Return to Transcripts main page

CNN Newsroom

Northeast Metro Cities Brace For Blizzard-Like Conditions; Key Democrats Stress Congress Approval Needed For Any U.S. Military Action In Iran; Rep. Adam Smith (D-WA) Discusses U.S. Military Action in Iran; Trump Imposes New 15 Percent Global Tariffs After Supreme Court Ruling; All Nine Bodies Of Skiers Killed In Avalanche Now Recovered; U.K. Government Considers Removing Andrew From Line Of Succession. Aired 6-7p ET

Aired February 21, 2026 - 18:00   ET

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

[18:00:00]

JESSICA DEAN, CNN HOST: NEWSROOM starts right now.

You are in the CNN NEWSROOM. Hi, everyone! I am Jessica Dean here in New York.

President Trump lashing out with new tariffs today after the Supreme Court hit him with one of the most damaging rulings of his second term so far. The justices ruling trumps tariffs issued under emergency authorities are illegal.

The President now announcing he is using a trade law to raise worldwide tariffs to 15 percent, calling the court's decision "extraordinarily anti-American."

CNN correspondent, Julia Benbrook is joining us now from The White House.

Julia, what is the President saying about this new 15 percent tariff?

JULIA BENBROOK, CNN CORRESPONDENT: Well, this newly announced 15 percent tariff rate, he did this on social media today. This came after yesterday when he said that he was going to impose a 10 percent tariff on top of levies that were already in place. Then he upped that again. I want to pull up for you that post now.

In it, he said in part, "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 the U.S. off for decades without retribution until I came along to the fully allowed and legally tested 15 percent level."

While he did say, "effective immediately," we do know that that 10 percent tariff was supposed to go into effect at 12:01 A.M. on Tuesday, early Tuesday morning.

We have asked to see if that 15 percent rate would go into effect at the same time. But as Trump spoke at a White House briefing yesterday, he called one after this ruling came out, he was very clearly frustrated. He called the ruling deeply disappointing and then made it clear that he was doubling down announcing this new step which these new tariffs, I should note, come under a different law than the one that the justices ruled against.

It is commonly referred to as Section 122, and it allows the President to impose temporary tariffs, up to 15 percent maximum, and they can stay in place for 150 days. If he wants to extend that he does need to seek congressional approval.

He has railed against the Justices in this six-three decision who ruled against him. That includes two Trump appointees, Justice Amy Coney Barrett, as well as Justice Neil Gorsuch who sided with Chief Justice John Roberts, as well as the three liberal justices, and he has also praised those in the dissent here who sided with him.

He said today in a post that Justice Brett Kavanaugh is his "new hero" on the Supreme Court and he said that those in the dissent wanted to make America great again, using his own campaign slogan to refer to the Judicial Branch here.

When he was asked about the justices who ruled against him, he did have some very strong words. Take a listen.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

REPORTER: Are you surprised in particular by their decision today? And do you regret nominating them?

DONALD TRUMP (R), PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: I don't want to say whether or not I regret. I think their decision was terrible.

REPORTER: Mr. President --

TRUMP: I think it is an embarrassment to their families if you want to know the truth, the two of them.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

BENBROOK: So going as far to say is he thinks that this is an embarrassment to their families.

DEAN: And Julia, obviously, the President is taking this quite personally and lashing out in a personal way, but he also withdrew an endorsement today. What can you tell us about that?

BENBROOK: He did. This frustration is not just at the Supreme Court Justices. He withdrew his endorsement of a Colorado Republican, Jeff Hurd, and he said that he is now going to support his primary challenger instead. He said this is not a decision that was easy or that he takes lightly, but ultimately, it came down to the fact that Hurd was not fully supporting his tariffs.

He was among six Republicans who voted to essentially repeal Trump's tariffs on Canada earlier this month. And he also, in a social media post, supported the Supreme Court's decision. In it he said that it underscores the need for Congress to play a role in trade policy.

DEAN: All right, Julia Benbrook at The White House. Thank you for that reporting.

And the Supreme Court's ruling, obviously dealing a heavy blow to the President's economic agenda. At the same time, it is raising the question of whether business owners, big and small, could possibly get refunds for the tariffs they have already paid.

Let's bring in CNN's Gloria Pazmino on this angle.

And, Gloria, you've been speaking with business owners. What are they telling you?

PAZMINO: Yes. You know, Jessica, business owners here in New York City are not feeling very hopeful that those refunds are ever going to become a reality, right? They were both very well aware that the Supreme Court's decision made it very clear that that process is going to be a "mess" to quote directly from the decision. So, they are living on this sort of constant state of unpredictability and just an inconsistency about the decisions they have to make in order to run their small businesses.

[18:05:10]

Now, there are two products that have been severely impacted by the tariffs in the last year, and that is toys and shoes. The vast majority of toys and shoes that are sold in the United States are imported and that means that for small business owners that sell those types of goods, the last year has been very challenging, so I would say they are cautiously optimistic, but very well aware that this question of tariffs and whether they are going away or not is still very much an unsettled issue. Take a listen.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

KELSEY HOCKENBERGER, GENERAL MANAGER, NEW HARRY SHOES BY SOLE PROVISIONS: When there is all of this uncertainty, it is difficult to make certain plans. We are still going to have to do business the same way that we have been. We are still going to have to make conscientious choices about our buying, about how keeping our customers at the forefront of our mind at every turn.

KASEY COLE, OWNER, KIDDING AROUND: It affected a lot. So we pretty much have seen price increases across the board. Anything from 10 to 30 percent increases. So we've had to choose a lot. You know, be selective.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

PAZMINO: Jessica, for the business owners, you know, they have tried in several ways to make sure that they're not passing the cost off to the customer because they want to avoid that, right? They want to keep their loyal clientele coming back into their stores, but they also acknowledge that there just comes a certain point where they have no choice, but to pass on that cost. So, those are just a few examples of this balancing act that small business owners have had to do in the last year, and will likely continue to do so while we continue to see how this issue of tariffs will ultimately be resolved -- Jessica.

DEAN: All right, Gloria Pazmino in New York, thank you for that.

Let's look now at the broader economic impact of all of this.

We are joined by economist, Natasha Sarin. She is the co-founder and director of the Yale Budget Lab.

Natasha, it is great to have you here as we sort through all of this. This has been a lot for businesses small and big businesses and now even more so.

In terms of the uncertainty and the confusion that seems to be the key thing here is that these businesses are trying to do business when there is just so much uncertainty. How does that play into all of this?

NATASHA SARIN, CO-FOUNDER, DIRECTOR, YALE BUDGET LAB: Yes, you know on the one hand, I will say the Supreme Court's decision yesterday was like a giant victory for the rule of law. They explicated very clearly and stood up to the President that the power to tax in the form of these tariffs rests with Congress and Congress alone.

But on the other hand, for those hoping for some sort of clarity about where tariffs are ultimately going to land in this country, that clarity will not be found by this Supreme Court decision. And part of what I fear is so far in the second Trump administration, we've seen the effective tariff rate on businesses big and small alike change something like 60 times.

And one of those times was yesterday where it happened three times, first, the Supreme Court struck down about two-thirds of the President's tariffs in the form of those that were levied in IEEPA. Then the President levied a version of those tariffs across the board at a 10 percent rate through a different authority that will surely be legally challenged and then increase those tariffs again today to 15 percent from that 10 percent base.

And so if you're a business trying to plan for what type of tariff environment you're likely to see, you know, six months from now, even two weeks from now, that is an incredibly, incredibly difficult thing to do and it is disproportionately a burden on small businesses because larger businesses have more capacity to try to plan around some of this volatility by trying to bring in a substantial amount of imports potentially at lower tariff rates, and then wait and see what happens with respect to where these authorities will ultimately land.

DEAN: Right, and the law that the President is using for this 15 percent tariff has 150-day shelf life before it needs congressional approval, which I would think is only another layer in all of this.

SARIN: That's exactly right, and, you know, you started to hear The White House explicate what I think their version of Plan B for IEEPA once it was overturned is, which is a mix of using this authority, which as you're clear, Jessica, has 150 days, which essentially buys them some time with respect to trying to think about a host of other trade authorities or new investigations they might undergo with respect to national security, that would then give them some authority to try to put in place versions of what was in place before the Supreme Court struck down IEEPA.

But something I think that's really important for your viewers to understand, one is that the nature of these other authorities are very different than the authority that the Supreme Court overturned yesterday, because there is much more process built in. They have to have investigations. Potentially, Congress has to approve them. The shelf life then is limited, and so these are real restrictions on the President's ability to effectuate the tariff agenda that he has had in place over the course of the first year or so of his administration.

And the second piece that strikes me as incredibly important is the nature of this sort of volatility in start and stop with respect to planning. It is not just about how businesses are going to react or whether consumers are ever going to see refunds of the $140 billion or so that have flown down to them in the form of higher prices over the course of the last year.

[18:10:31]

But it is also about our allies and adversaries alike with whom it is unclear what type of negotiating posture we should be taking with respect to these trade deals, because the new authorities that The White House is trying to deploy to effectuate these tariffs are just as legally dubious, if not more so, than IEEPA that was just overturned.

DEAN: Yes, that's a very important point.

I know you've also written that in your opinion, tariffs alone are not going to destroy the United States because imports are a relatively small part of our economy, but then explain what will be the biggest impact to our economy from all of this and how they factor into the health of the broader economy?

SARIN: So, I think there is a global macro point that strikes me as incredibly important, which is the nature of what has happened with respect to our trading partners and the fact that it is clear in the world that the United States is experiencing the type of volatility that's encouraging these allies to move away from us and even potentially move towards an adversary like China as they think about effectuating their own geopolitical goals. That isn't like a switch that can turn on and off.

And so in some sense, that type of credibility with respect to the world, that type of view that the United States is a safe bet, that the dollar deserves this sort of special status because it is a very safe asset relative to the currencies of our peers that, I worry, has had long term consequences that are going to reverberate through the economy in ways that are going to be really impactful. But the second thing that seems to be definitely here to stay with us, however, the Supreme Court decided to rule in this case, and you heard it from the President in the immediate aftermath of this decision, he thinks these tariffs are working. I think these tariffs are the most inflationary policies of our lifetimes.

We are seeing price increases that the American consumers are being forced to bear. We are not seeing a manufacturing resurgence of any sort, if anything. Manufacturing employment is down, but he is not walking away from this tool, and these types of deployments of tariffs at rates, of course, of the last century.

And so in some sense, the uncertainty, the difficulty of planning, the lack of clarity about when or how we are going to be able to import goods and at what rate, that is going to be with us, I fear for quite some time going forward.

DEAN: All right, Natasha Sarin, great to have you. Thank you so much for your analysis. We appreciate it.

SARIN: Thanks so much for having me.

DEAN: Yes, it has been nearly 400 years since we've seen a member of the British Royal Family taken into custody and all of that changed this week with former Prince Andrew's arrest. We will talk about that.

Plus, hours after a successful dress rehearsal for NASA's return to the moon, the space agency drops a big surprise, which is Artemis won't launch next month. More on that in the CNN NEWSROOM.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[18:18:02]

DEAN: The U.K. government is considering removing Andrew Mountbatten- Windsor from the Royal line of succession, as the former prince remains under investigation for suspicion of misconduct in public office.

British Police are assessing if he shared sensitive information with Jeffrey Epstein during his role as a U.K. trade envoy. Now, right now police are searching Andrew's former home and contacting his past and present protection officers to gather any relevant information.

The former prince has denied all allegations related to Epstein and at this point he has not been charged with any crimes.

Joining us now is CNN royal commentator Sally Bedell Smith. She is also the author of "George VI and Elizabeth: The Marriage that Saved the Monarchy." Sally, it is great to have you here. First of all, thank you for being with us.

SALLY BEDELL SMITH, CNN CONTRIBUTOR: Great to be here.

DEAN: Thank you. Andrew is the first member of the British Royal Family to be arrested really in modern history. Now, British lawmakers are considering introducing legislation to remove him from the line of Royal succession. Help people understand the historical significance of this.

SMITH: Well, it is unprecedented. Everybody sort of assumed that it would take some complicated legislation, and it would and indeed it does take legislation but both the Parliament and the and Buckingham Palace have signaled their willingness to do that. So, that is very likely to have happen.

He is now eighth in the line of succession and along with that comes his position as a councilor of state, and so I mean, that is as I said, it has never happened before nor has since Charles I was arrested in 1647 and executed two years later for tyranny and treason. Nothing like that would happen to Andrew today.

But you know, the other recent precedent was in 1936 when King Edward VIII abdicated to marry Wallis Simpson, an American socialite who was twice divorced, neither of which would be sanctioned by the British government or church.

[18:20:13 ]

He was, in fact, a very irresponsible and dangerous monarch and at one point, it is interesting, in 1950, in an interview, he said, I probably would have fought with the government especially over their approach to Germany. So, he probably would have had to had had to abdicate, too. So that was a very serious assault on the monarchy, and even though Andrew was not, you know, was not the monarch. What he has done has undermined trust in the monarchy and it has just cast a huge shadow over the monarchy.

There has always been a -- there was a wonderful quote from the constitutional scholar, Walter Bagehot, who said, you must not let daylight end upon the magic. Well, now with all these investigations, we are seeing searchlights aimed at the monarchy, and we still have no idea what this lengthy search that the police are conducting will come up with.

DEAN: Certainly! And to your point, King Charles expressed support for the investigation, saying that the law must take its course.

Prince William and his Wife, Princess Catherine, have backed that statement. But kind of getting at what you're saying which is this has broad implications across, you know, toward the Royal Family in terms of how they respond to this scandal.

SMTIH: Yes and I think if you go back to 2019, when Andrew gave his calamitous interview to the BBC, the Queen acted very swiftly and she removed all his patronages and sort of removed -- and removed him from being a participant, you know, in Royal life having any royal duties and then last autumn when the first big tranche of the Epstein files came out, King Charles acted with equal alacrity and removed Andrew's titles as Duke of York and as Prince of the blood, which nobody really thought could be done very easily and he did it very quickly.

And I think he has issued very robust statements as you know, affirming that he would support the investigation so they've been sort of playing catch up, and I think they need to figure out how they are going to get out in front of this.

DEAN: All right, more to come, but Sally Bedell Smith, great to have you to talk a little bit about this. Thank you so much for your time.

SMITH: Thank you.

DEAN: And we do want to clarify something. A few minutes ago, we told you about how President Trump withdrew his endorsement of a GOP Congressman for not supporting his tariffs war. That Congressman is Colorado Republican Representative Jeff Hurd, but we showed Minnesota Republican Congressman Tom Emmer.

We will be right back.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[18:27:48]

DEAN: A blockbuster winter storm is expected to thrash the northeast this weekend, and right now, the nor'easter is expected to make landfall tomorrow. Millions in major metro areas like Philadelphia, Boston and here in New York will be hit with heavy snow and strong winds. More than a thousand flights have already been cancelled, that is according to FlightAware.

Let's go to CNN's Chris Warren for the latest on this -- Chris.

CHRIS WARREN, CNN METEOROLOGIST: Jessica, it is looking more likely that there will be a large winter storm developing throughout the day and overnight across much of the East Coast. This is Sunday into Monday.

The track of the storm is going to make a big difference in who gets how much snow. A track closer to shore, closer to the East Coast, does increase the snowfall totals and the wind farther offshore, not as much wind and not as much snow. However, we looked at several forecast models, two that we look at consistently, and we will show you to illustrate what could happen.

The European forecast has been the one that was going farther out to sea, it has been trending closer with higher snowfall amounts. This, if it were to be spot on, more than a foot, even a foot and a half across parts of New England.

The American model for days now has been showing a blockbuster storm. The fact the Europe is getting closer to the GFS, giving us more confidence this could be a major winter storm throughout the northeast. Here is the timing: Rain and snow throughout the day, increasing heavy snow and wind into the evening hours. This is 6:00 in the evening getting now here overnight Sunday into Monday, full swing, dangerous if not treacherous. Life-threatening travel a possibility across parts of the Northeast with the snow and the wind.

This is going to be heavy wet snow in combination of that and the winds which at times gusting 40 to 50 even stronger than that. That combination likely to lead to some power outages.

So dangerous travel, power outages heavy snow, a foot, couldn't even rule out some spots up to about two feet of snow, all leading Jessica to either major in red or purple areas, isolated extreme impacts which also includes some minor to moderate coastal flooding.

DEAN: All right, Chris Warren with the latest. Thank you.

Earlier today, New York City Mayor Zohran Mamdani warned that conditions could be worse than last month's winter storm and here is what he said the city will be doing differently.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

MAYOR ZOHRAN MAMDANI (D), NEW YORK CITY: We have brought in outside mechanical snow clearing equipment ahead of the snowfall, an unprecedented early activation of this resource. We are expanding geo- coated tracking of bus stops, unsheltered stops, crosswalks and pedestrian ramps to improve the rate at which they are cleared.

[18:30:28]

We are also mandating that a path of at least four feet must be cleared across all sidewalks to accommodate wheelchairs. All operational agencies will be paying increased attention to clearing fire hydrants, crosswalks and bus stops around their property as part of our primary snow clearing operation.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

DEAN: All right, still to come here, a warning from Capitol Hill as President Trump threatens military action against Iran.

Up next, we will talk with Democratic Congressman Adam Smith, who says that is a very bad idea. We'll ask him why.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[18:35:35]

DEAN: Top Democrats in the House Foreign Affairs, Intelligence and Armed Services committees are urging President Trump to lean into diplomacy with Iran and saying if he does decide to take military action, he needs to seek approval first. The congressman saying in a statement, quote, "The Constitution is clear: Decisions to go to war require congressional authorization. If the President believes military action is necessary, he must come to Congress and make the case that it is in the national security interest of the United States to do so."

We are joined now by Democratic Representative Adam Smith of Washington. He is the ranking member on the House Armed Services Committee and was part of the trio issuing that statement I just read in part.

Congressman, thank you so much for being here. I really appreciate it.

I was speaking earlier with former presidential envoy Brett McGurk, who had previously led negotiations with Iran. He told me he's skeptical diplomacy can succeed here and he laid out why. Why do you think it can -- can succeed?

REP. ADAM SMITH (D-WA): Well, I'm not so much focused on whether or not diplomacy can succeed. If you look at all the things we're trying to accomplish, as I'm worried about the consequences of starting a war with Iran to think that military action can succeed.

Now, I don't disagree with Mr. McGurk that there's a long, difficult path here. I think part of the problem is that the biggest concern with Iran, the possibility of their nuclear program, we had a nuclear deal that was working to stop them from getting that, that Donald Trump tore up.

I mean, is Iran just going to agree to that again? And clearly, it seems like President Trump wouldn't accept that. I'm not at all, you know, naive about the difficulty of diplomacy. I think we need to keep economic pressure up. We need to work with partners and allies in the region to contain Iran. But launching a full-scale war with, as the President has alluded, other Republican members of Congress have said explicitly, the goal of regime change, of us going in and using our military to take out the Iranian regime and the hopes that a that can work and be something better will follow.

You know, we -- we've been down this road before with the Taliban, Saddam Hussein, Muammar Gaddafi. I just think we need to be more cautious, number one. And number two, to the main point of the letter, clearly, this is a war action that would require congressional approval.

DEAN: And to that end, Congressman Ro Khanna and Thomas Massie, a Democrat and Republican, say they're planning to introduce a war powers resolution next week. This -- this fight between Congress and -- and the executive, the President has gone on for many years now, where you all say, listen, you've got to come to us and get approval. They say, we don't really need to do that on this one or that one. Do you think this is going to go anywhere? Do you think there is movement on this war powers resolution?

SMITH: Yes. A couple of things about that. First of all, we have seen instances where presidents have come to Congress. A couple come to mind. President George W. Bush got congressional approval before launching the war in Iraq. He made the case to the American people and to Congress.

President Obama was contemplating military action against Syria, went to Congress, got a strong rebuff. People said it wasn't a good idea, so he didn't do it. So, it has happened. Now, it is true, a lot of presidents have decided to ignore Congress and just go ahead and act. But Congress can have influence on the decision, even if the President never says, okay, well, I can't, you know, I can't do this because you haven't let me.

If Congress speaks loudly, it shows disapproval of the American people. And most presidents, I will grant you this one is perhaps an exception, most presidents are somewhat responsive to public opinion. So, Congress can be part of driving public opinion to show the President what the people do or do not want. So, in that sense, it can certainly have an impact, even if the -- the President doesn't, you know, agree to the legal authority of Congress to block him.

DEAN: But do you think that -- that he actually, I mean, aside from you, obviously, you all very clearly said in that statement, we want you to come. We believe you should, in fact, come to us for authorization. Is there anything that makes you think that he will indeed do that?

SMITH: At this point, no. And that's one of the very troubling things. I will say that the -- the tariff decision is actually connected in a way because the Supreme Court finally was willing to say, no, Mr. President, you are not unbound. The law and the Constitution do apply to you. And this president, I mean, clearly has said that the only thing that constrains him is his own morality.

[18:40:05]

So, he is very flagrantly violating law and the Constitution, a whole bunch of different directions and, yes, that's problematic. But again, we have to do what we can in terms of applying public pressure. But no, I'll be perfectly honest with you. President Trump has made it very clear on, gosh, dozens of different subjects. He's going to do what he wants. The law, the Constitution, Congress, and in many cases, the American people be damned.

DEAN: I do want to ask you about that, because it was -- it is a question I wanted to get to with you on this -- in -- on the subject of those tariffs, because he -- he says he's now raised this global tariff rate to 15 percent. He's doing this under something called Section 122, and that lasts a maximum of 150 days and then needs to go to Congress for authorization. The President, as you know, has said he doesn't need to consult Congress.

How are you thinking about this? And do you think your Republican colleagues are prepared to push back on this if we get to that 150 days?

SMITH: I mean, slowly, you know, I think we've seen -- we did see the Congress, you know, vote to overturn President Trump's tariffs on Canada. So, there were Republicans who voted for that. We've seen a couple of other small instances. We've 17 Republicans voted to extend that -- the affordable care health care tax credits against the objections of the -- of the President.

So, very, very slowly, we're seeing some Republicans realize that they are an independent branch of government, don't have to just do what Trump wants. You know, but on -- on this one, will they get there? Yes, no, it's hard to say. But hopefully, you know, we'll -- we'll keep building that support and get them to -- to see that. And one final point on the tariffs --

DEAN: Yes.

SMITH: -- yes, it says that he can put this in place for 150 days, but it also has parameters. And forgive me, I forget what the law says. It doesn't just say the President can do whatever he wants. There has to be a set of circumstances, an emergency set of circumstances present, just like with the other law that he relied on that the courts overturn. So, I don't think these tariffs are any more legal than the last. And there will be lawsuits filed ahead of that 150-day deadline.

DEAN: I do just want to end by going back to Iran for a second. I wanted to make sure I got in the tariff question there. But in all the experts that we've been talking to over the last couple of hours here on this show, they've said this is a really critical weekend. We're waiting to see if there can be a deal struck. Obviously, the -- the military buildup there in the Middle East is unlike anything we've seen really in decades.

Well, you are the ranking member on House Armed Services. What are you watching for over the next several days?

SMITH: Yes, I mean, at this point, I mean, the forces are in place, you know, and -- and President Trump has, you know, he -- he acts on -- he acts unilaterally and sometimes impetuously. So, I mean, the next thing we see could be attacks on Iran. I don't know that we're going to get much more of a warning than that. So -- so that's what's concerning.

And I want to make people understand back to your original question. You know, if we say, well, there's -- there's a lot of things we want from Iran, and there -- there are. I mean, we want them to stop their nuclear program, the ballistic missile program. We want them to stop undermining governments throughout the Middle East exporting revolution. We want them to, you know, stop terrorizing their own people.

But to say that if we can't achieve that, we've got to go to war. We've got to send in our military. I mean, that's what sort of got us into the Libya conflict, the Iraq conflict and the extended conflict in Afghanistan was this belief that, well, this is a problem. We got to go blow stuff up to fix it.

The point is, blowing stuff up does not, in many instances, fix it. It's a risk and a danger all in and of itself. And we need to be very, very aware of that danger. And I think a little more cautious about relying on the military as much as we have over the course of the last twenty-five years.

DEAN: All right, Congressman Adam Smith, we really appreciate your time tonight. Thank you.

SMITH: Thanks for the chance.

DEAN: Mm-hmm. We'll be right back. (COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[18:48:37]

DEAN: Tonight, two of Hollywood's most dynamic actors, Timothee Chalamet and Matthew McConaughey joined CNN Variety for a special town hall event. The two filmed in front of a live audience of students at the University of Texas at Austin's Moody College of Communication. Here's part of their canon discussion about their careers, their creative process and having worked together in the past.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

MATTHEW MCCONAUGHEY: I've never seen anything I've done twice.

TIMOTHEE CHALAMET: Really?

MCCONAUGHEY: Yes.

CHALAMET: Really? No way. Come on. You've seen "Interstellar" once?

MCCONAUGHEY: Mm-hmm.

CHALAMET: No, come on, man.

MCCONAUGHEY: No, that's it.

CHALAMET: Okay, no CNN, no Variety. You've seen "Interstellar" once?

MCCONAUGHEY: Yes.

CHALAMET: Really?

MCCONAUGHEY: Yes.

CHALAMET: No way, man.

MCCONAUGHEY: Yes.

CHALAMET: You're doing yourself a disservice, man.

MCCONAUGHEY: I -- maybe so. I -- I'm a little uncomfortable going back. And I must say, now that I do have children, when we flip through any of my films, get brought up as possible things for us to watch. My kids go, yes, let's do that one next week.

So, my kids haven't seen 95 percent of the stuff I've done.

CHALAMET: Really?

MCCONAUGHEY: The moment -- one day they'll look back and they're like, Pop wasn't half bad at that, but they haven't seen hardly any. We like -- they like to skip that. On this subject.

CHALAMET: I don't know if I believe -- I don't know if I believe ...

MCCONAUGHEY: That they only seen once.

CHALAMET: "Interstellar" once.

MCCONAUGHEY: Yes.

CHALAMET: No way, man.

MCCONAUGHEY: Well, you've seen it 20 something times.

CHALAMET: I know, but it's just like I -- it's just -- I -- I can't I can't believe that. I can't believe that. I'm guessing you actually have seen it four or five times.

[18:50:02]

MCCONAUGHEY: Uh-uh.

CHALAMET: Okay.

MCCONAUGHEY: I mean, if I did, I really not trying to hide it. I just -- I'm not that comfortable. I don't know. I'm not that comfortable. It's such a -- it's a workout scene for me seeing movies that I've done, meaning each frame something in my head goes back to the day and the preparation for the day and all the intricacies that that one scene that you saw in 90 seconds took two days.

CHALAMET: Right. That's true.

MCCONAUGHEY: And I'm like, oh.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

DEAN: Joining us now is the co-editor in chief of Variety, Ramin Setoodeh.

Ramin, great to have you here with us.

I noticed Timothy wearing his orange, which could be Texas or "Marty Supreme" themed or both in his case. But what -- like, tell us what audiences can look forward to about the -- with this conversation between these two actors tonight?

RAMIN SETOODEH, CO-EDITOR-IN-CHIEF, VARIETY: Thank you so much for having me. So, we released some clips online earlier today, and this conversation has been really the talk of the Internet, so if you're watching CNN right now, stay tuned, because this is a really, really special interview between Timothee Chalamet, who's nominated for an Oscar for "Marty Supreme." And yes, the orange works for "Marty Supreme." And the (INAUDIBLE) and Matthew McConaughey, who played his dad in "Interstellar" in the 2014 Christopher Nolan movie.

And CNN and Variety collaborate on a series called "Actors on Actors." And this is a hybrid of "Actors on Actors" and the famous CNN Town Hall for politicians. But this is the first time we've done it with two cultural figures. And it's really, really fascinating. DEAN: It's so cool. And we can see clips playing right now. Obviously,

the -- the people in the audience are getting to ask questions to them. Tell us more about the format.

SETOODEH: So, we -- this is a hybrid, so it's an interview where Matthew McConaughey and Timothee Chalamet interview each other. And then they take student -- they take questions from the students at UT Austin where McConaughey teaches. And those questions were so thoughtful. We were actually inundated with questions from students. Everyone wanted a chance to talk to Timothee Chalamet. And the questions that made the broadcast are really, really interesting. And Timothee really opens up and answers things that he has not in the public eye.

DEAN: Yes, I'm excited to see it. And they played father and son as they were just talking about "Interstellar," which is an incredible film. I can't believe he's only seen it once. But -- but what do you think is so special about these two together, their chemistry?

SETOODEH: I think right now what's happening and we always talk about movie stardom and are there new movie stars. And Timothee Chalamet is certainly a movie star for Gen Z.

DEAN: Yeah.

SETOODEH: But I think there's also reluctance to open up in public because of social media, because of the scrutiny, because of the 24- hour news cycle. And this was a case where Timothee Chalamet got to talk to someone he knew when he was 17 before he was famous. And there's real affection and real admiration between these two actors. And I think that's what makes this interview so special.

DEAN: Yes, there is a generational thing going on here. And as you note, you know, Timothee Chalamet is -- has gotten his third, I think it's his third nomination, his third Oscar nomination in that category.

SETOODEH: (INAUDIBLE) ...

DEAN: Yes. Making him the youngest since Marlon Brando to -- to do that. And so, we are kind of seeing this new generation come up where younger people may not be as familiar. I can't, you know, it's hard to believe, but like with Matthew McConaughey or Brad Pitt or somebody of that generation.

SETOODEH: And also in the '90s, you remember -- I remember growing up in the '90s and it was a different time. Stars were distant. They weren't available.

DEAN: Yes.

SETOODEH: They weren't on social media. And so, there's a very interesting moment in the conversation where Timothee Chalamet acknowledges that (INAUDIBLE) misinterpret what he's saying or social media could be dissecting what he's saying. So, it is a different time. But "Marty Supreme" has made $150 million. Timothee Chalamet has really taken the lead in marketing this movie,

and he's now the front runner for best actor. So, in the same way politicians need a CNN town hall, Timothee Chalamet is speaking to voters as Oscar voting starts this week to tell them that he is a multi-layered, thoughtful actor. And I think this is a really, really illuminating portrait of two actors.

DEAN: It's going to be really fun to watch. And as you note, it is coming right up.

Ramin, thank you so much for being here with us. We appreciate it.

SETOODEH: Thanks so much for having me.

DEAN: Yep. And be sure to tune in. It is at the top of the hour, just in about seven minutes now for the town hall event with Timothee Chalamet and Matthew McConaughey. It is happening right here on CNN.

Still to come, NASA's return to the moon will have to wait a little longer. We'll tell you more about that. You're in the CNN NEWSROOM.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[18:58:59]

DEAN: Rescue crews have now rescued all nine bodies of the skiers who were killed earlier this week in a California avalanche. The victims were a group of friends from across the country who went on a ski trip over Presidents Day weekend.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

SHERIFF SHANNON MOON, NEVADA COUNTY, CA: Nine victims have been safely recovered for their families and their loved ones. While we wish we could have saved them all, we are grateful that we can bring them home.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

DEAN: Six people survived and were rescued from Tuesday's avalanche, but rescue efforts were slowed by heavy snow and dangerous conditions.

Baseball Hall of Famer Bill Mazeroski has died. He's best known for hitting the only Game 7 walk-off home run in World Series history. Mazeroski's dramatic home run came in the bottom of the ninth in Game 7 of the 1960 World Series as the Pittsburgh Pirates beat the New York Yankees. The second baseman also won eight gold gloves in his career. Mazeroski was 89 years old.

NASA's Artemis II mission to the moon is getting pushed back once again because of an issue with helium pumps.

[19:00:04]