Return to Transcripts main page

The Lead with Jake Tapper

U.S. Supreme Court Limits Lower Courts' Power To Block Trump; Supreme Court Hands Win to Parents Opposed To LGBTQ Books In Schools; Defense Ends Closing Arguments In Sean Combs Trial; Father Describes Baby's Death As Malnutrition Plagues Gaza; Lauren Sanchez Reveals Her Dress After Star-Studded Wedding To Amazon CEO Jeff Bezos. Aired 5-6p ET

Aired June 27, 2025 - 17:00   ET

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

[17:00:00]

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: People on social media don't realize that. And so it does make people want to be wealthy in a way that they cannot attain.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Look, even the Republican Party you had, I think, Senator Josh Hawley advocating for a minimum wage increase. I mean, even Republicans have sort of tussled with this idea of having to change some of our traditionally held previous conservative beliefs to meet this new populist movement.

KASIE HUNT, CNN HOST: To Alex's point, the populism you're talking about.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Yes.

HUNT: All right, Jake Tapper standing by for The Lead. Jake, our panel could clearly sit here and talk about this wedding all day, but I know you have a lot of other news to get to.

JAKE TAPPER, CNN HOST: I just can't help but get emotional when I see young love like that. It's is beautiful.

HUNT: Happy Friday.

TAPPER: It's absolutely beautiful. Thanks, Kasie. See you back in the arena next week.

HUNT: Se you for Monday. Yes.

TAPPER: The U.S. Supreme Court just gave Trump a power surge. The Lead starts right now.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

DONALD TRUMP, U.S. PRESIDENT: This was a big one, wasn't it? This was a big decision.

(END VIDEO CLIP) TAPPER: A major win for President Trump as a U.S. Supreme Court decision limits the power of lower courts to block his agenda. Coming up, the wide ranging decision that started with a challenge to his executive order on birthright citizenship. And that wasn't the only controversial decision announced by the court today.

Plus, less than 24 hours, Senate Republicans say they're going to vote on Trump's massive policy bill. One big beautiful bill they call it. But what about their major party differences in the bill? Do they even know what they're going to be voting on tomorrow? One Republican senator in the mix will be here to explain.

Plus, New York City Mayor Eric Adams here on the lead in his first CNN interview since launching his reelection campaign as an independent. What does he think of his likely Democratic opponent, Zohran Mamdani? What does he think of Andrew Cuomo vowing to stay in the race? We'll discuss it all.

Welcome to The Lead. I'm Jake Tapper. We're going to start with our law and justice league and that major U.S. Supreme Court decision that could further shift the balance of power between the judicial and executive branches, to say nothing of the legislative branch.

Today's ruling is related to President Trump's executive order to end birthright citizenship. But the court did not directly decide the constitutionality of whether a child born in the United States automatically is entitled to U.S. citizenship. Instead, today's 6 to 3 ruling has even broader implications that ultimately limits the ability of lower court judges to stop any president and his or her agenda.

It now blocks a district judge from making a ruling in their district that would impact the entire country. Here's President Trump just after the decision.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

TRUMP: Instead of merely ruling on the immediate cases before them, these judges have attempted to dictate the law for the entire nation.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

TAPPER: The president went on to argue that today's ruling helps him on a whole range of campaign promises.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

TRUMP: We can now properly file to proceed with these numerous policies and those that have been wrongly enjoined on a nationwide basis, including birthright citizenship, ending sanctuary city funding, suspending refugee resettlement, freezing unnecessary funding, stopping federal taxpayers from paying for transgender surgeries, and numerous other priorities of the American people.

(END VIDEO CLIP) TAPPER: As for birthright citizenship itself, the Trump administration insists it will win that part of the case when the issue is expected to return to the U.S. Supreme Court. Birthright citizenship has been the law of the land since just after the U.S. Civil War. Clearly laid out in the 14th Amendment, it reads in part, quote, all persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States. Unquote.

Liberal Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson argues that this ruling goes well beyond the 14th amendment. She says today's ruling creates, quote, an existential threat to the rule of law and will enable our, quote, unquote, collective demise.

Justice Amy Coney Barrett, who wrote the majority opinion, slapped down Justice Jackson with some unusually harsh criticism that we will tell you about in a second.

The U.S. Supreme Court was busy today, ruling on a number of cases, other ones that might also have huge national implications, including a ruling siding with a group of religious paralysis (ph) in Maryland who want to opt their elementary age kids out of participating in discussions about LGBTQ books.

A ruling that upheld a Texas law requiring age verification for pornographic websites. This was one of the most closely watched First Amendment cases to arrive at the Supreme Court in years.

[17:05:06]

In addition, the justices upheld a provision of Obamacare that recommends preventive health care services, turning away the latest legal challenge to that landmark legislation.

We're going to dive into all of these and what they might mean for you. But first, back to the case the White House was most focused on. Senior White House correspondent Kristen Holmes is at the Casablanca. Let's also bring in chief legal affairs correspondent Paula Reid.

And Paula, is the president fundamentally more powerful today than he was when he woke up this morning?

PAULA REID, CNN CHIEF LEGAL AFFAIRS CORRESPONDENT: Absolutely, thanks to the conservative supermajority at the high court. And remember, he appointed half of that majority. And the reason he's more powerful is because he loves to govern through executive actions. He has issued a record number of them. They would face legal challenges. And before today's opinion, any federal judge anywhere in the country could block that policy for the entire country.

And this is not a Trump specific thing. I mean, this is something that all modern presidents, Obama, Biden, Bush, they've all faced these so called nationwide injunctions and complained about them. But this became a real pet peeve for President Trump because he was so prolific in his use of executive actions. He faced a record number of these nationwide injunctions. And this has become a cause for his Republican allies in Congress as well as the White House.

So today we have this opinion that limits the power that judges have to block these policies. So now he can sign an executive order. And look, this is going to be a little messy, but it is expected that those executive actions will likely go into effect in at least parts of the country. And I say it's going to be messy because you can still bring class action lawsuits.

These different policies impact different groups of people. When you're talking about something like mass firings or even birthright citizenship, allowing a policy to go into effect even for one or two years while you litigate and contemplate the larger constitutional questions, that is still something that could impact hundreds or thousands, perhaps even millions, depending on the policy of Americans.

And I'm just so struck, Jake, because I remember on Inauguration Day, one of Trump's lawyers saying, we have all these executive orders. It's a very expansive view of executive power. We're going to lose it to lower courts. But if we can get this before the justices, we are going to win. And here we are a little over six months later. And they were right.

TAPPER: And let's remember, a lot of those justices on the court, not just the Trump ones, but the Bush ones, too, are there at least in part because they had that view of the power of the executive.

Kristen, speaking of the executive, President Trump seemed pretty happy today. Earlier this month, however, I remember you reported that President Trump was complaining privately about Justice Amy Coney Barrett behind closed doors for the better part of a year, sources told you. She, of course, was appointed by him and has not been 100 percent in lockstep with him, but pretty supportive. Did he have anything different to say today?

KRISTEN HOLMES, CNN SENIOR WHITE HOUSE CORRESPONDENT: Yes, it was a whole different tune that he was singing today. And just to reiterate, the administration, President Trump are very, very happy with this ruling to the point where they came out and did an impromptu press briefing and brought out the attorney general Pam Bondi, as well as the deputy attorney general Todd Blanche, in order tout what had happened. All because of what you are talking about, this expansion of the executive, something that they've been hoping for. And it will impact their -- it will impact what they do next because now they feel like they are empowered with those executive orders.

Now when it comes to Justice Amy Coney Barrett, he had been complaining behind closed doors and he was asked by a reporter specifically about some of the close conservative allies of President Trump who have been incredibly vocal in the public about Coney Barrett talking about her rulings and kind of hitting her over and over again on social media and in various podcasts. He was asked specifically what he thinks about her and this is what he said. I don't know about that. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

TRUMP: I just have great respect for her. I always have. And her decision was brilliantly written today from all accounts.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

HOLMES: And again, that wasn't the first time he had praised her. He also earlier had thanked her specifically and said that her decision, her writing was brilliant at that point as well. Clearly a little bit of a different song that he is singing now with this ruling, particularly given how happy he is. Seems as though he might have flipped a leaf or turned over a new leaf when it comes to the justice.

TAPPER: All right, Kristen Holmes, Paula Reid, thanks to both of you. Our panel of legal experts are here to discuss this particular major ruling. Joan Biskupic, you were one of the few journalists in the courtroom this morning. Take us inside the court as these opinions were read.

I'm specifically interested in the dynamic between Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson, who had some dystopian visions in her decision about what this, in her opinion about what this decision means, and Amy Coney Barrett, who really smacked her. I mean, figuratively.

[17:10:07]

JOAN BISKUPIC, CNN CHIEF SUPREME COURT ANALYST: Definitely figuratively. It is the Supreme Court.

TAPPER: Yes, of course.

BISKUPIC: So we come in and we know we have six major rulings left. And I'm thinking this is going to come last just because it's the biggest. And the chief is probably holding on to it as the Chief Justice. John Roberts typically keeps the biggest decisions for himself. But he announces from the bench that Justice Barrett will be reading this, which means, Jake, he has given this important decision to the most junior justice of the six conservative bloc, giving her a lot of authority to do something.

She laid out how history and tradition dictates this outcome in the minds of the conservatives and tries to emphasize how limited it is. And first, before we get to Justice Jackson, Justice Sotomayor then speaks from the bench. While Justice Jackson is looking straight ahead during all this. Justice Sotomayor is the senior justice on the liberal side.

So she then took 20 minutes to talk about how misguided this was and how this was going to be so bad for individual rights, including birthright citizenship. And I'm thinking, wow. But then I see the written opinions of the justices and Justice Jackson, our newest justice who came on in 2022, Ketanji Brown Jackson has written something even fiercer. And let me just talk -- let me just say what Justice Jackson was wrote in her dissenting opinion. And I think we have it to put out on the screen. TAPPER: Yeah.

BISKUPIC: It is not difficult to predict how this all ends. Eventually, executive power will become completely uncontainable, and our beloved constitutional republic will be no more.

TAPPER: That's pretty dark.

BISKUPIC: Very dark. And that's why I said I surprised it went darker than Justice Sotomayor did. So then Justice Barrett counters that in her written one, she doesn't refer to it at all from the bench, but in a written one, you'll see. What she says is she names Justice Jackson. She says Justice Jackson decries an imperial executive while embracing an imperial judiciary. No one disputes that the executive has a duty to follow the law, but the judiciary does not have unbridled authority to enforce this obligation. She would do well to heed her own admonition. Everyone from the president on down is bound by the law. That goes for judges, too.

And you, too, you know, you can feel that in the rhetoric between the two of them. And this has been very common theme for this term so far, Jake.

TAPPER: And Shan how much harder will this ruling make it for people to bring challenges against Trump policies in an effective way? Do they just automatically needed to go up to an appellate court because the district court just doesn't have the juice anymore?

SHAN WU, DEFENSE ATTORNEY: Well, the district court can still make individualized decisions. So someone's trying to do like a permanent junction or TRO that they can still do that. What's really changed is you might say the efficiency of it, because where the district court, because once say, this is so wrong, we're giving you a TRO preliminary injunction. And all across the country, this can't go into effect.

Now they're saying they can't do that. You can still go to courts across the country, for example, for birthright citizenship. The path is clearly going to be through class actions, so you could achieve the same result.

You know, but what Joan was saying, I think for most people, I think looking at this, certainly my view of it was it seems like the court is very concerned with the harm to the executive, which is a potential harm, and it's something that's important to the overall system if you intrude upon the executive's prerogative.

But it seems to really give short shrift to the harm to people. And when you compare those two harms, it seems like people would expect the Supreme Court cares more about individual people being affected by this. The chaos of pregnant mothers not knowing if their kids are going to be citizens or not. But the Supreme Court is very focused on this harm to the structure and the power of the executive.

TAPPER: Former Trump attorney Tim Parlatore is with us as well. And Tim, Democrats argue that this is a major blow to a longstanding constitutional law tradition and could create a dangerous past twerk of mismatched rights across the nation. Forget Trump for a second, just in terms of the next Democratic president that Republicans are suing to stop his laws. What do you think of all that?

TIM PARLATORE, FORMER TRUMP ATTORNEY: Well, I mean, I think that this decision certainly affects administrations of both parties. And I think if you look at Justice Kavanaugh's concurring opinion, he actually does give a good analysis of how this is going to be implemented, because there will be a patchwork. You know, right now, you can, you know, sue in several different districts, try and find a judge that's favorable, and that one will give you a universal injunction. That's over.

At this point, they're going to have a different patchwork. It's going to go up to the circuits, and it's going to go very quickly to the Supreme Court to decide the restraining orders. And it's one of the things that Justice Kavanaugh said is that, you know, the Supreme Court can't just hide in the grass.

They're going to have to really jump into these preliminary injunction cases going forward so that there is a standard ruling across the country.

[17:15:10]

But not something by, you know, cherry picked district court judge, something that comes directly from the Supreme Court.

TAPPER: Interesting stuff. Thanks so much to everyone. That was not the only major decision today from the U.S. Supreme Court. Ahead I'm going to talk to a mother who sued the largest school district in her state over her right to opt her child out of any discussions and lessons involving books about the LGBTQ community.

But first, we have some breaking news on our money lead all time highs for U.S. stocks, record closes for the S and P 500 and the NASDAQ. The Dow also ending the day up the gains on the heels of President Trump saying he is ending trade talks with Canada and he promised a new tariff on Canada coming next week. Another big one to watch. We'll be back in a moment.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

TAPPER: We're back with our Law and Justice Lead and one of the other major decisions today from the U.S. Supreme Court. The court sided with a group of religious Maryland who want the option to keep their elementary age children out of lessons involving books with LGBTQ content.

[17:20:07]

President Trump celebrated this as a win for the court's conservative majority.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

TRUMP: It's really a ruling for parents. They lost control of the schools. They lost control of their child. And this is a tremendous victory for parents.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

TAPPER: We're going to talk to folks on both sides of this issue. Let's bring in Cecillia Wang, the national legal director for the American Civil Liberties Union. And Cecillia, the ruling does not remove these books from the shelves. It doesn't stop schools from teaching them. Why do you think this was a bad decision?

CECILLIA WANG, ACLU NATIONAL LEGAL DIRECTOR: Well, thanks, Jake, for having me on. I think today's decision by the Supreme Court is unfortunately a drastic break from decades of precedent and has the potential to sow real chaos and disruption in public schools across America.

For the first time under the Supreme Court's order today, parents with religious objections are empowered to pick and choose from a secular public school curriculum which interferes with the school district's legitimate educational purposes and its ability to operate schools without disruption.

And ironically, this ruling comes in a case where the curriculum is designed to foster civility and help young learners foster understanding across differences and agree and disagree with civility. So I think it's a very unfortunate decision that really is at odds with the history of the Court's precedence on the First Amendment.

TAPPER: And let's read some of the decision written by Justice Alito. He talks about one of the books in question. It's called "Uncle Bobby's Wedding." It's about a same sex wedding. Alito writes, quote, it presents acceptance of same sex marriage as a perspective that should be celebrated. Other Americans wish to present a different moral message to their children, and their ability to present that message is undermined when the exact opposite message is positive, reinforced in the public school classroom, unquote.

So Alito's argument is that parents should have the final word when it comes to teaching their children about morality, that they should have the final word when it comes to their education, especially if the government, the school, is teaching something that contradicts their religion. Why is that a problem for you?

WANG: Well, as Justice Sotomayor pointed out in her dissent, which includes the entirety of that book, "Uncle Bobby's Wedding" points out, what really happened here is that the Montgomery County Schools district decided to have books that were inclusive on LGBT themes as well as other themes about inclusion of people of different races and people of different religions.

And the issue is that these were all age appropriate materials that portrayed an inclusive attitude toward people from across differences. The book itself, you know, whether parents object to it or not, they can teach their kids what they want and react to those books at home.

But in the classroom, up until today's decision, the Supreme Court has always said that as to a secular public school curriculum, parents don't get to pick and choose in that secular curriculum.

What happened in the case below is that Montgomery County at first let parents opt out of this curriculum. And what they saw was rampant absenteeism where kids were not in class. Sometimes kids would skip the entire school day. And there was a real stigmatizing effect on kids whose parents might be gay or lesbian.

The whole point of the school curriculum and of a secular public school is that people must listen and, you know, learn to agree or disagree with civility. And I think the Supreme Court's decision today is really going to disrupt the whole central idea of secular public education in this country.

You don't have to agree with everything that you learn in school or that you're exposed to in school, but you do. Until today, you did have to sit and listen and engage with others in the classroom. People are free to disagree with these materials. And unfortunately, I think the Supreme Court's decision today really upends the whole idea of secular public school curriculum and has the potential to sow chaos.

TAPPER: Cecillia Wang with the ACLU, thank you so much. Appreciate it.

Let's talk now with one of the parents who first brought this case in Montgomery County, Maryland, mom Grace Morrison. Her attorney, Michael O'Brien, joins us as well. So, Grace, thanks so much for joining us. Really appreciate it. Montgomery County first removed the opt out choice in 2023. You're a mom of public school kids in Montgomery County. Why did you bring this case?

[17:25:07]

GRACE MORRISON, PARENT SUING IN MONTGOMERY COUNTY SCOTUS CASE: I brought this case because my husband and I have an adopted daughter from Ukraine. She had been in the public school system since, for seven years. She is a child with special needs. She has down syndrome. And we became aware that in her special needs classroom they were presenting books on sexuality and heavy topics of gender ideology. And we became very alarmed by this.

Then to find out that we could no longer opt out of these materials nor be even informed of what she was being taught. The books were being presented and discussed. So we had to make the very difficult decision to remove her from the school system. And that came at a great personal cost. And we have been, you know, walking through this case.

So today we are really rejoicing to have those by the Supreme Court to have those rights restored.

TAPPER: So how much of this was because of your child's special needs and how much was it because of whatever religious objections you and your husband might have?

MORRISON: For our family, this material was directly opposed to our religious beliefs. We are Catholic, and things that were being presented were in complete conflict with our Catholic faith. And were raising our daughter in the Catholic faith.

So it was especially difficult for a child with special needs to not be able to understand why the teacher was teaching one thing and then to come home and be told something else. It just added another level of difficulty.

TAPPER: So I'm going to put up some of the books now. Let's show them if we can. One is about a puppy lost at a pride parade. One is about a girl attending her uncle's wedding to his partner, his male partner. Another one is about a young person discovering that they are trans. These are storybooks.

Now, obviously your child has specific learning needs that you were concerned about. Let's broaden it out for a second if we could. We just heard Cecillia Wang from the ACLU say, these books are about teaching tolerance and acceptance. Why is that a bad thing? That's basically the argument we just heard from Cecillia Wang.

MORRISON: Well, the first thing is that it wasn't just a simple reading of storybooks. It was presented in her language arts class. So it involved discussion and instruction. And if you look at the court documents, the school itself was showing how this was a one sided approach in the discussion. So it was opposed to our religious beliefs.

And again, this case was not about removing these materials. It was about giving parents the right to decide to know what was being presented and then have the right to decide. So were really just asking to have what has been in place in the state of Maryland to be restored and that is what the Supreme Court granted today.

TAPPER: Grace Morrison alongside her attorney, Michael O'Brien. Thanks to you. Appreciate your time today.

MORRISON: Thank you.

MICHAEL O'BREIN, ATTORNEY: Thank you.

TAPPER: After eight stunning weeks in the Sean "Diddy" Combs trial and testimony from 34 witnesses, the judge says jury deliberations will likely begin on Monday. The last word to jurors as the defense presented its closing arguments. That's next.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

TAPPER: Our Law and Justice Lead now. The defense concluded their closing arguments today in the trial of Sean "Diddy" Combs. Attorneys for Combs tried to discredit witnesses and sow doubt in the arguments from the prosecution. Diddy's defense attorneys said that Combs' sexual encounters were all consensual. He said the so-called freak- offs were just part of a, quote, swinger's lifestyle.

CNN chief legal analyst and anchor Laura Coates and CNN's Elizabeth Wagmeister both were inside the courtroom today. Laura, what were some of the defense's key points, do you think? LAURA COATES, CNN ANCHOR & CHIEF LEGAL ANALYST: The theme of the defense was a tale of two trials. On the one hand, it was the witness testimony, the evidence and exhibits that came in. On the other hand, they say, was what the prosecution wants you to believe. Their theme was free will and choice and autonomy.

And it might not be your sexual predilections, but this was theirs, and that was what they were doing. They actually described as more of a sex-positive. Cassie Ventura, who he focused on her appearance and that she was beautiful and sexy and enjoyed sex and she should have. And there was all the reason to believe that she was not a victim, in fact, that she had won some game in the sense of having that $20 million settlement in the lawsuit.

Now, how that may have gone with the jurors, let alone the court of public opinion, very different. But he was folksy. He was trying to relate to them. He was trying to be much more engaging. The question for the jury now, of course, is whether or not they will believe that the prosecution was invested in a fair, objective rendering of the facts or, as the defense says, just trying to crack the narrative of a bad guy.

TAPPER: And Elizabeth, the prosecution offered their rebuttal. What did they have to say?

[17:35:01]

ELIZABETH WAGMEISTER, CNN CORRESPONDENT: You know, they said that the defense's argument was complete nonsense. They called it ridiculous. Prosecutor Maurene Comey, she really came out swinging. It's probably the most heated that we have seen her through this entire trial, Jake. And she said that he -- that Marc Agnifilo came out and was victim- blaming, that he wants you to think that all these women are lying, that all these women want money.

But she said, how does that make sense? I thought an interesting point that she made was when she said, they want you to think that Cassie is just here for money, that she's lying on the stand, she committed perjury. Well, guess what, jurors? That makes no sense. You know why? Because she already has the money. She already got her settlement. That was an interesting argument that she made.

And she ended her rebuttal, by the way, Jake, by saying that this is a man who has gotten away with crimes for 20 years. He thought that he was a god among men, but in this courtroom, there are no gods. There are only people, and it is time to find him guilty because no one is above the law. That is what she said.

TAPPER: Laura, I know you don't like to predict what's going to happen and how a jury is going to come down. It's impossible, really, and risky. But let me just ask you this, because you're a former federal prosecutor. Which side do you think had the most effective closing argument, in your opinion?

COATES: Well, again, it is a fool's errand to try to predict, but here's the thing about society, as far as I know. A lot of us talk about the evolution of thought and victim blaming and sex positivity and believe women, but the reality of jurors all across this nation, which are just a microcosm of our society, that victim blaming and shaming and the question of why stay, why didn't you leave, that still pervades and permeates every aspect of our decision making.

And so for very strong reasons, the defense had to tap into that philosophy and hope that they had one person that they could turn. So when you look at society's viewpoints and where we got to now, the idea of Me Too being a recent phenomenon, let alone Believe Women being a recent phenomenon, Agniflo tried to turn on its head today. She said, you know what, Believe Women, I want you to believe women. I want you to believe Cassie Ventura, that she was not a victim, that in fact, she consented.

And so they're well aware of that societal hurdle that the prosecution had to overcome. And for that reason, I wonder, have the -- has this jury heard enough to overcome what other -- what might maybe having preconceived notions might look like.

TAPPER: And what comes next, Laura?

COATES: Next is the jury instructions. First, they get the weekend, by the way, they get to ponder all they've heard. Then on Monday morning, they're going to sit through probably several hours of jury instructions. They're going to be very mundane. It's going to be like being lectured to. The judge will be reading through a document. People will be nodding their heads, not because of affirmation and understanding, but because they're tired and they're boring to hear.

And then it's off the races. Then it will become the time in which they deliberate. And you know what's funny? Most people believe when you get into a jury room, everyone will go, OK, raise your hand, guilty or not. They're told not to do that. They have to go methodically through every single charge and then weigh it all and then possibly a verdict this week. We'll see.

TAPPER: Elizabeth, you tell us that one of Sean "Diddy" Combs' sons was escorted out of the courthouse. What -- what's up with that?

WAGMEISTER: Yes, so his son, Justin Combs, he came in today wearing a shirt that said, free Sean Combs. Well, you can't wear shirts with that sort of symbolism, certainly in front of the jury. So he was escorted out momentarily and then he was let back in. He was in there all day supporting his father along with the rest of the family, all six of his adult kids there.

But when he was back in, he wasn't wearing the shirt. So you do the math what happened there? And I do have to tell you, one of Combs' other sons, Christian Combs, two weeks ago also wore a shirt that said, free Sean Combs. And I was told by a source inside the courthouse that that issue was raised. So this is not the first time they knew that they can't do this. But look, they want to go. They want to support their father in any way that they can.

COATES: And that phrase, by the way, has new meaning today for at least one of the sons, doesn't it? WAGMEISTER: It does, because Christian Combs, the one who wore that shirt two weeks ago, he released, Jake, a song today with Kanye West called "Diddy Free." We'll leave you with that.

TAPPER: Yes, I will not be downloading it. Elizabeth Wagmeister and Laura Coates, thanks to both of you. Laura, of course, will have much more on her show Laura Coates Live tonight at 11:00 Eastern. She's also continuing to dive deeper into the next steps in the case on her amazing podcast. It's called "Trial by Jury." Look for that wherever you get your podcasts.

[17:39:42]

Coming up next, the response from the Israel Defense Forces after a disturbing report in Haaretz, an Israeli newspaper, that the IDF told its soldiers to deliberately shoot at unarmed Palestinians in Gaza.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

TAPPER: Back with our World Lead. A new program for getting desperately needed food into the hands of hungry Gazans has repeatedly turned chaotic and even deadly. More than 400 Palestinians have been killed while trying to obtain food from this controversial U.S.-backed program called the Gaza Humanitarian Foundation since the end of May, according to the United Nations.

A new report by the Israeli newspaper Haaretz says that IDF soldiers were actually ordered to shoot deliberately at unarmed Gazans who were waiting for humanitarian aid. Haaretz writes, quote, according to officers and soldiers who served in their areas, the IDF fires at people who arrive before opening hours to prevent them from approaching or, again, after the centers close, to disperse them. It's a killing field, the paper quotes one soldier who also told Haaretz, quote, where I was stationed, between one and five people were killed every day. They're treated like a hostile force. Our form of communication is gunfire, unquote.

[17:45:23]

CNN asked the IDF about the Haaretz report. The IDF responded in part, quote, we strongly reject the accusation raised in the article. The IDF did not instruct the forces deliberately to shoot civilians, including those approaching the distribution centers. To be clear, IDF directives prohibit deliberate attacks on civilians, unquote.

Gaza's hunger crisis predates the war, of course. And since Hamas's attack on Israel on October 7th, 2023, Israel has severely restricted the amount of aid that can enter the Gaza Strip. Food, including baby formula is in extremely short supply. And that has led to yet another death of an infant from malnutrition. We have more now from CNN's Jeremy Diamond from the region. And we should warn you, some of the images in this report are quite upsetting.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

JEREMY DIAMOND, CNN WHITE HOUSE CORRESPONDENT (voice-over): Three months ago, Jury al-Masri (ph) was being carried out of a delivery room, swaddled in a baby blanket just like this one. Now her tiny body is set down on the cold, hard marble slab of a Gaza hospital morgue, drained of all signs of life.

Every millimeter of her body is a testament to Gaza's humanitarian crisis and Israeli policies that have enabled it. Her father says Jury (ph) was born a healthy 7.9-pound baby, but needed lactose-free baby formula, which he couldn't find in any Gaza hospital.

Closing the crossings and depriving children of milk is one of the war crimes against our children, her father says. I do not know what the reason is and what their sin is to be killed in this manner. Their only fault is being innocent babies.

For weeks, Gaza's doctors and nurses have warned baby formula shortages are threatening the lives of Gaza's most vulnerable, like the babies in this neonatal unit at Al-Helou Hospital.

MOHAMMAD TABASHA, NICU HEAD NURSE, AL-HELOU HOSPITAL: We have a bigger problem of shortage of milk, especially for special formula milk for all of the neonates.

DIAMOND (voice-over): Israel's aid Coordination Agency, COGAT, said it does not prevent or restrict the entry of baby food, and said more than 1,100 tons of baby food have entered Gaza in recent weeks. Israel lifted its 11-week total blockade of Gaza in May, but has continued to restrict the number of aid trucks and types of aid allowed into Gaza. The result, thousands of cases of acute malnutrition among children.

Food shortages are also driving up the need for baby formula in Gaza, as malnourished mothers like Fatmeh struggle to breastfeed their babies.

A mother does not even have enough to eat for herself. How can she feed her children or breastfeed them, Fatmeh asks. I was nine months pregnant when the ceasefire began, and I expected that everything would be available, especially milk. For now, Fatmeh has formula to keep her babies alive, even though limits on aid into Gaza means formula deliveries are inconsistent.

But for Jury (ph), it is too late. Three months after she came into this world, she became the 66th child to die of acute malnutrition during the war in Gaza, according to the Palestinian Health Ministry. Her father says he was out hunting for her formula when she died. It was nowhere to be found.

Jeremy Diamond, CNN, Tel Aviv.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

ELIZABETH WERNER: And our thanks to Jeremy Diamond for that report.

Coming up, President Trump's new pressure on Republicans in Congress, demanding that they get his massive policy bill passed before the 4th of July. That's one week from today. We're going to get some reaction from a Republican senator. [17:49:18]

And what $55 million event in Venice that's so extreme? It's hard to look away. The new image is just in as the rich and famous gather in Italy. It has not prompted the pitchforks, not yet. That's next.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

TAPPER: In our Pop Culture Lead, for those of you who care, the dress has been revealed. Lauren Sanchez showing off her wedding gown herself on her own Instagram account. Her wedding just hours ago to Amazon founder, Jeff Bezos. CNN's Melissa Bell is in Venice for the $50 million star-studded event that is frankly hard to ignore no matter how much I try.

MELISSA BELL, CNN SENIOR INTERNATIONAL CORRESPONDENT: Jake, it is day two here in Venice of the Jeff Bezos-Lauren Sanchez wedding that was held once again in the scorching heat.

We first caught a glimpse of the bride and former journalist today as she exited her hotel in style on a water taxi with two huge diamond rings and a bracelet with the initials LB. She was soon followed by the Amazon founder and a sea of photographers.

As they headed over there to the private San Giorgio Maggiore Island here in Venice where they tied the knot in front of 200 guests, a barrage of celebrities including Oprah Winfrey, Kendall and Kylie Jenner, Usher and Tom Brady. And we know that a performance by Matteo Bocelli is happening there tonight. He's the son of the legendary Italian opera singer, Andrea Bocelli.

[17:55:09]

And here is the now Lauren Sanchez-Bezos on the cover of Vogue in her Dolce & Gabbana wedding gown finally revealed after much anticipation. Italy's tourism minister said Venice can expect to reap as much as $1.1 billion as a result of the billionaire's wedding. But over the course of the three days, we were kept almost entirely in dark about where and when exactly things were going to take place not just to keep the press, the paparazzi at a safe distance, but also of course the protesters who threatened to disrupt proceedings. And so it is from a distance that we've watched the couple tie the knot and dance the night away, Jake.

TAPPER: All right, Melissa Bell, thanks so much.

A live look now at Capitol Hill. Rare Saturday votes are now scheduled for Trump's policy bill, the so-called One Big Beautiful Bill. I'm going to talk to a Republican senator about what is bound to be a weekend of wrangling. That's next.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)