Return to Transcripts main page

CNN Newsroom

Paramount Nears Merger Settlement, But Some Key State Attorneys General Not On Board Yet; A.I. Companies Colluded To Slow Development; ICE-Involved Shooting In Austin, Texas; Record Diesel Prices Squeeze U.S. Farmers; Trump And Mamdani Meeting Ahead Of U.N. Assembly. Aired 5-6p ET

Aired September 20, 2026 - 17:00   ET

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

[17:00:00]

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

FREDRICKA WHITFIELD, CNN ANCHOR: Hello again, everyone. Thank you so much for joining me. I'm Fredricka Whitfield.

All right, just in to CNN, Paramount is nearing a settlement deal to resolve the antitrust lawsuit blocking its acquisition of Warner Brothers Discovery, the parent company of CNN. But according to sources, some of the state attorneys general who brought the suit two months ago are not on board yet. CNN chief media analyst Brian Stelter joins us with more. What have you learned, Brian?

BRIAN STELTER, CNN CHIEF MEDIA ANALYST, AUTHOR, SPECIAL CORRESPONDENT FOR VANITY FAIR: That's right, Fred. We have learned that a settlement deal is in the works, but it has not been completed yet. And because this involves CNN and its parent company, Warner Brothers Discovery, I'll talk you through all the reporting that we have, and I'll tell you what we don't know.

This drama dates back to February. Back in February, Paramount prevailed in the bidding war for Warner Brothers Discovery. Remember, Netflix was also trying to buy some of those assets. But Paramount prevailed, and the Justice Department in Washington, the Trump Justice Department, went ahead and blessed the deal in June.

But a coalition of Democratic state attorneys general blocked the deal by filing a lawsuit in July. There's a lot of political overtones to all of these because Paramount has cultivated a close relationship with the Trump administration. So, you have these Democrats in states like California, New York, and Connecticut that have sued to block the deal.

There is a trial date slated for March, and Paramount is eager to get this settled before then. In fact, the deal gets more expensive for Paramount starting on October 1st. So Paramount CEO David Ellison and his team have been pushing hard to strike a settlement deal to resolve the lawsuit and clear the way to take control of CNN, HBO, Warner, and all those other Warner Brothers Discovery assets.

Now I'm told this weekend that some of those 12 states in this 12- state coalition are ready to settle. California A.G. Rob Bonta has been leading the coalition, and he is pushing to get the deal done. But there are several states that are holding out or resisting. Those states include New York and Connecticut that apparently want additional concessions from Paramount before they sign off.

Fred, "The Wall Street Journal" was first to report on these advanced talks, and now we're adding new details reporting that Letitia James in New York and William Tong in Connecticut are both trying to get more out of Paramount. And I'm told at least two other states also have reservations about any settlement deal right now.

WHITFIELD: Hmm. All right. So, settlement movement now. Scheduled trial, March. What more do we know --

STELTER: Right.

WHITFIELD: -- about the timeline and the settlement talks? What stage are we in? Are we talking, you know, days, weeks more to go before hearing from all sides?

STELTER: When I've reported on mergers like this in the past, by the time you hear about advanced settlement talks, you might be hours or days away from an announcement about a done deal. In this case, it is possible there could be a done deal in the next couple of days.

But I'm told some of these states are really reluctant to sign off on Bonta's agreement. For example, in Connecticut, William Tong, the A.G. there, a source telling me -- quote -- "he is fighting to preserve the independence of CNN and CBS News." Now, that's an interesting comment coming from a source close to the matter. CBS News is owned by Paramount. There's talk of a combination of this network with CBS News if the deal goes through.

There has also been talk about a possible independent content monitor or other steps to ensure CNN's independence. We don't know the details about these confidential settlement negotiations. So, all we're getting are crumbs from sources who are willing to share this on background.

But clearly enough sources are talking that we know two things for sure. There are divisions between these states as they try to strike a settlement deal, and we know Paramount is trying hard to get this settlement deal done before October 1st. That's because the deal starts to get more expensive for Paramount starting at the end of September.

So, I expect we're going to hear a lot more about this in the coming days. But a settlement deal is not guaranteed, Fred. There's always a chance this will fall apart.

WHITFIELD: Yes. Oh, very critical timing. Brian Stelter, thank you so much.

STELTER: Thanks.

WHITFIELD: All right. And then there's a new legal battle brewing over how fast artificial intelligence is evolving. A group of A.I. users filed a lawsuit against the four biggest A.I. leading firms.

[17:04:57]

They allege the company's plan to slow development of A.I. violates antitrust laws because they collectively agreed to restrain competition. For their part, the tech giants say pacing development is needed to enhance safety measures.

Let's get some perspective now on all these A.I. developments. Adam Kovacevich is founder and CEO of Chamber of Progress, a tech industry advocacy group. Great to see you. So, you helped Google. What's your take on the lawsuit accusing the big A.I. companies now of colluding to slow development? Are their concerns valid? If so, is it illegal?

ADAM KOVACEVICH, FOUNDER AND CEO, CHAMBER OF PROGRESS: Well, I think the lawsuit is probably getting ahead of the facts, but it may point the need for policymakers to bless some type of coordination. Look, the antitrust laws, they require pretty clear facts that companies get together, make an agreement not to compete. That's what you have to prove.

And I don't think this complaint has it. And I think all you really have to do is look at the market. You see Anthropic, OpenAI, Google, they're all just racing each other constantly, right, putting out new frontier models, new agents every week. So, this is a cartel. It's like the least effective cartel in history.

But having said that, I mean, it's precisely because this race is so intense that some of the people at these labs have started worrying out loud about where it all ends. And they are the ones who's saying that that competition scares them, that there ought to be some kind of coordination, some kind of pacing agreement.

There are disagreements about whether that is allowed under the law. But I do think that this lawsuit probably strengthens the hand of the people who say that the law really should provide a clear antitrust exemption for this kind of coordination among the frontier labs around existential risk.

WHITFIELD: Is there a middle ground between the industry coming together and not violating antitrust laws?

KOVACEVICH: Well, I think there could be. I mean, I think there's an open question about how -- you know, I think there's some agreement that pacing is a good idea, right? What I think you've seen over the last week is a disagreement about how to do that.

You have Anthropic out there saying, let's try to achieve pacing through industry agreement and rules and enforcement, auditing, those kinds of things. You have other people, particularly Mark Zuckerberg, Meta, David Sachs, a former A.I. czar at the White House saying, look, if companies want to pace themselves, that's fine, go ahead and differentiate the market, but we shouldn't have government blessing that.

WHITFIELD: Are you encouraged that, you know, the heads of these A.I. companies did come together rather quickly to say, yes, let's, you know, collectively pace ourselves?

KOVACEVICH: I think what it shows is that the people who are closest to this technology, who are building it, have concerns. And that is unusual, right? And I think it's very unusual. I can't remember a time when the people who are building a technology voiced that kind of concern. So, I take that seriously.

The question is, what do we do about it? And I think there's a range. There's room for a range of agreement, disagreement about how do you achieve this kind of pacing. Is it something companies should just do unilaterally, differentiate in the marketplace by being, you know, the safest, most responsible A.I. company or do you try to achieve it through rules?

The big problem with trying to achieve it through rules is China because China doesn't really abide by all these rules. So, putting in place some kind of rule regime that China would follow is really the big question mark that underlies the whole thing.

WHITFIELD: We heard some say a third party should be involved to kind of oversee A.I. And then we just learned yesterday, President Trump has a plan for an A.I. force. We don't know real specificity about it. But who would best be suited, in your view, to kind of lead such an effort and who might be this czar that the president would have in mind?

KOVACEVICH: Well, I've got to be honest. I think the Trump White House is flailing on this stuff, right? I think they've had -- just a couple of days ago, Trump said A.I. was a hoax. And now, he's saying we need to have an A.I. force. Who knows what that would do?

All this confusion -- I mean, look, A.I. is the most transformative technology in our lifetime. There are big, serious questions underlying it. And frankly, the Trump White House position is just utter chaos and confusion. Whatever you thought of Trump's first A.I. czar, David Sachs, he did the thing that has been missing from this White House for the last six months, which is developing a coherent view and an actual strategy, right? So, since then, the administration's A.I. policy has kind of been whatever the president has posted most recently.

And so, look, if we have an A.I. czar that brought some coherence to that, that would be great. Instead, you know, we're getting Truth Social posts, which I think is not really going to get the job done.

WHITFIELD: So, if the president does indeed follow through with what is planned to be a meeting with the heads of, you know, big A.I. companies this week, what do you think that conversation is going to be like?

[17:09:56]

KOVACEVICH: I hope there's less cheering about how great it is that the stock market is powered by A.I. gains and more genuine listening and trying to understand what the companies are saying about, you know, really trying to solve these problems. I think, you know, there's a range of solutions here, right? But I think what Trump has been doing is sort of waving away the whole problem, saying, oh, this is all just a hoax. That is not going to get the job done, right?

We have -- you know, every week, there's some new story about some cybersecurity incident involving the A.I. models. I think there are some like Google who've called for kind of a voluntary rating, almost kind of assessment regime like the MPA movie ratings. I think there's some interesting promise there. We need something. And right now, Trump is basically kind of AWOL.

WHITFIELD: All right. We'll leave it there for now. Adam Kovacevich, thank you so much.

KOVACEVICH: Thank you.

WHITFIELD: Coming up, a record high diesel prices are pushing American farmers to the breaking point. I'll speak to the president of the National Black Farmers Association about what this crisis means for all of them and what it could mean for your grocery bill. And later, President Trump is set to meet with New York Mayor Zohran Mamdani. What's on the agenda on this latest get together this time in the Big Apple?

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[17:15:00]

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

WHITFIELD: All right, this breaking news in to CNN, a federal immigration agent has shot a person in Austin, Texas, according to officials there. City officials are confirming the shooting that involved immigration and customs enforcement in North Austin. There is a news conference taking place right now. The Austin mayor, Kirk Watson, as well as we're listening from the police chief, Lisa Davis. It has just gotten started. Let's listen in right now.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

LISA DAVIS, CHIEF OF POLICE, AUSTIN POLICE DEPARTMENT: This incident, again, as the mayor said, there is not a lot of facts that I can give you at this point. What I can tell you is Austin Police Department Special Investigation Unit, who investigates our officer-involved shootings, is on the scene. I have spoken to Texas Rangers who will be part of that investigations and will be working side by side in this investigation as well. I've spoken to HSI as well. They have promised what they can give us as far as cooperation. They will do that. So, that's where we are at this point.

Again, this has happened in the city of Austin. The city of Austin deserves answers on what occurred. The mayor is demanding some answers. The city manager wants answers. We're going to get those -- we're going to get all those questions answered. We'll be as transparent as we can be. You know, that's the reality. I like to come forward with a lot more information, but that is all we have at this point. So, I'll go ahead and hand it over to Chief Luckritz. ROBERT LUCKRITZ, CHIEF, AUSTIN-TRAVIS COUNTY EMS: Good afternoon. Rob Luckritz, chief of Austin-Travis County EMS. At approximately 12:56 in the afternoon today, Austin-Travis County EMS received notification from the Austin Police Department of a reported shooting at the 8000 block of Anderson Square. Austin-Travis County EMS responded immediately or was on scene within three and a half minutes.

One individual was identified suffering from a gunshot wound. The patient was stable, vital signs were stable, but in serious condition. They were transported off the scene within nine minutes of arrival of EMS resources and transported to a local trauma center. As I said, in serious but stable condition. And with that, I'll turn this back over to the mayor.

MAYOR KIRK WATSON, AUSTIN, TEXAS: Great. Thank you, chief. As we all -- everybody in the room knows this federal entity that is in the city of Austin that was involved in this shooting. So, I want us to hear from Congressman Casar, who is always helpful on things like this when we reach out to him. I want to turn the microphone over to you.

REP. GREG CASAR (D), TEXAS: Thank you, mayor. Thanks for your leadership and for everyone at the city of Austin for providing transparency and answers to the community as quickly as we possibly can.

It is awful that this horror has come to our doorstep. And as the mayor said, unfortunately, it is not a surprise. Just a few weeks ago, as we saw the ICE surge come to Austin, especially to North Central Austin, I and others said that ICE needed to leave before someone was shot like in Minneapolis or like in Corpus Christi or like in Chicago. And that day is here.

And so, I think the message remains that for Austin to be safe, ICE should end its surge here in our community. I'm glad to hear that at least, so far, it sounds like this gentleman is at the hospital, I'm hearing from the EMS chief, in stable condition.

I also will add that it is so important for us to have transparency and the true facts in this case. Unfortunately, ICE has not been truthful in shootings in other cities. In Minneapolis, when Renee Good was shot, ICE's public statements were that Ms. Good was trying to hurt ICE officers, and then the video proved the exact opposite.

In the case of Ruben Ray Martinez, who was just trying to celebrate his 23rd birthday, a United States citizen from San Antonio, the initial statements from ICE were that he was trying to get people hurt.

[17:20:04]

And it was only many months later that the video came out and showed that Ruben Ray Martinez had his car moving at about one mile an hour, just trying to get around some cones and some blockades.

And so, I think it is appropriate for this community to ask for independence, to ask for transparency, and to ask for accountability. This is a pattern. It's a disturbing pattern, and it's got to stop. ICE has arrested five-year-olds in Austin in the last few weeks. They've arrested pre-K teachers. And now, someone has been shot. And this has to stop. Thank you.

WATSON: Thank you, congressman. I will open it up for questions. I will reiterate that Austinites have a right to know what happened. Like I say, it's their city and they have a right to feel safe in their city. If there are circumstances that are making them feel unsafe such as a shooting like this, under these circumstances as we know them, or just the fear and chaos that ICE attempts to create, we have a right to be involved in that. And so, I'm pleased that the chief has done what she has done to put us in a position where we'll know more. So, with that, we'll start with Tony (ph).

UNKNOWN: Chief Luckritz, there has been some information that this person who was shot was shot in the back. Can you confirm that your medics who are on the scene confirmed that to you?

LUCKRITZ: I cannot confirm that. What I can say is that the shooting was center mass. It was to the torso, which is why the person is still in serious condition as they investigate it.

UNKNOWN: But when you say that, does that indicate they were shot in the front of their body or in the back?

LUCKRITZ: I don't have any information.

UNKNOWN: Can you confirm how many shots?

LUCKRITZ: I believe it was one gunshot.

UNKNOWN: Chief Davis, I would just like to know if you've received any kind of briefing whatsoever about the type of operation that was going on at the time of the shooting, if any of that, any of those details have been made.

DAVIS: I have not. I do not have those details.

UNKNOWN: Thank you.

UNKNOWN: Chief Davis, we heard from a councilman over at the scene earlier that a car was or that a federal agent's car sideswiped the driver involved in this shooting and was shot through the back windshield multiple times. Can you confirm those details?

DAVIS: That's not what I'm hearing. I'm hearing that it was out on foot.

So, again, this is the -- this is getting in front of the camera too soon without the information. But from what I'm hearing, there was a small foot pursuit. But, again, this is all very preliminary. And I have not been briefed from the federal partners. Again, our SIU, our officers are there on scene now. So, after I leave here, I will get briefed from them. But that's where we are at this point.

UNKNOWN: Just to confirm some more basic details. It was a federal agent, a federal officer who shot --

DAVIS: That is correct.

UNKNOWN: -- and this is one person. I think, Congressman Casar, you said this gentleman -- is it a male person?

DAVIS: I believe it's a male.

UNKNOWN: OK. Do we know what their nationality is?

DAVIS: We do not.

UNKNOWN: Were they a target of an ICE? Were they a target of an ICE?

DAVIS: So, I think that's the information we're trying to find out. We talk about preliminary. We talk about getting in front of, you know, the people, the citizens of Austin and being as transparent as we can. That's why we're here. But those questions still need to be answered.

UNKNOWN: Do we know where the agent is? There have been issues with agents going to different states.

WATSON: We do not know that, but my hope would be that an agent that's involved in an officer-involved shooting would not leave the city, certainly not leave the state. Again, if things are being done the way they're supposed to be done, nobody should fear that and need to leave. And also, if you believe in transparency and not just the creation of chaos, you would hope that that would not be the case either.

So, what my request would be as mayor of the city would be that this -- anybody involved in this shooting would not leave, would not leave in such a way that they wouldn't be able to answer questions that need to be answered.

UNKNOWN: And mayor, was there any other arrests made on the scene that you want to know about?

DAVIS: No, no, no, we don't.

WATSON: Let me -- let me -- let me say something real clearly. We want to demonstrate how quickly we will make ourselves available when we have any information, including the information about related to an investigation. In this day and age, and I know you all do the work you do for a reason, trying to get the full story becomes really difficult sometimes with TikTok and Twitter or X and all the different social media.

And so, one of the things that always concerns me in situations like this is that some -- in some of those instances, people moving too quickly and making assumptions that might be there in their own heads.

[17:25:04]

What they end up doing is they enhance the fear. They enhance something being wrong, and then it's very difficult to rein it back in. As we have more information, we're going to make that information available to you. We wanted to get us -- to get in front of this as quickly as we could even though we know it's extremely preliminary, it's extremely early.

UNKNOWN: Congresswoman Casar mentioned a surge in Austin. Chief Davis, have you -- have your local officers been seeing that as an accurate depiction of what has been happening in recent weeks?

DAVIS: So, this is -- with the surge, we don't work with --

UNKNOWN: Understand.

DAVIS: -- federal -- with the federal partners in here, and we have not been asked to. And so, as we're going along with our day, you know, we're seeing these things in the news and we're hearing about them as well, but we are not being asked to assist in those -- in that surge.

UNKNOWN: I understand.

WATSON: He used the word "surge."

UNKNOWN: Yes.

WATSON: But with surge, whatever you want to call it, we have seen an increase, we believe, in the number of incidents where ICE has detained somebody, stopped somebody, those sorts of incidents. It has been -- and I would suggest that it has been a pretty significant number in that increase. And it happened in a relatively brief period of time. It was not a ramp up, if you will. So, the word "surge," well, probably not a technical term under the circumstances, does describe well what has happened, at least as it's being reported to us.

But, again, I want to be very clear about what the chief of police just said. The city of Austin is not involved in those. However, those of us that care about this, those of us that represent constituents who are living in fear as a result of this politics of fear that ICE propagates, we have -- we have seen that there has been an increase and a significant increase almost overnight.

UNKNOWN: Are you saying they're in Austin specifically or in general nationally?

UNKNOWN: And what time period? You said quickly. Weeks, days?

WATSON: I think in one week, we saw it go from -- count them on one hand to in the 30s, and that will happen in less than a couple of days.

UNKNOWN: And you all are saying that this was a shooting involving a federal officer. Can you confirm that it is an ICE agent?

DAVIS: I've been told that it is an ICE agent.

UNKNOWN: OK. DAVIS: Yes.

UNKNOWN: Thank you.

UNKNOWN: Are you -- you've spoken about not getting -- there being lack of information from federal authorities and other shootings. Are you confident in the information that you're getting from state troopers and the state police working on this?

DAVIS: Well, there has not been a shooting here in the state of -- in the city of Austin. Yes, I trust our -- I trust the Texas Rangers, and I trust DPS to give us and to work alongside us and to get to get answered. Absolutely.

WATSON: Other thoughts, questions? We appreciate you.

UNKNOWN: Sorry, one more. Do you have a general age of the person?

LUCKRITZ: It was a -- it was an adult. Adult man.

UNKNOWN: Will you all be doing a follow-up presser or this will be done?

WATSON: Sure. I mean, I don't know what we're going to do yet. As we get more information, we'll work to get information out to you all. That's the purpose of us doing this, is to -- you know, I said it in my opening comments, and I've repeated it. Part of what makes me angry about this, part of what makes me so unhappy about it is that we live in a time where there's a politics of fear, where people are trying to create fear.

And I've said many, many times about how I want -- I want to believe what we're dealing with ICE, and that is that I don't want to perpetuate the politics of fear. One of the ways to not perpetuate the politics of fear is to be open, to be as transparent as we can about what's going on, to seek to be involved, and to then be involved in the investigations so that our people will know what's happening. And so, we will do whatever we can to make sure that people have the information they can have so they can judge the situation in the city that they live and they love. Thank you all.

CASAR: And if I can add one thing to that. I mean, to be clear, this was a federal agent. And the Department of Homeland Security and ICE are under a legal obligation and under the obligation -- under the Constitution to share information with the United States Congress. Our Article 1 of the Constitution authority and responsibility is to oversee these federal agencies. And so, my office will also be requesting as much information as possible, and we will share that with the public.

[17:29:58]

But given your interests here, given the questions, I think the obvious should be said that there is a reason that people in Austin and across the country are deeply suspicious of anything that ICE has said. And there is a reason that people are hurting right now when they hear about this having happened in their city, even before they know all the facts. We don't know all the facts. People in the community don't know all the facts. But people are hurting and upset because they see how ICE has shot and, in some cases, even killed people with impunity in other parts of the country.

And we don't want that to ever happen here. And that's why if ICE wants to keep people safe, if the federal government wants to keep people safe, ICE should not have this surge of officers here and should be focused on transparently working on issues of crime, not what they've been doing consistently here in Austin before this event.

UNKNOWN: I'm sorry to jump in again, but I didn't ask the base question. Do you have a name of the victim and are you in contact with their family if they live locally? Are they believed to be a local resident?

LUCKRITZ: I don't have that information.

WATSON: Thank you all very much. We appreciate it.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

WHITFIELD: All right, you've been listening to city officials there out of Austin, Texas, from the city's mayor to the police chief and a member of Congress representing that district saying they don't even have enough information to explain what happened. All they are able to say is the mayor calling it a federal entity. And then you heard confirmation from a police representative there that an ICE agent was involved in a shooting. An adult male was shot. They describe that adult male as being in stable condition.

Our Rafael Romo is with us now with more on this. You're hearing the level of frustration coming from those city officials who say they're not getting cooperation. They're not getting information from this federal entity, as the mayor described it, to even know what has happened in their town.

RAFAEL ROMO, CNN NATIONAL CORRESPONDENT: That's right. And we got to remember that the political divide in Austin is very, very stark. And very few details that authorities have revealed. One of them, Fred, is that this person was shot in the torso, but when asked if it had been in the front or the back, Chief of Police Lisa Davis said that she didn't know that whether it had been in front or the back of the person. Representative Greg Casar said in stable condition. That's something that the other officials could not confirm at this point. And this happened just afternoon in the north side of Austin.

It is really interesting, Fred, to hear some of what they said at this press conference, because let's be frank, the chief of police said that we are getting in front of the camera when we don't have enough information about this.

But the message was very loud and clear, especially when you listen to what Representative Casar said. And earlier, I was looking at what he had said earlier in a statement that he posted on social media. He said the horror has come to our city. ICE has shot a person in Austin this morning. As the facts emerge, I am demanding a full independent investigation, immediate release of the body camera footage, and accountability for any ICE officer who broke the law.

Now, we have been analyzing some of the images that have come to our newsroom, Fred, and it appears that there was some sort of chase before the actual shooting. There is a particular video where you can hear sirens, you can hear some commotion, then you hear some sort of impact between two vehicles or more, and finally, you hear the shots, and that's when people react and you hear people screaming.

Now, we don't know what transpired before that happened. We don't know if this individual or individuals were fleeing the scene, whether they had been told to stop and they didn't do so. But the reality is that a lot transpired before the shots were fired. Again, one shot in the torso. We don't know if it's in the front or the back. Person seemingly in stable condition.

But again, given what has happened in the country since President Trump took office and the way that ICE has been operating with shootings in multiple cities, Minneapolis come to mind -- comes to mind. What happened today, of course, is going to be cause for concern for officials not only in Texas but across the country.

WHITFIELD: But the police chief did say that the person was shot seemingly outside of the vehicle. So, while there may have been some kind of involvement of vehicles, the police chief at least said it was her understanding that the shooting took place with the subject, the person who was shot outside of the vehicle.

Rafael Romo, thank you so much. We're going to continue to allow you to do more reporting on this and try to get some of the answers that even these officials are admitting they don't have.

ROMO: Of course.

WHITFIELD: Thanks so much.

[17:35:00]

All right, we'll be right back.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

WHITFIELD: All right, this breaking news in to CNN. Officials in Austin, Texas say an adult male has been shot by a federal immigration agent. The person is in the hospital. CNN affiliate KVUE was shooting video of the aftermath of the incident, showing a damaged blue sedan. This happening in North Austin. The Department of Homeland Security has not yet responded with comment. And we heard in a press conference from the mayor to the police chief also saying they have been unable to get any information from what they're calling a federal entity. We'll bring you more information as we get it.

[17:40:00] All right, now, it's not just car and truck drivers feeling squeezed by sky high fuel prices. Farmers are facing the crisis big time. Diesel costs have more than doubled in the last year. The tractors, the combines, and the trucks used to harvest and transport crops are now more expensive to operate. That results in razor-thin margins when those crops are sold and your bill at the grocery keeps going up.

Let's take a closer look now. And here, a first-person account, John Boyd, Jr. is founder and president of the National Black Farmers Association. You are a soybean, corn farmer, and you're also a cattle farmer. I mean, talk to me about what you believe the state of the American farmers is right now with all of these higher prices for fuel.

JOHN BOYD, JR., FOUNDER AND PRESIDENT, NATIONAL BLACK FARMERS ASSOCIATION: Thank you for having me, Fredricka. This is a national farm crisis in America with this high cost of diesel fuel. I'm paying basically $7 a gallon for diesel fuel for my combine. I'm picking corn for $5 a bushel. And, you know, you can do the math there. My combine holds 140 gallons. That's roughly a thousand dollars every time we fill up for diesel fuel. The net cost is going to be passed on to the American people who are going to pay higher prices for products in their local grocery stores.

But the problem is farmers don't have the extra money to cover this cost. The administration hasn't done anything to assist the farmers. I mean, I heard the president say when you guys sent in asking about it, he said, you know, farmers were basically OK with the increase and we support the war in Iran. All of those things are not truthful. We have farmers in California paying $10 a gallon for diesel fuel. And even in my own township, I couldn't get off road diesel fuel yesterday. So, you know, I'm calling this a farm crisis.

WHITFIELD: I mean, what kind of choices does this make you have to make with the near seven-dollar, you know, a gallon diesel fuel? You know, and according to the Joint Economic Committee, you know, farmers overall have spent $1.4 billion more on diesel during this planting season. So, what kind of choices are you having to make? What kind of, you know, trims are you having to make in order to take on these higher costs for you to operate your farm?

BOYD: You know, a couple of things. One, you have to let some other bills go that are pressing as well, you know. And we have a farmer, you know, in South Carolina, Frederick, who was selling his corn. And his corn is being held up. His check is being held up. The government has leaned on it. USD has leaned on his crop. And he's calling the NBFA, looking for resources. You know, $10,000 for his upcoming week to harvest corn. That's how real this thing is. So, it's affecting farmers all across the country right here at harvest time.

The administration, as I said, has done little to resolve. The president says he has he made an all-time big deal in Venezuela, the largest oil deal. But when are we going to feel the effects of that here at home in America, paying $10 a gallon for diesel fuel? So, we have to choose from, you know, night and day on this thing, Fredricka, and making some hard decisions in our own farming operations. My farm is no exception to the rule here.

WHITFIELD: Yes. And with that Venezuela oil deal that the president, you know, has been touting, he says, yes, prices are going to be coming down soon. How do you interpret soon? What does that mean?

BOYD: Well, he said -- he said -- well, he said so in a couple of things. President says a whole lot of stuff. He says, well, the prices are going to come down after the election. And for the American people who don't understand the farm prices that we're in, it started with the president's tariffs, and we never recouped from that. It rolled into his war with the high cost of input costs from fertilizer to my seeds. All of my input costs have risen. Farm foreclosures are up. Farm suicides are up. All these things are up.

And the president continues to make a lot of empty promises. I think that's the word I'm looking for. A lot of empty promises to America's farmers. We're losing 77 farmers every single day in America, and no one has answered the call for help.

And partly the reason, Fredricka, is a lot of people are saying, well, you know, boy, a lot of these farmers voted for this president, you know, three times, three times. So, you don't see a lot of sympathy out there. But there are farmers who did not vote for this president. I'm certainly one, so they didn't support him. And we're getting painted with the same brush, is what I'm looking for. So, there's a farm that need immediate help.

[17:45:01]

And, you know, the American people should answer that call as well. And also, Fredricka, the oil companies, you know, where are they at? This money is going somewhere. They need to get back to America's farmers and truck. Very critical time.

WHITFIELD: Your frustration is heard loud and clear. John Boyd, thank you so much for being with us. Of course, we're wishing all the best for you and all farmers across America and especially, as you mentioned, your colleague in South Carolina, who is now facing a lien on his property as a result of these very hard times. Thank you so much.

BOYD: Thank you so much for having me.

WHITFIELD: Straight ahead, two political rivals facing each other again. President Trump and New York Mayor Zohran Mamdani preparing for a high-profile meeting this time at Gracie Mansion in New York.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[17:50:00]

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

WHITFIELD: The U.S. ambassador to the U.N. is defending President Trump's ban on several news outlets from accessing the White House. This weekend, journalists from CNN, MS Now, and Politico were denied entry to the White House and the U.S. Secret Service seized their press passes. This came after Trump posted a threat on social media saying he was banning the three media organizations from the White House.

My colleague, Dana Bash, spoke with Ambassador Mike Waltz about this this morning on CNN's State of the Union.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

DANA BASH, CNN CHIEF POLITICAL CORRESPONDENT: On Friday, President Trump banned CNN, MS Now, and Politico from the White House. The president, as I mentioned, is about to host the Chinese leader. Historically, it was the United States pushing countries like China for greater press freedoms. Now, President Trump is the one backsliding on these rights. Are you comfortable with this?

MIKE WALTZ, U.S. AMBASSADOR TO THE UNITED NATIONS: The president is absolutely within his rights to limit journalists to government facilities, particularly when, in his opinion, they're not behaving as good faith journalists. And that's just not his opinion, That's the Supreme Court's opinion. There are multiple cases. Zemel versus Rusk off the top of my head.

And I'm not a lawyer that said, look, you can have the ability to speak, you can have the ability to publish as an open and free press, but you don't have an inherent right to any government facility that you want, whether it's Langley or the White House. And so, I'll leave it to the lawyers, but I think the president is absolutely spot on here.

BASH: Mr. Ambassador, you are a decorated veteran. You served in an elite unit, the Green Berets, for 27 years defending freedoms like the First Amendment. And the president you work for just banned three news organizations, and he said it's because he doesn't like some of the things that are being reported.

WALTZ: Dana, the prior administration limited all kinds of journalistic outfits and journalists themselves that they deemed as right wing. Those have now been allowed onto the facility. And the president doesn't believe others are acting in good faith.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

WHITFIELD: And we should point out that while cited in 1965, U.S. Supreme Court ruling Zemel versus Rusk, in which Chief Justice Earl Warren wrote -- quote -- that "the right to speak and publish does not carry with it the unrestrained right to gather information" -- end quote -- the current dispute with Trump imposing these bans actually centers on a First Amendment legal concept known as viewpoint discrimination since Trump has been explicit about his reasons for wanting to ban certain outlets, including CNN, over coverage that he deems negative. Courts have forbidden viewpoint discrimination and protected the rights of journalists in case after case.

President Trump is set to meet, meantime, with mayor of New York, Zohran Mamdani, on Monday when he travels to New York for the U.N. General Assembly. It will be their third ever in-person meeting but this time, first time at Gracie Mansion.

CNN's Gloria Pazmino is joining us with more on her new reporting on this. Gloria?

GLORIA PAZMINO, CNN CORRESPONDENT: Yes, Fred, that's what's different about this third meeting, that this time, it's President Trump who is coming to New York City Mayor Zohran Mamdani's turf. He will be meeting with him at Gracie Mansion, which is the mayoral residence here in New York City. And the two will likely have a lot to talk about. The president is going to be in New York City ahead of the United Nations General Assembly. Trump is scheduled to speak at the U.N. on Tuesday, and he'll be meeting with Mamdani tomorrow.

Now, in the past, these meetings have gone surprisingly well despite the fact that these are two politically opposed, ideologically different figures, right? In fact, we remember that Trump, during the campaign for mayor here in New York City, referred to Zohran Mamdani as a communist. He has called him a lunatic before. And Mamdani, for his part, has said that he believes Trump is a despot. So, these are two very different politicians that have met in the past and have had surprisingly friendly audiences.

[17:55:01]

The president has been complimentary of the mayor before. He has said that he feels comfortable with New York City being led by Zohran Mamdani despite the threats that he made about what would happen to New York City if Zohran Mamdani were to be elected. So, I think we're going to see an interesting meeting.

One thing that is very likely to come up is certainly immigration. That continues to be a pressure point between the two of them. Just last week, the Mamdani administration announced it was suing the Trump administration over one of its immigration policies. The public charge rule changes. And certainly infrastructure, housing, affordability. The other major issue, certainly the one that Mamdani ran on, is very likely to come up. Fred?

WHITFIELD: All right. Gloria Pazmino, thank you so much for that reporting. And thank you, everyone, for joining me today. I'm Fredricka Whitfield. The "CNN Newsroom" continues with Danny Freeman after this.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[18:00:00]

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)