Return to Transcripts main page
CNN Newsroom
CNN International: Trump Held A Lengthy Phone Call With Putin On Wednesday; Senate Votes To Confirm Tulsi Gabbard As Intel Director; Millions In The U.S. Brace For Another Round Of Storms; AP Blocked From Oval Office For Using "Gulf Of Mexico"; OpenAI CEO Fires Back At Musk, After Rejecting $97B Offer. Aired 3-4p ET
Aired February 12, 2025 - 15:00 ET
THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.
[15:00:39]
ERICA HILL, CNN HOST: I'm Erica Hill in New York. Thanks for joining me on CNN NEWSROOM.
Let's get you straight to the headlines.
At this hour, a single call can change the course of history. That is what one Vladimir Putin ally has to say about the lengthy phone call that took place between President Donald Trump and his Russian counterpart. The Kremlin confirming the two leaders spoke for nearly 90 minutes on Wednesday.
President Trump calling the phone call productive. He said both leaders did agree as well to visit each others nations, and went on to say they discussed a lot of things. But the ongoing conflict between Ukraine and Russia was at the top of that list.
As the leaders appear to be preparing for talks to end the war, another American this time has been released, this time from Belarus, along with two other political prisoners.
CNN's Fred Pleitgen, joining us now from Moscow with more.
A lot happening in a short span of time here, Fred.
FREDERIK PLEITGEN, CNN SENIOR INTERNATIONAL CORRESPONDENT: Yeah, yeah, you're absolutely right. I mean, it's pretty -- pretty much a whirlwind over the past 28, maybe 48 hours here in Moscow with the release of Marc Fogel obviously happening yesterday.
And then this phone call happening this evening, and I can tell you just from picking up the vibes here in Moscow from Russian politicians, but from the Kremlin as well, is that they are very happy with the way that this call went down, with the way that it went for Vladimir Putin. In fact, the spokesman for the Kremlin, Dmitry Peskov, he said that he believes that the call was, as he put it, quite positive and constructive for the Russian side.
You hear the same from Russian members of parliament coming out and saying they believe that this is the beginning of renewed diplomacy between Russia and the United States, and could be Russia getting back on the international stage and having good relations with the United States once again in the future.
Now, as far as the call itself is concerned, there were, of course, two readouts. There was, of course, what President Trump put out on his truth social account, saying that the two leaders spoke in a very good atmosphere, that each of them invited the other to visit each other's country, and that they obviously wanted to solve the war in Ukraine as well.
And that's one little nuance that we picked up on. On the Russian transcript readout of the call that took place. I want to read you one little segment from it that I thought was quite interesting, where the Kremlin here says President Putin, in turn, mentioned the need to eliminate the root causes of the conflict and agreed with Trump that a long term settlement can be achieved through peaceful negotiations.
And those root causes of the conflict is something that the Russians have been talking about a lot over the past couple of days, and sort of indicating that maybe finding a ceasefire agreement, getting to a ceasefire agreement is not going to be as easy as the U.S. president may have let on before taking office, and of course, since taking office as well.
The Russians have been speaking a lot about their red lines. They've been speaking a lot about the territory that they control, the realities on the ground, on the Ukrainian side of the border, but of course, also on the Russian side of the border, where the Ukrainians hold some territory. The spokesman for the Kremlin, for instance, today saying that that is absolutely not up for negotiation and that the Russians plan to oust the Ukrainians from that territory.
There is, of course, so the big overarching question of possible NATO membership for the Ukrainians in the future, with the Russians also say, is generally a red line for that -- for them. So certainly it seems as though these talks could be quite difficult. But one of the things that were also gleaning from the readout that we got from the Russian side is that Vladimir Putin has said that the Russians are willing to accept U.S. officials here in the Russian federation to come here and negotiate these issues, especially when it comes to trying to solve the Ukraine crisis, as they put it, and put an end to the fighting that is going on, Erica.
HILL: It would be interesting to see if U.S. officials agree to that, since typically, as we know, a lot of these negotiations tend to take place in a more neutral location. Is there any sense of a timeline at this point?
PLEITGEN: There's not. I mean, one of the things that we've seen from President Trump is he seems to want to get all this going as fast as possible. And certainly what we have seen from the Trump administration is that the first couple of weeks since it took office, there's been a whirlwind of things. Of course, as we've seen around the globe taking place, but one of the things that we do see here on the ground is definitely a noticed increase in momentum in a lot of spheres.
The Russians have been saying it as well, is that they have contacts with the Trump administration on various levels in various departments, and they have said that those have drastically intensified over the past couple of weeks since this administration has taken office and is trying to get U.S.-Russian relations, it seems, on better footing.
[15:05:08]
Create trust between the Kremlin and the White House. But then also, of course, ultimately trying to get a ceasefire going in Ukraine, which is the stated goal of the president. President Trump has himself has said that he has ordered those working for him to try and get these negotiations going as fast as possible, and certainly on the Russian side, it seems to us as though right now, they are all sort of finding their counterparts and that some of this could begin very quickly.
However, of course, the big question in all of this is to what extent the Ukrainians are going to be part of those negotiations. We know, of course, that President Trump also spoke to Volodymyr Zelenskyy as well. The Ukrainians certainly seem somewhat concerned that so far, they have not really been part of the process that President Trump has started. Certainly, the Ukrainians from the get go have been saying no decisions about Ukraine without Ukraine at the table, Erica.
HILL: Yeah, it is a remarkable absence in all the developments today, despite that one call between President Trump and President Zelenskyy.
Fred Pleitgen in Moscow tonight, appreciate it. Thank you.
Also with us this hour, CNN senior White House reporter Kevin Liptak, following the developments from the U.S. side here.
This has been, as I was just saying to Fred, it's been quite as he said, you know, 28 hours or so. As we look at these developments, I was also struck by some of what we heard from the White House press secretary early -- earlier. A number of reporters, including our colleague Kaitlan Collins, pressing her for more details about this conversation between the two presidents and also on the negotiations. Fairly tight-lipped at this point.
KEVIN LIPTAK, CNN SENIOR WHITE HOUSE REPORTER: Yeah, essentially saying that this is the start of what will become a very earnest negotiation to try and get this war concluded.
I do think it was interesting when she was asked, how does Trump view Russia? Does he view it as an adversary? Does he view it as a competitor or, you know, based on this, what sounded like a very friendly conversation with Putin earlier today, does he view it more as an ally?
And what she said was that Trump viewed it as a great competitor, but that doesn't necessarily forestall him trying to maintain good relations with its leader, particularly if it can achieve the outcome of ending this conflict, which you'll remember Donald Trump said he would do within 24 hours of taking office. He obviously blew past that deadline, but it does give you a sense of
the urgency with which he is viewing this particular matter. He had tasked his aides, really, before he had come into office, to try and set up this conversation with Putin so they could begin talking about how exactly this conflict would wind down.
And when you look at the readout from this conversation that the president posted on truth social, it was quite striking how warm he sort of reflected what the two men talked about, including this really eye raising suggestion that they would each visit each others country, that Donald Trump would go to Russia, and that Putin would potentially come to the United States. An American president hasn't visited Russia since 2013, when Barack Obama attended a G20 summit. Putin hasn't been in the United States since 2015.
So that would be a remarkable step. You know, I've covered a lot of summits between Putin and the American president, and they have all taken place on neutral soil. One was in Switzerland, one was in Finland.
Generally, when you're trying to come up with a plan, a big sort of sit down summit for the two men to come up with a big agreement. And ending this war would be a big agreement. It typically takes place in a third party country.
So a lot of notable outcomes from this talk today. But it's clear that this is just the beginning. Donald Trump is in a hurry for this war to end. But I think clearly these two sides, including Zelenskyy, including Putin, will also have to come to the table for them to reach an agreement.
HILL: Yeah, absolutely. Kevin Liptak for us in Washington -- Kevin, thank you.
While conditions do appear to perhaps be improving when it comes to those negotiations to end the war in Ukraine, Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth has ruled out NATO membership for Ukraine. As part of that agreement, and has also said that returning to pre 2014 borders for Ukraine as part of that peace deal are just not realistic.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
PETE HEGSETH, SECRETARY OF DEFENSE: We want, like you, a sovereign and prosperous Ukraine, but we must start by recognizing that returning to Ukraine's pre-2014 borders is an unrealistic objective. The United States does not believe that NATO membership for Ukraine is a realistic outcome of a negotiated settlement. Instead, any security guarantee must be backed by capable European and non-European troops.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
HILL: Here to discuss Kurt Volker, former U.S. ambassador to NATO and a distinguished fellow at the Center for European Policy Analysis, and CNN military analyst, retired Colonel Cedric Leighton.
Gentlemen, good to see both of you. You know, Ambassador Volker, I want to pick up on what we just heard
from Pete Hegseth because I think the words are so important.
[15:10:02]
He was clearly reading from a prepared statement, and he said that NATO membership should not be part of any negotiated settlement. In your mind, we know that's something that Russia wants, right? A couple of things that we heard from Pete Hegseth, there are definitely things that Russia has said very clearly it would want in terms of ending the war, not being part of a negotiated settlement.
Is that a never NATO membership in your mind?
AMBASSADOR KURT VOLKER, FORMER U.S. AMBASSADOR TO NATO (RET.): No, it's not. In fact, I think it is exactly the right statement. We should not be negotiating with Russia about Ukraine's possible NATO membership. That's not any of Russia's business, and it's a matter for Ukraine and the allies to decide on their own. Some later point. So I think it's quite fair for headsets to say that's not going to be part of an agreement.
HILL: And as we look at what else he's saying, he's also pushing for European forces to really be the primary security forces when it comes to Ukraine.
Colonel Leighton, do you think they have the capabilities to do that? What does it mean for your European security, not just the security in Ukraine, but Europe writ large?
CEDRIC LEIGHTON, CNN MILITARY ANALYST: Yeah, I think that's going to be a very interesting aspect, Erica. And I think that as far as the capabilities of European forces are concerned, some countries like France and Great Britain do have capabilities that could be useful in a kind of a peacekeeping type role.
But the failure of the United States to commit to something like this, like we did in Korea, for example, in the 1950s, that, you know, does concern me a bit because the United States has a lot of logistical intelligence and operational capabilities that the Europeans, while they have them, they don't have them generally to the same level that the United States has. There are some exceptions to that. But generally speaking, that's the case.
The other thing, though, on the more positive side with the Europeans, is that forces from countries like the new NATO members, like Sweden and Finland, could be very interesting in that they are highly capable and could potentially also be very useful in a role like this.
HILL: It's interesting when we listen to what was set up by the secretary of defense because, as I noted, these are a couple of things that Russia has put out there, right, that they absolutely don't want Ukraine to become a member of NATO. And that and as you point out, ambassador, that shouldn't be part in your view of this settlement anyway. Russia shouldn't be dictating that. But the fact that that made it
into announce, into the announcement, as well as Secretary of Defense Hegseth saying, look, we're not going to get Ukraine back to its pre 2014 borders before Russia invaded Crimea.
Do you see that as the U.S. giving up some leverage before the negotiations have even really started?
VOLKER: I have to say I agree with that. I would not be saying anything really, other than let's get these negotiations started. But that being said, I think there is a desire on the part of President Trump, as you saw with his Truth Social tweet today as well, to try to encourage Putin to come and join a negotiation and end the war.
So he's doing both pressure, threatening future sanctions if Putin doesn't do so, continued military aid to Ukraine, a deterrence presence of Ukrainian forces in Ukraine. But he's also trying to encourage Putin to come and end the war.
So I think he's trying to get that balance of carrots and sticks out there and saying these things when they're basically acknowledging facts of where we are anyway. We're not going to bring Ukraine into NATO right away. Ukraine has said they're not in a military position to be able to retake their territory right now. So I don't see that as giving anything away per se. It is, in fact, I think part of enticing Putin to actually come and settle.
HILL: Colonel Leighton, what are you watching for in the coming days, weeks, potentially months, as these talks are hopefully underway?
LEIGHTON: Yeah. So there's several things, Erica, and if I could respectfully disagree with the ambassador for just a second, I think it was a big mistake for Secretary of Defense Hegseth to actually outline part of the U.S. negotiating position.
We all know that it is highly unlikely that Ukraine is going to regain the territory that it gained in that it had in 2014, but some things you just don't say or you leave that to private discussions and not in the public realm, and to completely what seemed to be a complete foreclosure of NATO membership for Ukraine. That is a basically a slap in the face to the Ukrainians. And I think that is a huge, huge mistake on the part of Secretary Hegseth.
But as far as the future is concerned, some of the things that I'm looking for include basically what guarantees the United States and NATO members are going to be giving to Ukraine and how workable all of this ends up being, and frankly, how quickly they can get this done.
[15:15:04]
I think it's unfortunate that the first meeting is going to actually be held in Munich, not because of the logistics involved. I think in one sense, it makes sense to be right by the Munich security conference, which is happening later this week. But the fact that Munich actually evokes memories of 1938 and what Chamberlain did with Czechoslovakia in the run up to World War Two, is a very unfortunate parallel, and they should avoid that at all costs on the U.S. and NATO side.
HILL: It's such an interesting point. I had not thought about, but a great one to bring up as well as we look to what is going to of course, kick off on Friday in Munich.
Before I let you both go, Ambassador, when we look at this, as you were just saying, Colonel Leighton disagreeing with the ambassador, one of the things that stood out to me is Donald Trump has always said that the way he does things right, you try to ask him a question and he'll tell you, I can't say that because I don't want to say it out loud. I don't want to let people know what my plans are.
To that point then, does it surprise you at all, ambassador, that the secretary of defense would offer up sort of more the bullet points, which typically are not part of the way that Donald Trump does business.
VOLKER: Yeah. Well, as you said in the very first question, though, I want to come back to that. Listen to those words very carefully. He did not say Ukraine would never join NATO. He said it's not going to be part of a negotiation, not going to be an outcome there, not likely.
And he says it's not realistic for Ukraine to take the territory back as it is right now. That's something Zelenskyy himself has said as well back in interview in December, saying that they recognize that they can't take it militarily, so they can look at other means and have a long term dispute.
I think that this is recognizing some of the reality that's there and trying to get to a settlement as quickly as possible. I don't think it's as -- it's really giving things away. And in fact, it may it may be that this sort of thing that all the conversation going on about the minerals, about continued military aid, about a European presence, these are things that are starting to get Putin a little bit concerned that he's being left behind, and he wants to get into this discussion. And I think that's the dynamic that Trump is trying to create.
HILL: Ambassador Kurt Volker, Colonel Cedric Leighton, really appreciate you both joining us this hour. Thank you.
VOLKER: Thank you.
LEIGHTON: Thank you, Erica.
HILL: Coming up, Tulsi Gabbard is now confirmed to be the director of U.S. national intelligence, a near party line vote for the controversial nominee. We'll get reaction from the former director of the CIA, ahead.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[15:20:43]
HILL: Senate Republicans today pushing forward two of President Trump's most controversial cabinet nominees. A final vote on Robert F. Kennedy Jr. is expected tomorrow morning, after the Senate advanced his nomination along party lines. Republicans said they were assured that the longtime vaccine skeptic and, frankly, anti-vaxxer would not undermine vaccine initiatives, as secretary of health and human services.
The Senate, meantime, confirmed Tulsi Gabbard to lead the Office of National Intelligence. That vote, despite broad concern among intelligence officials that she lacks the experience and judgment for the role. Just one Republican voting no, along with all Democrats, Senator Mitch McConnell.
For more on Gabbard's confirmation, CNN chief national security correspondent Alex Marquardt joins me now.
There was a lot of pushback in the beginning. There were moments of frustration when she refused to say, for example, that Edward Snowden was a traitor. And then there were a lot of meetings behind closed doors. This is the outcome.
ALEX MARQUARDT, CNN CHIEF NATIONAL SECURITY CORRESPONDENT: Yeah, meetings that. Apparently didn't go well and shortly before the vote, we heard from the Democratic leader, Chuck Schumer, who said to his colleagues, you know, you can still change your minds. And he thought that if it had been a secret ballot vote, that there would only be ten out of 100 votes for Gabbard.
Instead, we did see her winning the majority today, losing only one Republican, Mitch McConnell, who issued a statement afterwards. I want to read just part of it.
He says: The nation should not have to worry that the intelligence assessments the president receives are tainted by a director of national intelligence with a history of alarming lapses in judgment.
Of course, Erica, the director of national intelligence, traditionally and by definition, really is the top intelligence advisor for the president. She was an unorthodox choice, to say the least. I mean, for starters, she was a long time Democratic lawmaker being selected by a Republican president, someone who had no history of working in the intelligence community. She does have some military experience.
But the critics, both Republican and Democrat, pointed to a complete lack of experience, as well as some unnerving, they would say, comments that she has made in the past about Russia, about Putin, anti-Ukrainian comments. She had that trip to Syria to visit Assad in 2017. Those meetings with Assad, and then a bruising confirmation hearing in the Senate intelligence committee last month in which all of that was brought up and she was pummeled by both sides over her inability in that hearing to or unwillingness, I should say, to call Edward Snowden a traitor.
So but -- so there were questions then whether she would make it out of the committee. She couldn't lose more than one Republican. But all the Republicans came to her aid. Susan Collins, who was behind the creation of the Office of the Director of National Intelligence, said that she would be voting for Gabbard. Senator Todd Young also said that he would be voting for Gabbard. So it did move to the floor.
And so now, we have Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard, who will be overseeing a huge bureaucracy, 18 different intelligence agencies. And I think major questions about whether Donald Trump will turn to her as a traditional DNI and really use her as that leading intelligence adviser. That's always the question around Donald Trump, who he's actually listening to.
But it is a huge job. This was one person, one of the nominees for the cabinet, who certainly did not have a guaranteed chance of success. But here she is entering Donald Trumps cabinet. Erica.
HILL: Yeah, absolutely. Alex, really appreciate it. Thank you.
Also with me, Leon Panetta, joining me now for more on Tulsi Gabbard's confirmation is director of national intelligence. He, of course, served as director of the CIA and secretary of defense, both under President Obama.
And you have spent a long time in the government and certainly in intelligence. You have been very concerned about Tulsi Gabbard moving up to this moment, talked about her inexperience as a concern for you. You said the U.S. would pay a heavy price if she's approved. Senator Schumer said she'd endanger national security this morning before that vote.
And when you have Mitch McConnell talking about her intelligence assessments being tainted, do you believe those assessments will be tainted with Tulsi Gabbard as DNI?
[15:25:03]
LEON PANETTA, FORMER CIA DIRECTOR & DEFENSE SECRETARY UNDER PRESIDENT OBAMA: Well, I think. There -- there will be a problem with regards to the credibility of the DNI. She's got a huge task trying to make clear that she has the wherewithal to be able to handle that job.
Look, the purpose of creating the DNI was to have someone who would coordinate 18 intelligence agencies and bring that information together. The people who've been successful at being DNI have extensive experience in intelligence. They know intelligence. They know the intelligence agencies.
Gabbard has absolutely no experience in intelligence. You know, she may have served in the military, but she does not have any requisite experience in intelligence. So she's going to have a long learning curve here to try to understand what 18 intelligence agencies are responsible for and what represents credible intelligence that needs to be presented to the president of the United States.
HILL: The fact that multiple Republican senators were worried about Gabbard, but then ultimately got to a yes, how concerned are you about those senators moving forward?
PANETTA: Well, you know, I've -- I've been in elective office and I know the kind of arguments that are going to be -- are being made by the administration, which is if you don't vote for the president's candidate, you're going to face an opponent in the primary, and were going to fund that opponent. You know, that's the kind of threat that's going on here with regards to a number of members. And so it's having an impact.
I wish that they had operated with really independent political judgment, because if you have some independence here, then there's no question that you're not only dealing with the lack of experience, you're also dealing with someone whose judgment is really under question.
Look, Mitch McConnell is somebody who is totally dedicated to our national defense. He's totally dedicated to our intelligence agencies. I've worked with him. I know where his heart lies.
And for him to vote against Gabbard really tells you a lot about someone who has the credibility in intelligence, in national security, to be worried about whether somebody like this can really do the job.
HILL: I also want to get your take on the developments with Russia today, because there have been many, as we know, the fact that there was this 90 minute phone call between the president and Vladimir Putin, there is talk of visiting each others countries. Fred Pleitgen just reporting that he heard from the spokesman there in Russia saying that they're willing to accept U.S. officials coming to Moscow to iron out some of the agreements here when it comes to Ukraine, which is remarkable.
Evelyn Farkas said very clearly on CNN a short time ago, there is absolutely no reason to welcome a war criminal to the United States. How do you view today's activities? What does it tell you about the future of U.S. policy?
PANETTA: Well, look, you know, I don't want to jump ahead and say that, you know, this is headed in the wrong direction. I'm glad that he had the conversation. I'm glad that they're trying to work towards negotiations.
I think the president has appointed some very qualified people to be part of the negotiations. But let's understand that most important here is having Ukraine and Zelenskyy at the table. This is their country. They're the ones who spilled blood because a tyrant invaded their country. And they're the ones that ought to determine what their independence and their security should be in the future.
So the test for me is to make very sure that Ukraine is represented at the table when it comes to negotiations.
HILL: Does that seem like a priority for you in this moment, based on what you see?
PANETTA: Absolutely, absolutely, you know, because I honestly think that one of the mistakes that President Trump made in, in his last term was going and having a negotiation with the Taliban without the Afghan government being represented there.
[15:30:01]
That was a terrible mistake.
HILL: Real quickly before I let you -- oh, sorry.
PANETTA: Go ahead.
HILL: I was just going to say also real quick, I just wanted to get your take before I let you go. I was struck by, you know, some of what we heard from Karoline Leavitt today at the White House briefing. In reading a statement from Donald Trump, she said that this was a good faith effort by Russia when she was also talking about the release of American hostages of Americans who had been wrongfully detained.
Before I let you go, do you see that as a good faith effort by Russia.
Well, you know, I reserve my judgment on that until I actually see that they're going to sit down in good faith and negotiate.
PANETTA: Look, let's not forget why we're here. We're here because a tyrant named Putin invaded with almost 300,000 Russian troops, invaded a sovereign democracy, Ukraine. He's responsible for the war in Ukraine, and so, if we are going to achieve what is a credible peace in Ukraine, then my test is that Ukraine has to decide what does Ukraine want in terms of their security and their independence?
That's their decision. It's not our decision. It's their decision to make. And they've earned that decision because they've been fighting like hell and dying like hell in order to protect their country.
HILL: And to your point, they need to be able to share that position right at the table.
Leon Panetta, always appreciate our conversations. Thank you for your time, sir.
PANETTA: Good to be with you.
HILL: Coming up here, millions of Americans bracing for another round of winter storms. We are right back with a closer look at what you can expect.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[15:35:17]
HILL: We are certainly not letting up in the U.S. one winter storm come and gone this week. The second one ready to hit the Midwest and the Northeast parts of Virginia, by the way recorded more than 12 inches, some 30 centimeters of snow just yesterday.
CNN meteorologist Derek Van Dam is tracking all that has happened and everything else that is coming.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE) DEREK VAN DAM, AMS METEOROLOGIST: A trio of winter storms is impacting the country, the first of which brought snowfall to the D.C. area. They're going to get rain on top of this snow, making a sloppy mess on the ground. By the way, picked up nearly a half a foot of snow at Reagan National that bumps the D.C. area up to some of the snowiest winter seasons we've seen in several years, at least to date.
Other areas saw over a foot of snow across Virginia, all driven by an active jet stream pattern that is pushing these storms from the West Coast to the East Coast, lining up one storm after another after another. So the secondary storm starting to exit the equation, not before leaving a swath of snowfall across parts of the Midwest and Great Lakes up to a half a foot, even locally, higher amounts.
By Thursday morning, it will be well off the East Coast, and a trailing cold front will bring some remaining showers to the southeast, where we've had several inches of rain already and more to come. So the potential there for flash flooding still exists.
Now, speaking of flash flooding, what's happening on the West Coast with storm number three is getting very interesting. I'll mention the snowfall first, because the Sierra Nevada Mountain Ranges, it will be nearly impossible to drive across some of those mountain overpasses because it will measure in feet, not inches. But then the rain will move into southern California, where we've had our recent wildfires in L.A. County.
So additional rainfall in this area means that burn -- burned areas could -- could form into mudslides and debris flows very easily. So we're going to monitor that situation very closely. Nonetheless, there are still flood watches in place for this area as several inches of rain will impact the coastal communities of the state of California, eventually moving into southern California.
And there's the winter weather alerts for the higher elevations, again, several feet of snow possible.
Back to you.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
HILL: All right. Derek, thank you.
Well, "The Associated Press" says its reporter -- one of its reporters was blocked from attending the signing of an executive order at the White House on Tuesday because the agency is not calling the Gulf of Mexico the Gulf of America. President Trump signed an order the day after his inauguration, a decree that the name be changed. While the "AP" says it acknowledges the presidents order, it also says it will continue to use Gulf of Mexico, a name that's been in use for more than 400 years.
CNN's Hadas Gold has more.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE) HADAS GOLD, CNN MEDIA CORRESPONDENT: "The Associated Press" says two of its reporters were blocked from events at the White House on Tuesday as a direct result of "The Associated Press" continuing to use the term the Gulf of Mexico instead of the Gulf of America. The "AP" saying that it was notified by the White House staff that they would not be allowed into these White House events, which included press conferences with the president as well as Elon Musk, unless the "AP" adhered, they said, with President Donald Trump's executive order renaming the Gulf of Mexico to the Gulf of America.
Now, when this executive order came out, that the Gulf of Mexico would be renamed gulf of America, the "AP" said that because of a 100-year, hundreds of years of precedent, as well as the fact that international -- other international countries, international organizations are still calling it the Gulf of Mexico, and the fact that the "AP" is an international organization, they would continue referring to the body of water as the Gulf of Mexico, while acknowledging that the -- that President Trump had renamed it to the Gulf of America.
When it came to another renaming, that of the Mountain Denali in Alaska to being named Mount McKinley. They did update their style guide. The "AP" did to be to calling it Mount McKinley, because it is fully within the United States, fully within President Trump's authority to change that name.
Now, the "AP" is pushing back hard against the reporters being barred from these events, saying in a statement it is alarming that the Trump administration would punish the "AP" for its independent journalism, limiting our access to the Oval Office based on the content of "AP" speech not only severely impedes the publics access to independent news, it plainly violates the First Amendment. The White House correspondents association has also called the blocking of the reporters unacceptable.
Now, "AP" reporters were at the White House press briefing on Wednesday afternoon, so it's clear that they have not been blocked entirely from the White House grounds. But the Trump administration has a long track record of blocking reporters, blocking news organizations from events from the White House that they disagree with. This, despite the fact that the White House has touted itself as an administration that they say is trying to promote free speech and remove government censorship and promote transparency.
[15:40:08]
And yet they are still blocking reporters whom they disagree with.
This is what the White House press secretary had to say in regards to blocking the "AP" reporters on Wednesday.
KAROLINE LEAVITT, WHITE HOUSE PRESS SECRETARY: You all have credentials to be here, including "The Associated Press", who is in this briefing room today.
GOLD: Now the "AP" has followed up with a letter to the White House chief of staff. Not clear yet, though, whether they plan to take any legal action.
Hadas Gold, CNN, New York.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
HILL: Coming up, how world leaders -- how leaders, rather, at the world government summit in Dubai are reacting now to President Trump's calls with Putin and Zelenskyy about ending the war in Ukraine.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
HILL: Returning now to our top story, President Trump talking about what he called a productive call with Russian President Vladimir Putin about ending the war in Ukraine. It is unclear exactly what ending that war would look like. The possible byproduct of stability in the region would likely ease the minds of world leaders specifically, of course, those in Europe.
For more, I'm joined now by CNN business editor at large Richard Quest, who's been at the world government summit in Dubai this week.
So, Richard, how are leaders taking these developments today about not only this call with Putin, but of course, also the call with Vladimir Zelenskyy and the comments from Pete Hegseth?
RICHARD QUEST, CNN BUSINESS EDITOR AT LARGE: I think that split them into two distinct areas. They knew change was going to come. They knew it wasn't going to be business as usual, but I think the speed of U.S. government policy change will have surprised. The UK chaired the group today. The U.S. made it quite clear that Europe has to share a larger burden. Both of the cost and provide any and all of the troops.
Now, this may all be obvious, and they may have known it was coming, but again, it's the way in which it's a complete 180 degrees from where they were with the Biden administration.
[15:45:03]
And Europe -- you know, Henry Kissinger, the famous line, who do I call when I want to speak to Europe? That's as true today as it was in many ways. Do you call Ursula von der Leyen, the commission? Do you call Costa, the council? Do you call the individual prime ministers and presidents?
It's going to be very, very tricky. And at the end of the day, it seems Ukraine is the loser.
HILL: In terms of that Ukraine being the loser, it's also notable, right. How much of the focus on this was on Russia? The initial call was between Trump and Putin, and then the call with Trump and Zelenskyy.
How much concern is there for the fact that Russia seems to be getting top billing, at least at the start of these negotiations?
QUEST: There is a real risk, in the view of Europeans, that Russia is going to get what it wants. Yeah, there may be some territorial gains, that perhaps was inevitable. Even Zelenskyy said that.
NATO membership not happening again, possibly inevitable, but the mere perception that the Russian aggression and they started the war at the end of the day has actually paid dividends for Putin. That is going to be a hard pill to swallow.
So, yes, the Europeans and the Americans have always said there will be no deal without Ukraine signing on to it today suggests slightly otherwise.
HILL: Yeah, it certainly does. You've been speaking with a number of leaders, obviously. Specifically, I know you had a conversation with British Prime Minister Boris Johnson, who is a former prime minister who's attending the summit.
Bring us into that conversation.
QUEST: He was lauding Elon Musk and the work that he's doing at DOGE. Boris Johnson was at the inauguration, was so privileged to even be in the rotunda. Well, when you talk about Elon Musk, he says, unless Europeans have a little bit of Musk type politics, this is one of the problems. Have a listen.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
BORIS JOHNSON, FORMER BRITISH PRIME MINISTER: Honestly, that's of all the things that are happening now in the in the United States, I think that's the one I -- we need to have it. We need to have a recognition in European democracies in the U.K. that we are spending far too much taxpayers money without achieving the objectives that we promise the people that we're going to deliver. And I -- and I think -- and I think -- and I think to go through budgets line by line and take out waste is completely right.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
QUEST: And that is exactly, of course, what Musk said in the Oval Office yesterday. Boris Johnson approves it. And he says that is the problem. Europeans just aren't getting the fact that there has to be change and it has to be fast, which frankly, is a bit rich coming from the former prime minister.
HILL: A bit. And it's also interesting. Of course, we still don't have a lot of evidence from Elon Musk as to how this is actually happening, despite the despite the, you know, declarations of transparency, long on declarations, short on evidence.
Richard, always a pleasure, my friend. Thank you.
QUEST: Thank you.
HILL: And be sure to stay tuned for more of Richard's analysis. "QUEST MEANS BUSINESS" is up at the top of the hour right here on CNN.
Before we bring you back to Richard, though, a little bit more on Elon Musk. A feud between billionaire tech rivals now getting personal. OpenAI CEO Sam Altman rejecting a $97 billion bid by Musk and a group of investors to buy the company, instead, suggesting, really, he feels sorry for Elon Musk.
Here's more from CNN's Brian Todd.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
ELON MUSK, TECH BILLIONAIRE: Yes!
BRIAN TODD, CNN CORRESPONDENT (voice-over): As Elon Musk tries to build his empire to an even greater degree, he gets rebuffed by one of his biggest personal rivals.
SAM ALTMAN, CEO, OPENAI: It's like another one of his, you know, tactics to try to like, mess with us.
TODD: Sam Altman, the 39-year-old CEO of OpenAI, has rejected an unsolicited offer from Musk to buy OpenAI for $97.4 billion. Altman says his company is not for sale, and told Bloomberg TV he thinks he knows why Musk made that offer.
ALTMAN: I think he's probably just trying to slow us down.
SARA FISCHER, CNN MEDIA ANALYST: I think what you're seeing here is that Elon Musk, who has such tension with Sam Altman, could try to buy the company to squash it or integrate it into his own company, xAI.
TODD: XAI is Musk's own artificial intelligence company, founded less than two years ago. It's seen as smaller, not as advanced as Altman's OpenAI, a leading company in the innovation and marketing of artificial intelligence that wowed the public with its sophisticated, groundbreaking tool, ChatGPT.
Altman didn't just reject Musk's bid. He got harshly personal in describing the world's richest man.
ALTMAN: Probably his whole life is from a position of insecurity. I feel for the guy.
INTERVIEWER: Do you feel for him?
ALTMAN: I do actually. I don't think he's like a happy person. I do feel for him.
TODD: A far cry from a decade ago when Altman and Musk co-founded OpenAI as a charity.
ZOE SCHIFFER, WIRED MAGAZINE: Sam Altman has said that he really looked up to Elon Musk at the time.
FISCHER: When they launched OpenAI together, they were considered on top of Silicon Valley, and they were doing it as a whole.
[15:50:04]
TODD: But in 2018, Musk left OpenAI. SCHIFFER: OpenAI's perspective is that Elon Musk wanted to take over
OpenAI. He wanted to merge it with Tesla, in fact, and that when Sam Altman refused to do that and in fact took over the company himself, that's when their relationship really started to break down.
TODD: Musk has since filed multiple lawsuits against OpenAI, accusing the company of betraying its nonprofit mission by looking to make a profit with its A.I. tools, an accusation Altman denies.
Their feud spilled out in public again last month when President Trump hosted Altman and two other CEOs at the White House to launch a $500 billion A.I. infrastructure investment. Musk tried to undermine the announcement, posting, quote, they don't actually have the money.
Trump himself commented on Musk's disdain for Altman.
DONALD TRUMP, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: He hates one of the people in the deal.
FISCHER: Now, this relationship has soured so much to the fact that they're, you know, trading public barbs, it really speaks to how much the Trump relationship has really come between the two of them.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
TODD (on camera): Sam Altman also said he's not concerned that Elon Musk has a new and powerful position in Donald Trump's White House, but he acknowledged he probably should be concerned about that. Spokespeople for Musk and for X did not respond to CNN's request for comment on Altman's latest remarks about Musk.
Brian Todd, CNN, Washington.
HILL: And stay with us.
We'll be right back.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
HILL: NASA says two astronauts stuck in space may return to earth a few weeks earlier than previously thought. Butch Wilmore and Suni Williams flew to the International Space Station aboard the Boeing Starliner's first crewed test flight back in June. They weren't supposed to stay that long. It was the launch of the start of a planned week long mission. But as you know by now, safety issues have prolonged their stay. They've now been there eight months.
NASA intended to use a new space capsule to bring a new crew to the space station. Use of that craft was delayed as well. The space agency -- the agency, however, announcing on Tuesday they would use an older SpaceX capsule for the crew-10 mission that would allow Wilmore and Williams to return home in mid-March instead of later that month or April.
Welcome news. We'll wait to see what happens. Meantime, a few hundred lucky Paul McCartney fans were able to come
together for a surprise concert in New York City. Now, McCartney, of course, usually sells out stadiums. He decided to get back lot of puns in here. People get ready to Manhattan's Bowery Ballroom, which holds just 575 people.
[15:55:03]
The intimate gig was announced earlier on Tuesday, and in half an hour, fans snatched up all the tickets. The 82-year-old legend rocked them with his hits from the Beatles and Wings eras. Fans said they were in awe when they saw him standing there.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: It was incredible. This is actually my 10th time seeing Paul McCartney. I have no words for it. I honestly thought he was going to go on for three hours like he usually does. But, you know, I'll take this.
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: He still played gems like, you know, "Can't Buy Me Love", Beatles hits, "Hey Jude", "Let It Be". But he also fit in Wings songs.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
HILL: Paul McCartney has a busy week here, running around New York City. He will be on Sunday night as part of the Saturday Night Live 50th anniversary special, so keep an eye out for that.
All right. There's one dog who has already received his crown.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: I choose the giant schnauzer.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Oh, Monty. He did it. Three years and he finally wins best in show.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
HILL: Big moment for Monty and his handler there, the giant schnauzer. As you heard, hails from New Jersey, won the prestigious best in show award at this year's Westminster Kennel Club Show in New York.
Having triumphed in the working group for the last three years, Monty finally became the first giant schnauzer to claim the top prize. Some 3,000 dogs from around the world tend to compete in the annual contest.
There you go. My best in show is Dakota. She's waiting for me, so I'm going to go home and find her.
You enjoy the rest of your day. I'm Erica Hill. Thanks for joining me this hour.
"QUEST MEANS BUSINESS" is up next.
