Return to Transcripts main page
The Brief with Jim Sciutto
Iran FM Says Strait Of Hormuz "is Completely Open"; Trump On Potential Iran Deal; Iranian Sources: U.S.-Iran Talks Set For Monday In Pakistan; Shipping Giants Uncertain Over Strait Of Hormuz "Reopening"; Anthropic CEO Holds Talks At White House; International Armies Learn From Ukraine's Drone Use; Public Transit Fares To Soar During World Cup In NY. Aired 6-7p ET
Aired April 17, 2026 - 18:00 ET
THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.
[18:00:00]
LYNDA KINKADE, CNN ANCHOR: Hello, and welcome to our viewers joining us from all around the world. I'm Lynda Kinkade in Atlanta. Jim Sciutto is
off. You're watching "The Brief.?
Just ahead this hour, the Strait of Hormuz is now open, but President Trump says he will only lift the U.S. blockade once Iran signs a deal. Jim
Sciutto visits U.S. troops in northern Alaska training to defend the country from Russia and China. A FIFA fright for spectators planning to
take public transport at this year's World Cup matches in New York.
Donald Trump is speaking right now in Arizona at the Turning Point press conference. Let's listen in.
DONALD TRUMP, U.S. PRESIDENT: And this process, we're getting along well, but who knows, who knows with anyone, but who knows with Iran in
particular. This process should go very quickly, and that most of the points are already negotiated and agreed to. You'll be very happy. The USA
will get all nuclear dust. You know what the nuclear dust is? That was that white powdery substance created by our B-2 bombers, those great B-2
bombers, late one evening, seven months ago. No money will exchange hands in any way, shape, or form.
Iran will be -- and you know how we're going to get the dust, right, Iran, we're going to take it anyway. But taking it that way is slightly more
dangerous, but we're going to get it anyway. But Iran, with the help of the USA, has removed or is removing all of the sea mines, and most importantly,
it never agreed, and you'll understand, they will never have a nuclear weapon. They will never have a nuclear weapon.
And somebody said, how are we going to get the nuclear dust? We're going to get it by going in with Iran, with lots of excavators, because the B-2s,
remember when fake news, CNN said, well, maybe obliteration is too strong a word. Obliteration, that's so deep. We need the biggest excavators you can
imagine, but we're going to go in together with Iran, we're going to get it, and we're going to take it back home to the USA, very simple.
And now, that the Hormuz Strait situation is almost over, I received a call from NATO asking if we would like some help. Thank you very much, NATO. And
I told them I would have liked your help two months ago, but now I really don't want your help anymore. Because they were absolutely useless when we
needed them.
But actually, we never needed them. They needed us, they need us, they need us so badly. You know, it's a little bit like if you're a politician, it's
hard to believe I'm a politician, but after I won, people came up to me, sir, I'd like to make a major contribution to campaign. And I said, listen,
just so you understand, campaign contributions after I won don't count, OK? They don't count. And NATO, after we won, that doesn't count either. It's
the same thing.
But you have to remember that, because we spend hundreds of billions of dollars a year. We spend money. We spend, I would say, in many cases, close
to a trillion dollars over a couple of years, a trillion dollars to help them. And we're always helping them. And this was just a military
excursion. This isn't the big time.
You know, we built a military so great, I'm so proud of it. It's one of the -- including Space Force. You know, you see all of that. When you see those
rockets go one, look up there, that's Space Force. We all created Space Force, didn't exist. We were losing to China and to Russia in space, and
now we're so far ahead of them both, you wouldn't believe it.
[18:05:00]
But yesterday, on top of it all, we achieved what everyone said was impossible, an unprecedented ceasefire between Israel and Lebanon, and that
hasn't taken place in 78 years. 78 years.
Our deal with Iran is not in any way tied to Lebanon, but we will make Lebanon great again. I mean, it's about time we did something. We've sort
of -- the world has forgotten them, and they're good people who have lived like hell for a long period of time, and hopefully the situation with
Hezbollah will get straightened out quickly.
But I want to thank the country of Pakistan and its great prime minister and its great, great field marshal. He's our great field marshal. Two
fantastic people for helping. They really are terrific people. And I also want to thank Saudi Arabia, Qatar, UAE, Bahrain, Kuwait. They've been
amazing, they've all helped tremendously. Tremendously. Tremendously. And it took courage for them. Not easy, not easy. They were living with what
they call the bully of the Middle East. They had to bully -- Iran was the bully of the Middle East. They're not the bully anymore.
With the help of everyone here today, this has been by far the most successful first year of any administration in the history of our country,
acknowledged by everybody. To begin with, I ended eight wars, and it may be a little early to say this, but if we add Iran and Lebanon, that will be 10
wars ended and many, many millions of lives saved. Think of how many lives we've saved.
Starting on day one, we ended the illegal invasion of America. That's an invasion by criminals. Many, many criminals, murderers, drug dealers,
prisoners. They emptied out their prisons into our country. And we took the most dangerous, unsafe, violent, and open border and created the most
secure border in U.S. history. One of the most secure borders anywhere in the world with zero illegal aliens coming into our country in the past 11
months, zero.
And in 2025, we achieved the largest drop in violent crime ever recorded. That's despite all of these people that came into our country. Many of them
are now gone, I'm pleased to tell you. The murder rate, isn't it a terrible thing to be talking about murder, but you got to say it, at least if it's
good news. I guess it's good news. But the murder rate reached the lowest level in over 125 years, 1900. The year 1900, before my father was born. My
father was great. Before he was born.
The flow of deadly fentanyl pouring across our border is down by astounding 59 percent. And as you probably noticed, if you watch the news, illegal
drugs coming in by ocean or sea are down by 97 percent.
KINKADE: You've just been listening to U.S. President Donald Trump speaking there at the Turning Point Conference in Phoenix, Arizona. He spoke largely
about the war on Iran. He claimed that most points in the Iran deal are agreed to. We understand that there are talks that are meant to take place
this weekend in Pakistan. He said that no money will exchange hands and he said they will obliterate the area where there is uranium enrichment and
bring it home to the U.S.
He also again criticized NATO. He said that NATO has now offered help and that the U.S. has rejected them. He called them absolutely useless, but he
did thank Gulf nations for their help.
I want to bring in our Natasha Bertrand who's also been listening to that press conference and joins us now live from Washington. And, Natasha, good
to have you with us. So, I want to ask you about that point Donald Trump made saying that most points now are agreed to when it comes to
negotiations between the U.S. and Iran. We heard earlier today that about 80 percent has been agreed to, but the last 20 percent is really the key
sticking points, right? How difficult will those negotiations be?
NATASHA BERTRAND, CNN NATIONAL SECURITY CORRESPONDENT: Well, we're already hearing from a senior Iranian official via our Fred Pleitgen that the
president is getting ahead of his skis here. According to the senior Iranian official, the question of never again enriching uranium is a non-
starter and the idea that the Iranians are going to be handing over that highly enriched uranium that the president refers to as nuclear dust that
is definitely buried, but still accessible to the Iranians, that also has yet to be figured out. Just what is going to happen to that uranium? Is it
going to be handed over to the United States? Is it going to be given to a third country?
[18:10:00]
Is it going to be diluted by the Iranians as part of some kind of sanctions relief deal? So, those are really the biggest sticking points, and they
have to do, of course, with Iran's nuclear program.
But, you know, there still is a lot to be worked out here in terms of what the Iranians are going to get in return. There were reports today,
including from my colleagues over at the White House, saying that the administration is floating this idea of providing Iran with roughly $20
billion in sanctions relief, basically unfreezing a lot of their frozen assets. And so, that is bound to be, you know, also politically problematic
for this administration if they do decide to move forward with that.
And then you have the continued naval blockade in the Strait of Hormuz. The United States is continuing to prevent tankers that are leaving and
entering Iranian ports from passing through the Strait of Hormuz. And the Iranians said earlier today that if that blockade actually continues, then
they will consider that a violation of the ceasefire.
And so, there seems to be a lot of conflicting points out there, a lot of, you know, things that haven't gotten to a full agreement, something that
the Pakistanis have been working on trying to get a middle ground about before they meet again on Monday. But at this point, it does not seem like
everything has been agreed to.
And, you know, the president has made, you know, quite a few statements now about how Iran recently said that they would never develop a nuclear
weapon. They've said that many times before. And so, that is not, you know, in and of itself necessarily going to be enough to lead to a lasting
ceasefire deal unless there's some kind of mechanism in place whereby the U.S. and the International Community can actually verify that.
KINKADE: And, Natasha, we've heard from Iranian officials saying that the next round of U.S.-Iran talks is set to take place in Islamabad on Monday.
Can the White House confirm whether that has been scheduled?
BERTRAND: We haven't received confirmation on the Monday timeline just yet, but it does seem like there is a second round of negotiations due to take
place at least very soon and that they are likely to take place in Pakistan.
Now, who's actually going to be present for those talks? It's unclear if the vice president, J.D. Vance, is going to be a key negotiator in that
second round or whether it's going to be people that are at slightly lower level while some of these more technical details are worked out. But there
does seem to be, you know, movement in the works for a second round of talks fairly soon.
KINKADE: All right. Natasha Bertrand, staying across the door for us. Great to have you with us from Washington.
Well, to get some more perspective on this, I'm now joined by Suzanne Maloney, vice president and director of foreign policy at the Brookings
Institute. Great to have you with us.
SUZANNE MALONEY, VP AND DIRECTOR FOREIGN POLICY, BROOKINGS INSTITUTION: Thanks so much for having me.
KINKADE: So, the last talks between the U.S. and Iran went for about 20 hours. They ended without agreement, even though officials said 80 percent
of the framework is now in place. As we've heard from Donald Trump, he thinks most points are agreed to. What's your assessment of what can be
achieved come Monday if these talks proceed?
MALONEY: Well, I think it's important that the two sides are still talking, but it has been a very odd news day to have the president essentially
declaring victory and asserting things that don't appear to be finalized, and the Iranians rebutting him in real-time. So, I think there's still a
number of key details that really have to be settled.
And, you know, the most important factor is that we do see at least the possibility of an actual reopening of the Strait of Hormuz, but I don't
think we yet see anything like normal tanker traffic moving through the Strait. And so, that is going to take not just a peace deal or some kind of
a settlement of this conflict, but also just the confidence that the two sides really are well aligned and that the Iranians are prepared to deliver
on whatever kind of reopening they may have committed to.
KINKADE: And I want to ask you about those reports that the U.S. is considering unfreezing a significant portion of Iranian assets, potentially
tens of billions of dollars, as part of the broader negotiations. How important is that financial leverage for Iran and what could it mean for
the U.S. problematically, politically speaking, if the U.S. offers that?
MALONEY: Well, clearly, the Iranians want to make sure they emerge from this conflict in a stronger position, both militarily and economically.
Their economy has been battered by years of sanctions and by the efforts to cut Iran off from the international financial system. That is why there are
tens of billions of dollars stranded in banks around the world that the Iranians simply can't access.
[18:15:00]
And so, getting access to that funding would not require the United States to, quote/unquote, "pay Iran." But it would be essentially facilitating a
massive infusion of cash to a regime that, if anything, is more radical and more violent than the regime that has been in place for the past 47 years.
And that is something that President Trump has heavily criticized his predecessors, President Biden and President Obama, for facilitating similar
transfers to Iran.
You know, it's not clear he's going to get something even more significant from the Iranians in return, because he has asserted that the Iranians are
prepared to end enrichment forever and that they're prepared to give him access to the stockpiles of highly enriched uranium that are buried under
the ground at various sites in Iran. But the Iranians have been very busy in reshooting that over the course of the day. So, you know, I think the
key details of this agreement still need to be worked out.
KINKADE: Suzanne Maloney, great to get your analysis. Thanks for joining us.
MALONEY: Thank you.
KINKADE: The uncertainty around the Strait of Hormuz has thrown international shipping into turmoil. Danish shipping giant Maersk saying it
had noted the announcement that it wouldn't risk the safety of its crew, vessels and customers' cargo. And Hapag Lloyd saying the reopening was good
news, but that it still had questions about how it would be implemented.
Well, joining me right now is Matthew Wright, the lead freight analyst at Kpler. Good to have you with us, Matthew.
MATTHEW WRIGHT, LEAD FREIGHT ANALYST, KPLER: Thanks for having me on.
KINKADE: So, Iran says the Strait is open. The U.S. says this blockade will continue. What's your assessment of who is setting the rules of passage
right now?
WRIGHT: Yes, absolutely. There's a lot of mixed messages at the moment. Earlier today, the Iranian foreign minister tweeted that the Strait was
open. The market reacted very favorably. Crude prices dropped. We actually saw a number of vessels that are sort of trapped within the Gulf
immediately pull up anchor and move towards the Strait to exit.
And then just about a couple of hours ago, almost all of them have since turned around. And we have reports that they received a radio transmission
from the Iranian navy saying the Strait is in fact closed. So, since we've been observing it very closely all afternoon, we've seen no notable
increase in traffic through the Strait.
So, you know, as you said, the U.S. continues to have a blockade further east in the Gulf of Oman. And then there's mixed messages from Iran itself.
So, at the moment, very little has actually changed.
KINKADE: Yes, it certainly seems that way. Even if the U.S. did end its blockade, it sounds like shipping operators are still quite risk averse
when it comes to navigating that Strait, given the threat of mines that may have been placed.
WRIGHT: Yes, 100 percent. I think that's a really important distinction, that even if both sides were very genuine in that the Strait is completely
open to the freedom of movement of vessels, and crucially, I think, from Iran's point of view, the market needs to see that the vessels don't need
to sort of bypass Iranian islands, which is what they're asking for at the moment.
You know, if we were to get back to that point at which, you know, the U.S. blockade is lifted, the Iranian blockade is lifted, we're still looking at
two to three months until we get back to normal transits, and maybe six months until we get back to normal flows. And that's just because of the
sheer amount of damage to infrastructure across the Mideast Gulf.
KINKADE: So, just quantify what is this doing in terms of global oil and LNG flows and what that could mean for the price in the next three to six
months?
WRIGHT: Yes. I mean, as you've probably heard countless times, you know, 20 percent of global energy passes through the Strait of Hormuz every single
day. We're now in the eighth week, with those flows being very heavily constricted. You know, a lot of countries have been able to draw down on
inventories that have sort of insulated them from the shop, but that we're going to start to reach a cliff, you know, particularly for Asia, you know,
stockpiles of crude refined products, LNG for Europe, crucially important jet for Europe. We're going to start to reach a point at which there just
purely isn't enough to go around.
Fundamentally, the world, when it comes to energy, simply doesn't balance without the Mideast Gulf. And despite the sort of positive comments coming
from both sides today, fundamentally, we're still in the same place we were this morning.
KINKADE: Yes, exactly. Matthew Wright, lead freight analyst at Kpler, good to get you on the program. Thanks so much.
WRIGHT: Thank you.
KINKADE: Well, still ahead. The head of A.I. giant Anthropic went to the White House a short time ago. So, can the two sides bury the hatchet in
their long running feud? We'll discuss that next.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[18:20:00]
KINKADE: Welcome back. I'm Lynda Kinkade. In today's Business Breakout, another record-breaking day on Wall Street. U.S. stocks rose to all-time
highs again on fresh Middle East optimism. Iran says the Strait of Hormuz is open again, and the reaction in the oil market was dramatic. Brent Crude
falling 9 percent, setting at just above $90 a barrel. U.S. crude falling more than 11 percent.
Well, investors are gearing up for a busy week ahead, including a confirmation hearing for Kevin Warsh, President Trump's pick for Fed chair.
And tech giants like Apple, Meta, and Alphabet will release earnings.
Speaking of tech, the CEO of A.I. giant Anthropic, Dario Amodei, wrapped up meetings with the White House a short time ago. The meetings were held in
part to discuss Anthropic's new A.I. model, Mythos, which the company fears is too powerful for widespread release at this point in time. President
Trump ordered the U.S. government to stop doing business with Anthropic earlier this year amid Anthropic's fight with the Pentagon. The Pentagon
calling the company a supply chain risk.
But the administration officials have stressed the need to prepare for Mythos. And Bloomberg reports that the White House is asking for permission
to use the model. The Mythos moment is the cover story of The Economist this week. The magazine is asking whether a mere handful of A.I. executives
should be entrusted with the world's most potent new technology.
Well, Nilay Patel joins me now, he is the co-founder and editor-in-chief of The Verge. Great to have you with us.
NILAY PATEL, EDITOR-IN-CHIEF AND CO-FOUNDER, THE VERGE: Great to be here.
KINKADE: So, I want to get your perspective on all of this. The Pentagon calling Anthropic a supply chain risk, moving to cut ties. Well, at the
same time, the White House meeting with the CEO. How do you square these positions?
PATEL: You know, I think over and over again in the second Trump administration, the rhetoric meets reality and reality tends to win.
Anthropic's model is very good. Their product is very good. It's very powerful. We heard during the fight with the Pentagon that the Pentagon
simply had to have what Anthropic was selling. And if they couldn't get it on their terms, they were going to increase leverage, increase the pressure
to break the company and get it on the terms the Pentagon wanted. Anthropic, how fast they pushed back.
And now, with Mythos, they have another product that the government absolutely needs to have. It needs to understand. It needs to deploy
widely. I think we saw Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent call a bunch of bank leaders into a meeting to say, look, this is a threat you need to
understand. You need to not only understand it as a threat, but also how to use it to fend off the threats to come.
[18:25:00]
It's going to be pretty hard for the United States government to claim that both Anthropic is a supply chain risk and essential to our national
security or national cyber defense in the same breath. I kind of fully expect the Pentagon side of things to calm down.
KINKADE: Right. Yes, because I'm wondering who's going to win out here, right? Because those risks that they're talking about are how this tool
could be used as a cyber security threat, as a potential hacking roadmap. But I'm wondering how Washington is treating this as an innovation to be
adopted or as a risk that should be contained.
PATEL: I think there's two sides to this. One, I'm a tech reporter and I tend to focus on the products. The products tend to beat the politics over
and over again. We see this happen. Anthropic's product is it applies to enterprise, it applies to business, it applies to cyber capabilities, is
best of breed. We see that very clearly and the capabilities are extraordinarily powerful. I think our government should harness those
capabilities, regulate those capabilities in creative and effective ways.
This is a new class of technology that needs a lot of thinking and a lot of care. Anthropic is basically asking for that care. They're saying we don't
want to use this, for example, to do warrantless surveillance of Americans. The Pentagon was kind of running roughshod over that. That's the fight over
there. We'll see how that goes.
But I think the rest of the government understands they need to harness this technology in important ways, because the product itself from
Anthropic is best of breed. That's not to say the products that are to come from Google or OpenAI or any of the other frontier labs won't also be this
capable over time. But there's no framework for them to enter into. And it would be irresponsible for the government to look at the company and the
products that are leading the market and say, we're mad at you, so we won't engage and then be caught flat footed when the next round of products that
are this capable from the other companies come to market.
KINKADE: So, if you're OpenAI or Google or another like frontier platform looking at how this is unfolding, I mean, what signal is this sending them?
PATEL: I hope the signal it's sending them is that the kind of corrupt glad handing of the president and his cronies that they've all been engaged in
up until now will ultimately take a backseat to the capabilities of the products themselves, the things they actually deliver with actual
capabilities that can do the things they say they can do.
One of the big questions about Mythos in particular is that Anthropic hasn't released it. There's no way to verify whether it's actually as scary
as the company says it is. There's a lot of private companies that have used it. There's a lot of private individuals that have used it that say it
is true. But we have really no way of validating this. And I think one important function the government could play here is to be that trusted
validator to say, OK, these are the safety standards. These are the rules of the road.
When you release the new model that has the capabilities that we have deemed dangerous, we will actually validate that and tell everyone, OK,
this model is this dangerous, and we're going to hold it back in this way, instead of relying on a company like Anthropic or its CEO, Dario Amodei, to
have the values to try to protect us all from the technology we have built. That is an approach that you can see in other countries slowly taking
shape. It seems like an approach we should take here in the United States.
I think the political pressure on the A.I. industry is very high. A.I. is not polling well. It's not popular among the voters of both parties. And I
think we will see some movement here to take a more responsible approach to actually regulating this technology, as opposed to the unconstrained,
totally deregulatory approach we've seen up until now that has led to fights about political principle, not care or harm principles.
KINKADE: Yes, political, legal, philosophical, all the above still to be discussed, still to be regulated. Nilay Patel, great to have you with us.
Thank you.
PATEL: Thanks for having me.
KINKADE: Well, still to come, a look inside an elite U.S. Army division training for drone warfare in the Arctic, plus what the U.S. is learning
from Russia's war in Ukraine.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[18:30:00]
KINKADE: Welcome back to "The Brief." I'm Lynda Kinkade. Here are the international headlines we're watching today.
Iran has declared the Strait of Hormuz open. Even so, the U.S. says it is maintaining a blockade on Iranian ports. Iranian state media says Tehran
considers the blockade a ceasefire violation. The Revolutionary Guard says ships must use Iran's designated route.
Pope Leo presided over a mass before a huge crowd in Cameroon. It's the biggest gathering yet of the Pope's four Nation Tour in Africa. The Pontiff
who has been the target of sustained attacks by U.S. President Trump urged those present to reject every form of abuse or violence.
There's new controversy over former British ambassador to the U.S. Peter Mandelson, and is putting Prime Minister Keir Starer under pressure.
Mandelson was dismissed from his role in September over his ties to the late sex offender, Jeffrey Epstein. Well, now, Starmer's political foes say
it's unlikely. Stamer was aware Mandelson had failed security checks. The prime minister denies doing anything wrong.
Russia's war in Ukraine has become a testing ground for drone warfare, accelerating its adoption by armies right around the world. Well, now, an
elite U.S. Army division near the Arctic Circle is looking to apply those lessons for possible attacks from Russia or China.
Jim Sciutto went to Northern Alaska for a closer look at drone warfare training under some of the Earth's harshest conditions. Here's his report
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
JIM SCIUTTO, CNN ANCHOR AND CHIEF NATIONAL SECURITY ANALYST (voice-over): In the frigid landscape of Northern Alaska, troops from the U.S. Army's
11th Airborne Division are training to defend the Arctic from Russia and China. They call themselves the Arctic Angels.
MAJOR CRAIG BARNHILL, 11TH AIRBORNE DIVISION, U.S. ARMY: We're prepared to, you know, address any threat that were needed to, that the nation asked us
to. Specifically, we are focused on the Arctic.
SCIUTTO: I mean, this is tip of the spear, right?
BARNHILL: Yes.
SCIUTTO: So, got to be important for your training and command.
BARNHILL: Yes, absolutely. Getting out here, like it builds grit, it builds a physical and mental strength in the soldier, understanding that you're.
Equipment is going to keep you alive.
SCIUTTO (voice-over): The weather is unforgiving. Temperatures dipping to 50 below zero waist deep snow and winds that could bring frostbite within
minutes wanting.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Launching.
SCIUTTO (voice-over): But now there is a new threat hovering above their heads.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Two and three. Good job.
SCIUTTO (voice-over): These soldiers are training for the dawn of drone warfare.
[18:35:00]
LT. COL. DANIEL LUDWIG, 11TH AIRBORNE DIVISION, U.S. ARMY: So, this year was the first year that we got as much emphasis and as much push on it. So,
we have more drones now than we ever had in the past. We've had drones before, but the emphasis is definitely ramped up, given the technology and
world events, how everything is maturing.
SCIUTTO (voice-over): This is the new reality for the U.S., its allies and adversaries, demonstrated in deadly terms by the war in Ukraine, where
drones now account for the vast majority of casualties. Ukrainian and Russian forces now deploy airborne drones, which can ram into and destroy
aircraft, blow up tanks and armored vehicles, and even rain down flammable chemicals on personnel. Ukrainian sea drones defeated Russia's once feared
Black Sea Fleet. And today, ground drones are patrolling the battlefield like deadly sci-fi robots. China has been watching and learning. It is
testing these armed robot dogs.
Now, the U.S. is integrating drones into every aspect of training for war. And in the Arctic, they are being battle tested.
SCIUTTO: How much are you learning from Ukraine, the war in Ukraine?
LUDWIG: Right. So, there's absolutely lessons learned that we pull in, and there's innovations that happen out there, you know, on the battlefield at
a very rapid rate. So, we're constantly seeing what's going on over there, monitoring what's going on over there. And we have also some similar things
in the environment going on in the Arctic.
So, in Ukraine, they often talk about the mud season versus the frozen season. When does the ground firm up, so to speak? We have very similar
conditions here in the Arctic. Precipitation like this right now has a huge impact on drones.
SCIUTTO (voice-over): Drones operate in hunter-killer pairs. A surveillance drone spots the target. A killer drone takes it out.
SGT. AUSTIN FANDEY, 11TH AIRBORNE DIVISION, U.S. ARMY: This would be something that you would strap right on the bottom of the drone here. This
was something I 3D printed just before coming out here.
SCIUTTO: Do you feel like as you fly these around that you're the soldier of the future to some degree, or really, it's the present?
FANDEY: I think so, working in tandem with the hunter as the killer, for example. It's really hard to get away from these, and being on the
receiving end, it's kind of a little scary.
SCIUTTO (voice-over): And here's why. Killer drones can hit 70 miles per hour, spitting out a menacing buzz reminiscent of a World War II kamikaze.
FANDEY: With these, it just comes screeching at you.
SCIUTTO: There's no outrunning this?
FANDEY: There's no outrunning them.
SCIUTTO: Yes.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Launch, launch, launch.
SCIUTTO (voice-over): Once you're detected, it's probably too late. And the hunters can detect you in more ways than one.
SCIUTTO: The thing about drones is that they've got two ways to spot you. Not just seeing you on camera, but sensing you, sensing your heat
signature. And that's that red spot you're seeing right now on his screen. That's me standing in the middle of the road and below freezing weather,
and they can spot you from more than a mile away.
SCIUTTO (voice-over): Hunters and killers. Hunter identifies the target, killer destroys them.
SCIUTTO: The field of view is just amazing. There we are on screen. That's us, sitting ducks.
SCIUTTO (voice-over): Hyper-visibility in drone warfare requires hyper- mobility.
SCIUTTO: So, this is the CATV cold-weather all-terrain vehicle.
LUDWIG: We can move under tree cover into the forest pretty easily. So, any vehicle that's going to give you that kind of mobility and allow you to get
to places that are less suspected to have people and equipment, that's going to be a great opportunity to survive.
SCIUTTO: Because the battlefield is so visible in drone warfare, if you stay in one place for too long, you're likely dead. That's where a vehicle
like this comes into play. Essentially a mobile command post that can move over all kinds of terrain in winter and summer conditions and quickly.
So, as I understand it hides heat signatures.
LUDWIG: Yes, absolutely. So, it's not just a visual, it's also electromagnetic and thermal. So, you can use it typically to move soldiers,
or I've modified mine slightly to use as a command post.
SCIUTTO: Enemy drone spotted here. How quickly can you get --
LUDWIG: I'd say less than five minutes.
SCIUTTO: Wow.
LUDWIG: Yes.
SCIUTTO (voice-over): Fact is, U.S. and NATO forces still have a great deal to learn.
In the U.S. and Israeli war in Iran, multiple Iranian drones have penetrated U.S. and allies' air defenses, one striking a U.S. base, killing
six U.S. service members. And when NATO went head-to-head with a Ukrainian drone unit it exercises last year, just 10 U.S. base killing six U.S.
service members.
[18:40:00]
And when NATO went head-to-head with a Ukrainian drone unit it exercises last year, just 10 Ukrainian drone operators defeated a force of thousands,
destroying more than a dozen armored vehicles. That was just an exercise.
SCIUTTO: Do you feel like you're playing catch-up to some degree?
BARNHILL: I wouldn't say we're playing catch-up. I think we're using lessons learned there to drive the directions we go.
SCIUTTO (voice-over): The focus of the 11th Airborne and the rest of the U.S. military is training to fight the real thing and win.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
KINKADE: Our thanks to Jim Sciutto for that report. Well, coming up after the break, World Cup fans face whopping transit fares between New York and
New Jersey. So, if you want to take a train to see a game, your wallet will be strained. We'll explain next.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
KINKADE: With less than two months to go until the start of the FIFA World Cup here in the U.S., football fans in New York taking the train to watch a
match could pay a hefty price. A train from Penn Station in Manhattan to MetLife Stadium in New Jersey usually costs about $13 for a round trip. For
the World Cup, it's been confirmed today that it will cost $150. New Jersey Transit has a cap on how many train tickets it's selling per match. Only
40,000 will go on sale. And if you think about taking a shuttle bus, that will cost you $80. And you can't drive yourself. Parking at the stadium is
not allowed.
Well, joining me now for more is Jules Boykoff, the author of "Red Card: The 2026 World Cup, Sportswashing, and FIFA Greed Machine." Jules, good to
have you with us.
JULES BOYKOFF, AUTHOR, "RED CARD" AND POLITICS AND GOVERNMENT PROFESSOR, PACIFIC UNIVERSITY: Thank you.
KINKADE: So, just talk to us about the economic model we're dealing with when it comes to FIFA and these transit prices, which appear on the surface
to be absolutely insane, going from about $13 for a round trip to $150 per ticket. And that's just to get to the game.
BOYKOFF: Well, World Cup host cities are getting a frontal look at the FIFA Greed Machine. I mean, FIFA's entire business model involves offloading
every single cost that it possibly can onto the shoulders of host cities, states, and municipalities.
[18:45:00]
In short, their model is essentially that the public pays for the event of the World Cup, and FIFA walks away with the profits. And profit they will.
I mean, for a nonprofit organization, it is a tremendously profitable enterprise. FIFA is projecting that they will make $11 billion from the
World Cup alone. That makes it the most profitable sports event in history.
KINKADE: That's incredible. So, who's actually being asked to subsidize that greed? Is it taxpayers? Is it fans? Is it all of the above?
BOYKOFF: Well, that's exactly the trick. I mean, despite the fact that FIFA makes $11 billion off of this World Cup, it is giving $0 to transportation
budgets for these various municipalities. And that's exactly what the governor of New Jersey has been saying, is that New Jersey is getting
nothing from FIFA. And unless she wants to run a deficit, she needs to figure out how to pay for the $48 million or so that it will cost to cart
around these World Cup fans. And so, she's kind of stuck, and she decided that she's going to charge the World Cup fans instead of putting it on
taxpayers and so on.
The U.S. Congress has been considering a bill that would give $50 million a year to municipalities for transportation to support just this kind of
thing. But because there's the gridlock in Congress, it's really not achieving much, pretty dysfunctional. It hasn't even really given that bill
a serious look. And so, all of the costs now fall on these local governments who have to figure out what to do.
KINKADE: It's interesting when you look at different cities and different approaches, because some cities are offering low cost or even free public
transport to get to games. So, why is New Jersey Transit facing this $48 million burden?
BOYKOFF: Well, I think it's worth slowing down and looking back at the original bid that the United States, Canada and Mexico put forth for the
World Cup back in 2017. They called it the unity bid. It was a totally different time because the countries got along relatively well at that
time. And in that bid, they promised that spectators would have complimentary public transportation to and from the stadiums on game days.
But obviously, that is not what we're seeing now.
If you have a strong public transportation system that drops you off at the stadium before this World Cup started, you're in good position to have a
good system for this event. That includes places like Seattle. But if you don't have a system that is designed for that kind of thing, then you're in
trouble. I'm looking at you, Dallas, who's hosting an event. It looks like an absolute nightmare there.
Plus, because of the fact that the World Cup is such a huge event, it's also a big security concern. I mean, it's a terrorist target in the eyes of
the U.S. government. That's exactly how it's treating it. And so, the security perimeters around the stadium is even bigger, making less parking
spaces. And I would add less tailgating, if any tailgating, so cutting into the festivities as well. But that also creates a problem in terms of the
amount of space for people to park to get into the games.
KINKADE: All right. Jules Boykoff. We'll no doubt be speaking about this again in the coming weeks with the World Cup just a couple of months away.
Thanks so much for joining us.
BOYKOFF: Thank you.
KINKADE: Well, still to come on "The Brief," the famous Desert Music Festival is back for weekend two. We'll have our preview of Coachella next.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
KINKADE: Welcome back. I'm Lynda Kinkade. I want to go to London, where the mystery surrounding the location of William Shakespeare's home has finally
been solved. This is no ordinary tale of celebrity real estate. CNN producer James Frater has the story.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
JAMES FRATER, CNN PRODUCER (voice-over): It's long been known that Shakespeare owned a home in London, but where exactly has kept academics
guessing for centuries. That is until now.
FRATER: It's generally believed that somewhere between the river and St Paul's Cathedral here in Blackfriars, in these narrow streets, that his
property used to be.
FRATER (voice-over): This modest blue plaque cautiously declares that the playwright purchased lodgings near this site.
FRATER: But in new research by Lucy Munro at London's King's College, this plaque is actually spot on. This is exactly where Shakespeare lived at 5
St. Andrews Hill.
FRATER (voice-over): So, what did his house actually look like?
FRATER: Munro says the property was L-shaped, not massive, but relatively substantial.
FRATER (voice-over): And it would have sat above the gateway to a 13th century friary that used to stand here.
17th century Blackfriars would have been a lively mix of people, gentry rubbing shoulders with an increasing number of trace people according to
Munro.
FRATER: In her research, there were tennis courts nearby, there was a bowling alley and many, many other entertainment venues. But also, there
was the pub just next door where perhaps the bard enjoyed a drink or two.
FRATER (voice-over): Crucially for Shakespeare, it was less than a five- minute walk from the Blackfriars playhouse and just across the river from
the famous Globe Theater.
The original house didn't survive the Great Fire of London in 1666. And it is one of the reasons why the exact location has remained such a mystery.
But at long last, no plague upon any houses, as we now know exactly where his house stood.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
KINKADE: Well, Coachella, the music festival held every spring in California's desert, is underway. This is the second and final weekend, and
includes a lineup featuring Justin Bieber, Karol G, the K-pop group Big Bang, and Japan's Creepy Nuts.
Jem Aswad is the executive editor for Music Out Variety, and joins us now live. Good to see you, Jem.
JEM ASWAD, EXECUTIVE MUSIC EDITOR, VARIETY: You too. Creepy Nuts were not top of my list.
KINKADE: Me either. So, weekend two underway in Coachella. How is this going to compare to weekend one?
ASWAD: I mean, they're usually pretty much the same. There's a little bit less buzz around it because fewer people are watching, although just as
many people will be there. What's interesting to see is what surprises people are going to have in store.
There are a lot of rumors that Madonna is going to come out with Sabrina Carpenter tonight. Madonna, of course, has a new album coming and a new
single coming, so we will see how that goes. Instead of a surprise set from Jack White, we now have one from Kacey Musgraves, who also has a new album
coming.
KINKADE: And, of course, when you look at the performers like Sabrina Carpenter, it was quite highly produced, cinematic even, a pop spectacle,
whereas Justin Bieber was almost quite pared down, wasn't it? It was quite minimalist. Just talk to us about that contrast we're seeing in mainstream
pop.
ASWAD: Well, I mean, there's a couple of different things going on there. Coachella is one of the few moments where you really feel like the whole
world is watching, not to give it a doomy context there, but where you really feel like millions of people are experiencing the same thing at
once, and that's why so many artists go big.
Sabrina's set was very cool, but it did tend to lose steam as it went on, not least because of Susan Sarandon's almost 10-minute monologue. I'll bet
that doesn't happen again. I'll bet there's something different or at least something shorter. And Karol G was the one who really nailed the headlining
spot. That was absolutely amazing. It was the final show of the set, so if there's one thing to watch, that's it. It is absolutely incredible.
Bieber was great. It was very minimalist. I mean, it was a big stage. He had a couple of guests come out with him, which was cool, but it was mostly
just him walking around and singing songs, you know, singing along with backing tracks.
[18:55:00]
Now, I enjoyed that quite a bit at home because I was quite honestly cleaning my dining room at the time, and it was, you know, I was just like,
damn, he is singing great, isn't he? But I wasn't, you know, standing there in the middle of the field after standing for 10 or 12 hours, like, waiting
for something exciting to happen, because it really didn't.
KINKADE: And just finally, you've written about how, you know, powerful and fleeting the YouTube live stream is. Just give us a sense of how that's
being received, especially the 24-hour disappearing model.
ASWAD: Well, what's been happening more and more is Coachella is becoming more and more like almost like the Grammys or something like that, in that
the artists are playing to the live stream. They're playing to the cameras in many cases more than they are to the audience, really.
And that was especially true in Bieber's set, which had this amazing, like, long shot where he walked up at the very end, and then he, like, snapped
his fingers or something like that, and a whole bunch of fireworks went off, which was completely lost on most of the people standing in the field
unless they could see the video screen.
I mean, I don't go to Coachella because the live stream is so good. And I think that's true of a lot of people because you're just like -- you know,
unless you really want to be seen or be a part of the scene, it's just sort of like, you know, if you want the music, the live stream is the way to go.
KINKADE: Fair enough. We'll be tuning in on the live stream then. Jem, great to have you with us. Appreciate it.
ASWAD: Thank you.
KINKADE: Jem Aswad there. Well, thanks so much for your company. I'm Lynda Kinkade in Atlanta. You've been watching "The Brief." Thanks so much for
joining us. Have a great weekend. And stay with CNN. Much more news ahead.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
END
