Return to Transcripts main page

What We Know with Max Foster

Trump Vows No U.S. Boots On The Ground In Ukraine; Kremlin Refuses To Commit To Putin-Zelenskyy Meeting; Redistricting Battles Heat Up In Texas & California; Mediators Await Israeli Response To Ceasefire Proposal; Trump Urges Crackdown On Museums Over "Woke" Exhibits; U.S. House Committee To Redact Victims' Names In File Release. Aired 3-4p ET

Aired August 19, 2025 - 15:00   ET

THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.

[15:00:20]

MAX FOSTER, CNN HOST: And no U.S. boots on the ground in Ukraine, says the White House.

This is WHAT WE KNOW.

U.S. President Donald Trump vowing U.S. troops won't be sent to Ukraine in any potential peace agreement with Russia. Mr. Trump told fox news today

American ground forces won't be part of a security deal.

That stance is an about face from comments the president made on Monday in the Oval Office, when he refused to rule out that possibility.

Here's what a White House spokesperson said just a short while ago.

(BEGIN VIDOE CLIP)

KAROLINE LEAVITT, WHITE HOUSE PRESS SECRETARY: The president has definitively stated U.S. boots will not be on the ground in Ukraine, but we

can certainly help in the coordination and perhaps provide other means of security guarantees to our European allies.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

FOSTER: Let's go to Jeff Zeleny, CNN's chief U.S. national affairs correspondent.

It was always going to be the definition of these security guarantees. That was going to be the sticking point, wasn't it? But Donald Trump did also

talk about air support, didn't he? Which is, you know, you know, very crucial to Europe if they are going to get these guarantees.

JEFF ZELENY, CNN CHIEF U.S. NATIONAL AFFAIRS CORRESPONDENT: It certainly is. And when President Trump just on Monday talked about those security

guarantees, it was just a reminder of this is the difficult part of a very difficult, protracted issue. But the president -- the American president,

yesterday did not rule out boots on the ground.

However, some of his MAGA supporters, Steve Bannon, chief among them, really started going a little bit very critical of the president asking

what he's doing, you know, not ruling out boots on the ground.

So, this morning in an interview with Fox, the president likely went on for this very reason, he ruled out that possibility. He said, no American boots

on the ground. The host said, what assurances can you give? He said, I'm the president. That's my assurance.

However, he did talk about air support, and air support is certainly a critical to a European allies in the region, but it also is involving the

U.S. even more in a dispute that many of his supporters do not like. So, the U.S. president, yes, he wants to be involved front and center in

negotiating this peace. His supporters are not all that interested in the U.S. being involved in any shape or form, but perhaps the bigger challenge

for the White House here today, Max, is the discussion about is Putin interested in meeting Zelenskyy?

The White House said today. Karoline Leavitt the press secretary, says, yes, the kremlin has agreed to meet with Zelenskyy, but that's not quite

the full story. They've agreed to the discussions of a framework that could possibly lead to a meeting that's far, far different than agreeing to an

actual bilateral meeting.

FOSTER: Also, some discussion about where it would be Putin potentially suggesting Moscow, which Zelenskyy wouldn't be able to agree to. So, it

could be some gameplaying as well, critics of Russia are saying.

But we've also, you know, this won't go anywhere, will it, without a deal with Putin. And Trump suggested today as well that Putin might not want a

deal, which is a very different tone from yesterday, too.

ZELENY: It is. And it's probably a realistic tone. He might not want to deal. I mean, there's been ample evidence to suggest that Vladimir Putin

has been simply dragging this out, buying more time. And during this time, of course, the bombs keep raining down on Ukraine. He still keeps trying to

-- to gain some of the territory that he actually wants in the end.

So, there are no guarantees that Vladimir Putin will play along here now. But now that President Trump has gotten himself deep involved in the middle

of these, I'm thinking back to that so-called hot mic moment from yesterday when President Trump said that he was speaking to French President Emmanuel

Macron. He said, no, President Putin wants to do this deal for me.

There's very little evidence of that. And that could come back to be a very haunting statement for President Trump here. So, we will see if this

bilateral meeting with Trump and Zelenskyy ever happens. It's something that Zelenskyy has long wanted.

Of course, Putin does not see him as an equal. He does not. Never mind the fact of a trilateral meeting with Trump. Zelenskyy and Putin, we'll see if

they happen in that order or frankly, if they happen at all.

FOSTER: Jeff, thank you so much.

What we don't know is, can Ukraine's security be guaranteed then, without American troops on the ground?

Bill Taylor is the former U.S. ambassador to Ukraine and a distinguished fellow at the Atlantic Council.

Thank you so much for joining us.

I guess not a not a shock that Trump doesn't want troops on the ground because it's so politically sensitive. And it does drag the U.S. into what

could be an intractable situation.

[15:05:00]

WILLIAM TAYLOR, FORMER U.S. AMBASSADOR TO UKRAINE: Well, you're right, Max. But to be fair, all along, the Americans had said, this administration

had said that they were not going to be troops on the ground. What was new over the past couple of days was the administration saying, we're going to

participate in a security guarantee. That's a big deal.

There's a lot that the Americans, a lot that we Americans can do from Germany or Poland or Romania to support a security guarantee, to support a

Coalition of the Willing of British and French and other soldiers in Ukraine. We can do that from -- we can do it in the air, as you just said.

That's all possible. All to say that the big deal, the big decision, the big announcement change is that the United States is now going to be a big

is going to be a part of a security guarantee and support the Coalition of the Willing.

FOSTER: So, it's supporting the coalition. If Putin doesn't want a deal and Trump gets frustrated with that, where does that leave us? Would

America throw itself into a more aggressive position in Ukraine do you think?

TAYLOR: I think President Trump has said yes. He said on several occasions, most recently, I think this morning that if Putin does not play,

if Putin is the -- is the obstacle is obstinate. Then there are bad consequences. I think the president said or something like that. There are

rough times for Putin.

Yeah. President Trump does want this to end. He does want to stop the killing. He does want the ceasefire, although he hasn't said about the

ceasefire since, since he talked to President Putin last Friday. But he does want to end this war.

He's committed, as you were just saying, this is not something that he can walk away from at this point. He wants to get this done, and he's willing

to put some pressure, apparently, on Putin. If Putin goes back on what Putin told him.

FOSTER: But Putin's playbook is just to keep delaying, right? And, you know, not having a trilateral and, you know, suggesting they might

potentially be interested in a bilateral with Ukraine, but they have to have meetings before that one. It's constantly pushing any sort of deal

down the road whilst the fighting continues, which is why, of course, Europe has been pushing for this ceasefire before the negotiations start.

TAYLOR: Exactly correct. Putin is not interested in a ceasefire. He's not interested in end of this war. He is interested in continuing to bludgeon

Ukraine with bombs and missiles and UAVs, drones every night, more and more, even while the while talking to the president of the United States on

the phone.

No, he has no interest in stopping this. He wants to continue to bludgeon Ukraine. So that's -- that's been his goal all along, is to dominate,

eliminate, absorb Ukraine. That's what's going on with Putin.

FOSTER: So, the big test for Donald Trump is whether he sets a serious deadline, because there have been other deadlines that have passed, right?

Because Putin just gets around them by throwing another carrot in.

TAYLOR: Absolutely right. And you're right about deadlines come and gone. But there is the -- President Trump has said consequences rough times. And

in the past, he specified what those consequences could be serious sanctions, serious tariffs on purchasers of Russian oil to squeeze the

Russian economy, to squeeze the Russian treasury so that they can't support this war. And to continue to provide weapons to Ukraine through the

European allies.

And President Trump can seize the $5 billion or $10 billion in American banks, and he can encourage the Europeans to seize -- to seize the $250

billion in European banks in order to fund these weapons. Just real, real quickly, Max, United States has provided $69 billion worth so far of money

for of value for weapons to Ukraine. And we're talking about $250 billion ready to be seized of Russian money in Western banks.

FOSTER: Okay. Ambassador Bill Taylor, as ever, thank you so much for your insights on this potentially huge moment, at least in world history.

The White House saying accommodations are underway, then for a meeting between Putin and Zelenskyy. White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt

didn't answer questions about specific locations for such a high stakes summit, though she did claim that Russian President Vladimir Putin has

promised to have those direct talks sometime in the coming weeks. So far, Moscow hasn't responded to that claim, though. A possible bilateral meeting

goes against Trump's previous plans for a trilateral meeting.

Here's what Leavitt had to say about the sudden shift.

[15:10:01]

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

LEAVITT: Ultimately, the president has always said that there are areas of disagreement in this war that will have to be discussed and decided upon by

these two countries. And so, he wants these two countries to engage in direct diplomacy. He said that from the very beginning, which is why he's

agreeable to the idea of having President Zelenskyy and President Putin get together. And I understand accommodations for that meeting are underway. As

soon as we hear more details, we'll be sure to let all of you know.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

FOSTER: Well, in contrast to the Trump administrations enthusiasm, the Kremlin refuses to commit to a Putin-Zelenskyy meeting, though Russian

Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov hasn't ruled out further talks.

Fred Pleitgen has more on the reactions in Moscow.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

FREDERIK PLEITGEN, CNN SENIOR INTERNATIONAL CORRESPONDENT: Yeah, the Kremlin, the Russian foreign minister really not being committal so far on

wanting a bilateral meeting between Vladimir Zelenskyy, the president of Ukraine, and Vladimir Putin, or that trilateral meeting afterwards either.

It was quite interesting because of course, yesterday you had that phone call between President Trump and Vladimir Putin as those meetings were

going on in D.C. And even then afterwards, the readout coming from the Russians was quite different than what President Trump was saying.

The Russians certainly remain non-committal to having those meetings. Even yesterday, a senior Kremlin aide came out and said that the Russians and

the U.S. had agreed to continue consultations between the Ukrainians and the Russians. Those, of course, have already been going on so far to very

little effect.

And all the Russians have been saying so far is that it was discussed to possibly raise the level of the representatives which could obviously mean

to the top level of the presidents, but could also mean a variety of other things. And then today there was an interview by Russian Foreign Minister

Sergey Lavrov with Russian state media, where he also appeared to pour cold water on something like this happening quickly, or the Russians being

committed to it.

I want to read you really quick what Sergey Lavrov said in that interview. He said, any contacts involving top officials must be prepared with the

utmost care, he said, and then we do not refuse any form of work, neither bilateral or trilateral. So, the Russians are saying its something that

could happen, not necessarily something that will happen. That, of course, has been their line for quite an extended period of time.

One of the things that Vladimir Putin had said before the summit in Alaska took place is that he said that he was never completely against meeting

Volodymyr Zelenskyy, but at the same time, a meeting like that needed to be prepared and there needed to be several things taken into consideration.

And he believed that a meeting like that was still very far off, and that the conditions for such a meeting simply had not yet been met.

One of the things that also makes it quite difficult for the Russians to agree to such a meeting is that Russian state media, but also the Kremlin

itself, has painted Volodymyr Zelenskyy as an illegitimate president because, of course, there haven't been elections in Ukraine. The Russians

walking back from that a little bit now saying that such a meeting is possible, but certainly at this point in time, at least not saying that a

meeting like that is in the books anytime soon, certainly not within the next week or two, as some have said, who attended those meetings in

Washington, D.C. yesterday.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

FOSTER: Well, Republicans in Texas, meanwhile, in domestic politics in the U.S., now face a clear path to redraw the state's congressional maps in

their favor after state house Democrats ended their 15-day walkout and returned to the capitol building in Austin. Big moment there.

Republicans are expected to approve a new map after the House reconvenes. That'll be on Wednesday. It would create five more Republican leaning

seats, part of President Trump's campaign to keep the U.S. House of Representatives in Republican hands. State Democrats in California are

looking to offset that by redrawing their own congressional maps. That effort aims to create five Democratic leaning seats.

CNN's Steve Contorno is in Sacramento, California.

You'll know the maths better than me. Would it work if they pulled it off?

STEVE CONTORNO, CNN SENIOR REPORTER : Well, they are certainly hoping that they can offset what Texas is trying to do. And that's one of the arguments

that the opposition has been making is, look, you guys might be running roughshod over the democratic process in California and might not even get

your way. But, you know, the way these committees and these parties have so much access to data and voting history and demographic makeup, they can

pretty much predict how these districts are going to vote within 1 or 2 points.

And Democrats are saying that this is something that they're being forced to do in California, not something that they want to do, but because of

what Republicans in Texas and potentially elsewhere have been orchestrating.

Take a listen to some of the arguments they've been making early today, as this legislation has been heard in the state legislature in California.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

CHRISTOPHER CABALDON, CALIFORNIA STATE SENATE DEMOCRAT: We didn't ask for this fight. They brought this fight to us. And California cannot stand down

if other states are attempting to cheat and rig the election in 2006 to maintain Republican control of congress. So --

(END VIDEO CLIP)

[15:15:01]

CONTORNO: Now, Republicans and opposition to this effort in California that is forming have been saying, look, two wrongs don't make a right. This

is something that we have in California. And in California, they have an independent redistricting commission that takes this decision of who gets

to draw district boundaries out of the hands of legislatures. And by doing this, Democrats are basically saying that the voters, the voters that

decided to put this in the Constitution, were going to try to override them, and we are instead going to ask them to put together these maps that

we drew ourselves.

And so, again, the opposition is saying two wrongs don't make a right. This is going to cost tens of millions of dollars, that they might not deliver

the outcome you think it's going to get.

And so, but what we're having, what's taking place right now in California and in Texas, is the two most populous states in the country are basically

having a mid-decade political battle on just totally unprecedented terms, something that we've really never seen before in the U.S., where you have

states redrawing their district lines in a tit for tat blow, and with the two most populous states taking the first step, we are expecting other

states to soon follow. And really this to change the political map entirely, potentially heading into the midterm elections.

FOSTER: Yeah. They're going to keep you busy. A lot of travel, Steve, but just in terms of Texas briefly, is that battle over for the Democrats? Do

you think this is going to go through there?

CONTORNO: It seems to be headed that way. Republicans have more than enough votes to get this over the finish line. Texas Democrats have

returned to the Capitol. They have signaled that they will -- they will try to block this as much as they can from the legislative floor, but they

don't have any plans to leave the state again.

So that is -- that seems like it's going to pass. It's a little bit of a different process in California, where you have not only this has to pass

the legislature, which is meeting this week behind me, but then this goes to voters in November who have to approve it. So, it is a much more

challenging path for Democrats. Republicans in Texas just need to get use their majority in both chambers to push this ahead.

FOSTER: Okay, Steve, really appreciate that. Thank you. Fascinating turn.

Those Democratic House members who fled Texas earlier this month now have constraints on their movements. One lawmaker refusing to comply, though,

Nicole Collier, has instead been confined to the house floor for more than a day now. Even sleeping there, as you can see this, after refusing a law

enforcement escort to and from the capitol building in Austin. The chamber reconvenes on Wednesday. Someone will have to wake her up for that.

Still to come, a key mediator in Gaza ceasefire efforts is accusing Israel of a lack of political will in getting a deal done. Egypt's foreign

minister speaks exclusively to CNN.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[15:21:04]

FOSTER: Israel now considering a new ceasefire proposal brokered by Qatar and Egypt, it's already been accepted by Hamas. The deal calls for a 60-day

truce and a partial release of hostages in exchange for some Palestinian prisoners. Israel previously agreed to a very similar proposal, but Prime

Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has more recently said Israel will no longer accept partial deals.

Egypt's foreign minister is accusing Israel of a lack of political will to get the deal done. He spoke exclusively to CNN's Becky Anderson.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

BADR ABDELATTY, EGYPTIAN FOREIGN MINISTER: This is the practical one. Of course, the Israelis are talking about ending the war, having a

comprehensive deal, but they are putting impossible, you know, conditions to be realized.

BECKY ANDERSON, CNN HOST: Can you explain what those impossible conditions are?

ABDELATTY: By talking about, of course, disarming Hamas now, that they will not allow neither Hamas or Fatah or the Palestinian Authority to be

there in Gaza? This is something, you know, not logic and not practical.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

FOSTER: Israeli officials say there are currently 50 hostages, and they believe 20 are alive.

Eliya Cohen endured Hamas captivity for more than 500 days. In his first interview with foreign media since his release in February, Cohen details a

harrowing experience to CNN's Clarissa Ward and a warning, there are graphic images and descriptions in this report.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

ELIYA COHEN, RELEASED ISRAELI HOSTAGE: I feel guilty, I feel guilty by myself. When I eat, I feel guilty. When I get shower, I feel guilty. When I

go to the hospital to check something, I feel guilty because I know what they -- what they go through right now.

CLARISSA WARD, CNN CHIEF INTERNATIONAL CORRESPONDENT (voice-over): Eliya Cohen has been free for six months, but he's still imprisoned by the

knowledge that his fellow hostages are not. Eliya and his girlfriend, Ziv Aboud, were at the Nova Music Festival on October 7th, 2023, when rockets

started raining down. They ran to a shelter only to come under attack by Hamas militants.

COHEN: In this role, the first grenade inside and the grenade exploded and killed the most people at the entrance. At that moment, I jump on Ziv and I

told her "I love you". I took their bodies and I cover me and Ziv to survive. And they came inside and they start to shoot. And then I got shot

in my leg.

WARD: What's going through your mind in this moment?

COHEN: I really start to pray to God to tell him. God, I love you. Please keep me alive and they came inside. And when I opened my eyes -- when I

opened my eyes, I saw them film us with big smile. And when I came out of the shelter. So, I saw so many people with RPG, with grenade, with

Kalashnikov, with a lot of tools to kill people.

They were so high for me. I saw them, they laugh, they sing like a crazy people.

WARD: Eliya was bundled onto the back of a truck and taken to Gaza. Also on that truck, Israeli American Hersh Goldberg-Polin, his hand blown off

trying to throw a grenade out of the shelter. The pair would later be held together for a short time.

COHEN: We took -- we took a lot for three days. After three days, they told him that, Hersh, wake up, you go to your mother. It's happy day. You

go to your mother. Be happy.

And he gave me his book and he got -- he got some book in English. I didn't know how to speak English before.

WARD: You didn't know how to speak English before?

COHEN: I didn't know to speak English? Before? He told me, take it from me. Because I go home. Keep it. Keep it for you.

So, it really gave me a power to continue because I saw to myself that Hersh came back home. May he will come to my mother and to my father to

tell him that I'm alive. And I will be okay.

WARD: But Hersh never came back home. He was executed by Hamas along with five other hostages.

COHEN: So, for me, it was difficult because I really love him. We were for three days, but it felt like we were friends for ten years.

WARD: I'd love to get a sense from you of the bond between hostages.

COHEN: The experience there and the connection of us. You know, the situation made us really connected. We really love each other.

WARD: Most of Eliya's captivity was spent deep in tunnels alongside fellow hostages Or Levy, Alon Ohel and Eli Sharabi. He says he went an entire year

without brushing his teeth. At one point surviving on a single can of beans shared between them each day.

COHEN: I can tell you about a lot of situations that they came and really tried to do any torture to laugh on us, like --

WARD: Mind games.

COHEN: Yeah, like mind games. You can call it mind games. After something like eight, eight months without mattress, without nothing, we slept on the

floor.

They came with big smile and they told us we have big good news for you. We gave you. We gave you mattress. But we have bad news. We gave you just

three. So check, check. Who slept on the floor and who will -- who will sleep on the floor and who will sleep on the on the mattress.

And we look to each other, you know, nobody wants to continue to sleep on the floor after so many days, we're tired. One of the hostages, his name is

Alon Ohel. And that's still there. He came and told to the terrorists, give them mattress for them. I will sleep on the floor.

WARD: After 505 days, Eliya was finally released, reunited with his parents and his girlfriend Ziv, who he had assumed was killed in the

shelter.

COHEN: And then I met Ziv and it was like. It was like a dream for -- for a week, it felt like a dream. I look at her and I told her, Ziv, I can, I

can't believe you are here because I saw -- she survive.

WARD: And now you guys are getting married, is that right?

COHEN: I can tell you that's in the -- in the news.

(LAUGHTER)

WARD: Since his release, Ziv is always by his side.

COHEN: She wanted to join us.

WARD: She wants to join us? Okay, let's put a microphone on you.

I mean, Ziv, did you ever let yourself imagine that moment while you were waiting for Eliya?

ZIV ABOUD, ELIYA'S GIRLFRIED: No, not really, because I was scared. I never let myself to imagine this moment because I don't want -- I didn't

want to fall, you know, I told myself, I believe just when I see the Eliya cross the border to Israel with, you know, with soldier, and this is the

moment that I look and told myself, okay. Now you can breathe.

WARD: In an interview with Israeli media during the ceasefire, Eliya said that he worried that if the fighting continued, it would be, quote, a death

sentence for the hostages. In our conversation, he was very careful not to criticize prime minister Netanyahu or his plan to occupy the whole of Gaza.

But other hostage families have been more outspoken about their fears.

Clarissa Ward, CNN, Jerusalem.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

FOSTER: Still to come, a relationship back on track. Volodymyr Zelenskyy, Donald Trump's friendlier meeting on Monday was vastly different from

February's shouting match. We'll take a closer look at that.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[15:32:38]

FOSTER: The White House says preparations for a bilateral meeting between the leaders of Russia and Ukraine are underway. Spokesperson Karoline

Leavitt told reporters Russian President Vladimir Putin has agreed to hold talks with Ukraine's President Volodymyr Zelenskyy. But so far, there's

been no confirmation from Moscow. Leavitt says U.S. President Trump is agreeable to the idea of a Putin-Zelenskyy meeting without an American

representative present.

John Bolton says there's no chance of a one-on-one meeting between the Russian and Ukrainian presidents making any progress in the peace talks.

The former national security advisor told CNN that a trilateral meeting might get more results, although would still be a risky move.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

JOHN BOLTON, FORMER WHITE HOUSE NATIONAL SECURITY ADVISER: Well, I've heard actually that it wasn't just Trump who suggested the bilateral, but

that Putin had as well. I'm not sure that's accurate, but I think if they did have a meeting with just the two sides, just the Ukrainian and Russian

sides, Putin would be fully capable of delivering an hours long lecture on his view of the last 1,000 years of Russian Ukrainian relations. And I'm

sure Zelenskyy would be fully up to refuting that for about the same length of time. I don't think there's any chance, whatever that in a strictly

bilateral meeting at this point, either side will concede anything.

I think there's more likelihood in a trilateral with Trump there that that think things might be different, but it certainly would be turning the

traditional way of getting things on their head. And Trump has tried that before, for example, with his direct negotiations with North Korean leader

Kim Jong Un. That didn't work out anything, and I'm not sure it would work out anything here as well.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

FOSTER: Well, the atmosphere in the Oval Office on Monday was in stark contrast to the previous meeting between Volodymyr Zelenskyy and Donald

Trump. You may remember it from February. Not only was the Ukrainian president wearing a suit after Trump's displeasure at the military uniform

he wore last time, but the pair were collegial, polite, even laughing at points. February's meeting became a shouting match. Then Vice President

J.D. Vance accused Zelenskyy of being ungrateful. This time, France remained silent in the whole meeting.

So, what we want to know is what did Trump and Zelenskyy's body language tell us?

Joining us now, Susan Constantine, a body language expert.

Thank you so much for joining us.

I mean, it was described as an ambush last time, wasn't it?

[15:35:03]

So, however, Zelenskyy came into the meeting, he was in trouble. You know, the whole tone set by the White House was different this time. So that was

where it started, right?

SUSAN CONSTANTINE, BODY LANGUAGE EXPERT: Yes. I mean, the tone this time was significantly different. As you know, the very combative, Zelenskyy, he

was very guarded and also very self-protective. He was not going to budge. There was this real pow -- this power struggle between the two of them. He

was not open to listening. He was flooded. So, he was unable to be able to think reasonably.

But then obviously, something happened between that visit and this one. Probably he was coached like, you can't go in there and start, you know,

arguing with the president of the United States in the Oval Office.

Now we see him in a suit. Now he's respectful. That's what would be considered to be respectful in the United States, in the Oval Office. They

both are now mirroring one another's body language. As you can see, their postures, the low steeple and then their jousting back and forth, and then

you see them kind of nodding their heads.

This is an agreement. The two of them, their entire facial affect has changed, right? We see a little more brightness, more even more color in

their skin. When they're more when they're happier versus when they were combating one another. And there was an ego struggle.

FOSTER: Who's in control here?

CONSTANTINE: In the first one or the second one?

FOSTER: In the second one.

CONSTANTINE: Trump is in control. Yeah. The second one, there is no one in control. But however, Trump I -- this is what I see. Zelenskyy looks to

Donald Trump as for approval. And so, it's almost like father/son kind of relationship in a way. And Trump will pat him on the back, giving him that

approval. You'll see that happening.

I think that Zelenskyy so much wants to please, right, you can actually see it wants to please President Trump. But President Trump is the one in

control. He is the more dominant one. When he speaks, he leans forward and he puts his hand up, and he does the stop sign or the finger up and then

raises his voice a little deeper tone. He's in control.

FOSTER: I say that because Zelenskyy is helping with, you know, all the things that you pointed out that Zelenskyy is doing, which is creating a

better tone and a better meeting. Doesn't that suggest that he's in some control of that meeting?

He's giving it a -- he's making it constructive, this time. Whereas last time he probably, you know, didn't help himself.

CONSTANTINE: I don't -- I really don't see him doing this as a control posturing. I see him in a body language as being more open. Being more

amenable in the process. So I don't see him using any power gestures.

Now, can he use kindness? Can he use connection and rapport as a persuasive tool? Absolutely. To get what he wants. He knows he needs to learn to be a

good boy with Donald Trump.

FOSTER: And we've got to talk about the suit. He wore a suit. You know, he was advised to wear a suit, as we understand it, from the White House,

because that's what Donald Trump likes.

But he's also, you know, a war leader, as Churchill was back in the day and he was allowed to wear military outfits, Kim Jong Un wore a military outfit

because he feels he's at war as well. Should he have relented? Zelenskyy and worn this suit because it clearly was done entirely for Trump?

CONSTANTINE: I think that there was so much social media outrage about the way he dressed in the Oval Office, and he was -- it was disrespectful. And

so, I think that he realized it probably from everything he read and heard, and also was instructed, you don't go in there this next time without being

dressed in a suit, although he's still in black, power, control, dominance, right? So he still has that militant appearance, especially with his dark

hair and the beard. So when we look at his overall appearance, I think that it certainly was much more presentable and, well, much better received in

the Oval Office.

FOSTER: Susan, as ever, thank you so much. It's so fascinating looking at it through your lens. Really appreciate it.

Now in the last few minutes, Donald Trump has ordered his attorneys to go after a new target, and that is American museums will be live at the White

House because it's interesting what is happening.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[15:42:57]

FOSTER: U.S. President Donald Trump is ordering a crackdown on the country's museums. In a social media post a short while ago, he described

museums across the country as woke and singled out the Smithsonian in Washington as out of control. He's now ordered his attorneys to take a look

at museums.

Kristen Holmes is at the White House.

A clear new line of attack here. But it does speak to what he said before. But, you know, some sensitive language in what he's spoken to here.

KRISTEN HOLMES, CNN SENIOR WHITE HOUSE CORRESPONDENT: Yes, certainly. And to be very clear, we had been reporting that the White House, the

administration had ordered this review of Smithsonian museums, particularly looking for woke ideology. But it wasn't really clear what exactly that

meant. And when we asked the White House, they basically said that they believed that the museum should kind of align with Trump's agenda and the

way that Trump portrays history in America.

And there was also a lot of painting this, of saying we need to be focusing on the positive of history, not just the negative, but President Trump has

now said this, which is to be clear, something that a lot of people were afraid of when this review was put in place. This is part of what he wrote.

He wrote the Smithsonian is out of control, where everything discussed is how horrible our country is, how bad slavery was, and how unaccomplished

the downtrodden have been. Nothing about success, nothing about brightness, nothing about the future.

There's obviously going to be a lot of people that take issue with the way that he wrote this kind of -- seemingly saying that slavery wasn't that

bad, or that the history of the United States focuses too much on the negatives of slavery. This, again, was what people were afraid of, that

there would be some kind of whitewashing of history. There's also unclear how you could include slavery and not include what a horrible thing it was,

a dark time it was in this country and how it shaped the country that we are now.

[15:45:01]

So, a lot of questions here, and I think you're going to see a lot of pushback, particularly about the kind of language he used in this post.

FOSTER: Yeah. I mean, any mention of slavery always sensitive. But in that way, you can see where people are going to pick up on it. But also today,

we've had another piece of major, industrial news which, you know, wasn't very clear from the White House. It wasn't promoted by them.

HOLMES: Yeah. That's right. So, at 12:01, these steel and tariff -- these steel and aluminum tariffs went into place as a 50 percent tariff. Now just

to go back, the administration is painting these tariffs as a way to revitalize the aluminum and steel manufacturing in the United States. But

this is likely to cause a lot of problems for Americans on multiple different fronts.

One, it's going to make a lot of items more expensive. So just to give you a little bit of an example here, because I wrote down a list of some of the

things that used to be exempt from any kind of tariff on steel, and that included butter knives, baby strollers, spray deodorants, fire

extinguishers, all of these things previously did not have that 50 percent tariff. All of those now will have that.

That means that likely for the for people in the United States, these items are going to become more and more expensive. It's also going to cause a lot

of problems for the people who are actually importing those items, because the fact this wasn't clear, there was no date on it, it's unsure that it

was going to go into effect right now.

There are people who imported these items that are going to be waiting for them at the port, and when they get there, they're going to have to decide

whether or not to turn them around or to sign and pay this 50 percent tariff. And if they do, obviously, as we've seen and as we know how tariffs

work, they're likely to then have to pass that along to the consumer. So, of course, we'll see how this plays out in the long run.

A lot of these things that we see when they happen, we say this is going to affect people, but it doesn't affect them for months. As do these stores

plan their distribution and all of that. But clearly here, that's a huge increase on some of these everyday household items that now are going to be

reflected in this prices.

FOSTER: Yeah, the numbers are pretty extraordinary that 50 percent.

Thank you so much, Kristen.

Meanwhile, a big new deadline in the Epstein investigation on Capitol Hill. The U.S. Justice Department says it will release some documents from the

Jeffrey Epstein files to Congress by Friday. What exactly can the public expect to learn that hasn't already been released?

Here's CNN's Katelyn Polantz with a preview.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

KATELYN POLANTZ, CNN CRIME AND JUSTICE CORRESPONDENT: Max, the House Oversight Committee, they're making demands and they're getting some

answers. The big question, though, is going to be, will anything disclose to the House Oversight Committee now in their probe of Jeffrey Epstein, be

something that hasn't been disclosed before?

We're looking forward to the end of this week. That's when the Justice Department is set to turn over records or begin to turn over records that

they have related to the Jeffrey Epstein investigation. His death, essentially everything that the House Oversight Committee has subpoenaed of

the justice department, the chair of that committee said yesterday that even though their deadline was today to turn things over, they're going to

begin making productions on Friday.

We'll have to see exactly what becomes public from that. And if the House Oversight Committee finds anything that isn't already out there in the

public sphere, we have had a trial of Ghislaine Maxwell already that disclosed a lot of evidence related to Epstein because she was a

coconspirator in that sex trafficking of minors and then also, there's been a lot of litigation and public disclosures.

The House Oversight committee, they're not stopping just with records requests from the Justice Department. They also want people to come and

testify under oath to them. Yesterday, it was Bill Barr, the former attorney general, who in 2019, when he was in charge of the Justice

Department, that's when Epstein and Ghislaine Maxwell were indicted. And when Epstein died in jail, Comer after Barr's deposition, said that Epstein

died by suicide. That was one of the things Barr testified to under oath.

Barr also said that there was no foul play from his perspective as the attorney general, and that he had not had any conversations with Trump, who

was the president at that time in 2019 about a client Epstein may have had and that there was nothing that Barr said that would have incriminated

Trump.

Democrats have been critical, however, of this probe. They are saying that the Republicans, James Comer, leading this House Oversight Committee

subpoenas and depositions, the Democrats are saying that they're not really digging very deep. And this is probably not going to be turning up anything

that would be revelatory. So we're going to keep watching to see exactly what else comes. There's five other former attorneys general that are

subpoenaed, as well as the Clintons and two FBI directors.

If the House Oversight Committee gets further into the probe, the big question will still remain, are we going to see the full Epstein files and

perhaps even that transcript of Ghislaine Maxwell just a few weeks ago, speaking for several hours to the deputy attorney general of the Justice

Department -- Max.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

FOSTER: Thank you, Katelyn, for that.

Now, still to come, it's an unlikely friendship born out of scandal. Now, Amanda Knox and Monica Lewinsky are making new headlines, this time for a

project they've teamed up on.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[15:53:01]

FOSTER: Once both controversial figures in pop culture, Amanda Knox and Monica Lewinsky are now making headlines for a new partnership. The duo are

both serving as executive producers for the limited series, "The Twisted Tale of Amanda Knox". It's an eight-part special on Hulu dramatizing the

Knox trial in Italy for allegedly killing her roommate, Meredith Kercher.

Our Lisa Respers France joins us now.

I mean, it's hugely controversial, isn't it, because people are making money from what essentially was a crime story. But, you know, you can't

help but be fascinated by how they've come together.

LISA RESPERS FRANCE, CNN REPORTER: Yeah. True crime is a big deal and makes a lot of money. But I think prior to this project being announced, a

lot of people didn't realize that Amanda Knox and Monica Lewinsky have been friends since 2017.

Amanda Knox says that it was really turning -- a turning point for her meeting Monica Lewinsky, because Monica Lewinsky gave her some big sister

advice about really reclaiming your narrative, because they both were in similar circumstances in that something that happened with them when they

were in their 20s resulted in them becoming, you know, just media darlings for something they did not want to be media darlings for. Both of them had

elements of, you know, sex in their stories. You know, there was the whole Foxy Knoxy thing with Amanda Knox.

And so, these are two women who had very individual experiences but are similar in the way that they became famous for something that was not at

all positive for either one of them. And they very much felt like they were being defined by people who didn't even know them, because there was so

much media attention for both of their scandals.

So, you know, they both have talked about how they bonded over that, that, you know, there are very few people who understand the type of situation

and circumstances that they both were in that lived through it, survived it, and have come out the other side all the stronger. they both have said,

Max.

So, it's really fascinating and it's bringing a lot of attention to this limited series. And I think Hulu is not at all upset about all of that

attention, because they're hoping that it will result in ratings.

[15:55:02]

FOSTER: Yeah. So presumably because that's their connection, that's going to be the narrative of this series as well. Or, you know, what have we

managed to learn about that?

FRANCE: Right. Well, what we know is that they say that, of course, this is a dramatization of what happened. And people have to keep in mind that

while Amanda Knox spent almost four years in prison for this murder, ultimately she, you know, she was vindicated and she was released.

And so, this is coming from her perspective of what she said happened, both her and her then boyfriend, who hadn't been her boyfriend very long, by the

way, when this crime occurred, were both charged, both imprisoned.

And for a lot of years, people believed that they were both guilty. And there still is some controversy behind that. There are still some people

who don't necessarily believe that she is completely innocent, even though she is moved on. She's now a married mom. And so I think people are going

to tune in if for no other reason they want to see what her version of the story is.

FOSTER: Yeah, absolutely. The fascination continues.

Lisa Respers France, thank you so much for that.

I'm Max Foster. That is WHAT WE KNOW.

"QUEST MEANS BUSINESS" up next.

END

TO ORDER VIDEOTAPES AND TRANSCRIPTS OF CNN INTERNATIONAL PROGRAMMING, PLEASE CALL 800-CNN-NEWS