Return to Transcripts main page

Connect the World

Two Gaza Aid Group Sites Reopened for One Hour to Complete Distribution; New Details of Deadly Gaza Aid Incident; Trump Halts New International Student Enrollment at Harvard; SCOTUS Sides with Straight Woman, Making It Easier to File "Reverse Discrimination" Lawsuits; SCOTUS Backs Catholic Charities' Push to Object to State Taxes; New Group in Mexico Oversees Cases of Violence against Women; New German Chancellor to Meet with Trump; European Central Bank Cuts Key Interest Rate; Combs Trial Witness Testifies She Was Hung off Rail of 17-Story Balcony; Dust Plume from Sahara Desert Casts Haze over Caribbean. Aired 10-11a ET

Aired June 05, 2025 - 10:00   ET

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

[10:00:00]

(MUSIC PLAYING)

UNIDENTIFIED MALE (voice-over): Live from CNN Abu Dhabi, this is CONNECT THE WORLD.

ELENI GIOKOS, CNN ANCHOR AND CORRESPONDENT (voice-over): Welcome to our second hour of CONNECT THE WORLD from our Middle East programming

headquarters. I'm Eleni Giokos. I'm in for Becky Anderson.

Right. We begin in Gaza, where a controversial aid operation reopened two of its sites today. And that's after a long, day-long hiatus. The U.S. and

Israel-backed Gaza Humanitarian Foundation says aid distribution was completed within an hour.

Wednesday's pause followed three straight days of Palestinians coming under deadly gunfire on their way to a food distribution site. The GPS said it

would use the time to focus on logistical work to better handle the massive number of Palestinians seeking food.

Also, the foundation said, to give Israeli forces the opportunity to make preparations on the access routes to the centers. The first shooting was on

Sunday. Palestinian health ministry and hospital officials say at least 31 people were killed.

Israel has said no one was killed at or near the distribution site. CNN's Jeremy Diamond has new expert analysis of the sound, the video and

eyewitness accounts of what happened. And here's his exclusive report.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

JEREMY DIAMOND, CNN JERUSALEM CORRESPONDENT (voice-over): Palestinians take cover as pulses of automatic gunfire, crackle overhead. Others try and

crawl to safety as explosions ring out.

For several hours on Sunday, this was the terrifying reality hungry Gazans faced as they tried to reach an American-backed humanitarian aid site in

Southern Gaza, I can up.

We are bringing our food drenched in blood. We are dying to get food, Amin Khalifa (ph) says, amid a hail of gunfire.

The aftermath is grizzly. Bullet riddled bodies lie scattered on the beach as others emerge carrying sacks of aid these men died trying to get. Health

officials and doctors report at least 31 were killed.

17 eyewitnesses told CNN it was the Israeli military that opened fire on the crowd. A CNN analysis of video from the scene, audio of gunfire and

ballistics evidence all point to the Israeli military.

In Gaza, more families made to mourn. They lure us in just to kill us there, this man says. What's happening is wrong. Wrong. Why?

Why are they doing this?

We go there just to get our daily bread and they kill us.

In the pre-dawn hours of Sunday, masses of Palestinians began trekking down Al-Rasheed Street, hoping to be among the first to reach the Gaza

Humanitarian Foundation site in Tel Al-Sultan before limited aid supplies run dry.

But as they reach the Al-Alam roundabout, a hail of gunfire forces people to the ground. Eyewitnesses say much of the gunfire came from tank mounted

machine guns.

We asked a forensic audio expert to analyze the gunfire in that video and this analysis shows bursts of gunfire at a rate of 15 rounds per second.

Weapons experts say that's consistent with the F.N. MAG, a machine gun used by the Israeli military and commonly mounted on Israeli tanks. Those

experts say that rate of fire also appears to rule out weapons used commonly by Hamas. And then you have bullets like this one, which doctors

at Nasser Hospital pulled from the bodies of the dead and the wounded. Weapons experts also say this bullet is consistent with the F.N. MAG.

The Israeli military said they did not fire at civilians while they were near or within the aid site. But that statement is misleading. An Israeli

military official acknowledged Israeli troops did fire toward people about one kilometer away from the aid site. The Al-Alam roundabout where people

were killed is also about one kilometer away from the site. This entire area with an Israeli military base right here is under Israeli control.

This post warns the Israeli military would be active in the area at the time of the shooting. It's from the Gaza Humanitarian Foundation, which

operates the aid site and closely coordinates with the IDF, alerting Palestinians that using the passage before 5:00 A.M. is prohibited. But

they posted it at 4:00 A.M. as people were already being fired upon.

[10:05:00]

Eyewitnesses described volleys of Israeli military gunfire from snipers, tanks and drones beginning as early as 3:00 A.M. on Sunday. More were shot

at 4:30 A.M. Others described being shot as late as 6:30 in the morning.

They were shooting directly at us everywhere, this man says, from the sea, from snipers and from all directions.

Four people were injured and one was immediately killed. I tried to stand up and escape or go back but I was hit in my left side.

I've seen a lot of soldiers in this war. When they want to clear an area or warn you, they shoot around you. But yesterday they were shooting to kill

us.

At Nasser Hospital, fear and pain are still etched across the face of 13- year-old Yazid Musleh (ph), who was wounded by gunfire from a tank his father and brother say was stationed near the aid site.

I saw the tank from afar, Ihab says. He was standing, waving his hands to the tank. And within seconds, gunfire was directed at him and he was lying

on the ground.

Two days later, despite the dangers, tens of thousands of Palestinians continued to stream toward that same aid site, a testament to the hunger

and desperation, still gripping so many.

And once again, in the early hours of Tuesday, dozens were killed en route. This time the Israeli military acknowledging it fired warning shots and

then opened fire, claiming suspects advanced toward troops in a threatening manner.

The military said it was looking into reports of casualties. It need look no further than this boy crying out over his mother's body, begging her to

wake up. Today, she went to get aid. She went to get aid to feed us, he cries and this is what they do to us?

The Americans said, come to the safe area to get your aid. Who should trust them?

As for Amin Khalifa, the man who documented Sunday's gunfire, his quest for survival ended abruptly on Tuesday. He was killed while trying to reach

that aid site once again. He was 30 years old.

DIAMOND: The Israeli military declined to answer questions related to our findings. But as recently as Tuesday, the Israeli military's top spokesman,

General Effie Defrin, categorically denied that the Israeli military opened fire on Sunday, saying it, quote, "simply didn't happen."

But after a week during which more than 60 people were killed while trying to make it to that aid site, according to the Palestinian Ministry of

Health, the Gaza Humanitarian Foundation now says it is having conversations with the Israeli military to, quote, "support civilian

safety."

Among them, a spokesman tells me that they are asking the Israeli military to, quote, "enhance force training and refine internal IDF procedures" --

Jeremy Diamond, CNN, Jerusalem.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

GIOKOS: U.S. President Donald Trump is once again targeting international students at America's oldest university. Mr. Trump signed a proclamation

Wednesday ordering that no new visas be granted to foreign students aiming to study at Harvard.

The White House said the order was made because of, quote, "concerning foreign ties and radicalism" at Harvard. The university called the move

another illegal retaliation by the White House.

We're now joined by Margo Schlanger. She's a professor of law at the University of Michigan and a authority on civil rights issues.

Margo, great to have you with us. And so much happening, frankly, about targeting international students, targeting Harvard. And usually when you

create a policy of this kind, in terms of implementation, it's across the board.

But this is specifically targeted at Harvard. Give me the underpinnings of why this institution is singled out.

PROF. MARGO SCHLANGER, CIVIL RIGHTS EXPERT, UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN: Well, the administration has a story that it tells over and over about its

complaints about Harvard, that it is fostering antisemitism and so on.

This seems very likely not to really be the true state of affairs. But it just repeats that story as it tries retaliatory measure after retaliatory

measure against Harvard. It's tried several; they're mostly in litigation. The most significant one has been enjoined. And now the university is being

threatened with this new visa exclusion.

GIOKOS: Yes. I mean -- and this is specifically for new visas for international students. I guess, if you're a Harvard student, you're an

international student, you're in your second or your third year.

What risks are there to your visa right now?

[10:10:00]

Because there's a lot of fear, not only for students, international students at Harvard but, frankly, for international students across the

United States.

SCHLANGER: Yes. Well, so the retaliatory measure that has been enjoined so far was that the administration tried to rescind Harvard's ability to

sponsor student visas at all. And that was in court for a few hours before a federal district court said, no; we're not going to let that go forward.

We'll put a pause on that one. So this is take two on trying to keep Harvard from having international students. It's only applicable to new

visas. And so somebody who's already there is probably already very afraid because that other case, the one about rescinding Harvard's ability to

sponsor foreign students, is ongoing.

And so that's where the risk to a person who's already there comes from, not so much from this, from this new policy.

GIOKOS: Look, once the precedent is set at Harvard -- and we really don't know whether Harvard's view of this being retaliation from the White House

and whether they have a legal standing on this -- the reality is that international students are still going to want to study in the United

States, are still going to be applying for visas.

These students will still be in the U.S. And if Trump is saying and his administration is saying, look, this is about national security,

essentially these students will still be in the U.S. in some form or other.

So is it really about tackling anti-Semitism or is it about targeting Harvard?

SCHLANGER: Well, I don't think there's any doubt that this is about targeting Harvard, because the vetting that the Trump administration has

done doesn't say, hey, a student who's applying to Harvard can't go somewhere else.

It's all about Harvard. So if a person, the same person applies to come to a different school, there's no policy in place that says that they can't.

So this is not this policy is not about fear of what these particular students might do.

This is very clearly and explicitly -- I'm not drawing inferences. The administration says this is about Harvard. Harvard has refused to do the

things that we want them to do, to give more authority to the administration, to allow the administration to kind of put it into a

protectorate status. It's resisting our control.

And therefore we're going to make that have massive consequences. And so the administration has stripped grants, shut down contracts, tried to shut

down foreign student sponsorship and now it's moving against new visas. So I don't think there's any doubt that this is retaliatory.

GIOKOS: Yes. So in terms of what we saw as well today is that president Trump's proclamation to ban 12 countries from the Middle East to Africa, as

well as the Caribbean, has just come through.

And what we heard is that what sparked this is that, after the anti-Semitic attack in Boulder, Colorado, the suspect in question is Egyptian. Egypt is

not on the banned list.

What do you make of that decision?

SCHLANGER: Well, the president, Trump, announced by an executive order on -- in the first week of his administration, that he was asking the

Department of Homeland Security to engage in a review of vetting procedures and to come up with a list of countries that -- where visa rights would be

restricted.

So I think the timing of this announcement has everything to do with Boulder. And I think the inclusion in the announcement of some countries

that have very high overstay rates, where people get visas and then they come lawfully but then they stay longer than their visa allows them, I

think that's related to the horrific attack in Boulder.

But it's clear that Egypt is now in the line of sight of the Department of Homeland Security but wasn't before. And so we'll see what happens next as

far as Egypt.

I should just say --

(CROSSTALK)

GIOKOS: All right, Margo --

SCHLANGER: -- you know --

GIOKOS: -- great to -- yes. Go ahead.

SCHLANGER: Yes. I just -- this new policy, although I think it's very problematic as a matter of policy, is in a legally very different place

than the Harvard policy that you started off talking. This one, the Supreme Court, the Supreme Court precedents make likely legal. The Harvard one, I

think, is much, much more legally vulnerable.

GIOKOS: All right. Margo Schlanger, great to have you with us. Thank you so much for your insights today.

All right.

[10:15:00]

GIOKOS: We're also following another developing story out of the White House, president Trump and Chinas Xi Jinping spoke on the phone earlier

today, according to a person familiar with the matter.

It follows a long period of silence between the two. Now trade talks between the two countries have stalled since officials from both sides met

last month in Geneva, agreeing to a 90-day tariff truce.

All right, I'll be back with more news in just a moment.

(MUSIC PLAYING)

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

(MUSIC PLAYING)

GIOKOS: Welcome back.

Now the U.S. Supreme Court is working on clearing its docket before the justices take a summer break. They just convened minutes ago and we're

already seeing some major decisions. We've got David Schultz joining us now. He is a professor of political science and legal studies at the

Hamline University of Minnesota.

David, great to see you and thank you so much for joining us on this important day, because we are going to have a flurry of SCOTUS decisions.

So the first one I want to tackle is the Supreme Court shutting down Mexico's lawsuits against American gun makers.

What kind of legal standards is aiding and abetting and how far short did this fall, do you think, on this decision?

Give me a sense of what you're reading into it.

PROF. DAVID SCHULTZ, POLITICAL SCIENCE AND LEGAL STUDIES, HAMLINE UNIVERSITY OF MINNESOTA: OK. What I'm reading at this point is that

there's a law in place in the United States that says that gun manufacturers are not liable for lawsuits if their weapons are used.

Are the things that they manufacture are used for illegal or basically illegal or criminal purposes.

And what the court said today is that that law bars the lawsuit from by Mexico because there's no evidence at this point to indicate that the gun

manufacturers had done anything to what aid and abet or facilitate the trafficking of arms.

And so what the court is basically saying at this point is that, lacking any type of evidence to show that the gun manufacturers knew or

participated in some way in the actual, let's say, distribution or illegal distribution of the guns to, let's say, the gangs in Mexico, federal law is

going to bar this lawsuit.

GIOKOS: OK. So that's the one.

The second decision we've seen that the Supreme Court is going to make it easier for Americans to file reverse discrimination suits. And it has sided

with the Ohio woman who lost a reverse discrimination suit against her employer. Break that down for us.

Because reverse discrimination lawsuits are not new but they definitely getting a lot more attention now that DEI is under the spotlight and

frankly being unraveled.

SCHULTZ: Sure.

So what this case is all about is basically discrimination law. And it's about a standard, what's called the McDonnell Douglas standard; that, if

you want to bring a discrimination suit, you have to generally say that.

[10:20:00]

We think the employer is discriminating against me because of my race or sex or gender or something like that. And then it puts the burden on the

employer to say, no, no, no, I didn't do it for that reason. I did it for some other reason; let's say, performance. OK.

What the court said today is that the way the courts, lower courts, have been applying a standard, to say that if you're a member of a majority

group, that is a white group, that you bear more of an initial burden to show this disparate impact.

The courts as compared to somebody who's a person of color or they call it a minority person. The court said, no, no, no, it's the same standard here.

What this opinion reminds me of or thinking about it here is where, if we go back a couple of years ago to the affirmative action case, Students for

Fair Admission versus Harvard, where the court said, we're not going to allow you to use race for any purpose in terms of admissions or

applications to college.

What the court was doing there was starting to come up with what a race- neutral, colorblind approach to admissions. It's doing the same thing here now.

It is saying that regardless of whether or not you're a person of color, male or female, whatever your sexual orientation, the standard is going to

be the same.

Now does this mean that it increases the burden for everybody?

Or does it lower the burden for people who are non-minority?

It's looking like the latter at this point. But clearly it's significant in terms of changing a well established standard in employment law and

potentially making it easier to do reverse discrimination claims.

GIOKOS: Yes.

Are you expecting more of these claims then, David?

SCHULTZ: Yes, I am, I am.

I mean, what we're really looking at, at this point, if I can just stay with the issue of race, for example, or discrimination cases, the Roberts

court has basically been taking an approach over the last few years of saying that race or racial discrimination -- let's say sex discrimination

and so forth -- should be illegal or unconstitutional.

But that also means that you cannot use it for the purpose of, let's say, remedial purposes. In this case, today, it is a variation of that saying

that, regardless of who you are, the same standard has to be met to be able to prove employment discrimination. That's really changing the law in a

significant way.

GIOKOS: Yes. So, I mean, I want to just take a step back here, because SCOTUS' decision on Mexico's lawsuit against American gun makers as well as

this reverse discrimination suit, there were unanimous decisions.

What does that tell you about the unity of SCOTUS right now?

SCHULTZ: Well, this is really interesting because everybody wants to look at the court in terms of being divided, as, let us say, a 6-3 court, that

is a 6-3 in terms of appointed by Republicans versus Democrats on the court.

The decisions today are suggesting that justice Roberts is doing a very, very good job, at least right now, in terms of trying to get some kind of

sense of unanimous opinions. And this might be that the cases that we're getting today are, believe it or not, maybe the easy ones.

You know, the easy ones where he's been able to bring the court together and form some type of, again, unanimous opinion here. What we still have,

as you pointed out at the top of the hour, is probably about another 25 to 27 opinions that are going to come down.

That might be much more fractious and much more divided at this point. But this is a chief justice who's very, very conscious about the image of the

court, very worried about the fact that it's looking very ideological.

And I think he's working hard to try to form majorities. Notice today that these first two opinions were actually unanimous and issued by justices who

were appointed by Democrats. I think that's also significant to look at today, too.

GIOKOS: That's very telling. Very telling. The other decision that came through, the SCOTUS backing Catholic Charities' pushback to object to state

taxes on religious grounds and clearing the way for a Catholic Charities chapter in Wisconsin to secure an exemption from certain state taxes.

And that's a decision that could expand the type of religious entities entitled to tax breaks.

SCHULTZ: This is very important.

First off, it's important to understand here that there is not a single case that's brought the Roberts court under a free exercise argument; that

is First Amendment free exercise that has lost. Phrased another way, the court consistently rules in favor of free exercise here.

This case does, as you pointed out here, potentially significantly expand the issue of tax breaks for religious organizations. And this becomes kind

of interesting because, about a week or so ago, the Supreme Court deadlocked on a case regarding whether or not taxpayer funds could be used

to fund private religious schools.

[10:25:09]

SCHULTZ: This is suggesting to us that the court is still looking to expand free exercise and might be willing, still in the future, to consider

use of public tax for a variety of religious purposes.

And again, this is a dramatic shift over, let us say, a 50 or 60 year period. If we were to go back, let's say, to the 1960s, the U.S. Supreme

Court was saying no; the establishment clause issues prevent a lot of these types of activities.

Now the Supreme Court is saying that the free exercise clause requires the federal government or state governments to do certain things. And that

actions that single out religious organizations, such as Catholic Charities, violate the free exercise clause of the First Amendment.

This is a big shift, let's say, doctrinally, over not just a few years but let's say over a global sense.

GIOKOS: This was also a unanimous decision. Important to note. So all of these decisions that we've just covered now, all unanimous as SCOTUS has

convened to try and get some of these through before they break for summer.

David Schultz, great to have you with us. Thank you so much for breaking all that news down for us.

SCHULTZ: My pleasure.

GIOKOS: Well, the murder of a young beauty influencer in Mexico who was fatally shot while live on TikTok is drawing new attention to the

astonishing number of femicide cases across the country. CNN's Valeria Leon reports on how the families of victims are trying to raise awareness.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

VALERIA LEON, CNN CORRESPONDENT (voice-over): Valeria Marquez's infectious laughter just moments before it was silenced when the 23-year old was

fatally shot live on TikTok.

The video influencer was addressing fans earlier this month when a gunman entered her beauty salon in the city of Zapopan, in central Mexico. Her

murder has put the scourge of femicide back in the limelight.

But the killing of a woman or girl for gender-based reasons is anything but rare. Every day, an average of seven women are killed in Mexico, a country

with one of the highest femicide rates in the world. That's according to the Executive National Secretariat.

And yet, a recent study found that less than 1 percent of the cases end in a criminal sentence. Behind every woman killed, there's a mother, a father

fighting for justice. But even they are often targeted.

This is the fourth safe house that Lorena Gutierrez and her family have been displaced to after their daughter, Fatima, was brutally raped and

killed in 2015 by three of her neighbors on her way home from school.

"I saw one of my daughter's feet, a sneaker lying sideways in a ditch," Lorena says.

"And I immediately realized that it wasn't just Fatima's sneaker."

Her 12-year old had been mutilated.

"That's how this hell began. That's how they destroyed my little girl and buried her in that ditch," she says.

One of the brothers who committed the murder is currently serving a 73-year sentence. The other one was released after a five-year sentence, arguing he

was a minor when the crime took place.

The third culprit was sentenced to a life in prison, only to be reduced to 70 years last January.

Just as the family reckoned with the possible loss of their daughter in 2020, tragedy struck again when their 15-year old son Daniel died, after

what started out as an abdominal pain, the parents claim he died as a result of medical negligence, a case that's under investigation.

"My child died in my arms," father Jesus Quintana tells me.

"It's horrible for a child to die in your arms and not be able to do anything. You feel helpless."

Then finally, a glimmer of hope for the two parents overwhelmed by pain when Mexico's supreme court recognized them this month as indirect victims

of femicide, granting the couple reparations and paving the way for other victims' families to do the same.

LEON: But justice remains elusive. Here in Mexico City, this monument stands as a tribute to the victims of femicide and also as a reminder that

their families continue to demand answers from the government.

LEON (voice-over): The newly created secretariat, led by Citlalli Hernandez, oversees cases of violence against women.

[10:30:00]

They provide legal counsel for cases involving femicide.

LEON: How do you explain the systematic failure to bring perpetrators of femicide to justice?

"Judges all too easily granting injunctions to offenders, whether it's due to economic pressure or corruption. And as a result, justice cannot be

served. This judicial system, which is often in the hands of those with no interest in justice, has become hindered, especially for women. I believe

the judiciary in Mexico has failed women."

For Fatima's parents, the struggle goes on and their wound feels as fresh as ever -- Valeria Leon, CNN, Mexico City.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

(MUSIC PLAYING)

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

(MUSIC PLAYING)

GIOKOS (voice-over): Welcome back to CONNECT THE WORLD with me. Eleni Giokos. Here are your headlines.

U.S. President Donald Trump has signed a new travel ban that will block people from several countries from entering the United States. It will

fully exclude nationals from 12 countries. And people from seven other countries will be subject to very restrictive entry criteria.

The White House says the ban fulfills a campaign promise to protect Americans from dangerous foreign actors.

NATO defense secretaries are meeting in Brussels today. Secretary general Mark Rutte says the alliance is expected to agree to historic new

capability targets. Many member states showed support for boosting spending to 5 percent of their GDP, as demanded by the Trump administration.

The U.S. Supreme Court issuing rulings on some major cases today. The justices sided with a straight woman who filed a reverse discrimination

lawsuit. And they tossed out a lawsuit from the Mexican government, which wanted to hold U.S. gun makers responsible for cartel violence.

GIOKOS: Israel says it has recovered the bodies of two Israeli American hostages from Gaza in a military operation; 72-year-old Gadi Haggai and his

wife, 70-year-old Judy Weinstein-Haggai, were killed near their home during the October 7th Hamas attack on southern Israel.

Prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu reports the bodies were recovered in a special operation by Shin Bet and the IDF in Khan Yunis. A spokesperson for

kibbutz Nir Oz said their bodies had been returned to Israel and would be laid to rest.

And that leaves 56 hostages remaining in Gaza; 20 are thought to be alive.

Next hour, the new German chancellor is set to meet U.S. president Donald Trump for the first time. Chancellor Friedrich Merz's stop in Washington

coincides with the Trump's high tariff threat against Europe.

[10:35:00]

The Oval Office fireworks with other world leaders, Ukraine and South Africa, this first encounter will definitely be closely watched.

Right. To Berlin and CNN's senior international correspondent Fred Pleitgen.

Fred, great to have you with us. I mean, we've seen the kind of confrontations that occur in the Oval Office.

The question is, what kind of interaction are we expecting to see today?

FREDERIK PLEITGEN, CNN SENIOR INTERNATIONAL CORRESPONDENT: Yes. And those kind of confrontations are exactly what Friedrich Merz says that he wants

to avoid. Certainly the kind of confrontation that we saw between president Trump and the Ukrainian president, Volodymyr Zelenskyy.

And so Merz says actually, the chancellor has been receiving advice on how to try and avoid all of that from German newspapers, from German experts.

He's also apparently been seeking the advice of other European leaders as well on how to talk to U.S. president Donald Trump without agitating Donald

Trump.

But still, of course, getting the very important points across that the Germans feel that they do need to make. And I think one thing that you

spoke about is absolutely correct and certainly very high on Friedrich Merz's agenda.

And that is those tariffs against the European Union, against European companies and countries when it comes to steel. But in general, also the

tariff policy and some of the things that the Trump administration has announced.

Now for Germany, that is exceptionally important because Germany, of course, is a highly industrialized economy and they export a lot of things

made of steel to the United States -- cars but also machine tools and other things as well.

So for Germany, that's of the utmost importance. Even though the actual negotiations over those tariffs are going to be conducted by or in are

already being conducted by the European Union.

Still, Chancellor Merz is going to try to make a point there with president Trump again, hoping things don't get out of control in the public part of

those meetings.

The other big issue, of course, is the war in Ukraine, where Friedrich Merz has been somewhat more bullish than his predecessor, Olaf Scholz, as far as

the delivery of weapons is concerned, as far as aiding the Ukrainians also in producing weapons.

That is funded by Germany but also getting together with other European leaders like French president Emmanuel Macron and the prime minister of

Poland, Donald Tusk, to support the Ukrainians as well.

And there, of course, one of the things and one of the tasks that Friedrich Merz has laid out for himself is trying to get president Trump onside there

with the Europeans. Of course, the Europeans are feeling that the U.S. president might be gravitating more toward Vladimir Putin as far as that

conflict is concerned.

So certainly a tall order. But first and foremost, for the Germans. And this we can read this in pretty much every German publication.

It is getting past the public part of that encounter, of course, also trying to get good books (ph) with Donald Trump as well and then certainly

trying to set off that relationship on better footing than president Trump has had with other European leaders.

Of course, remember, with Angela Merkel, his relations were difficult. And with Olaf Scholz as well, Eleni.

GIOKOS: Yes, I mean, interesting, such an array of things.

You've got this confrontation on the economy playing out. You've got the NATO spending playing out. I mean, there's so much happening on the

sidelines.

But Merz has also been very critical toward Israel about its conduct in Gaza.

Do you think that's going to be on the table as well, Fred?

PLEITGEN: Yes, I think that could be one of the things that's on the table, certainly on the on the sidelines of the table. But you're

absolutely right. It's certainly a lot more critical of the Israelis than, for instance, his predecessor, Olaf Scholz, was.

And certainly a lot more than Friedrich Merz was when he was still on the campaign trail. Of course, the Germans are saying that different things are

happening now in Gaza than were happening before.

One of the things that the Germans are very critical of is that new Israeli offensive in Gaza. And that might be one of the points also that they'll be

talking about as well.

But the core points certainly are going to be economic ones between the Germans and the Americans, especially also because the Germans have such a

big investment in the U.S. automobile sector.

If we look at the big German auto companies, Mercedes, BMW, Volkswagen, Porsche, all of them have large factories in the United States. But, of

course, also import a lot of vehicles to the United States. Those are all essentially now German American car companies.

And that's definitely something that is weighing very heavily on the Germans of what is going to happen with those investments, especially if

those tariffs kick in, Eleni.

GIOKOS: Yes, a lot to be discussed. And we're tracking that story very closely. Fred Pleitgen, great to have you with us. Thank you.

All right. The European Central Bank cut its primary interest rate today against a backdrop of slowing inflation. The rate comes down to 2 percent

from 2.25 percent, the ECB's eighth cut since last June.

Don't be surprised if the latest move in Europe triggers another attack by Donald Trump on the U.S. Federal Reserve. And he's repeatedly criticized

Fed chair Jerome Powell for not bringing U.S. interest rates down.

Joining us we've got CNN's Anna Stewart from London.

[10:40:00]

Anna, great to see you. I mean, look, the Federal Reserve doesn't really follow what the ECB does. Usually. It's the other way around. But I think

it's very telling. You've got the ECB cutting by a quarter of a percent and saying the inflation outlook is looking better, which is interesting. Take

me through --

(CROSSTALK)

ANNA STEWART, CNN CORRESPONDENT: Yes. And this is a bid to stimulate growth really from the ECB. Growth is certainly flagging particularly in

some of the big economies like Germany, France and Italy. This was expected, this rate cut. So 2 percent.

And inflation is on target really; in May actually it was a 1.9 percent. So just under that target. However, this is not the time for celebrations,

according to ECB president Christine Lagarde. Here's what she said in the press conference straight after that.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

CHRISTINE LAGARDE, PRESIDENT, EUROPEAN CENTRAL BANK: Victory laps are always nice. But there is always another battle.

So you know, as I said, I think that, with today's cut and the current level of interest rates, number one, I think we are getting to the end of a

monetary policy cycle that was responding to compounded shocks. But, of course, we are now into a different, different time with different players.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

STEWART: Plenty of uncertainty. And also, it's worth pointing out that inflation lowering in Europe is a particularly interesting story, because

part of that is to do with what's going on in the U.S.; you know, fear of tariffs meant exports to the U.S. weren't actually frontloaded in terms of

data.

Oil prices, of course, are down. The euro exchange rate has been stronger. So there are a few things feeding in there. No change to forward guidance

from the ECB. Perhaps the biggest statement of all, Eleni, perhaps we can bring a picture of Christine Lagarde up from that press conference, was her

necklace, which says very clearly on it, "In Charge."

Not the first time she's worn it but this, this central bank, Christine Lagarde, very much in charge.

GIOKOS: Yes, very much in charge. I was actually admiring how incredible that outfit is. But anyway, that's besides the point.

But Anna, you know, it's interesting she was talking about how it's the bottoming of the cycle. And I think that's very telling, given there is so

much uncertainty going around. So Anna, thank you so much. Always good to have you with us.

Right. More bombshell testimony expected today in the Sean Diddy Combs trial from a witness who says the rapper dangled her from a 17th-story

balcony. That report just ahead. Stay with CNN.

(MUSIC PLAYING)

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

(MUSIC PLAYING)

GIOKOS: More gripping testimony expected from the Sean Diddy Combs racketeering and sex trafficking trial today. Bryana Bongolan is back on

the witness stand next hour and she is a friend of Combs' ex-girlfriend, Cassie Ventura.

On Wednesday, she told jurors the rapper once dangled her from a balcony 17 stories up.

But a defense lawyer challenged her, asking, "You would agree with me that you and Cassie had a serious drug problem?"

[10:45:05]

And she answered, "Yes, we had a problem."

The defense's cross-examination continues today.

And with the Sean Diddy Combs and Harvey Weinstein trials as a backdrop, we're taking a look at the state of the #metoo movement now facing scrutiny

over whether the pendulum has swung too far. CNN's Elizabeth Wagmeister has more.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

TARANA BURKE, FOUNDER, #METOO: We cannot understate what it takes to get somebody as powerful as a Diddy or Weinstein into a courtroom.

ELIZABETH WAGMEISTER, CNN ENTERTAINMENT CORRESPONDENT (voice-over): But some say #metoo itself is on trial.

JOE ROGAN, PODCAST HOST: I can't believe I'm on Harvey Weinstein's side.

WAGMEISTER (voice-over): The movement that changed how the world treats sexual violence and workplace harassment now under scrutiny.

ROGAN: If this had happened in the '80s, it probably would have thrown it out. But in the #metoo movement, they were -- it was a hot witch hunt.

HARVEY WEINSTEIN, CONVICTED RAPIST: And I want to thank you, Candice.

WAGMEISTER (voice-over): Weinstein himself was given a new platform in extreme far right media to reframe some of the 100 public accusations

against him, which include rape, as simply bad behavior.

WEINSTEIN: I'm wrongfully accused but justice has to know the difference between what is immoral and what is legal.

SARAH ANN MASSE, WEINSTEIN ACCUSER: It's so hard to watch something that should not be a political issue become politicized.

WAGMEISTER (voice-over): Now Weinstein accusers, like Sarah Ann Masse, worry his retrial will become a judgment of the #metoo movement.

MASSE: I will be maybe devastated if he's not found guilty. But I think it's also a reminder that no trial outcome can change the truth.

WAGMEISTER (voice-over): Weinstein's case gained momentum last year, when an appeals court overturned his New York conviction, not on the merits of

the accusers but because too many were allowed to testify that weren't directly tied to the case.

BURKE: The people spoke. The judges made a different decision. That's just like, shame on y'all.

WAGMEISTER (voice-over): Tarana Burke, who founded #metoo, says the integrity of the movement is not about outcomes in court.

BURKE: The system was not made for survivors. It was not meant for us.

WAGMEISTER (voice-over): In the Combs trial, where the music mogul pleaded not guilty to all federal charges including sex trafficking, a former

assistant who testified she was raped by Combs spoke of the #metoo reckoning that came later.

WAGMEISTER: She said, quote, "Who was going to believe me?"

This was way before #metoo.

BURKE: I hope people hear that and understand that there's a clear before and after. The courage that it took for people to come forward then really

gave passage to what we see now.

WAGMEISTER (voice-over): Cassie Ventura, the prosecution's star witness, was the first accuser to file a civil lawsuit against Combs outside the

original statute of limitations.

It was only possible with 2022's New York state Look Back Law inspired by the #metoo movement. But Ventura's testimony faced scrutiny for texts that

seemingly show her at times encouraging the abusive behavior that Combs is accused of.

BILL MAHER, HBO TV HOST: If you want us to think you weren't always ready to freak off, don't write, "I'm always ready to freak off."

BURKE: People say, well, why didn't she leave?

Why didn't she quit?

Intimate partner violence and sexual violence go hand in hand. And I'm so glad that that's being foreground in this Diddy trial, so that people can

see the reality of what it looks like to be traumatized in your relationship.

WAGMEISTER (voice-over): Regardless of the verdicts in the Weinstein and Combs trials, Burke says the accusers and their courage have already won.

BURKE: He's never going to be who he was again. He'll never wield that kind of power. He'll never not be the name synonymous with this -- these

horrible acts. You can't unring this bell.

(MUSIC PLAYING)

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[10:50:00]

(MUSIC PLAYING)

GIOKOS: The Australian woman accused of killing her -- three of her in- laws with poisonous mushrooms was cross-examined today, where she acknowledged misleading police on a number of claims that she made. CNN's

Will Ripley has more.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

WILL RIPLEY, CNN SENIOR INTERNATIONAL CORRESPONDENT: This case really is captivating Australia. A mother of two wept on the witness stand Thursday

as her defense team asked her to again deny killing three of her in-laws with a meal containing the deadly poison of a mushroom.

In 2023, Erin Patterson served individually-portioned Beef Wellingtons at a family lunch in the small Australian town of Leongatha. Invited to the

table were Don and Gail Patterson, the elderly parents of her separated husband Simon. Alongside them Gail's sister Heather Wilkinson and her

husband Ian, the local church pastor.

Their meal contained a deadly ingredient -- death cap mushrooms, the world's most poisonous fungi. It grows in the area around that Australian

town.

Prosecutors say only Erin survived the lunch unscathed. Don, Gail and Heather were all killed by the mushrooms. Ian did survive but only after

weeks of intense hospital treatment.

The question of whether Patterson deliberately added death cap mushrooms to the Beef Wellington or by accident has really captivated Australia.

Patterson says she used store-bought mushrooms but then added dried mushrooms from her cupboard for extra flavor. Those mushrooms, she admits,

may have included some she picked herself as part of her foraging hobby. She acknowledges there were death caps in the dry mushroom mix but that she

never meant to pick those.

So here is the key question. Patterson ate the food herself, so how did she survive when the other lunch guests were killed?

On Wednesday afternoon Patterson said she had not eaten too much of the Beef Wellington and she said she was eating it very slowly. Patterson then

said that while cleaning up from lunch she actually binged on leftover dessert, eating almost an entire cake and then forcing herself to throw it

up in line with her earlier experiences of the eating disorder bulimia.

Patterson says she was sick and eventually did go to the hospital but that was not before disposing of a dehydrating device that she says she

routinely used to dry out mushrooms from her foraging trips. Police later found that dehydrator at the local dump with Patterson's fingerprints all

over it and traces of death cap.

The lone survivor of the lunch, Ian Wilkinson, gave evidence that his wife noticed something. Erin was eating from a different colored plate than the

other guests.

The case is set to run through the month when a jury will then have to decide whether Patterson accidentally added poison mushrooms to the meal or

put them there on purpose -- Will Ripley, CNN.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

GIOKOS: Right now, a thick layer of dust from the Sahara Desert in North Africa is being carried on air currents across the Atlantic, impacting air

quality and casting a haze over parts of the Caribbean and the U.S. state of Florida. Forecasters say it is expected to impact other states in the

Gulf Coast in the coming days.

(WEATHER REPORT)

[10:55:00]

GIOKOS: And that's it for CONNECT THE WORLD. I'm Eleni Giokos. Stay with CNN. "ONE WORLD" is up.

END