Return to Transcripts main page

CNN News Central

U.S. To Charge Fees For Chinese Ships Docking At U.S. Ports; ACLU Accuses Defense Dept. Schools Of "Whitewashing Curricula"; Drake Claims He Was Defamed During Super Bowl Halftime Show. Aired 1:30-2p ET

Aired April 18, 2025 - 13:30   ET

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

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[13:33:12]

ERICA HILL, CNN HOST: And another tit-for-tat move in the U.S.-China trade war, the U.S. announcing it's now going to add port fees for Chinese ships docking at American ports.

So this would be on top of that 145 percent in tariffs that's already been levied on Chinese goods.

Despite the escalation, President Trump says the White House and Beijing are in direct talks. In fact, moments ago, Trump said those conversations are, in his words, "going nicely."

CNN's Vanessa Yurkevich joins me now.

So, Vanessa, the Trump administration specifically targeting Chinese- built ships here. One would imagine the goal is a little bit more pressure on Beijing. I guess the question is whether that will work and what it means in the meantime.

VANESSA YURKEVICH, CNN BUSINESS & POLITICS CORRESPONDENT: Yes. Pressure on Beijing, but also the president's attempt to move shipbuilding back to the United States.

But here's what this new rule looks like that was unveiled yesterday. Essentially, it's a fee being added to Chinese ships that are docked outside of U.S. ports. And this could be a Chinese company using a Chinese ship or any country or any other company using a Chinese ship.

And this is important because all of the goods and products that come into the United States, a lot of them come by ship. And 90 percent of all ships built come out of Japan, South Korea and China.

And ultimately this could result in millions of dollars in extra fees per cargo ship, per cargo ship alone.

So the Chinese foreign ministry is responding to this, and they are saying, quote, "It not only raises global shipping costs and disrupts the stability of the global industry, but also increases inflation pressures in the U.S., harming the interests of American consumers and businesses." Now, I spoke to a retail analyst, Erica, who told me that is, in part,

true because, ultimately, these shipping companies are not going to absorb those extra costs. They're going to pass them down to the businesses that are bringing the cargo into the country.

[13:35:04]

And then the businesses, of course, will have to decide whether or not to pass that extra cost down to the U.S. consumer -- Erica?

HILL: A lot to take in.

I also want to ask you about mortgage rates, because a little bit of a jump there. Talk to me about what's happening.

YURKEVICH: Right. So mortgage rates ticked up to the highest level in two months, going from 6.62 to 6.83. That's for a 30-year fixed-rate mortgage.

So you can see that just at the tail end of your screen there, that upward momentum on the live line graph. That's what happened in the last week.

And this is really tied to treasury yields, which has -- have risen because of all of these uncertainties around Trump's trade policy. Usually, when there is volatility in the market, people put their money in bonds. But that has not been happening.

So you have the treasury yields that are rising right now and mortgage rates very much track alongside that. So you have people anticipating higher borrowing costs.

The mortgage -- some mortgage rates are forward looking. It's about what people expect the market to look like.

So for an average American at home, 6.83 is not the highest we've seen in the last year. It is inching closer to that 7 percent rate that people don't really like, and that could be cost prohibitive for many people.

But real estate economists I've spoken to say, in this next year, they really expect the mortgage rate to sit between 6 percent and 7 percent. So not much probably going to change in the near future, but certainly worth it to notice that these rates are climbing -- Erica?

HILL: Yes, absolutely, it really is.

Vanessa, appreciate it as always. Thank you.

Still to come here, the Defense Department's school system facing a lawsuit over book bans. Among the titles allegedly taken off shelves, "To Kill a Mockingbird" and even the vice president's book, "Hillbilly Elegy." That story is next.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[13:41:19]

HILL: The ACLU is suing the school system which is run by the Department of Defense, claiming officials are, quote, "whitewashing curricula."

So these allegations stem from a series of recent changes, including the reported removal of a number of books dealing with race, gender and other social issues.

The filing says those changes are in line with President Trump's executive orders.

On that list of books, which have been removed, the classic novel, "To Kill a Mockingbird," "The Kite Runner, "Fahrenheit 451," and "Hillbilly Elegy," which is, of course, the memoir from Vice President Vance.

So we reached out to the Defense Department. A spokesperson told CNN they do not comment on ongoing litigation.

Where does this stand? Why was the suit filed?

Joining me to discuss is the ACLU senior staff attorney, Emerson Sykes.

Emerson, good to have you with us.

So when we look at this, the schools, as I understand it, they say, look, we're just complying with DOD regulations here. It really seems -- oh, do we have you?

Oh, good. I thought I lost you for a second. Good.

It seems to be, as I read this, it's really setting up this clash between the administrations directives and the First Amendment.

So you note in the suit, "While the government has broad discretion to populate public school libraries and create curricula, the First Amendment imposes guardrails to ensure removals are justified."

Is it your understanding that these schools that are operated by the DODEA have historically enjoyed the same freedoms when it comes to curricula as local public schools back in the U.S.?

EMERSON SYKES, ACLU SENIOR STAFF ATTORNEY: Absolutely. These are public schools unlike any other. The main difference that -- they are the only -- the only two differences.

Are that they are federally run, therefore, Pete Hegseth is the head of this school district. And the fact that it's geographically disparate. We have plaintiffs in our case from all over the world. And DODEA has schools in many countries around the world.

HILL: So he's essentially -- in some ways, he's the head of the school board. Right? So when we look at this, this -- your lawsuit says that kids are being

irreparably harmed by not having access to library books about race and gender, indisputably important topics in modern society.

It also notes -- and this stood out to me -- that it's pulling some of these books means students who are set to take A.P. exams next month may be left unprepared. How so?

SYKES: There was a specific memo that went out from the DOD, and it said in order to implement the presidents executive orders and Secretary of Defenses Hegseth's memoranda, they were removing specific information and chapters and modules from various courses. There's also, separately, book removals going on.

But with regard to the curriculum, one of the modules that was identified for removal was from the A.P. psychology course. And it covers gender and sexuality.

Two of our plaintiffs are in 11th grade. They are enrolled in the A.P. psychology course, and they received a letter saying this unit will no longer be taught. We're not allowed to address it. We're not allowed to answer any questions regarding it.

But it will be on the A.P. exam at the end of the year. So these students are being put in an impossible position where they're being prohibited from learning something that they will later be tested upon.

HILL: How much pushback has there been from students, from the families of these students?

SYKES: We've seen incredible bravery from DODEA students. We saw walkouts starting in February when these removals first began.

And then just last week, on April 10th, we saw massive walkouts around the globe where students as young as elementary school, middle school students and many high school students showed their displeasure, showed their outrage.

[13:45:01]

These are folks who go to school, often, not in -- within the United States. They understand the importance of cultural exchange.

The -- our military is extremely diverse. And these DODEA schools are among the most diverse that we have in our country.

And so these folks understand very deeply the value of learning about different perspectives and different cultures.

And so these students have bravely stood up and they have walked out. And so we see ourselves as supporting those student activists and reinforcing their -- their outrage through this lawsuit.

HILL: As I'm sure you've heard, oftentimes, when there is an issue with a local school, what you will hear from people is, well, go find a different school. There are plenty of other schools out there.

What are the alternatives for these children of -- of those who are serving the United States overseas?

SYKES: I mean, it goes without saying that these military children go through so many stresses, right? They have a parent who is active duty. They often have to move schools quite frequently. There are all sorts of stresses that come upon these -- these children.

And they don't have any other options for where to go to school. This is an additional stress upon them. Their schools -- they had previously benefited from some of the best public schools in the country.

These DODEA schools have ranked extremely highly and have been offering extremely high levels of education.

But that, unfortunately, is at risk because the president and the secretary of defense have decided that certain ideas about race and gender are prohibited, are politically incorrect, and can no longer be discussed in these schools.

And that is to the detriment of these children. They are at the whim of this political fight, and it's their education that will suffer.

HILL: It will be interesting to see if or what anything changes. As we know, in a number of instances, just information that's been removed from Web sites including the Tuskegee airmen, right, or the Enola Gay that has then been reversed.

Again, as I noted, we did reach out to the department. They said they can't comment on -- on existing legislation, but we will be following to see where this goes.

Emerson Sykes, thanks for your time.

SYKES: Thank you very much, Erica.

HILL: Still to come here, a diss or defamation? Rap Star Drake claims he was defamed by Kendrick Lamar's Super Bowl halftime show and the Grammys. We're going to take a closer look at the case next on CNN NEWS CENTRAL.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[13:51:45]

HILL: Drake claims that this year's Super Bowl halftime show was used to assassinate his character. That allegation was actually just added to Drake's defamation suit against his own record label.

So let me bring you up to speed here. You may remember that Drake is suing Kendrick Lamar over Lamar's diss track, "Not Like Us," which paints Drake as a, quote, "certified pedophile." That is something Drake strongly denies. In this new filing, Drake's attorneys argue, though, that those lyrics

were amplified to millions of new listeners. More than 135 million people were watching when Kendrick Lamar performed the song at the Super Bowl, and it was also played throughout the Grammys, which had some 15 million viewers.

It's important to note, too, Drake and Kendrick Lamar are both signed to Universal Music Group. So in response to these new claims, Universal says, in part, "Drake is being misled by his legal representatives into taking one absurd legal step after another."

Joining me now to discuss, defense attorney, Misty Marris.

Misty, always good to talk to you about this.

I mean, just when you think this was sort of resolved-ish, we're back. What does Drake actually need to prove here?

MISTY MARRIS, DEFENSE ATTORNEY: So, for defamation, it's very, very difficult, Erica, in the context of artistic expression. And that's why you see this lawsuit is against the record company. It's not against Kendrick Lamar.

And what Drake is going to need to prove is that they knew that there was defamatory material in Kendrick Lamar's song.

And that they actually promoted that song and actually raised that song up to Drake's detriment for financial gain because the tension between the two was something that was driving up record sales.

But in order to do so, it has to be a verifiable statement of fact. And, Erica, that's why you see this supplemental complaint where Drake's legal team points to the Super Bowl performance and says that lyric "certified pedophile" was specifically left out. And the reason being, because it was known to be defamatory.

So it's a very uphill battle, but it's a creative argument against the record company for republishing Kendrick Lamar's lyrics.

HILL: Well, to that point. So the "certified pedophile" line was left out in the Super Bowl halftime show. But there was a line where he accused Drake of targeting young girls. Are they also zeroing in on that?

MARRIS: Absolutely. So that's another piece of it, because, again, what's protected is hyperbole, parody, opinion. But if there's something that is stated as a fact, that can be the basis for a defamation lawsuit.

But it's very challenging when you have a public figure. A public figure to bring a defamation case, is held to a much higher standard, and that higher standard is what's called actual malice.

And to your point, Erica, that's why we see this focus in the supplemental allegations against UMG focused on the Super Bowl performance as well as the Grammys. And what they're saying is UMG knew. They knew this was false. They

knew this was defamatory, that he's being called a pedophile. Even if those "certified pedophile" lyric wasn't used, and that because of that, UMG should be held responsible for the damage.

[13:55:04]

HILL: So UMG, we should point out, is saying that the lawsuit could restrict free speech protections for musical artists.

Also saying in a statement on Thursday that, quote, "Drake will personally be subject to discovery as well. As the old saying goes, be careful what you wish for."

Not mincing words there. Number one, that response. But number two is this is -- there's a real concern when it comes to free speech protection for artists in this case?

MARRIS: Definitely. So historically, free speech protections for artists have -- have won the day in these types of cases, when you're talking about something that is artistic expression and it's protected under the First Amendment. So this is a very, very challenging case.

And one thing that needs to be flagged is that the context also really matters. Remember, Kendrick Lamar and Drake were both exchanging barbs through lyrics in their songs.

Drake, saying that Kendrick Lamar was a pipsqueak, and also that -- accusing him of domestic violence against his girlfriend.

So when they say, be careful what you wish for, of course, Drake, his lyrics and any discovery relating to his communications will be fair game if this case moves forward.

And there's a defense that's called Unclean Hands, meaning that this person engaged in the very same conduct they seek to -- they seek to sue for and get damages from. So it's going to be a really complicated case.

But I will say, Erica, this is kind of testing those legal limits of what -- what's defamation and what's artistic expression because of the severity of the -- of the severity of the allegation of being a pedophile.

HILL: Yes. Which could also be really important. It'd be interesting to see as it moves forward. Certainly, no shortage of things for us to chat about. That is clear.

Misty, good to see you. Thanks.

MARRIS: Thanks, Erica.

HILL: I do want to update you now that we are just getting some more information about the condition of the victims from the mass shooting at Florida State University.

We're going to take a quick break. On the other side, those details coming for you here on CNN NEWS CENTRAL.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)