the u.s. tries to respond militarily, the chinese hacking efforts could hinder that response. >> it can cripple the lodgist irks that support our forces in east asia, rails, pipelines, airplanes, airports. they could make it very hard to support troops deployed overseas. >> meanwhile, the fbi director says he doesn't trust a recent promise from president xi to president biden that china would not try to disrupt the 2024 u.s. presidential election. >> china's promised a lot of things over the years so i guess i believe believe it when i see it. >> chinese authorities have denied being involved in hacking often saying that china is a frequent target of cyber attacks. >> thank you very much for watching. erin burnett "outfront" starts right now.

out maneuvered. republicans are fuming over the border bill crumbling before our eyes. the democrats claiming that they're the ones who can actually fix the border. plus, a quote scab and an insurrectionist. those are the words of a top teamster executive who refused to meet with trump today. and a major military shake up. sources say ukraine's top general is out and tonight, we hear exclusively from the man who may replace him. let's go "outfront." and good evening. i'm erin burnett. "outfront" tonight, out maneuvered. that is how republican senator is describing what is happening to his party on the border bill that right now, is essentially dead on arrival in the house. a border bill that would affect this entire country. democrats are seeing an opportunity and they're wasting no time tonight in piling on. >>. >> it's clear that when it comes to border security, democrats are for the fix and republicans are for the fiction. >> we may have owned it before but now you own it.

now you own it because we can fix it and now you don't want to fix it so now you guys own it. >> they're not alone. democrat tom swazy is running in one of the closest watched house races. he says quote, it's a better issue to run on now than it was ten days ago and that is because of comments like this one from house speaker mike johnson just today. >> from what we've heard, this so-called deal does include, does not include, sorry, from what we've heard, these transformational policy changes that are needed to stop the border catastrophe. >> he keeps emphasizing the word what he's heard. here's one fact. johnson has not actually seen the final bill. nobody has. the one thing he knows for sure he is hearing loud and clear is trump lobbying the house republicans to reject the deal because it would quote be a win

for the radical left democrats. and that collusion between trump and house republicans and the house speaker is why republican senators are seething. >> to me, this looks like we got outmaneuvered. >> people have to show courage. if you're afraid, you've got to read the bill. don't be ignorant. >> we can't think that this is about political advantage for one candidate or another. >> republicans have talked about this for a long time. i'm just telling them to read the bill and make their own sk decision on it. >> langford very conservative, top republican leading the negotiations, trying to maintain his calm there despite deep frustration. republicans know that democrats are going to flip the script on immigration and run towards it and not against it if they can't pass this bill. miguel marquez is in new york where he's covering this special election. border security is now front and

center. this is a must win race when you look at control of the house, miguel, and the democrat who we just heard from is feeling very confident on this issue. >> yeah, we're seeing that exact dynamic here in this race and he wants to take this office back. he is running as a centrist trying to take on republican issues. whether it's crime or taxes or immigration, saying he's a centrist that can get things done. but in this suburban district of new york city, immigration is a massive, massive issue. it's very unclear who will end up on top in in special election. immigration and the fight over how to deal with it. taking center stage in the first special election of 2024. >> will work with both parties to close illegal immigration routes. >> trying to turn the table on republicans and convince voters that he has the right plan for solving the immigration crisis. >> my opponent in this race

won't even give a solution. she says it's a problem. yeah, i agree there's a problem. i have a solution. >> his opponent, a nassau county legislator, says swazi who represented the district for three terms then ran unsuccessfully for new york governor, is part of the problem. >> he voted with biden every single time. biden and the democrats let in 10 million migrants. >> and that she has the solutions voters are looking for. >> we have to keep building the wall. and the same time, we have to increase the number of officers who will be there to secure the border. and we have to be more tight when it comes to asylum seeker. >> despite a bipartisan bill, house republicans at the urging of donald trump said they won't consider it. >> former president trump is saying oh, no, i don't want to give biden a win. that's what's wrong with

politics. >> as democrats blame republicans for blocking a solution, republicans are pummelling democrats for creating the problem. >> voter policy, millions of migrants have crossed the southern border. >> the race in suburban new york city. a purple district. largely jewish, register democrats slightly outnumbering republicans, but gop candidates have performed better here in recent issues. maybe none bigger than worries over immigration and how to deal with it. so early voting starts this saturday. election day is on the 13th. and whoever wins this race, it will send a massive, strong signal throughout the country to districts everywhere like this about what we might expect in november. erin? >> miguel, thank you very much.

and i want to go now to the democratic congressman. congressman, i appreciate your time tonight. you're seeing this. you're seeing the importance of t this in this one district of new york. do you think this is a winning issue for democrats when maybe a month or two ago, you probably wouldn't have thought that? >> yes. thanks for having me back. immigration is a winning issue for anybody who wants to get something done and you're seeing the contrasts between the two parties. the republicans are a party of followers and democrats are showing themselves to be a party of leaders. they want to now just admire the problem, weaponize the problem, and politicize the problem and you saw that with the efforts to impeach the secretary in charge of the border. even t"the wall street journal" said essentially it would be insane to throw out the secretary of homeland security. that's not going to solve the issue. solving the issue would work in a bipartisan way to take on the challenge at the border.

>> so, there are a number of democrats who think the president's going too far on immigration in terms of limiting it. pramila jayapal said the president would do well to remember it has never worked for democrats to just take up republican talking points and think republicans are going to thank us for us. and greg casar said, i quote, it's bad immigration policy. it's bad for our economy. it's not humane. it's bad for americans. then i think it's bad politics as well. i don't think we should be accepting the hostage taking situation and trump like policies as democrats. now that's coming from the left of your party. but it does raise a crucial question. you know, there's very clear, democrats and republicans who are negotiating this are calling it the strictest in this century. the strictest in generations. is biden risking going beyond where your party is right now? >> i think he's going right where the american people are. and of course in a negotiation,

you're never going to get what you want but at the center of this country believes that somewhere between putting kids in cages, which is inhumane and wrong, and somewhere between having an absolute open border, you can have policies where the border is secure. where you have barriers where it makes sense. where you use surveillance and sensor technologies. that you have a path way for earned citizenship and that you show compassion to people coming here with asylum claims and you have enough resources through judges to adjudicate the claims and get rid of the ones that are not. that to me makes more sense than the deal led by the second most conservative person in the senate, james langford, working with democrats, is at least getting us somewhere near that rather than just as i said, weaponizing the problem and not wanting to be part of the solution. >> taking a step back here. obviously, there is the bill itself, right, and as it's being

described as the strictest. being negotiated on the republican side by one of the most conservative members of the senate. then there's also the laws on the books now of what can be done with what we have. we hear that a lot. enforce what's on the books before you talk about what's needed. mike johnson says biden can use section 212 f of the immigration and nationality act to fix the border. which basically gives the president broad authority to restrict immigration. the key line in it congressman reads whenever the president finds the entry of aliens into the united states would be detrimental to the interest of the united states, he may by proclamation and for such a period he deem necessary, suspend the entry of aliens or impose on the entry of aliens any restrictions he may deem appropriate. now, you and i know, everyone knows, president trump used his authority many times. he was challenged in court including when he used it to ban travel from those five mainly

muslim countries but in that case, the supreme court ruled on section 212 f that it exudes deference to the president in every clause. so congressman, just a very basic question. why wouldn't president biden, sure, he'll be challenged in court, try to use this now to stem a quarter million people coming over the border every month? >> certainly resources are being searched to the extent they can, but erin, many of the challenges were also successful in court. i think the last thing you want is uncertainty day-to-day on what the situation is at the border. so if you can put it into law with a bipartisan piece of legislation that would let the president stop asylum claims from time to time and put the resources there so that you can restart them, which seems to be the crux of what this deal could be, that gives more certainty to our process and we should take it rather than just leaving this to the courts then next week when it stayed, it's back open

again. that is just chaos. one party, they just want to sabotage the process. throw out the secretary and charge the process. not solve the process so you can help donald trump in the election and benefit. >> jonathan turley who had represented trump in the impeachment hearings from a constitutional law perspective, thinks that impeaching the homeland security secretary makes no sense at all and is inappropriate. but there are things out there that don't really still make sense, congressman. for example, does it make sense to you that president biden has asked for fewer immigration detention beds in his annual budget? people point to these things as the signals that this administration has sent that the border is open. >> yeah. i think anyone who could be a threat to the united states, you know, certainly you would want them in a detention bed. in an ideal world, if someone comes with an asylum claim, you can process that claim as quickly as possible and return them to their country if they don't meet the standard, but we

don't have the resources right now to do that. i think that's what this deal can get us towards. >> he hasn't requested the resources in the past with things like the beds as an example. >> sure. and speaker johnson has said he won't take additional resources unless we pass the most extreme draconian bill. i think most americans live in the center on this issue and we're getting closer to find it and i just hope any republican colleagues realize we can do big things on a complicated issue if we just come together. >> thank you so much. appreciate your time. >> my pleasure. next, a top team executive skipping a meeting with former president trump. but can trump still score that union's endorsement? that teamster exec is next. plus, mark zuckerberg says he's

sorry to parents. but then why is he then denying the link between social media and poor mental health? and nevada republicans go to the polls next week. fix is already in it appears for trump. we'll show you why in a special report, coming up.

tonight, union buster, scab, insurrectionist. trump is trying to get a big endorsement and make no mistake, an endorsement from a major union. would be unprecedented. vice president at large, john palmer, will be my guest in a moment, though refused to attend the meeting with trump. this is just days after palmer sent a letter to sean o'brien where he argued trump should not be welcomed by the union saying in part quote, he's a known union buster, scab and insurrectionist. john palmer is now "outfront." so, john, you know, we understand this meeting happened today and i know you chose not to go.

trump sounds very confident the union will endorse him. what have you heard about what happened in that meeting today? >> i saw a list of questions concerning where he stood and what he might do in his next term but, my sense is we know who this man is. you judge people by the actions they take, right? and all the things that i said, scab, union buster, insurrectionist, are provable beyond a doubt. he crossed the picket line with the -- people. he hired union busters to staff the department of labor. i'm an organizer and i've had to deal with the labor board. you know, as far as the insurrection goes, you know, we all saw what happened. there's folks that want to somehow dress that up as a

vacation day for some folks and that's very unfortunate. >> do you think though from what you're hearing from your peers and your union, those of you running the union, do you think trump really has a chance at getting this endorsement? >> i would say zero. i don't believe he does have a chance. i was disappointed in the appearance, particularly the press conference that occurred after the meeting. i think it sends out a sort of, it was in many letter. it's a tacit endorsement. he is not going to go anything for labor. never has. frankly, he's not a trustworthy individual. >> so after the meeting today, he was asked about your criticism specifically. >> one of the executive board members objected to your visit today calling you a known union

buster, scab, and insurrectionist. what's your response? >> they're wrong about that. i've dealt with unions my whole life. i've had a great relationship with unions. >> what do you say to that? you've looked at his risrhistor with unions. >> i think we know about his long history and inability to tell the truth. i just laid out why i said those things. he's guilty of all those things. it's fact. you know, a rock is a rock. when you thump on it with your knuckles, your knuckles are going to bleed. i know folks live in information bubbles and take on different view points. as leaders, it's incumbent upon us to tell the truth to our members. now, i served in the military. i'm very proud of that service. my whole family did. i lost an uncle in korea who i never knew, but people died so

we could have the right to disagree. i'm fine with people having a different viewpoint, but as a leader, it's my responsibility to lay the facts out for folks. for working men and women in general, let's go beyond unions. everything, the good things that happen with unions transfer into the nine union workplace. >> i know obviously you know you made it clear that you don't support trump. that you do support biden. but i want to ask you something about your union itself, right? and just what's happened in this country in terms of political shifts. 1.3 million members. harry anton has been going through the numbers and pointed out the democratic edge with union voters has declined dramatically. in 1948, it was a 62-point edge. 21 points now in 2020. so do you worry that a lot of people in your union don't see it this way? that they would be happy to have the union endorse trump?

>> i think it is a cause for concern and i think you know, sometimes as we rise in the ranks of leadership, we become dis disconnected from the membership. as an organizer person, education is everything. instead of endorsing somebody or playing footsie with somebody isn't going to work in our best interest. the facts are pretty clear. as to why this man should not get our endorsement. i'm certain he won't. >> all right. thank you very much. i appreciate your time. >> thank you. next, mark zuckerberg making a public apology to parents but right after he said he was sorry, he said this. >> the existing body of scientific work has not shown a causal link between using social media and young people having worse mental health outcomes. >> okay. well, i mean, sure.

doctors long studied the impact of social media on mental health said he's wrong. she's my guest next. and nevada votes next week. but is the contest already rigged for trump? >> what do you notice about this ballot? >> the person i wanted to vote for wasn't on this ballot.

tonight, sorry, not sorry. meta chief mark zuckerberg today facing the families of online abuse victims with this message. >> there's families and victims here today. have you apologized to the victims? >> i -- >> would you like to do to now? they're here, you're on national television. would you like now to apologize to the victims who have been harmed? show them the pictures. would you like to apologize for what you've done to these good people? >> i -- i'm sorry -- the things your families have suffered. and this is why we invested so

much and i know your efforts to make sure that no one has to go through the type of things your families have. >> that was a stunning moment. it came during a very tense senate judiciary hearing on online child safety. so there was that apology, which was prompted by. prompted. but here's the same hearing and zuckerberg a few minutes later. >> mental health is a complex issue and the existing body of scientific work has not shown a causal link between using social media and young people having worse mental health outcomes. >> no causal link. that does fly in the face of numerous credible studies and it's an insult to those families. "outfront" now, dr. lisa strollman. a clinical psychologist who specializes in technology use.

you were watching this today and you said you had to turn off the television because it upset you so much. tell me why. >> yeah, thank you, erin. you know, i've been in the field and working as a clinical psychologist for over 20 years and i sit in a room with children and families that have been harmed by social media and i've spent my career being an advocate on this point. so to hear zuckerberg stand up and say there's no link means he has bad advisers because he is basically trying to turn the scientific community in my opinion against himself. he is absolutely and patently lying that he doesn't have evidence that this is actually harming our children and he has a personnel issue if he doesn't have those people that are in that internal world of his giving him that feedback on a daily basis. >> so, zuckerberg, you know, in denying that link, the causal link between social media use and poor mental health, you know, there's a lot of research on this. of course, as you're well aware, you know, going through some of it. there was a study in the

american journal of epidemiology that found that facebook use was associated with a decrease in self-reported mental health and literally the number, you can correlate likes, right, the number of likes with mental health. then there's there. this is an analysis of cdc data. i know familiar to you, but it shows spikes in feelings of sadness and suicidal thoughts and you can see that on one line and this comes along with the introduction of the various social media platforms. so you can see things out there. what else does the data show that you have looks through in such detail? >> well, it's always going to be correlational data and so to his point, he can use the word causal because he knows we can't do studies where we put children in front of harmful content and see whether or not it hurts them. so this data shows, that overlay shows the correlational relationship between when these products are coming out and the

effect that it's having on our teenagers. so when he says that mental health is a complex issue, that was the part that really got to me because it's a simple issue. we're either well or we're unwell and our children are suffering and they're unwell. so it's a simple issue. if they put the dollars behind actually the services and going upstream and keeping the children off of these platforms, then we wouldn't have to spend billions of dollars that he's putting back into his tech company to create buttons that aren't working any way. >> you know, it's actually an amazing thing in that this issue actually has united people from both parties in congress. which pretty much nothing does. i want to play you actually a bit of an exchange that zuckerberg had with a republican senator, marcia blackburn. >> children are not your priority. children are your product. children, you see as a way to make money. >> obviously that's interesting.

mark zuckerberg is a parent himself now. so he can see this from other perspectives but from the perspective of his company and how it is run and what they do and how they make money, how they grow, is she right? >> she's absolutely right. and in fact, if you look at the evidence that's out there, it's really on a child's time on a platform. they're making about $270 per child. and my question to the world is is it worth it? are we trading in our humanity for dollars in this case? because our generation of children are never going to grow up well enough, healthy enough or mindful enough to be able to be contributing into our society if we keep intruding into their minds with this content that's harming them. >> thank you very much. i appreciate your time. >> thank you for having me. >> next, the next major contest in the republican primary is next week, but here's the thing. nikki haley and donald trump is not even on the same ballot.

>> this definitely smells of rigging the caucus on behalf of donald trump. >> plus, breaking news this hour. sources telling cnn now that ukraine's top general is out. and tonight, an exclusive interview with the man who could be his replacement. a seismic shift in the ukraine war tonight. we'll be back.

growing up, my parents wanted me to become a doctor or an engineer. those are good careers! but i chose a different path. first, as mayor and then in the legislature. i enshrined abortion rights in our california constitution. in the face of trump, i strengthened hate crime laws and lowered the costs for the middle class. now i'm running to bring the fight to congress. you were always stubborn. and on that note, i'm evan low, and i approve this message. not just any whiteboard... ...katie porter's whiteboard is one way she's: [news anchor] ...often seen grilling top executives of banks, big pharma, even top administration officials. katie porter. never taken corporate pac money - never will. leading the fight to ban congressional stock trading. and the only democrat who opposed wasteful “earmarks” that fund politicians' pet projects. katie porter. focused on your challenges - from lowering housing costs to fighting climate change. shake up the senate -

with democrat katie porter. i'm katie porter and i approve this message. tonight, rigged for trump. it's the loaded word, obviously, but it is the accusation against the republican party in nevada which is running a caucus next week with trump as the only major candidate actually you know, you're allowed to vote for. that's odd. nikki haley's in the race. to add to the confusion, the state then is running a separate primary election where nikki haley is running but it doesn't matter. the only thing that matters is the caucus because the candidate who wins gets the 26 delegates. the primary winner gets nothing. so we're "outfront" with why a lot of people in nevada are crying foul and saying the nevada gop is in trump's back pocket. >> going to be very confusing for people. >> i don't why we're doing it that way.

>> in nevada's primary, republican voters are finding there's something missing. donald trump. >> this is very much like the ballot you just turned in. right? >> exactly. >> what do you notice about this ballot? >> the person i wanted to vote for isn't on this ballot. >> do a lot of people understand what's happening? >> i don't think so. i didn't. >> donald j. trump! >> at his nevada rally, former president trump said no need for concern. just go to the caucuses. >> do the caucus. not the primary. the primary's meaningless. >> nevada passed a law in 2021 that switched from caucuses to a primary system that trump didn't want to run in. so now trump is participating in the party run nevada caucuses on february 8th. nikki haley is running in the state run primary two days earlier. outside of this trump rally, his voters were still trying to make sense of the dual system. >> i think it's going to confuse a lot of people. >> only the results of the caucuses award delegates towards

nominating the republican presidential candidate. the state party sets that rule. it's why trump's campaign is pushing the caucuses. if you're lost, you wouldn't be the only one. >> we're trying to talk to people about the caucus versus the primary. >> yeah, just a lot of confusion. >> it is confusing because i got the information, but it does not tell you when to vote. >> you're looking up the difference between the two. >> yeah, like caucus, primary. different stuff like that. i still don't know why he's not on there. >> hypocrisy you couldn't cut with a chain saw. >> chuck voted in the primary, but knows it didn't matter. >> i believe they set up the caucus because they wanted to ensure donald trump wasn't embarrassed in nevada and secured nevada's vote. this smells of rigging the caucus on behalf of donald trump. >> he's talking ability the leadership of his state republican party. some of those leaders just happen to be criminally indicted by the state for attempting to

falsely certify that trump won nevada in 2020. he did not win. all six fake electors have pleaded not guilty to felony charges. michael mcdonald, republican party chairman and close trump ally. >> we will deliver you 100% of delegates of the state of nevada to donald j. trump! >> and wherjesse law. >> clark county republican chairman who sang at trump's last nevada rally. last november, we kacaught up wh a caucus road show held by republican party leaders. >> as a party, make sure we're choosing the most competitive, the most representative candidate to be our nominee. >> completely misguided. >> former state gop chair and lifelong republican doesn't buy any of this. what does it mean though if you have these indicted fake electors who are also behind

pushing this caucus? >> how do you trust it? to me, it comes across as complete pro trump scam. that's it. plain and simple. it's sad and it's disappointing. i think really they've disenfranchised the republican voter. >> since nevada's republican primary doesn't award any delegates, the best nikki haley can hope for is bragging rights. donald trump, he's the only mange name left in the caucuses which will award 26 delegates. erin? >> all right, thank you very much. i do want to add that we reached out to the nevada republican leadership for comment and they did not respond to our request. next, trump's federal january 6th case is on hold. it is now awaiting a key decision from an appeal court. there's a real big question here. this was expected to happen quickly. it has taken now almost a month. why is it taking so long for the judges to rule whether trump is immune or not? ty cobb has a theory.

and breaking news. sources tell cnn that ukraine's military chief has been told he's being fired. he's been side by side with zelenskyy since day one. the man who could replace him sits down exclusively with cnn.

growing questions about whether trump will face a criminal trial. it's been weeks since they were paused in a meddling case. the case halted until a federal appeals court rules on his claim that he has presidential immunity from criminal prosecution. everyone expected a ruling quickly from this court but the three-judge panel has been silent for three weeks. almost certainly delaying the scheduled march 4th trial date. "outfront" now, ty cobb, the lawyer who signed on to a brief to argue against trump's claim of immunity. we've talked about this. you expected a quick decision.

oral arguments were on january 9th. they've said nothing. what do you think is happening? >> so i think the three-week delay is, if you take a step back, given the magnitude of the decision involving a former president and an unprecedented constitutional claim. it's not difficult to imagine that the court would take three weeks to a month to perfect an opinion. i hope that's what's going on. it is also possible that the court could split two to one. not on whether or not trump's arguments are valid, but on the issue of whether or not the claim should be heard at this time. there was an opinion that said

that no appeals should be heard pre conviction. the court asked questions about that then reverted to the famous exchanges with regard to the logical extent of the arguments put forth by trump's attorney ending with the attorney insisting that s.e.a.l. team six could kill a political rival under some circumstances. i think if this goes through the end of next week without a decision, that's a concern. i think a 2-1 opinion invites review, which i think otherwise would be rejected. that would add additional delay. and also a 2-1 opinion would make it more likely that the supreme court might take this up. my own view is we've discussed before along with several other constitutional scholars although many disagree is that the supreme court is unlikely in the event of a strong d.c. circuit

opinion is unlikely to take this case up preconviction. >> so then when you talk about the conviction, you have to have the trial. then appeals. norm eisen laid out how he thought this could delay the beginning of the trial until august. now, if you do that, there's a long standing doj rule that you don't the question is do you think this case scheduled to start on march 4 could not start at all before the election? >> no, i believe -- do i think that's possible? yes, i think that's very possible. i still think it's 60-40 that the case will go forward in late

may or june. assuming an opinion within the next week. and i do believe that it is possible to get the trial done. but obviously, the appeal would not be completed before trump, should he win, would be inaugurated. and at that point, he will have the ability to order his justice department to dismiss the appeal and, you know, this case will be as though it never existed. he is not going pardon himself. it's sad to see journalists still insisting that's a possibility, because, a, it was never a possibility, and b, it's unnecessary because all he has to do is direct the justice department to dismiss the appeals. but, yeah, i think he's not going to be incarcerated in advance of inauguration should he win. >> i want to ask you before you go, ty, alina habba, trump's lawyer who lost the case in the e. jean carroll $83 million settlement.

trump has indicated he is looking for new representation for his appeal. she represented him, and she said in a recent interview, she talked about that, what it was like working with him. here's what she said. >> winning always helps. he doesn't want anybody on his team representing him that's going to keep failing, of course. loyalty, it's something he talks about all the time. but loyalty in not a cryptic mafia way. >> so he did say he is looking for new representation. you worked for him. what do you -- for the white house. so you know him. what do you think about how she has handled the case? >> i think she's handled in the mafia way. she has done his bidding. she portrayed his narrative of victimization and made outlandish claims and she lost. so she is a loser. i'm not surprised that trump is looking for appellate representation. >> all right. well, ty, thank you very much. i appreciate your time, as

always. >> my pleasure. thank you, erin. >> all right. see you soon. next, breaking news. ukraine's army chief fired, according to sources. a major development tonight. next, you'll hear exclusively from the man who could replace him.

in san francisco, two people a day are dying from fentanyl. this is a national crisis that demands new strategies. prop f requires single adults receiving cash assistance to enroll in treatment if they use drugs. i know what it's like to lose family to drug addiction. it's too late for some families. but our city needs to do what's necessary to save lives. please vote yes on prop f. so, you've got the power of xfinity at home. now take it outside with xfinity mobile. what's necessary to save lives. like speed? it's the fastest mobile service around... and right now, you can get a free line of our most popular unlimited plan. all on the most reliable 5g network nationwide. ditch the other guys and you'll save hundreds.

get a free line of unlimited intro for 1 year when you buy one unlimited line. and for a limited time, get the new samsung galaxy s24 on us. breaking news. a major military shake-up. president zelenskyy of ukraine telling his top general, valery zaluzhny, that he is being fired, sources are telling cnn. this is an enormous move. it is a seismic move. they have been together since day one, and it comes at a crucial time in the war. a formal announcement is expected by the end of the week. it comes as u.s. aid son hold. one person seen as a potential replacement is a man vladimir putin tried to assassinate ten separate times. he is just sitting down for an exclusive interview with cnn with our fred pleitgen, who is "outfront." >> reporter: with ukraine facing

a russian onslaught in many frontline areas, kyiv says continued u.s. military aid is more important than ever, ukraine's military intel chief tells me. >> shells are one of the most decisive factors in this war. it's about quantity, not so much the quality as the quantity. next, there are assault aircraft. these are aircraft of the type the united states has, like the a-10 thunderbolt and so on. this is what can really help inflict a military defeat. >> reporter: but further military aid to ukraine hangs in the balance as democrats accuse former president trump as derailing a possible compromise. budanov says he is not concerned about trump. >> he is an experienced person. he has fallen many times and gotten back up again. and that is a very serious trait. to say that he and the republican party are lovers of the russian federation is complete nonsense. >> reporter: but the russians are currently on the offense of the front lines we've seen kyiv's force suffering a severe

lack of ammunition, struggling to hold the line. still, budanov says he believes the tides will turn and ukraine will attack. >> translator: in my opinion, the main event on the battlefield will start happening some time in the spring or early summer. >> reporter: vladimir putin wants budanov dead. the ukrainians say moscow tried to assassinate him at least ten times. recently budanov's wife and several bodyguards fell ill after what kyiv says poisoning by a, quote, heavy metal, but they survived. the military intelligence director is said to be behind an increasing number of cross-border attacks targeting key infrastructure inside russia and the occupied territories. while never claiming responsibility, budanov tells me russians can rest assured the war has come to them. "i believe that the plan includes all major critical infrastructure facilities and military infrastructure facilities of the russian federation." with ukraine's offensive

officially stagnant, the kremlin is currently feasting on rumors ukrainian president volodymyr zelenskyy is close to firing his top general valery zaluzhny and possibly installing budanov as his successor. the spy chief coy. isn't that something that weakens the country if it appears as though the president and his top general are not on the same page? >> translator: i am also the head of one of the military agencies. i personally have no conflict with anyone. >> people are talking about you possibly being the new general. >> translator: if i was appointed yesterday, would we be meeting? >> reporter: as you can see, erin, there are still a lot of uncertainty surrounding that situation with general valery zaluzhny. meanwhile, i also asked budanov what exactly victory would look like for ukraine. he said nothing less than taking back all of ukraine's territories, including crimea. erin? >> all right. thank you very much, fred. and of course that is exactly what zelenskyy says repeatedly. so they are on the same page. thank you so much for joining us. "ac 360"