Return to Transcripts main page
The Brief with Jim Sciutto
Trump Warns That Vladimir Putin Will Respond To Ukraine's Drone Attacks; Trump Holds Call with Putin; Musk Continues His Attacks On "Big Beautiful Bill"; Spending Bill Will Add $2.4T To U.S. National Debt; GHF Aid Sites Temporarily Shut; Yoshua Bengio On A.I.'s Safety; A.I.-Generated Satire And Propaganda In China; Trump And Xi Could Talk On The Phone Soon. Aired 6-7p ET
Aired June 04, 2025 - 18:00 ET
THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.
[18:00:00]
JIM SCIUTTO, CNN ANCHOR: Hello and welcome to our viewers joining us from all around the world. I'm Jim Sciutto in Washington. And you're watching
"The Brief."
Just ahead this hour, Donald Trump warns that Vladimir Putin will respond to Ukraine's drone attacks over the weekend, this after speaking with the
Russian president. A sweeping tax and spending bill will add $2.4 trillion to the U.S. national debt. This according to the nonpartisan Congressional
Budget Office. And one of the so-called godfathers of artificial intelligence warns that the latest A.I. models are displaying dangerous
characteristics. Yoshua Bengio joins me later in the show.
We begin though with a 75-minute phone call between President Trump and his Russian counterpart, Vladimir Putin, to discuss the war in Ukraine, Iran
negotiations as well. The U.S. president characterized it on truth social as, quote, "A good conversation, but not a conversation that will lead to
immediate peace." The call came with a warning, quote, "President Putin did say, and very strongly, that he will have to respond to the recent attack
on the airfields." He went on.
The conversation took place just days after a Ukrainian attack, an audacious one, on Moscow's strategic bombers, which Russia has used
repeatedly to attack Ukraine, including Ukrainian cities and civilians. That operation apparently came as a surprise to the U.S. President Trump
says he discussed Iran as he works to complete a nuclear agreement with Tehran.
Joining me now is Oleksandr Merezhko. He chairs the Foreign Affairs Committee in the Ukrainian Parliament. He's now part of a delegation
visiting the U.S., including the State Department. Thanks so much for joining.
OLEKSANDR MEREZHKO, FOREIGN AFFAIRS COMMITTEE CHAIR, UKRAINIAN PARLIAMENT: Thank you for having me.
SCIUTTO: First, President Trump's characterization of this phone call did not mention new sanctions, and President Trump himself has repeatedly
threatened new sanctions on Russia if it would not agree to a ceasefire. And yet, Russia has not agreed to a ceasefire, no new sanctions. What's
your reaction?
MEREZHKO: Well, it's very worrisome for a number of reasons. First of all, President Trump himself has imposed, sort of, has established a deadline
two weeks or so. And he didn't mention it. Another reason to be worried is that President Trump didn't insist on ceasefire, his initial proposal, 30
days ceasefire.
And when Putin mentioned that he's going to avenge or to deliver a new strike against Ukraine, we know what it means, it's about civilians. And
President Trump didn't say something, Vladimir, stop. And it's very worrisome because it might look like he's given a green light to this new
crime committed, which Putin is trying to commit.
Another reason to be worried is that it looks like Putin is offering a bribe, political bribe, so to speak, to President Trump by saying, I can
help you with Iran, but you shouldn't react to what I'm going to do with Ukraine. And of course, it's very worrisome for us. We expected stronger
reaction from President Trump.
SCIUTTO: Do you think that Putin reads weakness in Trump's response?
MEREZHKO: Absolutely. Absolutely. He takes everything as weakness. He can be talked to only from the position of strength. That's the only way to
deal with Putin. And any hesitation, any talk about negotiations and so on, Putin takes as a weakness. And Putin is a provocateur. He's testing the
limits of Trump's patience. If Trump doesn't do anything, he considers it to be a weakness and he makes a next move.
SCIUTTO: Do you have hope that if President Trump doesn't respond, that Congress will respond? As you know, there is legislation currently on the
Hill to impose new sanctions on Russia. Although, in recent experience, Republicans on the Hill very rarely, if ever, do anything that President
Trump does not approve of.
MEREZHKO: What I have noticed, first of all, good news for Ukraine is that we still enjoy bipartisan support, but those Republicans who have been in
favor of support to Ukraine, they maybe -- they're hesitant. They don't speak out as loudly as it was before.
And I'm not sure whether the Congress will impose these 500 percent sanctions against Russia, because it depends also on Trump. And I hope -- I
don't know what will be his reaction to this bill.
[18:05:00]
SCIUTTO: When you hear the U.S. president say that Russia has to respond to these drone attacks over the weekend and that he expects them to, what kind
of retaliation do you expect? How big an attack from Russia?
MEREZHKO: Each night -- I live in Kyiv, and each night we have several times air alerts, air raids and air sirens going off. And I open the news
and I read how many civilian casualties we have each day. So, it may be more massive attack, which we had before. And I'm -- unfortunately, I'm
sure that there will be more civilian casualties because Putin targets deliberately civilian objects.
SCIUTTO: Enormous amount of evidence of that through many years of war. Can you describe your best assessment of how much of a blow, how much damage
Ukraine struck with these with these drone attacks in terms of, for instance, percentage of Russia's strategic bombers?
MEREZHKO: First of all, we targeted military objects, which is in line with international humanitarian law. Second, these were the bombers which were
used by Putin to bomb civilians and residential areas. So, under international law, in accordance with the right to self-defense and the
U.N. charter, we have this right to defend ourselves. It was an act of defense.
As far as I know, maybe one third, like 40, maybe more than 40 strategic bombers were damaged or destroyed. It's a huge, very humiliating blow to
Putin. But it means that Ukraine, we continue to fight and continue to defend ourselves.
SCIUTTO: U.S. officials say they were not warned in advance of this attack by Ukraine. Was that deliberate?
MEREZHKO: I think that if we didn't inform our American colleagues, I think it's a good idea, because I'm not sure what would be reaction. Maybe they
would start to say something like, no, I don't know. We should care about our interest first. I mean, our interest of survival and defense. And to me
it's a little bit concerning that we don't have as before, such open relations with our American allies, because America states is continues to
be our ally.
SCIUTTO: Is that because Ukraine doesn't trust the U.S. with such information, such intelligence about a coming attack?
MEREZHKO: Trust but verify. Yes. We continue to trust. But at the same time, it means that sometimes we were not sure what will be the U.S.
policy. It became less predictable. Let me put it this way. That's why I hope that we will return to the previous trust, which we had before.
SCIUTTO: Regarding the peace talks, not a lot of progress so far. And if now, of course, you have Russia seeming to communicate that they don't have
a lot of hope in these peace talks either. Have you given up on them? Do you see any realistic chance of -- at least in the current negotiations of
progress?
MEREZHKO: You can even look at the delegation which Putin sent to Istanbul. It consists of absolutely irrelevant people who even don't have direct
access to Putin. So, it's an indication that he's not serious about negotiations. And besides, he presented Ukraine with an ultimatum. He
repeated all his absolutely crazy ideas, to quote President Trump, that are absolutely unacceptable. It's like demand to surrender for Ukraine and to
lose our sovereignty and to be subjugated. We cannot agree to this ultimatum.
SCIUTTO: Have you heard anything on your visit to the U.S. that gives you confidence about America's continuing support for Ukraine?
MEREZHKO: I've heard that American society continues to support Ukraine no matter what. That in Congress still we have a solid majority per Ukrainian
majority. And unfortunately, administration looks at the crossroads, so to speak. And there is still a chance that President Trump will take the right
course of actions.
SCIUTTO: Well, Oleksandr Merezhko, it's good to see you in person. I wish you safety when you return home to Kyiv. Thanks so much for joining.
MEREZHKO: Thank you. Thank you so much.
SCIUTTO: Well, $2.4 trillion, that is how much the GOP's so-called big beautiful bill would add to the U.S. national debt over the next 10 years,
this according to the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office. And the CBO has another big number for you, 11 million. That is the number of people
who would be left uninsured in 2034, due in large part to the packages, cuts to Medicaid. The CBOs numbers roundly rejected by House Speaker Mike
Johnson.
[18:10:00]
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
REP. MIKE JOHNSON (R-LA), U.S. HOUSE SPEAKER: We're not buying the CBO's estimates. I don't think that's right.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
SCIUTTO: Notable because Elon Musk, who President Trump put in charge of cutting spending, he buys it. He's continuing to lash out against the bill
less than a week after leaving his job at the White House. He urged Congress to draft a cheaper bill that does not increase the debt ceiling by
$5 trillion.
Larry Sabato is the director of the Center for Politics at the University of Virginia, and he joins me now. Larry, good to have you. It appears that
in face of the facts, and this is not the first time, the GOP rather than accepting those facts is just challenging that facts exist, that the
numbers exist here.
I wonder from a political standpoint, would it be unpopular for the Republicans to pass a bill that adds to the deficit given. How many
promises Republicans have been made to cut U.S. deficits, but also the overall national debt?
LARRY SABATO, CENTER FOR POLITICS DIRECTOR, UNIVERSITY OF VIRGINIA AND EDITOR, "A RETURN TO NORMALCY?": In a perfect world, Jim, it should
absolutely hurt. And we all look around us and we know if there's one thing about this world we can say it's very imperfect.
So, the truth is, for Democrats and Republicans and administrations alike over many decades, they can run up the debt and some other president, and
some other Congress and some other party can worry about it in 10 or 20 years. We're already at 36 trillion, maybe a little higher than that. And
you know, a trillion here, a trillion there, and you're up to another two and a half trillion on top of that.
SCIUTTO: And to your point, parties -- both parties have, through recent experience, been adding a lot to the debt. The essential Republican
argument at this point is that, well, the CBO is just wrong. What does the data show about the CBO's record of correctly scoring these budget bills?
SABATO: The CBO doesn't have a perfect record. No one could, nobody can see the future precisely, but they have a pretty good record. I would certainly
take them over any administration, Democrat or Republican, because they have ulterior motives. They simply want to get their program passed. They
know what votes they have to get to do it, and if it adds a few extra trillion, they really don't care.
So, I take the CBO. I take those figures as being much closer to reality than anything Speaker Johnson or President Trump, or anyone else on the
Republican side says.
SCIUTTO: On the political front, the break, the quite public break between Musk and Trump on this bill. Listen, this is Trump's signature legislative
achievement. It's not just a budget bill, it has immigration, you know, policy, the ball, et cetera. He's effectively lobbying against it. And
what's significant about that, not beyond just his, you know, Twitter following, right, or his X following, is that he -- it's his checkbook that
the Republican Party has used to threaten any Republican who votes against anything the president wants.
And now, it seems like he might be communicating, he uses checkbook from the other side, right, to punish those who vote for this bill. How
significant would that switch be?
SABATO: Well, it would be very significant. You know, we knew the Trump- Musk marriage wasn't until death do them part. You know, it was going to break up at some point. This is a little sooner, I think, than people had
expected. But Democrats aren't going to get very much, if any, of Musk's money.
The real question is, will he do what he suggested at one time he would do, which was put another a hundred million, maybe 200 million into the
Republican coffers for the midterm elections in 2026 when Republicans are going to have a tough time holding onto the house, less so for the Senate,
but it's going to be tough in the House.
SCIUTTO: My final question is, it does seem that President Trump at least listens to the debt markets, right? That seemed to pull him back from the
brink when he had -- when he was at the peak of his tariff war. Could that be a trip wire here again, you know, in terms of pushing back from getting
this bill passed, if the debt market starts to say, hey, guys, this just ain't going to work?
SABATO: It absolutely could. I think it's one of the hopes that sane people have about his tariffs and in fact his whole economic program. I think that
might that might do it more than anything else. He doesn't want to lose in 2026, because even one house controlled by Democrats, he's going to have a
really difficult final two years.
SCIUTTO: The hopes of seeing people, Larry. I don't know if we want to put a lot of money on --
SABATO: I don't.
SCIUTTO: -- in the current environment. Always good to have you.
SABATO: Thank you, Jim.
SCIUTTO: Now, to Gaza, where dozens of Palestinians have been killed over the past several days simply trying to get food from delivery sites run by
a new Gaza Humanitarian Foundation. Now, a warning from Israel's military, it's telling people in Gaza to stay away from the aid hubs, saying access
route to the food centers are currently in what it calls combat zones.
Joining me now is Shaina Low of the Norwegian Refugee Council. So, good to have you. Thanks so much for joining.
[18:15:00]
SHAINA LOW, SPOKESPERSON, NORWEGIAN REFUGEE COUNCIL: Thanks, Jim.
SCIUTTO: As you know, many aid organizations operating in Gaza, including the U.N., but not limited to it, were extremely skeptical of the GHF before
it began. Tell us what has been the essential problem with its aid distribution that has caused this to happen. I mean, not just -- I mean,
first of all, just the crowds of people desperately trying to get aid to feed themselves doesn't seem to be a very organized process, but it's
turned out to be quite a dangerous one as well.
LOW: Absolutely. And, Jim, there's really a multitude of problems with this scheme that has been established with U.S. and Israeli support. First of
all, when the U.N. and humanitarian agencies, like the Norwegian Refugee Council, are able to work, we're going and distributing aid at hundreds of
sites across Gaza, reaching people where they are and not forcing them to trek long distances through combat zones to access limited amounts of food.
You have to remember that in addition to food, the people in Gaza need much more, medical supplies, medicine, fuel, cooking gas, and none of that is
being provided by these hubs. But the bigger issue is really what the purpose of these sites is, which is to advance Israeli political and
military objectives to displace -- forcibly displace Palestinians in Gaza from where they are currently residing or seeking shelter, and push them
into smaller and smaller enclaves and perhaps eventually push them out of Gaza.
SCIUTTO: Tell us why you make that -- how you make that case. How do the locations indicate that Israeli forces want to, in effect, force a
migration here internally?
LOW: Well, first of all, there are zero sites in Northern Gaza where hundreds of thousands of people continue to live. And so, for those people,
they'd have to make journeys further south. It would be very difficult for them to return home. Of course, if people who have been starving for the
last three months, as Israel has allowed almost no food to enter or other supplies, people are desperate and they're going to do what it takes to
survive if that -- even if that means walking kilometers and kilometers in order to access a box with some pasta and dried ramen.
SCIUTTO: As you know, Israeli officials continue to blame Hamas, right? They say the reason aid is a problem there is because Hamas steals a lot of
the aid. What's your response to that?
LOW: Well, the Israeli authorities have not publicly presented any evidence to support this claim. When we conduct distributions on the ground, we have
mechanisms in place to ensure that we avoid a diversion and that aid is going to people, to civilians who are in need of our assistance.
In terms of incidents of looting, those have often happened and even prior to the ceasefire in January, in areas that have been under Israeli military
control. And so, and those are often committed either by criminal gangs who are then taking that aid and selling it on the black market for exorbitant
prices, or it's being taken off of trucks by individuals who are so desperate that they simply cannot wait for trucks to come and distribute at
the places where they're seeking shelter.
SCIUTTO: What is the best estimate now as to how many people in Gaza are facing starvation or are currently malnourished?
LOW: You know, everyone in Gaza is food insecure at this point. I think the last statistics from the food -- International Food Security Assessment was
that about one in five Palestinians in Gaza were facing the worst level of starvation, malnutrition. We're hearing every day from partners that we
work with on the ground about the level of starvation that they are seeing in clinics. We hear from our own colleagues about how exhausted they are,
how desperate they are for food for themselves and their families, and how desperate they are to be back at work and able to provide assistance to
people living in their communities.
SCIUTTO: Yes, the pictures just show such desperation. Shaina Low of the Norwegian Refugee Council, thanks so much for joining.
LOW: Thank you, Jim.
SCIUTTO: Well, still ahead. One of the world's leading A.I. researchers has become so alarmed by reports of rogue chatbots that he's launched a new
nonprofit to try to make A.I. safer. We're going to hear from him right after the break.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[18:20:00]
SCIUTTO: One of the godfathers of A.I. has just announced a brand-new nonprofit focusing on building safer A.I. systems. Yoshua Bengio is
launching his new LawZero organization in response to recent reports, A.I. models are displaying some alarming characteristics, including deception,
cheating, lying, and self-preservation. He believes A.I. should be quote, "cultivated as a global public good." At a time when many A.I. firms are
simply focused on making money.
His new safety push comes at a time when the Trump administration is pushing for less regulation of A.I. The president's so-called big beautiful
bill that passed the House last week would greatly limit state's abilities to pass A.I. safety bills. Bengio joins me now. Thanks so much for taking
the time.
YOSHUA BENGIO, FOUNDER, LAWZERO AND PROFESSOR OF COMPUTER SCIENCES, UNIVERSITY OF MONTREAL: Hello. Thanks for having me.
SCIUTTO: So, first, can you describe to us what are the signs, the dangerous signs you've seen here? Not just of deception, but of a drive for
self-preservation? That's scary stuff.
BENGIO: It is the scariest of all the signs when the A.I. in various experiments by various companies read in their input, the files that they
have access to, that they will be replaced by a new version. We tend to see behaviors to try to avoid that. And even reading their mind, these chains
of thoughts, we can see that they're planning to avoid that. And they might do things like hacking or copying themselves in place of the new version or
in the latest result from Anthropic, the A.I. has found fake e-mails. It doesn't know its fake e-mails where the lead engineer that's supposed to be
in charge of the transition to the new version has extramarital affairs, and then he -- the A.I. decides to blackmail the engineer to convince him
to not do the change.
SCIUTTO: Wow. It's almost exhibiting the worst human behaviors here. And I have to say, as you're saying that, it reminds me of the plot lines of
several sci-fi movies over recent years. You describe your A.I. system as a psychologist that can understand and predict bad behavior. Explain how that
might work as sort of a guard guardrail for A.I.
BENGIO: Yes. First, the way that we currently training A.I. is more like an actor that's trying to imitate people or please people, but instead, think
of a psychologist who's trying to understand and explain the behavior of people.
[18:25:00]
So, for example, maybe the psychologist has a sociopath in their office and they're not compelled to imitate the sociopath. But currently, our A.I.s
are compelled to imitate the sociopath. So, we can use advances that have happened recently in A.I. in order to train these systems, to learn to
provide theories, explanations that are not just trying to imitate what people would do as an explanation or would do. And thus, the goal is to
build machines that will be honest and not have any hidden agenda, hidden goals.
SCIUTTO: One thing that struck me, and I'm not alone of this, is just how much power private entities have to just pursue A.I. really without any
constraints. And now, you have, for instance, the Trump administration trying to make regulation harder not easier. Who would lead your effort to
ensure that these aren't isolated efforts, right, that there's some national or international agreement about providing some limits?
BENGIO: Well, there are a lot of people who are actually funding this effort, philanthropists who are concerned about the signs that I'm talking
about who are concerned that as we approach machines that could be smarter than us, all kinds of catastrophic risks could be there. And we need to
better understand those risks, and we need to come up with technical solutions, which is what LawZero is focused on.
But of course, the politics of it, the regulations or incentives that governments could give to companies to spend more effort on safety are
critically important. And also, as you mentioned, the international aspect. Because if one country does the right thing, but the other creates a rogue
A.I., then we all lose. So, we need to work together.
SCIUTTO: Yes. I've heard different estimates as to when AGI, Artificial General Intelligence, will be received. And I know to some degree it's an
unanswerable question. But how far away do you think we are? What's your best guess from that moment when I imagine you would want to have
guardrails in place before them?
BENGIO: So, I'm actually fairly agnostic about that timeline, but based on my intuition and what many others that are building those systems are
saying, it's anywhere from two to 10 years that is plausible. And what it means for the design of an organization and a research plan, like LawZero,
is that we need to have, you know, results that would already be useful within that timeline. So, the shortest timeline, like two years. But if we
have more time, then great. Then maybe we can make the systems even safer.
SCIUTTO: Another dynamic that strikes me is that this has become yet another field of competition among world powers, China versus the U.S., for
instance. And that competition and the sense that A.I. is so central not just to economic growth, but to national security, that it makes it close
to impossible to have cooperation while it's seen from that perspective. Is that -- I mean, I guess the argument you're making is that there's -- there
should be actually mutual interest in doing this so that you're not -- you know, neither side or any side becomes a victim of it.
BENGIO: That's right. So, both China and the U.S. would lose if terrorist groups had easy access to very powerful A.I. that would allow creating new
pandemics, for example, or even crazy sects who wants to, you know, create a lot of destruction. So, we should internationally come together to
standards to mitigate these kinds of risks.
SCIUTTO: Yoshua Bengio, founder of LawZero, we appreciate the work you're doing and wish you the best of luck.
BENGIO: Thank you very much.
SCIUTTO: Still ahead, an in-depth look at how President Trump's trade war is being portrayed on Chinese social media. It's not good. We're going to
show you the propaganda videos pushing Beijing's view of the simmering conflict.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[18:30:00]
SCIUTTO: Welcome back to "The Brief." I'm Jim Sciutto. And here are more international headlines we're watching today.
Presidents Trump and Putin spoke on the phone about Russia's escalating war with Ukraine. Trump says Putin vowed to retaliate for Kyiv's recent attacks
on Russian airfields. Trump did not say if he tried to discourage Putin at all.
Iran is once again insisting it will never stop enriching uranium, a key U.S. sticking point in nuclear negotiations. In a fiery speech, Iran's
supreme leader called the U.S. demand, quote, "nonsense" and warned that Washington, quote, "cannot do a damn thing about it." On Monday, a senior
Iranian official called a U.S. proposal sent to Iran, incoherent and disjointed.
A friend of Cassie Ventura testified today in the Sean Diddy Combs trial. Bryana Bongolan says the rapper dangled her over a fifth -- 17th floor
balcony in 2016. She also testified she used drugs with both Combs and Ventura. Combs has pleaded not guilty to charges of sex trafficking and
racketeering.
Checking the action now on Wall Street. U.S. stocks finished Wednesday session mixed with tech stocks on the rise again. Stocks pressured by new
data showing weaker than expected U.S. private sector jobs growth. And a report showing the U.S. services sector contracted for the first time in
almost a year.
President Trump's new U.S. steel and aluminum tariffs also kicked in on Wednesday. He doubled them to 50 percent from 25 percent for most
countries. Trump also showed signs of frustration with Chinese President Xi Jinping on trade. Trump complained in a social media post that Xi is,
quote, "very tough and extremely hard to make a deal with." Both countries are accusing each other of violating their recent trade agreement. The
White House said Monday. The two leaders would speak on the phone this week. We have not heard any updates or confirmations since.
Trump's tariff battle with Beijing is getting mocked on Chinese social media. A.I.-generated images and videos are blasting Trump's policies
playing up China's economic resilience. Will Ripley has that story.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
WILL RIPLEY, CNN SENIOR INTERNATIONAL CORRESPONDENT (voice-over): This A.I. I.-generated anime is going viral in China, portraying U.S. President
Donald Trump as a tariff wielding superhero. It's one of several recent videos mocking Trump's trade war policies, many of them created with A.I.
I.
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: You taxed each truck, you taxed each tire. Midwest's burnin' in your dumpster fire.
[18:35:00]
RIPLEY (voice-over): China's English language broadcaster produced this video blaming Trump's tariffs for U.S. inflation and global instability.
The video echoes Beijing's official stance.
Since the U.S. imposition of the unilateral tariff measures, it has not resolved any of its own issues, she says, and has instead severely
undermined the international economic and trade order.
China's Xinhua news agency produced this A.I. animation, featuring a robot named Tariff programmed to impose trade restrictions.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: I now choose death to end the harm.
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Please don't do this.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Goodbye, Dr. Mallory.
RIPLEY (voice-over): The robot self-destructs rather than obey orders to raise tariffs. A.I. I.-generated clips like these showing Trump and Elon
Musk hard at work in factories, have been flooding Chinas tightly controlled social media platforms for months, all untouched by Beijing's
army of online censors designed to push Chinas narrative. The U.S. is making a fool of itself and, more importantly, losing ground to China in
the global trade war. President Trump started.
China's foreign trade has been able to withstand the difficulties, he says, maintaining steady growth and showing strong resilience to maintain
competitiveness on the international front.
China's bureau of statistics put out numbers claiming exports are actually rising despite the trade war, partially due to a surge in orders before the
tariffs kicked in. Outside observers often question the accuracy of Chinas numbers, which are impossible to independently verify.
At this Chinese textile plant, the director says the U.S. no longer dominates their strategy. The trade war made me realize the U.S. is just a
small part of the global market, he says. Wed rather bring Chinese products to the rest of the world, reasonably priced, high quality, and let more
people benefit.
China's top diplomat is also firing back, Wang Yi reportedly telling new U.S. Ambassador David Perdue, the U.S.-China relationship is at a critical
juncture. The Chinese readout of the meeting also says, David Perdue stated that President Trump greatly respects President Xi Jinping, far from tough
talk, China claims ahead of that likely crucial call between Trump and Xi.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
SCIUTTO: Still no update on whether that call will happen or when. Leland Miller joins me now. He's the co-founder and CEO of the China Beige book.
Good to have you on Leland. Thanks so much.
LELAND MILLER, CEO, CHINA BEIGE BOOK: Thanks for having me.
SCIUTTO: A lot of attention on a Trump-Xi call. Trump has been talking about how close his relationship is with the Chinese president. But the
fact is the two sides seemed to be digging in on the trade war. Can a call resolve any of this?
MILLER: Well, I don't think any of it could resolve any of this. The question is whether the relationship could be stabilized. Now, Trump's
point and the reason he wants to get on a call with Xi is that, you know, this has to be done at the very top or nothing will actually happen. And I
think there's something to be said to that.
The Chinese side is very hesitant to get their president in with our president for the very simple reason that they don't understand what the
U.S. side wants. They don't want to embarrass the -- put Xi in a room in or a call in which he'll be embarrassed. They want to understand what the U.S.
asks are. They want to understand what they can get return. They want to make sure that if they are talking, that there's somebody on the other side
who can negotiate for that side. So, there's a lot of unknowns here. It's rare you see all so much attention on a simple phone call, but, you know,
here we are.
SCIUTTO: Yes. You've heard a lot of talk of they don't want Xi Jinping and the Zelensky chair in the Oval Office in any such meeting or phone call. Is
it correct that China has discovered a big vulnerability for the U.S. in its rare earth's exports? My understanding is that prior to their truce
that U.S. companies were lobbying the White House quite directly and saying, they're in trouble if they can't get access to some of these rare
earths, particularly companies that deal in with batteries or magnets, et cetera. Is that leverage that the U.S. has its own leverage to respond to?
MILLER: Well, look, the discovery was done by China, but it was done over a decade ago, which is why they have shaped their entire economic model
towards, you know, boost the economic -- advanced technology and boosting key supply chain so that they can try leverage over the United States and
other countries around the world.
One of those choke points, supply chain choke points is critical minerals, and rare earth is a subset of critical minerals. You know, one of the other
hats that I wear is as commissioner of the U.S.-China Economic Security Review Commission, and we have a full day hearing going on tomorrow to
discuss this, because there just, there's just now getting enough attention.
[18:40:00]
These have been issues for years on how many supply chain choke points the Chinese really have over the U.S. economy, it's defense technology, it's
pharmaceuticals, it's biotech, it's, you know, electrical components, it's critical minerals there, there's a lot of them. And Congress and the
administration have not been on top of this issue as much as they should have been.
SCIUTTO: Yes. I was going to mention pharmaceuticals next. So, an you map out what a potential agreement would look like or if not a formal
agreement, some sort of walk down of the current trade war?
MILLER: Well, you know, you have a couple of options. Obviously, there was a phase 1. So, there could be a phase 1B in which the Chinese agree to, you
know, address some of the issues specifically around the trade deficit. Maybe they throw in a couple other goodies in the U.S. that does some
things in return and you call it a truce. Another is, you know, an unequal or sort of an equilibrium around the current truce, which has high tariffs,
but is, you know, a stable for whatever that's worth, or there could be a bigger, more aggressive deal which nobody's really talked about, but I
guess it's an option out there.
So, the question is what is the president want? I could tell you what. Just about every China expert in the administration, China hawk in the
administration wants out of the relationship. Until we know what President Trump actually wants, we're not going to be able to figure out what a deal
could look like.
SCIUTTO: Is any such deal likely to address what Trump, at times has said is his key goal, which is to bring manufacturing from China to the U.S.? Is
that a realistic or some of it, or a chunk of it to the U.S.? Is that a realistic, achievable goal?
MILLER: It's a realistic, achievable goal, but not by doing a deal with the Chinese. The way to bring manufacturing home is to have an economic program
that protects U.S. industries, incentivizes building at home and tariffs those areas, those sectors that are seen as national security risks so that
you make sure that the Chinese are controlling, you know, microchips that go into weapons systems and other things like that.
So, yes, it's doable, but it's not going to be done with a phase two deal with Beijing. It's going to be done with smart economic security
policymaking that will protect American industries and incentivize more manufacturing (INAUDIBLE).
SCIUTTO: And that takes time. Leland Miller, CEO of the Beige Book, the China Beige Book. Thanks so much for joining.
MILLER: Pleasure.
SCIUTTO: Well, the U.S. has now charged two Chinese researchers with smuggling a dangerous pathogen as described by U.S. authorities almost a
year ago. Authorities say they planned to study that pathogen at a University of Michigan lab. The FBI describes the pathogen, it's a fungus
actually, as a potential agro-terrorism weapon, which could have been responsible for billions of dollars in losses, not just in the U.S., but
across the gold globe.
The toxins contained in the fungus can cause disease in plants as well as serious health issues in humans and livestock. CNN's Security Correspondent
Josh Campbell takes a closer look.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
JOSH CAMPBELL, CNN SECURITY CORRESPONDENT (voice-over): Two Chinese researchers charged with unlawfully smuggling a dangerous fungus into the
United States. Yun Qing Jian and Zunyong Liu are both facing a list of federal charges linked to the July, 2024 incident, according to a federal
criminal complaint filed this week.
Prosecutors say Liu smuggled fusarium graminearum without a permit into the Detroit Metropolitan Airport using a tourist visa allegedly to study the
fungus in a lab at the University of Michigan where his girlfriend Jian worked.
The strain is described as a potential agro-terrorism weapon in an FBI affidavit in support of the complaint. The FBI says it can cost disease in
certain plants like wheat, corn, rice, and barley, and is responsible for billions of dollars in economic losses worldwide each year. Toxins from the
fungus can cause vomiting, liver damage, and reproductive defects in livestock, in humans.
DONELL HARVIN, EMERGENCY AND DISASTER MANAGEMENT, MASTERS PROGRAM, GEORGETOWN UNIVERSITY: This type of material should not be smuggled in into
any country. It doesn't matter whether the person had good intentions. If there's some type of mistake or mishap or release, that can have
catastrophic consequences.
CAMPBELL (voice-over): Authorities have not said what the couple's intentions were in studying the fungus and neither have been charged with
attempting to use the material to cause harm.
Jian made her first appearance in federal court Tuesday and did not enter a plea.
YUN QING JIAN: My name is Yun Qing Jian.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: OK. Ms. Jian, the reason you are here today in federal court is because a criminal complaint and supporting affidavit has been
filed against you.
CAMPBELL (voice-over): She's being detained due to fear of flight risk. Liu is not in custody and is believed to be overseas, according to prosecutors.
The charges come as the Trump administration is cracking down on Chinese students studying in the U.S., especially those with alleged connections to
the Chinese Communist Party. In announcing the new charges, U.S. Attorney General Pam Bondi said the Department of Justice has no higher mission than
keeping the American people safe and protecting our nation from hostile foreign actors. A spokesperson for the Chinese foreign ministry responded.
[18:45:00]
LIN JIAN, SPOKESPERSON, CHINESE FOREIGN MINISTRY (through translator): I'm not aware of the relevant situation. The Chinese government has always
required Chinese citizens overseas to strictly abide by local laws and regulations. At the same time, we safeguard the legitimate rights and
interests of Chinese citizens overseas in accordance with the law.
CAMPBELL: Now, CNN has reached out to Jian's attorney for comment on these allegations. It's important to note that the U.S. Justice Department is not
charging this couple with terrorism. They haven't said that there was a nefarious purpose behind allegedly bringing these items into the U.S. In
fact, security experts tell us that that would be unusual for the Chinese government. The FBI in the past has accused Chinese officials of trying to
exfiltrate sensitive U.S. technology for their own purposes. We haven't really seen cases of them trying to bring items in.
Nevertheless, because we're talking about a dangerous toxin, the U.S. Justice Department said that they felt that was enough to move forward here
with criminal charges.
Josh Campbell, CNN, Los Angeles.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
SCIUTTO: Just ahead, an elephant just cannot resist when a snack attack hits more on that and we'll tell you who end up paying his bill.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
SCIUTTO: Welcome back. You know the phrase, like a kid in a candy store. Well, this was a pretty big kid. An elephant in Thailand apparently got the
munchies. So, he decided to do something about it. Max Foster takes a look.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
MAX FOSTER, CNN ANCHOR AND CORRESPONDENT (voice-over): A sneaky trunk. The first sign of trouble for this shop owner in Thailand. A large wild Asian
elephant known locally as Plai Biang Lek was feeling peckish, and this unsuspecting store was its target.
Shop owner, Khamploi Kakaew, seen clapping, told CNN she urged it to go away, but it quote, "just walked right up to the treats."
CCTV footage shows the elephant quickly stuffing its mouth with tasty snacks, scooping them up with its trunk.
It was like it came on purpose, Kakaew said. Adding, I think it just wanted snacks.
The not so speedy raid lasted about 10 minutes with the cheeky male stealing about 10 bags of sweets along with dried bananas and peanut
snacks. Fully inside the store, at one point, just as tail can be seen wagging as it faces away from the surveillance camera and hoovers up the
snacks.
[18:50:00]
After grabbing a final trunk full, the elephant, not so gracefully, reverses out of the shop, located close to a national park, northeast of
Bangkok. Thanks to the help of park rangers and Kakaew's coaxing.
Back out, go on, she urges.
The shopkeeper seen firsthand, an elephant never forgets in this case, where the snacks are stored.
Max Foster, CNN.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
SCIUTTO: I wasn't surprised by the peanuts, but some of the other choices were interesting. Coming up after the break, we're going to be down to the
wire at the French Open as we head to the semifinals. We'll have a look after the break.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
SCIUTTO: Now, to tennis. Lois Boisson continued her fairytale run at the French Open on Wednesday as she beat sixth seed Mirra Andreeva to advance
to the semifinals. Much to the delight, not surprisingly, of the home crowd in Paris. Watching on, our own Andy Scholes who joins us now. I mean, it's
a nice run. And I mean, listen, of course the French crowd is loving it.
ANDY SCHOLES, CNN WORLD SPORT: Certainly, Jim. And you know, one of the beautiful things about sports is sometimes, you know, out of nowhere, an
athlete or team just going an incredible inspirational run that captivates their sport.
You know, Leicester City won the Premier League. Tiger won the 2019 Masters. You had the 1980 U.S. Men's Hockey team. Well, 22-year-old Lois
Boisson two wins away from completing what's been an absolute dream run in Paris. The French native had the entire Roland-Garros crowd behind her. She
took on Mirra Andreeva in the quarter finals. Boisson, you know, had hoped to make her French Open debut last year, but she suffered a torn ACL, but
she's certainly making the most of her debut in the main draw.
Boisson took the first set and the tie break. And then, in the second set, well, Andreeva became really frustrated. She launched this ball into the
crowd and really scared a ball -- in the process. Boisson though would go on to win that match. 7-6, 6-3 to keep that dream run going.
She's currently ranked 361 in the world, making her the lowest ranked Grand Slams semifinalist in the last 40 years. And Boisson is also the first
women's wildcard to reach the semis at the French Open since 1968.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
LOIS BOISSON, WORLD NUMBER 361: I love to play with the crowd. I love to hear my name, when I want a point and everything. So, for me, it's just
something -- plus, you know, it's not pressure, but I think it's also really difficult for other players from other country. So, no, for me it's
really nice to have them.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
SCHOLES: Yes. What a moment it was. So, the women's semis are set both matches. They look incredible. You got Boisson going to take on Coco Gauff.
Then Aryna Sabalenka going to take on three-time defending champion Iga Swiatek.
Now, on the men's side, Novak Djokovic's quest for record 25th Grand Slam title. It's now on to the semi-finals. Djokovic, he was taken on Alexander
Zverev, and it would be the 28-year-old German taking the first set, 6-4 in the quarter finals. But then, it was just vintage Djokovic the rest of the
way.
[18:55:00]
In the second set, he would come out on top after just a superb rally to take it 6-3. The three-time French Open champ then just continuing to
frustrate Zverev. Djokovic showing off some amazing touch in the four set. Great shot after great shot. He'd go on to win the match in four. Djokovic,
he's looking to win his first Grand Slam since the 2023 U.S. Open.
And here's a look at the Men semifinal. It's going to be a blockbuster matchup with world number one, Jannik Sinner and Novak Djokovic going at it
on Friday. Then you got the defending Champ, Carlos Alcaraz facing Italian, Lorenzo Musetti.
And you know, Jim, when it comes to the big three, Novak's looking to do something that neither Roger Federer or Rafael Nadal were able to do,
that's win a grand slam after turning 37 years old. So, you know the crowd, it's going to get behind Djokovic if he's got a chance to make some history
there.
SCIUTTO: Listen, I still have a chance to win a Grand Slam after my 37th birthday too. So, you know, let's not get ahead of ourselves.
SCHOLES: We all do.
SCIUTTO: Yes. Andy Scholes, thanks so much as always.
SCHOLES: All right.
SCIUTTO: And thanks for your company as well. I'm Jim Sciutto in Washington. You've been watching "The Brief." Please do stay with CNN.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[19:00:00]
END
