Return to Transcripts main page

CNN Newsroom

CNN International: Prince Harry Tells BBC He Wants Reconciliation With Family; Canadian Prime Minister To Meet Trump Next Week; S&P 500 On Track For Longest Winning Streak In 20 Years; China Says "Door Is Open" To Begin U.S. Trade Talks; Today Marks Two Months Of Israel's Full Humanitarian Blockade Of Gaza. Aired 3-4p ET

Aired May 02, 2025 - 15:00   ET

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

[15:00:27]

MAX FOSTER, CNN HOST: Hello. Welcome to viewers everywhere around the world. I'm Max Foster, this is CNN NEWSROOM.

And tonight, a dejected looking duke of Sussex talking publicly about the royal family again and seeking their embrace after a very tough day in a London courtroom. During an interview a short while ago with the BBC, Prince Harry touched on a major sore point in his life -- his relationship with his father, King Charles III.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

PRINCE HARRY, DUKE OF SUSSEX: I would love reconciliation with my family. I've always -- I've -- you know, there's no point in continuing to fight anymore. As I said, life is precious. I don't know how much longer my father has. You know, he won't speak to me because of this security stuff. But it would be nice to -- it would be nice -- it would be nice to reconcile.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

FOSTER: Only hours ago, the fifth in line to the British throne, lost a legal challenge over his security arrangements in the U.K. that prompted Harry to say its currently impossible, his word, to bring his wife and children from California to his home country.

Anna Sstewart watched the interview.

We watched it together, didn't we? A -- the line about not knowing how long his father's got. What do you -- what did you make of that?

ANNA STEWART, CNN CORRESPONDENT: I felt like it really cuts through for anyone in the world, frankly, will understand that his father has cancer. He's not speaking to him. This is a pretty dreadful situation. But the motive of the interview is an interesting one, because he clearly wants reconciliation with his family, with his father. But clearly this is probably not the way to go about it. If anything, we know that the royal family really hates to air their dirty laundry in public, not least through the media.

I think the question is, what does he hope to achieve from this interview? Is it a final word on the security issue, or is it and he mentions it in the interview a desire to sort of try and change the process by which you are given security. Should the royal household have a role in that?

FOSTER: There's two sides to it, isn't there? Theres the technical side, which is that this committee within the government downgraded his security. And the judge said that was a proper process. So, therefore, the case was thrown out. But there's the other side of it that he's suggesting, which is he was he had his security downgraded by the establishment as punishment for leaving his role and going to America.

STEWART: He says it pretty much, you know, was designed to trap them. And he says that the big risk here is that this can then be used as a way to control members of the royal family so that they can't leave or they can't live independent lives. So that's one of the many allegations he makes through this.

What happens from here? You know, there is a new government. Will Prime Minister Keir Starmer be watching that interview and making any decisions? Or Yvette Cooper? I doubt there'll be big changes, but he clearly wants to get that point across.

He feels like he's being treated unfairly and he keeps making this point that, yes, they stepped down as working members of the royal family. Yes. They stepped away from the UK. But Prince Harry was born into this role. He can't change it. He doesn't believe his risk profile changed because he changed what he's doing for a living or as a job. And he points to the fact that other public figures in life, some who haven't even had public office, have security that is funded by the taxpayer, and he doesn't.

FOSTER: All of these issues have been examined repeatedly and meticulously by the courts. A spokesperson told us from the palace, with the same conclusion reached on each occasion. I was quite surprised they came out with a statement, but then I wasn't, because there are two sides to this. Theres the personal family side, which they're not addressing, which they never do.

So they're addressing the legal issue here. And the suggestion to me is that, you know, this is really serious for the king, because what Harry's asking is that the king could have got involved in the issue, which would be a constitutional crisis, is effectively what I'm hearing from the palace side, because he can't get involved in government business in that way.

STEWART: And it's worded very interestingly in the interview, isn't it, because he doesn't say, yes, I want my father to get involved, but he kind of says, I want my father to step aside or get out of the way of this process. And he wants to focus this process really on the so- called sort of establishment around the royal family.

We've heard so much about that whenever Prince Harry has spoken about his mother. And this is sort of the big, bad royal establishment that's at the heart of the problem, and that perhaps the king just needs to get out of the way. But you're right, by getting out the way that would actually involve

the king and mean that he was part of the decision-making process.

FOSTER: Yes. Anna, thank you.

[15:05:00]

Now, difficult but constructive. That's how Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney is describing next week's meeting with U.S. President Donald Trump. The world leaders will talk. World leaders talk will come in the middle of the Trump tariff war, of course, which has hit American allies like Canada a pretty hard. Anti-Trump sentiment in Canada helped propel Carney to his election victory earlier this week.

Now, meanwhile, King Charles plans to attend Canada;s state opening of parliament that will take place in Ottawa towards the end of the month, which is pretty interesting timing, Paula, but I'm going to come first to this meeting with Donald Trump because it's actually very difficult position that Carney is in, isn't it? He is -- he was voted on anti-Trump sentiment effectively. But he also needs to build a relationship with Trump going forward.

PAULA NEWTON, CNN CORRESPONDENT: Yeah. It will only become awkward, Max, and Canadians understand this. If the president continues to troll mark carney in the oval office calling him governor, which I don't expect him to do, but perhaps insisting that Canada would be best to be the 51st state. But we can also and the prime minister, being a former central banker. That is the pedigree he brings to this. They can also sit down and just negotiate business and try and keep everything else to the sidelines. I'm sure that's what Mark Carney wants to do.

And he laid the groundwork for that in the press conference today. I want you to listen to him go to great pains, really to compliment the president. Listen.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

MARK CARNEY, CANADIAN PRIME MINISTER: As others who are good negotiators and he's one of the best negotiators, they respect strength. That's why we're building Canada strong. There's lots of reasons to build Canada strong. But the point is, and I will make this point repeatedly, we have more than enough to do here at home. That point about we can give ourselves more than the Americans can take away is absolutely right.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

NEWTON: So what he's trying to do is not tie Canada's destiny so much to the United States anymore. And he says he's intent on building a different economy. But the beginning of that, make no mistake, Max, will be how he handles that Oval Office visit. And we all know it's a verb now, to make sure he does not get Zelenskyy.

FOSTER: The big story before the Prince Harry story for royal fans was that the king announced, along with the Canadian government, that the king would be going to Canada. King Charles, which -- I mean, I can't think of many big royal visits to Canada which have been announced at such short notice. What do you think is behind this?

NEWTON: There isn't much we need to guess about because Carney said, I invited him, I invited him and he accepted the invitation. And he was very clear that this does relate back to Canadas sovereignty, reminding everyone, I don't have to remind you, King Charles is the king of Canada, and he has said it early and often, more often than usual in the last few months.

And I will quote to you what the governor general here, the king's representative, said that the historic honor matches the weight of our times. There is nothing subtle about that, max. It is a flex.

But I want to ask you now, why do you think King Charles decided? Look. Yes, I will accept. His mother did do the throne speech decades back. But. But he had to accept. He could have turned the prime minister down.

FOSTER: I think it goes back to the point we were making with Anna. You know, his constitutional role. He is there to be directed by government and not tell government what to do but also, you know, he is you know, if you're a monarch, you want to keep hold of your territory as well.

So, if you're being invited in for a very high profile moment by a new, very popular prime minister, you're going to take it.

NEWTON: Yeah. And tell you, the Republican streak in this country does not run very strong. It doesn't. And if he wants to keep it that way, I suspect this was a good move.

FOSTER: Okay, Paula, thank you so much.

U.S. stocks now where the S&P 500 is on track for its longest winning streak in more than 20 years. Would you believe if today's gains hold, the index will finish up for the ninth consecutive day and could make up all the losses since Donald Trump's so-called liberation day?

Stocks are surging after the Labor Department reported that 177,000 jobs were added last month in the U.S., outpacing the 135,000 predicted by economists, a better than expected. The unemployment rate held steady at 4.2 percent. China also showing signs it's softening its stance on possible trade talks with the U.S. A government spokesperson says the door is open to negotiate.

Richard Quest joins us now from New York.

I mean, this is something that Donald Trump can really point to, isn't it? This S&P figure?

RICHARD QUEST, CNN BUSINESS EDITOR AT LARGE: Oh, that's a tricky question, Max. You got me on that. Yes, he can point to it, but he can only point to it, you know, this is -- all right.

[15:10:03] All right. Youve got you really got me there.

FOSTER: You can do it, if anyone can.

QUEST: You nearly got me.

All right, so this is the equivalent of the arsonist congratulating the fire brigade for putting out the fire that they started. All right? Or as Jake Tapper once put it, it's like -- it's like somebody picking you up off the floor and thanking them when they pushed you over.

The market -- the market fell over because of his policies. So what achievement is it that were back to square one when we haven't actually seen the result of the trade deals that are coming down the road? I do think that the unemployment number is a good one, but again, it's in the rearview mirror.

The truth is that there is nothing in the data yet that will reflect what's happening with the tariffs. All we're seeing is sentiment and worries about it. But it will come. It will come as sure as night follows day.

FOSTER: These employment figures, I mean, they were better than expected, weren't they? Just how do they feed through if there was an impact from the tariffs? When -- when will we see that.

QUEST: Okay. You're going to start seeing tariffs probably. First of all, you've had now 2 or 3 weeks of tariff in. So you're starting to see stocks I mean shelves and goods that had been pre-tariffs. They've now gone new stuff coming in.

What's being ordered? Which ships are being turned back? How are the ports doing at the moment? What are we looking for in terms of pricing in shops? Who's eating the tariff. Bearing in mind the Amazon discussion, the BMW and the Volkswagen where. So there's no doubt that we will see it. I read one economist comment today when asked exactly that question.

Well, do these numbers show what's happening of tariffs? He said, of course not. There's nothing in the data yet about what's happening, but it will come. And I would say give it another 2 or 3 months.

FOSTER: Okay. Thank you so much, Richard.

Now today marks two months of Israel's full humanitarian blockade of Gaza. That means no food, water or medicine coming into the shattered territory. International organizations say famine is edging closer for more than 2 million Palestinians there.

Earlier, an aid ship bound for Gaza caught fire after an alleged drone attack. The vessel issued an SOS early Friday off the coast of Malta.

CNN's Jeremy Diamond has more on what we know.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE) JEREMY DIAMOND, CNN JERUSALEM CORRESPONDENT: The Freedom Flotilla Coalition said its ship headed towards Gaza was targeted by an Israeli drone. The group says that two Israeli drone strikes ripped through the front of this ship, targeting the generators that were located there and also leaving a large hole in the ship, which started to take on water. They then made an SOS call as they were in international waters just off the coast of Malta.

The organization posted these videos of the ship in flames, and in one video you can actually hear what appears to be the moment of impact. And you can hear that large boom. Now, we cannot independently verify what caused that explosion. What caused the flames on this ship.

We have reached out to the Israeli military for comment. They have declined to comment on this situation. Also notable an Israeli air force C-130 plane, which can be a transport plane or a surveillance plane, was also observed on flight tracking software just off the coast of Malta, flying at low altitude in the hours before this attack.

Now, this ship was actually headed to Malta to pick up a number of activists who were going to head to Gaza, including Greta Thunberg, the prominent climate and human rights activist. And then the ship was going to be headed to Gaza, loaded with aid to try and break what has now been a two-month blockade by the Israeli military of the Gaza Strip.

Over the course of the last two months, not a single truck of humanitarian aid, food, water, medical supplies has made it into Gaza. The -- as for the fate of this crew on board, the lead organizer of this flotilla said that the group was in the process of trying to arrange a small boat to go to that damaged ship and to be able to escort them safely back to land.

Jeremy Diamond, CNN, Tel Aviv.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

FOSTER: The World Food Programme's Palestine representative says Gaza now faces a grim countdown.

Antoine Renard told CNN that people are lacking the very basics in terms of supplies.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

ANTOINE RENARD, WFP PALESTINE REPRESENTATIVE & COUNTRY DIRECTRO: You have really an acute malnutrition because people don't access the basic. They don't have access to fresh food, meaning vegetables, fruits are not on the market. The only vegetable that you have are locally produced, but they can't actually expand any of the production because seeds cannot enter.

[15:15:03]

Nothing can enter into Gaza since the 2nd of March. But you don't have meat. You don't have fish, you don't have the basics micronutrient for a child that is below five for a pregnant woman. All they have is this community kitchen, but they are running so short that practically every day it's like a countdown. How long we're going to do a countdown for people to access food.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

FOSTER: After the break, we'll return to our top story. Prince Harry losing a legal challenge over his downgraded security in the U.K. We'll have details and more of the reaction to the rift.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

FOSTER: Our top story, Prince Harry saying he is gutted after losing a court bid to restore his security protection in the UK. The Duke of Sussex says that row over security is at the heart of his estrangement from his father, King Charles. Following the ruling, he spoke with the BBC.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

PRINCE HARRY: Obviously pretty, pretty gutted about the decision. We thought it was going to go our way, but it's certainly have -- it certainly has proven that there was no way to win this through the through the courts, which I -- someone had told me that beforehand. But, yeah, it's certainly some -- the decision has been a surprise as well as not a surprise. So yeah, for the time being, it's impossible for me to take my family back to the U.K. safely.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

FOSTER: CNN's Nada Bashir takes a close look at today's court decision.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

NADA BASHIR, CNN CORRESPONDENT: Well, the court has been very clear in its decision rejecting Prince Harry, the duke of Sussex's appeal against the decision taken by the British government to downgrade the level of security provided to the duke of Sussex and his family while in the United Kingdom.

Now for Prince Harry, this has been a deeply personal issue.

[15:20:02]

He has been very clear and vocal in his criticism of that decision, taken by the home office and authorities in charge of the security details provided to members of the royal family and other notable figures traveling within the United Kingdom. That decision was taken, of course, shortly after Prince Harry and his wife Meghan, the duchess of Sussex, made the decision in 2020 to step down as working members of the royal family and to relocate to the United States.

Now Prince Harry's legal representatives have long argued that the duke of Sussex and his family still require that highest level of security detail, which is, of course, funded by the British taxpayer. And Prince Harry has been very vocal about his concerns for the safety of security of his family while traveling.

They do, of course, have their own private security detail while in the United States. Of course, they do reside permanently now in California, but the legal representatives for the home office have stated in court that Prince Harry's protection privileges have not necessarily been revoked, but rather they have been downgraded and that security detail would be provided on a case by case basis, based off the fact that they have now, of course, stepped down as working members of the royal family, but also, of course, because they do not reside in the United Kingdom permanently.

So that decision has been upheld now by the court of appeal here in London. And of course, this is a deeply personal issue for the duke of Sussex, who has long campaigned against press intrusion within his personal life and the personal lives of the royal family, and, of course, has expressed frequent concern over that intrusion and what that would mean for the safety and security of his family, including his wife Meghan, the duchess of Sussex, and his two young children, Archie and Lilibet.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

FOSTER: We're joined now by broadcaster and royal watcher Bidisha Mamata.

Thank you so much for joining us. I mean, I mean, it completely came out of the blue this interview, didn't it? No one was expecting it. We're expecting some sort of statement.

But he hasn't done these sit down interviews for a while, and he really went there with the family rift, which is obviously what the palace was dreading.

BIDISHA MAMATA, ROYAL WATCHER: This is extraordinary. I too wasn't expecting it. I was just watching the headlines to see the outcome of the case.

And he is presenting this as really quite momentous. A story of grievance and disappointment that's been five years in the making if you watch his face, it just looks so disappointed and so woeful.

He's shaking his head and talking about certain members of the family. Perhaps they're going to see this as a win. So a loss for him is a win for this party of not well-wishers. I'm wondering exactly why he chose to present his reaction in such a formalized way, because I struggled to see how this would make it better for all of the conflicts that he's talking about.

FOSTER: It's very confusing, isn't it, because there are two things going on here. There's the court case, which was actually quite clean cut, wasn't it? It did. The Home Office act with due process with his decision and the judge said yes.

So, therefore, the case was thrown out. And then there's the whole side. You know, my father's not speaking to me because of security, and I'm being punished for what?

MAMATA: I think that you've hit the nail on the head, that the legal action is a proxy for some kind of emotional action. It's a proxy for something to do with family relationships. And his language is so emotional, I feel unsafe, I feel unprotected, I am at risk. Human life is at risk.

I struggle to see how one thing relates to another because exactly as you say, the decision that was made today legally was simply the reiteration of something which has been examined quite rigorously before. He's hoping that it will heal family, broken family relationships, which have been in play for many, many years now. Although it's very hard to see how it would do that.

FOSTER: That's the worst thing he could do, isn't it? Going on TV and talking about it?

MAMATA: I do think that it doesn't help if you are estranged from your brother, from your father, from various people in his family, and his family isn't that big. His close family is a handful of people.

So when he talks about them, we know that those are the people he's talking about. Those are the main characters. Would they want to watch this interview back again? Would they feel like they want to get onto WhatsApp, onto the family WhatsApp group and go, you know what, it's all miles better now. Thank you very much. Come over for Sunday lunch.

FOSTER: But he clearly feels it, doesn't he? I mean, you can't help but be moved by how strongly he feels about this, and it is such a tragedy and it's all played out in the public, and we can sort of see that. But, you know, whilst you've been speaking, I've been hearing for some people, you know, from his perspective, making some points.

The duke has consistently asked for fair and equal treatment, not special privilege, which is this case that other VIPs do get the treatment he's asking for, I guess.

[15:25:08]

The case was about public accountability, risk management, not royal status. What do you make of that?

MAMATA: I think that's very fair. And it's certainly true that we weren't in any of the rooms when these discussions were being made. If you're very rich, very wealthy, very privileged, you are at risk of various things that we could not begin to imagine.

However, from the outside at least, his conspiratorial language, the mystery surrounding these exact details, the oblique way that he refers to risks and protection and lack of safety. It's something that most ordinary people couldn't possibly imagine. And he's not helping by using these cloak and dagger terms, he is at risk in various ways, but I don't really think he's being treated worse than anyone else.

FOSTER: That's out to the palace. You know, they didn't talk to any of the emotional, personal stuff, which they never do, do they? That's not their style. But they did address the case.

And it's pretty obvious that -- so Harry is a weird word, isn't it? I don't want to quote it, but I don't want to get it wrong. He's not. He wasn't asking for his father to get involved, but to somehow facilitate the case in a way that he wanted, certainly from the king's side, it's -- that would be a constitutional crisis if he got involved. Just explain how the palace will be looking at this.

MAMATA: The palace will be looking at it as an airing of other people's linen, possibly even with a kind of legalistic risk, because you don't want any kind of security arrangements or even the process behind them being publicized in any way at all, and they will regard it, I think, perhaps as an irritation to -- to speak strongly.

FOSTER: They're obviously worried about. The reason they put the statement out, presumably, was that reassuring the public that he wouldn't get involved in a government department in that way, isn't he?

MAMATA: Yes. And they're saying, look, don't worry about our office politics. Our office politics are absolutely fine. And please don't overthink about what's going on behind the scenes, because this is so obviously really about a family.

FOSTER: Yes.

MAMATA: It's not about anything --

FOSTER: About the case.

MAMATA: No, it's not really about the case. And in fact, if it were just a purely legal matter, Prince Harry wouldn't be so upset.

FOSTER: Yeah. Bidisha, as ever, thank you so much for your thoughts on this.

Still to come, once again, Donald Trump is threatening to take away Harvard's tax-exempt status. Details ahead on the U.S. president's latest threats.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[15:31:55]

FOSTER: This just in. At least seven people are dead after a truck and tour van collided near Yellowstone National Park in the western U.S. Police say both vehicles caught fire after the crash. The driver of the Dodge pickup died, along with six people inside the Mercedes passenger van. The van was carrying a tour group of 14 people. The park sits in three different states. This crash happened on the Idaho side. Police are investigating the cause.

U.S. president escalating his feud with Harvard University. Donald Trump says his administration will be stripping the elite school of its tax-exempt status.

CNN's Alayna Treene takes a closer look at how Harvard is pushing back against the White House.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

ALAYNA TREENE, CNN WHITE HOUSE REPORTER: This is really something that President Donald Trump has been fixated on for quite some time now. Actually, just a few weeks ago, my colleague Evan Perez and I broke the news that the IRS was making plans to rescind Harvard's tax-exempt status. And again, of course, an extraordinary move of retaliation as the Trump administration seeks to turn up pressure on a university they claim is defying its hiring and other practices.

But part of the reason that this revival of the president calling for this is so surprising is because this initially seemed to go into action after Trump had named Gary Shapley. He's the former IRS criminal investigator who alleged that the justice department was slow walking the Hunter Biden investigation named him as acting IRS commissioner. At the time, we had heard that he was really behind some of this push to have the IRS look in to rescinding Harvard's tax exempt status.

However, Shapley was later pushed out after Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent had went to the president and said he was hired without his approval and that he wanted to install his deputy treasury secretary, Michael Faulkender, into the role. And so that's why when President Donald Trump on Friday posted that he was wanting to do this once again, it did come as a bit of surprise. I do want to read for you some of what the president wrote on social media. He said, quote, we are going to be taking away Harvard's tax-exempt status. It's what they deserve.

Now, to be clear, the United States law specifically states and prohibits presidents from directing the IRS to investigate anyone. Now, if they found that Harvard's tax-exempt status should be revoked, the agency would have to formally notify the school and give them an opportunity to fight the decision.

Now, we have heard from a university spokesperson as well. They said, quote: There is no legal basis to rescind Harvard's tax-exempt status. such an unprecedented action would endanger our ability to carry out our educational mission.

So, this is something that will likely, if the Trump administration decides to move forward with this move, will likely face serious pushback in the legal system. This could also be something that could potentially reach as high as the United States Supreme Court.

But as we've seen with this administration thus far, having a legal battle play out in the Supreme Court is not necessarily something they would run away from.

Alayna Treene, CNN, West Palm Beach.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

FOSTER: Donald Trump and his trade war looms large over an election some 10,000 miles, or 16,000 kilometers from Washington, D.C. Australians will go to the polls on Saturday morning. The opposition conservative party there is trying to distance itself from the U.S. president.

Mike Valerio reports.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

MIKE VALERIO, CNN CORRESPONDENT (voice-over): In Australia, the cost of living and housing prices are big drivers in the country's national election, but experts say so too, are the trade policies of U.S. President Donald Trump -- highly contentious issues that will likely fall to incumbent Prime Minister Anthony Albanese and his labor party, or main challenger, conservative leader Peter Dutton, from the liberal party.

But political analysts say reaction to Trump's global tariffs could tip the election.

ANTHONY ALBANESE, AUSTRALIAN PRIME MINISTER: Might show, you know, where the destination is because it is destination, chaos and destination shambles and destination cuts from Peter Dutton.

[15:35:02]

PETER DUTTON, LIBERAL PARTY LEADER: I don't know Donald Trump is my point. My point is that who I trust is the Australian people, and my job is to stand up for our country's interests.

VALERIO: Dutton has said he wants to cut migration overhaul so-called woke agendas and his campaign to, quote, get Australia back on track. But he's trying to distance himself from comparisons to Trump, especially after the recent elections in Canada, where the conservative opposition lost after it was favored to win.

The defeat, fueled by a backlash over Trump's policies and his comments on making Canada the 51st U.S. state.

But besides Trump's tariffs, there is another wild card in this election. For the first time, millennials and Gen Z voters outnumber the baby boomer bloc, making up 43 percent of the electorate. Many are first time voters, and what they care about could sway the results.

JASMINE AL-RAWI VOTER: I think the Labor Party have done nothing for ordinary people since they've been elected. I think, you know, Peter Dutton would be worse.

DARCY PALMER, VOTER: Rising nationalism is my biggest concern right now because of the dangerous rhetoric that it contains.

JESSICA LOUISE SMITH, VOTER: To be honest, the political state of America is sort of -- it's heavily impacting the way that I'm viewing the current election, just in the sense of trying to avoid the situation that's happening over there.

VALERIO: China was one of the biggest international concerns in the last Australian election. Now, Australians are worried about uncertainty in the global economy. So, while the U.S. president is not on the ballot Saturday, many Australians will be thinking of him as they cast their votes.

Mike Valerio, CNN.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

FOSTER: Mexico getting aggressive in their war against the drug cartels. But it's not an easy battle. After the break, we'll show you what challenges the government faces.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

FOSTER: This just in, the White House confirming President Trump will host a military parade on his birthday, June the 14th, which he shares with the U.S. Army.

[15:40:07]

The Army is turning 250 years old. Mrs. Trump is turning 79, the AP reported earlier. A potential military parade on the president's birthday called for more than 6,000 soldiers, at least 150 vehicles, 50 helicopters and seven bands.

Meanwhile, the Trump administration is considering a new tactic with suspected gang and cartel members. It may label them as enemy combatants inside the U.S. Multiple sources tell CNN this label may be a way to detain suspected members more easily. Some legal experts don't believe there is a legal basis for this potential new designation.

Now, the Mexican government is taking a more aggressive stance to combat drugs and cartel activity, but it's an uphill battle. As our Isobel Yeung found out when she traveled to the frontlines in the war against the cartels.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

ISOBEL YEUNG, CNN INTERNATIONAL CORRESPONDENT: We're with American military right now flying over the state of Sinaloa, over this massive expanse of rural land, looking for any signs of cartel activity.

(voice-over): Mexican soldiers find and burn acres of marijuana and poppies that would otherwise be turned into heroin. But it's synthetic drugs that are responsible for most overdose deaths in the U.S.

These drugs, like fentanyl and meth, are produced in enormous quantities, generate much bigger profits and are often made in remote rural areas.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE (translated): Okay, look over here. This is an area with the chemical products. Everything here will be destroyed.

YEUNG: This is pretty tough work. I mean, they're wearing full hazmat suits. They have to wear masks because these drugs, obviously. And the chemicals are very, very potent, but they're just trying to make sure that the cartels don't come back and finish making the drugs here.

Over a six-month period, thousands of suspected cartel members have been arrested across Mexico, and more than 140 tons of drugs have been seized. But the reality is, more than 1,200 people have also been killed in Sinaloa in the past year. Hundreds more have disappeared, fueled by a vengeful war between two rival factions of the Sinaloa cartel.

In downtown Culiacan, the capital of Sinaloa, the military's narrative that they are fully in control begins to unravel.

Very stark reminders here of people who are missing, who have been disappeared as part of this cartel war between the two factions that's playing out right now, all very recent cases. This was last week, a 23-year-old went missing.

SOLDIER: Those you cannot say if they are real.

YEUNG: What do you mean?

SOLDIER: Those wires are old?

YEUNG: No, this is the post. The date here. This is 22nd of March. They went missing right?

SOLDIER: Yes, but this is a copy. Who put this? We don't know.

YEUNG: As we're talking, a soldier blocks our camera. You mean it's not verified? Yeah. Presumably people aren't just putting up posters for the fun of it. They're putting them up because they're missing family members, right?

SOLDIER: We don't know.

YEUNG: What's up? You don't want us filming it?

The military steer us off and invite us to film something else.

But we call the number on the poster of the missing woman. Her name is Vivian Aispuro (ph). Her family tell us she disappeared 17 days ago. We promised to follow up on her story, but who are the men running this criminal network wreaking havoc on people living here?

We part ways with the military.

So we've just entered an area of the city that is still very dangerous. After weeks of trying, our contact here on the ground has managed to secure a meeting with a member of the cartel who's involved, apparently in the production of drugs. And so we're meeting him now in somewhere around here in an undisclosed location.

How are you?

This man is talking to us on the condition we hide his identity and location. Can I pull up a chair? He says he produces fentanyl for the Sinaloa cartel. How safe or dangerous is this area to be in?

UNIDENTIFIED MALE (translated): Right now, all areas are dangerous.

YEUNG: The Mexican military making a big effort to crack down on the drug production here. How are you responding to that and how does that impact your work?

UNIDENTIFIED MALE (translated): They're doing a good job. There are more of them now, so we have to find a way to keep doing this, to keep working. Of course, on a smaller scale, not the same as before. But it continues.

[15:45:03]

YEUNG: I mean according to the Trump administration you are a terrorist. I mean the cartels have been labeled a foreign terrorist organization. What do you make of that?

UNIDENTIFIED MALE (translated): Well, the situation is ugly. But we have to eat.

YEUNG: What's your message to Donald Trump if he's watching this?

UNIDENTIFIED MALE (translated): My respect. According to him, he's looking out for his people, but the problem is the consumers are in the United States. If there weren't any consumers, we would stop.

YEUNG: There is a lot of violence playing out on these streets here at the moment every day, right? I mean, people are dying on a daily basis. Children are afraid to go to school. Do you have any sense of remorse over your role and your involvement in this group?

UNIDENTIFIED MALE (translated): Of course. Things are sad, but, well, things are sad.

YEUNG: His phone is pinging. Someone is nearby. He tells us we need to leave for our own safety.

It's because of the actions of cartel members like these that civilians, too, are caught up in this violence.

Vivian Aispuro, the missing woman from the poster, was one of them. Her body has just been found.

I'm so sorry for your loss. I really am. Are you able to tell me a little bit about your sister.

ALMA AISPURO, SISTER OF VICTIM: She was very loved. She really likes cats, Harry Styles, Lady Gaga. We wanted to go to her concern together. Not anymore.

YEUNG: Vivian's sister believe she wasn't directly involved with the cartels. But the conflict here has broken all norms, she says, and violence has come for everyone, including women and children. I mean, the authorities are saying that they're going after the bad

guys. They're making a lot of arrests. They're going after the drugs, they're going after the weapons. Do you feel like they're not doing enough?

AISPURO: No, they're not doing anything. Culiacan has become a place where it's impossible to live.

YEUNG: Thank you for talking with us. I mean, you're being so, so strong. She'd be so proud of you.

AISPURO: Thank you very much. Really.

YEUNG: Thank you.

AISPURO: Thank you for telling my sister's story.

YEUNG: For Vivian's family, the authority's efforts amount to nothing more than anguish.

Isobel Yeung, CNN, Sinaloa, Mexico.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[15:50:30]

FOSTER: Welcome back.

We are covering one of the most important questions ever to be asked. It has people across the world looking for the correct answer. Who would win in a fight between 100 men and one gorilla? The hypothetical question was brought up recently on X, after the original question was asked on reddit five years ago.

A post about it on X from MrBeast has had more than 270 million views, and now we have the opportunity to get the actual truth.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Probably the 100 men, if they worked in cohesion, I think.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Thank you so much.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: A hundred men have like, the capability to think about how to overcome a gorilla.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: I'm backing the people.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Yeah.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: I'm backing the people.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: No. The gorilla is going to knock out all the people.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Probably the gorilla. I hope so.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: I think the one gorilla.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: A hundred people is a lot of people.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Yeah.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: I feel like -- I feel like men have a lot of anger. I think they maybe could sadly tame a gorilla.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: I think the gorilla would get the first 50.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Yeah.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: And then get a bit tired.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Yeah, yeah, yeah.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: And they probably wear him down.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: I feel the gorilla will win because the men would be frightened. I feel when he -- when the gorilla caught, when the others would run. I think the gorilla will win.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

FOSTER: Well, who better to ask than the head coach and co-founder of Rough Hands Jiu Jitsu, Jesse Walker? He joins us from Louisville, Kentucky.

I mean, it is a question that plays on your mind, isn't it?

JESSE WALKER, HEAD COACH & CO-OWNER, ROUGH HANDS BJJ: It is certainly a fascinating thought experiment.

FOSTER: So what --

WALKER: A though problem.

FOSTER: Yeah. Take -- take us through your thought process as you went through it.

WALKER: So, you know, a couple of things I think are important to think about. You know, as I've heard the debate go back and forth, one of the things that, you know, I'm often reminded of as a -- as a coach is that, people often overestimate their ability to fight.

So, you know, when I hear the argument about, oh, you know, an overwhelming force and this, that and the other thing, I'm less convinced, but at the same time, we know that gorillas are, you know, I think when I looked at least 25 times stronger than a human being. So, it is a tough problem for sure.

I -- my guess is that. Theres a lot of group dynamics in play, but, you know, maybe eight times out of ten, I would probably go with just the overwhelming numbers of men. I think, you know, between just being crushed by that many people and the blunt force trauma, I'm guessing that most of the time, assuming that they work as a cohesive unit, the humans will check the box at the end. That said, I'm guessing there will be. Catastrophic fatalities during the -- during the interaction.

FOSTER: For sure that you talked about it. You know, obviously, one gorilla could beat one man. So, the only way that a man can win is by working together. But there would have to there would be a certain amount of sacrifice to that as well, wouldn't there? Because people would.

WALKER: I certainly would not want to be in that 100. Yeah.

FOSTER: Not at the front anyway.

WALKER: Yeah, certainly not in the front. Yeah. I mean, it's -- it's -- it -- a lot of it's just going to depend on how that particular group of people reacts. You know, it's a very reasonable to suggest that once you see, the first 1 or 2 people mangled, your fight or flight, you know, reaction kind of kicks in and you either freeze or try to run away. And you know, it's hard to say how we react in times of stress and danger.

FOSTER: But just -- just quickly before you go you know, you're jiu jitsu expert. You could train one man to a higher level than a gorilla. So you would there would be certain techniques that overcome some strength.

WALKER: Yeah. I still would not feel comfortable with any level of training of a human being -- being able to grapple with a gorilla. Yeah. It would just be overwhelming force.

FOSTER: Jesse, really appreciate you giving your thoughts to this, because I do think it's an interesting question because people do obsess with it. They have been. Anyway, thank you, Jesse.

WALKER: It's a super fun question.

FOSTER: It really is.

We're going to check quickly on the markets before we go, because it's been an extraordinary story for the S&P 500 on track for its longest winning streak in more than 20 years. If today's gains hold, the index will finish up for the ninth consecutive day and could make up all the losses since Donald Trump's so-called liberation day. You can see here the steep rise in the S&P 500 since that low point back in April.

Thank you for joining me on CNN NEWSROOM. I'm Max Foster. Richard will have much more on that on "QUEST MEANS BUSINESS" next.