Return to Transcripts main page

The Brief with Jim Sciutto

CNN International: U.S. and Iran Trade Fire in the Strait of Hormuz; Trump Launches Operation Seeking to Open Hormuz Strait; Trump's Disapproval Rating Rises to 64 Percent; Future of the U.S.-Europe Military Relationship; Intel Report: Kremlin Tightens Security Around Putin; Blake Lively and Justin Baldoni Reach Lawsuit Settlement. Aired 6-7p ET

Aired May 04, 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, the U.S. and Iran trade fire in the Strait of Hormuz after President Trump said the U.S. Navy will start guiding, though not

escorting, U.S. ships or ships through the waterway. A European intelligence report finds that Russia's Vladimir Putin has tightened

security over fears of an attempted assassination or coup. And Blake Lively and Justin Baldoni have settled an acrimonious lawsuit connected to the

movie "It Ends With Us."

President Trump says that Iran's forces will be, quote, "blown off the face of the earth" if they target U.S. ships. That warning comes as Iran and the

U.S. have traded fire in the Strait of Hormuz. President Trump says the U.S. destroyed seven small Iranian boats there. He also says, quote, "Iran

has taken some shots at unrelated nations with respect to the ship movement Project Freedom, including a cargo ship from South Korea. Perhaps it's time

for South Korea to come join the mission, exclamation point."

The United Arab Emirates says its air defenses engaged nearly 20 incoming Iranian missiles and drones. Despite all this, President Trump says it's

all working out just fine.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

DONALD TRUMP, U.S. PRESIDENT: We can't let Iran have a nuclear weapon. We had all new highs and I said we have to take care of business because we

can't let that happen. So, we did a little detour and it's working out very nicely. They have no Navy. They have no air force. They have no anti-

aircraft equipment. They have no radar. They have no nothing. They have no leaders, actually.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

SCIUTTO: Well, fact is, they're still firing. U.S. Central Command says two U.S. flag vessels successfully transited the Strait after the president

announced that the U.S. military would help guide some of the many ships stranded there. Tehran, however, has rejected. The president's claim is

baseless. Shipping giant Maersk says one of its U.S. flag vessels moved through the waterway with U.S. military protection. It is not clear whether

that is one of the two ships that sent convention. Fact is, there are many ships that have not transited.

Kristen Holmes is live at the White House. It's an interesting balance here, Kristen, isn't it? Because the president, he's not escorting these

ships through. He's offering to guide them. It's a bit less of a military footprint there. Are White House officials convinced that this is going to

open it all up?

KRISTEN HOLMES, CNN SENIOR WHITE HOUSE CORRESPONDENT: I don't think they are convinced of anything right now. And I will say that we've been told by

every expert and by U.S. officials that actually escorting these ships could be dangerous. And that's why they've chosen to do this kind of

guiding of the ships.

I think what's been really interesting is you've seen President Trump kind of walk this fine line for the past two days. One, we've seen an increase

in his rhetoric talking about, as you mentioned, blowing them off the face of the earth if they were to go after a U.S. ship, for example. But he also

has been saying things like, I know my negotiators are working towards something.

And he just did an interview with Hugh Hewitt, who is an ally of his, in which he refused to answer the question of whether or not the ceasefire was

over. And obviously, that is intentional. I saw him just about an hour ago. He walked right by me. And I asked that question. He looked at me and

continued walking. And there were several reporters there asking the same question. He does not want to answer anything in terms of where the

ceasefire stands. And specifically, he said, if I answered that question, he was about strikes resuming, he said, you'd say this man isn't smart

enough to be president.

Well, he obviously just doesn't want to put anything out there yet, as we know that these kind of backdoor, behind the scenes negotiations are still

happening. But interestingly, later in the interview, he said that the war with Iran, at least militarily, was essentially over. So, it's really,

we're getting so many messages here.

[18:05:00]

One thing we know for certain, late last week, before the last proposal that you heard President Trump saying he was disappointed in, U.S.

officials were expressing a lot of optimism. They were saying that Iran was moving in the right direction. They felt good about whatever Iran was going

to come back with. Obviously, that shifted after they got the proposal that President Trump went on and on about how disappointed he was, that it

wasn't what he wanted, that he was unhappy.

And now it seems to be moving to this place where we're back into using the blustery language, the rhetoric, blowing you off the face of this earth,

but also still trying to protect this ceasefire, trying to protect these negotiations. And it's just unclear what is going to happen next. I know

we've said that a lot when it comes to this war with Iran, but it does seem as though, minute by minute, the advancements, the decisions are shifting

and changing.

And yes, it's a malleable situation. And we know President Trump has continued to say that he believes that Iran might make a deal, though he

did say once over the weekend that he didn't know if they'd ever be ready to actually make a serious deal.

But when do we get to the point or when does the United States get to the point in which they walk away, given that we have continued to say now for

nine weeks that we believe, you know, we being the United States, believes that Iran is going to make a deal and then only to have things fall apart?

And now, we're seeing shots fired in the Strait of Hormuz.

SCIUTTO: It's a good analysis of where we stand here, Kristen. No one has a better seat than you. We'll see how it progresses. Thanks so much.

HOLMES: Thanks, Jim.

SCIUTTO: Joining me now for a military assessment, retired Lieutenant General Ben Hodges, former commander of the U.S. Army in Europe. Ben, good

to have you back.

LT. GEN. BEN HODGES (RET.), FORMER COMMANDER, U.S. ARMY EUROPE: Thank you, Jim.

SCIUTTO: You know, it strikes me listening to Kristen there that this is quite a established Trump playbook here, which is to browbeat and threaten

and hope that that leads your partner on the negotiating table to give in. And we've seen him try this with Ukraine to get an end to that war. We've

seen him try with NATO over Greenland. The fact is, it hasn't always worked, right, with allies or adversaries.

And I wonder, from a strategic standpoint, do you believe it's working with Iran or perhaps Iran calculates it has some continued leverage here?

HODGES: I think it's clear that the Iranians still believe that they can make their own decisions. The idea of launching missiles against the UAE,

for example, is not only a response to the U.S.'s declaration of this Operation Freedom, but also it's a signal to everybody else that they're

going to have to get permission from Iran to use this threat.

The language -- and Kristen did a very good job in her analysis, I thought, just now. The language is also confusing for the sailors. I mean, the men

and women out there who are underway having to carry out these missions, when there's uncertainty about are you guiding, are you escorting, are you

protecting, I've heard all different variations on that theme throughout the day-to-day. And this will affect the rules of engagement that Secretary

Hegseth always shows so much disdain for, what their actions are. And if there ever was a time that we needed clarity on the mission and the

expectation, it's right now.

SCIUTTO: You have said that opening the Strait would be a resource- intensive nightmare. So, the president chooses this, I guess you call it a middle ground, guiding ships as opposed to escorting them. Is guiding ships

through the state, from your perspective, a credible military operation? It's not quite protecting them from fire, but maybe showing them the path

of least resistance. And it's hard to understand exactly what it is.

HODGES: It's not a normal or traditional military task word. However, I think our great Navy is figuring out a way to identify the mines that are

out there. Perhaps they will clear some of the ones that are out there. But I think they really are going to try and point the way to mariners who want

to move through the Strait to get out of there, that the U.S. Navy would identify a path based on their assessment of what sort of a lane is clear

of the mines.

Now, of course, as we know from history, the enemy always gets a vote. And the Navy knows that just because there might not be a mine there now,

doesn't mean that there won't be one there later. So, that's what I meant by the resource-intensive effort. It's going to require unblinking eye,

constant surveillance, constant effort. Otherwise, shipping companies, insurance companies will not have confidence enough to do this.

[18:10:00]

SCIUTTO: I mean, the thing is that from an asymmetric perspective, Iran doesn't have to get most of its shots through. It doesn't even have to get

a minority, a small minority. You get five out of a hundred, one out of a hundred might be enough to spook the other ships. So, I wonder, is there

actually a military solution to opening the Strait or does it require some sort of negotiated settlement?

HODGES: Well, of course, ultimately it boils down to the ship's captains and the insurance companies. Do they feel confident enough to be able to

move through the Strait? And at some point, you know, they will do that. And then they might even, there might even be a sort of momentum that

builds up. Even if one is hit, it will almost never be perfect.

But of course, you know, we had this back years ago during the tanker wars. We were still moving ships through the Strait, even though the Iranians

were coming out interfering with tankers. So, I can imagine a scenario where our great Navy inflicts enough pain that the Iranians may have to

back away. But what would be helpful would be more clarity on the language about whether or not there is a ceasefire. Let's call this what it is and

be clear about the expectations. And I think the commercial shipping companies would appreciate that as well.

SCIUTTO: Yes. Well, if we're both waiting for clarity of language, that might be a long wait. I want to turn to Europe now, given that you

commanded the U.S. Army in Europe. So, the president is withdrawing 5,000 troops from Germany, also seems to be canceling a long-range fire unit that

had been ordered and planned under President Biden.

What's your reaction to this? And do you see any strategic end to it that serves U.S. interests, or do you see an angry response from Trump to what

he sees as lack of European support for his war in Iran?

HODGES: Yes, this decision is not going to hurt Germany. It only hurts us. Of course, the towns and villages around the area where this unit lives

now, the 2nd Stryker Cavalry Regiment, would feel the impact. But that's not our reason for being there. But Germany is not going to be hurt.

What it does do, it undermines confidence that our allies have in the United States. And it's not just 5,000 troops. It is the only combat

brigade in all of Germany, the only combat U.S. brigade in Germany, the Stryker Brigade, which is an amazing unit. It moves fast. It has a lot of

combat power.

Now, the other part that's frustrating is that this doesn't seem to be tied to any kind of strategy that protects our interests. If they move to Poland

or Romania, as someone suggested, that is less of a degradation of our deterrence. But you've still got to build the places where they're going to

go to, where they can train and maintain readiness. If they go home or if the unit is inactivated, then it really clearly would, this was done just

to -- as petty retribution.

SCIUTTO: Yes. Certainly, what I'm hearing from European officials. General Ben Hodges, thanks so much for joining.

HODGES: Thank you, Jim.

SCIUTTO: Well, joining me now is a Democratic member of Congress, James Walkinshaw. He sits on the Homeland Security and the Oversight Committees.

He calls the ongoing war with Iran dangerous and unnecessary. Congressman, thanks so much for taking the time.

REP. JAMES WALKINSHAW (D-VA): Thanks for having me.

SCIUTTO: First, if I can, on the Iran war and on the president's War Powers. Last week, as you know, the president wrote a letter to Congress

saying because there's a ceasefire, there's a pause. Therefore, in effect, the 60-day clock on his War Powers stops. What is your view of the law on

this? Does the president have the law wrong?

WALKINSHAW: Yes, I don't think it's subjective or a matter of opinion. I think the law is pretty clear. The clock starts when the hostilities start

and the president informs Congress of those hostilities. And the clock continues to run until our forces are withdrawn. There isn't a timeout for

a ceasefire. Even if it's a ceasefire that holds, this doesn't appear to be a ceasefire that's holding. I think that is clear in the law. There's no

question about it. It's a novel theory that the president is propounding here. And it looks like a theory that's about to run its course anyway, as

it appears that the ceasefire is ending and those hostilities are resuming today.

[18:15:00]

SCIUTTO: So, what happens if the hostilities resume or resume even at a higher degree than they already are right here? Are Democratic efforts to

force a War Powers vote moving anywhere? As you know, they've failed multiple times.

WALKINSHAW: I think as soon as Congress returns, you'll see more forced votes on War Powers resolutions. And you know, I think the question is for

our Republican colleagues, many of whom, by the way, over the course of this war have cited the 60 days and they have justified their no votes for

our War Powers resolutions to end the war by saying we're not at the 60-day mark yet.

Well, now we're past the 60-day mark. So, they're running out of reasons to support the continuation of this unauthorized war. So, I think the burden

will be on them to explain why they're not willing to support the assertion of Congress' constitutional and legal authorities here.

SCIUTTO: Can you help me understand the politics from a Republican perspective? Put their hat on for a moment here. The war is unpopular. The

president is unpopular. You have midterm elections coming up where if the predictions hold, and by the way, we should -- you know, predictions can

change and they can be wrong. Republicans are not going to do well in these elections. What is holding Republicans back from challenging the president

on this?

WALKINSHAW: Well, look, I come from the Commonwealth of Virginia and, you know, our state has been hit harder than any by the Trump administration's

policies. And I watched the Republicans who represent Virginia cheerlead for those very policies that hurt their own state. And I came to the

conclusion that Republicans in Congress, you know, they're more loyal to Donald Trump than they are to their own constituents or to the country.

There is just a strong, strong fealty and loyalty to Trump. They don't want to cross him.

And look, in their defense, they've seen some of their colleagues who have voiced a tiny bit of opposition to Trump or Trump policies lose Republican

primaries, right? Dan Crenshaw is a good example. So, I think they're terrified of that. They're terrified of that blowback.

SCIUTTO: President Trump's approval rating, as you know, is falling. But Congress is, frankly, isn't much better. By some measures, it's lower. And

while Democrats lead on a generic ballot, they don't lead by an insurmountable margin, as you know. Do you believe that your party has a

message for the midterms beyond, we're not Trump?

WALKINSHAW: Well, look, the message that I encourage Democrats to run on across the country is affordability and accountability. You know, we've got

to show that we can deliver for the American people in bringing down the cost of health care, housing, gas, et cetera. And we've got to show that

we're going to hold folks who are acting in corrupt ways, starting with the president all the way down, including Congress, accountable for their

actions.

I think if we take to the voters a message of affordability and accountability in November, then we'll do very well.

SCIUTTO: Do you fear a blowback for Democrats in Virginia for rewriting, redrawing rather the congressional districts to the degree that they did? I

know the arguments made, right, response to Texas and other red states and now Florida. But do you fear that while that might help you this cycle, it

might hurt down the road?

WALKINSHAW: Well, in Virginia, unlike Texas and the other Republican states that have redrawn their maps in the middle of the decade, like

California, we put it to the voters. So, the voters got to choose a couple of weeks ago. They saw the map in advance of the vote and the referendum

passed. So, at the end of the day, it's the voters who decided to redraw Virginia's congressional district.

So, given that, I don't think Democrats will face a backlash. I do think it's time for both parties now to come together and for Republicans to join

Democrats in supporting a national ban on partisan gerrymandering. This is not good for the Democratic Party, not good for the Republican Party, not

good for the country. We can continue to ratchet up this redistricting war, but we'd be much better off to just ban partisan gerrymandering across the

country.

SCIUTTO: But before we go, you had the Supreme Court ruling last week on the Voting Rights Act, and you already see Republican states, including

Louisiana, going to redraw districts on another basis in this case. What do you believe Democrats' response should be to that ruling and to how

Republican states respond to that ruling?

WALKINSHAW: Well, our response should be to call on Republicans in Congress to join us in supporting a national ban on partisan

gerrymandering. If they don't do that, then you will see inevitably states controlled by Democrats going back in advance of the 2028 elections and

redrawing their maps again. You can draw a West Coast without a single Republican congressional seat.

[18:20:00]

There's a lot of Democratic-controlled blue states that can go back and draw out the handful of Republicans that represent their states. Again, I

don't think that's a good thing, but that's what Republicans will force us to do unless they'll join us in supporting a national ban on partisan

gerrymandering.

SCIUTTO: Congressman James Walkinshaw, appreciate you joining.

WALKINSHAW: Thank you.

SCIUTTO: And we'll be right back.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

SCIUTTO: Welcome back. In today's Business Breakout, a rough start to the trading week on Wall Street. U.S. stocks fell across the board on concern.

The U.S.-Iran ceasefire is breaking down. That fear also reflected in the rising price of oil. Brent Crude jumped almost 6 percent to settle at just

over $114 a barrel. The average price of gas here in the U.S. is fast approaching $4.5 a gallon. That's up more than 8 percent just from a week

ago.

eBay has now received a nearly $56 billion takeover offer from GameStop. Shares of the video game retailer soared during the meme stock craze of

2021. Even so, eBay is still about four times more valuable as a company. GameStop CEO Ryan Cohen says their tie-up would create a strong competitor

to Amazon. But he offered few answers when asked about exactly how he would pull off the transaction.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: I'm just trying to understand where the rest of the money would come from.

RYAN COHEN, CEO, GAMESTOP: Half cash, half stock.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: I hear you. I'm just saying that that math doesn't get you to do the price that you're offering.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Ryan, that's a pretty straightforward question. I don't get it. Like, where's the rest of the money coming from? Andrew laid

it pretty clearly.

COHEN: I don't understand your question. We're offering half cash, half stock, and we have the ability to issue stock in order to get the deal

done.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

SCIUTTO: Well, eBay shares, they rose 5 percent on Monday, still well below the $125 a share offer, a sign that Wall Street might be skeptical.

Paul La Monico from Barron's joins me now. And, Paula, listen, this would not be the first LBO, right, where a smaller fish swallows a bigger fish on

Wall Street.

[18:25:00]

I mean, is that -- I mean, are they looking to lenders to fill that gap or do we just not know? I mean, it's kind of strange for the GameStop CEO not

to have an answer for that.

PAUL R. LA MONICA, SENIOR MARKETS ANALYSIS WRITER, BARRON'S: Yes, it was a very curious interview that he did there and didn't give much in the way of

specifics. Ryan Cohen, to be fair, is correct that in the press release and some of the other documentation, they did lay out that there's about a $20

billion debt commitment potentially that is there from TD Securities. But that still doesn't fill the gap.

You have $20 billion in potential debt financing. The company has a market valuation of about $10 billion, $11 billion. So that's $31 billion. And

then they have about $9 billion in cash. So, that's $40 billion. So, there's still a $16 billion gap to get you to $56 billion. I think what

Ryan Cohen was suggesting was that they could issue more stock to make that up.

That's all well and good. But when you issue more stock as a publicly traded company, you're killing the value for your existing shareholders.

And I think that's the reason why GameStop shares fell 10 percent today. There's a lot of skepticism about not just can they get the deal done, but

why would they want to do it in this manner?

SCIUTTO: OK. So, what about the business plan here? You know, he's talking about challenging Amazon based on having the brick-and-mortar operation to

GameStop and then the enormous, well, you know, online network of eBay. Is that something that market analysts think is a marriage that would work?

LA MONICA: I mean, there is some validity to that notion that marrying the brick-and--mortar of GameStop with the online prowess of eBay could make

for a more formidable competitor in retail. But I think Cohen is forgetting that, you know, it's not just Amazon. Walmart also has a very impressive

digital footprint to go along with all of those gigantic stores that it owns. And even though Target has been struggling lately, they are a giant

retailer with a large internet presence of their own also.

So, it wouldn't be so easy that it would be a two-horse game in online retail of Amazon versus a combined GameStop eBay. There are a lot of other

competitors out there.

SCIUTTO: All right. We'll see where it goes. Paul La Monica, thanks for joining.

LA MONICA: Thank you.

SCIUTTO: Checking now some of today's other business headlines. Court filings show that Elon Musk tried to settle with OpenAI two days before the

start of their civil trial in California. Musk sent a message to OpenAI President Greg Brockman to, quote, "gauge interest in a settlement."

Brockman suggested both sides drop their claims. Musk says he's suing OpenAI because it went back on its word to remain a non-profit.

The U.S. Supreme Court is restoring telehealth and mail order access to the abortion pill Mifepristone. At least temporarily, the court responded to an

emergency appeal that warned of potential chaos for patients if access disappeared. The administration -- the administrative stay is far from

final decision. However, it maintains the status quo for a few days so the court can review emergency appeals in the case.

Shares of package delivery giants FedEx and UPS fell sharply Monday onward of new competition from where, Amazon. Amazon says it has launched a new

unit called Amazon Supply Chain Services. That unit gives businesses access to Amazon's global delivery networks. Amazon says firms like Procter &

Gamble and 3M have already signed up.

Straight ahead, the future of the U.S. and Europe's military relationship, its alliance in doubt once again. How many troops will President Trump

withdraw? Can he do so legally? 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.

President Trump is declining to say whether the ceasefire with Iran is still in effect. This after Iran launched fresh strikes against its Persian

Gulf neighbors today. The UAE says its air defense has engaged 19 Iranian missiles and drones. Emirati authorities say that three Indian nationals

were injured in a major fire caused by one of those Iranian drones on an oil port.

At least three people have died after a suspected Hantavirus outbreak on a cruise ship in the Atlantic currently anchored now off Cape Verde. Of the

nearly 150 passengers still on board at least three other people are sick according to the WHO.

Police in Germany are looking for a motive after a car rammed into a crowd killing at least two people. Authorities in Leipzig say at least 20 people

were affected. The driver is in custody. He is a 33-year-old German citizen. Official success -- suggests the attack was deliberate but motive

remains unclear.

NATO leaders in Europe are on edge once again this after President Trump announced plans to withdraw 5,000 U.S. troops from Germany. Trump

threatened over the weekend to cut the number of troops a lot further saying he may slash troop levels in Italy and Spain as well. Italy's Prime

Minister Giorgia Meloni told other European leaders the continent must now strengthen its own security.

Tensions have been running high between the Trump administration in Europe. It has gotten worse since the start of the U.S. war with Iran which the

U.S. launched without notifying most of its NATO allies. There are also questions about whether Trump's threats and those troop productions in

Europe are even legal.

The National Defense Authorization Act forbids cutting the number of U.S. troops in Europe below 76,000. It also bans removing any Department of

Defense property from the continent if it is worth more than half a million dollars. As you could imagine it covers a long list of weapons systems and

equipment such as aircraft.

It is also politically risky for Trump. Members of Congress on both sides of the aisle object quite publicly to such reductions. On Saturday the

Republican chairs of the Senate and House Armed Services Committee issued a joint statement saying they were very concerned by the decision to withdraw

a U.S. brigade from Germany and that any significant change to the U.S. force posture in Europe warrants a deliberate review process and close

coordination with Congress and our allies.

Joining me now, vice president of the European Parliament Victor Negrescu. Victor good to have you back.

VICTOR NEGRESCU, VICE PRESIDENT, EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT: Good to be back. Thank you for the invitation.

[18:35:00]

SCIUTTO: So, this is the U.S. removing troops from Germany. As you know the U.S. removed troops from Romania last year and now the president is

threatening to do more. What is your reaction and do you see this as the U.S. betraying Europe's security?

NEGRESCU: First of all, it is not a surprise for Europe. We expected this to happen. In the case of Romania, it was something planned. Here it was a

decision that was not based on the previous communication so indeed we have to adapt. We also need to mention the fact that the U.S. presence in Europe

is also helpful for U.S. interests in particular with regards to Ukraine but also with regards to the Middle East.

So, the U.S. troops present in Europe were helping the U.S. interventions in the Middle East and they are crucial for the defense interest that

America has. Indeed, we have to adapt and in the same time we are investing a lot in Europe when it comes to our defense infrastructure, when it comes

to our troops there. We are ready to take more responsibilities at NATO level but it will take time.

So, we have to find the right balance between all of that. I think this kind of decisions have to be based on a proper communication between

partners and we have to make sure that there are no risks generated by this kind of deployment.

SCIUTTO: I just wonder if you can adapt in time, right? I mean, for instance these 5,000 troops from Germany they're not just any 5,000 troops,

they're not, you know, back-office soldiers, support. I mean, this is a combat brigade that was put there after Russia invaded Ukraine to boost

European defenses particularly in the eastern part of the alliance against Russian threats. Can Europe deploy its own combat brigade to fill that gap

or is there going to be a gap you know in time where it can't fill that hole?

NEGRESCU: First of all, the U.S. presence in Europe is very important for us Europeans. We really respect the effort that is being made by the U.S.

to deploy this kind of troops on our continent, and they are needed of course. Also, to show Russia that we are ready to work together at NATO

level to support our interests, to show that the U.S. present in Europe will remain consistent and is valuable for the U.S. administration at the

same time. So, indeed, in terms of political message I think this is not good for NATO, this is not good for Europe, this is not good for the U.S.

In the same time, we have to do more. We cannot replace those 5,000 soldiers with European soldiers, but we can indeed invest more in European

defense. There are currently plans for us to do more a NATO level but also to invest in our defense industry. We invest billions of euros currently in

the European industry, but I think we have to focus on synergies, because right now, I think if we do more together our capacity to act at global

level will increase.

Indeed, in Europe there are different views when it comes to the intervention in Iran. You have countries like my own that are supportive of

the U.S. decision. There are other countries that do not fully support how the decision was made and they would like further interactions and

discussions before having this kind of actions at the global level but nevertheless I think, again, for the U.S. their presence in Europe is also

needed.

SCIUTTO: I just wonder, so here's Romania that does support the war in Iran whereas others did not and yet the U.S. still withdrew troops, you

know, last year. I know those decisions not connected. But Romania also suffers from lower NATO defenses in the eastern part of Europe. Is there

any reward by giving the Trump administration what it wants?

NEGRESCU: So, first of all, we made ourselves available to support the U.S. for defensive actions. So, we are not supportive of the war, we are

not involved in the war. But in the same time, we understand, of course, that there are U.S. troops in Romania that require further presence in the

region and they need to use the military base in Romania for this kind of defensive actions.

In the same time, it's not about reward, it's about having a fair partnership. And I think we have to discuss more to define how this

partnership will move forward in the years to come. It is clear that the U.S. needs more from Europe, in the same time, we have our limits and we

have our own capacities, we have our own interests in particular with regards to Russia, in particular with regards to Ukraine and we have to

discuss all those matters together.

[18:40:00]

And I think it's about military intervention, but it's also about what we do in order to protect democracy in our region, to counter a foreign

interference, to combat disinformation and to tell Russia, but also, Iran, but also China that they cannot do whatever they want in our region.

So, on those points we can find common ground but we have to discuss those matters. For the time being unfortunately those issues are not being put on

the table. There are only demands sometimes from both sides instead of having a real conversation. This is hurting the U.S., this is hurting NATO

and again this is also hurting Europe to a large extent.

SCIUTTO: Now, you're in the U.S. in part to discuss other areas of cooperation particularly artificial intelligence, A.I. and particularly at

a time when the U.S. is very much competing with China for instance on A.I. Are you finding that there is a partnership that could work there?

NEGRESCU: So, I've met quite a few high-level decision makers here in the U.S. discussing about A.I., and everyone here is talking about U.S. winning

the race. But in the same time, I think the U.S. will have difficulties in winning the race without Europe. And indeed, we are competing against

China. and it's relevant for us to put together our know-how, our common investments.

Right now, the, U.S. is leading this A.I. transformation. You have about 4,000 data centers. Europe is second with 3,000 data centers. By 2030 we

have to invest together almost $7 trillion.

SCIUTTO: $7 trillion.

NEGRESCU: It's a huge amount of money.

SCIUTTO: Yes.

NEGRESCU: So, why compete against each other? So, we have to really think about the supply chain and make sure we also have a common policy when it

comes to minerals, raw material. Again, imagine us competing for minerals. This will increase the prices, we increase the cost and no one will win at

the end. So, I think we have to discuss those matters.

Soon there will be a discussion between the U.S. president, Trump, and the Chinese president. We also are looking at that if the Chinese are our

competition. We have to discuss before having interaction with the Chinese on this important point and have a real strategy when it comes to the

Western model in relation to the A.I. transformation.

SCIUTTO: Victor Negrescu, thanks so much for joining the program.

NEGRESCU: Thank you so much for the invitation.

SCIUTTO: Coming up just after the break, a new report says that Russian President Vladimir Putin fears a coup or even assassination. We're going to

share the steps the Kremlin is now taking right after the break.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[18:45:00]

SCIUTTO: Russians can expect tighter internet restrictions in Moscow ahead of the country's planned Victory Day Parade. The annual event has been

scaled back significantly this year amid Russia's ongoing invasion of Ukraine even though both sides have declared a ceasefire for Victory Day.

Those precautions come as a new European intelligence report points to a dramatic increase in personal security around the Russian president,

Vladimir Putin. Earlier I spoke with Ukrainian Member of Parliament Kira Rudik to ask if Putin had reason to fear Ukrainian forces threatening his

safety.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

KIRA RUDIK, UKRAINIAN PARLIAMENT MEMBER AND LEADER, HOLOS PARTY: Of course, and I think he should be. When you are starting the war, committing

all kinds of the war crimes, you should be expecting that at some point this war will come back at you. And the amount of pain and suffering, the

amount of killings and stolen children that Putin and his surroundings in Russia have committed in Ukraine gives us all the rights to fight back, and

this is what we are doing. And we will continue doing that until Russia stops. And this is why we are offering the ceasefire even before the

military parade.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

SCIUTTO: Of course, there are many Ukrainians who would be happy to see Putin go, but intelligence assessments seem to indicate it is not just

Ukrainian forces that the Russian leader fears. CNN's Nick Paton Walsh explains what we're learning from that intelligence assessment.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

NICK PATON WALSH, CNN CHIEF INTERNATIONAL SECURITY CORRESPONDENT (voice- over): It is a rare pointed insight into one of the starkest secrets in Russia, President Vladimir Putin's security protocols. In it, a detailed

intelligence report given to CNN by a source close to a European intelligence agency portrays predictably a Kremlin in deep crisis.

Cooks, bodyguards and photographers working with Putin must have surveillance systems installed in their homes it says. Putin has stopped

visiting military sites this year entirely it says in contrast to last year often spending time in fortified bunkers and keeping clear of some of his

main lavish residences like Valdai. A tactic aided by many of his appearances and he is in the media a lot being pre-recorded. His staff

cannot use smartphones or public transport, the report adds, visitors must be searched twice.

WALSH: Not all of this information is new some of it rumored or evident before, but the massive detail is striking as is the decision by a European

intelligence agency to release a report like this. Clearly, an information salvo designed to stoke strife and paranoia at a time of perceived weakness

in the Kremlin.

WALSH (voice-over): The dossier also suggests something staggering that the measures may be designed to protect Putin from a potential coup,

something he had a narrow miss with in June 2023 when mercenary boss and former chef to Putin, Yevgeny Prigozhin, led a failed march on Moscow.

The risk of a coup, it says now, is from another former confidant, Sergei Shoigu, once his Minister of Defense but now Secretary of the Security

Council. He retains significant influence within the military high command, it says, the report says a coup is more likely after Shoigu's former deputy

and close associate Ruslan Tsalikov, who was arrested in March, which it calls, quote, "A breach of the tacit protection agreements among elites."

But the report doesn't provide any evidence or explain why it has made this risk public warning, the Kremlin. It claims the new security measures came

after a series of assassinations among the Russian top brass likely by Ukraine. At an urgent meeting last year after the killing of Lieutenant

General Fanil Sarvarov in Moscow on December the 22nd.

The release of the report has convenient timing four years into Russia's invasion of Ukraine at a time when doubts about Russia's ability to sustain

its war effort and its economic impact are growing. Of major internet blackouts, growing internal criticism of Putin himself, and continued

successful Ukrainian bombardment of targets deep inside Russia.

Especially ahead of the May the 9th Victory Day Parade scaled back dramatically this year for security, there are plenty of reasons European

intelligence would seek to destabilize the Kremlin, and much of this is hard to corroborate. But it is rare detail and a confident presentation of

a Kremlin in crisis that matches a moment of peaking criticism of Putin internally.

Nick Paton Walsh, CNN, London.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

SCIUTTO: Coming up after the break, a major turn of events in the lawsuit between the actress Blake Lively and the production company behind the

movie "It Ends With Us." I can tell you it ends for them apparently. I'll explain why.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[18:50:00]

SCIUTTO: A high-profile legal battle between the actress Blake Lively and actor director Justin Baldoni's production company. Wayfarer Studios will

no longer end up in court. Both parties announced a settlement just two weeks out from jury selection. In 2024, Lively accused Baldoni of sexual

harassment, a hostile work environment, and reputational retaliation following the release of the movie, "It Ends With Us." Baldoni denied all

of the allegations. The harassment claims were later tossed out.

Details of the settlement not known. A joint statement said however, it is our sincere hope that this brings closure and allows all involved to move

forward constructively and in peace, including a respectful environment online.

Joining me now, entertainment journalist Segun Oduolowu. Segun, you got to help me. I mean, this was going to be a full Hollywood trial. Accusations

of harassment, smear campaigns. Extortion. Why do we think their lawyers came to a settlement agreement?

SEGUN ODUOLOWU, ENTERTAINMENT JOURNALIST: Well, Jim, we think that they came to a settlement agreement because neither side felt that they could go

in and win convincingly, and "It Ends With Us" ending in settlement is absolutely terrible for sexual harassment victims and those wrongfully

accused.

When we break it down, what we want is justice for the victim, punishment for the guilty. We have been denied both of that in this case. And one of

the most public sexual harassment cases or discussions that we have seen in many, many years that had all of Hollywood talking now ends in shadow, in

settlement, in seal -- in some -- in a sealed report where we have a joint statement by both of them.

And we have to understand what Blake Lively accused Justin Baldoni of, not only sexual harassment, but a concentrated smear campaign by Wayfarer

Studios. Like she was basically saying that, I spoke up about it and was then systematically silenced. He denied those claims, but in that he said,

she said fraught kind of confrontation, that sexual harassment, when I have spoken to experts talk about, this does not make victims want to come

forward.

If Blake Lively, who does not need the money, won't take this to court, what does someone who doesn't have her means do if sexual harassment

occurs? And if Justin Baldoni feels like he was wrongfully accused, why wouldn't you fight for your name?

We, the public don't have anything to go on now. And if they think we're going to be quiet on social media or people are going to be respectful,

then they don't know the internet.

SCIUTTO: The lawyer statement seems to address concerns that Lively still needs to be heard. Is there any chance that more information comes out

based on that?

[18:55:00]

ODUOLOWU: There's always a chance, but there was no better platform than in a court of law. We saw in the Johnny Depp-Amber Heard trial how the

public opinion was that Johnny Depp was completely in the wrong until the court case and then the public and everyone got to see that there was a lot

more going on, and in many cases, Johnny Depp was the victim. We wanted that opportunity here with Blake Lively and Justin Baldoni. We have been

denied this.

Anything after the fact begs the question, why settle? If you were wronged in this way either side, your name is your name, you can't settle like

this.

SCIUTTO: Yes. Segun Oduolowu, you know, it's always good. You always break it down for us.

ODUOLOWU: Thanks, Jim.

SCIUTTO: And thanks so much for joining us today. I'm Jim Sciutto on Washington. You've been watching "The Brief." Please do stay with CNN.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[19:00:00]

END