Return to Transcripts main page

The Brief with Jim Sciutto

CNN International: Hamas Says Its Handed Over All Hostages It Can Access; Hamas Executing Men in Gaza; Trump Authorizes CIA Covert Operations in Venezuela; Pivotal Supreme Court Cast on Voting Rights; Humanitarian Org Says Russian Drone Targeted Workers; Mercy Chef on the Ground in Ukraine; U.S.-China Trade Tensions. Aired 6-7p ET

Aired October 15, 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, Hamas hands over two coffins to Israel and says it has now returned the bodies of all the hostages it can retrieve. President

Trump says he has authorized the CIA to conduct covert operations in Venezuela. And I speak to the founder of Mercy Chef about its work feeding

people near the front lines of Ukraine.

We begin with the fragile Gaza ceasefire deal under pressure now on multiple fronts. The military wing of Hamas says it has handed over all of

the bodies of hostages it can access and needs, quote, "significant efforts and special equipment to find the others." In the last few hours, the IDF

said two more coffins of deceased hostages have reached Israeli soil.

Hamas has only sent over about a third of the remaining bodies. Now, as a result, Israel is holding up additional aid much needed in Gaza. An Israeli

official says only half of the 600 aid trucks agreed to in the ceasefire deal had been allowed to go through.

Inside Gaza, Hamas is warning people to denounce collaborators who it says helped Israel. Social media videos show masked Hamas fighters publicly

executing several people. Jeremy Diamond has more on these reports of extreme violence. We should warn you, some scenes in Jeremy's report are

distressing.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

JEREMY DIAMOND, CNN JERUSALEM CORRESPONDENT (voice-over): In the middle of a public square in Gaza City, eight bound and blindfolded men are dragged

out and forced to kneel. One by one, armed Hamas militants take up their positions behind them, aiming rifles at their heads before opening fire.

All eight men fall to the ground, executed. This part of the grim reality of post-ceasefire Gaza, as Hamas forces say they are carrying out a, quote,

"comprehensive security operation" to root out those they accuse of collaborating with Israel. With these bodies, Hamas also reestablishing the

element of fear it has used to rule Gaza for years, as it looks to reassert its dominance over a decimated Gaza Strip.

Amid its ceasefire with Israel, Hamas is now putting on a show of force in Gaza's streets, attacking other armed groups, from gangs backed by Israel

to powerful clans that have a history of clashing with Hamas. The Dughmush clan, which denies collaborating with Israel, has accused Hamas of killing

nearly 30 members of its family in the last week.

U.S. Central Command, which is monitoring the ceasefire, urging Hamas to immediately suspend violence and shooting at innocent Palestinian civilians

in Gaza.

DONALD TRUMP, U.S. PRESIDENT: It's going to hold up.

DIAMOND (voice-over): The violence is a reminder of unresolved issues at the heart of President Trump's plan to end the war in Gaza. Hamas's

handover of power, the establishment of an international security force and Hamas's disarmament, all still being negotiated.

TRUMP: Well, they're going to disarm, and -- because they said they were going to disarm. And if they don't disarm, we will disarm them.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: How will you do that?

TRUMP: I don't have to explain that to you. But if they don't disarm, we will disarm them.

DIAMOND (voice-over): The ceasefire deal already proving fragile. Hamas has only returned the remains of nine of 28 deceased hostages so far. Some

are pending DNA testing. And Israel says one body Hamas handed over was not that of a hostage. Hamas says Gaza's destruction is complicating matters.

Israel has continued killing Palestinians. At least 15 since the ceasefire went into effect, according to the U.N.'s Human Rights Office. The Israeli

military says it has fired on Palestinians who approached Israeli lines in Gaza. In the ruins of Gaza, an uncertain future and a long road ahead.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

[18:05:00]

SCIUTTO: Thanks to Jeremy Diamond for that story. Joining me now, Mara Rudman, former deputy Middle East envoy and deputy national security

advisor under both presidents Clinton and Barack Obama. Thanks so much for joining, Mara.

I wonder, watching this reign of terror in Gaza as Hamas tries to reassert control, who, if anyone, can stand up to Hamas in Gaza right now?

MARA RUDMAN, RIPPLED OF HOPE PROJECT DIRECTOR, UNIVERSITY OF VIRGINIA'S MILLER CENTER AND FORMER U.S. DEPUTY NATIONAL SECURITY ADVISER: Sure, Jim.

Good to be with you. Certainly, very tough and grim, but not unexpected news coming out of Gaza about Hamas. So, in terms of who can stand up to

them, I think it's the question of the same countries that pressured them to take the deal and return the hostages need to be able to continue that

pressure, I think in some ways they are, and they need support from President Trump in doing it.

So, Egypt, Qatar, we all have key and important roles to play, both in getting in humanitarian assistance. And I was troubled by the comments made

from the Israeli side on holding that up and -- being able to get the bodies of the foreign hostages out.

SCIUTTO: So, a few different issues there. But on the Gaza security question, I mean, is the international security force that's envisioned in

the next phase of this ceasefire deal, is it going to be willing and able to, in effect, police Hamas or even fight, go to battle with Hamas?

RUDMAN: Yes, it's the right question, and it's a tough one. And certainly not in doing so with the Hamas that is currently in place. I think the

question of pushing for the decommissioning of arms, which is a key point of the 20-point plan, of demilitarizing, making Hamas turn over the weapons

that they have, is critically important.

And I will say, President Trump made some confusing statements today with respect to the various actions that Hamas was taking in these gangland

assassinations, where he seemed to almost be endorsing them, at the same time that he was talking about the importance of Hamas decommissioning. We

need a clear and coherent message from the United States and working in conjunction with Egypt and Qatar and Turkey to be able to get to the place

where you can get an international force in there.

SCIUTTO: Now, to the question of the bodies. Hamas is saying, in effect, they just can't find all the bodies and they would need special equipment

to do so. Did the U.S. and Israel know in advance to some degree that this condition of the deal, returning all those bodies remains within 72 hours,

would be hard or perhaps even impossible to meet on that timeline?

RUDMAN: Yes, I think that both countries did. I think there was some signaling from both Prime Minister Netanyahu and President Trump that this

would take some time and that it was going to be extraordinarily difficult. We've seen just from the aerial shots of Gaza just the degree of decimation

that has been the case inside, it is why humanitarian assistance is so important for many innocent Palestinians. And it's also key for being able

to set a longer-term effort to get all the bodies out.

I will say that there were senior U.S. military folks quoted, at least in the Israeli press today, reinforcing the commitment of the United States to

work with Israel, to work with those other countries, to return all of the fallen hostages, even if it's not in the immediate.

SCIUTTO: Tell me your reaction to an issue you raised earlier, which is Israel seems to be restricting aid again as a means of applying pressure to

get bodies out. Is that a proper use of aid access by Israel?

RUDMAN: I think it's deeply unfortunate. And I also don't think it leads to the outcome that Israel wants. Many people around the world, including

in Israel and in the United States, desperately want those fallen hostages out, want them home.

The many innocent Palestinians not affiliated with Hamas are some of the same people, frankly, that are being targeted by Hamas in the gangland

shootings. People have spoken out against Hamas at various points. Those people should not be deprived of the assistance that they are depending on

to live and get by. And it doesn't help Israel's goals with respect to the hostages to deprive them of the assistance they so desperately need.

SCIUTTO: Mara Rudman, good to have you on again. Thanks so much.

RUDMAN: Thanks. Good to be here.

SCIUTTO: We go now to the White House, where President Trump acknowledged that he has authorized the CIA now to carry out covert operations in

Venezuela. He refused to answer a question about whether the CIA had the authority to, quote, "take out" the Venezuelan president, Nicolas Maduro.

[18:10:00]

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

TRUMP: Oh, I don't want to answer a question like that. That's a ridiculous question for me to be given. Not really a ridiculous question,

but wouldn't it be a ridiculous question for me to answer? But I think Venezuela is feeling heat, but I think a lot of other countries are feeling

heat, too.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

SCIUTTO: Well, an understandable question, one might say. Trump did not give specifics as to why he had given authorization for covert operations

in Venezuela. However, he blamed both immigration and drug trafficking, saying the U.S. would intervene by land or sea. This follows reporting from

The New York Times saying that American officials wanted to, quote, "drive Mr. Maduro from power." It sounds a lot like regime change.

Joining me now, Kristen Holmes from the White House. Is that now the administration's goal in Venezuela, regime change?

KRISTEN HOLMES, CNN SENIOR WHITE HOUSE CORRESPONDENT: I mean, Jim, this idea that they're not searching for regime change seems unlikely at this

point and very hard to defend. I mean, one of the things we have heard time and time again from President Trump, from the people around President

Trump, is that the end goal was not necessarily regime change, but they were trying to put the pressure on Maduro, particularly put the pressure on

Maduro for him to himself resign or step down from power.

But this idea of authorizing the CIA to operate on the ground in Venezuela, and President Trump, as you said, alluded to, that it was about fighting

drug dealers, alleged drug dealers, as well as narco-trafficking, really seems like an escalation here. And on top of that, you mentioned this

briefly, but I don't think we can overlook the fact that President Trump now is suggesting that they might take on these drug dealers in Venezuela

on the ground, or these alleged drug dealers, as part of this process.

I mean, we had floated months ago this idea that President Trump was looking at all of these various options, including potentially striking

within Venezuela. But the idea that now President Trump is saying it out loud seems like a real escalation.

And one thing to note is that we have learned that President Trump extended these CIA authorities at the same time that he had also signed the secret

directive essentially allowing these or ordering these lethal strikes of Venezuelan boats or boats off the coast of Venezuela that they belong to

alleged narco-traffickers. So, all of this clearly linked.

But, again, this idea that they keep kind of dancing around regime change, when they are clearly here now putting people into Venezuela, talking about

striking in Venezuela, it's getting harder and harder to defend that this not what they are seeking.

SCIUTTO: Yes. Kristen Holmes at the White House, thanks so much. Well, the opposition leader in Venezuela, Maria Machado, has lived in hiding since

last year's disputed election there. She won the Nobel Peace Prize last week and later spoke to President Trump.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

MARIA CORINA MACHADO, NOBEL PEACE PRIZE WINNER AND VENEZUELAN OPPOSITION LEADER: We're getting finally a leadership that is addressing this tragic

situation in Venezuela that has been evolving for 26 years, as it should. We have been asked that this criminal structure be addressed using law

enforcement. And that's finally what's happening.

And I did have the chance to speak on Friday with President Trump. And it was a very good conversation. And I was able to convey to him our gratitude

for what he's doing. And I absolutely think he deserves a Nobel Peace Prize because of incredible events that are taking place currently in the world.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

SCIUTTO: Maria Machado, the Venezuelan opposition leader, speaking there. Joining me now, Kevin Carroll, former CIA officer himself and senior DHS

official. Kevin, good to have you here. Regarding CIA covert operations, the first question is how unusual and is it helpful for the U.S. president

to say publicly he's authorized CIA operations in a foreign country?

KEVIN CARROLL, FORMER CIA OFFICER AND PARTNER, FLUET: Thanks for having me on, Jim. It's not very covert at this point, is it? It sort of defeats the

entire purpose of having the CIA, you know, act as a third option after the military and diplomacy to carry out the policy in the United States. I

think it's a very bad idea for three reasons.

One, it makes the job of CIA much harder, of course, advertising in advance what we're going to do. Two, assuming that the agency is successful in

deposing Maduro, it makes the opposition leader, who you just had on, you know, look like an American puppet by saying in advance that the CIA is

going to try to take out the leader of Venezuela. And then, you know, in a clip beforehand of President Trump speaking, it's just foolish for any

American president to speak in public about the assassination of a foreign leader.

[18:15:00]

We're a free society. You know, our leaders are in more danger than the leaders of any other society. People tried to assassinate President Trump

twice during the campaign. It's really not something that should ever be spoken of by a president in public.

SCIUTTO: The history of CIA operations in Latin America is, at best, an uneven one. And I wonder, what would be the intention here, beyond the

president now exposing it? What would be the useful intention? What kind of operations might we be talking about there that the intelligence service

would carry out? Is it specific to drug trafficking?

CARROLL: I hate to say it. I think the intention is related to domestic politics in Florida and the very large Venezuelan expatriate community down

there. And I think that's unfortunate for the CIA to be misused for the purposes of domestic politics.

You know, I guess if we go back to the template of things that the CIA did in Chile in the 1970s or Guatemala in the 1950s, Dominican Republic in the

'60s, you would try to arm and support and give intelligence to the strongest domestic political opponents of that leader. And again, this

opposition leader here has just won the Nobel Peace Prize, which would probably improve her political standing, right? But now she's going to be

tarred with whatever the CIA is alleged to do in Venezuela going forward.

SCIUTTO: Yes. I mean, listen, she won the Nobel Peace Prize for a peaceful attempt to take power there via an election, widely disputed. And arming

opposition groups like happened in the '50s,' 60s, '70s and '80s is quite a messy, to say the least, operation.

CARROLL: It sure is. And there's no guarantee that it will be successful. I mean, Venezuela is not an impressive military power, but their internal

security service was trained by the Cuban DGI, which in turn was trained by the East German Stasi. They've been able to keep unpopular leaders, you

know, such as Maduro and Chavez in power for quite a while. They have a very large armed militia of citizens. This probably a heavier lift than

Director Ratcliffe and President Trump and Secretary Rubio may think.

SCIUTTO: Kevin Carroll, thanks so much for walking us through it.

CARROLL: Thanks for having me on.

SCIUTTO: Coming up next, a major case which could undermine a key civil rights law. Why there are warnings that minorities and their voting could

be at risk by a potential Supreme Court decision.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[18:20:00]

SCIUTTO: The U.S. Supreme Court has been hearing arguments in a case which could affect, in significant ways, a landmark civil rights law. It centers

on the creation of a second black majority district in the State of Louisiana. The court's conservative majority appeared skeptical about

exactly how that district was drawn. The case could potentially weaken a key component of the Voting Rights Act, which outlawed discriminatory

election practices.

To understand the implications of this case, not just legally, but on politics, Nathaniel Persily joins us now, professor at Stanford Law School.

Good to have you on. Thanks so much for taking the time.

NATHANIEL PERSILY, STANFORD LAW SCHOOL PROFESSOR: Thanks for having me.

SCIUTTO: So, first of all, the decision to hear arguments here, highly unusual, given the court already heard arguments on this case in March. But

as you were listening to the questions here, did you hear as well a court willing to overturn Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act?

PERSILY: Yes, I think the question here is not whether they're going to overturn parts of the Voting Rights Act, but how significant the opinion is

going to be. Are they going to use a scalpel to sort of narrow the Voting Rights Act, or is it going to be a meat cleaver that really takes this

provision out?

SCIUTTO: You've been appointed by courts to help draw election maps yourself. Tell us in political terms what this would mean, in terms of,

well, the balance of power between Republicans and Democrats. I mean, an explicit result would be fewer blue districts. Is that right?

PERSILY: Well, that's right. I mean, there'll be several states where if you redraw the lines, as is potentially proposed here in Louisiana, that

some of these majority-minority districts, districts in which either Blacks or Latinos are a majority in the district, that those might be dismantled,

and those tend to be Democratic districts. And so, depending on how many of those districts might be dismantled as a result of this court decision,

then those would likely be districts that would shift from the Democrats to the Republicans.

SCIUTTO: The liberal justices, they're pushing back with the argument that Congress specifically passed this legislation to stop states from

minimizing black voting power. The conservative argument seems to be, well, we shouldn't be looking at color at all here. Can you explain from a legal

standpoint where this argument rests?

PERSILY: Well, that's right. Your viewers might be familiar with the affirmative action cases that the Supreme Court has issued in recent years,

and those similarly were about trying to adopt a colorblind view of the Constitution. And so, there are justices on the Supreme Court who think

that any use of race in the construction of these congressional districts is unconstitutional, and that you really shouldn't consider race at all.

And the consequence of that would be to strike down or narrow this provision of the Voting Rights Act, which has commanded that states try to

ensure that their maps are fair, that they give minorities an equal political opportunity.

SCIUTTO: If the outcome, and this argument that you mentioned, which goes to the affirmative action cases as well, if the argument is in effect, law

should be colorblind here, but the outcome is that black voters have less representation, does that at all influence the conservative majority's

thinking here or does it in a legal sense? I mean, that's a political question, but it's also a legal question, I imagine, if, you know, the

argument from the other side will be, well, you're diminishing people's voting power quite, you know, directly.

PERSILY: Well, that's right. I mean, remember that the Voting Rights Act, which was passed in 1965, and in as many ways seen as the most heroic piece

of civil rights legislation, it was there in order to break down barriers that had prevented African Americans from voting.

And so, one of those barriers could be the redistricting process, because a redistricting process that, for example, prevents minorities from having an

equal opportunity to elect their candidates, even if it's not done intentionally, still prevents them from exercising a kind of full and

effective participation in the democracy.

And so, you're right, which is that the adoption of a kind of you may never use race in the redistricting process rule, that would have the effect of

making it more difficult for them to elect their candidates of choice.

SCIUTTO: John Roberts famously said a few years ago that the time, in effect, has passed, right, that this protection is no longer necessary.

[18:25:00]

I just wonder, is it not the other side of the coin that would be taking place here, right, that you'd be drawing districts explicitly to reduce the

voting power of blacks? If you understand what I'm saying, it's a layman's approach to this, but is that -- and that's to some degree what the liberal

justices are arguing here, is the conservative majority at all responsive to that?

PERSILY: Well, that is what's going to happen, which is that not only in Louisiana, but probably in Alabama, a case where the Supreme Court only two

years ago had actually upheld the creation of an additional black district, but also in North Carolina and throughout the country, you might end up

seeing the dismantling of these districts at a time when we know that the redistricting process from California to Texas and other places is becoming

increasingly fraught and politically polarized.

And so, yes, you're right, which is that one consequence of this that there will be discriminatory effects on minority voters who will not be able to

elect as many candidates as they have in previous elections.

SCIUTTO: Should that reality penetrate the inner sanctum of the Supreme Court right now? Because what's happening is you have a quite explicit mid-

decade effort right now, when it normally doesn't happen, to reduce the number of Democratic seats in red-run states, and in response now to reduce

the number of red districts in blue-run states. Should the Supreme Court justices not look at that reality and say that in that environment, our

ruling will quite explicitly allow more such redistricting with a clear political impact?

PERSILY: Well, one of the reasons we're in this situation we are right now is because the Supreme Court a few years ago, in the Rucho case, said that

partisan gerrymandering could be constitutional. And so, if the Democrats want to create as many Democratic districts as they want, or the

Republicans want to create as many Republican districts as they want, the Supreme Court has said, that's not our problem. You may use party.

And so, one of the only barriers to the sort of unrivaled and unconstrained use of party by legislatures was the Voting Rights Act, which said, well,

whatever you do with respect to party, you can't discriminate on the basis of race. Now, if they take that away, then it's fair game for another set

of districts where minorities have been able to elect their candidates of choice.

SCIUTTO: Final question, this Supreme Court in other decisions on other topics has often said, let Congress handle it, right? That's Congress's

authority. I mean, in some cases, obviously, in a lot of executive power cases have gone the other way. Didn't Congress already speak on this with

the Voting Rights Act? Or they're just saying that's outdated?

PERSILY: Yes. Well, that's exactly the point, which is that Congress has spoken on this, right? Congress also has a role in the Constitution to

enforce civil rights. And what the court is seems to be hinting at is that Congress can't go so far as to effectively mandate a remedy, which will

allow states to take race too much into account. But it is this kind of upside-down world right now, where the court is putting itself ahead of

Congress and saying that Congress can't even do this sort of modicum of enforcement authority in order to prevent discrimination.

SCIUTTO: Well, let's have you back, because there's a lot to watch here. Nathaniel Persily, thanks so much for joining.

PERSILY: Thanks for having me.

SCIUTTO: Straight ahead, Mercy Chefs says Russia targeted one of its vehicles deliberately inside Ukraine. I'm going to speak to the CEO of the

nonprofit just after the break.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[18:30:00]

SCIUTTO: Welcome back to "The Brief." I'm Jim Sciutto. And here are the international headlines we're watching today.

Hamas says it has now handed over the bodies of all of the hostages it says it can access in Gaza. It transferred two more bodies to the Red Cross in

Gaza City in just the last several hours. Hamas says, quote, "significant efforts and special equipment are needed to recover the remaining remains."

Nine out of 28 deceased hostages have been returned so far.

President Trump has suggested that military force against alleged Venezuelan drug traffickers at sea could be expanded to include attacks on

land. President said Coast Guard efforts over the past 30 years to stop traffickers have been ineffective and that strikes on alleged drug boats

have now prevented, he claims, thousands of overdose deaths.

The Pentagon Press Association says the Defense Department has confiscated the badges of all reporters from virtually every news organization in

America. Why? Because journalists covering the Pentagon, many of them for many years, have refused to sign a new agreement which the Press

Association says criminalizes national security reporting, beat reporters who've worked with the Pentagon for years, often covering forces overseas,

cleared out their workspaces after those new rules took effect.

The U.S. defense secretary, Pete Hegseth, is promising that Ukraine will get more weapons. Unclear exactly which weapons, when, and from whom.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

PETE HEGSETH, U.S. DEFENSE SECRETARY: Firepower, that's what is coming, we expect it is coming from NATO. You get peace when you are strong, not when

you use strong words or wag your finger, you get it when you have strong and real capabilities that adversaries respect. And I believe that's what

NATO is doing.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

SCIUTTO: Hegseth met with other NATO defense ministers in Brussels about boosting military assistance for Ukraine, not yet on the agenda this

question of whether the U.S. will supply Tomahawk missiles to Ukraine. Ukraine wants European nations to be able to buy those U.S.-made Tomahawks

for Kyiv and then transfer them to Ukrainian forces. Whether the U.S. will supply those missiles is a decision that rests with President Trump. He is

set to meet on Friday with the Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy here at the White House in Washington.

On the ground in Ukraine, a group of humanitarian workers had a narrow escape earlier this week. The U.S.-based non-profit Mercy Chefs says a

Russian drone hit one of their main delivery vehicles. You see it there in flames. Thankfully, the workers inside were able to escape before impact.

It's a lucky escape. Joining me now is the founder and CEO of Mercy Chefs, Gary LeBlanc. Thanks so much for joining.

GARY LEBLANC, FOUNDER, MERCY CHEFS: Very glad to be with you.

SCIUTTO: Your team just barely escaped, which I imagine might have been a deadly drone strike on what's an aid convoy, right? Trying to deliver food

to those in need. I wonder, do you believe that was a deliberate attack?

[18:35:00]

LEBLANC: All attacks are deliberate. There are no accidental attacks. Our team drives the same routes and we're in a lot of the very same places. The

drone was planted in a farm field and it was either remotely triggered or triggered by the motion on the road. Other vehicles had been coming and

going all day, but it activated as our vehicle was approaching.

A farmer on the side of the road warned our team just as their alarms went off and they were able to get out of the vehicle just in time before the

drone came through the windshield of the truck and then just completely destroyed it. That farmer, we've not been able to find ever since. Many on

our team believe he was an angel sent to warn them.

SCIUTTO: Goodness, thanks to him. And what a lucky escape for the team. I wonder what that means for your other teams on the ground there. How do you

manage to keep them safe in an environment where aid workers can become targets?

LEBLANC: We take every precaution. Our team is trained. Our team goes through special debriefings on all their activities and motions. It's not

the first time we've lost a vehicle. Two years ago, we lost one to a mortar. And then as it took small arms fire, the team members had to crawl

through a ditch bloodied and one of them blind back to safety. That very same team member after a hospital stay was right back at work and he was

actually the one driving the truck this time. So, we're quite, quite grateful for their safety.

But these are Ukrainians that have partnered with us, that we partner with, that just are completely given to serving their fellow Ukrainians. They

will do anything it takes to get the job done. That team took one day off and they were back this morning on the same route delivering food and water

to the front lines.

SCIUTTO: Tell us what the need is like there. I mean, particularly in the front lines that they have been in the midst of war for three and a half

years now, bloody, bloody conflict on those front lines and just devastating weapons at use every day. What do people need most?

LEBLANC: Well, this a war between two countries, but being fought against an innocent civilian population. Those with means, those that are

physically able have left. The people that are still there are the elderly or the infirmed or subsistence farmers that are afraid to leave the one

little field that's all they have. They don't know where they're going to go. They don't have someplace else to be.

And so, our teams work to make sure that they are cared for the best we can, that we provide dignity and we provide hope. Many times as our teams

go in and make food deliveries, there are people that have finally had enough and they want to get out. And our teams then act as evacuations and

take those people back to safe houses. And then through a church network, move them back into Ukraine where it's safer.

Just a month ago, we had a family that finally said, we want to get out. And we got them out, we got them to the safe house. And then four hours

later, we heard that their home had actually been hit by artillery and completely obliterated. Those folks saved their lives that day by getting

out.

SCIUTTO: Do you have hope that this war will be over soon? Do the people that you serve there have hope? You have President Trump saying he's

optimistic that he could bring Russia and Ukraine to peace, but his efforts so far, you think of that summit in Alaska, have not moved them closer and

the war seems to be intensifying.

LEBLANC: Well, the Ukrainians are an incredibly hardy people and they want peace, but they also want their original borders. And they're not going to

give in easily. I can't believe the war has gone on this long. I don't think everybody that has looked at this can believe it's gone on this long.

It's time for the war to stop and original lives be returned and these people be protected.

I mean, it's the elderly and infirmed that are still stuck at the front of this war. And it's just a horrendous thing to be seeing a civilian

population so victimized.

SCIUTTO: And deliberately targeted. Gary LeBlanc, we appreciate the work you're doing there. It's important.

LEBLANC: Thank you so much.

SCIUTTO: Coming up on "The Brief," with U.S.-China trade tensions back in focus, arguably getting worse, what's next for the world's two largest

economies? What's the path forward? We're going to speak to a former U.S. ambassador to China. That's coming up.

[18:40:00]

SCIUTTO: Welcome back. In today's Business Breakout, the NASDAQ and S&P added higher after strong quarterly results from Bank of America and Morgan

Stanley. Their shares both closed more than 4 percent higher on revenue growth from investment trading. Two other large banks, JPMorgan Chase and

Wells Fargo, reported healthy earnings yesterday.

Checking some of today's other business headlines, an investor group including NVIDIA, Microsoft, and BlackRock is buying one of the world's

largest data center operators. The deal for aligned data centers is worth $40 billion. It's the latest blockbuster move to secure more computing

power for A.I.

The head of OpenAI says that ChatGPT will soon be allowed to generate erotica and other mature content for adult users. CEO Sam Altman says,

quote, "Now, that we've been able to mitigate the serious mental health issues and have new tools, we are going to be able to safely relax the

restrictions in most cases." OpenAI introduced parental control features earlier this month as a safeguard for teens and children.

Waymo is now expanding its robo taxi service to London. The company says it plans to launch its fully driverless ride hailing service in the British

capital next year. Waymo has been operating for years in several U.S. cities, including Phoenix and San Francisco. But boy, those London streets.

U.S. Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent says a trade truce with China is possible, saying he does not believe Beijing wants to be a, quote, "agent

of chaos."

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

SCOTT BESSENT, U.S. TREASURY SECRETARY: China's highly provocative move comes after we made significant efforts to de-escalate tensions. While

there are substantial actions we could take, we'd rather not. I believe China is open to discussion.

Ultimately, we are confident in the strong relationship between President Trump and President Xi. We've had substantial communication with the

Chinese over the past few days, and we believe that there will be more forthcoming this week.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

SCIUTTO: He says President Trump still expects to meet this month with Chinese leader Xi Jinping at the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation Summit

in South Korea. Just last week, the White House threatened an additional 100 percent tariff on Chinese goods in response to Beijing's restrictions

on rare earth exports. Trump has since softened that rhetoric.

[18:45:00]

Joining me now, former U.S. ambassador to China Nicholas Burns. Ambassador, good to have you back.

NICHOLAS BURNS, FORMER U.S. AMBASSADOR TO CHINA: Thank you, Jim.

SCIUTTO: I wonder if, as you watch what had been a truce seem to escalate again into a tit for tat here, in your view, does China believe it's

winning this trade war or can win it?

BURNS: I don't think China should believe it can win the trade war. I'm not sure it can win a trade war outright over the United States and gain

some substantial advantage. I do think, Jim, we're seeing the inevitable jockeying for position between two sparring partners, the two largest

economies in the world, in the endgame of negotiations because we're just two weeks away from that very much desired meeting between President Xi and

President Trump in Seoul, South Korea.

And I think the logic of a trade deal is there. China needs stability. Its economy has not been performing well. There are strengths in the Chinese

economy, but significant weaknesses. I don't think the Chinese leadership wants a protracted trade war to go, you know, into 2026.

At the same time, it -- we have -- you know, China's our third largest trade partner, $642 billion last year. It's in the interest of the United

States to have a trade deal as well. So, I think the logic is there. What worries me, though, is some of the rhetoric on both sides that, you know,

it's a test of wills, that one president has to win versus the other. And the only logical outcome of a trade agreement like this that both countries

will have given something up for something that's better and something that's more advantageous and that both sides should be deemed to have done

well in this trade agreement.

I have supported much of what the United States has been trying to do to be tough-minded with the Chinese because, of course, as you know, Jim, very

well, there's still a major problem in terms of intellectual property theft, forced technology transfer, the lack of a level playing field, but I

do think the logic of a trade deal makes sense. And there's a probability that they'll reach that goal in two weeks' time.

SCIUTTO: A trade deal or another extended trade truce, right? I mean, do you see them settling these issues in a lasting way or more just trying to

put some of the tougher stuff, like, for instance, the rare earth restrictions on the back burner?

BURNS: Well, I think we're seeing a new type of trade deal emerge over the last nine, 10 months in the Trump administration. It's not to be critical,

but this not going to be a thousand-page document written by lawyers. These are broad agreements on major trade impediments that we're all facing. In

the case of the United States, President Trump felt, and he was right to feel, that we needed a new arrangement on TikTok. They produced that.

President Trump, like President Biden, has been pressing the Chinese for movement on fentanyl because the majority of the precursor chemicals that

the drug cartels use to fabricate fentanyl come from the Chinese black market.

There's the additional issue of agriculture. China's the largest market for American agricultural exports. One-fifth of all of our exports normally go

to China. And the Chinese have been playing hardball unfairly with the United States. They have purchased no soybeans from the United States.

And a point of comparison, two years ago, they purchased $14 billion worth of American soybeans. So, there are certain things, obviously, that the

United States needs to get. President Trump and Scott Bessent are right to want to get that, and I hope they can be successful. But the Chinese will

also have asks, and I'm worried that the Chinese are going to want to ask the United States to relax our export controls on advanced semiconductors

going into the Chinese market, and we should not take that deal, if that's what the Chinese -- if that's what the price of the Chinese deal is going

to be.

SCIUTTO: Because those are the issues, right? Like, for instance, U.S. exports of advanced semiconductors, and, one might argue from China's

perspective, rare-earths exports, because so many of those go into the U.S. defense industry, just as those advanced semiconductors go into the Chinese

military industry, which, for the U.S. and China, those are -- as you know better than me, those are national security issues. So, I wonder, is there

a meeting of the minds on those?

BURNS: We'll see how ambitious the Chinese want to get. But the Chinese clearly are rankled by the fact that President Biden put these very severe

restrictions on the export of advanced semiconductors for A.I. purposes three years ago this month, Jim. And we did that, and the logic is

irrefutable, because we didn't want to give that technology to the PLA to compete with the American military for positioning and dominance in the

Indo-Pacific.

[18:50:00]

It makes all the sense for our national security not to sell those technologies to China. And I hope very much the Trump administration will

hold the line here, because we're in a very competitive environment with the Chinese leadership. They are seeking to overtake us as the strongest

military power in the Indo-Pacific, and we simply can't let that happen.

So, there's a lot at stake in this trade deal. And I think President Trump's been right to push on the issues that I talked about, TikTok,

fentanyl, and certainly agriculture. The Chinese are going to push very hard, and that's why the endgame is going to be so important. And it may be

why you see this very tough rhetoric coming out of the Chinese, that they're not going to be intimidated. I think this posturing. I know the

Chinese government pretty well, and we should really ignore that kind of rhetoric.

SCIUTTO: Yes, both play frequently to their domestic audiences. Nicholas Burns, thanks so much for joining us.

BURNS: Thank you, Jim. Pleasure.

SCIUTTO: And we'll be right back with more.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

SCIUTTO: Finally, tonight, here's My Brief. You may have seen the Trump administration is making preparations to bail out the struggling economy of

Argentina to the tune now of some $40 billion. But that bailout comes with a catch.

On Tuesday, the U.S. president added a condition. He will follow through on the bailout only if the party of his friend wins parliamentary elections

upcoming.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

TRUMP: If the president doesn't win, I know the person that he'd be running against, I believe, probably. We probably have the person. The

person is extremely far left and a philosophy that got Argentina into this problem in the first place. So, we would not be generous with Argentina if

that happened. If he loses, we are not going to be generous with Argentina.

(END VIDEO CLIP

SCIUTTO: If he loses, we are not going to be generous. The quite clear implication is Argentina and the Argentine people will only get economic

relief if voters vote in favor of his friend's political party. Today, the U.S. Treasury secretary described the rationale as a new, quote, "economic

Monroe doctrine" and was quoted in Politico saying, "We're having to intervene militarily with the narco traffic coming out of Venezuela. Much

better to use the heft of the U.S. economic power rather than have to use military power."

However, it has become clear in recent weeks that a deciding factor at the root of this doctrine is who is perceived to be on Donald Trump's side and

who is not. How do we know? See Brazil, which is getting the opposite treatment for prosecuting its former president for an attempted coup. A

former president, Jair Bolsonaro, who happens to be a friend of Trump.

The U.S. has now imposed 50 percent tariffs on Brazil. To be clear, Brazil does not meet what was supposedly the rationale for such tariffs because it

has a trade deficit with the U.S., not a surplus.

[18:55:00]

And Americans should take notice because Americans will be paying the price of those tariffs with virtually every cup of coffee they drink, as Brazil

accounts for about a third of U.S. coffee imports. Successive U.S. presidents of both parties have received criticism for failing to have a

clear foreign policy for Latin America or simply for not paying enough attention to its southern neighbors.

Now, it appears to be the lesson is one economic Monroe doctrine for friends of the president, another for those who don't do as bidding.

Thanks so much for joining me today. I'm Jim Sciutto in Washington. You've been watching "The Brief." Please do stay with CNN.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[19:00:00]

END