Return to Transcripts main page
CNN Newsroom
Senate Expected To Start Voting On Trump Megabill Saturday; Republican Senators Threaten To Vote Against Trump's Bill; Supreme Court Sides With Trump, Limits Lower Courts' Power; Iran Holds Funerals For Officials Killed In Israeli Strikes; Israel Accused Of Deliberately Shooting At Aid Seekers; Iran: No Plans Set Up To Resume Nuclear Talks With U.S.; U.S. Helps To Broker Rwanda-DRC Peace Deal; Trump Ends Canada Trade Talks Over Digital Services Tax; 9th Escaped New Orleans Inmate Captured, One Still At Large; Jury Deliberations Set To Begin Monday In Criminal Trial; New Tax Breaks For Movies And TV Made In California; Bezos And Sanchez Get Married Amid A-List Guests, Protesters. Aired 2-3a ET
Aired June 28, 2025 - 02:00 ET
THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[02:00:48]
BRIAN ABEL, CNN HOST: Hello and welcome to all of our viewers watching from around the world. I'm Brian Abel.
Ahead on CNN Newsroom, the battle over what President Trump calls his Big Beautiful Bill. We'll look at the hurdles ahead of a critical Senate vote expected in the hours ahead. The Supreme Court giving the Trump administration more power to push its second term agenda where President Trump might flex his new executive muscle first.
And Israeli soldiers giving disturbing accounts about orders allegedly given to them by their commanders in Gaza. More of the damning report and how the Israeli government is responding.
President Trump is celebrating some big wins and he's hoping to keep the momentum going this weekend. On Friday, the president praised what he called a giant win from the Supreme Court. The majority of the justices ruled to limit the power of lower courts to block his policies on a nationwide basis.
President Trump says the ruling was a, quote, "victory for the Constitution, the separation of powers, and the rule of law." U.S. stock markets soared on Friday with the S&P 500 and NASDAQ hitting all-time highs. The Dow finishing up 1 percent but below the record high it hit in December.
Meanwhile, U.S. senators are expected to start voting on the president's massive tax and spending bill this afternoon. President Trump pushing Congress to pass his so-called Big Beautiful Bill by the 4th of July.
(BEGIN VIDEOCLIP)
DONALD TRUMP (R), PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: Well, look, it's a great bill. It's a massive tax cut. If it's not approved, your taxes will go up by 68 percent. Think of that, 68 a record, the highest in the history The Democrats won't approve it only because politically it's so good for the Republicans and the Democrats aren't approving it.
But think of what they're not approving. They're not approving border security. We've done a great job at the border, but we have to add some wall. We have to do various things. We have no money for that.
(END VIDEOCLIP)
CNN's Chief Congressional Correspondent Manu Raju has more from Capitol Hill.
MANU RAJU, CNN CHIEF CONGRESSIONAL CORRESPONDENT: President Donald Trump and Republican leaders are pressing hard to get his massive agenda through the Senate by the end of this weekend and Saturday is a critical day. That's when we expect the first procedural vote to open up debate on this bill.
But they can only afford to lose three Republican senators because all of Democrats are going to vote no. Can they actually only keep the three defections? That is the big question at this moment because already two are threatening to vote against it. That's Senator Rand Paul of Kentucky. He's concerned about the impact of this bill would have on the national deficit. In fact, it's expected to add trillions of dollars to the deficit over the next decade.
But he's also concerned about the $5 trillion increase that this plan calls for to the national debt limit. And there's Senator Thom Tillis who's concerned about the cuts to Medicaid and the impacts of this bill would have on his constituents. He told reporters on Friday night that he is a no, period, saying that the fundamentals of the bill need to change. We'll see if that ultimately wins his vote if their changes made to win him over.
Several other more moderate senators of concern, Senator Lisa Murkowski, Senator Susan Collins, a more conservative, Senator Josh Hawley. They all say raise concerns about the Medicaid cuts. All of them want to see the details of this plan before they commit on how to vote.
And some of the members want deeper spending cuts. Senator Ron Johnson a more conservative member wants deeper spending cuts. Would not say how we would vote on Friday evening. Neither with Senator Mike Lee of Utah who suggested that he, Lee, Johnson, and Senator Rick Scott, potentially could all vote as one block on the vote on Saturday. So that will be something to watch.
But if this bill goes down today, that would be a huge and embarrassing setback for President Trump who's putting the pressure on these members to vote yes by his self-imposed July 4, the deadline. And if that fails, they'll have to retool the package potentially push it back to later this month.
If it is approved, then the Senate will descend into what's known as a vote-a-rama. That means a marathon series of amendment votes that will take place all through the day Saturday, Saturday night into Sunday. Potentially, that could go on for many, many hours ultimately before the bill has to his final vote on final passage.
[02:05:11]
Then it would come back to the United States House, and that's where so many House Republicans are threatening to vote against this measure because of their concerns about some of the changes the Senate made. Then it'll be up to Speaker Mike Johnson as well as Donald Trump to cajole members and the House GOP to fall in line to get it onto his desk by July 4th.
So a lot of work cut out from in this major bill that deals with a multi-trillion dollar overhaul of the United States tax code. There's deep spending cuts, new work requirements on Social Safety Net programs, hundreds of billions of dollars in funding for defense programs, for national security programs, for border security measures.
All of which raises this question, can Donald Trump get it over the finish line, win these members over? It's uncertain at this moment as the Republican leaders and the president have a lot of arm-twisting to do to get a major victory on President Trump's desk.
Manu Raju, CNN, Capitol Hill.
ABEL: More now on the major decision by the U.S. Supreme Court with a 6-3 ruling. The justices gave the Trump administration and future presidents a big win limiting the power of lower courts to block the president's policies nationwide. Policies enacted by executive orders and actions.
CNN's Paula Reid explains the potential far-reaching consequences of this decision.
PAULA REID, CNN CHIEF LEGAL AFFAIRS CORRESPONDENT: Friday's case is incredibly significant for the Trump administration because the president loves to govern through executive action. He has issued a record number of them. And before Friday's opinion, any federal judge, anywhere in the country, could respond to a legal challenge against one of these actions by blocking it for the entire country.
These so-called nationwide injunctions, this is not a Trump phenomenon, this is something that every modern president, Bush, Obama, Biden, they have all faced these. But Trump faced him in record numbers because he's so voluminously uses these executive actions.
So now after this opinion, the Supreme Court's conservative supermajority has limited the power the judges have to block policies for the whole country. Now, this is going to be a little bit messy, but going forward, it appears that Trump will be able to sign an executive order and it will go into effect at least in parts of the country and impact some people while it continues to face legal challenges and questions about whether that policy is constitutional.
Now when you talk about something like mass firings or birthright citizenship allowing those policies to go into effect even for a time, even for only part of the country, that impacts the lives of hundreds, thousands, even potentially millions of Americans depending on what the policy is that we're talking about.
But these still will likely face constitutional questions and I think we're going to see a birthright citizenship over the next year or so. The justices have to look at whether Trump actually has the constitutional authority to do that, to limit that right where if you're born here, you are a U.S. citizen. If you can do that through executive action.
It's not clear if they'll be successful. But what is clear is this is a victory for the president. His lawyers told me as soon as he was inaugurated that he was going to issue executive orders with a very broad view, expansive view of executive power. And they knew they would face challenges. They knew they would lose at the lower courts.
They kept telling me, if they could just get to the Supreme Court, that that court would agree with them and affirm their view of executive power. And that's why after Friday's decision, President Trump does have more power and authority than he did the day before.
Paula Reid, CNN, Washington.
ABEL: Iran's ambassador to the U.N. says the country is open to transferring its stockpiles of enriched uranium to other countries under certain conditions. Iran would consider the move provided there is a deal with the U.S. The ambassador tells Middle East news site, AL-Monitor, that it would also be contingent upon receiving so-called yellow cave, crucial for the nuclear fuel cycle.
Iran's foreign minister said if President Trump wants a nuclear deal though, he should, quote, "put aside the disrespectful and unacceptable tone towards Iran's supreme leader." That warning comes after President Trump urged Ayatollah Ali Khamenei to, quote, "tell the truth" about the conflict with Israel.
Mr. Trump on Friday did not rule out further military action against Iran if the country pursues nuclear weapons.
(BEGIN VIDEOCLIP)
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: If the intelligence reports conclude that Iran can enrich uranium to a level that concerns you --
TRUMP: Yes.
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: -- would you consider bombing the country again?
TRUMP: Sure. Without question, absolutely.
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: And have you had any confession --
TRUMP: Turned out to be unbelievable.
(END VIDEOCLIP)
ABEL: The Trump administration told U.S. House members on Friday, it's working to bring Iran back to the negotiating table. One senior Republican says Secretary of State Marco Rubio told them he wants to meet one-on-one with Iranian leadership and not through third-party negotiators.
[02:10:16]
Iran is meanwhile holding public funerals for senior military commanders and nuclear scientists who were killed in Israeli strikes. We have live images here from Tehran. Officials expect 60 coffins carrying the bodies of top officials and other key figures including the head of the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps. Reports say at least four women and four children also will be buried.
Israel claims it killed 11 Iranian nuclear scientists and 30 senior security officials including three top commanders. The Iranian Health Ministry has said that 627 people were killed in Iran by Israeli military action.
President Trump is predicting there will be a ceasefire in Gaza soon. But fighting in the enclave still goes on. Several people killed and buried under the sand when an Israeli airstrike hit tents sheltering people. And first responders rushed to recover victims and put out fires after an Israeli airstrike hit a school building in northern Gaza.
Gaza Civil Defense says it was housing individuals who had been displaced. Here is what the U.S. president had to say about stopping the carnage.
(BEGIN VIDEOCLIP)
TRUMP: I think it's close. I just spoke with some of the people involved. That's a terrible situation that's going Gaza he's asking about. And we think within the next week, we're going to get a ceasefire.
(END VIDEOCLIP)
ABEL: And now to disturbing accusations in the daily Haaretz newspaper and article, alleging that Israeli soldiers in Gaza had been instructed by commanders to shoot at Palestinians approaching aid sites even when it was clear they posed no threats. Israel's military says it rejects the report.
CNN's Nic Robertson has more from Jerusalem.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[02:15:58]
ABEL: We are now going to go to disturbing accusations in that daily Haaretz newspaper. The article alleging that Israeli soldiers in Gaza had been instructed by commanders to shoot at Palestinians approaching aid sites even when it was clear they posed no threat. Israel's military says it is rejecting the report.
CNN's Nic Robertson has more from Jerusalem.
NIC ROBERTSON, CNN INTERNATIONAL DIPLOMATIC EDITOR: Well, these are incredibly serious allegations and the period of these allegations over the past month times out with a significant uptick in the number of Palestinians being killed as they go to get aid from the new aid distribution point set up by the Gaza humanitarian foundation, a humanitarian body established by the United States and Israel.
According to Palestinian health officials over that period since late May, more than 500 Palestinians have been killed either on their way to these aid collection points, near the aid collection points waiting to get aid from trucks. We're also hearing from Mets on frontier, Doctors Without Borders, who say that over the past month, they've noticed what they describe as a stark increase in the number of gunshot injuries from people that have gone to collect food from these humanitarian distribution points.
What the Haaretz article alleges is that soldiers that Haaretz says it's talked to IDF soldiers say that they were ordered by a commanding officer to fire at the people, unarmed people waiting at the aid distribution points, waiting to get aid. According to one of the soldiers Haaretz says they interviewed, he described it as a killing field.
Now, the IDF rejects these allegations. The Prime Minister, the Defense Minister called them blood liables that it's an effort to tarnish the image and undermine the IDF. But according to Haaretz, the IDF's military advocate general has tossed the military body to investigate whether the laws of war were broken to see in essence if war crimes were committed. That's what Haaretz says is happening.
If this were, if these allegations that Haaretz has uncovered here, were proven to be true, this would be a huge blow for the Gaza Humanitarian Foundation's aid effort. It would be a huge blow for the IDF and the Israeli government. But at the moment, it is being completely rejected top-down. Haaretz is standing by their reporting.
Nic Robinson, CNN, Jerusalem.
ABEL: And we are joined live now by Gideon Levy, columnist with Haaretz newspaper and a former adviser to late Israeli Prime Minister Shimon Peres. And he is in Tel Aviv for us.
And getting a potentially explosive report by your Haaretz colleagues and equally as strong denials from Israel's prime and defense ministers who called the IDF, quote, "the most moral Army in the world." Does this report in your estimation change anything on the ground for Palestinians?
GIDEON LEVY, COLUMNIST, HAARETZ: No, it doesn't change anything because we all knew that this is the reality. My adorable colleagues in Haaretz just brought the smoking gun, the final proofs, but anyone who was watching what's going on next to those aid stations. You very well that those dozens of people are being targeted, are being shot in purpose. Nothing else, but a slaughter of innocent people, starving innocent people I must say. And here are coming the testimonies by the soldiers themselves. Nothing new, is where we continue to deny and to lie.
[02:20:01]
ABEL: Gideon I think if we can step back, we can objectively consider the aid distributions by the Gaza Humanitarian Foundation as falling short at the minimum, seeing the shootings, seeing the trucks getting stopped and looted, reports that it's a first-come first-served frenzy with a not coming even close to meeting demand, and some who do get food getting robbed. So with all of that, why hasn't this system changed and what would it take to change it?
LEVY: No Brian, it's not going short. It is a terrible fiasco, because people -- hundreds of people were slaughtered and food did not reach enough people. Now, there was a system -- there is a system in Gaza of the U.N. agencies when they distributed the aid, it was all over the Gaza Street.
The idea to open four stations for 2.3 starving people is by itself a sick idea. What did you expect to happen if there are four stations for 2 million people who are starving? So the U.N. knew very well how to distribute it. It was well spread all over the Gaza Street.
People were not killed but Israel started with the allegation that the U.N. get cooperated with Hamas. You can do anything today in Gaza without cooperating in Hamas because Hamas is still the sovereign in Gaza if you like it or not. And therefore the only way to really solve the humanitarian crisis is by getting it back to the U.N. agencies. And that -- and you know, politics always plays more than anything else. Israel insists on this American-Israeli wants their organization who does everything except of helping the people.
ABEL: I do want to turn briefly to the latest between Israel and Iran. We are seeing how the U.S. bombing has played out in the states that continuing search for answers of the strikes effectiveness. But how had the strikes and the following ceasefire played out, Gideon, on the ground where we've seen those large digital billboards thanking President Trump?
LEVY: You see, Brian, we don't know the full truth. We don't know how imminent was the threat. We don't know how big is the damage after the bombardings. We don't know the truth, none of us. But there is a sense of relief in Israel, which I totally understand and also share because those 12 days were a nightmare not only in Iran. They were also a nightmare in Israel, and it was very hard to continue.
And I really even personally praised both Donald Trump and Prime Minister Netanyahu for ending it on time, at least this. And I don't underestimate this because this could have lasted for months now. And apparently, it was at least ended on time. Should it start, I'm not sure. But once it started, at least they ended it on time and didn't pull it more.
ABEL: All right, Gideon Levy, appreciate your time as always. Thank you, sir.
LEVY: Thank you, Brian.
ABEL: A peace deal is in place between Rwanda and the Democratic Republic of the Congo. The two nations signing the agreement on Friday in Washington. It's aimed at ending the devastating conflict in the eastern DRC. It also has an apparent benefit for the United States.
But as CNN's Larry Madowo explains, some remain unconvinced it can end the conflict.
LARRY MADOWO, CNN CORRESPONDENT: President Trump taking a victory lap after this major peace deal between the Democratic Republic of Congo and Rwanda. He's previously said he thinks he deserves a Nobel Peace Prize for helping make this happen. He called it a dangerous part of the world and praised his senior adviser on Africa Massad Boulos for getting it across the line.
Massad Boulos is also the father-in-law to his daughter Tiffany Trump. He hosted the leaders of the Democratic Republic of Congo and Rwanda, their foreign ministers. He said they were very honored to be at the White House.
The parties have agreed to a raft of things. The key part of it is the text here is important. Includes the provisions on the respect for territorial integrity and the prohibition of hostilities, the disengagement, disarmament, and conditional integration of ground state armed groups.
And they will also establish a joint security coordination mechanism, which would be important to implement this because there have been previous peace deals that have failed between the DRC and Rwanda. Crucially, the M23 rebel group are not a part to this. They are the group that the DRC accuses Rwanda of arming and supporting.
Rwanda wants the DRC to disarm and stop supporting the FDLR which they accuse of planning to overthrow the government of President Kagame. But President Trump also said something that raised a lot of eyebrows in Kinshasa across the region and in the continent.
(BEGIN VIDEOCLIP)
[02:25:10]
TRUMP: We're getting for the United States a lot of the mineral rights from the Congo as part of it. They're so honored to be here. They never thought they'd be coming to it. Look, this is a very tough part of the world. They never thought -- they were just telling me, they never thought they'd ever be coming to the White House. And they're so honored.
(END VIDEOCLIP) MADOWO: The Democratic Republic of Congo has the world's largest reserves of cobalt which powers everything from mobile phones to electric cars. And the question here is how did the DRC put those minerals as part of this agreement?
It didn't come up in the official signing that was led by Marco Rubio, the Secretary of State and the two foreign ministers. But suddenly the text will be scrutinized to see exactly what they gave up there. There's a lot of criticisms of Western countries aiming and vying for African minerals and this suddenly fits that description that's often criticized here.
Whether this deal does work still remains to be seen. And the question of how was this signed in Washington not in an African capital. Previous mediation efforts here in Nairobi and in the Angolan capital Luanda did not bear fruit.
Larry Madowo, CNN, Nairobi.
ABEL: Ukrainian military officials say Russia has amassed more than 100,000 troops near the Ukrainian city of Pokrovsk. Russian forces have been trying to capture that city for almost a year. But despite having a clear advantage in the number of troops and weapons, Moscow has been unable to seize the area. It is a strategic target for Moscow sitting on a key supply road with railways connecting it with other military hubs.
Thank you for watching. I'm Brian Abel.
For our international viewers, African Voices Changemakers is next. For those in the U.S., I have more news after a short break.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[02:30:39]
ABEL: Welcome back into the CNN Newsroom, I'm Brian Abel.
Returning to one of our top stories, the U.S. Supreme Court. It's curbed the power of federal judges to block President Trump's executive orders. The 6 to 3 decision limits the ability of lower level courts to issue nationwide injunctions. The case stemmed from the president's executive order to end birthright citizenship, which he signed on his first day in office earlier this year.
Attorneys general from nearly two dozen states sued to block the move, but Friday's ruling does not settle the issue of whether the president can enforce the order. The justices left one key legal avenue on the table, class action lawsuits. Several groups moved quickly Friday to file those lawsuits, including the immigrant rights groups and pregnant women challenging Trump's order in Maryland.
The president praised the ruling and suggested that the constitution's 14th Amendment is outdated.
(BEGIN VIDEOCLIP) TRUMP: I say, if you look at the end of the civil war, the 1800s, it was a very turbulent time. If you take the end day, was it 1869 or whatever, but you take that exact day, that's when the case was filed. And the case ended shortly thereafter. This has to do with the babies of slaves. Very, very obviously.
(END VIDEOCLIP)
ABEL: President Trump also said the amendment, quote, "wasn't meant for people trying to scan the system and come into the country on a vacation." By the way, Congress passed the 14th Amendment in 1866, one year after the civil war ended. It was ratified by the required 28 states in 1868.
And with that, let's bring in Gabriel Jack Chin, professor of law and chair of the U.S. Davis School -- U.C. Davis, rather, School of Law, join us now from California. And OK, let's first break down the ruling by making that distinction that the court did not rule on the constitutionality of President Trump's executive order limiting birthright citizenship.
They did not rule how that EO stacks up against the 14th Amendment. What the Supreme Court did do, though, is rule that a single lower court judge cannot block an executive order for the entire country through a nationwide injunction. So with the constitutionality question, still an open one, Gabriel, tell us what that means, at least in the short term for people impacted by that day one executive order.
GABRIEL "JACK" CHIN, MARTIN LUTHER KING JR. PROF. OF LAW, U.C. DAVIS SCHOOL OF LAW: Well, the Supreme Court decision made clear that the order was not going to go into effect for 30 days. So it's still on hold. The Supreme Court decision also reiterated something that the solicitor general said during oral argument, and that is that they would honor any decision that came down from the Supreme Court.
And so it's clear that with this 30-day delay and with the new lawsuits filed and many, many district judges and court of appeals, panels having reviewed this already, there's going to be a lot of action in the next 30 days. There's going to be a lot of litigation and it's extremely likely that the issue is going to get to the Supreme Court one way or another before the executive order actually goes into effect. So we're still on hold.
ABEL: OK. I know you are not a mind reader, but what's your best take about why the Supreme Court decided this way, what they did, or maybe more importantly, didn't say in that majority decision? Did they shirk responsibility by not addressing the constitutionality question?
CHIN: Well, they've made clear for a number of years, many of the justices, that they're not big fans of universal injunctions. These universal injunctions have been an increasing feature of judicial practice in both Democratic and Republican administrations. And the Supreme Court has said, this isn't how law is supposed to work.
Basically, they've said, we want to be the ones to decide the big issues. Justice Kavanaugh's concurring opinion in particular said, it's up to the Supreme Court to decide the big legal issues and we're capable of doing it. We're going to do it.
There's a number of ways that these kinds of questions can be brought to the court quickly, if the parties want to do it and if the court wants to do it.
[02:35:03]
And so, I was a little surprised that they chose this case to strike down universal injunctions. I wasn't surprised, many observers of the court weren't surprised that they struck down universal injunctions. So I think because of the way they did it, making very clear that they were not saying anything about the merits of the issue and that they were giving plenty of time for additional lawsuits to be brought, they identified other avenues that challenges could be brought through, for example, class actions.
They also did not rule out the possibility that the states that have sued would have standing to essentially get universal injunctions that at least apply to those states. So I don't think that the Supreme Court shirked its responsibility to decide the issue.
And frankly, the fact that they took the case in the first place makes me think -- and that they decided it the way they did, makes me think that we are going to see another step in this litigation over the summer. And the Supreme Court is very likely to give us some strong hints about how they're ultimately going to come out.
ABEL: OK. Well, let's talk about this dissenting decision here. There was some pretty strong language from some of the three liberal judges on the bench who all dissented. Justice Sotomayor writing, "The court's decision is nothing less than an open invitation for the government to bypass the Constitution."
Then you have Justice Jackson in a solo dissent. She had an even darker prediction of what this decision will do, writing, "Eventually executive power will become completely uncontainable and our beloved constitutional republic will be no more." Does this decision itself create a constitutional crisis as the liberal justices suggest?
CHIN: I hope not. I don't think it's been proven yet. And the reason for that is everybody who is actually affected by this executive order or any executive order can bring their own lawsuit. And as we see by the teams of lawyers who have jumped in to this and other legal innovations that have been come up with by this administration, there's a lot of pushback.
And so, I would hope that we're not going to be in a situation where the worst fears of the dissenters come true. Justice Kavanaugh, for his part, as I mentioned in his concurrence, he said we're prepared to decide issues promptly and in a timely way. Justice delayed is justice denied, right?
If U.S. citizens get deported from the United States because the executive order says they're not really U.S. citizens and a couple of years later, the Supreme Court comes out and says, wait a minute, the executive order was unconstitutional the whole time. That's going to be pretty bad news for people who were already deported.
But we're not there yet. We're not in a situation where anybody has actually been denied the rights of citizenship when the Constitution and laws says they are a citizen. And there's no question that this ruling does create a gap. It creates this period of time where the courts say that a policy is unconstitutional and they say that it's clearly unconstitutional, but it's still allowed to be in effect unless the people affected can get a lawyer and raise their own claim.
And so there definitely is the possibility of people being denied their rights and deported or executed or sent to El Salvador or sent to South Sudan without having an opportunity to have their meritorious claim heard. That's a possibility.
ABEL: Like Kilmar Abrego Garcia.
CHIN: Exactly. But we're not there yet.
ABEL: OK. All right, Gabriel --
CHIN: There's --
ABEL: We do have to leave it there. Appreciate your time. Thank you for your expertise.
CHIN: Thank you, Brian.
ABEL: Now to trade, Mr. Trump abruptly announcing on Friday that he is ending months-long trade talks with Canada. The reason, according to the president, is a new tax on digital services that would hit companies like Apple, Google and Meta. It was adopted more than a year ago and is set to go into effect on Monday.
CNN's Senior White House Correspondent Kristen Holmes has more.
[02:40:14]
KRISTEN HOLMES, CNN NATIONAL CORRESPONDENT: President Trump announcing that he was suspending all talks with Canada when it came to trade on Friday after they put into place a digital services tax. Now, this was quite surprising to see this level of anger from President Trump when it was just about a week and a half ago, we saw the president in Canada sitting down with the prime minister, Mark Carney, during the G7, and they seem to be on much better terms than when we saw Carney in the Oval Office with Trump about a month ago.
They were getting along. And even at one point, President Trump saying, well, we have different ideas about tariffs and trade, but I think it's possible for us to come to some kind of a deal where we both get something that we want out of it. Now, this is obviously not where this is ending, particularly given that President Trump called this act of putting through these digital service taxes a direct and blatant attack on our country.
He was asked by reporters later for more details on why he had suspended trade. And here's what he said.
(BEGIN VIDEOCLIP)
TRUMP: They were foolish to do it. So I said, we're going to stop all negotiations with Canada right now until they straighten out their act. We have all the cards. We have all the cards.
You know, we do a lot of business with Canada, but relatively little. They do most of their businesses with us. And when you have that circumstance, you treat people better.
(END VIDEOCLIP)
HOLMES: Now, one thing to keep in mind is that the first payment of these digital services taxes were expected to go into place on June 30th. So just a matter of days here. And they are going to be retroactive as well, meaning that some of these big U.S. companies could spend anywhere up to $2 billion. So a lot of money coming from that.
This is a tax that we've seen the E.U. have. We know the United Kingdom has it. The United Kingdom actually still has theirs in place even after the United States struck a trade deal with them. Seems like maybe the U.S. thinks it got something in another area there. But it's something that President Trump has railed against for quite some time and clearly here ending any current negotiation over trade with Canada over this decision.
Kristen Holmes, CNN, at the White House.
ABEL: The U.S. Treasury Secretary said so-called reciprocal tariffs could soon resume for more than a dozen countries. That's what Scott Bessent said to CNBC on Friday, adding that they're nearing deals with 10 nations. When the tariffs were paused in April, Mr. Trump's new deal deadline was July 9th, just over a week away.
But also on Friday, Bessent told Fox News that negotiations could be wrapped up by Labor Day. That's September 1st, a more relaxed framework than the original time frame.
A new phase in the Sean "Diddy" Combs trial is set to begin next week. Coming up, what the jury heard in closing arguments.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[02:46:09]
ABEL: Authorities in New Orleans say they captured another inmate who's been on the run for more than a month. Antoine Massey and nine others, they escaped from a New Orleans jail on May 16th. Investigators say they took advantage of bad locks, stolen bedding and a hungry jail employee to escape.
A tip led to Massey's arrest in a neighborhood just miles from the prison. There's now one escapee still on the loose. The jury is about to get the criminal case against Sean "Diddy" Combs.
After two marathon days of closing arguments, jury deliberations are set to begin Monday. CNN's Elizabeth Wagmeister reports.
ELIZABETH WAGMEISTER, CNN ENTERTAINMENT CORRESPONDENT: The case is almost in the jury's hands in the Sean "Diddy" Combs trial. Closing arguments coming to an end on Friday, with the defense saying this is a tale of two trials. The trial of the evidence and the trial that the prosecution is presenting.
They say that the trial of the prosecution is one that is, quote, "badly exaggerated." But they say that the evidence, well, what it shows is a lifestyle of choosing. And that lifestyle includes being swingers or having threesomes. But even though if that may be a peculiar choice, it is not criminal.
Now, Combs' defense attorney, Marc Agnifilo, really taking aim at Cassie Ventura, the star witness of this trial. She, of course, is Sean Combs' ex-girlfriend of 11 years, who she claims that she endured a decade plus of abuse by Sean Combs.
Well, he said that she's no victim, that she is not naive. She is a strong woman. And that is actually why Combs fell in love with her. He actually said that Cassie Ventura is the winner of this trial. Why? Because of money.
The federal investigation into Combs all began with Cassie Ventura's civil lawsuit that she filed back in November of 2023. Well, that bombshell lawsuit was settled in 24 hours between Cassie and Combs. So today, during closing arguments, here is what his attorney had to say to the jury.
He said, quote, "Cassie is nobody's fool. Cassie is sitting somewhere in the world with $30 million. Combs is in jail. Cassie won."
Now, the prosecutors got the final word, of course, with their rebuttal. And they said that the defense's closing argument to call these women liars was nothing but victim blaming. They said it was ridiculous. It is nonsensical. It is preposterous.
They said that Sean Combs has committed crimes and gotten away with it because of his inner circle, that enterprise, for 20 years. They ended it by saying that Sean Combs believed that he was a god among men. But he's not a god. In this courtroom, there are no gods. There are only people. And they implored the jury to find him guilty.
Now, on Monday, the jury will return. They will get their instructions. And then deliberations will begin. Back to you.
ABEL: Elizabeth Wagmeister, thank you.
Still to come, how Jeff Bezos' lavish wedding in Venice is boosting the city's tourism industry.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[02:53:08]
ABEL: California wants to make sure the movie industry thrives in Hollywood. Lawmakers there voting Friday to more than double tax incentives for film and television productions based in California. They're hoping to lure back productions that have moved to Britain, Canada, and other U.S. states, offering big tax credits.
One film producer says the benefits of filming in Hollywood are worth more than money.
(BEGIN VIDEOCLIP)
URI SINGER, FILM PRODUCER: The lights in Los Angeles are spectacular. And I think there's a lot of advantages in shooting in L.A. I hear the chatter of everybody leaving and not wanting to shoot in L.A. I was one of those people that shot three movies in New York because of the tax credit. We think to shoot in L.A., which gives it more -- we're in Hollywood. So this is where movies are made.
(END VIDEOCLIP)
ABEL: Now, President Donald Trump said he would impose tariffs on movies produced outside the U.S. That proposal has not been implemented.
Billionaire Jeff Bezos married former reporter Lauren Sanchez in Venice on Friday. The lavish, star-studded wedding weekend, it was reportedly cost as much as $55 million. And Venice could rake in over $1 billion from tourism.
I mentioned those A-listers. Dozens were in attendance as protesters also were there trying to disrupt the festivities around the city.
CNN's Melissa Bell has more from Venice.
MELISSA BELL, CNN SENIOR INTERNATIONAL CORRESPONDENT: It is day two of the three-day extravaganza that is the Jeff Bezos and Lauren Sanchez wedding here in Venice held in the scorching heat.
We first caught a glimpse of the bride and former journalist today as she exited her hotel in style on a water taxi with two huge diamond rings and a bracelet with the initials LB.
She was soon followed by the Amazon founder and a sea of photographers.
[02:55:13]
BELL: As they headed over there to the private San Giorgio Maggiore Island here in Venice where they tied the knot in front of 200 guests, a barrage of celebrities. Including Oprah Winfrey, Kendall and Kylie Jenner, Usher and Tom Brady. And we know that a performance by Matteo Bocelli is happening there tonight. He's the son of the legendary Italian opera singer Andrea Bocelli.
And here is the now Lauren Sanchez-Bezos on the cover of Vogue in her Dolce & Gabbana wedding gown finally revealed after much anticipation.
Italy's tourism minister said Venice can expect to reap as much as $1.1 billion as a result of the billionaire's wedding.
But we have been kept almost entirely in the dark throughout the three days about exactly when and where the ceremonies will be taking place, not just so that they could keep the press and the paparazzi at a distance, but also of course the protesters who are threatening to disrupt proceedings. And so it is from afar that if we have watched the happy couple tie the knot and dance the night away.
Melissa Bell, CNN, Venice.
ABEL: Well, the Bezos wedding had a number of tourists and locals in Venice doing double takes, and this might be why. This guy, a Jeff Bezos lookalike from Germany. He's been walking around Venice surprising people as well as taking pictures with them. You see it there.
Man, talk about having to do a double take -- a double game. The lookalike says he took a water taxi to a luxury hotel and the people there thought he was the real Bezos. Can't imagine why.
Thanks for joining us. I'm Brian Abel.
CNN Newsroom continues after a short break.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
