Return to Transcripts main page
The Brief with Jim Sciutto
CNN International: Trump Pushes the "Big Beautiful Bill"; U.S. Senate Receives Classified Briefing on Iran; Pentagon Says Iran Strikes Went as Planned; Khamenei Declares Victory; U.S. Dollar Sinks to Three-Year Lows; Trump Slams Powell for Not Cutting Rates Sooner; Ukraine Touts Progress Against Russia; Bezos' Big Wedding Bash; North Korea Opens Massive New Beach Resort; Anna Wintour Steps down as Vogue's Editor-in-Chief. Aired 6-7p ET
Aired June 26, 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]
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
JIM SCIUTTO, CNN ANCHOR: Hello and welcome to our viewers joining us from all over the world. I'm Jim Sciutto in Washington, and you're watching "The
Brief."
Just ahead this hour, President Trump pushes his big, beautiful bill as he calls it, as he tries to convince Senate Republicans to pass it. U.S.
senators received a classified briefing on Iran as Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth says the strikes went according to plan.
And Anna Wintour is stepping down as Vogue's editor-in-chief after nearly four decades.
But first, President Donald Trump holding an event at the White House promoting what he likes to call a big, beautiful bill.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
DONALD TRUMP, U.S. PRESIDENT: And we will make the Trump tax cuts permanent, expand the child tax credit, and we will deliver no tax on tips,
no tax on overtime, and no tax on social security.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
SCIUTTO: This, as Republicans hit a major setback in their race to pass the bill. The Senate parliamentarian struck down key provisions saying they
do not meet the chamber's strict budget rules. The President, however, still wants to sign the bill by the 4th of July.
CNN Politics Senior Reporter Stephen Collinson joins me now. As so much in Washington, the president has a timeline. He wants it. Republicans are
going to do their best to make that timeline, but this punches a serious hole in Republicans pay fors for the various tax cuts that they're making.
So, what do they do? Do they do they just accept a bigger contribution to the debt?
STEPHEN COLLINSON, CNN POLITICS SENIOR REPORTER: I think what they'll do is they will do what always happens in Washington, they'll fudge it.
They'll come up with some more fuzzy maths. And they will say that we've worked this out and we can therefore pass this bill.
But what's so fascinating about this measure, Jim, is that it keeps almost falling apart in the Senate. The public don't want it. Increasing numbers
of House Republicans who will be forced to have this jammed down their throats if it's going to get through by July the 4th. They don't want it.
Lots of people in Washington don't even know what's now in the bill and what isn't in the bill.
But it's going to pass, probably, because the president wants it. It's a sign of the president's strength politically in the Republican party. It's
one of those bills. You often see presidents come in and they put their name on a massive piece of legislation. It happened with Obamacare with
President Obama. It happened with Biden with the Build Back Better Act, that they have to pass them because it's absolutely germane to the
president's power and standing. But when they do. They may end up costing themselves the majority in the midterm elections.
SCIUTTO: And this is the window, really, they have in their term to do so. I mean, a big issue here are cuts to Medicaid.
COLLINSON: Right.
SCIUTTO: Because the thing about Medicaid is that it helps red states a lot, you know, at least just as much as it helps blue states. And some
Republican senators are noting that now. How does the Senate get over these major cuts which are going to do things like close rural hospitals?
COLLINSON: Right. This Medicaid is the program in the United States, the state-run health program for lower income people.
SCIUTTO: Yes.
COLLINSON: And it really does not just keep a lot of people alive, but helps lower income people get their medicine, et cetera. Their blood
pressure tablets, you know, stuff for diabetes. It's very core. And as you say it's disproportionately important in red states, the states that Donald
Trump won. For example, Susan Collins from Maine, who's up for reelection this year. Josh Hawley from Missouri. They're warning that Medicaid cuts
under this legislation are going to close rural hospitals.
So, you are talking about -- sometimes you've got a rural hospital and there's not another emergency room or maternity ward within 200 miles. So,
this is going to have --
SCIUTTO: They're not profitable. I mean, that's the thing --
COLLINSON: It has --
SCIUTTO: -- they need support to stay open.
COLLINSON: Right. Massive impact. What the -- what Trump's trying to do is put more of the burden onto the states to finance these hospitals. They say
they don't have the money. But is it going to really hurt Trump politically, if it's happening in deep red states? Those states aren't
going to suddenly start voting Democrat. It could hurt someone like Susan Collins in Maine who is in a much more difficult position.
But this is going to give the Democrats an issue going to the midterms next year and into the next presidential election because healthcare is a hugely
important issue. And at the same time as they're cutting Medicaid under this bill, a lot of the wealthiest Americans are going to have massive tax
break.
SCIUTTO: And that math, I mean, that's math that Democrats went after in the last, Trump tax cuts back in his first term. Stephen Collinson, thanks
so much.
[18:05:00]
Well, on Capitol Hill, mixed reactions after U.S. senators finally received a classified briefing on U.S. strikes on Iran.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
SEN. CHRIS MURPHY (D-CT): I just do not think the president was telling the truth when he said this program was obliterated. There's certainly
damage under the program but there is this significant -- there's still significant remaining capability.
SEN. LINDSEY GRAHAM (R-SC): Operation Midnight Hammer was brilliant, it was bold, it was necessary, and it was effective. They blew these places up
in a major league way. Major league setback, years not months.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
SCIUTTO: Yes, major league not typically a description you see in intelligence briefings. The Pentagon gave a public presentation on the
strikes. Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth offered new details. However, no evidence that Iran's nuclear program was entirely destroyed. The Joint
Chiefs Chairman General Dan Caine discussed the bombing specifically of Fordow that Iran's deeply buried uranium enrichment facility.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
GEN. DAN CAINE, JOINT CHIEFS CHAIRMAN: The cap was forcibly removed by the first weapon, and the main shaft was uncovered. Weapons 2, 3, 4, 5 were
tasked to enter the main shaft, moved down into the complex at greater than 1,000 feet per second and explode in the mission space..
(END VIDEO CLIP)
SCIUTTO: Iran's Supreme Leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, claimed victory in his first address since not just the ceasefire, but those U.S. strikes. He
said the U.S. gained nothing from its attack.
Joining me now is James Acton, co-director of the Nuclear Policy Program at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace. Good to have you on?
JAMES ACTON, CO-DIRECTOR, NUCLEAR POLICY PROGRAM, CARNEGIE ENDOWMENT: Thanks for having me.
SCIUTTO: So, we've been in the midst of this drama, right, as the intelligence community and the Trump administration tries to justify the
president's claim that Iran's program has been obliterated when really the evidence and the assessments don't seem to support that. You've written
about this extensively. Tell us what the bottom line is now on these strikes. Severe damage but not destroyed?
ACTON: So, I don't question for one second that the three key facilities that the United States targeted, Fordow, Natanz, and Isfahan. The specific
facilities the United States targeted were very largely destroyed. The problem is not what the U.S. hit, it's what we didn't hit. Coming out of
the briefing, lots of senators confirmed what had been widely reported, which is that Iran's highly enriched uranium almost certainly survived. It
has a large stockpile of centrifuge components and it has many experts left.
Those -- that triad, those three things together could allow Iran to build the bomb pretty rapidly even if it would take many years for Iran to
rebuild a program of its previous scale. That scale is just not necessary to build the bomb.
SCIUTTO: You have written that there is a potential after effect of this, quoting you here, "There's also now real danger that Tehran will make the
decision to go further than enriching and amassing uranium and actually build a bomb." Tell us why you believe that.
ACTON: So, I've believed for decades that Iran has sought the capability to build a nuclear weapon at short notice. But you know, I believe and much
more importantly the U.S. intelligence community has long believed that Iran hadn't actually made the political decision to actually assemble a
nuclear weapon. It wanted the capability to do so at short notice, but not actually to assemble a nuke.
I think having attacked Iran, its incentive to proliferate goes much higher. It's demonstrated that it can't deter attacks against itself merely
by having a nuclear program and by having a large number of conventional weapons. I think it's likely to decide that its security would now be
enhanced by developing actual nuclear weapons. And the military strikes really haven't set Iran's ability to build a nuclear weapon backed by that
far, even though these large fixed facilities have indeed been destroyed.
SCIUTTO: However, isn't another revelation from this last -- these last couple of weeks. You remember the discussion prior was that if Israel were
to strike Iranian nuclear facilities or if the U.S. would, we would be in the midst of a Grand Middle East war and Iran would strike back
consequentially. It did not, which seems to be evidence at least of greater weakness than we imagined.
I mean, even the way that Israel and the U.S. were able to penetrate Iran, supposedly, you know, impregnable defenses showed that it's just something
of a paper tiger, didn't it?
[18:10:00]
ACTON: Yes and no. Look, I don't mind admitting that Iran's conventional retaliation was less significant than I thought it would be. On the other
hand, I think that may be in part precisely because it intends to retaliate in a much more secret way via its nuclear program.
And for all of the effectiveness that U.S. and Israeli military operations have had on striking facilities that we know about. You know, Iran here has
two key tactics it can pursue in a -- in creating a small clandestine military program. One is just to go deeper. You know, Fordow was just about
the limit that could be reached by the massive ordinance penetrator. It was, you know, maybe 60, 80 feet below the surface, we don't know the exact
depth.
But Iran has facilities that are much deeper than that, and it can build much deeper than that, beyond the range of the massive ordinance
penetrator. The very, very small kind of centrifuge plant, you know, one to 200 centrifuges is actually sufficient to produce highly enriched uranium
for a nuclear weapon from his -- Iran's existing stockpile. That could be hidden inside a small industrial facility in downtown Tehran.
SCIUTTO: Right. Final question, if I can. President Trump still seems to be very interested in negotiations now, nuclear negotiations. Do you see a
viable path to the U.S. and Iran sitting down at the table and coming into some sort of agreement?
ACTON: Well, the president's position on this hasn't been absolutely clear. On the one hand, he said that there will be negotiations. On the
other hand, he said, we don't need a written deal. He doesn't think they're going to get back into the nuclear business. So, you know, U.S. policy at
this point on this issue is not totally clear.
And look, I hope I'm wrong about in what I'm about to say but I think it's pretty unlikely that Iran is going to agree to any kind of nuclear deal at
this point. I think the opposite is more likely. It's about, by all accounts, to prohibit all IAEA inspections in Iran. I'm not clear what kind
of leverage we now have over Iran in order to induce it to make a deal.
So, part of the problem with military strikes, part of the downside with that kind of operation is we may actually end up with a lot less visibility
over Iran's nuclear program because there won't be inspectors in the country than we have beforehand.
SCIUTTO: James Acton, thanks so much for walking us all through it.
ACTON: Thanks for having me.
SCIUTTO: Well, joining me now is Republican Congressman Cory Mills. He's a member of the Housed Armed Services Committee, as well as the Foreign
Affairs Committee. Congressman, we do appreciate you taking the time.
REP. CORY MILLS (R-FL): Thank you, Jim.
SCIUTTO: First, I want to talk to you both about Iran, but -- and also the ongoing big beautiful bill negotiations. If I can start on Iran, I wonder
if you think a lot of the drama the last week could have been avoided if the president just said, we did serious damage to Iran's nuclear program as
opposed to obliterating it, which is even an assessment that the Israelis don't seem to share. Great damage over many years but that some of it
remains. Couldn't that drama been avoided in this kind of-- you know, kind of retroactive justification of that position from the start?
MILLS: Jim, you know, the thing I've heard from CNN time and time again each hit is your hangup on the vernaculars. Whether it was obliterated,
whether it was significant damage, whether it was destroyed, whether it was damaged. This is such a foolish thing that you guys continue.
Again, I've said it once before, if President Trump walked on water, CNN's headlines would be that he can't swim. The bottom line is, is that we moved
Iran from a significant position of strength that the IAEA had waved the red flag and beat the drum on to a point now where they're willing to
assign a ceasefire which they had not said they would do before and come to the negotiation table.
If it had not done a tremendous amount of damage to cripple their program, they spent over $2 trillion on, I can tell you that this malign regime
would not be willing to come to the negotiation table. They would not have signed a ceasefire. They would not have called no moss (ph).
And so, I think that we're continuing to hang up on this vernacular of what the president said or didn't say as far as the terminology, but this is
foolish, Jim. We know --
SCIUTTO: But to fair --
MILLS: -- it's a successful strike. And we know the heroes and heroines of those B-2 pilots had done an amazing job and our military should be
applauded, that our Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, General Caine, had done an amazing job. Our Sec. Def. had done an amazing job. And the
president had a backbone to actually do what was necessary that everyone else to include the Obama administration had said, this is a red line but
did nothing about it.
SCIUTTO: Right. Listen, I've said that on the air that the successive presidents, Republican and Democrat, have chosen not to strike Iran. And to
be clear, I've been to Whiteman Air Force Base, I've talked to B-2 pilots, I've been to Iran, I've to nuclear --
MILLS: Amazing, guys.
SCIUTTO: -- I've been to nuclear facilities as well. I am not contesting the damage done to the program. But the point is that it does matter what
remains, right, because --
MILLS: Correct.
SCIUTTO: -- for instance, if Iran still has, and this seems to be the assessment, a great deal of highly enriched uranium, that influences then
what you have to do next.
[18:15:00]
What are you negotiating over? Do they still have the ability to, you know, take that uranium and try to turn it into a bomb? I mean, that -- that's
why I'm asking the question here.
MILLS: Absolutely. But that wasn't the question you asked, Jim. You asked about the terminology utilized from obliterated as opposed to the leaked
information. And I'll say the same thing that's been said multiple times. People leak information that they cherry pick. They won't give you the
whole document, the whole context of actually what was being said.
So, we know for a fact that they were -- from one of the intel reports were from five buys (ph), they were weeks away from actually having that full
blown capability. We know they had violated JCPOA, this brainchild of Jake Sullivan in the previous administrations, which had failed miserably. And
we know for a fact that Iran would not even have this capability if the Biden administration hadn't released an unfrozen $10 billion in fungible
assets and allowed oil to continue to export at a higher rate than ever before to the Chinese.
So, let's go ahead and start first painting it back to where we started from to where we are today. I believe, that President Trump has actually
eliminated an existential threat that was continuing to grow. I believe that this regime would not have come to the table and there would not have
been a ceasefire, and a lot of civilians, unfortunately, Iranian people and Israeli people would have died as a result of collateral damage on warfare.
The president has been able to make this strike that has actually saved lives, and that's what we should be focusing on right here.
SCIUTTO: Listen, the reason I ask the question is the same reason, as you know, intelligence assessors, they try to figure out what was destroyed and
what wasn't.
MILLS: Absolutely.
SCIUTTO: I mean, that's the job of a battle damage assessment and the accuracy and the extent of that damage matters. That's why I'm asking --
MILLS: That post blast analysis --
SCIUTTO: -- those questions.
MILLS: -- is absolutely key which is why Israel came in and even eliminated some of the roadways to get in there so that if there was any
materials that could be exported out, that it actually didn't have the ability to do so.
Obviously, we're still utilizing different types of geospatial capabilities. We're utilizing signal (ph) and others to be able to track
this, and a lot of it is actually classified. And so, the TSA -- TSI capacity. So, what we don't know doesn't necessarily mean that we don't
know anything. It's just that we're not allowed to release certain things to the American people because we're still collecting and gathering
ourselves to make the next moves.
You don't, whenever you're playing cards, show your cards to the rest of the team and then go ahead and try and make your bluff. You basically go
ahead and hold your cards close to your chest so you know exactly how to basically play that hand.
SCIUTTO: Understood. Listen, I want to ask you about the budget bill because the Senate parliamentarian by taking some of these measures out
from a reconciliation process has, in effect, taken away some of the Republicans pay fors, right, for the -- not just extending the 2017 tax
cuts, but adding other ones like no taxes on tips, et cetera. Are -- as you know, the CBO already estimated that the bill in its previous form, the
House passed form, would add $2.8 billion -- sorry, trillion to the deficit over the course of 10 years. Are you comfortable voting for a bill that
would add more given some of these pay fors are taken away?
MILLS: Well, let me just say that this is actually one of the biggest tax cuts for the working-class Americans and for our middle class. We know that
TCJA, the Tax Cut Jobs Act, if that sunset is going to take our corporations and small businesses from a 21 percent to a 43.4 percent tax
hike, that is a massive, massive break. That would actually hurt and cripple many of these businesses.
We know that there are things that we could actually sharpen a little bit more. Could we make more cuts? Sure. I'm all for making more cuts. But we
can't cut our way to prosperity in this, Jim. We have to grow our way out of it. That's why we have to give enough liquidity, market capabilities,
and we have to go ahead and invest in American innovation, American industry, and the American workers so that we can actually go ahead and
grow our GDP at a ratio over 3, three-and-a-half percent that allows our GDP to national debt ratio to invert.
That's the key here. We can't cut away to prosperity. We have to grow as a country. We have to stop being less reliant on adversarial nations, and we
have to start building America and serving America.
SCIUTTO: I get that argument, but to repeat the question, as you know, the debt is already at about 130 percent, I think I have that right, of U.S.
GDP.
MILLS: Correct.
SCIUTTO: Are you comfortable with that number rising --
MILLS: Of course I'm not comfortable with that rising --
SCIUTTO: -- to, as you say, invest in America?
MILLS: We -- but we have to go ahead and try and understand. Look, I'm the one that's been arguing and flying the red flag for a while, which is that
there's only 28 empires and nations in the world's history who's exceeded a 130 percent GDP.
One of those was the Roman Empire, who was also a republic. Who couldn't serve its debts any longer, not because of its failure of military
expansionism. I understand the threat of a growing deficit. I would say that our national debt is one of our greatest existential threats in
America.
But you cannot cut your way to prosperity at this current rate. Any business owner will tell you, I have to have more revenue. I have to have
more business in the door. This allows us to be able to go ahead and protect businesses, get less in the federal government's hands, and start
handing things back to the states and individuals as our 10th Amendment was intended.
So, if you really want to go back to the actual problem of this, I would go to 1913, the ratification of the 16th, 17th Amendment to Woodrow Wilson.
But what I can tell you is that this president is a negotiator and a businessman. We're going to grow our way out of this with American
businesses, American industry, and American oil and gas.
SCIUTTO: Listen -- well, you and I are both fellow fans of history and I've made the comparison to the Roman Empire myself, so I appreciate the
comparison.
[18:20:00]
But before we go, I do want to ask about the cuts to Medicaid because, as you know, many of your Republican colleagues, including in the Senate,
Susan Collins, Josh Hawley, are saying, this is going to hurt people. It's going to close rural hospitals. Are you comfortable with those significant
cuts to Medicaid?
MILLS: Look, I came from a family where it was a broken home, that I was adopted by my grandparents. My grandparents were extremely dependent upon
Medicare and Medicaid, social security. And when my grandfather had quadruple bypass, we were dependent upon disability to try and get by.
We were that lower to middle class family. My grandfather was a welder. My grandmother was a stay-at-home mom and cosmetologist. I know the importance
of Medicare and Medicaid. No, I do not want to see any impacts to that. That's why I actually, in the 118th Congress signed on to Beth Van Duyne's
bill which actually protect and save Medicare and Medicaid.
So, no, I'm not happy about the cuts. I want to see what the final product is after the debates, but it's one of those things where we want to
continue to serve and protect the American people.
SCIUTTO: Congressman Cory Mills, enjoyed the conversation. Look forward to speaking again.
MILLS: Thank you, Jim.
SCIUTTO: Still ahead, dollar doldrums. The U.S. currency sinks to three- year lows as President Trump continues to attack the Fed. We're going to speak to the economist Ken Rogoff on the threat to the Central Bank's
independence.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
SCIUTTO: Welcome back to "The Brief." On Wall Street, another day of solid gains for U.S. stocks. The S&P 500 came within points of closing at a new
record high. It has rallied almost 3 percent this week as investors welcome easing tensions in the Middle East. Stocks are higher despite the latest
signs of U.S. economic weakness.
New numbers for the first quarter show GDP contracted at a greater rate than initially estimated a half percent on an annual basis. Weaker read
than earlier estimates, big reversal from the fourth quarter when the economy was growing at an annual rate of more than 2 percent.
Concern over the Federal Reserve's independence remains a worry for the markets too. The Wall Street Journal says that President Trump is now
considering naming Jerome Powell's replacement while he's still the Fed Chair. That move would likely undermine Powell's authority, as well as
trigger confusion in the financial markets. The U.S. dollar weakened to a three year low on that news. It's now on track for its weakest first half
of the year since the 1970s, and the start of the floating exchange rate.
Ken Rogoff joins me now. He's an economics professor at Harvard and the author of the new book, "Our Dollar, Your Problem". Ken, good to have you.
[18:25:00]
KEN ROGOFF, AUTHOR, "OUR DOLLAR, YOUR PROBLEM" AND PROFESSOR OF ECONOMICS, HARVARD UNIVERSITY: Thank you for having me.
SCIUTTO: I want to start with your book here because, in effect, you're saying that the dollar's got a problem, right? Why is that?
ROGOFF: Well, the dollar towers over everyone because it's like English, everyone uses it, but that's partly because they trust it and they think
it's reliable. And if we go through a period where we're less reliable in our courts and our rule of law, and especially if people don't trust the
Federal Reserve because there's no gold standard anymore. We don't give gold for the dollar, but we do promise a low inflation rate. And if the
Fed's not delivering it, people will move away from the dollar faster.
SCIUTTO: Yes, no question. Well, what else is happening here? Is the debt an issue as well?
ROGOFF: Oh no, absolutely. I mean, that's true under both parties. The Americans -- we used to run a big deficit (ph) when we had a war, a
financial crisis, a pandemic, and then we gradually let it come down. But in the new world, we go to a plateau and then we just let it sit there
running, you know, moving up a little, and we'll have another crisis, it'll move up and up, and interest rates are going to come back to bite us.
So, I think we'll eventually need to have some kind of reckoning, some kind of crisis. Unless maybe A.I. saves us though I think it's more likely to
hurt us than to save us in the near term.
SCIUTTO: Tell us what the impact of the trade war has been and President Trump's tariff policy on the dollar.
ROGOFF: Well, you know, it's still in play but I think that the trade war has made people lack confidence and the dollar is a safe place to put your
money. If you're not open to trade, you become a less attractive place to invest. There's so many reasons countries invest in the dollar, keep their
money in the dollar. The ability to go into universities and integrate. The ability to get your money in and out.
And so, all these things -- I mean, just today the Treasury Secretary said, well, just kidding about the 20 percent tax on foreign investors. But there
are so many, you know, things like that that the Trump administration throws out that I think if you're the Chinese, if you're the British,
you're not sure if they are kidding.
SCIUTTO: Yes. No question. I wonder on -- back to the Fed Chair issue here, because of course Trump spoke publicly a number of weeks ago about
just trying to fire him. He is not doing that. So, now it looks like he's retreated to this, OK, I'm going to name his replacement and have him kind
of hanging over his shoulder in the meantime. What kind of message is that going to send about the independence of the Fed going forward and how does
that affect the dollar?
ROGOFF: Well, exactly. I don't think Powell will be affected. I don't think the existing Fed will change their policy. But what he does by
putting, shall we call it the apprentice Fed Chair in place, to say what their policies are going to be. He's going to need to sound very Trumpy.
He's going to need to say things Trump likes. Otherwise, he -- he'll nominate him, but he won't get the job.
And that put -- paints them into a corner. I think actually all the people whose names are in play are actually very good. But if they're stuck having
to please the only person who's listening, Trump, so this whole time, then they're going to -- it's going to be harder for them to be independent so
it would undermine that for sure.
SCIUTTO: Yes, I mean, so parallel to the whole intelligence battle over the last several days, right. You know, intelligence officials and military
officials have to echo the president's language or they're in trouble. Final question, if I can --
ROGOFF: No, exactly.
SCIUTTO: Sorry, go ahead.
ROGOFF: So, he's trying out for the job. Yes --
SCIUTTO: Yes.
ROGOFF: He's making the person try out for the job and will you sound enough like me? And of course, after he is done that long enough, it's hard
to, you know, change gears when they're Fed Prep Chair.
SCIUTTO: Final question, if I can, looking at these Q1 numbers, GDP contracting 0.5 percent more so than the initial estimates. Where do you
think the U.S. economy stands in the midst of this trade war? Because the - - a lot of folks have been waiting for more negative signs, I think you could say, both in the job market in terms of inflation, et cetera. So,
far, they've been largely muted. This number is not a good one. Do you think there's been a lag effect here and we're going to start to see more
negative numbers?
ROGOFF: I don't think anybody knows. I mean, I think, you know, we don't even know what the trade war is going to be like. Isn't everything
happening in the next week or two that we'll find out? So, if Trump retreats, then I think the economy will do fine. But if he pushes and
fights and raises the tariffs, we're going to see all the things economists have warned about.
[18:30:00]
I do think some inflation is coming with the lag. I think firms have been eating it initially, but they can't do that indefinitely. And I do think
some weakness will be coming if we impose these tariffs. But I have to admit, the economy's been more resilient than I might have guessed. Powell
is right, the numbers are still pretty good.
SCIUTTO: Ken Rogoff, thanks so much for joining. A reminder of your new book, "Our Dollar, Your Problem." Appreciate you joining.
ROGOFF: Thank you.
SCIUTTO: Just ahead, Ukraine's military celebrates a key win against Russia after the NATO Summit wraps up in the Netherlands. We're going to
have more after the break.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
SCIUTTO: Welcome back to "The Brief." I'm Jim Sciutto. And here are more international headlines we're watching today.
U.S. Senators received a classified briefing on U.S. strikes on Iran after that briefing was delayed for days. Earlier, the U.S. Defense Secretary,
Pete Hegseth, defended the assessments of the U.S. strikes on Iranian nuclear sites.
At a news conference, he and Joint Chiefs of Staff Chairman Dan Caine said the operation went as planned. Hegseth also doubled down on President
Trump's claims that Iran's nuclear program was, quote, "Obliterated," though he did not provide evidence to back up that description of the
assessment.
The prosecution's closing arguments are underway in the trial of Sean "Diddy" Combs. The attorneys are trying to prove allegations of
racketeering, conspiracy, and sex trafficking. Prosecution called some 34 witnesses over more than six weeks. The defense called no witnesses and is
set to make its own closing argument on Friday.
Anna Wintour is stepping down as editor-in-chief of American Vogue after 37 years. She has credited -- reinventing the magazine and becoming a major
influence on the fashion industry as a whole. The move is part of a corporate restructuring. ?Wintour will remain Conde Nast Global Chief
Content Officer and Vogue's Global Editorial Director.
[18:35:00]
The head of Ukraine's Armed Forces says that their forces have stopped Russian advances in the Sumy region of Ukraine. Russian forces have been
pushing into that area for months now at enormous cost on the front lines.
President Volodymyr Zelenskyy joined the NATO Summit in the Netherlands. Key issues for member nations during that summit. How to navigate Trump
2.0, as well as a new agreement to raise defense spending for NATO allies. The head of NATO says it is inevitable that Ukraine will join the alliance.
Joining me now, Lieutenant General Ben Hodges, Former Commanding General of the U.S. Army in Europe. Good to have you on, sir. Thanks so much.
LT. GEN. BEN HODGES (RET.), FORMER COMMANDING GENERAL, U.S. ARMY EUROPE: Thank you, Jim.
SCIUTTO: So, first of all your read of Ukraine stopping this most recent Russian advance because it -- the story of the last several weeks has been
a slow, though extremely costly Russian grind in the East taking up territory. Is this significant for Ukraine to stop them in Sumy?
HODGES: Well, yes, of course, but it's -- I think it highlights the fact that Russia does not have the ability to overwhelm or break through
Ukrainian defenses. The only thing they can do is continue to try and grind away, as you've described it. And this is why they are losing tens of
thousands of soldiers per month for negligible gains. But I don't see that changing anytime soon.
SCIUTTO: Yes, where does that leave the war here now, right? Because Russia's not making enormous gains. There have been some concern about a
big, you know, spring or summer offensive. Ukraine is holding the line, but it's still getting pummeled, right, by Russian missile strikes and drone
strikes. I mean, are we in this war of attrition?
HODGES: Well, for sure. I think unless there is some significant external change or dynamic like U.S. and European countries shutting down or
disrupting Russia's ability to export oil or a major infusion of long-range precision strike capabilities, then probably a year from now, this war is
going to look a lot like it does right now.
Of course, on the Russian side, as we learned from their governor of the Russian Central Bank just last week, they are about at the end of all of
their resources that they've been tapping into to prop up their wartime economy. So, I don't think that Russia's economy is endless. On the other
side, Ukraine seems to be fixing some of their personnel problems and their defense industry is actually growing while at war. So, if I was going to
have to pick a side here, a year from now, I'd still bullish (ph) on Ukraine.
SCIUTTO: How is Ukraine fixing their personnel problems? because it had been real concern that they just can't draft enough and real resistance, as
you know, in Ukraine to not lower that draft age.
HODGES: Yes, I don't think it's about the draft age. There's over a million women and men that are military age, meeting -- meaning 26 and
above, that could still serve. And so, what Ukraine is finally doing is, number one, modernizing what we would call the institutional army. That's
the part of the army that does recruiting, training, equipping in order to put an operational force into the field. So, that's been the institutional
change.
And also, I think as I listen to senior Ukrainians and average Ukrainians, it looks like the government is earning the confidence of families that
their son or daughter is not going to be sent into combat until they're properly trained and equipped and put in a good unit. So, this is Ukraine.
I think on the ascendancy in terms of fixing that problem.
SCIUTTO: Yes, and so much progress, particularly with drone warfare. Before we go, where do you think the U.S. relationship with Ukraine stands?
Do you believe Trump has warmed up to Zelenskyy? Do you think he'll follow through on delivering more patriot missiles, for instance, as he discussed
at the NATO Summit?
HODGES: Well, you know, of course how difficult it is to predict what the President is going to do as he changes his mind from day to day. But I have
to say I was encouraged at least that he did meet with President Zelenskyy in The Hague and that it seems to have a productive meeting.
Look, the United States has got to help Ukraine here because the best way to prevent Russia from ever attacking a NATO country is to enable Ukraine
to defeat Russia. So, it's in our interest that this happens.
[18:40:00]
Ukraine is ultimately -- if they're -- if they don't get the support that they need, they are going to kind of become like Israel, constantly at war
but still growing and modernizing their own industry as well as their defenses. So, to be in a quasi-permanent state of war which means they'll
also continuously be going after Russia's oil and gas infrastructure, Russian airfields and seaports, and probably Russian senior officers. This
will be the normal state of things for Ukraine, because they know they can't just quit.
SCIUTTO: Yes, that's a comparison to Israel. It's -- I think, it's a smart one. Lieutenant General Ben Hodges, thanks so much for joining.
HODGES: Thanks, Jim.
SCIUTTO: Coming up, Amazon founder Jeff Bezos celebrates his wedding in Venice, but not everybody's happy about it. We're going to have more on why
in just a moment.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
SCIUTTO: Amazon founder, Jeff Bezos, is of course one of the richest men in the world. It's no surprise then that his wedding to former journalist,
Lauren Sanchez, would be one of the most expensive. The extravagant three- day event is now underway in Venice. Not everyone there is happy about it. Some locals are protesting, demanding that Bezos pay more taxes. Venice has
suffered decades of overtourism, along with the ongoing impacts of climate change.
Melissa Bell is in Venice. She spoke to locals about how they feel about the mega wedding.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
MELISSA BELL, CNN SENIOR INTERNATIONAL CORRESPONDENT (voice-over): Italy's floating city of love, flooded with A-list celebrities. From Ivanka Trump
to Oprah Winfrey and Kim Kardashian, they're all descending on a sweltering Venice for the multimillion-dollar wedding of Amazon founder Jeff Bezos and
former news anchor Lauren Sanchez. Other big names include Tom Brady, Orlando Bloom, and Mick Jagger.
Details of the nuptials are shrouded in secrecy, but we believe that 30 of the city's elite water taxis have been booked for the occasion, which is
unfolding from Friday through Saturday, as well as every yacht port.
Several accommodation venues have also been reserved for the 200 or so guests, including five Venetian luxury hotels and the Madonna Dell'orto
Church where Reuters reports the first night's open air festivities are taking place on Thursday.
[18:45:00]
Bezos's $500 million superyacht koru was expected to be one of the main wedding locations but it's just too big to be allowed anywhere near the
city's most scenic waterways and will be anchored in the Venice Lagoon instead. Some local officials in Venice are taking it all in their stride.
LUIGI BRUGNARO, VENICE ITALY, MAYOR (through translator): We're used to having weddings and celebrations. We had the G7 last year, the Holy Father
came. This is a city that was born to do diplomacy and trade. This is the history of Venice, the meeting of people and cultures.
BELL (voice-over): But not everyone is celebrating. Activists from Greenpeace rolled out a massive banner in St. Marcos Square on Monday,
criticizing the lavish extravaganza. Tommaso Cacciari leads the no space for Bezos protest group.
TOMMASO CACCIARI, ORGANIZER, "NO SPACE FOR BEZOS": When you see Venice, not as a city anymore, but as a big theme park, a big kind of private
dance, you know where you can just hire parts of it or in -- like in this case, all of it, is exactly the problem. The message of this wedding party
is that I am super rich and I can buy all Venice.
BELL (voice-over): Altogether the festivities are expected to cost somewhere between $46 and $55 million, that's according to the president of
Venice's local government.
BELL: In the last few days, the couple have reportedly donated to several charitable foundations here in Venice, devoted to architectural and
cultural preservation. And according to a portion of the wedding invitation that was broadcast by ABC's "Good Morning America", they've suggested the
guests not bring gifts. Saying rather that donations will be made to these causes on their behalf.
BELL (voice-over): For now, all eyes are on the tech billionaire and his bride, and whether or not they'll be able to tie the knot in relative
peace. Melissa Bell, CNN, Venice.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
SCIUTTO: Turning now from Bezos to Bond. James Bond, that is. Amazon and MGM Studios has just announced that it has signed the acclaimed director
Denis Villeneuve to helm the next James Bond film. He is the director of the last "Dune" films and is currently working on a third one.
Villeneuve calls the James Bond franchise with -- which Amazon bought the rights to earlier this year, quote, "Sacred territory". No word yet on who
will play James Bond in the new film after Daniel Craig bowed out following the most recent installment, "No Time to Die." I am available if they're
looking.
Coming up, fashion legend Anna Wintour steps down as the head of Vogue magazine. What that means for the industry and who might replace her.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
SCIUTTO: It might not rival the Riviera, Rio, or the Amalfi Coast, that said, North Korean officials have high hopes for a brand-new coastal resort
that will soon celebrate its grand opening. The country's leader, Kim Jong Un, was on hand this week to mark the completion of the project. But North
Korean city citizens are the only ones allowed in for now. Mike Valerio has more.
[18:50:00]
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
MIKE VALERIO, CNN CORRESPONDENT: North Korea's Kim Jong Un is unveiling a new beach resort for up to 20,000 people. But who is going to visit? You
can see Kim here cutting the ribbon himself. Fireworks, high-rise hotels, a giant seaside celebration. This is a huge contrast to the military parades
and reports of human rights abuses made by North Korean defectors and international human rights groups for decades.
So, let's talk about the larger picture of what's going on here. This could be one of the most secretive countries on Earth making a big foray into
tourism. In fact, Kim has indicated that himself in this grand opening speech. As far as we know, beginning July 1st, this is only open to North
Koreans. But Russia's ambassador was at the ceremony and Russian tourists were the first international visitors allowed into North Korea after COVID.
So, we're watching to see, especially as train service between Moscow and Pyongyang just started again. Could the next stop on a Russia to North
Korean itinerary be this beach?
(END VIDEOTAPE)
SCIUTTO: Quite a place for a resort. Well, American Vogue's editor-in- chief is stepping down after nearly four decades. Anna Wintour has been a huge force in the fashion industry. Her persona just legendary.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
MERYL STREEP, ACTRESS, "THE DEVIL WEARS PRADA": It's sort of comical how you think that you've made a choice that exempts you from the fashion
industry when in fact you're wearing a sweater that was selected for you by the people in this room from a pile of stuff.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
SCIUTTO: That is scene of course from "The Devil Wears Prada". The book the movie was based on written by Wintour's former assistant widely
believed it was Wintour who was the inspiration. It isn't quite the end of an era. Wintour will oversee brand content with Vogue's publisher Conde
Nast.
Joining me now, fashion journalist Joe Zee. So, are you surprised she's stepping down?
JOE ZEE, FORMER FASHION DIRECTOR. W MAGAZINE AND FASHION JOURNALIST: Surprised? I don't know that surprise is the word. I mean, I think she's
had so much on her plate for so long, she keeps adding to it and adding to it. And, you know, as you said, it's not quite the end of an era. She is
still the global, you know, editorial director of Vogue of all 25 editions around the world and the Chief Content Officer of Conde Nast.
So, she's -- has a lot to do. So, in that way, I think she's saying, probably it's time to sort of pass the torch at least a little bit to the
next generation.
SCIUTTO: What -- can you encapsulate her influence on the fashion industry through the past 40-some-odd years?
ZEE: I mean, absolutely. I mean, I think however you cut it, you know, and I think many people have called her many things from tastemaker to
kingmaker to gatekeeper to the ultimate power broker. And she really has been the architect of what modern fashion media is.
She's impacted the pages of vogue, certainly, but also so much behind the scenes in the fashion industry that will be felt for generations. I mean,
she, from the very first issue, she put on the cover a model wearing jeans with a couture shirt. This is long before fast fashion happened. The idea
of high-low didn't exist yet. She created that.
She took no name designers and put them into posts like John Galliano of Dior, Alexander McQueen of Givenchy or Mark Jacobs at Vuitton, and turned
them into global household names. And not to mention on the philanthropy side, for the 30 years she's been doing the MET Gala. She has raised for
them over $300 million.
So, she has touched so many things in the world of fashion. Very few things, if anything at all, happens in this industry without her nod or her
approval.
SCIUTTO: Did her personality match that personality which I imagine was at least a caricature in "The Devil Wears Prada"?
ZEE: I mean, if you're going to have Meryl Streep, you know, personify you and get an Oscar nomination for it, I would think that's pretty great. I
think that's one side of her probably and I think it's probably misjudged.
I mean, from my dealings and knowing her, she's incredibly decisive and which is such a great attribute in an editor. Knowing exactly what you
want, being unwavering in your decision and being uncompromising in your vision. That's what you needed. You needed to be focused to create your
vision and have it come to life.
And you have to understand, she started at Vogue before the internet was really a mainstream thing or even a thing at all. We didn't have phones, we
didn't have computers, and now she's moved it into this multi-cross platform, content powerhouse, like she's done so many different things in
this entire 37 years that she's been editor-in-chief that you have to really give her kudos for being able to move with the generation and the
times.
SCIUTTO: Now, she will have a replacement in name, but do you think she'll have a replacement and influence?
ZEE: I think that remains to be seen because as I said, when she started, it was a different era and a different industry and a different time in
society altogether. I mean, the person coming in now will have to sort of really tackle what the next generation is in technology and certainly A.I.
[18:55:00]
And all of these things that will start to influence how we consume media, how we interact with fashion, what that means to us on a day-to-day basis,
and also the luxury market.
So, I think they will have a huge influence. Vogue will always be the -- really the holy grail. And I think she will know how to -- the right person
to do it.
SCIUTTO: Joe Zee, thanks so much.
ZEE: Thank you.
SCIUTTO: In sports, Christiana Ronaldo has signed a two-year contract extension with the Saudi Club Al Nassr. The deal lets him continue playing
at least until the age of 42. Ronaldo joined the club in 2022, sparking a wave of high-profile transfers to the Saudi League. He is now eyeing the
1,000-goal milestone in his career. Just remarkable. Still playing pretty well. Got a World Cup next year.
In today's "Brief", the International Space Station is looking more and more like the United Nations of space. The ISS welcoming, the arrival of
four new astronauts earlier today, including crew members from India, Hungary, and Poland. The first time those countries have sent people into
space in 40 years.
Six nations are now represented in the ISS, including astronauts from the U.S., Russia, and Japan. One crew member calls it an encouraging sign of
how space travel is becoming both more commonplace but also more inclusive.
Thanks so much for your company today. I'm Jim Sciutto in Washington. You've been watching "The Brief." Please do stay with CNN.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[19:00:00]
END
