Return to Transcripts main page

CNN News Central

Louvre Reopens for First Time Since Brazen Heist; Interview Rob Bonta, California Attorney General: Appellate Court Weighs Troop Deployment in California; Elon Musk Trolls Secretary Duffy as Moon Contract Hangs in Balance; Trial of Sheriff's Deputy Charges with First Degree Murder. Aired 3:30-4p ET

Aired October 22, 2025 - 15:30   ET

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

[15:30:00]

MELISSA BELL, CNN SENIOR INTERNATIONAL CORRESPONDENT: ... do what she said by the Culture Minister. Both women are saying, the Culture Minister and the Director of the Louvre, that the security systems function defending their record. This in the face of a great deal of criticism and calls for both their resignation. There have been questions, of course, about the security breach itself on Sunday morning, how robbers could have got in with such rudimentary tools to what should have been some of the best-guarded crown jewels in the country.

But there is also a not-yet-published report that has emerged in parts of the French press by France's highest auditing body that was critical, specifically, of what it described as security lapses in the museum between 2019 and 2024. The lack, for instance, of CCTV cameras in a number of the museum's rooms. So all of these have been pounced upon by the French press.

In the meantime, the manhunt continues, as does the hunt for the jewels themselves. More than a hundred French investigators are working on the case, we understand, and continue to gather clues. A scooter left behind by the robbers, a glove, a motorcycle helmet, and, of course, a truck that was used with its mechanical ladder on it that is being scoured for any fingerprints, any evidence they can find to try and help them track down the robbers.

But of course, with every day, every hour that passes, the hopes that that will happen grow slimmer.

Melissa Bell, CNN Paris.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

OMAR JIMENEZ, CNN HOST: Still an unbelievable story.

Let's get you to some of the other headlines we are watching this hour. A man is in custody after the Secret Service says he drove his car into a security gate outside the White House. Now, authorities searched the car and determined it was not a threat to the complex. No injuries were reported. The motive still being investigated. Also, the Department of Homeland Security says it has arrested nine men who were in the country illegally after a chaotic raid in New York City's Chinatown yesterday. The popular area of Manhattan is well known for its street vendors where counterfeit designer goods are typically sold. DHS says the nine men arrested were originally from Mali, Senegal, Guinea, and Mauritania, and had been previously accused of crimes including burglary, robbery, and domestic violence.

And a Minnesota mom helps avert a potential tragedy. Her daughter was being dropped off when she noticed smoke and flames -- and then flames came just a few minutes later and a little bit of an explosion there. Wow, unbelievable video.

She alerted the driver, and both worked quickly to get everyone off when the smoke was coming in. All 22 students were on the front porch gathered as they waited for the fire department. The mom says it all happened pretty fast and was only about 15 minutes before the bus was fully engulfed.

No word yet on what sparked that fire but clearly took hold of that school bus. Thankfully, no children on board.

All right, just ahead, an appeals court in California is hearing arguments in the state lawsuit against President Trump's deployment of National Guard troops in LA.

The California Attorney General joins us live next.

[15:35:00]

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

JIMENEZ: Happening right now, the same U.S. appellate court that ruled President Trump has the power to federalize the Oregon National Guard is now hearing arguments about whether Trump has the power to do the same in California. Governor Gavin Newsom and the state attorney general sued the Trump administration after the president federalized the California National Guard and sent them into parts of Los Angeles in response to anti-ICE protests.

Now, a district court blocked Trump's move, but an appeals court panel allowed the troops to remain in federal hands while the lawsuit unfolds.

Joining me now is California Attorney General Rob Bonta. Thank you for taking the time. Good to see you.

There is, as we were talking about, an appellate panel hearing arguments this morning on whether to overturn a previous ruling that the Guard deployment to Los Angeles was illegal.

What are you arguing? What is being argued by the state in this hearing or beyond about why this method of deployment is illegal?

ROB BONTA, CALIFORNIA ATTORNEY GENERAL: Well, I just came from the argument itself here in Pasadena. In the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals three-judge panel, it was a robust argument. And it seems that the Ninth Circuit is poised to reject Trump's broad, sweeping, limitless approach to when he can deploy the National Guard around the country, that he believes he can do it, deploy the Guard wherever he wants, whenever he wants, for whatever reason he wants, and that judges can't tell him otherwise.

And he's treating the National Guard as his royal guard, as a private traveling army and police force. And we're arguing that there are certain requirements under the necessary statutes.

There has to be an invasion. There has to be a rebellion. There has to be the inability to enforce the laws with the regular forces. Those are right out of the statute.

And we're arguing that none of those requirements were met here. The federal government believes that they were -- making some citations to what was happening on the ground in Los Angeles. And it was a great argument today.

And I think that the court is going to put some really strong limits on what the president can do and reject his very limitless view of deploying the National Guard wherever he wants, whenever he wants.

JIMENEZ: Well, you know, the same Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals hearing, you know, this week, gave President Trump the green light to deploy National Guard troops to Portland. Timing is still up in the air because there's a few other issues to sort out. But why do you believe California's case is so different to Oregon's?

BONTA: The court on the Ninth Circuit earlier this week, based on the Oregon case, made a decision on what's called an administrative appeal or an administrative stay followed by a stay. That's all done on shortened time without a complete and full record. And on what's called an administrative appeal or an administrative stay followed by a stay, that's all done on shortened time without a complete and full record.

Our case had additional briefing and a more robust record. And the facts in the two locations are different. And there's reasons that 12406, as a statute, has not been relied upon, invoked to deploy the National Guard.

So there's not a lot of court cases on this issue. And the court today is really going to provide some common sense, I believe, in their upcoming order, some reasonable limits on geographic proximity and temporal nexus to the facts on the ground and how long the guard can be deployed, where they can be deployed to. So the cases are different.

And we had a really important, rigorous, robust argument today. And based on some of the indications that I saw as an observer, and the court will determine at the end what they're going to order, I saw some really important restrictions on the verge of being implemented here.

JIMENEZ: Yes, and we're still waiting to get that. As you mentioned, you just came from those arguments. You know, you and Governor Newsom have threatened to sue the administration after the president has floated the idea to deploy troops to San Francisco.

Have you received any indication or been told of any signs that this deployment is imminent or maybe already in motion?

BONTA: We've only heard what the president has said, and he's said it multiple times, that the National Guard will be deployed to San Francisco. He's even gone so far as to outright lie and say that San Francisco wants the Guard to be deployed to San Francisco.

San Francisco does not. The leaders do not. The elected leaders do not. The governor does not. I do not. The mayor does not.

So he has said that he is going to deploy the National Guard. We take him at his word. We have gotten some information, some intelligence that ICE, a massive ICE deployment, doing immigration enforcement, will be coming to San Francisco in the coming days.

In L.A., when ICE was deployed at great scale and was involved in major operations, the National Guard came soon after. So it might be that the Trump administration will send National Guard people, or at least attempt to, in connection with and in conjunction with the ICE raids that seem imminent in San Francisco.

JIMENEZ: Attorney General, just --

BONTA: So we don't know for sure, but we're preparing for it.

JIMENEZ: Just before we go, you know, we have been following a man who was accused of ramming law enforcement vehicles in Los Angeles. And the Department of Homeland Security has said that these are dangerous attempts to evade arrest come after sanctuary politicians held webinars and provided resources and tips for how to openly defy ICE. Just before we go, what is your response to that characterization?

BONTA: It's more of the political rhetoric that you normally hear. It's inflammatory. It's not based on fact.

Knowing your rights is not violating the law. Knowing your rights is knowing your rights and making sure that they are honored and you know when to exercise them when appropriate. So it's more inflammatory rhetoric that just seeks to incite, unfortunately, from this federal administration, more of the same, not a surprise, but also not true, as is their brand.

JIMENEZ: Rob Bonta, California Attorney General, really appreciate the time. Thanks for being here.

BONTA: Thanks for having me.

JIMENEZ: All right, meanwhile, Elon Musk is trolling a Trump cabinet member, accusing him of trying to kill NASA. That story when we come back.

[15:45:00] (COMMERCIAL BREAK)

BRIANNA KEILAR, CNN HOST: There's a space spat between the richest man in the world and Transportation Secretary Sean Duffy. SpaceX founder Elon Musk is trolling Secretary Duffy, who is also the interim leader of NASA. In one online post, Musk writes, quote, "Sean dummy is killing NASA."

That's just one of a series of Musk insults this week, which came after Duffy suggested SpaceX could lose its multibillion-dollar contract with the federal government to help transport astronauts to the moon.

CNN media correspondent Hadas Gold is here with details on this. OK, Hadas, why is Secretary Duffy opening up this SpaceX contract to other companies, first off?

HADAS GOLD, CNN MEDIA CORRESPONDENT: Yes, so the Trump administration, first of all, wants to get back to the moon, wants to get Americans back on the moon. Before the end of the Trump administration and before the Chinese do. And SpaceX has, as you noted, a $2.9 billion contract to provide that lunar lander module that will actually get the astronauts to the surface of the moon. But SpaceX is behind schedule, as a lot of these space projects often get behind schedule. And so Transportation Secretary Sean Duffy, who, as you noted, is the acting NASA administrator, he said he's going to open up the contracts. Take a listen.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

SEAN DUFFY, TRANSPORTATION SECRETARY: SpaceX, an amazing company. They do remarkable things. But they're behind schedule.

And so the president wants to make sure we beat the Chinese. He wants to get there in his term. So I'm in the process of opening that contract up.

I think we'll see companies like Blue get involved and maybe others. We're going to have a space race in regard to American companies competing to see who can actually get us back to the moon first. But I feel pretty confident with this competition, we're going to beat the Chinese and do it in President Trump's term.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

GOLD: Now, this is seen as a big deal. SpaceX really dominates the space industry. And Musk really cares about SpaceX. He's very proud about SpaceX.

So since Monday, over the last two days, Musk has just been bashing Secretary Duffy on X, on his social media platform, making fun of his supposed intelligence, making fun of his history. He posted this just this morning.

[15:50:00] He said, "Having a NASA Administrator who knows literally zero about rockets and spacecraft undermines the American space program and endangers our astronauts."

But I should note, this isn't just a fight over NASA contracts, which, as I noted, are often delayed. This is also a fight about who should lead NASA.

Now, Secretary Duffy is interim NASA leader. And that's because the original nominee to run NASA, Jared Isaacman, President Trump, pulled his nomination earlier this year. Isaacman was a Musk -- is a Musk ally.

And this nomination was pulled right before that major blowup between Musk and President Trump, which, of course, everybody remembers a few months ago.

But now there is reporting from The Wall Street Journal and others that Secretary Duffy may want to keep NASA within his purview. But there's also reporting, and CNN has confirmed that Jared Isaacman is also potentially talking to the White House once again about leading NASA once again.

So that's why you see Elon Musk getting involved once again. He cares a lot about NASA. NASA provides a lot of money for SpaceX, a lot of contracts for SpaceX. This is obviously something very important to him.

Now, Secretary Duffy, for his part, a spokesperson, told CNN that he does not want to be NASA's permanent leader. And he posted on X in response to Elon Musk's post, saying, "Love the passion, the race to the moon is on." Guys.

KEILAR: Oh, interesting stuff. Hadas Gold, thank you for that report.

Opening statements today in the murder trial of Sonya Massey, 15 months after she was killed in her home by a police officer in Springfield, Illinois. We'll have that next.

[15:55:00]

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

JIMENEZ: Opening statements today in the high-profile case of a former Illinois sheriff's deputy charged with fatally shooting Sonya Massey, a Black woman who had called 911 to report a possible intruder at her home. Sean Grayson faces three counts of first-degree murder for shooting the 36-year-old single mom back in July 2024.

KEILAR: Police body camera video captured this incident, and we must warn, it is disturbing to see. Massey was in her kitchen holding a pot of boiling water. The prosecutor said in his opening statement that the video will show Massey posed no threat and that the officer got mad and shot her without lawful justification.

The defense attorney argued the evidence will show the use of force was reasonable when Massey lifted the pot of water above her head.

Joining us now is CNN legal analyst Joey Jackson. Joey, what evidence are you most focused on in this case?

What do you think this is going to hinge on?

JOEY JACKSON, CNN LEGAL ANALYST: Yes, good to be with you, Brianna and Omar. I believe it's what you noted, and that's the body cam. It means everything.

Remember what trials are about. Trials are about bringing the jury to the event, what happened in the moment in time. In addition to bringing the jury there, trials are about perspective, each side trying to put into context what occurred.

And here you have the battle of the narratives. The narratives of the prosecution is, of course, that this was an intentional murder. And if it was not intentional with regard to intending to kill her, it was certainly reckless.

He disregarded the notion that if you point a gun at someone's head and you shoot it, they're going to die, in addition to the fact that there was a felony, aggravated battery, with regard to her death and that there was not justification. There was no immediate fear, says prosecutors, of any death or serious physical injury on the part of Grace and the officer, that he did not act reasonably under the circumstances, says prosecutors, and that his actions in discharging his weapon three separate times was not proportionate to any threat posed.

Now, with regard to the defense, defense argues it was a boiling hot water. Certainly he was in fear for his life. Don't jump to any conclusions. This is a tragedy. Based upon the immediacy of that fear, he was justified.

Based upon the body cam, with regard to the critical piece of evidence, the jurors will get to evaluate the interaction, the nature of the demeanor of the parties, and will get to make their own decision in terms of what they see as either a shooting being justified or a murder and a crime.

JIMENEZ: And, Joey, you know, we talk about how much the body camera video matters in a case like this, but also when you were talking about the context, you know, we know Massey had been in and out of a mental health inpatient program in the week leading up to the shooting. Her mother, in the days ahead of time, called 911 and told authorities her daughter was suffering a, quote, mental breakdown, and quote, I don't want you guys to hurt her.

How is mental health history evaluated in a case like this? Could it actually play a role here?

JACKSON: So what happens, Omar, is in any case it's about what the officer knew under the circumstances. And here it seems that the officer was not knowledgeable as to the mental health episodes, was not knowledgeable as to 911 being called on other occasions and was not knowledgeable in terms of her history. And so he was basing what he believed -- that is, Officer Grayson -- on the circumstances at the time.

So unless a person knows about the mental health and has reason to believe that that mental health is something that is part of the equation, you can't use that against them as prosecutors. What prosecutors are going to focus on is the reasonableness or unreasonableness of the behavior. At the end of the day, in order to have self-defense, you have to be in that immediate fear.

Prosecutors will argue there was no immediacy of the fear. It was boiling water. She was crouching down. She wasn't coming towards him. It didn't pose a threat certainly such that she should be shot. The firing three shots was disproportionate to whatever threat that was posed, and he was acting unreasonably in all circumstances.

The defense will counter that based upon what his impressions were at that particular time, at that particular place. He was acting as any reasonable officer in his position would. Those are the narratives the jurors are going to have to assess, but the fact is he shot her right in the face and noted prior to that that he was going to do so.

I think jurors are going to be guided by what they hear on the body cam concerning his interactions with her and what she said to him.

KEILAR: All right, Joey Jackson, thank you so much for that. There are going to be so many questions, I think, about this case.

JIMENEZ: Yes.

KEILAR: It is -- really, I think, grabbed headlines now for so many months, for over a year, and people have seen this video, which just speaks volumes. They know who Sonya Massey is.

JIMENEZ: It's part of why they moved the venue.

KEILAR: That's right.

JIMENEZ: Because of so much widespread attention on this particular case.

KEILAR: Exactly, and I think we'll just continue to keep an eye on that as we go forward.

JIMENEZ: Yes, that's all we got. Good to see you, Brianna.

KEILAR: Good to see you.

JIMENEZ: As always, for everyone else, "THE ARENA" with Kasie Hunt starts right now.

END