Return to Transcripts main page

CNN Newsroom

Trump Imposes New 15 Percent Global Tariffs After Supreme Court Ruling; Trump Lashes Out At Conservative Supreme Court Justices; Trump Weighs Iran Action Amid U.S. Military Buildup In Middle East; Police: Search Of Ex-Prince Andrew's Former Home Likely To Continue Until Monday; Surviving Member Recalls First School Day After Desegregation. Aired 4-5p ET

Aired February 21, 2026 - 16:00   ET

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

PATRICK SNELL, CNN WORLD SPORT HOST: I'm wondering if the stars are aligning because that Miracle on Ice game taking place on the 22nd of February, 1980. Tomorrow's date, February the 22nd.

Back to you. Just saying.

OMAR JIMENEZ, CNN HOST: Hey, no pressure. No pressure at all.

Patrick Snell, appreciate it as always.

And thank you all for joining me today. We're going to keep an eye on that hockey match. I know we all will. I'm Omar Jimenez. But there's more CNN NEWSROOM with Jessica Dean straight ahead.

JESSICA DEAN, CNN HOST: You're in the CNN NEWSROOM. Hi, everyone. I'm Jessica Dean here in New York.

President Trump pressing ahead with new tariffs today after the Supreme Court dealt him what is likely the most significant rebuke of his second term. In a 6-3 decision, the justices ruling Trump's tariffs issued under emergency authorities were in fact illegal. The president now announcing he's raising worldwide tariffs to 15 percent.

President Trump also lashing out at the Supreme Court, once again calling its decision extraordinarily anti-American.

Let's bring in Julia Benbrook, who joins us now from the White House.

And, Julia, we obviously have a lot of questions around what these new tariffs might mean, especially in light of Friday's decision. What are you learning?

JULIA BENBROOK, CNN CORRESPONDENT: Yes. So when the Supreme Court ruled on Friday that President Donald Trump violated federal law when he unilaterally imposed sweeping tariffs across the globe, that, of course, being a key part of his agenda during his second term, he's made it very clear that he is not happy with that decision. And he has made several moves since then.

In fact, he announced that he was placing an additional 10 percent tariff on top of levies already in place and then just hours ago now he announced that he was raising that rate to 15 percent. This is using a separate law than the one that they ruled against. This one is referred to as Section 122. And I want to pull up for you that post where he announced this new rate today.

He said this, quote, "I, as president of the United States of America, will be, effective immediately, raising the 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. During these next short number of months, the Trump administration will determine and issue the new and legally permissible tariffs, which will continue our extraordinarily successful process of making America great again, greater than ever before."

Now I should note that the executive order on those 10 percent tariffs, it did state that those would go into effect at 12:01 on Tuesday. Early Tuesday. We have reached out to the White House to see if this 15 percent rate will follow that same timeline.

When Trump spoke at the White House here yesterday, he made it clear that he was upset about this. He called the ruling deeply disappointing, and he railed against those in the majority here. This was a 6 to 3 decision and two of those in the majority are Trump appointees. We saw Justice Amy Coney Barrett, as well as Justice Neil Gorsuch, side with Chief Justice John Roberts and the three justices. And he was pressed specifically on their decision to do that. Take a listen.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

UNIDENTIFIED REPORTER: Are you surprised, in particular, by their decision today?

DONALD TRUMP, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: I am.

UNIDENTIFIED REPORTER: And do you regret nominating them?

TRUMP: I don't want to say whether or not I regret. I think their decision was terrible. Yes.

UNIDENTIFIED REPORTER: Mr. President.

(CROSSTALK)

TRUMP: I think it's an embarrassment to their families. You want to know the truth. The two of them.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

BENBROOK: And then on the flip side of that, he has been praising the justices who sided with him here. He said that Justice Brett Kavanaugh is his, quote, "new hero" and that those that dissented wanted to make America great again, using his own campaign slogan to refer to the judicial branch here.

And, Jessica, I will note that also on Tuesday, we're going to see Trump's State of the Union address, his first of his second term. And that could create an interesting visual because you typically see those justices sitting there in the front row. Trump is going to want to brag on what he considers his biggest accomplishments. I assume that will include his tariff policy, and it will be interesting to see how or if they react.

Now when he was pressed on, if they would still be invited, it's important to note that those invitations do come from the speaker of the House. But Trump said that they were barely still invited, some of them, and he couldn't care less if the justices attended.

DEAN: Again, just, again, outside the norms as we see President Trump so often, personally attacking Supreme Court justices, some of whom he actually himself nominated to the court.

Julia Benbrook, thank you so much from the White House.

And for more on the many legal questions raised after this decision and the president's announcement today of this 15 percent new tariff, let's bring in CNN senior legal analyst Elie Honig.

[16:05:07]

Elie, good to see you on a Saturday. Thanks for being here to sort through this with us. So the president now today saying that he's going to raise these 15 percent worldwide tariffs in the coming months, and obviously this comes in light of yesterday's decision by the Supreme Court.

What legal authority does he have to do this? He says he has the authority to do this.

ELIE HONIG, CNN SENIOR LEGAL ANALYST: So, Jess, yesterday, the U.S. Supreme Court struck down Donald Trump's efforts to use this International Economic Emergency Powers Act to impose basically unbounded tariffs on any country he wanted in any amount he wanted for any amount of time he wanted. The Supreme Court said, you cannot do that. And now Donald Trump is turning to plan B.

There are other laws that do specifically allow the president to impose tariffs, but those laws are way more limited. So the law Donald Trump is now using is something called Section 122. But there are limits. The maximum amount of any tariff can be 15 percent. Donald Trump apparently is trying to turn that one all the way up to the max of 15 percent. And importantly, those tariffs can only be in place for 150 days so about five months.

After that time, the president is going to need approval from Congress to keep them carrying forward. So, yes, he does have plan B options that he can try, but they're not going to be anywhere near as broad as what he tried to do under the Emergency Powers Act.

DEAN: It's really interesting. And that would put us in July obviously cruising ever closer to the midterms, which could layer on so many more politics to that decision for Congress as well. The president saying on Friday after the ruling that this new tariff

approach is fully allowed, that it is legally tested. Based on your assessment, do you think that's true?

HONIG: No, that was very misleading. I saw him say that in the press conference yesterday. So what the Supreme Court said, in their opinion, is you can try again to impose tariffs under some of these other more limited laws. But Donald Trump tried to suggest that the Supreme Court outright greenlit it and said, you can try again and you will be in the right. The second part of that, we don't know yet.

So, yes, he can try again yes, he is trying again under this plan B under Section 122. But the Supreme Court kept its powder dry. They're reserving judgment on whether those tariffs are going to be legal or not.

DEAN: And so what about the individuals and companies, what are their rights here to dispute the new tariffs and also to I guess anything that had happened previously? What does this mean for them?

HONIG: Right. So, first of all, I do expect that even these new more limited tariffs under Section 122 will certainly be the subject of lawsuits. I think companies are going to come forward. And in this case, they're going to argue, well, you can only use that law, Section 122, if there's some sort of trade imbalance or if a country's doing something that destabilizes the dollar. So I think you're going to see impacted countries -- impacted companies here in the United States argue that that's an improper invocation of Section 122, and they're going to try to strike that down, too.

Now there's a separate question, well, what happens with the $130 billion plus that have already been collected over the last eight, nine months under the law that was struck down yesterday, and Donald Trump was right yesterday when he said, why would the Supreme Court not have even told us a thing about what happens? And they did not. In fact, Justice Kavanaugh complained appropriately in the dissent that now we have a, quote, "mess on our hands," and we do.

What I think is going to happen, Jess, is that American importers, the people who actually have paid those tariffs, are going to bring a series of lawsuits, saying, well, we paid X in tariffs under a law that has now been ruled unconstitutional so we get our money back. So we're going to have a slate of those lawsuits. And it could even wind up back at the Supreme Court for round two.

DEAN: That's so fascinating and that probably, I would assume, Elie, could take a while, too, to wind itself through the court system, these suits.

HONIG: Well, for sure, because you'd have to bring a lawsuit like that first in the district court which is the federal trial level court. Then it would go up to the courts of appeals. And I think these cases will consolidate as they go. And then, yes, it could be a year from now. I mean, this is going to be a long standing dispute. It's big money. It's over $130 billion. By some estimates, as much as $200 billion at stake. DEAN: Yes. And just quickly, I do want to ask you, because we saw two

of these three conservative justices appointed by the president rule with the majority in that 6-3 decision. What do you think that tells us, if anything, about some of the other decisions around these major cases before them?

HONIG: Well, it was a really interesting cross ideological majority. We've gotten used to these 6-3 decisions, but usually it's the six conservatives against the three liberals ruling in favor of Trump's policies. Yesterday we saw the Chief Justice Roberts, we saw Amy Coney Barrett, and we saw Justice Neil Gorsuch siding with the three liberals to make a 6-3 cross ideological majority.

And I think we're going to see more of that in the coming months. We have a case ahead on Trump's effort to narrow birthright citizenship.

[16:10:03]

We have a case ahead on Trump's effort to fire a Fed governor, Lisa Cook. And having listened to oral argument on the latter of those two, it does seem that especially those justices in the middle, that Amy Coney Barrett, Brett Kavanaugh, Chief Justice Roberts, maybe Gorsuch, are going to be more inclined to cross over and side with the liberals.

So I don't think we're going to see quite as many 6-3 conservative versus liberal opinions as we've seen over the last several years. It seems like there's growing willingness to cross over.

DEAN: It is really an interesting dynamic. We could talk about that for a long time.

Elie Honig, we are out of time, though, unfortunately. Stay with us because we have more to talk to you about in just a few minutes.

HONIG: I'll see you later.

DEAN: We will see you very soon. Thank you, Elie.

A massive buildup of U.S. forces in the Middle East continues as the threat of a possible U.S. strike looms. We're going to break down all the new developments out of the Middle East. Plus it has been a stunning week for Britain's royal family as the king's younger brother, Andrew, is arrested and placed under investigation on suspicion of misconduct in public office. What's next for the former prince?

You're in the CNN NEWSROOM.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[16:15:42]

DEAN: Tonight the USS Gerald R. Ford carrier strike group is in the Mediterranean Sea headed toward the Middle East. The strike group was spotted off the coast of Gibraltar yesterday, and it is joining a significant buildup of U.S. military assets as the president weighs his options for possible military action against Iran. Those could range from limited targeted strikes to sustained operations that could last weeks. A source telling CNN U.S. forces have not been given a target list.

CNN global affairs analyst Brett McGurk is joining us now. He served in senior national security posts under the last four presidents including President Trump. He also led negotiations with Iran and helped coordinate military operations in that region, giving him obviously a lot of firsthand experience in this area.

Brett, an ideal person to be talking to right now about this. President Trump has urged Iran to make a deal. There's been a lot of talk about what that deal might look like. There have been these discussions, but clearly the president keeping his options open.

I'm curious how we got here and where you think this is headed.

BRETT MCGURK, CNN GLOBAL AFFAIRS ANALYST: Well, Jessica, it's great to be here in what is likely to be a very decisive week here in the Middle East and with Iran.

Look, we all hope diplomacy can succeed here, but I'm fairly skeptical that it can and I'll say why. Because you got to ask the key question which you just asked, how did we actually get here? You know, three issues used to be somewhat discrete, and they've now converged. So take Iranian missiles, the protests and the crackdown, and then the nuclear issue.

Heading into this year, Iran was proliferating its missile program. And I think it was more likely than not we were going to see Israeli strikes at some point against that program because Israel is not going to allow those stockpiles to increase. That would not have necessarily drawn in the United States but that was probably coming.

Where the United States got drawn into this was the protests which began late last year and into January, and then President Trump's warning to Ayatollah Khamenei, the supreme leader, not to violently crack down. And then the supreme leader made, I think, a very grave decision to crack down violently. And President Trump yesterday put the number of dead Iranians in the protests at 32,000.

That's a number he used. I can't confirm that. But we know its in the multiple thousands. So that is what led to the military, U.S. military forces moving and converging into the Middle East. I think we have to keep that in mind as we think of where we're going.

Now the nuclear issue, which was not really front and center, first quarter of this year, is so now because Iran has said, as they've always done over many years and I've dealt with them for many years, they will only talk to the Americans about two issues, the nuclear issues and sanctions and hostages when they take American hostages.

So, and again, they've cabined these negotiations into that nuclear file. And that's what the talks are about. But you add this all together, Jessica, maybe there will be a deal on the nuclear issue. Maybe, again, I think it's unlikely. And we can talk about why. But then you have these other issues.

And as I look at President Trump's options I'm hearing some talk about a limited operation. I think that's very difficult. And again I'll break down why and these three issues converge. Any operation, Jessica, I think military planners will want to, in the first wave of strikes, target the missiles, the missile launchers in particular which is a key resource that you have to try to take out because that degrades and deters Iran's ability to respond to any attack.

Then I think U.S. military planners will want to probably restrike some of the Iranian nuclear targets that might be left. And there's actually a new facility, there's a facility buried into a mountain south of Natanz which was an enrichment center that Iran declared in 2020. That would be a centrifuge manufacturing facility. That is under construction. That might be on the target list.

But then finally, and this gets back to what precipitated this crisis, given President Trump's warnings and given the scale of the crackdown, I would suspect the U.S. would also strike targets related to the repressive apparatus of the Iranian regime. The Revolutionary Guards Corps, the Basij Militia.

[16:20:05]

So then you're talking about a fairly significant operation that is going to last some time, days if not weeks. And that seems to be right now where this is heading.

DEAN: You mentioned you don't think diplomacy is going to succeed here. And why do you think that?

MCGURK: Well, I've done these talks with the Iranians, Jessica, on the nuclear file. It's a very complex subject matter. And Iran always demands in exchange for any steps on the nuclear side massive sanctions relief. You know, one reason in the Biden administration, we did not kind of get to a nuclear deal is because Iran demanded such extensive sanctions relief and never came off that, and we just didn't agree to do that.

For example, we were not going to lift sanctions on the Revolutionary Guards Corps which is responsible for their terrorism and attacks against Americans. So I have a hard time seeing here the Trump administration granting significant sanctions relief, which I think Iran will demand. And even more complicated is that the U.N. has acted last fall to put the nuclear program back under Chapter Seven sanctions and the missile program.

So that's another layer of complexity. So given the time frame, and given that what I'm seeing from Iran, despite some of their public statements from their foreign minister, they seem to be treating this negotiation very similarly to, as they might have done, two, three, four, five years ago, not fully recognizing the game has really fundamentally changed.

So I'm looking at the calendar, Jessica. I'm looking at the extent of these deployments, the kind of meandering pace of the negotiations, and what Iran is saying which is very similar to their past positions. And it's hard to see a deal coming together. I hope that Iran comes in this week with a new proposal that is significantly different that perhaps gets rid of their enrichment program, which is really the crux of the matter. But, again, I don't see that in the cards right now.

DEAN: Yes. And you mentioned the game has changed. Obviously Iran is at the weakest we've seen it maybe in a generation, I think you could argue, for all the events of the last couple of years. And we have this incredible U.S. military buildup which I'd love for you to categorize for people just how large this is and how big it is. And in doing so, my question to you is, also, if we did go ahead with these strikes, if the U.S. did, what's your best assessment of the day after and the impact inside Iran and with the country's leaders?

MCGURK: Well, it's the key question. What makes this situation so different than any other military operation that President Trump and his role as commander-in-chief in his first term or second term may have ordered. This is really fundamentally different. This is not a kind of discrete mission, such as the operation that just captured Nicolas Maduro, such as Midnight Hammer, the one night strikes that struck Iranian nuclear facilities, the strike against Qasem Soleimani, one of Iran's leaders back in 2020, or even President Trump's strikes into Syria after the Syrian leader used chemical weapons against his own people.

Those are all kind of very discrete, very clear missions. Here, it's much more open ended for the reasons I stated. You can't just go in and do one night of strikes because I think you have to target the missiles in these other elements within the country. And that is why I think, Jessica, you've seen this massive deployment. It's a deployment on scale that I have really not seen in decades. And it is an operational deployment. If you really study it, all the elements you would need for a significant kind of multi-day, even an operation that might last weeks is all getting into place.

That does not mean the president will necessarily order that campaign to begin, but it seems like that's where we're heading, and it's really uncertain. You know, one of the great military theorists from the 19th century, Carl von Clausewitz, who studied -- anyone who studied strategy, says that before a political leader in a commander- in-chief role, like a president, orders military action, he has to be clear in his mind of what he wants to achieve and how to achieve it.

And here the objectives still remain unclear. But to get a sense of them, I go back to what -- how this crisis began, it was the protests, and I don't think we can lose sight of that. The Iranians are trying to focus only on the nuclear. It was the protests and that crackdown, and then if you're talking about military action against Iran, you have to take into account the missiles.

That's how this expands. And if you don't have your objectives very clear going in as events unfold in the course of an operation, your objectives can be defined for you. That's how you get into mission creep scenarios. So a lot of uncertainty here, Jessica, in a very decisive week, we'll have Iran coming in with a diplomatic proposal, the State of the Union address on Tuesday, and I think we'll know a little bit more here by the end of the week.

DEAN: Wonderful context for all of us. As you mentioned, in a very uncertain time and what will likely be a very important week.

[16:25:05]

Brett McGurk, thank you so much. Good to see you.

MCGURK: Thank you.

DEAN: And when we come back, former Prince Andrew is out of custody but remains under investigation for alleged misconduct in public office.

Still ahead, why the police are -- why police are investigating what they're investigating is difficult to prosecute.

You're in the CNN NEWSROOM.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

DEAN: Police in the U.K. continue to search the former home of Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor. They're also contacting former and serving officers who may have worked closely with Andrew to find out if they have any relevant information to share.

[16:30:03]

The former prince is under investigation for suspicion of misconduct in public office following the release of the Epstein files. He has denied any wrongdoing in relation to Epstein and, at this point, has not been charged. Let's discuss with Chloe Jay, a senior partner at Shentons Solicitors. Chloe, thank you so much for being here with us.

We know police arrested Andrew under suspicion of misconduct in public office. Can you walk us through what that law is, what it means practically?

CHLOE JAY, SENIOR PARTNER, SHENTONS SOLICITORS: Yes, sure. It's quite a complicated offense, actually. So, first of all, they have to show that whilst he was acting as an envoy, there was a willful neglect of his duties or some form of willful misconduct in relation to those duties. So, the word willful means that it's got to be intentional.

It can't be an accident or reckless or just sort of, you know, not paying attention properly. He's got to have intended to do it. And what happens has to be a serious breach that amounts to an abuse of the public trust that we -- that we have in him in that role.

And finally, it has to be without reasonable justification. So, it's conceivable, for example, that there could be an incriminating document or e-mail, but he may be able to provide an explanation for that e-mail that may justify what he did.

DEAN: Yes.

JAY: Obviously, we don't know the ins and outs of it, but yes.

DEAN: Yes. And it sounds like that that's -- the key is that intent and that can be tricky to prove. What would be the next steps in the investigation?

JAY: So, obviously, we don't know if he answered questions during his detention of 11 hours. But on the basis that he did answer questions, he may well have put forward potential witnesses that he would like the police to speak to. He may have suggested other lines of inquiry, other documents, e-mails, et cetera.

And the police have a duty to go and explore those avenues that lead towards the prosecution and away from prosecution. So, they will want to look at all of that. They've obviously got everything that they'll have seized from the addresses they've been searching. The devices will need to be looked at and all of the digital evidence from those. So, there's a huge amount of work that needs to now be done building up to whether they might build a prosecution or not.

DEAN: Right. And he was released under investigation. That's the term instead of out on bail. Can you explain the difference, for our audience?

JAY: Yes. So, bail is -- has a sort of statutory time frame. So, there are dates and then is extended, and eventually you have to go to court to extend it any further. Released under investigation doesn't have any restrictions like that, any time frame. So, somebody can be on -- released on under investigation for quite a prolonged period of time.

And it would suggest to me that they think that this is going to take quite a long time to investigate. Perhaps, more than a year. That's what -- that would suggest to me. Also, you can't place any restrictions on somebody if they're released under investigation as opposed to bail, where you can have conditions imposed on the person.

DEAN: All right. Chloe Jay, thank you. That's all really important context. And it helps us a lot. Thank you so much. We appreciate it.

Friday's Supreme Court ruling that President Trump's tariffs are illegal muddies the water for a lot of small business owners out there. So, what happens now? We're going to discuss it. You're in the CNN NEWSROOM.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[16:38:22]

DEAN: President Trump is intensifying his push back against Friday's Supreme Court decision against his tariffs. Today, he announced he will increase new global tariffs from 10 to 15 percent. The court's ruling dealing a heavy blow to the president's economic agenda and opened the door for business owners, big and small, to potentially get refunds for tariffs they've already paid.

Let's bring in CNN's Gloria Pazmino. And, Gloria, I know you've been out speaking with some business owners today. There are a lot of questions about how this might work. What are they telling you?

GLORIA PAZMINO, CNN CORRESPONDENT: Yes. Jessica, you know, I think the overall mood we got from small business owners across the city today is that there is a lot of uncertainty and just a little bit of careful optimism going forward. Because, as you know, despite yesterday's historic Supreme Court decision, it's not clear that this is all over on the tariff front just yet.

So, small business owners here in New York City are kind of very carefully watching what happens over the next several weeks. And as you said, the president already this morning saying that he planned on implementing more tariffs. So, they are certainly standing by and watching for that.

And that is what has created so much uncertainty. You know, more than -- the economic burden of these tariffs has been experienced by small firms across the United States and by 90 percent of consumers. So, small businesses, consumers severely affected. And we know that there are specific products that have also been affected. Among those are shoes, as an example, but also toys.

[16:40:01]

And we met with the owner of a toy store here in Manhattan earlier today. This is a family-owned business, an independent business that has severely been impacted in the last year because of tariffs. And the reason for that is because a majority of the toys that come into the United States are imported from China. So, they have seen their business take a serious hit in terms of prices rising significantly.

So, while they were, you know, positive and happy about the Supreme Court's decision yesterday, they are still feeling like it's not all said and done just yet. And that makes it very difficult to run a small business like this one. Take a listen.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

KASEY COLE, OWNER, KIDDING AROUND: Every day, it's something different. Like my husband was very excited yesterday. I mean, I was as well when the Supreme Court made that ruling, obviously, but I keep just saying I'll believe it when I see it.

PAZMINO: Yes.

COLE: Because there's loopholes.

PAZMINO: Yes.

COLE: It keeps happening. I'd say most companies are just building in the tariff tax into the cost of the item, which means it's not going to ever come down. Once they see, oh we can sell this item for $30. It's not going back to $20. It's going to stay there. So, even if things are reversed, I don't see a lot of prices coming back down.

(END VIDEO CLIP) PAZMINO: That last point there, Jessica, I thought was really important. And you know, she has been buying from vendors that have raised their prices. And even though the tariffs may go away, what is the incentive for that vendor who has been selling her toys at a higher price, that she has continued to buy because she's trying to keep her business afloat and continue to stock her shelves?

So, it just shows you how difficult all of this is and that even if the tariffs go away, it doesn't necessarily solve the issue of rising prices. And consumers potentially having to continue to pay more money. More than 88 percent of all toys that come into the United States imported from China. So, she really does not have a lot of options in terms of where she can get her merchandise going forward. Jessica.

DEAN: All right. Gloria Pazmino here in New York for us, thank you so much for that.

Just ahead here. Why a civil rights figure who was escorted by troops to high school questions President Trump's threat to invoke the Insurrection Act? Elie Honig is back with us on this. You're in the CNN NEWSROOM.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[16:47:00]

DEAN: President Trump has repeatedly threatened to invoke the Insurrection Act, reminding the country of a time when President Dwight Eisenhower used that very same act to protect a group of black students during a pivotal time in the civil rights movement. In 1954, the Supreme Court declared school segregation unconstitutional. But in the south, the governor of Arkansas refused to integrate schools for years.

Let's go to 1957, when nine black -- when nine black students in Little Rock, just obviously teenagers at the time, took a stand facing a storm of hatred and violence. They walked into Little Rock Central High School with steady bravery and unthinkable resolve that helped move the nation closer to equality. That group became known as the Little Rock Nine.

CNN's Elie Honig sat down with one of them and joins us now. Elie, their stories are so incredible. I grew up in Little Rock and went back to work there for the 50th --

ELIE HONIG, CNN SENIOR LEGAL ANALYST: Right.

DEAN: Right? As the 50th anniversary and got to interview a lot of them. And we can learn so much. I'm so curious what it was like for you to speak with them in this moment in history.

HONIG: Well. Jess, it was a true joy and a privilege to sit down with Melba Beals, a fellow Arkansan and Little Rockian to you, and one of the Little Rock Nine. As you'll see in a moment, she is a living part of our shared American civil rights history. She is a joyful spirit. And I think the lessons of what Melba Beals and the Little Rock Nine went through are still very relevant today. Let's take a look.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

HONIG (voice-over): When Melba Pattillo Beals and her black classmates first tried to enter Little Rock Central High School, they were blocked by an angry mob.

MELBA PATTILLO BEALS, MEMBER OF THE LITTLE ROCK NINE: You're dead, you know. You're not going to live. You might as well put your books down. You're not going to live to study.

HONIG (voice-over): In 1954, the U.S. Supreme Court issued a historic ruling, Brown versus Board of Education. In a unanimous nine-to-zero decision, the court prohibited racial segregation in public schools and declared an end to so-called Jim Crow, separate but equal laws. Despite the Supreme Court's ruling, it would be three years until Arkansas high schools would integrate. Melba Beals, then just 15 years old, would be part of the first group of black students at Little Rock Central High School.

BEALS: Now, originally, there were 116 African-American children set to go to Central High School. A man -- a white man came to our house and knocked on the door. This is not going to be good for you. We're going to kill you and your relatives.

HONIG: And there was physical violence directed at you and your family as well.

BEALS: Physical doesn't begin to explain shooting in the window.

HONIG (voice-over): The intimidation did deter some students. Only Melba and eight others ended up attending. Together, they would become known as the Little Rock Nine.

HONIG (voice-over): My grandmother said, look, you're born on this earth to do certain things. And if that's what you're here for, then you have no choice.

HONIG (voice-over): The first time they tried to enter the school, Melba and her black classmates were met by an angry mob. Arkansas Governor Orval Faubus had activated the Arkansas National Guard to block the black students from entering the school. Later that month, President Dwight D. Eisenhower invoked the Insurrection Act to deploy the military, the 101st Airborne Division of the U.S. Army, to escort the students into Little Rock Central High School.

[16:50:21]

DWIGHT D. EISENHOWER, FORMER PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: I have today issued an executive order directing the use of troops under Federal authority to aid in the execution of Federal law at Little Rock, Arkansas.

HONIG: What would have happened if President Eisenhower never utilized the 101st to protect you?

BEALS: I wouldn't be sitting here. I'd be very dead. Not a little dead. Very dead.

HONIG: What was your time at Little Rock Central like?

BEALS: It was a horror movie. They put acid in my eyes. I see, for example, as I look at that light, floaters go across. Pull my hair cut out, cut off my -- try to cut off my ponytail. I would go to the bathroom and they would drop a -- lit pieces of fire paper with matches and drop them over.

HONIG (voice-over): While Melba knew her role was important, the burden and the sacrifice were almost too much for her to bear. But when Martin Luther King Jr. visited the Little Rock Nine, he made it clear that their mission was much bigger.

HONIG: You met with Martin Luther King.

BEALS: I did. And he said, Melba, you're not doing this for yourself. You're doing this for generations yet unborn.

HONIG (voice-over): This was hardly the first time shed faced challenges. As a black child born in 1941 in the segregated South, Melba Pattillo Beals faced racism in every part of her life.

BEALS: We'd go in public, and they'd call us the n-word all the time. So, what it was like? It was a living hell. Because from the beginning of my little spirit said, hey, you don't treat me that way.

HONIG (voice-over): As a child, Melba witnessed unspeakable acts of violence.

BEALS: Five years of age, I'm sitting in a church. And so, all of a sudden, this back door opened. And there were probably -- I don't know, hundreds -- more than 100 people.

And then walked these dudes in their white sheets. And I know what that meant. That's Klan, right? They went right after this man. And there were rafters in this church, and they strung a rope over the rafters.

I was too little to look up to his face, but I could see his feet dangling as they were hanging him. And I could hear the -- in his throat, you know. I have never forgotten that.

HONIG (voice-over): In 1999, President Bill Clinton awarded Melba and the other members of the Little Rock Nine the Congressional Gold Medal for their role in the civil rights movement. Given her own lived experience, Melba worries about what she sees unfolding today.

BEALS: Sending troops is not the answer. Eisenhower sent in troops because Faubus was not in compliance. And so, I think that in the end, will we regret what's going on now? Let's wait and see.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

HONIG: Jess, you know, I keep going back to that moment almost 70 years ago. Here's Melba Beals, 15 years old at the time. She's a child. And think of the forces that were arrayed against her.

You had the governor of Arkansas trying to stop her and her eight classmates from integrating the high school. You had the Arkansas National Guard. You had her neighbors, children and adults alike. You had the KKK going door to door, and they managed to intimidate that initial group of 116 students down to just nine.

And I think that bravery that she showed is really remarkable. And I think back to the words that Melba heard from Martin Luther King Jr., when she was complaining about the burden of what she had to do as a teenager. And Martin Luther King said to her, you are not doing this for yourself. You are doing this for generations yet unborn. So, I think there's real inspiration there. And I think there's lessons from Melba's experience that we can all take with us.

DEAN: There is no doubt about that. Truly, just an incredible story of bravery and looking ahead for generations in the future. Elie Honig, thanks so much. Good to see you.

HONIG: Thanks, Jess.

DEAN: In some classrooms at Christian schools, faith isn't just part of the curriculum. It defines the curriculum. And tomorrow, on 'The Whole Story with Anderson Cooper,' Pamela Brown takes us inside one community in Texas, where students don't just pledge allegiance to the American flag. Here's a preview.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

PAMELA BROWN, CNN CHIEF INVESTIGATIVE CORRESPONDENT (voice-over): At classical Christian schools, religion isn't a standalone subject. It shapes every lesson from science to history through a strict and literal biblical worldview. Each morning at this school, they even pledge allegiance to the Christian flag, not the American flag.

DAVID GOODWIN, PRESIDENT, ASSOCIATION OF CLASSICAL CHRISTIAN SCHOOLS: We want to enculturate Christian kids. And when we say that, we mean deeply Christian kids, ones who think like biblical Christians all the way down.

BROWN: So, do you teach the kids here this is a Christian nation, this was founded as a Christian nation?

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Absolutely. Yes.

BRWON (voice-over): Pastor Jeff's son Caleb and daughter-in-law E.J. are the headmaster and headmistress at the school where they plan to send their nine children. Kinley is also a teacher.

[16:55:04]

E.J. RIPPLE, CLASSICAL CHRISTIAN SCHOOL HEADMISTRESS We want to equip students to go to higher places than we've gone to influence culture. Like we want to make more Christians. We want to spread the gospel. So, as they're infiltrating into culture, they're influencing the culture to Christ. BROWN: And so, basically, it's all part of a -- of mission to make this a Christian nation.

RIPPLE: Yes.

CALEB RIPPLE, CLASSICAL CHRISTIAN SCHOOL HEADMASTER: Absolutely.

BROWN (voice-over): For some, the choice to place your kids in public schools isn't just wrong. It can be a sin.

BROWN: You think it is a sin?

GOODWIN: I think it is because in most areas, the education is coming from the state. And that was not what God intended from the beginning. They don't raise children in the fear and admonition of the Lord. If you're a Christian, what justification do you have for putting your child in a situation where they're not getting that?

(END VIDEOTAPE)

DEAN: The all-new episode of 'The Whole Story with Anderson Cooper' airs tomorrow night at 8:00 Eastern. It's only here on CNN. You can watch Monday on our CNN app. We'll be right back.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)