationship with Putin as a reason for his ability to get this deal done. We heard it on the campaign trail a lot. One of his core campaign promises was, I want to end this war on day one. Obviously, that has not happened. But the reason he would often give was that he had a unique relationship with Vladimir Putin. So, I do believe that Donald Trump truly believes that his relationship with Putin is going to be able to stop this war.
I think the question that everybody, including administration officials, has is, does Vladimir Putin actually want to stop this war? Because there's recognition, internally, that at some point, there's only so much the U.S. can do, and at some point it is up to Vladimir Putin. They can only do so much. They can go ahead with sanctions. But at the end of the day, even if they do go ahead with sanctions, is Putin going to want to stop?
KEILAR: Yes, it really does come down to that, and there's a lot of indications that maybe that's not where he's coming from, at this point.
The NATO secretary, Jill, said there was no discussion about redrawing Ukrainian borders. And we heard from Zelenskyy, outside of the White House, saying, this is going to be something for him and Vladimir Putin to work out. What do you think a discussion about that would end up looking like?
DOUGHERTY: Well, that's interesting phrase, Redrawing the borders. You can -- going -- remembering the Baltics in -- after World War -- when they were retaken and lost their freedom. The United States never recognized that. Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania. But de facto, they were occupied by the Soviets. But we never said that it was correct or it was legal, and yet we had to deal with the Soviet Union.
So, when they say, Recognize? I think it's crucial to say, What do you mean by recognize? Is it recognize the fact that they are there, that Russian troops are there? Or are you saying you -- actually, legally say that is now a part of Russia. And those are two very different things.
So, again, the lack of specificity, it really makes this very difficult to talk about, because a lot of this can be interpreted, in wildly almost contradictory terms, until you get down to the black and white. And sometimes, even the black and white can be very iffy.
KEILAR: Yes. Well, we know today is going to go down in history. Time will tell exactly how.
Jill. Shelby. Zolan. Thank you so much for your insights. Really appreciate it.
KANNO-YOUNGS: Thank you.
KEILAR: And my next source is a Democrat, who serves on the Senate Armed Services Committee, Senator Richard Blumenthal of Connecticut.
Thank you, sir, for being with us.
In your view, do you think that we're closer to an end of this war because of what we all saw at the White House today?
SEN. RICHARD BLUMENTHAL (D-CT): I think we are no closer, unless Donald Trump is willing to accept a ceasefire, and continued support, militarily, and strong sanctions economically against Putin, because that is the only language that Putin will understand. He's a KGB thug. He understands only force.
And I was struck by the clarity and unity of these European leaders. They have diverse views, domestically, in their own countries. Labour Minister, Prime Minister of England. The very conservative Prime Minister of Italy. But they came together, asking that Trump stay strong against Putin. And I hope that if there's hope here, it will be that European leaders are going to continue to provide arms that are necessary to convince Putin that he should come to the table.
And President Trump said, We'll know, not very far from now, a week or two, whether there's going to be a solution here, and there will be no meeting with Zelenskyy by Putin. There will be no peace unless much stronger measures are taken to support Ukraine by the United States.
KEILAR: So, you say sanctions. And you and Senator Graham have been pushing a bill that would impose sanctions on countries that buy energy from Russia.
You heard the Secretary of State. Marco Rubio said that this is what would happen if there are sanctions. Let's listen.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
RUBIO: I don't think new sanctions on Russia are going to force them to accept a ceasefire.
[21:15:00] The minute he takes those steps, all talks stop. The minute we take those steps, there is no one left in the world to go talk to the Russians and try to get them to the table to reach a peace agreement.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
KEILAR: What do you think about that, and would that be an acceptable risk to you, if that is the outcome?
BLUMENTHAL: What Senator Thune said today, that the United States Senate stands ready to provide leverage to President Trump, I think, is absolutely encouraging about the possibility that we will actually vote on a sanctions bill that has 85 co-sponsors from the United States Senate. It provides support for President Trump.
It has already pushed and supported him to impose sanctions on India. We're not talking as much about sanctions on Russia, as we are the secondary sanctions on Russia's customers for its oil and gas. And if they stop buying those energy products, it will throttle Putin's economy. He knows it. He hears it. And he will be more inclined to talk, not less, if he knows that his economy, already on its heels, could be spiraling downward. They buy about 30 to 50 percent of the products that go into Russia's economy, its budget, and that is a very, very daunting number.
KEILAR: The President, notably, did not rule out sending American troops to Ukraine, if Russia were to violate a peace agreement, if they come to one. Would you support that?
BLUMENTHAL: I would support a collective defense treaty, NATO-like Article 5 type treaty that would provide some obligations for the United States to be a backstop. As we are in NATO, we have a treaty obligation under Article 5. But not before there's a peace agreement. There should be no American troops on the ground, while there is active fighting. And the reality--
KEILAR: No, but we're talking about if there were -- if there were a peace agreement, with security guarantees, would you support part of that being, American troops being on the ground, should Russia renege on that agreement?
BLUMENTHAL: As a deterrent, I would support our participation in a collective defense treaty type of guarantee in security. There really has to be some American backstop. The Europeans can be the first line of defense, just as they would be in the event of an attack on a NATO country.
But let's remember, the attack is going on right now. People are being killed in Ukrainian cities, and towns, because Putin is continuing to murder them. And this kind of aerial reign of terror is going to continue as long as we fail to stand up to Putin. What we're seeing right now is a slow-motion Munich, and that's why you see European leaders so unified and strongly clear.
KEILAR: Senator Richard Blumenthal, thank you so much for joining us this evening. BLUMENTHAL: Thank you.
KEILAR: And up next. President Trump launches a new assault on mail-in ballots and voting machines, saying that he wants to bring honesty to the 2026 midterms.
Plus, breaking news tonight. A major new announcement that has to do with Deputy FBI Director, Dan Bongino.
[21:20:00]
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
KEILAR: After years of President Trump railing against mail-in voting, when he's not urging his voters to use it, that is, then falsely claiming that it was a source of fraud during the 2020 election. Tonight, the President says he's moving to get rid of it for good, ahead of the 2026 midterms.
It's a legally dubious pursuit, according to experts.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
TRUMP: Mail-in ballots are corrupt. Mail-in ballots -- you can never have a real democracy with mail-in ballots.
And we, as a Republican Party, are going to do everything possible that we get rid of mail-in ballots. We're going to start with an executive order that's being written, right now, by the best lawyers in the country, to end mail-in ballots, because they're corrupt. And you know that we're the only country in the world, I believe, I may be wrong, but just about the only country in the world that uses it.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
KEILAR: Now, the President is wrong on this, and let us count the ways.
Dozens of other countries actually do use mail-in voting, despite what he says. That includes Canada, the U.K., Germany, Australia and Switzerland, to name a few.
Mail-in ballots are not inherently corrupt. Election experts have been clear, there is no evidence of widespread mail-in ballot fraud, or widespread voter fraud. Period. The incidence of fraud with mail-in ballots is tiny.
Trump's renewed attack on mail ballots comes after Russian leader Vladimir Putin apparently questioned their security, last week. And that's not all that Trump wants to change.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
TRUMP: The other thing we want change are the machines. For all of the money they spend, it's approximately 10 times more expensive than paper ballots. And paper ballots are very sophisticated with the watermark paper and everything else. We would get secure elections. We'd get much faster results. The machines, I mean, they say, We're going to have the results in two weeks. With paper ballots, you have the results that night.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
KEILAR: My source tonight is Tom Dupree, former Deputy Assistant Attorney General.
[21:25:00]
And you hear, Tom, the President saying he can do this with an executive order. It's being written by the best lawyers in the country. He posted this morning that states are merely an agent for the Federal Government in counting and tabulating votes. They must do what the Federal Government, as represented by the President, tells them, FOR THE GOOD OF OUR COUNTRY, to do.
Walk us through the truth here.
TOM DUPREE, FORMER DEPUTY ASSISTANT ATTORNEY GENERAL: Sure. Well, not to go all constitutional law nerd on you. But the Constitution--
KEILAR: No, do, please.
DUPREE: Well, if you'll indulge me. So the Constitution is actually pretty clear. Article I Section 4 says that the states, the states, have the prerogative to regulate the time, place and manner of elections. It also says that Congress can alter those rules by law if it chooses to do so.
But I think the relevant point here is that what the Constitution says is that to the extent that there can be a federal override of these election-related laws, that power is constitutionally vested in the Congress of the United States, not the President. So, it's not something that President Trump can do, simply by way of an executive order.
KEILAR: OK. So, he would need Congress. In the meantime, if he tries to go forward with some kind of EO, what could states do? Do they have legal remedies to combat something like that?
DUPREE: Sure, the states definitely could go into federal court and challenge this executive order as unlawful. They might simply disregard it and say, Well, it's all very well and good what President Trump thinks about mail-in voting, but we're not going to change our election laws as a result.
And look, I think the fact is, is that, from President Trump's perspective, the endgame may not be so much to actually eliminate mail-in voting. And there's not a big, widespread problem with fraud in mail-in ballots. I say this, as someone who's litigated election cases for conservative Republicans. It's not a big problem.
But what the President may be trying to do is really just seed doubt in the idea of mail-in votes. And so that way, in 2026, he at least would have a basis for claiming, Look, there was fraud here, I told you, it's these mail-in ballots that are the problem. So, that may be as much and part of the endgame here, as simply trying to eliminate mail-in voting entirely.
KEILAR: Yes, the very astute point. Tom Dupree, thank you so much for taking us through that. Really appreciate it.
DUPREE: Thank you.
KEILAR: We have some more breaking news tonight, on what appears to be a first for the FBI. Attorney General, Pam Bondi, and FBI Director, Kash Patel, announcing that Missouri Attorney General, Andrew Bailey, will serve as co-deputy director of the agency, serving alongside the current Deputy, Dan Bongino.
And this news is coming at a very interesting time, just weeks after Bongino told people, he thought about resigning, after clashing with top officials, including Bondi, over their handling of the Epstein files.
My source is former FBI Deputy Director, Andrew McCabe.
And Andy, you were Deputy Director. What would you be thinking if you'd had a clash with the A.G., and then you were finding out that you were getting a co-deputy director.
ANDREW MCCABE, FORMER FBI DEPUTY DIRECTOR, CNN SENIOR LAW ENFORCEMENT ANALYST: Well, Brianna, I think -- and it occurred to me, at the time, when this clash took place between Mr. Bongino and A.G. Bondi, apparently in the White House, in front of people, including the President's Chief of Staff. It occurred to me, at the time, that had I ever been in a situation like that, I would not have expected to be able to stay in the job as Deputy Director. I'm shocked that the Attorney General hasn't asked for his resignation, up until this point.
But I do think that this somewhat awkward news that we've heard today about having two deputy directors, it's possible that this might be in anticipation of Mr. Bongino leaving his tenure. I don't think here there's any secret about the fact that he hasn't been entirely happy with the way things are going. That's just -- that's just speculation.
But it is hard, knowing the job as well as I do, it's almost impossible for me to understand how this could work out well, with two deputy directors, for a variety of reasons. The FBI is a paramilitary organization. It's someplace where lines of chain of command and lines of reporting are very, very important to the people who work there.
As Deputy Director, you are directly responsible for the heads of all 56 field offices. So, 56 direct reports, each of whom runs a field office, you're expected to work with those people, directly, to mentor them, to help develop them, to hold them accountable, to review all the many metrics, administrative and operational and performance metrics that they are trying to make each year. You meet with them twice a year, to discuss their progress and determine whether or not they'll be eligible for bonuses at the end of the year, things like that.
These are all things that the heads of the field offices depend upon the Deputy Director to do. It's almost impossible to imagine doing that fairly, having divided the responsibility between two separate people. So there's a -- there's a lot of reasons why this, I think, could be problematic.
[21:30:00]
KEILAR: Bongino's reaction online was this. Welcome. Period. With three American flag emojis. That was in a reply to the Fox report about this.
I mean, you say that this likely couldn't work. I think a lot of folks look at this and they think that he's being layered. Why not just ask for his resignation, if they want him to go? Why -- is there a reason, that you can think of, to handle it this way?
MCCABE: The only reasons that come to me, Brianna, are ones that I think are distinct to this administration. And they do seem to believe that asking a Cabinet-level official, or a senior leader within the government, who they've been very publicly supporting, then having to turn around and ask that person for their resignation, seems, you know, is viewed as some sort of an admission of defeat. It's something that they don't want to have to explain to the media.
I think we saw that with the National Security Advisor to the President, earlier this year, after the infamous texting Signalgate scandal. So, this could be a situation like that. We'll have to wait and see how it plays out. But it's going to be rough sailing ahead, both for Mr. Bongino and for Mr. Bailey, the newly-appointed second deputy? I guess, that's his word.
KEILAR: Yes, tough circumstances to come into.
Andrew McCabe, great to get your perspective on that. Thank you so much.
MCCABE: Thanks.
KEILAR: Up next. What will President Zelenskyy's high-stakes meeting with President Trump mean back home in Kyiv? To help us understand the stakes, my source tonight, a former U.S. Ambassador to Ukraine.
[21:35:00]
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
KEILAR: Tonight, President Trump is still brushing off the need for a ceasefire in Ukraine, saying that while he likes the concept of a ceasefire amid negotiations, he believes Russia and Ukraine can strike a peace deal without one.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
TRUMP: I don't think you'd need a ceasefire. You know, if you look at the six deals that I settled this year, they were all at war, I didn't do any ceasefires.
We can work a deal where we're working on a peace deal, while they're fighting. They have to fight. I wish they could stop. I'd like them to stop. But strategically, that could be a disadvantage for one side or the other.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
KEILAR: That is a remarkable reversal from just three days ago when Trump said he wanted to see a ceasefire shortly before meeting face- to-face with Russian President, Vladimir Putin.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
TRUMP: I want to see a ceasefire rapidly. I don't know if it's going to be today, but I'm not going to be happy if it's not today. Everyone said it can't be today, but I'm just saying I want the killing to stop.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
KEILAR: And yet, Trump emerged out of the Putin summit, swayed, saying, the best way to end the war would be to settle on a peace agreement rather than pursue a, quote, "Mere Ceasefire," first.
A view that European leaders pushed back on, at the White House today.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
MERZ: We all would like to see a ceasefire, at the latest from the next meeting on. I can't imagine that the next meeting would took place without a ceasefire. So let's work on that, and let's try to put pressure on Russia.
EMMANUEL MACRON, FRENCH PRESIDENT: Your idea to ask for a truce or a ceasefire, at least to stop the killings are, as we discussed, is a necessity. And we all support this idea.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
KEILAR: My source tonight is former U.S. Ambassador to Ukraine, Steven Pifer. He's also with the Center for International Security and Cooperation at Stanford University.
Ambassador, what do you make of Trump's reversal on this ceasefire issue, and of these multiple entreaties from European leaders for him to go back to his position on it.
STEVEN PIFER, FORMER U.S. AMBASSADOR TO UKRAINE: Yes, well, I think President Trump was correct, last week, when he was saying that the ceasefire ought to be the first step, and then you build negotiations on that basis. Unfortunately, he got persuaded in another direction in Alaska.
But here's the thing. Vladimir Putin believes he can still win the war on the battlefield. So, if you don't have a ceasefire? You could have a negotiation, Putin could can continue the war, and he could just drag out the negotiations for months and months and years and years. So, it doesn't move you closer to an end of the fighting.
KEILAR: The German Chancellor says that Putin has agreed to meet with Zelenskyy within the next two weeks that, that happened during his phone call with Trump. How significant would that be, if it actually happens?
PIFER: Well, I think that would be important. Ultimately, there are some very difficult issues here that have to be resolved, between Russians and Ukrainians, and they're going to have to be resolved at the top.
And if President Trump can persuade Putin to actually meet with Zelenskyy, that's an achievement. The last couple of years, the Russians have done all they could to try to delegitimize Zelenskyy, suggesting that he's really not a legitimate president of Ukraine. And so, that would be a big step for them now to agree to meet with him.
[21:40:00]
I would put in a note of caution. Apparently, the foreign policy advisor to Putin, Mr. Ushakov, he said this evening that Well, we can look about contacts between delegations. So, at least he was not yet speaking right off the bat, about a meeting between Zelenskyy and Putin. But ultimately, that would be a good development.
KEILAR: Yes, very interesting. And we heard Zelenskyy, and his European counterpart, stressing this need for security guarantees for Ukraine. We heard that over and over.
Zelenskyy now says the discussion included plans for Ukraine to purchase $90 billion in American weapons through European funding, and that it would also involve Ukraine manufacturing drones, some of which the U.S. would purchase.
What do you think of that? And what else are you looking for, what else do you think it takes?
PIFER: Well, again, I think one of the positive things today was there actually now is a discussion underway, between the American, European leaders, and Zelenskyy, about security guarantees. That's going to be a very important piece of this puzzle, as you try to figure out how you end this war.
And for example, for all the talk that there was a week ago, about Ukraine making land concessions? That's going to be incredibly hard for the Ukrainians. It will be painful. But I don't think you even begin that conversation unless Ukraine has assurances, or they have a strong, ironclad security guarantee that gives them confidence that they do an arrangement now, two years down the road, the Russians don't just start up their war again. So, I think that's important.
And the idea of providing Ukraine, weapons, and there's a combination of thing, I think, to make a security guarantee real, it's some kind of a Western commitment to come to Ukraine's assistance, but you also help them build a modern well-armed military that itself can help deter the Russians.
And there's also a plus here too. We can learn a lot, the U.S. military can learn a lot, from the Ukrainians, about drones and this kind of warfare that's been waged in Ukraine over the last three years. Ukraine now builds, for example, more than a 100,000 drones per month. That's more than the United States produces in a year. You can learn a lot from them.
KEILAR: Yes, they have so much experience with that type of warfare.
Ambassador Steven Pifer, thank you so much.
PIFER: Thank you.
KEILAR: Coming up. Texas Democrats are back in the State House, ending their 15-day protest over a controversial Republican redistricting push. Why the minority party is declaring victory though? Next.
[21:45:00]
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
KEILAR: Democrats may have just lost the battle in Texas, but they're pushing ahead in the broader redistricting war tonight. This was the scene, in Austin today, as Texas Democratic lawmakers returned to the state, ending their 15-day walkout, all but assuring that Republicans will quickly succeed in passing their redrawn congressional maps.
President Trump is celebrating the news tonight, calling on Republicans to pass the new map, ASAP. But despite that, Texas Democrats argue that their walkout was a success.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
GENE WU, TEXAS HOUSE DEMOCRATIC CAUCUS CHAIR: The quorum break was successful, I think, beyond our wildest dreams.
We never expected the American public to come in with such amazing support.
MIHAELA PLESA, (D) TEXAS STATE HOUSE: We have woken the nation up. They realize that the power is in their hands.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
KEILAR: The next front is California, where Democrats took the first step to redraw their maps today, formally introducing legislation. And they were quick to point out that, unlike in Texas, voters in California will have a say in the process.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
REP. ZOE LOFGREN (D-CA): Unlike the Republicans in Texas, we're not just doing this in secret. We are revealing the proposed maps. The legislature will talk about their process. But when all is said and done, we believe in the voters and the people of this state, and we are going to put it to them to decide their own fate.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
KEILAR: My political sources are here. Karen Finney and Shermichael Singleton.
Karen, was the walkout, in Texas, successful, beyond Democrats' wildest dreams, as we heard there? What was accomplished?
KAREN FINNEY, CNN POLITICAL COMMENTATOR, SENIOR ADVISER TO HILLARY CLINTON'S 2016 CAMPAIGN: So look, the Democrats in Texas knew that it was unlikely they were going to have a win, with regard to the maps themselves.
This was always about actually creating the environment, where we were having a national conversation. I mean, we've been covering this, on CNN, for two weeks. Everybody has been covering. We've been talking about it. And that has woken the nation up to the fact that you had Donald Trump call the Governor of Texas, and say, Find me five seats. In the same way he called the Governor of Georgia and said, Find me a 11,000 votes. That matters.
And now what we're seeing is we move to Phase Two. California is making it clear that, Should they proceed with this plan, we're ready to strike.
KEILAR: Shermichael, the White House is now pressuring Republicans, in Indiana, to change their maps. And there's a lot of pressure on this. According to Politico, Trump's political operation is actually considering primarying Indiana lawmakers who don't get on board. What do you think of that?
SHERMICHAEL SINGLETON, CNN POLITICAL COMMENTATOR, REPUBLICAN STRATEGIST: Yes, look, I think this is a part of a national plan to strengthen the Republican majorities where possible.
I think, in the case of California, and it's a big if, if the Governor can be successful there, they have a pretty strong majority of Democrats in California. So, I guess, maybe, if you can add maybe five more seats, I think is what the objective is? I guess you make it stronger. But I don't know if it's necessarily necessary.
[21:50:00]
Also, states like Illinois is another good example of where Democrats do have a significant amount of congressional control compared to Republicans.
So, maybe some people don't like the way that Republicans are going about this. This is a lot of politics. You know, this is what you're used to, the -- what we're used to, that it's a fighting type of game.
But in an ideal world, if I could be honest, personally, I'd like to see Democrats and Republicans make their case to split districts, and let the congressional candidates, senatorial candidates, governors, mayors, fall and rise, based on the merits of their arguments to the voters.
FINNEY: Let me just point one thing out, though about what's going on in Texas, and part of why this is so important. They're doing it in a way that is literally diminishing the power of Latino and Black voices.
75 percent of the opportunity districts that were created by the Voting Rights Act will be eliminated by this Texas plan. So, it's more than politics. This is racial gerrymandering, at its absolute worst, and it will have a direct impact on that -- on the say, of Black and Latino voters in the Congress.
SINGLETON: And Karen makes a very good point, I think it's very valid one.
With that said, Texas has a very strong Latino majority, I would argue, compared to Black voters. And many of those Latino voters actually voted for Republicans in the state to have the majority that they currently have a state that I'm from, where my parents currently reside. And so, I don't know if you necessarily need to disenfranchise more so than making your argument to those voters, as Republicans have--
FINNEY: But then why are Republicans doing that?
SINGLETON: --and continue to see successes there.
FINNEY: They're going to be disenfranchising Latino -- Latino voters, African Americans and Asian Americans make up 60 percent of the adult population of Texas. They control 10 of the 38 congressional seats. White Texans are 40 percent, and they control 28 of the 38 seats. Now they're saying, We want five more. So I don't know how you can say that's not racial--
SINGLETON: Look, what I would say, Karen, is that there are--
FINNEY: --and that that's not diminishing the voices of Latinos.
SINGLETON: --Latino voters who also voted for those Republicans. And even if they were to somehow get additional votes in Texas, some of their constituents will be Latino. And I can guarantee you, if you look at the last presidential election, Trump got 44 percent of the Latino vote. Republicans want to build upon that success, by continuing to make a conservative argument to Latino voters.
FINNEY: I don't think diminishing the power of their voices is a way to do it, but we can disagree.
KEILAR: How do Democrats fight this? Because ultimately, in the end, Republicans have the advantage, because of the way--
FINNEY: Yes.
KEILAR: --Republicans have the trifecta in so many states.
FINNEY: Absolutely. Look, I think what you're seeing is Democratic governors, in other states, they've already been talking, and so they're prepared to do similar to what Governor Newsom is doing in California. Again, the idea being this is triggered if the Republicans continue to take action.
The other thing I think is really important here is this is galvanizing Democrats. I mean, you're going to see Democrats, around the country, supporting this effort in California, and it gives people a very direct way to have an impact.
KEILAR: It's controversial, though. And Governor Newsom, obviously, there's this redistricting fight, in California, where Democrats are beginning the process, and Newsom is facing some resistance at home. Sources are telling CNN, he actually recently spent an hour on the phone, trying to smooth things over with his predecessor, former governor, Arnold Schwarzenegger, who actually posted this photo today, if we can take -- or on Friday, I should say.
Can we take a look at this, so people can see it?
FINNEY: Yes.
(GRAPHIC IS SHOWN OF ARNOLD SCHWARZENEGGER)
KEILAR: There we go.
FINNEY: Yes.
KEILAR: F the politicians. Terminate gerrymandering. Is what it says under that.
So Schwarzenegger, he clearly thinks that redistricting is a cancer on the democratic process. Do you think that Newsom will be able to convince him, and other critics, that it's not a tumor?
SINGLETON: No. And Schwarzenegger has a history of arguing for us having a more fair and balanced process. I agree with that.
I think most Americans, whether they're Democrats or Republicans, will probably say, they would like to see districts that could go either way. I mean, these purple districts, for strategists like myself and Karen, it's a tougher job. You got to make a stronger argument. It makes things more competitive.
FINNEY: I'd always rather compete in a fair environment.
SINGLETON: But--
FINNEY: But Republicans, nationally and historically, have always opposed fair redistricting.
SINGLETON: But you would certainly agree with fair redistricting, right, and then--
FINNEY: Absolutely. But not if you're going to cheat. If the Republicans are going to cheat to win, then we're going to play some -- we're going to-- (CROSSTALK)
SINGLETON: And would you also agree that having more purple districts make it more--
FINNEY: Again, more important right now is to fight the fight--
SINGLETON: --challenging for Republicans and Democrats?
FINNEY: --and win against Trump.
SINGLETON: So, to answer your question -- that's Karen's point. But to answer your ultimate question to me about Schwarzenegger. No, you're not going to win individuals over like him, because he do believe Republicans and Democrats should run in split districts and make their case to the voters. And I happen to agree with him, and I think most people watching CNN agree as well.
KEILAR: Did you miss my reference or just ignore it? It's not a tumor.
SINGLETON: You know, I could run for office one day.
KEILAR: Yes, Schwarzenegger --
FINNEY: I got it. I got it.
KEILAR: All right.
FINNEY: I got it. I got it.
KEILAR: Come on, guys. Come on.
FINNEY: It's good. It's good.
KEILAR: Let's just -- I think it's an interesting point. So many people do not like this, maybe until their party is doing it.
SINGLETON: Yes.
KEILAR: But some just don't like it. Period.
SINGLETON: Well--
FINNEY: Until they realize the stakes. I mean, I think that's part--
KEILAR: Yes.
FINNEY: --part of what you're going to see in California, is people going to learn what the stakes of what's really happening here.
KEILAR: Karen. Shermichael. Thank you so much to both of you.
SINGLETON: Thanks, Brianna.
FINNEY: Thanks.
[21:55:00]
KEILAR: Coming up. The Justice Department revealing today when it will deliver files related to Jeffrey Epstein to Congress, as the House Oversight Committee questions a former Trump Attorney General about the case.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[22:00:00]
KEILAR: Before we go.
The Justice Department will start giving Congress its files, related to Jeffrey Epstein, on Friday, according to the Republican Chair of the House Oversight Committee, James Comer, who said it will take time for the DOJ to turn over all of the documents.
And this comes after former Attorney General, Bill Barr, was questioned before the committee today, the first of 10 high-profile witnesses from both parties, who have been subpoenaed to testify on the issue of the Epstein case.
Thank you so much for joining us tonight.
"CNN NEWSNIGHT WITH ABBY PHILLIP" starts right now.
