Return to Transcripts main page
The Brief with Jim Sciutto
CNN International: Former FBI Dir. Charged for Allegedly Threatening Trump; Arrest Warrant Issued for Former FBI Director Comey; King Charles Makes Historic Speech to Joint Meeting of Congress; King Charles to Arrive at White House for State Dinner; War Powers Legal Deadline; Sources: Iran Expected to Submit Revised Peace Offer Soon; WH Faces Deadline to Get Congress' Approval on Iran War; NATO Military Spending Spikes; UAE Announces Withdrawal from OPEC. Aired 6-7p ET
Aired April 28, 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, former FBI director James Comey charged with threatening to take the life of the president in an Instagram post. King
Charles hails the unbreakable bond, as he described it, between the U.K. and the U.S. in a speech to Congress. And the United Arab Emirates has quit
OPEC, effective May 1st. It's a big blow to the group.
We do begin in Washington. The Justice Department has indicted former FBI director James Comey for a second time. A court has now issued an arrest
warrant for him. The indictment over this photo posted to Instagram showing seashells on a beach, writing out the numbers 86 and 47. The Justice
Department says these amounts to a threat against the president, because 86 can be slang for getting rid of something, and Trump is the 47th president.
Listen to what acting Attorney General Todd Blanche had to say about the charge.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
TODD BLANCHE, ACTING U.S. ATTORNEY GENERAL: Threatening the life of anybody is dangerous and potentially a crime. Threatening the life of the
president of the United States will never be tolerated by the Department of Justice.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
SCIUTTO: Just a short time ago, Comey posted a response. Have a look.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
JAMES COMEY, FORMER FBI DIRECTOR: Well, they're back. This time about a picture of seashells on a North Carolina beach a year ago. And this won't
be the end of it. But nothing has changed with me. I'm still innocent. I'm still not afraid. And I still believe in the independent federal judiciary.
So, let's go.
But it's really important that all of us remember this is not who we are as a country. This is not how the Department of Justice is supposed to be. And
the good news is we get closer every day to restoring those values. Keep the faith.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
SCIUTTO: Joining me now is Evan Perez. And we know that the president fired Pam Bondi in part because of his upset at not enough progress in
terms of prosecuting his rivals. Can we look at these latest charges and this indictment as something that came together only recently under new
leadership in the Justice Department, or was this in the works for some time?
EVAN PEREZ, CNN SENIOR U.S. JUSTICE CORRESPONDENT: Well, the Justice Department and the FBI both say that they've been working on this since
Comey made that post on Instagram back in May of last year, Jim. And so, that's the context that they say this should be seen in. And they insist
that this is being handled in the course in the way all other these types of cases are being handled.
But obviously, you just laid out why nobody really believes that and why this is being seen in a different light. For instance, we also know these
two counts, which carry a 10-year potential sentence if Comey is convicted, that one of the things that the grand jury also did was issue an arrest
warrant, which presumably was a request made by the Justice Department given the fact that this is a threat against the president of the United
States.
And so, I asked the attorney general, the acting attorney general, at a press conference in the last hour exactly what threat perhaps might be
posed by Comey. Listen to our exchange.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
BLANCHE: The Department of Justice does not issue arrest warrants. Grand juries do. And so, the grand jury returned an indictment and an arrest
warrant. I expect that there will be communication with Mr. Comey's counsel, and we'll go from there.
[18:05:00]
This case will proceed like hundreds of others do every year. There will be some sort of arraignment set by the judge or assigned to the magistrate
judge. And when that happens, you'll know about it.
PEREZ: But this is being handled differently from the last time he was indicted. That's my reference. In this case, the department requested an
arrest warrant, right?
BLANCHE: Well, I don't think that it's public or clear what the department requested. The grand jury issued an arrest warrant.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
PEREZ: And, Jim, you know, the context for this also is that we know that obviously Comey was indicted just a few months ago on a false statements
case. That case ended up being tossed by a judge in part because of the way the acting U.S. attorney at the time was appointed. There was a
technicality. But one of the things we know from behind the scenes is that the president was upset about the way that was handled.
And so, the question is, you know, how did they handle this way? We know one of the things the president would love to see is for Comey to get a
perp walk. What we're told is that there's some negotiation ongoing right now for him to turn himself in. We'll see whether that is the way this goes
down. But, you know, the fact remains the president has a lot of pressure on the acting attorney general here to try to produce these cases against
people who he believes wronged him. And so, that pressure continues every day.
SCIUTTO: And you're saying that that request for an arrest warrant, that there's evidence that came specifically from the Justice Department to
deliver on the president's desire for a perp walk?
PEREZ: Well, that's -- see, that's the question I was trying to get to the to the attorney -- the acting attorney general. He didn't seem to want to
answer it because it is very different from the way the other cases were handled, right? And so, that that was simply my question is, why are you
seeking an arrest warrant? Is it do you believe that he is an ongoing threat to the president United States? He didn't answer the question, but
you can see why I asked it, because we know that the president wants this. And so, the question is, are they going to do what the president wants up
to that point?
SCIUTTO: It's a good question. He didn't quite answer it. Evan Perez, thanks so much.
PEREZ: Thanks, Jim.
SCIUTTO: Well, joining me now from Cooley Law School professor and former judge Jeff Swartz. Jeff, first on the law, it's good to have you here. So,
my understanding is prosecutors have to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Comey knowingly and willfully made a serious expression of intent
beyond just political hyperbole to harm the president of the United States. First question is, is there evidence of that in this social media posting?
JEFF SWARTZ, FORMER MIAMI-DADE COUNTY JUDGE AND PROFESSOR, THOMAS M. COOLEY LAW SCHOOL: There doesn't appear to be any proof that he meant it to be or
took it as a threat or tried to convey it as a threat. He even spoke to this about a year ago. I think it was on 60 Minutes or something. He talked
about it and he said, no, I just saw this on the sand and I took a picture and I thought it was kind of cool. So, I put it up on my Instagram. I don't
think that he ever meant it and I don't think they're going to be able to prove that he meant it as a threat or that he was trying to convey it as a
threat.
The case law is abundantly clear. There's the Watts, the Elonis case, the Counterman case. All of them stand by the same thing. It is a subjective
standard. That is, what did Comey think in his mind? Not what the reasonable man would think. So, at this point, I don't know where it's
going to go.
SCIUTTO: How about this second issue of the unusual circumstances of an arrest warrant? Would there have to be a reason reasonable evidence that
Comey still poses a threat to the president? As far as I know, he took the post down after he saw some of the outrage here. Is the arrest warrant
unusual? And do you see something fishy there?
SWARTZ: It is. It is unusual for someone like Comey and others who have been permitted. Even Trump, who had 34 counts against him, was not perp
walked. He walked in, he surrendered and he was taken directly to court. So, he wants to punish Comey by having him perp walk, which is meant to
embarrass him.
I think what I saw today were two people who are clearly unserious people. That's Bill Brennan, the president's former lawyer, and Blanche, who have
become nothing more than pitchmen for trying to sell an idea that recklessness is the standard to apply here. And it's not. It's a specific
intent crime. It is a subjective standard. And he tried to sell it that way. It's not the way it happened.
And to say that the grand jury issues the subpoena, they only do -- I mean, the warrant that -- they only do that if the if the U.S. attorney requests
it.
[18:10:00]
SCIUTTO: Yes. Now, --
SWARTZ: They're going to do it otherwise.
SCIUTTO: -- where do you see this -- the last case before Comey dismissed by a judge. Where do you see this case going?
SWARTZ: I see eventually that -- it may actually have to go to trial, Jim, because there's a fact finding that has to be done on what his intent is. I
don't know that a judge can dismiss this case based upon some claim that there's no evidence of intent. So, as a result of which it may end up being
directed verdict at the close of the government's case. But I'm not sure that a judge is going to dismiss it, especially in the eastern district of
Carolina -- North Carolina.
SCIUTTO: Even just to have a trial might be part of the intent as well.
SWARTZ: Yes.
SCIUTTO: Well, Jeff Swartz, always good to have you on. Thanks so much.
SWARTZ: Have a good day, Jim. Thanks.
SCIUTTO: Well, some pomp and circumstance, here in Washington, Britain's King Charles and Queen Camilla are soon going to arrive at the White House
for State Dinner. They are now on day two of their first state visit to the U.S. as king and queen.
Earlier, King Charles delivered an address to a joint meeting of Congress. Congress only the second time a British monarch has done so. This after his
mother, the late Queen Elizabeth, back in 1991. In his speech, notably, King Charles praised NATO. The military alliance President Trump has
repeatedly criticized and expressed disdain for.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
KING CHARLES III, UNITED KINGDOM: In the immediate aftermath of 9/11, when NATO invoked Article 5 for the first time and the United Nations Security
Council was united in the face of terror, we answered the call together as our people have done so for more than a century, shoulder to shoulder
through two world wars, the Cold War, Afghanistan, and moments that have defined our shared security. Today, Mr. Speaker, that same unyielding
resolve is needed for the defense of Ukraine and her most courageous people.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
SCIUTTO: Kristen Holmes is at the White House. And, you know, those two messages there, support for NATO and support for Ukraine, I mean, those are
two things President Trump is clearly not on board for, right? I wonder, how did the White House receive those messages?
KRISTEN HOLMES, CNN SENIOR WHITE HOUSE CORRESPONDENT: Look, we haven't seen a reaction from President Trump, but it is likely that he's going to
sweep this under the rug. He feels as though he has a very strong relationship with King Charles. And the message was coded enough. There was
no direct attack on President Trump or on the state of the country overall.
But they were pointed remarks, and actually much more pointed than many of us thought that he was going to deliver because the king generally doesn't
get involved in day-to-day politics. But as we had noted, part of his mission here in the United States was to try and potentially smooth over
the relationship between the United States and the United Kingdom. And from what we're hearing from lawmakers on Capitol Hill, he did a lot to restore
that relationship.
Now, ultimately, it's going to come down to President Trump because he is the one who has been lambasting the prime minister of the U.K., Keir
Starmer, over and over again for not joining the war against Iran. But it was a notably and slightly coded message to Congress.
Now, I thought one of the most fascinating parts of all of this was the fact that he received bipartisan support. He had the entire place on their
feet clapping. And you could see the message that he was sending about the similarities and the union between the U.S. and the U.K. was resonating
with these lawmakers, both the staunch MAGA side as well as Democrats. It is rare these days in that chamber that you see that kind of response to
anyone speaking.
And certainly, King Charles seemed to have really thread that needle there and gotten that wide range of support. Of course, we'll see him again later
tonight. He is probably coming back in likely 45 minutes. We'll see an arrival. There will be heads of state. There will be CEOs present. They are
going to have this State Dinner, a white tie State Dinner. And I know you can't actually see it behind me because the shot is too close, but we can
actually hear they have violinists and various instrument players lined up along the walkway for those arrivals to come. They're playing music
already.
And it is likely to be a very happy and uplifting event. Even, again, from the lawmakers who generally support Trump and everything, they felt moved
from the ones I've spoken to by King Charles' remarks.
[18:15:00]
SCIUTTO: Well, they'll applaud them, but they won't vote for that Ukraine aid, will they? That's a different thing. Kristen Holmes at the White
House, thanks so much.
For more now, CNN royal historian Kate Williams joins me. And, Kate, I wondered as you heard those words there, clearly President Trump enjoys his
relationship with King Charles. He's rolling out the red carpet, literally, with a state visit here. But those messages were quite direct and on issues
that President Trump has dug his heels in on.
Diminishing NATO, diminishing aid for Ukraine. There was even a moment there that my producer noticed that President Trump had disparaged the
British Navy a week or so ago, and Charles made note of the fact that he and many of his predecessors served in the British Navy.
KATE WILLIAMS, CNN ROYAL HISTORIAN: Yes, exactly. There was a real contrast, wasn't there, between President Trump's speech towards Charles,
which was full of personal praise for Charles, saying he was elegant, intellectual, that President Trump's mother had been in love with him,
that, you know, this praise of Britain, this enthusiasm for British culture, even going as far as saying that the American revolutionary spirit
came from Britain.
It was a very enthusiastic and fulsome speech, and Charles' speech was warm, it was gentle, it received a lot of laughs about the jokes, but it
was, as you were saying, very pointed, extremely political for a non- political monarch, particularly about Ukraine, about his reference to safeguarding nature, to the disastrously melting ice caps, and, as you were
saying there, to the Royal Navy, which President Trump, you know, has dismissed Royal Navy boats, and there was Charles saying how important it
was, he was also stating the importance of NATO, that Britain had fought in Afghanistan, which has also had doubt thrown upon it by members of the
Trump administration.
And there was, indeed, a very veiled, but it was there, reference to the Epstein victims. King Charles talked about the victims of the tragic ills
in both of our societies today, and it has been made clear to CNN that the victims of Epstein were in his mind at that point.
So, really, this was Charles' moment, and he wasn't necessarily going to say what might please everyone there, he was going to say what he felt,
what the British government felt, and it was a strong, strong speech about democracy, about the checks and balances on democracy, about the purpose of
America, the weight of America's words towards the world, and the responsibility for peace, and I'm not sure how much influence it will have,
but certainly he went up there and he said it.
SCIUTTO: Yes. He's often served as something of a buffer between the British government and the U.S. I wonder, would this have been deliberately
coordinated, the king's messages, with the prime minister, the prime minister's office, the ambassador, to kind of find a, well, a channel,
right, open a channel between the king and the president for Britain's greater interests?
WILLIAMS: Yes, there would have been many emails going round and round, various versions of this speech, it would all have gone through Sir Keir
Starmer, our prime minister, through the British ambassador, through various members of government, this was all signed off at the highest level
of the British government, so what King Charles said, Keir Starmer was behind it.
And I noted also that King Charles said, my prime minister, Keir Starmer, certainly Keir Starmer has been beleaguered by President Trump who does not
agree with him whatsoever, they don't agree on the Iran war. And also, it has to be noted that Sir Keir Starmer is also under threat here in Britain,
he's not popular, there's challenges to him, I think this would have stood him in good stead in Britain and abroad.
But this was, I think, you know, Charles not just representing the U.K., U.K. government, taking seriously his role as soft power, creating a good
relationship between the U.S. and the U.K., because we really do need a good relationship with the U.S. and the U.K., but also, I think, trying to
put himself on the stage as a world leader, this was his moment to speak to the world, he will have not many diplomatic state visits during his reign,
let's face it, and this was his moment to speak to the world and say, we should focus on unity, on democracy, peace, and safeguarding the natural
environment, and that is, I think, going to be looked on by history, and I think he's going to be very well judged by history for his speech today.
SCIUTTO: Yes, the message is about democracy as well, well noted. Kate Williams, good to have you, thanks so much.
WILLIAMS: Thank you.
SCIUTTO: Well, while the back and forth continues between Washington and Tehran in efforts to end the Iran war, a legal deadline looms to give
Congress a possible say in the President's war powers as related to Iran, we're going to take a look, coming up.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[18:20:00]
SCIUTTO: To the war with Iran now. Sources tell us that U.S. -- that mediators in Pakistan expect a revised peace proposal from Tehran in the
next several days. This after President Trump rejected the latest Iranian proposal to end the war first and kick the nuclear program issue down the
road.
This week on Capitol Hill, a 60-day legal deadline passes that would theoretically force the president to seek congressional approval or end the
conflict. Senator Susan Collins told our Manu Raju what would happen next under the War Powers Act.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
SEN. SUSAN COLLINS (R-ME): After 60 days, in my view, the president has to obtain congressional approval or Congress can block it. Those are the two
choices, but there has to be action by Congress.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
SCIUTTO: Joining me now, Democratic Congressman Mike Quigley, who is often pushed for Congress's say in the war. Congressman, thanks so much for
joining.
REP. MIKE QUIGLEY (D-IL), U.S. HOUSE APPROPRIATIONS COMMITTEE AND U.S. HOUSE INTELLIGENCE COMMITTEE: Glad to be back. Thank you.
SCIUTTO: So, for a time, you did have a smattering of Republicans begin to voice support for some sort of vote to limit the president's powers,
particularly when the 60-day deadline was up. But now you have some saying, well, maybe we extend the clock another 60 days here, raising questions
given there's a ceasefire, et cetera. I wonder, do you see this as a sign that that limited GOP support is dissolving?
QUIGLEY: You know, not yet. I mean, the fact of the matter is they're feeling the same pressure everyone is. You know, we are losing service
members. There's a threat of escalation. There's a threat of terrorism in our country. And, of course, the incredible impact on our economy. In my
district, gas is $4.81 a gallon. So, I think that's still there.
And the fact is there's a 60-day deadline, but the president can extend it himself by 30 days with notification. But at some point, you're right, this
comes to a head. And at that point, well, you know, we've already seen votes in the House where Republicans flipped over, but we were still one
vote short of calling the president on the floor.
So, I think it'll continue to be close. I think those ongoing pressures are going to keep the Republicans at least talking about limiting the
president's power.
[18:25:00]
SCIUTTO: Might the president himself choose to end this given the economic pressures that you talk about, his dismal approver weightings, concerns
about the midterm elections, and his own apparent loss of interest in the war? For now, that could change. I know there are meetings about at least
the possibility of additional U.S. military action. But do you see the president, his own interest, support for this war waning?
QUIGLEY: I think the president maybe is starting to realize he's not going to get regime change without all-out war. He is not going to get the regime
to turn over its nuclear materials without all-out war. And the gist of that becomes if he's going to do this diplomatically, that agreement's
going to look a heck of a lot if he's lucky like JCPOA, the treaty he criticized so roundly, but one in which the Iranians were in compliance
with.
So, at this point in time, I suspect he may say, declare victory, give it some unique justification, declare victory and go home. And we're still
going to be paying for this for some time.
SCIUTTO: So, on another topic, as we were just reporting, King Charles addresses Congress. And in that address, he voices strong support for two
things that President Trump has taken aim at, NATO, but also support for Ukraine. And you saw bipartisan applause there. But you haven't seen, and
you know this better than me, bipartisan votes to supply Ukraine with additional support. Do you see the king is moving, if not the president,
any of your Republican colleagues to do something?
QUIGLEY: Look, I enjoyed the king's speech. I didn't know what to expect, but it was thoughtful. It was unifying. It was at times humorous. And I
truly appreciate the fact that he brought up 9/11 and at that point in time, NATO had our backs, we had theirs. The lesson from Emerson about
foreign policy, to have a friend, you need to be one. The effort in Ukraine is going to need U.S. help. But recall that every time a supplemental to
help Ukraine got to the House floor, it got 300 votes, half the Republicans and all of the Democrats.
So, if Trump were to allow Johnson or Johnson were to be an independent speaker, the bill would get on the floor or it would pass. So, I still see
overwhelming support in the House. It's not a question of getting more than half the Republicans. It's getting the speaker to allow the vote to take
place, and that's on Trump.
SCIUTTO: On another topic today, James Comey, indicted a second time by the Trump administration, and this time with the unusual detail of an
apparent request for an arrest warrant. What's your reaction to this news?
QUIGLEY: Yes. This is -- this would be a joke if it wasn't so serious, right? This is truly weaponizing the Department of Justice, treating it as
your own political, go after your political enemy's force.
That is very, very scary, and the victim in this case isn't just Mr. Comey, it's the system of justice. This is predicated on a sign in seashells. You
know, I did criminal defense as an attorney for 10 years. No one would ever imagine that anyone would take this seriously. But when the President of
the United States has the Justice Department behind him, you know, here we are.
But this is, this is what a tyrant does. He weaponizes the system of government against its people. It's a lesson that someone can be elected
democratically and then use those same tools of democracy to try to bring that system down.
SCIUTTO: Congressman Mike Quigley, appreciate having you on.
QUIGLEY: Anytime, thank you.
SCIUTTO: Just ahead, NATO's military spending is surging as President Trump, though, continues to question the U.S. commitment to the alliance.
European allies are not the only ones spending more. We'll discuss.
(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.
King Charles emphasized the values of democracy in an historic speech to the U.S. Congress. His address focused on the long-shared history of the
U.K. and the U.S. It also took a moment to praise NATO, an alliance President Trump has repeatedly criticized. He concluded by saying,
America's words have weight and meaning.
An arrest warrant has been issued for former FBI Director James Comey after the Justice Department has now indicted him for a second time. Comey
charged with making a threat against President Trump by posting a photo online of seashells on a beach which spelled out the numbers 86 and 47. The
indictment says a reasonable person would interpret those numbers in that post as an intent to do harm to the president.
A U.S. Army Special Forces soldier involved in capturing Venezuela's former president has pleaded not guilty. He is accused of misusing classified
information to bet on a prediction market making about $400,000 in illegal profits. Gannon Ken Van Dyke who is stationed at Fort Bragg was released on
a $250,000 bond.
A new study has found that global military spending surged nearly 3 percent last year. Much of that growth fueled by Europe. The world's biggest
spender, the U.S. actually cut back on spending in 2025. NATO's European members on their on the other hand increased their military spending the
most since the 1950s. Belgium's military spending grew nearly 60 percent followed by Spain, Norway and Denmark.
Joining me now is the defense minister -- Belgian minister of defense and - - foreign trade, I should say, Theo Francken. Thanks so much for taking the time.
THEO FRANCKEN, BELGIAN MINISTER OF DEFENSE AND FOREIGN TRADE: Thank you.
SCIUTTO: So, you're here in Washington visiting among others your counterpart, U.S. Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth, which with much to
discuss on the table from NATO to defense spending to the war in Iran, issues that the U.S. and Belgium and other NATO nations have had
disagreements on. Have you gotten a warm welcome in this country?
[18:35:00]
FRANCKEN: A very warm welcome actually by Mr. Hegseth but also saw Mr. Colby and a lot of other undersecretaries. So, no, it was very good, it was
very positive. We had a good discussion, we always have good discussions, open discussions like we're used to within NATO, within our alliance. So,
yes, it went well, yes.
SCIUTTO: OK. Let's go down to some of the issues that have been subjects of disagreement. Let's start with the Strait of Hormuz because Secretary
Hegseth has pointed the figure at Europe and saying, listen, opening the Strait is really your problem because the U.S. doesn't need that oil to the
degree that Europe does. What was your response to that criticism? And do you believe that European nations will step in to try to open it?
FRANCKEN: Yes. We will because we're there with the Coalition of the Willing under the French and the British presidency. They're really trying
to have a lot of nations with concrete capabilities to go and go to the Strait of Hormuz and Belgium, for example, is sending a mine hunter. We're
pre-positioning this mine hunter because it was a NATO operation in the Baltic Sea, high in the north. Now, it's going to the Mediterranean, east
of the Mediterranean, so it can really quickly operate in the Strait of Hormuz to do demining operation.
We are small armed forces, but one of the niches that really -- we have great capabilities, that is demining. We have the NATO Center of Excellence
in demining for many years, and it is really something that Belgium can really contribute to, and we will. We will contribute.
SCIUTTO: From Belgium's perspective, was this war, I suppose I should say is this war, because it still continues here, there's a ceasefire but not
an end to it. Has this war been worth it? Has it served the national security of the United States or the Middle East, of Europe?
FRANCKEN: But I will never cry for the ayatollahs. It's the most cruel regime of the world. The theocracy and the religious Nazi regime in Tehran.
And when you see what's happening after 7 October, the cruel attack on Israel's innocent civilians, and everything that happened afterwards, then
you can explain this as one of the next steps. IRGC is the head of the octopus. We have all the arms, all the proxies, Hamas, Islamic Jihad, the
Houthis, al-Shaabi in Iraq, and this is Hezbollah in Lebanon. So, this is just -- and this is all being indicated, being organized by IRGC, by the
regime in Tehran.
So, I'm not surprised, I will not cry for the ayatollahs, but of course, it's very difficult to obtain the goals because it's a huge country, it's a
very old civilization, and it's been taken hostage for 50 years now by the ayatollahs. So, very difficult situation, absolutely very difficult
situation, also for energy of course, and a lot of impact on energy prices in Europe.
SCIUTTO: The trouble is, the regime is still in power, Iran still maintains hundreds of kilograms of highly enriched uranium, by U.S.
intelligence assessments it maintains perhaps 50 percent of its missile capability, and it retains power, it seems, to shut the Strait of Hormuz.
Did that -- does any of this amount to success in this war?
FRANCKEN: But I don't think this is finished. I think that the fact that there is a regime that wants to evaporate, to really attack fundamentally
and destroy Israel, it will remain a huge problem and maybe the key problem in the Middle East. So, is the operation successful at this moment? It's
difficult to say. But I don't think it's finished.
The Strait of Hormuz has no -- there's no negotiation for the moment, there's no solution for the moment. So, let's see about that. I can only
say from a Belgian's perspective -- Belgian defense perspective that we're ready to operate with our demining vessel as soon as possible within the
Coalition of the Willing when there's a stable ceasefire and we can contribute actively in opening the Strait of Hormuz and that is what we're
trying to do because we need to have the -- that the Strait of Hormuz opens again. We need freedom of navigation, it's crucial. We have one of the
biggest ports of the world in Antwerp, in our country, one of the biggest ports of Europe, so we need freedom of navigation, it is paramount.
SCIUTTO: Let's talk, if we can, about NATO now. I've spoken for months to officials from NATO nations who express doubts about America's commitment
to the alliance and you hear those comments in public too from the German Chancellor, from the Canadian Prime Minister. Do Belgian leaders believe
that the U.S. is still invested in this alliance and crucially, if Belgium, if the alliance were to be attacked, would you trust the U.S. to come to
your defense?
[18:40:00]
FRANCKEN: I think that's most important is, are they -- what is the U.S. doing? They have pretty much 100,000 U.S. military in Europe every single
day. They got paid, their wages got paid by U.S. taxpayers, by U.S. citizens. The U.S. administration is still investing highly in NATO
programs.
The bill that has been introduced, the budget for 2027, it increases the NATO programs. So, you have rhetoric and then you have like the facts. So,
United States is not abandoning NATO, they're increasing the budget spending on NATO programs.
And is NATO a paper tiger? Sometimes it is too much bureaucracy, but NATO is also very operational. We're doing so much operations, we're working so
good together, we're integrated, we're interoperational on the operational level. So, I think that's saying that NATO is a paper tiger. Can we cut red
tape? Yes, absolutely. But I am from Belgium, we can cut red tape in our administration as well. So, within NATO, we need to do this as well. But
saying that we're only a paper tiger of bureaucracy, that's just not true.
So, I think that the reality is that we keep on believing in NATO. Personally, when we're stepping up to 2 percent and even more going up to 5
percent, then I'm sure and I'm certain when we take our responsibility as European allies to step up on the conventional, that at the end, the
Americans will keep on helping us out when there's a problem.
SCIUTTO: The thing is, when President Trump says NATO is a paper tiger, and that, as you know, is not his only comment denigrating NATO, he has
questioned whether NATO is useful to the U.S. He describes it as a burden, not as an ally or as an asset. Do you think that Vladimir Putin believes
that the U.S. will still defend Europe? Because that's key, right?
Because, you know, it's all about credibility. And it's a question of whether your adversaries believe in the alliance. Do you believe Putin
trusts the U.S. commitment to NATO?
FRANCKEN: But when the United States has America First policies, I don't have problems with that personally. But when they think that when America
First gets finally at the end, it becomes America alone, then also the American empire will fall. Every empire falls when they don't have allies.
You need allies.
Yes, we need America, because the military dominance is there. They're the best armed forces of the world, without any hesitation, I say this. But
America needs Europe as well. Without allies, it's impossible. So, America First, OK, when you want that, do that. But America alone, that would be a
very big and huge strategic mistake.
So, is Putin drinking champagne every time that we're very offensive towards each other within our alliance? Yes, he's drinking champagne, a lot
of champagne, I think.
So, personally, my only demand is to stop with this. When there's discussion, when we have a crisis, we have a longstanding marriage of 80
years, and we have a marriage crisis now for more than one year. And it's a deep crisis, a difficult crisis. I'm married for 20 years, and it's not
always easy.
So, I think that we need to keep on talking, having dialogue, listening to each other. And that's also why I'm here. We need to talk, and having good
dialogue, and sort our problems out. And we have some issues, of course. And when we are frustrated as Europeans by the rhetoric, and aggressive,
and brutality, and Americans are frustrated because they have to pay the bill, and we're free riders in Europe, like we're promising a lot, but
we're not doing.
I understand that the frustration of the Americans, but also, of course, the frustration that we have in Europe. And we need to have the dialogue,
because we're stronger together. At the end, to defend freedom, democracy, rule of law, we're stronger together and divided we'll fall. United we'll
stand, divided we will fall. We in Europe, but also here in America. That's my message. And it went well, I think.
SCIUTTO: OK.
FRANCKEN: And thank you for having me here.
SCIUTTO: No. And we appreciate getting a sense of the message you delivered to U.S. officials today. Theo Francken, we appreciate you joining
the program.
FRANCKEN: Thank you so much.
SCIUTTO: Nice to have you. And safe travels home.
FRANCKEN: Thank you.
SCIUTTO: Still ahead, a brand-new blow to OPEC. One of its key members is leaving the oil cartel amid the ongoing energy crisis in the Gulf. What it
means for oil prices. That's next.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[18:45:00]
SCIUTTO: As the Iran war causes the global energy crisis to deepen, the United Arab Emirates has announced it is withdrawing from OPEC effective
May 1st. The UAE has long argued that OPEC members should be allowed to pump more than the cartel allows.
Joining us now to discuss what this all means, Kevin Book, Managing Director of Clearview Energy Partners. Kevin, good to have you.
KEVIN BOOK, MANAGING DIRECTOR, CLEARVIEW ENERGY PARTNERS: Good to see you, Jim.
SCIUTTO: So, tell us about UAE specifically, because they have an advantage, right? Because they could actually get some of their oil out
around the Strait of Hormuz. I mean, is this a unique departure or is this a bigger picture problem for OPEC?
BOOK: Well, first of all, there is crude getting out through Fujairah in the Gulf of Oman, which travels by pipeline. But that is only about half, a
little bit more than half of the Emirates' current production capacity.
So, it is one thing to say that they want to produce more oil. Now, that they'll leave OPEC, they'll have the opportunity to do so. But of course,
they won't be able to do that until the Strait is fully reopened to vessels carrying their crude.
SCIUTTO: OK. From a U.S. perspective, of course, the U.S. now is a net exporter, far less dependent than we were on OPEC back in the 70s, etc.
Would a weaker OPEC be good for the U.S.? Give it more leverage over the global supply?
BOOK: It's kind of interesting how you define good. From an energy price perspective, and I think all of us are drivers, even if only a small
percentage of the country works in the energy sector. For drivers, an OPEC with less restraint on global markets, because a major producer is now
outside the club and able to produce as much as it wants, implies more supply. More supply, at least in the short-term, means lower prices.
But in the long-term, OPEC has also played a managing role in balancing markets. It has sometimes been useful because that extra supply they kept
in reserve was available for when the world was short. One of the consequences of the Emirates leaving OPEC, if they start to produce flat
out, they won't be maintaining spare capacity any longer.
SCIUTTO: How about then for consumers, and not just consumers here in the U.S., but particularly those consumers in Asia and in Europe that have been
hit hardest by this latest energy squeeze?
[18:50:00]
BOOK: Well, again, this is something that I think that the benefits, to the extent they affect consumers through lower prices, are going to wait
until we're on the other side, not just of the reopening of the Strait of Hormuz, but also the restocking of inventories that have been so deeply
depleted by the crisis. We're talking about a matter of months, many months, until inventories start to normalize.
Demand could weaken and lower prices in that fashion, but nobody likes it when that happens. That means that demand is collapsing because the prices
have been too high, and those importing countries are experiencing economic hardship.
SCIUTTO: Still a lot. A lot of pain to be, well, taken care of. Kevin Book, thanks so much for joining.
BOOK: Thanks for having me on.
SCIUTTO: Coming up, just after the break, a state banquet awaits King Charles after a rousing speech to U.S. lawmakers, where he did not shy away
from topics of disagreement between the U.K. and the U.S. We'll take a look coming up.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
SCIUTTO: A State Dinner just about to begin at the White House. Earlier, Britain's King Charles delivered a forceful speech on Capitol Hill. The
king, pushing back on several issues with President Trump, has disagreed with Britain on recently. He spoke, for instance, about the importance of
caring for the environment. Reminding lawmakers as well that NATO was there for them after 9/11. Charles emphasized the close bonds that remain between
the two nations today.
Max Foster follows the King and he joins me now. Max, were you surprised by how the King approached those comments to Congress?
MAX FOSTER, CNN ROYAL CORRESPONDENT: Well, he does lean into issues more readily than his mother, so we're used to that type of monarchy. I do think
it is a bit different. He didn't actually compromise his role in any way because he can't be involved in British politics or Australian or Canadian
politics. But actually, there's nothing to stop him getting involved in American politics. You could argue a lot of the issues he's touched on were
live political issues. I think he was quite taken aback by a lot of the reaction. He seemed to have bipartisan standing ovations, which is pretty
extraordinary when you consider how divided Congress is at the moment.
But there are parts of it that he was very strong on. I mean, he talked about the weight of history on his shoulders, but he didn't hold back,
certainly for a monarch. So, I think one of the parts he was talking about, he started talking about Magna Carta, you know, the set of rules, if you
like, that underpin U.K. law, which also underpin the U.S. Constitution, and how within that are very clear checks on the power of the executive,
which obviously went down very well in Congress, but it's quite pointed towards the White House.
I wonder if he -- you know, he's speaking as a foreigner, he's got a world view, but he was very respectful at the same time. And we know that he does
perhaps have a bit of license with President Trump, because they are very close as individuals. So, it'll be interesting to see how it plays out. But
in terms of the political reaction in the room, it seemed OK.
[18:55:00]
SCIUTTO: Yes. Well, it was notable that the White House tweeted a picture of the two of them with the headline Two Kings. Perhaps that was their
response. Max Foster at the White House, thanks so much for joining.
And thanks so much, all of you for joining. I'm Jim Sciutto in Washington. You've been watching "The Brief." Please do stay with CNN.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[19:00:00]
END
