Return to Transcripts main page

CNN News Central

Interview with Rep. Carlos Gimenez (R-FL): Supreme Court Upholds Birthright Citizenship in Loss for Trump; Venezuelans Deported by U.S. Hours Before Earthquakes Now Missing; Supreme Court: States May Ban Trans Athletes in Girls Sports; Serena Williams Takes the Court at Wimbledon. Aired 2:30-3p ET

Aired June 30, 2026 - 14:30   ET

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

[14:30:00]

BORIS SANCHEZ, CNN HOST: Cookies for everybody.

ERICA HILL, CNN HOST: Yes.

SANCHEZ: Shams Charania, I hope you can get that message to LeBron. You can see more of Shams on SportsCenter when Free Agency kicks off at 6 p.m. Eastern on ESPN's NBA Today's Free Agency special tonight from 7-10 p.m. on ESPN.

Thanks so much, Shams.

HILL: Still ahead here, President Trump is now urging Congress to step in to change birthright citizenship. So what could happen next following today's opinion at the Supreme Court?

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[14:35:00]

SANCHEZ: Back to our breaking news. Today, in a landmark ruling, the Supreme Court shut down President Trump's effort to end birthright citizenship for millions. That means that babies born on U.S. soil will continue to be American citizens automatically, regardless of their parent's citizenship status. Let's discuss with Florida Republican Congressman Carlos Gimenez.

The congressman has spoken out against ending birthright citizenship in the past. Congressman, thank you so much for being with us. The conservatives on the court held different views on this.

Justice Alito notably called it a serious mistake. Justice Kavanaugh argued that Congress could actually overturn this without a constitutional amendment. President Trump posted in support of that.

What is your reaction to the ruling? What is your message to the White House?

REP. CARLOS GIMENEZ (R-FL): Look, I thought that this was going to be the ruling all along. As you stated, I support birthright citizenship. I thought it was a long-established principle dating back to 1898 when you had a landmark decision.

And so there are things that Congress can do to curb some of the abuses of birthright citizenship. If somebody's coming to the United States to have a baby just so they can be a citizen of the United States and then go back, yes, we probably can do something to maybe shut down that cottage industry. The president's doing a great job in controlling the border against illegal immigration.

So those are the things that, if we want to stop that, those are the things that we can do without having to change the Constitution. And again, I think that the justices got it right.

SANCHEZ: Speaker Johnson said that birthright citizenship has been grossly abused in recent years, making a reference to birthing tourism, adding that we'll deal with it as a Congress. It sounds like there's a version of a bill that would end birthright citizenship in some cases that you would support. Can you outline any specifics for us?

GIMENEZ: I'm not going to support anything that says that somebody here born in the United States is not a citizen of the United States. What you need to do is avert that so that people that are using birthright tourism to get birthright citizenship don't make it to the United States. They can't come here just to give birth to an American citizen.

But if you're born in the United States, I support the right of birthright citizenship. And so it all depends on what that bill says. And again, you know, this is this is the Constitution.

And so if you want to end that right, you have to you have to change the Constitution. That's a lot easier said than done.

SANCHEZ: I do want to ask you, Congressman, about the situation in Venezuela and specifically this news that we've received that hours before the earthquake, close to 150 people on a deportation flight from Miami were at the epicenter of the earthquakes. And the hotel that they were in collapsed. Many of them remain missing.

Their family members say they have not been able to get answers. Do you think that DHS has responsibility to account for those missing?

GIMENEZ: No, I don't. I think that they were deported legally from the United States. They were deported legally from the United States.

The fact you had a tragedy afterwards, you can't pin that on DHS. I mean, that's just it's just an act of God. And so, no, I don't.

Now, I feel for them and I hope that that they turn out to be OK. But no, that's not that's not something that DHS should be accounted for. That's a that's an act of God.

And nobody could have foreseen that an earthquake was going to happen in Venezuela.

SANCHEZ: Since last October, after their temporary protected status was stripped, the administration has been deporting hundreds of Venezuelans per week, roughly 1,700 last month. Should that continue despite the situation there now?

GIMENEZ: No, I don't think so. I think that now you have a reason why Venezuelans should be given temporary protective status in the United States. You know, it's a country devastated, obviously, by this natural disaster.

That's one of the reasons why you have the program TPS. And so it's up to the president to reinstate it. I would hope that he does reinstate it, because really, we shouldn't be deporting people back to Venezuela at this point.

It's just going to make a bad situation worse.

SANCHEZ: The U.S. has put more than $300 million and search and rescue teams into this effort. Do you think that aid should be conditioned on democratic reforms, the release of more political prisoners, letting in opposition leader Maria Corina Machado? Do you think that the Rodriguez interim leadership in Caracas is capable of handling this response?

GIMENEZ: No, I don't think that they are. And I think they've already demonstrated that they're not capable of handling the response. I am in favor of our humanitarian aid going to Venezuela.

And obviously, I'm in favor of any effort that speeds up the process of restoring democracy and freedom to the people of Venezuela.

[14:40:00]

As you know, I've called Delcy Rodriguez not the interim president. She's the interim dictator. She's part of the old regime. And that regime is really not doing -- in other words, they're failing at their job right now.

And the United States has to come in and help them out as much as possible. You know, you've got a lot of innocent people that are caught in the rubble. There's a lot of need there, a lot of homeless people. So the United States should be helping the people of Venezuela.

And yes, we should be extracting more from the regime, say, if you want our help, then we need to speed up the process of restoring democracy to Venezuela.

SANCHEZ: Congressman Carlos Gimenez, we have to leave the conversation there. I appreciate your time.

GIMENEZ: Well, thank you. And by the way, I'll buy the cookies.

SANCHEZ: For LeBron, for LeBron. Thank you so much, Congressman.

GIMENEZ: Absolutely, yes.

SANCHEZ: Appreciate you. Still to come, we all have junk drawers, right? You never know what you're going to find in them.

Turns out museums have them as well. And one just made a major discovery. We'll explain in just moments.

[14:45:00]

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

HILL: We are continuing to watch reactions for and after the Supreme Court issued major decisions today, including a 6-3 ruling which the high court upheld state laws banning transgender students from competing on girls sports teams. President Trump is applauding the decision, calling it a big win. Joining us now, two people who backed the bans on transgender athletes in women's sports.

Addison Kenyon is a former collegiate athlete. Kristen Waggoner is the president and CEO of Alliance Defending Freedom, who served as co- counsel defending West Virginia's ban before the Supreme Court. Thank you both for coming in this afternoon.

So, Madison, just first of all, what's your reaction to this ruling?

MADISON KENYON, FORMER COLLEGIATE ATHLETE: I'm ecstatic. I'm so excited that this has come out. My heart is full of gratitude for the attorney generals and for ADF and all their work on this.

And to know that no female in the 27 states that have the protection will have to compete against a male like I did and be pushed back, watch their teammates pushed off podiums, that that won't happen.

HILL: When it comes to the decision here, the three liberal justices did concur in part. They also dissented in part, arguing that the majority had wrongly decided that trans students -- trans student athletes rather, cannot bring constitutional challenges against the state bans. How do you take that?

How do you respond to that?

KRISTEN WAGGONER, PRESIDENT AND CEO, ALLIANCE DEFENDING FREEDOM: I think it's important to recognize what the court did rule, which is the majority. And the majority of the court ruled that Title IX under Title IX, you don't have to overhaul girls sports in order to allow men to compete against women. Also, the majority held in the six to three that, again, biology is real, that it matters.

It matters in sports and that states have the right to be able to protect women and girls.

HILL: But what do you make of two specifically that they said that they had wrongly decided that trans student athletes cannot bring constitutional challenges against the state bans?

WAGGONER: There were two cases -- there were two, essentially, arguments. One was under a federal statute, Title IX. The second was the Equal Protection Clause. And let's be clear about what the three justices did say. They couldn't even say that a boy who identifies as a girl has the constitutional right to do so.

They simply said that they thought the lower courts should have to study that issue more carefully in the facts. But we also know that there's a consensus in the science right now that there are inherent physical advantages that the male body has over the female. And we also know that eight in 10 Americans agree with that.

It's common sense.

HILL: When we look at where things stand, the International Olympic Committee had announced in March that trans women, Madison, couldn't compete in female category sports categories at the Olympics. The NCAA has imposed some new restrictions. In the wake of this ruling, do you, A, anticipate seeing more restrictions?

And is that something that you'd like to see? And is there anywhere specifically you're looking at?

KENYON: I think what we're going to start seeing is more and more states protecting their women and preventing men from competing in women's sports. I got a scholarship to Idaho State. I wouldn't have gone there without my scholarship.

I wouldn't have competed in athletics without that scholarship. And that scholarship got me a degree. It has paved my entire future.

Protecting those opportunities for women is so important because before Title IX, we didn't really have them. So if you put men and women's sports, you sideline us and prevent us from having those opportunities. And we have nowhere left to go.

HILL: A number of, you noted 27 states, so more than half the states in the country, obviously, do have bans on youth participating in -- do have sports bans, as we were noting. That this finding, this ruling is that they may be banned, right, under Title IX. Not that they must be banned.

Is that something that you anticipate changing or that you would push for?

WAGGONER: I would first say that what the ruling does is ensure that women and girls have the right to equal opportunities in sport. That's what it does. All people have the right to compete, and we want all people to flourish in that.

But the safest, the clearest, the most objective and workable way is to make sex-based categories because of these inherent physical advantages. I do expect this decision eventually to impact the 23 states because the court recognized that there are physical advantages that can exist, and we're already litigating in those states because it's time for those governors, it's time for those legislators to do the right thing and protect all.

HILL: Becky Pepper-Jackson, who, of course, is a plaintiff in the West Virginia case, she previously had this to say. I just want to play a little bit of her sound. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

BECKY PEPPER-JACKSON, TRANSGENDER ATHLETE: In 2021, politicians in my state passed a law banning me, the only transgender student-athlete in the entire state, from playing on the team that reflects who I really am. I know this case isn't just about me or even just about sports. It's just one part of a plan to push transgender people like me out of the public life entirely.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

HILL: Do you believe there should be other limits?

[14:50:00]

She says this is step one, in her view, on pushing trans people out of public life. Should there be bans in other areas, which is something that you're pushing for, that would limit the rights of trans people in other areas of public life?

WAGGONER: Because of the differences in the male body to the female body, it's appropriate that when sex matters, we recognize it in the law. And let's talk about Becky Pepper-Jackson in this moment.

HILL: Wait, let me just ask you, where do you believe sex matters, specifically?

WAGGONER: I think it matters on the athletic field, and we can see the evidence of that. Becky Pepper-Jackson displaced and defeated 470 girls 1,400 times during his middle school career, took two regional championships and one state championship, sexually harassed and threatened with vile language to violate another woman in the locker room. That's what we're talking about here.

Our girls deserve equal opportunities on the field and privacy in their locker rooms.

HILL: And to follow up on the question, do you believe she is concerned that there will be other efforts in public life? So you said where sex matters. You're talking specifically, I know, about sports and on the field.

Are there other areas that you believe sex matters that you would be pushing for?

WAGGONER: I think that sex matters in private spaces. I think that in our dorm rooms and in our locker rooms, we shouldn't be forced or shamed because we don't want to undress in front of a male. When a male like Becky Pepper-Jackson, which this actually happened, threatens to put male genitalia into one of the female teammates, you know that body parts matter.

And that's what this case was about. So, yes, I do think that in private spaces, it matters greatly. But this decision was very clearly focused on sports and the court said so in the decision itself.

HILL: Kristen, Madison, appreciate you both coming in today. Thank you.

KENYON: Thank you.

HILL: Boris.

SANCHEZ: Now for some of the other headlines we're watching this hour. Nearly half of all Americans will face prolonged, dangerously hot temperatures this holiday week. Major heat wave will build over the eastern U.S. starting tomorrow, lasting through the July 4th holiday. Many areas will endure consecutive days of temperatures in the mid 90s to low 100s. That, combined with the humidity, will push feels like temperatures to 110 degrees or higher. Important to stay hydrated.

And a helicopter pilot reported a close call with a large remote controlled model airplane near JFK Airport. The FAA said it altered local authority -- alerted local authorities and is investigating the report. Officials say the incident was unrelated to a separate drone strike reported earlier the same day near JFK.

Also, a fossil that was sitting in a drawer for decades turned out to be the first dinosaur remains discovered in Antarctica. This backbone was found in 1985 and was initially believed to be part of a large reptile. A paleontologist recently spotted it in storage, decided to do some digging, soon discovered it belonged to a long necked herbivore that lived 82 million years ago.

Researchers say at the time this animal lived, Antarctica would have been covered in lush forests. Paleontologists say this fossil proves -- provides crucial evidence for understanding how these dinosaurs moved around.

Still to come, the Queen taking center court. We have details on Serena Williams' return to Wimbledon happening now as she faces someone less than half her age. Stay with us.

[14:55:00]

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

SANCHEZ: A tennis icon is back. Serena Williams' highly anticipated return to Wimbledon is now underway. The 44-year-old Grand Slam legend taking on 20-year-old Australian rising star Maya Joint in her first singles match in nearly four years.

HILL: CNN correspondent Don Riddell joining us now. OK, so lay out the matchup for us here, Don.

DON RIDDELL, CNN SPORTS ANCHOR AND CORRESPONDENT: This is an absolutely fascinating encounter. As you can imagine, we all thought Serena Williams had retired from the game four years ago when she played in the U.S. Open. Of course, she never said she was retiring.

She said she was just evolving away from tennis. And now here she is at the age of 44 back on center court at Wimbledon where she won seven singles titles. She is playing an Australian opponent called Maya Joint in the first round. Maya Joint goes by the nickname Ginger Ninja. She does not seem to be too overawed by the occasion, and one can only imagine the nerves she must be feeling playing against somebody who had already won, I think, seven major titles when she was born in 2006. She said she never thought she'd get a chance to play Serena Williams, but here she is.

Of course, all of the focus is on Williams. How is she going to play? Has she still got it?

Is this match even going to be competitive? Well, I would say that so far, the last I checked, the match was going with serve and Joint was three, two up. Williams has been doing OK.

I mean, you wouldn't expect her to come back into this having played no competitive tennis in so long and just blowing any opponent off the court. But she's been leaning on her serve. That's looking pretty good.

She made her first ace in the fifth game, and I would imagine if Williams can hang in there for a few more games in the first set, maybe even take the first set, then perhaps the second set would be a bit more one-sided. But I mean, for as long as Serena Williams is in the singles draw, it is going to be the only show in town. It is going to be as if nobody else is playing in this tournament and nobody else matters.

And when the singles run comes to an end, remember she's still playing doubles, teaming up with her sister Venus again. That is going to be special seeing those two back in action together. Of course, they won six doubles titles here, and Serena won seven singles at Wimbledon.

So just such a special occasion.

SANCHEZ: Such a special occasion. And if she's on the court with that serve, you know she's got a shot. Don Riddell, thank you so much.

END