Return to Transcripts main page
The Brief with Jim Sciutto
CNN International: Trump Extends Ceasefire with Iran; Fed Chair Nominee Kevin Warsh Testifies Before the Senate; Florida AG Investigates OpenAI After Campus Shooting; Efforts to End War in Ukraine; Sources: U.S. Officials Killed in Mexico Crash Worked for CIA; Remembering Music Legend Prince. Aired 6-7p ET
Aired April 21, 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]
JIM SCIUTTO, CNN ANCHOR, "THE BRIEF": 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, President Trump says he's extending the U.S. ceasefire with Iran again, this time until negotiations are concluded.
Trump's pick to be the next Fed chair faces questions over his finances and whether he would do the White House's bidding. And a decade after his
death, we look back on the musical legacy left behind by Prince.
Our lead, President Trump says he's extending the ceasefire with Iran indefinitely now. He wrote on social media, quote, "Based on the fact that
the government of Iran is seriously fractured, not unexpectedly so. And upon the request of Field Marshal Asim Munir and Prime Minister Shehbaz
Sharif of Pakistan, we have been asked to hold our attack on the country of Iran until such time as their leaders and representatives can come up with
a unified proposal."
An adviser to Iran's parliament speaker says the ceasefire extension, quote, "means nothing." He says the losing side cannot dictate the terms
and is calling for a military response to the ongoing U.S. military blockade.
Vice President J.D. Vance had been expected to fly to Pakistan this morning for potential meetings with Iranian officials, but that was called off.
He's still in Washington. Listen to what people in Iran think about peace talks.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE (through translator): Why should we negotiate when the other side is bullying? Why? When Trump says that whatever he says must be
done, why should we accept it?
UNIDENTIFIED MALE (through translator): Iranians should take part in the negotiations. The talks will bear fruit. There may be some back and forth
for a few days, but they will ultimately yield results.
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE (through translator): No, why shouldn't they take part? The country is in a state of uncertainty. Why shouldn't they
participate? I really don't know. I really don't know.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
SCIUTTO: Kristen Holmes is at the White House. And Kristen, in quite simple terms, this is a back down by the president. He set a deadline,
moved it, set another deadline, moved it. Now, this is a quite indefinite deadline by the president's own definition of it. Does the White House get
a sense it's losing control of this, or do they still think they have the upper hand?
KRISTEN HOLMES, CNN SENIOR WHITE HOUSE CORRESPONDENT: It's unclear what they believe in terms of having the upper hand or leverage. We know that
they continue to keep this blockade because that is the one point that they believe they have the most leverage on, closing the Strait of Hormuz, being
in control of the Strait of Hormuz, which is why today there were a lot of questions as to whether or not this Iranian delegation would actually show
up and what was going to come out of this White House.
Because as we were starting to hear, the Iranians said they weren't going to come to a second round of negotiations unless the United States opened
up the blockade, ended the blockade in the Strait of Hormuz. That seemed like a non-starter, particularly given that we have heard from U.S.
officials that this again remains a huge point of leverage for the United States in back-and-forth negotiation, which there isn't that much leverage.
So, this is something they were holding on to.
But just to give you kind of the state of play of how everything worked out today, just seconds ago we heard the vice president, J.D. Vance's motorcade
leaving here at the White House. He was supposed to be in Pakistan leaving this morning. We heard President Trump at the same time in the morning
saying that he did not want to extend the ceasefire.
Then what we started to see was a trickle in of top U.S. officials. We saw obviously the vice president, but as well the secretary of state, Marco
Rubio, as well as Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth. Then we saw the rest of the delegation from the U.S., Jared Kushner and Steve Witkoff, who were
supposed to be on a Department of Homeland Security plane from Miami to Pakistan, landing here in Washington, D.C. and walking into the White
House. And that was when we really could not get a read on what exactly was happening. Everyone was being incredibly tight-lipped until we saw this
call for an indefinite ceasefire.
Now, there are still an enormous amount of questions. I was told by one U.S. official that essentially that they had gotten a number of proposals
that were disjointed. It made a couple of things unclear. It made it unclear if the people they were negotiating with actually had any power to
make a deal. And it made it very clear that there was a lot of fracture within Iran.
[18:05:00]
And so, it wasn't actually clear who was leading and who was not leading. And, all this of course is happening as we know that no one has seen the
supreme leader, no one has heard from the Supreme Leader, so there's a lot of questions over who is giving the final say. We heard J.D. Vance say
during the last negotiations that he had to go back or that the Iranian team had to go back to Iran to get some kind of clearance. We still don't
know if the team that he was talking to had the authority to make a final deal.
So, right now, though, we are at this point where he's not only calling for this indefinite ceasefire, he's also calling for an indefinite blockade on
the Strait of Hormuz, saying nothing there is going to change. So, where we go from here, that is the big question.
And just one thing to note, U.S. officials had been warning, the U.S. had been warning President Trump that this kind of fractured government,
fractured leadership could emerge, which would make things more difficult to, in the end, kind of come to any negotiation, come to any deal. Of
course, all of this still went through with the Israeli/United States attacks on Iran, and this is where we ended up here.
SCIUTTO: Still so much uncertainty. Kristen Holmes at the White House. Well, joining me now is Danny Citrinowicz. He's a senior researcher at
Israel's Institute for National Security Studies, former head of the Iran branch in Israeli Defense Intelligence. Danny, good to have you back.
DANNY CITRINOWICZ, SENIOR RESEARCHER, TEL AVIV'S INSTITUTE FOR NATIONAL SECURITY STUDIES AND FORMER HEAD OF IRAN BRANCH, ISRAEL DEFENSE
INTELLIGENCE: Thank you very much for inviting me, Jim.
SCIUTTO: So, I'm curious who you think has the upper hand here, because yes, the U.S. is able to impose a blockade on Iran, but Iran continues to
have power to close the Strait of Hormuz to traffic. Is that a dead heat? Does someone have the upper hand?
CITRINOWICZ: Well, I think that from the standpoint of the Iranians, they definitely have the upper hand. Same, I think, in Washington, they have the
upper hand, or they think. This is the main problem, that both sides think that they have the upper hand.
Now, just look at the Iranian stance where they are right now. We passed 40 days of brutal war, and they're staying in the same red lines. Nothing has
changed, even more than that. The blockade won't change that as well, because at the end of the day, they're not going to capitulate. If any,
they're going to escalate. So, what we have now, yes, President Trump postponed the escalation, but it's not a solution, and it looks like a
strategic dead end right now.
SCIUTTO: Does Iran still buy the president's threats? Because over the course of the last week, the president has threatened to drop bombs again
on various dates, and keeps moving them back. Do they -- do those threats have the same bite that they used to?
CITRINOWICZ: Unfortunately, no. And I only want to emphasize that. It doesn't matter what the president will say, or the vice president, or
secretary of war will say. It has zero influence on the Iranian calculus. From the Iranian standpoint, they have the upper hand, and if the U.S.
wants to escalate, it will escalate. And if they want to reach an agreement, they have to accept the 10 points, so they send them through the
Pakistanis. This is where the regime is now situated.
Now, I have to emphasize one important thing, especially about the president's tweet. In Iran, there is a cohesion. What we have is actually,
we are facing with the Islamic Republic of Iran 3.0, meaning that we have RGC control, a very weak leader, and actually, it will be very hard to
negotiate with them. We said that from the beginning. The U.S. is trying now to negotiate with the same regime it tried to topple, and now it's very
hard to reach an agreement. It was hard in the past, and it's harder now.
SCIUTTO: Does the U.S. understand this regime? I mean, you point out how little they do, but I also think a basic question is, who is deciding,
right? Because as Kristen Holmes was just describing, there are points where the negotiating team had to go back to Tehran. There are questions
about different factions within the Iranian leadership right now. Is there a single decider there, or is the leadership now diffuse?
CITRINOWICZ: Well, it's a centralized system. We had, before the war, you know, Ali Khamenei wasn't a pragmatist. He was an extreme guy, but he had
an advantage. He was the center of gravity. When he said yes, it was yes. When he said no, it was no. What we have now is a decentralized system. We
have to go through Ghalibaf and Vahidi, the commander of the Al-Jazeera, and Ali Abdollahi, the commander of Khatam al-Diya, and to go through
Mojtaba, who has to sign everything.
So, definitely, it's harder. And -- but it doesn't matter. It goes to the principle. Nobody in Iran, whether it's going to be Foreign Minister
Araghchi or Ahmad Vahidi, the Al-Jazeera commander, will agree to return back to negotiation while the U.S. is blockading Iran. It's not going to
happen.
[18:10:00]
So, yes, it's a problem in the decision-making process, but it's more the problem of understanding the fact that this regime is not going to
capitulate, not under any circumstance. So, this is something that I fear that the Washington people do not understand. They're looking for some sort
of a silver bullet that you cannot find.
SCIUTTO: Yes. The last time we spoke, when I was in Israel, you laid out what you believe would be strategic failure if the war to end. One, nuclear
material is still in the country. It's still there. The Strait of Hormuz closed. Iran still has an ability to close the Strait. And no regime
change, and as you just described, it's basically the same regime, though more diffuse. I mean, is the U.S. losing the war at this point?
CITRINOWICZ: Well, definitely not U.S. and no Israel are winning. Yes, we have -- as we've spoken in Israel, we have amazing operational
achievements. The cooperation between IDF and CENTCOM is really outstanding. But at the end of the day, it didn't accumulate to a strategic
effect. What we have, we have -- we didn't topple the regime, we have actually a more radicalized regime. We didn't end the missile capacity,
they still have that. And definitely, they have still the enriched uranium, they do very hard to take it out. So, I don't think -- I don't see how you
can call it a strategic win right now.
SCIUTTO: The circumstances you describe seem to point to this dragging out for some time, because if Iran won't give in, and if the president still
believes he has the upper hand and certainly would not want to admit defeat, and also seems to be comfortable with the economic consequences.
I mean, U.S. allies are not, particularly in Asia, where they're paying enormous, and Europe as well, enormous premiums for energy. But if both
sides think they're winning, and don't want to back down, and there's no real negotiating progress, I mean, I don't see how this ends anytime soon.
CITRINOWICZ: Well, it's not. And the problem is that the president Trump likes quick wins, and he likes to have a winning picture. And
unfortunately, the Iranians won't supply that. And if the blockade will be actually serious, the Iranians will retaliate. I think they will try to
close border and run the straits. Definitely, they're not going to capitulate.
So, if -- yes, they're suffering, but they believe that they can inflict more damage on international communities, they can absorb much more than
that. So, the problem that we are facing right now, and go back to the beginning of our conversation, is there's nothing that you can do in order
to change the calculus. On the contrary, every time you're putting a blockade, it's actually highlighting to them that the U.S. is actually
wanting to maybe return back to kinetics, and not returning back to the negotiation table.
So, this is what we have. We have a strategic deadlock. And the way to break this deadlock is by the U.S. maybe compromising on the blockade,
returning back to negotiation, or escalating, and then the Iranians will retaliate, and then we'll find ourselves in an uncontrolled escalation. I
don't think the status quo right now is stable, and eventually we'll find ourselves one escalation, one compromise by the U.S. that will lead us
again to Islamabad.
SCIUTTO: And the world waits. Danny Citrinowicz, thanks so much for joining.
CITRINOWICZ: Thank you very much.
SCIUTTO: Well, back here in the U.S., Kevin Warsh, President Trump's pick to be the next chair of the Federal Reserve, testified before the Senate
Banking Committee earlier. Warsh promised sweeping reforms, including changes to how officials communicate with the public. Warsh also insisted
on the importance of the Fed's political independence.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
KEVIN WARSH, U.S. FEDERAL RESERVE CHAIR NOMINEE: The president never asked me to predetermine, commit, fix, decide on any interest rate decision in
any of our discussions, nor would I ever agree to do so. I was honored he nominated me. Like everyone else in the committee in the world, I've heard
his view on interest rates. It sounded very similar to me to every other president in economic history that I've studied.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
SCIUTTO: That's said, Warsh's ability to distance himself from President Trump was called into question by Democratic Senator Elizabeth Warren.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
SEN. ELIZABETH WARREN (D-MA), RANKING MEMBER, BANKING, HOUSING AND URBAN AFFAIRS COMMITTEE: Name one aspect of President Trump's economic agenda
with which you disagree.
WARSH: Well, Senator, the Federal Reserve in recent years has wandered outside of its remit, wandered into other areas.
WARREN: I'm asking for something you --
WARSH: That's not something I'm prepared to do.
WARREN: -- disagree with Donald Trump on.
WARSH: If I'm confirmed --
WARREN: Just one economic --
WARSH: -- the Federal Reserve should stay in its lane.
WARREN: Just one. Just one little place where you disagree with Donald.
WARSH: Well, I do have a disagreement, actually, Senator, with the president. I think even this morning he said that he thought I was out of
central casting. I think central casting, I'd look older, grayer, maybe show up here with a cigar of sorts.
WARREN: Quite adorable. But, you know, we need a Fed chair who is independent. That's the only way we preserve the independence of the
Federal Reserve. If you can't answer these questions, you don't have the courage and you don't have the independence.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
SCIUTTO: Trying to make a joke there. Warsh also dodged Warren's question over whether President Trump lost the 2020 election, which he did.
[18:15:00]
Key Senate Republican Thom Tillis has insisted yet again that he will oppose Warsh's nomination as long as the Trump administration continues to
pursue its criminal probe into the current Fed Chair Jay Powell and his handling of Fed building renovations. Tillis says the cost overruns appear
legitimate, not criminal, and has urged the Justice Department to drop the case so that Warsh's nomination can move forward.
Joining me now is CNN Global Economic Analyst Rana Foroohar. Good to have you back.
RANA FOROOHAR, CNN GLOBAL ECONOMIC ANALYST AND ASSOCIATE EDITOR, FINANCIAL TIMES: Thanks so much. Great to be here.
SCIUTTO: I mean, first, let's just state right out if it's amazing that to be a pick of this president, you have to lie about the 2020 election, or at
least refuse not to lie about it. But I want to call BS if I can on Warsh saying that there's no presidential pressure, because this president has
been quite public with the current Fed chair, pushing, prodding, demanding that he cut interest rates via social media posts and comments in public. I
want to -- I don't have to remind you of that, but for our audience, I'm going to play a couple of those recent comments.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
DONALD TRUMP, U.S. PRESIDENT: Jerome, too late. Powell, I kill him too late because he's always too late with interest should cut interest rates.
He should cut them right now. They should have a special meeting. What's a better time to cut interest rates? And now, a third-grade student would
know that.
No, I call him too late. Jerome, too late Powell. He's too late. He's too late always. He always has been, except when it came to lowering interest
rates before the election. You know that he that he did. He worked that out.
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Will you be disappointed if your new Fed chair, if he gets approved, doesn't cut rates right away?
TRUMP: I would.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Do you have a sense of what he's going to do as far as interest rates are concerned?
TRUMP: I hope he's going to lower. But I mean, if you watch him on television, you know, because I watched interviews, statements, I hope he's
going to lower. But, you know, he's going to have to do what he wants to do.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
SCIUTTO: So, you, do you, Rana, and do the markets that's kind of crucial, do they believe that he would be independent of the president's demands and
pressure?
FOROOHAR: You know, I would say that the sentiment in the market in terms of high-level participants is split. You know, Jim, two things can be true
at once, right? What Elizabeth Warren is saying about Warsh being under pressure from Trump is clearly true. You know, we've heard the clips that
you you've played. I think this president is unique in the way in which he's politicized the Fed going after Jay Powell personally -- sorry, Jerome
Powell, you know, really making it clear that the Fed is there to do his bidding.
That said, it's also true what Warsh said, that every president wants low rates. And that is where I find his approach interesting. I mean, you know,
during the great financial crisis, I will say that Warsh is one of the few people that said, you know what, enough, enough QE. Just putting more money
into the economy is not actually fixing things. It's not really creating wage inflation for $15 an hour workers. It is making stocks and houses more
expensive. And that's ultimately going to cause a cost-of-living crisis. So, that I have a lot of sympathy on with him in terms of how he's
approached things.
But here's the rub. If he was willing to push back on political pressure from Democrats amidst the great financial crisis, will he now be willing to
push back against Republicans and in particular against the president that appointed him? That's the big tell.
SCIUTTO: It is.
FOROOHAR: I mean, that is going to tell us not only where Warsh is, but where the Fed is, where independence is.
SCIUTTO: Yes. I mean, you've made the point that he used to be an inflation hawk. I mean, is that a core principle? Will he stick to it? And
by the way, if he can't push back against the president's lies about the 2020 election or name one thing, he disagrees with this president about
trying to make kind of a bad joke there, what's he going to do when the rubber meets the road, right? And you know --
FOROOHAR: Again, big, big, big question. I mean, you know, I would say one of the things Warsh is known for is being very politically savvy. And let's
face it, it would not be politically savvy in the midst of a congressional testimony when Elizabeth Warren is questioning you to kind of play ball and
say, well, actually, I really didn't like X, Y and Z. So, you know, there's that.
But where is he going to end up? Is he going to be data driven? There is a case to be made. And I'm playing a little bit devil's advocate here. There
is a case to be made that A.I. is so powerfully disinflationary that it will create a tailwind that will help us to manage the inflationary
pressures of so many of Donald Trump's policies from tariffs to this war of choice in Iran. But that is very much up for grabs.
And that data is going to be slow. It's going to be spotty. And he's going to have to make some really dicey judgment calls, I think, in in the midst
of all this. So, I don't think this story about the politicization of the Fed is going away.
SCIUTTO: Yes. Well, what do you think about that? Just bigger picture on the economy, because, you know, the stock market is driven so much by this
A.I. boom, right? And there are a lot of folks who say, listen, you know, in effect, it's going to solve all our problems, right? The economy is flat
in so many spaces or shrinking, right? And we see that in the job figures, et cetera.
[18:20:00]
FOROOHAR: Yes.
SCIUTTO: But if the markets are counting on A.I. to kind of solve all our problems and if the Fed is going to solve our inflation problems, I mean,
that's a lot of eggs in one basket. I mean, do you buy that?
FOROOHAR: Well, you know, I buy that A.I. is profound. I buy because you're already seeing it in the data that it is having a productivity
effect. But here's where things get trickier. I think A.I. is going to be massively, massively labor disrupting.
SCIUTTO: Yes.
FOROOHAR: Now, if you think about the fact that America is a 70 percent consumer spending economy, if you get a big situation where there's a lot
of people out of work and you just don't have demand, that's going to be disinflationary, but not for reasons that you would like. And then does
that trend start to intersect with these other global inflationary pressures like a higher price of oil? Because I don't think Iran's going
away anytime soon.
Tariffs, because that paradigm has fundamentally changed. We could be in for stagflation, which would be, of course, the president's worst nightmare
and Kevin Warsh's as well.
SCIUTTO: And perhaps more wealth disparity, right? I mean, a lot of those pressures as well.
FOROOHAR: Indeed, K-shaped economy.
SCIUTTO: Rana Foroohar, always good to have you.
FOROOHAR: Thank you.
SCIUTTO: Coming up after the break, a criminal investigation into the role of artificial intelligence in a murder case and whether the information
that ChatGPT gave the suspect in this case means that OpenAI could be held criminally responsible. It's a fascinating question. We'll take a look.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
SCIUTTO: Welcome back. In today's Business Breakout, U.S. stocks fell for a second straight session amid concern over the state of the U.S.-Iran
ceasefire. Right after the closing bell, President Trump announced he's going to extend that ceasefire indefinitely now. Oil prices rose again,
too, with Brent Crude nearing $100 a barrel again. Apple shares fell 2.5 percent this after Monday's news that Tim Cook is stepping down as CEO.
Florida's attorney general is investigating whether OpenAI bears criminal responsibility for a deadly shooting last year. The attorney general says
the suspect submitted multiple queries to ChatGPT before killing two people and injuring six others on the campus of Florida State University. It's a
remarkable story. Here's Hadas Gold.
[18:25:00]
HADAS GOLD, CNN A.I. CORRESPONDENT: Jim, this may be the first time that an A.I. company is being criminally investigated for the actions that its
chatbot took and the advice that it gave to a user who then went on to commit an alleged crime. This is connected to the shooting last year at
Florida State University, where Phoenix Ikner is accused of shooting and killing two people and injuring six others. And according to the Florida
attorney general, before that shooting took place, he had extensive conversations with ChatGPT.
And the Florida attorney general is saying that ChatGPT may have aided and abetted Eichner in this shooting before it took place. He said that in
their review of these messages, Ikner asked for and received advice on everything from the media would react to a mass shooting at the university
to where at the university would have the most amount of people and at what time, as well as specific information about how to operate guns and
weapons.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
JAMES UTHMEIER, FLORIDA ATTORNEY GENERAL: Florida law states that anyone who aids, abets or counsels someone in the commission of a crime and that
crime is committed or attempted is a principal in the first degree. So, if that bot were a person, they would be charged with a principal in first
degree murder.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
GOLD: OpenAI said for its part that it's cooperating with authorities, but that ChatGPT, they say, is not responsible for this tragedy. The company
said in a statement that in this case, ChatGPT provided factual responses to questions with information that could be found broadly across public
sources on the internet, and it did not encourage or promote illegal or harmful activity.
This case could open a fascinating legal Pandora's box about who is responsible in this case, because as you heard from the attorney general,
had it been a human on the other side of the screen, they say there would have been no question that human would have been charged with aiding and
abetting of a crime.
Now, and while there have been several civil cases brought against A.I. companies after people had conversations with these chatbots and then
wanted to commit alleged crimes, those were all civil cases. I think this is the first time we've seen a criminal investigation into an A.I. company
and the actions that it took or did not take in the lead up to a crime.
Now, the suspect in this case, Phoenix Ikner, he has pled not guilty and he is set to stand trial this coming October. Jim.
SCIUTTO: Our thanks to Hadas Gold. Checking some of today's other business headlines. President Trump says he is against a proposed merger between
United and American Airlines. He argues that both companies are doing well on their own. Reports say the head of United discussed the possible merger
with White House officials earlier this year. President Trump said he is not opposed to someone buying the bankrupt Spirit Airlines. That carrier
has warned it might liquidate soon.
United Airlines warned after the closing bell Tuesday that its second quarter and full year profits will fall below expectations due to the
higher cost of jet fuel. United says ticket demand remains strong, particularly for premium seats, but it says fares will not come close to
covering the rising cost of fuel. Alaska Air and Delta have also warned that energy costs will impact their upcoming results.
U.S. retail sales just posted their biggest monthly jump in more than three years. The 1.7 percent increase in March was driven mainly by a spike in
gas prices. That is people spending more on gas. Sales at gas stations rose more than 15 percent compared to the same time a month before. If you
exclude gas stations, retail sales rose only 0.6 percent in March.
While the world hopes for the possibility of peace in the Middle East, talks to end the war in Ukraine have stalled yet again and Russian attacks
continue. We're going to hear from a Ukrainian lawmaker next on how to break that impasse.
(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.
President Donald Trump says he is now extending the ceasefire with Iran yet again. It was due to expire on Wednesday, originally on Tuesday. He says
he's giving Iran more time to submit a proposal for permanently ending the war. Trump says the U.S. will continue blockading Iranian ports in the
interim.
Federal Reserve chair nominee Kevin Warsh told senators he will act independently if he is confirmed by the Senate to run the central bank.
Warsh has been nominated by President Trump to succeed Jerome Powell. During a confirmation hearing, he said Trump never asked him to lower
interest rates. Warsh also suggested reducing the size of the Fed's balance sheet.
Britain's royals are honoring the late Queen Elizabeth II on what would have been her 100th birthday. They marked the occasion with a number of
events and announced plans for a new charity and a garden memorial in central London. The queen was the country's longest-serving monarch. She
died nearly four years ago at the age of 96.
Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy says it is disrespectful for President Trump's envoys to make repeated visits to Moscow without once
traveling to Kyiv in order to resume stalled negotiations between the two countries.
U.S. Special Envoy Steve Witkoff and the president's son-in-law Jared Kushner have visited Russia several times, including this meeting with
Vladimir Putin in January, while neither of them have been on an official visit to Kyiv. They have, though, met Ukrainian officials in Florida. More
talks were lined up for this month, according to Bloomberg, but as of now, nothing official.
Joining me now from Kyiv, Ukrainian Parliament member Yulia Sirko. Thank you so much for joining us.
YULIA SIRKO, UKRAINIAN PARLIAMENT MEMBER: Hello from Kyiv, and thank you for hosting me.
SCIUTTO: First, I want to ask your reaction to the fact that President Trump has sent his envoys repeatedly to Moscow and never to Kyiv. Does this
demonstrate to you that the U.S. president is now closer to Russia than he is to Ukraine?
SIRKO: First of all, we honestly expected Mr. Witkoff in Ukraine. It was a big discussion and debates in Ukrainian society, but somehow, Mr. Witkoff
decided to go to Moscow and this is a little bit upset, I would say, for Ukrainians because Witkoff is special envoy for peace and we want peace,
and he is not special envoy for Moscow. And he has been to Moscow more than eight times and never been to Kyiv. So, we are still waiting and expecting
Mr. Witkoff to Kyiv because we want to discuss the real peace terms and peace deals.
But what is right from Witkoff's visit to Moscow is that the key for peace actually laying in Kremlin because only one person who is against peace and
wants war is Mr. Putin. And we hope that Witkoff will able somehow to bring this -- to put pressure on Putin -- Mr. Putin.
[18:35:00]
And we hope that Witkoff will able somehow to bring this, to put pressure on Putin to start thinking realistically about the peace and peace deal.
SCIUTTO: What do Ukrainians, what do your constituents believe today? Because this is the latest in a series of disappointments, right? The U.S.
ending direct military assistance, the president often parroting Vladimir Putin's talking points on the war. Do Ukrainians really trust the U.S. as a
partner anymore?
SIRKO: I think Ukrainians understand that the peace talks on hold and probably will be on hold because there is no realistic peace talks in past
months, over months, and even more. We understand that -- our constituents understand that we have to be self-sufficient and to produce enough weapon
and to defend ourselves and that our future most probably more than with Europe than with U.S.
Unfortunately, U.S. became more, I would say, internally focused than focused on a foreign policy and realistically would like to solve problems.
That's why -- but still, I mean, Ukrainians are still good friends with Americans. I mean, nation to nation we have no problem. Most probably we
will be on hold with talks for a while, but we are working on our defense by ourselves and with our European allies.
SCIUTTO: I wonder, given that the U.S. has used so many of its air defense missiles, including Patriot missiles, in the war in Iran by CNN's own
reporting, 50 percent of them, and there was already, it seemed, hesitation from the U.S. to supply more of these to Ukraine. I wonder what Ukraine
does now.
I mean, can Ukrainian-made interceptors, including drone interceptors, fill that gap, or will this create a big vulnerability for Ukraine if the U.S.
doesn't send as many of those interceptors?
SIRKO: It is already a deficit of Patriots, missile Patriots, as well as you cannot intercept ballistic with interceptors of drones, unfortunately.
But we understand it even before and start developing ballistic interceptors, including a joint project with Europeans. And we understand
that the deficit of Patriots will be not in Ukraine, but I think around the European continent as well as other military partners of U.S. because it's
one of the most efficient weapon to intercept ballistics.
And -- but I mean, honestly, Ukraine, and not only Ukraine, I think European countries realize that we need to develop something equal, at
least, to intercept ballistics, as North Korea, as Russia, as many other countries, they have a lot of ballistics. And this ballistic could be sent
not only to Ukraine, but to other countries.
So, that's our intentions. And we will work in this direction. So, the general idea in Ukraine to produce as much as possible of the local weapon
to defend ourselves, because we understand that the lot of weapon will be spent in the Middle East, in other regions, and it will be very expensive
and in deficit.
SCIUTTO: Before we go, there was some celebration in Europe with the loss of Viktor Orban, given his closeness with Vladimir Putin and opposition to
aid to Ukraine. You've made the point that despite that now in Bulgaria, the victory of the progressive Bulgaria party, the parliamentary elections
might block aid again. Does Russia now have a new veto in effect in the E.U. and NATO against Ukrainian aid, or is that at least your fear?
SIRKO: I don't think they will be able to manipulate Bulgaria as they manipulated Orban, who was fully dependent and, as we realize, fully
controlled by Russia, by Kremlin. I think we will have some problems and troubles with Bulgarian new government, which will be formed. But as of
today, we see clear path to finalize and to get to 90 billion loan from European Union, and we are on our way.
[18:40:00]
But in future, I think, yes. (INAUDIBLE) and also new Bulgarian government will try to not to block, but to disturb internally European Union and I
think Russia will try to do it and manipulate them again.
SCIUTTO: Yulia Sirko, we appreciate you joining us. And as I always say, given that you're in Kyiv, I wish you safety.
SIRKO: Thank you.
SCIUTTO: And we'll be right back.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
SCIUTTO: News Now, my colleagues and I are getting new information about two U.S. embassy officials who were killed in a car crash on Sunday in
Mexico. People briefed on the matter tell myself and my colleague Natasha Bertrand that those two employees worked for the CIA. The officers were
returning from a drug raid in the Morelos area with two Mexican officials. The circumstances of that crash are now under investigation.
The Mexican president, Claudia Sheinbaum, says she was not aware of any direct collaboration between state officials and U.S. embassy workers.
We'll continue to follow that story.
A remarkable story now about how some viral video creators are trying to impact the war in Iran. The group has flooded the Internet with videos that
mock and criticize President Trump and the U.S. war effort. The A.I.- generated videos are done in the style of what? Animated Lego movies. CNN producer Leila Gharagozlou spoke with the group behind those viral videos.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
LEILA GHARAGOZLOU, CNN PRODUCER (voice-over): If you're on the internet, you've likely seen these highly popular Iranian Lego-style videos.
(MUSIC PLAYING)
GHARAGOZLOU (voice-over): Published almost daily, these detailed videos with American and Western cultural references have taken the world by
storm, the group that makes these publishers across social media platforms, but recently had their YouTube account shut down for showing violent
content.
But who is behind these videos? Is it Iranian government propaganda? Are they in Iran or are they outside Iran? I spoke to the creators behind the
viral Iranian Lego-style videos. I reached out to the team on X, introduced myself and requested an interview. They promptly responded back and asked
where I was from. As an Iranian journalist, I did expect this. And from there, the conversation switched to Persian.
[18:45:00]
Before agreeing to interview with me, they asked if I was in support of the U.S. and Israel's war with Iran. This was my response. As a professional
and impartial journalist, my duty is to report events as objectively as possible, without the interference of my personal opinions. As an Iranian,
I would never welcome the destruction of my country.
After another round of questions, these in English, we agreed to the group's first interview with an Iranian journalist and agreed to do the
interview in Persian.
It turns out, Explosive Media is a small team of Gen Z creators; 18 to 25 years old. They say they all reside in Iran, and most have never left the
country.
GHARAGOZLOU: Their spokesperson, who requested anonymity, said the initial goal of these videos was to show the outside world what Iranians are like,
educated, culturally relevant, and funny.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE (through translator): We know that the West has a bad perception of us. They don't know us at all. We wanted to break down this
wall of censorship. We wanted to say that we're funny, funnier than you even. We understand culture and the arts, and we are incredibly educated.
We know and understand your American culture well. You don't, unfortunately, know as much about our culture. We hope that you learn more
about ours.
GHARAGOZLOU: While the Explosive Media team is clear that they support the government, they told me that their videos reflect their own independent
political views.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE (through translator): We are committed to the Islamic Republic. That's our belief, our point of view. No one has to tell us that.
Before the war, we made critical videos of the government just like other media companies that criticized their governments. But once there is a war,
internal fights no longer matter.
GHARAGOZLOU: There has been some question as to whether they work for the Iranian government or have them as a client.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE (through translator): We did not say we work with the IRGC. We're like any other media company in the world. When they create
something, the rights for distribution can be bought. The rights for distribution of some of our videos in Iran have sometimes been bought by
state media.
GHARAGOZLOU (voice-over): Since the very first Lego-style videos came out, there's been a lot of discussion as to whether these videos constitute as
disinformation or propaganda. Mark Owen Jones, an expert in social media and disinformation, says the answer is a bit more complicated.
MARK OWEN JONES, SOCIAL MEDIA EXPERT: If I was to simplify it, I would say this is political satire, created political satire, and a form of creative
resistance against U.S. imperialism. The fact that it's leveraged by the Iranian regime, of course, that's just what they're going to do if it's
effective and successful.
And I think to try and frame it as either pro-anti-government or government propaganda is a bit complicated.
GHARAGOZLOU: Whether satire or propaganda, these videos speak to a moment in social media and geopolitics, one that the Iranian government has
adapted to.
JONES: And I think the regime has become very savvy about the importance of social media. Certainly domestically. I think internationally, they've
been savvy about that.
GHARAGOZLOU: And it's not just social media trends that have led pro- government Iranians to making these videos, the two and a half year Gaza
war has fundamentally changed the landscape in media and people's perceptions of the U.S. and Israel.
JONES: But I really do think that the Gaza war has unleashed or has created a level of criticism in Israel and U.S. politics and European
politics that we have not seen before. And I think the creators of these videos and the Iranian regime in general know that. And they are using that
to kind of emphasize that this war is not in the interest of Americans, but the interest of Israel.
I think these are themes that resonates very profoundly amongst not just the left, but also the right with some aspects of the right.
GHARAGOZLOU (voice-over): The rise of Explosive Media and Iran's new social media strategy has coincided with an internet and communications
blackout in Iran. A blackout that has left millions of Iranians cut off from the rest of the world. So, how do these videos manage to make it out?
GHARAGOZLOU: Iran has set up an internal internet system for local companies and banks. And for people who can afford it, they buy VPNs and
even Starlink, but Explosive Media doesn't use any of those.
GHARAGOZLOU (voice-over): The group applied for an internet license as a news media company. The license allows news outlets to connect to the
global internet. The process is long and the criteria, unclear.
GHARAGOZLOU: As we wait for a possible deal to end this war, Explosive Media says, they too hope for peace. And in the meantime, they say they'll
keep making these videos.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
SCIUTTO: Coming up, how Minneapolis is remembering the music legend Prince 10 years after his death. Plus, a new release from his estate.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[18:50:00]
SCIUTTO: Today marks 10 years since the death of the legendary pop star Prince and organizers in Minnesota, where he's from, are announcing plans
to celebrate his life in music. His estate commemorating the anniversary by releasing a demo of "With This Tear," a ballad he wrote for Celine Dion.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
(MUSIC PLAYING)
(END VIDEO CLIP)
SCIUTTO: Paisley Park, his former home and studio, will host a series of events in June. Those will lead up to what would have been his 68th
birthday. In addition, his hometown of Minneapolis will host a community singalong.
Joining me now, entertainment journalist Segun Oduolowu. Again, Shagun, good to have you.
SEGUN ODUOLOWU, ENTERTAINMENT JOURNALIST: Thanks, Jim. You know, look, I've got my purple on. So, in remembrance of the single greatest musical
artist of the 20th century, in my opinion, Prince was unlike any other.
SCIUTTO: Wow. You sat down with his ex-wife today. How was that?
ODUOLOWU: It was incredibly informative. Mayte Garcia, she opened up my eyes to the idea of Prince being funny. She said that he had an incredible
sense of humor. He used to prank call her with -- and do accents and different voices. That he -- not only with a sense of humor, he was really
adamant that there weren't sweatpants walking around the house. Every moment, it was glam.
Prince -- there were no down-dressing days in the Prince household. Just little insights to who this person was that we looked at as an icon. There
were still tremendous amounts of love and remembrance. And, again, she toured the world as a dancer. And then later, as his wife, she knew him
quite well.
SCIUTTO: Over the course of the past ten years, his estate has continued to release unheard music from him. Some released as recently as two years
ago. And I wonder how you feel, just as a listener to music. Sometimes I'm a little on the fence about that. I mean, you know, The Beatles had a John
Lennon tune they put out a couple years ago. And that's, of course, been, you know, more than 40 years since he passed away. Is that a good thing?
ODUOLOWU: You know, the music lover in me who's greedy for the art says, yes, yes, yes, give it to me. Give me all the music that you have of
Prince. I want to hear it. But the fan of Prince who respected, he was singular about his thoughts on his music and the rights to his music.
Changing his name to a symbol in order to have more control over what got released was very important to him. There were directives not to do things
with his music. And he wouldn't even let certain people record riffs or snippets of his music if he didn't want that to happen while he was alive.
So, hearing posthumous songs from his estate, I'm on the fence. The music lover wants to hear it. But the person who respects what Prince did for the
music business says that they shouldn't come out.
[18:55:00]
SCIUTTO: Yes, I get it. Well, listen, I can't believe it's been 10 years. I mean, that's another thing, because I remember that day. But we'll see
how June goes. It's going to be a lot of great events for Prince fans. Segun, thanks so much for joining on.
ODUOLOWU: Always a pleasure, Jim.
SCIUTTO: In today's Good Brief, a Japanese artist is lighting up Times Square this month in a celebration of New York City's diversity. The work,
Morning Again, takes place every night, right before midnight. It's part of Times Square Arts' midnight moment. Artist Tomokazu Matsuyama is based in
Brooklyn, but originally hails from Japan. The three-minute-long installation reflects the city's unity and diversity. That's, well, pretty
mesmerizing, as you can see there.
Thanks so much for joining today. I'm Jim Sciutto in Washington. You've been watching "The Brief." Please do stay with CNN.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[19:00:00]
END
