Return to Transcripts main page

CNN News Central

Poll: Americans Support Deportations but are Against Trump's Approach; California to Sue Trump Administration Over National Guard Deployment; Judge Dismisses Justin Baldoni's $400 Million Defamation Lawsuit Against Blake Lively, Ryan Reynolds; Trump's Sweeping New Travel Ban Now in Effect. Aired 2:30-3p ET

Aired June 09, 2025 - 14:30   ET

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

[14:30:00]

BRIAN STELTER, CNN CHIEF MEDIA ANALYST: At a delicate moment like this to look at the timestamps, look at the dates, look at when things are actually posted and if they're really from the situation they're purporting to be. A lot of these algorithms are servicing hours old or even days old content. So you might be looking at a video of something wondering what's happening in LA, it's actually from two days ago.

And that's, you know, it only matters because it can give people a false impression of what's actually happening at a moment of unrest.

BRIANNA KEILAR, CNN HOST: Yes, and we've seen that before in recent years of unrest. Brian Stelter, thank you very much, really appreciate it -- Boris.

BORIS SANCHEZ, CNN HOST: As President Trump's immigration crackdown plays out, we're seeing more communities expressing their support for his controversial approach, some of which we reported on here at CNN. A Georgia college student was mistakenly pulled over last month for a traffic violation and kept on an immigration hold even after the charges were dropped. Ximena Arias Cristobal was eventually released after spending weeks in detention in Massachusetts.

A high school student was arrested on his way to volleyball practice. Authorities said they were looking for Marcelo Gomes da Silva's father and released him after six days in custody. Both of these cases outraged their communities who then rallied around the teens.

Let's get some perspective from Victor Martinez. He's the radio host for Politics en Espanol. Victor, thank you so much for joining us.

I understand that many of your listeners, including Trump supporters, are in favor of immigration enforcement, but they're troubled with how it's being carried out. And I wonder where exactly do they believe the line is crossed?

VICTOR MARTINEZ, RADIO HOST, POLITICS EN ESPANOL: Well, first of all, thank you for having me. And yes, especially Trump supporters, Latino Trump supporters here in the state of Pennsylvania where I'm in. You can hear these Trump supporters telling us, wait a minute, this is not what I voted for. I thought he was going to get the criminals, the rapists, and the murderers, the drug traffickers, not the people who are going to court on their appointment and now they're being picked up in court. And that is a big frustration. That is a big part of why so many people are upset.

SANCHEZ: So on what's happening in Los Angeles, there were more than two dozen people arrested for taking over the 101 highway, for throwing Molotov cocktails, for ramming police lines. I wonder if you think the president was justified in sending in the National Guard or if you see this the way that Governor Gavin Newsom does, that this is a manufactured crisis?

MARTINEZ: Absolutely. I mean, there was no need for the president to send the National Guard. We see protests in this country in a weekly, in a monthly basis is happening, major scales. And yet the National Guard is never used. The governor has the state police, local authorities will handle it. And if they do need the National Guard, well, that's always an option.

But when was the last time that the president of the United States called the National Guard to handle something locally, protests? I'm in Pennsylvania, in Philadelphia, we had similar protests last year where people took over the highways and took over the streets. And at no moment did the governor call for the National Guard nor the president called the National Guard.

So, absolutely, it was completely unnecessary. And I think that just throw more wood to the fire. And as you were mentioning on your previous segment, it just makes it more of a show, more of an opportunity for the president to just make it look bigger than what it is or worse than what it is for his own benefit.

SANCHEZ: Victor, if you could stand by for a moment, I just want to let our viewers know that as of a moment ago, the California Attorney General has announced that lawsuit against Trump's federalization of the National Guard, saying that Trump violated the 10th Amendment and federal law, saying that this was an unlawful action. This is obviously something that was announced would be coming by the governor of California. Now it is officially filed.

I do want to ask you something, Victor, about one aspect of the protest that caught my eye and received attention from the administration, and that's protesters who are waving not only Mexican, but Guatemalan and Honduran flags, among others. The administration suggested that they are insurrectionist invaders. I wonder how you respond to that, if you see that as un-American or as a statement about cultural pride?

MARTINEZ: Absolutely, it's a cultural of pride, a statement of pride. I mean, we just had the Puerto Rican Parade in New York yesterday, right? And all you saw along Fifth Avenue in New York were Puerto Rican flags.

It's our way to show support. It's our way to be proud of where we are from. Yet we are here and we are proud to be part of this community as well.

[14:35:00]

And I don't doubt that it was also an opportunity for people from El Salvador or from Mexico or from Guatemala to let their fellow immigrants know, hey, we are here with you. I am from Mexico like you. I'm from Guatemala like you, and I'm here supporting you.

SANCHEZ: So when you see those images that I'm sure you've you've noticed, Victor, of these folks, some of them assaulting police, throwing things at police, setting fires to vehicles, throwing Molotov cocktails. What's your message to those protesters?

MARTINEZ: Stop. Don't do it. Don't do it.

You're making the situation worse. You're not helping the cause. You are giving the opportunity for the president and others to say, hey, you see, look at that. It's it's necessary. Look, we have to call the National Guard.

So if anybody out there is listening and for whatever my message is worth, stop. It hurts the cause. We know that you're hurting. We know that you're upset. We understand. We're with you. But those type of behaviors, what they do is hurt our community because then they get transmitted through CNN. And unfortunately, it doesn't help our community.

And the point of us protesting, the point of us arguing that we are being mistreated, that we're being abused. And I just want to make it clear, our communities care. And some people in our community have had enough.

You know, we've been told that these are criminals, rapists, drug dealers who are being deported or arrested. But we can see the videos every day on social media of people going to court doing the right thing, following the law. And they're getting picked up in court, not in some backdoor alleyway.

No, they're being picked up in court with their lawyers. I've seen video on social media in New York, in Manhattan, people who are in court with their lawyers doing the right thing, doing -- following the process the way they're supposed to. And yet there is an immigration officer, an ICE officer picking them up and taking them to jail.

And I'll give you an example. KTLA in L.A. reported a 64 year old Filipino woman who was arrested. She's been legally in this country for 50 years.

And KTLA is reporting -- and I will quote you right here -- a 64 year old legally U.S. resident detained by ICE for three months. She's Filipino. But this is not just happening to Latinos, but that's just an example of things are happening that are taking our community over the edge.

SANCHEZ: Victor Martinez, we have to leave the conversation there. Appreciate you sharing your perspective. MARTINEZ: Thank you for having me.

SANCHEZ: Up next, starting today, nationals from 12 countries are now banned from traveling to the United States. We'll talk about the impact straight ahead.

[14:40:00]

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

KEILAR: Just into CNN, a judge has dismissed actor Justin Baldoni's $400 million defamation lawsuit against actress Blake Lively and Ryan Reynolds, her husband. Baldoni alleging that the Hollywood power couple tried to, quote, destroy him and his career after hijacking his film, It Ends With Us.

Dominic Patten is the executive editor for Deadline Hollywood. He's with us now. Dominic, what did you think about this in a case that so many people have been watching so closely?

DOMINIC PATTEN, EXECUTIVE EDITOR, DEADLINE HOLLYWOOD: Oh, this is a huge win for Blake Lively. I mean, a massive win. You know, she made a move to have this suit dismissed back in March.

This has been dismissed in its entirety. Now, the judge has said, Judge Liman has said that the Baldoni team, the defendants, can put in a new amended complaint with much more limited claims that they can make. They have until, I believe, June 23rd to do that.

But at this point, for a case that's going to trial on March 9th, 2026, Blake Lively holds the upper hand.

KEILAR: So I think the expectation among a lot of folks watching this is that he might very well file a more narrow case here. So what would that complaint look like?

PATTEN: Well, I think more what he can look like here. And I think you're probably right, Brianna, that he will.

Look, we've talked to various sources. I've talked to various sources over the months, ever since this started with Blake Lively's filing with the California Civil Rights Department back in December. There's no way these two sides are going to settle. This is too bitter. It's gotten too personal. There's no way.

What they can do is they can look at other claims here. Now, let me just read up to you what they are exactly. He can look at what's called a torturous effect. So what he can do is he can say, look, there were contracts involved in this, and the contracts were not being held to properly.

But that's a very, very serious thing to do. And it's a very difficult thing to do. And remember, this was a $400 million defamation and extortion lawsuit against Blake Lively, Ryan Reynolds, and others.

[14:45:00] And then there's also the $250 million lawsuit that he had against The New York Times, who, of course, published on December 21st, a story about what they said was the smear campaign against Blake Lively engineered by Justin Baldoni and his team, allegedly.

Now, that has also been dismissed here. So there's a lot now knocked off the table. How it goes forward, we'll see. At this point, for the most part, The New York Times, Blake Lively and Ryan Reynolds, PR lady Leslie Sloan, and Ryan Reynolds have pretty much been removed from this case. There's an element which can keep Reynolds involved. And obviously, that is of great interest to people.

But for the most part, this is a great, I would say, bottlenecking of what has been a case, as you described, which has had everyone's attention. I mean, this is a multimillion dollar case, multiple lawsuits with two of the biggest stars in the world, and someone who thought that he was probably going to be moving up the ladder in Hollywood. And clearly, right now, is not holding too many of the cards, to paraphrase Donald Trump.

KEILAR: Yes, what a bruising battle this has been. Dominic Patten, thank you so much.

PATTEN: Thank you.

KEILAR: Boris.

SANCHEZ: Starting today, nationals traveling from 12 mostly Middle Eastern and African countries will be barred from entering the United States, while those seven others face heightened restrictions.

This is happening as tensions escalate over how immigration policy is being enforced. So far, we should note, there have been no discernible issues since the ban took effect. This is vastly different, notably, from the chaos created after the Muslim travel ban of Trump's first term.

CNN's Kylie Atwood joins us now. And Kylie, there are a lot of exceptions to this ban.

KYLIE ATWOOD, CNN NATIONAL SECURITY CORRESPONDENT: Yes, that's right. And that will make the impact of this a little less grand than it would have been if there had been no exceptions. I want to run through some of those.

This travel ban doesn't apply to people who live in those 12 countries, but also have dual citizenship in the United States, or are legal permanent residents of the United States, or already hold visas to the U.S. So that's a large portion. It also doesn't apply to athletes and their coaches and their families who are traveling to the United States for major sporting events.

So obviously, think the World Cup that's coming up in 2026. Think the Olympics are coming up in the United States in 2028. There's also other groups such as children, who U.S. citizens are adopting, are not subject to this ban. And then on specific countries. So in Iran, if there are people who are fleeing religious persecution, they aren't subject to this ban. In Afghanistan, if there are Afghans who already have or could potentially be recipients of special immigrant visas, that means that they worked alongside Americans during the 10-year war in the country following 9-11. They also aren't subject to this ban.

But that doesn't mean that the ban isn't going to have a widespread effect. It will. We'll watch and see how this plays out.

The State Department issued guidance on this on Friday to all of the consular affairs officers around the world, essentially saying to them that anyone who already has a visa, they can carry on with their visa. However, if they had been granted a visa, but those individuals hadn't picked up the visas, those will be canceled. And then when it comes to the forthcoming operations, to continue the interviews that they continue doing for visas.

If they qualify for these exemptions and are in these countries, they can get the visas. If they don't, they're to be turned down. They also said there'd be forthcoming seminars, webinars from the State Department to explain to all these consular affairs officers how this really is going to be applied going forward today, being the first day of this travel ban being in effect.

SANCHEZ: Kylie Atwood, thanks so much for the reporting.

Up next, so-called Trump accounts could see new parents gifted $1,000 per child. There's an event we're monitoring at the White House about this. It's coming your way in just a few minutes.

[14:50:00]

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

KEILAR: President Trump is backing a pilot program that will provide a $1,000 investment account to every newborn American citizen.

SANCHEZ: They're dubbed Trump accounts and they're a provision of the massive funding bill that Republican lawmakers are currently trying to pass. CNN's Jeff Zeleny is here to give us the details. Jeff, how exactly would this work?

JEFF ZELENY, CNN CHIEF NATIONAL AFFAIRS CORRESPONDENT: This is part of that House Republican bill that is called a pilot project. So apparently every child who is born from January of 2024, we believe, through 2029, so for a five-year period, would get $1,000 seed money effectively. And it's also amplified by private business money as well. That's the interesting part of this.

So several big-name executives are going to be at the White House in the next hour with the president to announce this. And it is to essentially be some investment money to sit there until the child is 18. And then it could be used for an education-related expense or something of the like. Not many details about this. Unclear if the Senate will also approve it. But the president is touting this today again at the White House in this coming hour with many, many CEOs, as he often has. Not the newest idea. But under this president, it's going to be called a Trump account.

KEILAR: Not the newest idea, you say. So it's been floated before.

ZELENY: It's been floated before by Hillary Clinton, among some others. We've been looking back at past examples of these ideas. Back in 2007, when she was running for president, she floated this idea that was blasted by Republicans, saying it cost too much money. And they said she was pandering at the time. This is in the Wayback Machine here. Rudy Giuliani was running for president as well.

He said she was pandering over all of this to the parents of newborns. The idea did not go anywhere. But it has been floated before.

But this is closer to reality. But a bit of a nuance. A Trump account with $1,000. Again, with some private money as well.

KEILAR: He didn't like her idea, perhaps.

ZELENY: Shocking.

KEILAR: But maybe he'll like it now that it's his. That's how it always goes, right?

ZELENY: We've seen it.

[14:55:00]

KEILAR: With people. You like it when it's your idea, but not someone else's.

Jeff Zeleny, thank you so much.

ZELENY: You bet.

KEILAR: President Trump defending his controversial decision to deploy the military to Los Angeles. Now claiming the city would have been, quote, obliterated without him.

That was my hairspray. So sorry, folks.

SANCHEZ: It's my fault.

KEILAR: OK, but we will be live in Los Angeles right after this.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[15:00:00]