Return to Transcripts main page

CNN Newsroom

Trump Imposes New 15 Percent Global Tariffs After Supreme Court Ruling; White House, Dems Remain At Odds On Standoff Over ICE Funding; Inside 911 Center Where Nancy Guthrie Tips Are Processed; Police Searching Property Connected To Former Prince Andrew; Supreme Court Rules Trump's Tariffs Are Unconstitutional; How Wildfires Spread So Quickly From The Smallest Spark; Father On Trial After Son's School Shooting; E.l.f. Beauty's Successful "Trump-Resistant" Business Playbook; Netflix Revisits Epic Team USA Against the Soviets. Aired 3- 4p ET

Aired February 21, 2026 - 15:00   ET

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

[15:00:00]

OMAR JIMENEZ, CNN HOST: Tonight, two of Hollywood's most dynamic actors, two of my favorites as well, sit down for a candid and wide- ranging conversation in a CNN and "Variety" town hall event. Matthew McConaughey and Timothee Chalamet reunite off screen, opening up about relationships, A.I. and film, and of course "Interstellar."

That's right here on CNN at 7:00 p.m. Eastern. You can also stream it on the CNN app.

ANNOUNCER: This is CNN Breaking News.

JIMENEZ: All right. Everyone, thanks for joining me. I'm Omar Jimenez sitting in for Fredricka Whitfield.

We got a lot to follow today including breaking news, a defiant President Trump doubling down on tariffs today after really a devastating ruling from the Supreme Court that determined his sweeping emergency trade duties are illegal.

Today, the president announcing he's raising worldwide tariffs under a different authority to 15 percent after signing a 10 percent global tariff order late Friday. And today, the president continues to lash out at the Supreme Court, calling its 6-3 decision on his signature economic policy extraordinarily anti-American.

CNN's Julia Benbrook is at the White House for us.

So, Julia, what more can you tell us about these new tariffs announced by the president?

JULIA BENBROOK, CNN CORRESPONDENT: Well, this is no doubt still on his mind. This ruling from the Supreme Court that found that the sweeping tariffs that Trump unilaterally imposed across the globe were illegal. And since then he has made it clear that he is upset about this ruling. He is imposing new tariffs using a different law, referred to as Section 122 he announced, and signing an executive order saying that there will be a 10 percent tariff placed on levies that are already in place.

And then just a couple of hours ago, he raised that rate to 15 percent. I want to pull up his social media post for you now. This is where he made that announcement. He said, quote, "I, as president of the United States of America, will be effective immediately raising a 10 percent worldwide tariff on countries many of which have been ripping off the U.S. for decades without retribution until I came along to the fully allowed and legally tested 15 percent level."

He added, "During the next short number of months, the Trump administration will determine and issue the new and legally permissible tariffs, which will continue are extraordinarily successful process of making America greater than ever before."

Now, this new rate, it could stay in place for up to 150 days. And then after that, he would still need congressional approval to move forward. During his press conference yesterday, where he made it clear he was frustrated, he was pressed on recent bipartisan criticism for his decision to bypass Congress here. And he essentially said that he still doesn't really think he needs them. Take a listen.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

UNIDENTIFIED REPORTER: There are Republicans have said that.

DONALD TRUMP, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: Yes. A few people.

UNIDENTIFIED REPORTER: You just work with Congress to come up with a plan.

TRUMP: I don't have to.

UNIDENTIFIED REPORTER: To push tariffs.

TRUMP: I have the right to do tariffs, and I've always had the right to do tariffs. And it's all been approved by Congress. So there's no reason to do it.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

BENBROOK: Ever since the ruling, Trump has been praising the justices who sided with him. In a new post, he did say that Justice Brett Kavanaugh is his, quote, "new hero on the Supreme Court," adding that those that did dissent here were hoping to make America great again, using his own campaign slogan to describe them. On the flip side of that, he has been incredibly critical of those in the majority. This was a 6 to 3 ruling, and we did see two Trump appointees, Justice Amy Coney Barrett, as well as Justice Neil Gorsuch, sign on with Chief Justice John Roberts and the three liberal justices, Omar.

JIMENEZ: Julia Benbrook, appreciate the reporting.

Meanwhile, also in Washington, the ongoing Homeland Security shutdown entering its second week as White House and congressional Democrats remain in a standoff over ICE funding.

CNN's Camila DeChalus is in Washington. She's been closely following these talks for us.

Camila, what are both sides saying? And could we see talks ramp up in any way this weekend?

CAMILA DECHALUS, CNN CORRESPONDENT: Well, Omar, at this point in time, there really is no end in sight for this partial government shutdown to end. Now, Republicans and Democratic lawmakers, they're both saying that they want this to end, but they're really not closer to reaching an agreement on how to exactly resolve their differences around funding the Department of Homeland Security.

Now Democrats, they say they want a list of reforms to be made around immigration enforcement in exchange for them supporting a bill to fund the Department of Homeland Security. But on the other hand, some Republican lawmakers have told me that they're open to having conversations around reforms for certain federal agencies. But they say that this is not the way that these negotiations should be done.

And they say the real top priority right now is passing this funding in order to give funding for the Department of Homeland Security. Now, at this point, negotiations have kind of stalled because Republican leaders have not formally responded to Democrats' latest proposal, which was delivered on Monday night.

[15:05:07]

And so the timing here is really significant because next week President Donald Trump is expected to address Congress in his State of the Union address and major talks we're hoping and we're hearing that they could potentially wrap up -- ramp up over the weekend. But if it's not, then that means that this partial government shutdown will likely still be in place when Trump delivers the speech.

And that really does mean that this funding fight over the Department of Homeland Security, that could cast a significant shadow over one of the largest addresses that President Trump will give Congress. And that really does mean that there's a lot of stake out here. And so this is something that we're closely monitoring. We're hearing a lot of these discussions are happening behind the scenes, but in front of the cameras and what Democrats and Republicans are saying is that these negotiations, these talks really haven't progressed as we know it.

JIMENEZ: Camila DeChalus, appreciate the reporting.

Meanwhile, investigators in Arizona are facing mounting pressure to find a suspect as the search for Nancy Guthrie is about to enter its fourth week. Right now DNA found at her home and on gloves near her house are going through forensic testing. Authorities believe the 84- year-old was taken from her home against her will.

CNN's Ed Lavandera went to the 911 dispatch center where tips about the case are pouring in.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Hello, this is the Pima County Sheriff's Department. Are you reporting information for the Nancy Guthrie case?

ED LAVANDERA, CNN SENIOR NATIONAL CORRESPONDENT: Are you getting calls that are viable, serious tips?

JOANNE AMSTUTZ, 911 DISPATCH SUPERVISOR, TUCSON CALL CENTER: Some of them we are, we're getting a lot of those calls. We put those and capture that information for our intelligence and analysts to sift through and prioritize and track those down. We're also getting a lot of calls with just people that have theories and ideas of things, which I get that they're trying to help but sometimes it inundates our call load and makes it hard for us to deal with like 911 calls that actually come in and what not to.

But again, you know, we want any kind of tips that people have, but we want them to be credible and viable. So if they know where Nancy is at or if they know who took her, those are the kind of things that we're looking for so that we can focus on that and hopefully get her home sooner.

LAVANDERA: You guys have talked about how you're getting just a lot of calls that aren't helpful, to be frank. What kind of problems is that causing for you guys, these calls that really aren't helpful in this investigation?

AMSTUTZ: Yes, a lot of those things, like again, we want to capture that information, but that's just more things for the investigators and the analysts to kind of sift through and prioritize. And hopefully they're not missing that nugget of information that's actually where Nancy might be or who that actual person might be. So if it's something that is, hey, I saw that video, it looks like this guy I worked with, you know, two years ago, here's his name, here's where he lives. Something like that.

Those are good tips when it's just a thought of like, hey, that guy is right handed. Those are things that the investigators are already analyzing that have already gone through. And again, I get that people are trying to be helpful, but sometimes I think they forget that there's also experts looking at those kind of things. And some of the stuff that sticks out to everybody is also going to stick out to people that do that for a living.

LAVANDERA: Can you give us some examples of the things that are not helpful that you guys have been getting?

AMSTUTZ: So people calling from across the country and just reporting this guy was suspicious and they can't articulate why that might be related to Nancy Guthrie at all. Those are not super helpful because what are the investigators supposed to do with that? There's a lot of suspicious people everywhere, or another one might be someone had a dream and it's very vague they don't have specifics or anything.

Those tend not to be helpful just because there's nothing that the investigators can actually follow up on and do something about.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Pima County Sheriff's Department. LAVANDERA: As you sit here and you work, do you feel like this is

going to be the room where that one tip comes in first that solves this case?

AMSTUTZ: I mean, I would like to think so. Stranger things have happened. I mean, a lot of times we get people that they do. If you see something, say something. And it's like a super specific thing. I would think that somebody locally is probably going to like, speak up, they might know who that person is or whatnot, or someone, if it's not a local person, you know, comes across something and they're going to call us.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

JIMENEZ: And Joanne Amstutz estimates about 90 percent of the calls coming in are from outside the Tucson area, as far away as Europe and Asia.

Our thanks to Ed Lavandera for that report.

Still to come, former Prince Andrew potentially faces mounting consequences as new allegations in the Epstein file investigation shake the House of Windsor. What's next for Andrew Mountbatten- Windsor? And how will the monarchy respond? Plus, this.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

ALLISON CHINCHAR, CNN METEOROLOGIST: A single ember can spark a massive wildfire, especially when strong winds carry embers far downwind.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

JIMENEZ: Meteorologist Allison Chinchar takes us inside the fire lines to give us a virtual look at how quickly a small campfire can turn into a disastrous wildfire.

[15:10:04]

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

JIMENEZ: New today British police are still searching a property connected to Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor, the former Prince Andrew. That search could extend into Monday.

CNN's Nada Bashir has the latest developments on the stunning arrest and investigation -- Nada.

NADA BASHIR, CNN CORRESPONDENT: The investigation is still ongoing, but Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor has been released under investigation.

[15:15:03]

He isn't under bail, so he's not under any conditions specifically. But that doesn't remove the possibility of him being rearrested for further questioning if police deem it necessary. Now we understand that he was arrested on suspicion of misconduct

while in public office, and it's understood that this is all centered around his time as the U.K. trade envoy between 2001 and 2011. And this comes after documents were released by the U.S. Department of Justice as part of the Epstein files, which appear to indicate that the former Prince Andrew may have shared sensitive government information with the convicted sex offender Jeffrey Epstein.

So somewhat different from the allegations surrounding the Epstein scandal. And as you mentioned, Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor has not commented on these most recent allegations, although he has previously denied any wrongdoing in relation to the Epstein scandal. But of course, as you mentioned, the investigation is ongoing. There are multiple calls now for further accountability, including questions around the possibility of Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor being removed from the line of succession.

That is something that lawmakers in parliament may be considering following the end of this investigation once it does come to a close. He's already, of course, been stripped of his royal title, but he remains eighth in line to the throne here in the United Kingdom. But of course, as the investigation continues, police will be looking for further evidence to substantiate any claims that have been made against him.

That includes searching his properties, but also includes, according to London's Metropolitan Police, reaching out to his current and former close protection officers for any information they might be able to provide with regards to things they may have witnessed while serving for Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor.

JIMENEZ: All right, Nada Bashir, thank you for that reporting.

Let's continue this conversation, with us is Doctor Tom Frost. He's a senior lecturer at Loughborough Law School in England.

The former prince has been arrested, not charged. What would it take for investigators to actually charge him here?

DR. TOM FROST, SENIOR LECTURER, LOUGHBOROUGH LAW SCHOOL: Well, the first thing to say is that in the United Kingdom, the police investigate crimes and a separate body, the Crown Prosecution Service, would make a decision as to whether or not any further action is needed.

The offense that Mr. Mountbatten-Windsor has been arrested for, misconduct in public office, has a very high bar for prosecution. It's what we call a common law crime. It was founded by judges many hundreds of years ago. It is potentially committed by a public official. They don't just need to commit misconduct, but the misconduct must be so grave and serious as to amount to effectively affronting the public decency. And --

JIMENEZ: Well --

FROST: -- really affecting the public image of the individual. JIMENEZ: Yes. You know, as you mentioned, misconduct in public office,

serious charge in the U.K. and authorities previously said they were reviewing claims that he shared sensitive information with the late convicted sex offender Jeffrey Epstein during his time as a representative for the British government.

What consequences could Andrew potentially face down the road? Just contextualize this for us.

FROST: So the offense is trial by jury. The crown court, it is a very serious offense. There haven't been many successful prosecutions or even prosecutions brought in recent years. Those senior executives who have been convicted of the offense have been given custodial sentences, the two most recent between 30 and 32 months.

I must stress we are a long way off from that. The police need time to conduct their investigations. If there is a lot of documentary evidence, and we're dealing with a public position where an individual was in post for 10 years, that may take a lot of time. It's completely normal for the police to take time on that. There is no time limit within which their investigation needs to be concluded before they ask the crown prosecution service if indeed they do, whether or not they wish to bring charges.

JIMENEZ: And, you know, to this point, police have told Andrew's serving and former protection officers to, quote, "consider carefully" whether anything they saw or heard might be relevant to the investigation. How important could that line of inquiry prove to be? How do you see it?

FROST: Well, I think there's an important distinction to be made in the United Kingdom. We have 45 regional police forces. They each have their own geographical area. They are responsible for incidences and complaints that take place in that geographical area. The arrest was made by Thames Valley Police.

The reference you're making to is actually a reference made by the Metropolitan Police, which is a separate police force. They have not made any arrests. They are undergoing initial inquiries. The two investigations are independent from one another. The police forces will coordinate. So this is -- and the Metropolitan Police have said this in a press release, this is completely separate from the arrest that took place on Thursday.

[15:20:07]

JIMENEZ: And, you know, outside of just the investigative aspect itself, which again, is still ongoing, King Charles is distancing himself from his younger brother but were learning the U.K. government is considering removing Andrew from the line of succession.

Look, he's eighth in line to the throne. Does it make that move largely symbolic, or is there real significance to that?

FROST: Well, in terms of the likelihood of Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor acceding to the throne, you are right. It's largely symbolic. But symbols matter. It should be stated that it's only parliament that has the right to change the line of succession. The king cannot do this, which is why he was not able to make this move before. It should also be stated that King Charles is not just king of the United Kingdom, but king of 14 other nations, including Canada, Australia, New Zealand and Jamaica. So any change to the line of succession would need 15 countries to agree and prospectively pass legislation in their own jurisdictions so this may be a drawn-out process.

JIMENEZ: Dr. Tom Frost, appreciate the perspective. Thanks for being here.

FROST: Thank you very much.

JIMENEZ: Of course.

All right. Still to come, a potential critical moment in the trial of Colin Gray, the Georgia father who's facing multiple charges after his son's school shooting. The teen's grandmother takes the stand offering insight into his upbringing and his state of mind. But how might her words influence the case against his father? We'll explain coming up.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[10:26:04]

JIMENEZ: In a significant loss for the Trump administration, the Supreme Court ruled that the president's emergency tariffs are illegal. Now while the future of refunds remains unclear, economists say they don't expect prices to drop anytime soon.

I want to bring in Jeff Schwartz for more legal perspective on this. He's a former Miami-Dade County court judge and a professor at Thomas M. Cooley Law School's Tampa Bay Campus.

Jeff, good to see you. I want to start just with the legality of Trump's new round of tariffs here because the Supreme Court ruled his emergency trade duties are illegal, but he's rolling out this 15 percent worldwide tariff under a different authority. How does all that work?

JEFF SWARTZ, PROFESSOR, THOMAS M. COLLEY LAW SCHOOL'S TAMPA BAY CAMPUS: Right. Well, it's section 122 of the Trade Act of 1974. And basically it says that he can where he sees it necessary to impose tariffs up to and including 15 percent, but it limits the time of his own discretion to I believe it was 150 days. And that's just -- that basically takes him until July.

Anything extending beyond that takes congressional approval, and I think right now, the chances of him getting approval for any kind of tariffs through Congress is basically de minimis. No one is going to want to tax the American people during an election year.

JIMENEZ: Yes. You know, you could have just said minimal, but you got the legal -- you got the legal mind behind you. I'm with you. I'm with you there. But look, the court's decision here, you know, comes in a 6 to 3 ruling. And to your point, you know, the prevailing legal theory here seemed to be that essentially something you can do this through Congress, that that's what this is designated for. And we saw President Biden run up against that a little bit during his term.

Were you surprised at all by how the justices voted here?

SWARTZ: The only two -- the surprises that I had really was Gorsuch. I really didn't think Gorsuch would abandon his belief in the unitary executive like Kavanaugh, but somehow or another, this was made very easy for him because of the way Roberts put the issue. And it wasn't surprising Roberts went where he did because he made the same kind of ruling in the ACA Act decision, where he decided that the penalty was actually a tax.

And here it was easy for him to say that a tariff is a tax on the American people and that brought Gorsuch back over to him. This is really a basic thing. It really wasn't open. It's a major question doctrine. And this was a major question and therefore it had to be decided based upon what the Constitution says.

JIMENEZ: And, you know, even though the Supreme Court just ruled on these emergency powers, at least under that authority, I mean, these have been in place for a while. Businesses have altered their strategies. People have paid for those altered strategies in many cases as well. And ahead of yesterday's verdict, there are thousands of businesses, including Costco, who sued the U.S. government to fast track any refunds.

What does that process actually look like, and who's going to be tasked with actually sorting through all of this?

SWARTZ: It's really kind of questionable exactly how they would do it. To me, the simplicity is this. That the ultimate payer of the tax was the consumer. If the consumer can prove that they bought something that in fact was subject to tariff and the price went up as a result of the tariff, then they're entitled to the return of that money. That makes -- that puts really the onus on the seller of the property or whatever they're buying, whether it's a car.

Say, I bought a car, I paid a tariff. I'm entitled to the return of that tariff. And they will go to the distributor, the dealer go to the distributor, and the distributor is going to go to the maker of the car to get that tariff back.

[15:30:01]

And that's, I think, the best way to work it. Now, I don't see sending checks out to everybody and making it equal. It just isn't going to work. They have to find a way to not make this a regressive return of money like this was a regressive tax.

JIMENEZ: It gives a whole new meaning to tax season coming up here.

Jeff Swartz, appreciate the insight and analysis. Thanks for being here.

SWARTZ: Have a nice day, Omar. JIMENEZ: You too. You too.

Still to come a mega fire burning across the midwestern plains has already torched hundreds of thousands of acres. We're going to have the latest on the forecast coming up.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[15:35:17]

JIMENEZ: Today fire crews may get a chance to get ahead of the flames. I mean, look at these conditions here. But weather conditions across the Great Plains are expected to improve. More than a dozen wildfires have scorched tens of thousands of acres to this point. The largest, the Ranger Road Mega Fire, which grew to twice the size of Chicago, is now 30 percent contained. But the fire began in Oklahoma and spread about 60 miles into southern Kansas, injuring four firefighters and forcing mass evacuations.

CNN meteorologist Allison Chinchar takes us inside the CNN virtual studio to explain how wildfires can erupt from the smallest spark.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

CHINCHAR: Under extremely dry conditions, a single ember can spark a massive wildfire, especially when strong winds carry embers far downwind.

Take this campfire, for example, it's surrounded by dry leaves and brush that could easily ignite from just one stray ember. As the fire grows, it heats the air around it, creating strong updrafts that can lift burning leaves, twigs, and bark high into the sky. You can already see the flames picking up, which means this is getting out of hand fast.

When those traveling embers land on dry vegetation or roofs or wooden structures, they can ignite new fires known as spot fires. These smaller fires can quickly grow, sometimes merging with one another or even becoming new separate wildfires. Winds can then carry those embers miles ahead of the main fire. The stronger the wind, the farther those embers can travel.

Wind also fans the flames, feeding the fire with oxygen in addition to blowing the embers downwind to start new spot fires, causing it to spread rapidly. Sometimes at the rate of multiple football fields in just seconds.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

JIMENEZ: I mean, you hear how quickly it spreads, but to see it visualize that -- like that, pretty incredible.

Allison Chinchar, thank you for that visual and reporting.

Now, I want to take you to this really stunning testimony in the trial of a Georgia father accused of giving his son access to a gun used in a school shooting. The grandmother of the teenage shooter took the stand on Friday testifying that his father, Colin Gray, bought him an AR-15 type rifle as a Christmas present just before the attack that killed four people.

CNN's Isabel Rosales has more details from the courthouse where the first week of the trial wrapped up yesterday.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

ISABEL ROSALES, CNN CORRESPONDENT: There were some excitement here at the end of day five of testimony in the Colin gray trial, where Marcee Gray, Colt Gray's mother, was late to the point where we heard the judge reprimanding her, reminding her that she is under subpoena, and then telling Marcee Gray this, "You don't want to be held in contempt for not coming."

We're going to hear from Marcee on Monday. Today we heard from Marcee's mother, Debbie Polhemus, who is Colt's grandmother. Debbie Polhemus testified that Marcee did not share with her for a couple of months about Colt being flagged in a school system. This would have been back in 2021 for searching the words abuse and also how to kill your father. We know that that wasn't shared with Colin Gray either for quite a period of time.

Debbie also testified that Colt asked for ammo for his birthday, and that he wasn't attending school. And then we saw text messages between Polhemus and Colt, where we see outbursts from Colt. A spiraling where he is using vulgar language against her. He talked about having schizophrenia, Polhemus testified, and also acute mania. And then texted this is her, quote, "I haven't gotten to the point where I've felt an instantaneous urge to hurt anyone, but I do have periods where it's heightened. These can last days to weeks for me."

So there it is, him talking about his feelings about hurting others. On cross-examination, she revealed she didn't tell Colin about this. And then she testified that he also asked her this. "If I did something terrible, would you still love me?" At the time she thought he was talking about self-harm, not hurting other people. He also asked her if she knew anything about the Parkland School shooter. A reminder of the so-called shrine, as the state is calling it, to Nikolas Cruz in Colt Gray's bedroom.

[15:40:05]

Colt had been telling her that he'd been reading about him, about Nikolas Cruz. And then two days before the shooting Colt asks her about this graphic card for his computer that Debbie promised she would get him, but she said, no, you haven't been to school and you're not getting therapy. And then he writes her this, "You ruined me. Drop dead." She testified she also didn't tell Colin about that.

We also heard today from an investigator who shared pictures inside of Colin Gray's home where we witnessed guns that are unsecured, gun locks that are still in the wrapping, and ammo out in the open.

Isabel Rosales, CNN, Winder, Georgia. (END VIDEOTAPE)

JIMENEZ: All right, Isabel Rosales, thank you for that reporting.

Meanwhile, a woman is now facing charges she allegedly abandoned her dog at the Las Vegas airport. Police say she tied the Goldendoodle near a JetBlue counter after being refused a boarding pass. You can see the little dog there. Its tail wagging. But because she had not filled out the proper paperwork to travel with a service dog, but then she walked to her departure gate leaving the dog behind. You can see it walking up right there.

Police tracked her down and charged her with abandonment and resisting arrest. Our affiliate KVVU reports one of the responding police officers and his family will now adopt the 2-year-old Goldendoodle. There he is there.

All right. Still to come, as Team USA takes aim for hockey gold again, we're going to take a look back at the men who won the Miracle on Ice back in 1980, and how their victory has inspired generations of underdogs across the sports world.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[15:45:59]

JIMENEZ: E.l.f. Beauty CEO built a Gen Z powerhouse on low prices and viral marketing. Then came Trump's tariffs and a political backlash against corporate DEI.

CNN's Clare Duffy explains how the beauty brand successfully defied Trump's policies to build an empire.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

CLARE DUFFY, CNN TECH CORRESPONDENT (voice-over): E.l.f. Beauty CEO Tarang Amin is on a mission to build a beauty empire for Gen Z. His formula, low prices, social media savvy, and last year the $1 billion acquisition of Hailey Bieber's Rhode, a beauty brand that young consumers line up around the block for.

E.l.f. has always been so good at having its pulse on what younger consumers want. How do you keep up?

TARANG AMIN, CEO, E.L.F. BEAUTY: So I'm always learning, but we were one of the -- actually one of the first beauty brands on TikTok as a way of kind of engaging with Gen Z.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Look at you.

AMIN: The first beauty brand to have our own channel on Twitch, the first beauty brand with their own branded experience on Roblox.

DUFFY (voice-over): For Amin, the key to understanding the brand's customers is to hire them. AMIN: No one is ever going to accuse me of being a makeup enthusiast

so I absolutely rely on our young, passionate workforce to have a pulse on what consumers want because they are our community. 76 percent of our team are women, 74 percent are Gen Z or millennial, 44 percent are diverse. They absolutely represent the community we serve.

ERICA HILL, CNN ANCHOR: Donald Trump's war on DEI is on.

DUFFY (voice-over): That focus on diversity stands out at a time when companies like Meta and Walmart have scaled back their diversity initiatives in the wake of right-wing pressure.

TRUMP: Our country is going to be based on merit again.

DUFFY (voice-over): For Amin, diversity is a priority.

Why have you decided to stick with it?

AMIN: What would be riskier is us abandoning what we stand for. Our community would know about it right away, and they would hold us accountable for it. We believe if your team represents communities you serve, your results will be better. And we're living proof of that.

DUFFY (voice-over): Last year, White House trade policy threatened another pillar of e.l.f.'s success. Affordability. To account for tariffs, the company announced it would raise prices by $1 on many products, despite warnings from President Trump to eat the tariffs.

Was that something that worried you prior to this announcement?

AMIN: No, it didn't worry me at all. Our whole point is being transparent with our community and what I find consumers are smart. So if you probably put some other twist, it actually gets in the way of that genuine dialogue we have with our community.

DUFFY (voice-over): According to Amin, roughly 75 percent of e.l.f.'s products remain priced under $10. An effort to protect the affordability that made the brand a disruptor in the first place.

AMIN: We're known to make the best of beauty accessible to every eye, lip and face, and frankly, that resonates in any economic environment.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

JIMENEZ: All right, Clare Duffy, thank you so much.

Still to come, in the wake of the Supreme Court decision on President Trump's tariffs, could a wave of lawsuits and potential refunds be on the horizon? We're going to have legal analysis in the next hour. Stay with us.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[15:54:11]

JIMENEZ: Heads up, tomorrow, the U.S. men's hockey team will try to win its first Olympic gold in more than 45 years. Now the U.S.'s win over Slovakia on Friday sets up a gold medal clash with archrival Canada.

CNN's Patrick Snell joins us now.

Patrick, the Americans, slight underdogs in this gold medal game, but it's nothing compared to the 1980 game against the Soviets.

PATRICK SNELL, CNN WORLD SPORT: You're absolutely right, Omar. How can the current generation of American players not be inspired by events of 46 years ago, almost half a century. It really was an incredible exploit. Just a picture of the scene. A young group of mainly amateur college players hastily put together to take on the might of the then Soviet Union team, the best team in the world. They were looking to win a fifth consecutive Olympic gold in the men's competition.

[15:55:03]

And wouldn't you just know it, the Americans pulling together to win an epic contest against the Soviets en route to then beating the Finnish team, Finland, to clinch gold medal. Just the most incredible story. It's no wonder they used the word miracle to talk about the Miracle on Ice, and I recently had the great pleasure to talk to one of the key members of that team, defenseman Jack O'Callahan, who shared with me what it was like to be part of that epic, incredible experience.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

JACK O'CALLAHAN, MEMBER OF THE 1980 GOLD MEDAL U.S. OLYMPIC HOCKEY TEAM: I think it was exceptionally special for us to be together in Lake Placid, sitting in the locker room together with Netflix, in the documentary. We have a very special bond with the town of Lake Placid, and whenever we go up there, it just feels like, it feels like you're going home, you know? So we really enjoyed our -- each other's company and being in that setting.

We've maintained our friendships and our closeness has even grown over the years. And it was really nice. Even in the Netflix documentary, to hear Rob McClanahan say something like, we loved each other. We still do. We're a family. And I just, I heard Rob say that, it really made me feel good.

SNELL: Let's talk more about that, that miracle game that USA-Soviet Union game has always been billed, hasn't it, as more than a sporting event, right, given the geopolitical context, the environment back then, at the time? What was that like to be a part of for the players? How aware were you of everything that was going on, given the magnitude of the game on and off the ice?

O'CALLAHAN: Well, we were all college guys, so we were paying attention. You know, we had taken classes and, you know, history and everything else. We read the newspapers and we grew up pretty much in the, you know, '60s and '70s, so we knew what was going on. That was just our life back then. It was just fun to be in Lake Placid and see how excited everyone was, and we were just glad that we were able to give the country a little bit of a boost and it really, it really did bring the country together. It was a catalyst and the country really propelled after that.

SNELL: You missed the first two games at Lake Placid due to injury. In the miracle game, though, you threw a monstrous check that led to the USA goal that tied it all up at one apiece in the first period. Describe that moment, if we can go back to that moment.

O'CALLAHAN: Right.

SNELL: And how it felt to be back on the ice.

O'CALLAHAN: I was competitive, I was physical. You know, I was pretty talented player as well. But I, you know, I led the team in penalty minutes all year. And I didn't really like the Russians very much. And so, yes, I mean, if I had a chance to run one of those guys over, I was going to do it. But believe me, they were not easy to run over. They were big, strong, incredibly talented, cohesive unit.

We had had very good success against very good teams. And now we're playing the Russians. No big deal. But this game matters. And so we came into that game with a much different perspective and maybe a game plan, knowing that we had to keep it close with these guys. We had to play it tight to the vest and, you know, get into the third period tied or down a goal, which we were able to achieve, which to us was a victory.

And then a 20-minute hockey game with our fitness and our talent and our competitiveness and our fans, you know, the United States fans were there, and they were tremendous. We got a tremendous lift from them. So, yes, getting into the third period, 20 minute hockey game down one, I mean, that was right in our wheelhouse, you know?

SNELL: So take yourself back to the moment that the game ends, that surge of emotions after the win against the Soviet team. And what was it like in the locker room afterwards, those celebrations?

O'CALLAHAN: You know, it's easy to see when you watch the game, when the game ends, how excited we are, how excited everyone is. I mean the fact that we beat that hockey team, it was the greatest team in the world, it just exploded out of us. I could never put myself back in that moment and tell you how I felt at the time. I don't know if I've ever felt that euphoric about anything else, playing hockey.

You know, we had to get it together the next day in practice because we had another game to play, and it sure wouldn't have, we wouldn't be having this conversation if we had lost that game against Finland.

SNELL: So we're now 46 years on, how does it feel and how do you now reflect back on the impossible dream that came true?

O'CALLAHAN: It's been 46 years of nothing but fun. You know, letters all the time. We all do letters and autograph requests and, you know, phone calls, and you know, we get kids calling you because they want to do a paper or you get PhDs that are writing a book, and then the Cold War, you know. It's nonstop. It's been nonstop, but there's not -- every guy on my team has relished every minute of it because the conversations are so special.

And I'll stand there and listen to them and engage with them because I know how meaningful it was to so many people. And I have to tell you, it's been one hell of a tailwind, you know, just to talk about it and listen to it. And then it just seems to keeps regenerating. And it means so much to so many people that, yes, we've been 20 blessed guys to be able to have these kinds of conversations for the last 46 years.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

SNELL: A special thanks to Jack O'Callahan there. It won't be easy of course, Omar, against Canada but I'll tell you what, the American team looking for a third Olympic gold. And get this, I'm wondering if the stars are aligning because that Miracle on Ice game taking place on the 22nd of February, 1980.