Return to Transcripts main page

CNN News Central

President Trump Posts That U.S. Is Terminating Trade Talks With Canada Effective Immediately; Supreme Court Limits Power Of Lower Courts To Stop Trump Orders; Trump Says He Would Absolutely Consider Bombing Iranian Nuclear Sites Again If He Thought It Was Necessary. Aired 2-2:30p ET

Aired June 27, 2025 - 14:00   ET

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

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[14:01:16]

BRIANNA KEILAR, CNN CO-ANCHOR OF "CNN NEWS CENTRAL: In our breaking news, the president just posting on Truth Social, "We are hereby terminating all discussions on trade with Canada effective immediately." CNN's Kristen Holmes is live for us at the White House. Kristen, do we have a sense of what led up to this? Did the president say anything else?

KRISTEN HOLMES, CNN SENIOR WHITE HOUSE CORRESPONDENT: Yeah, it appears this is all about a digital tax and just to give you a little bit of context, we saw President Trump with Prime Minister Carney in Canada just a week and a half ago, and they seemed to be getting along very well. They said that the trade negotiations were moving forward successfully, but obviously, they have hit a kind of divide in the road here and President Trump saying, that no longer will they participate in any trade talks with Canada. So he posted this on Truth Social moments ago.

He said, we have just been informed that Canada, a very difficult country to trade with, including the fact that they have charged our farmers as much as 400 percent tariffs for years on dairy products, has just announced they are putting a digital services tax on our American technology company which -- companies, which is a direct and blatant attack on our country. They have -- are obviously copying the European Union, which has done the same thing and is currently under discussion with us also.

Based on this egregious tax, we are here by terminating all discussions on trade with Canada effective immediately. We will let Canada know the tariff that they will be paying to do business with the United States of America within the next seven day period. Thank you for your attention to this matter.

You can remember -- remember, Brianna, we've talked about this a number of times that Canada is one of the United States' biggest trading partners. That's actually why you saw Carney when he was here meeting with President Trump, you can see them, that was their meeting in the Oval Office there. That's why he was getting frustrated with the president because he said that the president kept kind of diminishing Canada saying, we don't need to trade with you, and he was saying, well, actually we're one of your biggest trading partners here.

It had seemed that things were going in a good direction. And as we are learning more about this digital tax, it does appear as though it was going to be set into effect in three days on June 30th. And the big part of this is that it also includes a back tax, a retroactive tax, meaning that it was going to cost a number of companies billions of dollars in about three days, American companies, to pay on this digital tax. Now, this is something President Trump has complained about, at length when it comes to the United Kingdom as well as the European Union. You see it there.

He talked a little bit about this when he made the deal with the United Kingdom. However, it does appear the United Kingdom is still taxing the U.S. for that digital tax, but the United States believes it got other things out of that negotiation. Here, President Trump had expressed and the administration had expressed to Canadian leaders that they were against them adopting this digital tax. Obviously, they did so anyway, and now you see President Trump is severing all trade talks with them.

KEILAR: Big development. Kristin Holmes, thank you for that report. Boris?

BORIS SANCHEZ, CNN CO-ANCHOR OF "CNN NEWS CENTRAL": Happening now, a monumental legal win for President Donald Trump, the Supreme Court in a 6-3 ruling limiting some of the powers that federal judges have to pause a president's executive action. This doesn't just impact birthright citizenship, but also several major items on the president's agenda. Trump today taking a victory lap.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

DONALD TRUMP, (R) PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: Taking power away from these absolutely crazy, radical left judges is a tremendous -- this is such a big day. This is such a big day. It gives power back to people that should have it, including Congress, including the presidency.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

[14:05:00]

SANCHEZ: Moments ago, we heard from one member of Congress, a scathing rebuke from Senate Democratic Leader, Chuck Schumer, who called the ruling a "terrifying step" toward authoritarianism. Adding that it's "a predictable move from this extremist MAGA court." CNN Chief Legal Affairs Correspondent, Paula Reid joins us now live. Paula, a hugely significant day and victory for the president.

PAULA REID, CNN CHIEF LEGAL AFFAIRS CORRESPONDENT: That's absolutely right, Boris. And the reason this is so significant for the Trump Administration is because the president does so much through executive action. And the question here is whether a single judge anywhere in the country should have the power to block those executive actions or policies for the entire country, while the courts mull over whether a specific policy is constitutional. These are called nationwide injunctions.

And look, they have plagued every modern president has been frustrated by nationwide injunctions. But because Trump has issued a record number of executive actions, he has also had a record number of nationwide injunctions. And that's why this has become a pet issue for him and for his Republican allies in Congress. And today's majority opinion was written by Justice Amy Coney Barrett, who wrote "Federal courts do not exercise general oversight of the executive branch. They resolve cases and controversies consistent with the authority Congress has given them. When a court concludes that the executive branch has acted unlawfully, the answer is not for the court to exceed its power too."

Now, the main arguments in favor of nationwide injunctions are, one, that they provide for a uniform policy for the entire country, so you don't have different jurisdictions following different rules or laws. The other argument is that this allows a judge to step in and block an unconstitutional policy very quickly for the entire country. And Justice Sotomayor was one of three justices who dissented here, and she writes "Today, the threat is to birthright citizenship. Tomorrow, a different administration may try to seize firearms from law abiding citizens or prevent people of certain faiths from gathering to worship."

Now, this whole case arrived at the high court as a part of a challenge to President Trump's effort to limit birthright citizenship, the right that has been recognized that if you are born here in the U.S., you are U.S. citizen. Now, the justices did not weigh in on whether the president has the authority through executive action to limit birthright citizenship, but we expect that that constitutional question will likely come before the court sometime next term. Earlier today, the Attorney General said this will be decided in October. It's unclear why she phrased it that way.

The term begins in October, but there's no case currently scheduled, and that is such a big opinion. I'm told we may not get something like that if it goes up next term until June of next year.

SANCHEZ: An entire year of wait to decide the merits of the case. Paul Reid, thank you so much. Brianna?

KEILAR: And with us now as Constitutional Law Professor at UNC-Chapel Hill, Michael Gerhardt. Michael, let's talk about this decision on the nationwide injunctions pertaining to Trump's birthright citizenship ban first. We didn't get the decision on birthright citizenship itself, but as this plays out through the lower courts and the courts limit the -- and the court -- the Supreme Court limits these injunctions, could we be looking at like pockets of the country with birthright citizenship versus pockets of the country that don't have it? And maybe the same kind of patchwork effect on other issues as well?

MICHAEL GERHARDT, CONSTITUTIONAL LAW PROFESSOR, UNC-CHAPEL HILL: I think that's exactly what you're going to see. This decision, which is really I think wrongheaded for a lot of different reasons, has created that prospect. Used to be the Supreme Court actually either looked the other way or allowed nationwide injunctions, which were by the way used a lot against President Biden. But this is a Republican president. And I would just point out that so far this term, at the end of this term, President Trump has had a winning percentage over 93 percent in the cases in which his policies have been challenged.

He had been -- he had lost more than 90 percent in the lower courts. But I think this is a really devastating blow to lower courts, both because it creates that patchwork with respect to a so-called federal right. But it also creates the distinct probability that this is not the last ruling we've seen on this and other matters in which President Trump will win. We can expect, I think at some point, a ruling on birthright citizenship. But I have to tell you, this decision bodes ill for that because, in the meantime, they're going to be lots of people deprived of birthright citizenship and Supreme Court has no interest in, I think, making them whole. Last but not least, I think as the president himself said, this is going to help Congress too.

[14:10:00]

So, lower courts that are trying to keep Congress in check if it passes an unconstitutional law have to depend on the Supreme Court of the United States. And they -- even then, Justice Barrett's ruling suggests the court itself might identify limits to what it can do to the president.

KEILAR: So, Justice Sotomayor says in her dissent, which she read aloud, which was kind of extraordinary. She said, no right is safe in the new legal regime the court creates. How do you see it?

GERHARDT: I think Justice Sotomayor is right. It's hard to see this in any other way. Incidentally, the reception of this decision probably breaks along partisan lines, but that tells you a lot if it does. And I think Justice Sotomayor is correct that it's birthright citizenship today, but it could be any number of things another day. But again, what disturbs me a great deal is that this court is deviating substantially from what the lower courts are doing and in favor of a Republican president. I've never seen this court ever grant a Democratic president this kind of leeway.

KEILAR: Well, what kind of precedent is this going to set really for any president, Democrat or Republican, who relies on executive orders? And what kind of incentive is that going to create for a president? Because whatever precedent they are setting, if it is a Republican president, if there's a Democrat, they also should enjoy the same powers set here.

GERHARDT: Yeah, that -- I think that's true theoretically, and it's a good question. It remains to be seen what'll happen if and when we might get a Democratic president with this court. But I think the precedent this sets is it basically really curtails the extent to which lower federal courts can do anything meaningful when they are deciding a case of controversy involving president's executive orders. One reason for that is it, let's say the president loses in that district court, but then doesn't appeal so much for the case. If the president does appeal, and wins in the U.S. Supreme Court, then perhaps the U.S. Supreme Court will actually side with him.

So, it's hard to see how Justice Sotomayor is wrong here. And this decision, I think opens the door very widely to granting presidents perhaps of both parties, again, that remains to be seen, essentially to get away with illegal activity for quite a while and maybe forever, because if Congress doesn't serve as a check and it won't against President Trump, and the courts don't serve as a check against President Trump, you're left with the American people who have to go vote in order to be heard.

KEILAR: Michael Gerhardt, thank you so much for your time this afternoon.

GERHARDT: Thank you.

KEILAR: Boris?

SANCHEZ: Let's get another perspective with Ken Cuccinelli. He's a former Deputy Secretary of Homeland Security under President Trump. He's now a Senior Fellow at the Center for Renewing America. Ken, thanks so much for sharing part of your afternoon with us. Your reaction to this ruling.

KEN CUCCINELLI, FORMER DEPUTY SECRETARY OF HOMELAND SECURITY UNDER PRESIDENT TRUMP: Good to be with you. I was surprised that it even came out today because this was such a complex procedural matter. It was the only case the court argued in May, and this wasn't May 1st, it was May 15th. So they did this in six weeks. The opinion was assigned to the civil procedure professor, former Civil Procedure Professor, Justice Barrett, and she got all six votes together. This wasn't a patchwork of concurring opinions.

So, it's a strong opinion. It is not a -- it is not complete on the entire subject of stopping cases en route, as Justice Alito noted in his dissent, there are still two other avenues, including class action cases and the question of third-party standing of states. I was a former attorney general to sue on behalf of all of our citizens of a state, which obviously goes well beyond just the plaintiffs of a case like this. But this is a big win, not just for President Trump, but for the presidency because this is a procedural rule.

They didn't decide on birthright citizenship. They decided on the process by which that dispute would be handled, and that will apply to all presidents in the future.

SANCHEZ: To the point about a patchwork, I know you meant it in a different sense, but there are some questions about how this policy might be implemented, whether it would take effect in only certain parts of the country with kids, babies in one area being denied citizenship, but not in another. I wonder how that's going to work.

[14:15:00]

CUCCINELLI: So, it could result in that. I would point out that the law currently works that way. We have constitutional provisions that are interpreted different ways right now, today, where I live in Virginia versus say in the 2nd Circuit in New York versus the 9th Circuit in California. So, we already have that difference. That -- when those differences arise, that is a major motivating factor for the Supreme Court to take such a case. It's called a circuit split, where different appellate circuits hold different interpretations of the constitution.

Typically, it's the Constitution. That is a major reason that a case even makes it onto the Supreme Court docket. That doesn't mean that you won't have that patchwork during the course of those cases working their way through court. But we already have that and have always had that as a part of our judicial system. That's going to really spur the Supreme Court to take more of these cases where you have those differences that make a real difference in people's lives.

SANCHEZ: I'm not sure that there's something quite as broad as birthright citizenship that's disputed that way. There is also the question of standing for arguing against executive orders that may be deemed unconstitutional, generally. Because I remember when we last spoke in May, you acknowledged that this could mean that an executive order or government policy, even one that's later found unconstitutional, could be enforced until the affected person or party finds a lawyer and then files a lawsuit.

So I wonder now, what's the legal remedy for those --

CUCCINELLI: Of course.

SANCHEZ: -- who can't afford legal help, or doesn't even know that they have certain rights?

CUCCINELLI: Well, there are an awful lot -- while Trump is president, there are an awful lot of organizations that are very happy to find plaintiffs and sue this administration. But, and the law will apply, so, in the jurisdictions where it's fought out. So the fact of the matter is, let's just take where I live, Virginia is in the 4th Circuit, that's Maryland, Virginia, West Virginia, and the Carolinas. If one person argues this out on birthright citizenship up to the 4th Circuit, it governs all of those states. That's how it's interpreted in all of those states. So, it's not a person by person. It's going to be a district by district, and then appellate district, circuit by circuit, and there are 11 of those around the country, plus Washington, D.C.

So yes, there is some patchwork, but that's been true since the founding of the country. That's not new because of this case. It's just something we don't normally focus in these Supreme Court cases on the procedural arguments, but here procedure is going to have a major impact. And as Justice Barrett noted, the -- in really taking on Justice Jackson's dissent, she said that Justice Jackson wants to -- is complaining about an imperial presidency and proposes a solution of an imperial judiciary.

Justice Barrett has recognized the limits of court authority, which I think she did quite accurately, which is also why I think she got all six of the folks -- of the justices voting in the majority on the same opinion.

SANCHEZ: Sure.

CUCCINELLI: -- which was hard to do in a situation like this.

SANCHEZ: Yeah.

CUCCINELLI: It is because I think she tailored it accurately and appropriately, not expansively, even though say Justice Alito wanted to see something more expansive.

SANCHEZ: Understood. I want to ask you about something that Attorney General Bondi was asked during the White House press gathering. She didn't answer the question directly and I'm hoping to get your perspective on it. Under President Trump's vision of birthright citizenship, who would be tasked with actually vetting that citizenship? Would nurses and doctors be checking papers? Would these babies be an immigration priority?

CUCCINELLI: No. Priority? No. The priority is people who commit other crimes here, but that's about 2.5 percent to 5 percent of the total illegal population. So, no, they wouldn't be a priority at all. And one of the challenges in conducting deportations is the logistics of handling families. So, they're actually more difficult in many instances to contend with, with less benefit for the United States other than to push the numbers down of the number of illegal aliens who are here and say, absorbing state and local budgets, making the economy worse for American poor people in particular, which is certainly the case from large-scale illegal immigration.

[14:20:00]

But those are benefits at scale. They don't relate to particular individuals and they're related to the president's policy. So, everyone who's here illegally, this administration is made clear, is subject to deportation. There are higher priorities, that being criminal aliens and those who threaten security of their communities and our country. We've seen Iranians deported at a higher rate by ICE in the last few weeks as they worry more and more about sleeper cells. But, that I think is appropriate and consistent with the rule of law.

And President Trump campaigned on this, including birthright citizenship, and he's following through on it and he's commenced the effort at the beginning of his administration. So, the reality is we are going to see this question resolved. I thought Paul Reid did a great job of introducing this subject here at the top of the hour, but I do disagree with one thing she said. She said birthright citizenship has been accepted. And if she meant that legally, there is no Supreme Court case that has accepted entirely vast birthright citizenship. This will be a question of first impression and I believe it'll be decided by the Supreme Court in the next year or two.

It might not be next June, but if not, it'll be the June after that. And we'll have our answer.

SANCHEZ: I should note, that is a somewhat limited view from the spectrum of legal scholars who view that birthright citizenship is enshrined in the 14th Amendment.

CUCCINELLI: You and I can disagree on that.

SANCHEZ: We've had the conversation before. I'm citing legal scholars, not giving you my opinion. Nevertheless, Ken Cuccinelli, appreciate the time.

CUCCINELLI: I understand.

SANCHEZ: Thanks for joining us.

CUCCINELLI: Good to be with you, Boris, as always. Have a great day.

SANCHEZ: You too. Still to come, house lawmakers speak out after the classified intelligence briefing on the situation in Iran. This, as President Trump says, he would absolutely consider bombing Iranian nuclear sites again if he thought it necessary. We have that and much more coming your way.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[14:26:25]

SANCHEZ: President Trump is keeping up his pressure campaign on Iran as he seeks to dismantle their nuclear capabilities. Today, he actually said he wouldn't rule out bombing Iran once again.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: If the intelligence reports conclude that Iran can enrich uranium to a level that concerns you, would you consider bombing the country again?

TRUMP: Sure, without question. Absolutely.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: And have you had --

(END VIDEO CLIP)

SANCHEZ: Those comments come after top Trump Administration officials briefed House members on the U.S. strikes carried out last weekend.

KEILAR: Speaker Mike Johnson told reporters the strikes were a substantial setback to Iran's nuclear program. But other members point out that Iran likely still has some of the critical components it needs to build a nuclear weapon.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

REP. MICHAEL MCCAUL, (R-TX): It's been severely damaged. Yeah, it's the enrichment capabilities that were taken out. There is enriched uranium in the facilities that moves around, but that was not the intent or the mission.

REP. NANCY PELOSI, (D-CA): We do know in the public domain that the enriched uranium is still there, and that was never part of the goal. So it's really this -- let's just say very clearly, Iran cannot have a nuclear weapon. (END VIDEO CLIP)

KEILAR: We're joined now by retired U.S. Army Colonel, Peter Mansoor. Colonel, thank you so much for being with us. Do you see this happening? Trump's not taking it off the table. Do you see though another strike by the U.S. on Iran actually happening?

COL. PETER MANSOOR (RET.), U.S. ARMY: If the president wants to achieve his goals of an Iran that cannot enrich uranium, it's quite likely he'll have to strike again. Iran came out today and said that a red line for its negotiations with the West is that it will not give up enrichment of uranium. And yet, that's the number one goal of the Trump Administration, is to have Iran give up enrichment. You can't square the circle, and so unless (inaudible) get out of their hat, they're going to have to strike again.

SANCHEZ: All right, Colonel, I want to get your thoughts on something that President Trump posted in the last hour or so, aimed at Iran's supreme leader over the Ayatollah statement about winning the war. Trump said, "I knew exactly where he was sheltered and would not let Israel or the U.S. armed forces, by far the greatest and most powerful in the world, terminate his life. I saved him from a very ugly and ignominious death. What do you make of that?

MANSOOR: It's -- the president likes to show the power of the United States, and that's one way he does that. It's also a shot across the bow of the Iranian supreme leader that if he doesn't come to the table in good faith and negotiate an end to enrichment, that when the strikes occur again, he could be on the target list. So, I think there's multiple reasons for the president saying that.

KEILAR: I wonder, when it comes to the objectives, because it's gotten a little cloudy, the president has basically said here recently that the uranium was destroyed, like everything is destroyed. But then we hear from some Republican Senators that getting rid of that highly enriched uranium, it's enriched far beyond, just to be clear, what it would need to be for energy. It's not quite as enriched as it would need to be for weapons. You have these Republican Senators, some of them saying, no, no, no, that wasn't actually the goal to get rid of that uranium. How do you see it?