Return to Transcripts main page
Connect the World
Details Emerge Of Secret U.S. Efforts To Restart Iran Talks; U.S. House Gets Classified Briefing On Iran Strikes; First Friday Prayers In Iran Since U.S. Strikes; U.S. Supreme Court Limits Power Of Lower Courts To Stop Trump Orders; U.S. Senate Parliamentarian Blocks Medicaid Tax Changes; Revved Up For New Formula 1 Movie Starring Brad Pitt. Aired 10-11a ET
Aired June 27, 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]
ANNOUNCER: Live from CNN Abu Dhabi, this is CONNECT THE WORLD, with Becky Anderson.
BECKY ANDERSON, CNN INTERNATIONAL ANCHOR: Well, this hour, a CNN exclusive on secret efforts by the United States to get Iran back to the negotiating
table. Plus, it's the final day of the Supreme Court term in Washington and one of the rulings that we are expecting could have massive implications
for the U.S. Constitution.
Welcome to the second hour of CONNECT THE WORLD from our Middle East programing headquarters. I'm Becky Anderson. Time here just after 6:00 p.m.
We await those key rulings by the U.S. Supreme Court on Capitol Hill. House members are getting a classified briefing on the U.S. strikes on Iran, a
day after a classified Senate briefing. Senators emerged Thursday from that meeting with mixed opinions on the effectiveness of the U.S. strikes on the
nuclear facilities in Iran.
Also today, new exclusive reporting by CNN on the Trump administration's efforts to get Iran back into talks, including a secret meeting at the
White House the day before the U.S. attacks and reported discussion offering Iran access to tens of billions of dollars to build a civil
nuclear program with a very big condition that no enrichment of uranium take place in Iran.
Let's get you CNN's U.S. National Security reporter, Zachary Cohen. He's back with us this hour.
Those briefings for members of Congress going on at present. So we'll park that. Let's talk about the details as you understand them of these secret
talks to effectively get Iran back to the negotiating table.
Look, no enrichment has been a major sticking point today in any progress on these talks. So is there a sense that the strikes on Iran's nuclear
facilities and the added pressure that Israel has brought to bear on Iran has provided a window for more leverage with Iran on this enrichment issue?
ZACHARY COHEN, CNN NATIONAL SECURITY CORRESPONDENT: Yes, Becky, that's certainly what the Trump administration believes. And it's all dependent on
how long this ceasefire between Israel and Iran can hold. So the Trump administration really juggling a couple different issues at the same time
that they see, though, as part of the comprehensive effort to pursue a broader peace agreement with Iran and one that will prevent it from
obtaining a nuclear weapon in the future.
We've talked a lot in recent days about the effectiveness and the damage caused by those U.S. military strikes, but really, there is a wide
consensus that a long term solution to Iran's nuclear program is rooted in diplomatic talks. And that's something that we're told that Trump
officials, along with their Middle Eastern partners, have been continuing to pursue in the days since that ceasefire was agreed to between Israel and
Iran.
But it's been framed to us as a continuation of an intense diplomatic effort that really picked up on the day before that U.S. operation striking
three Iranian nuclear facilities where sources described to us as secret meeting that Trumps top Middle Eastern envoy, Steve Witkoff, held with Gulf
partners at the White House on Friday, 24 hours before those U.S. B-2 bombers hit those Iranian targets.
And they -- it was -- the meeting was about drafting a proposal or coming up with ideas for how the U.S. could draw Iran back to the table.
Obviously, Iran has insisted it will not negotiate directly with the United States as long as it's under fire. But we're learning that some of these
draft proposals, and officials say that there are several and they're evolving, do include incentives for Iran if it does agree to engage in
direct talks.
One of the newest and I think maybe controversial incentives is this willingness on the U.S. side to potentially allow Iran access to $20
billion to $30 billion for a new civilian nuclear energy program. Now, that's something that U.S. officials stress will not have enrichment
capability, but would maybe provide Iran with a way to separate civilian nuclear energy production from the fears over weaponization.
Now, the other incentives that U.S. officials are considering, along with their intermediaries who are communicating these to the Iranian side, are a
potential easing of sanctions on Iran and also potentially unfreezing billions of dollars in restricted funds, similar to what Republicans have
criticized about the Obama-era JCPOA deal, which also focused on Iran's nuclear program and was ultimately repealed by Donald Trump.
[10:05:00]
So a lot of different and complex issues being hashed out at once here. I think this number one priority is effectively maintaining this ceasefire
between Iran and Israel, the country of Qatar has proven to be an essential player in helping do that so far. And then the next issue is this question
of, will the Iranians agree to come back to the table, and will the U.S. come up with enough incentive, but also apply enough pressure to get them
to do so, it remains to be seen.
Donald Trump has said that he -- that talks with Iran could resume as early as next week. Officials on both sides of the table tell us that no firm
date is set, so still a lot up in the air here as we continue to focus in on this issue.
ANDERSON: Yes, and Iran certainly not confirm they are willing to talk at this point. So -- but we will see what happens in the day ahead -- days
ahead. Thank you very much indeed.
Right. More on that classified briefing underway this hour in the U.S., Annie Grayer is on Capitol Hill.
What did we hear?
ANNIE GRAYER, CNN CORRESPONDENT: Well, House lawmakers are currently getting briefed. Well, House lawmakers are currently getting briefed in
this classified briefing, a briefing that has been delayed that lawmakers have been asking for for days. The briefers include Secretary of State
Marco Rubio, Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs and CIA director John Ratcliffe.
Now, these are the same briefers who briefed senators yesterday where Republicans and Democrats walked out of that exact same briefing with very
different opinions on what the briefers had to say. Republicans largely backed President Trump's claims that the strikes had obliterated Iran's
nuclear capabilities. But Democrats like Senator Chris Murphy said that he did not have that impression from the briefers and that it is way too soon
to make these kind of broad, sweeping statements.
So that raises questions about how lawmakers could be in the same room but get such different opinions from the -- from hypothetically, the same
information. And before this House briefing, I caught up with House Speaker Mike Johnson, who told me that he is working on ways to restrict what
classified information lawmakers will have access to going forward in response to President Trump's demands to limit that access.
Take a listen to what the speaker told me.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
REP. MIKE JOHNSON (R-LA): We're looking into that. It's a real problem. Clearly, there was a leak and we can't have that. You're dealing with
national security matters.
GRAYER: Do you think that, you know, there shouldn't be these full member wide classified briefings going forward? Is that one of the options?
JOHNSON: Well, it probably affects what we're able to be told because there are, you know, there are real risk to that. So it's unfortunate. It affects
how the institution works. And that's a problem. So we've got to address it.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
GRAYER: So that's Johnson telling me that the all member briefing that House lawmakers and Senate lawmakers sat in yesterday and today might not
be happening going forward. He didn't rule that out. So there is a larger question of how classified information is going to be coming to the Hill
going forward.
ANDERSON: Good to have you. Thank you.
Well, today marks the first Friday since those U.S. strikes on Iran. Thousands came out for Friday prayers and to express their anger at the
United States and Israel.
Fred Pleitgen was there.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
FREDERIK PLEITGEN, CNN SENIOR INTERNATIONAL CORRESPONDENT: Here at Friday prayers, the prayer leader has been ripping into the United States and
ripping into Israel as well. The Iranians are saying they believe that they imposed the ceasefire on the U.S. and Israel because their military was so
strong. Many of the folks here chanting, "Death to America and death to Israel."
(Voice-over): "The great nation of Iran showed resistance in these 12 days," he says, "bringing the enemy to its knees. God willing, the weak
enemy will be defeated even more." And he says, "We will roll you out of this region with the permission of God."
The concept of martyrdom is hugely important here in the Islamic Republic of Iran. We're currently at an event where hundreds of mothers hold their
babies into the air to show that they're willing to offer them as martyrs for God and for Imam Hussein. And this goes back to the early days of
Shiite Islam, where Imam Hussein, when he was besieged in Karbala, he held up his newborn baby and asked the enemy that was besieging Karbala to give
the baby water and instead the enemy killed the baby.
It's a very important story here in Iran. And of course, all of this takes on an even greater importance now that Iran is involved in that standoff
with Israel and the United States. This is an annual event that takes place every year. But folks that we've been speaking to say that for them this
year, it's even more important.
[10:10:02]
(Voice-over): "We want to show them we are not scared of anything," she says, "and will support our state until they are destroyed." And she says,
"They need to know that imam Hussein is our everything and we should sacrifice our lives for Imam Hussein."
"This is a symbol saluting Imam Hussein," she says, who's the leader of all the oppressed who stand against oppressors and don't submit.
And just to show how big this is in Iran right now, the crowd here was chanting, "Death to America, death to Israel," and there was even a
children's choir that was singing songs as videos were shown of Iran's missile program in action in that 12-day war against Israel. And of course,
also when the Trump administration carried out those strikes against Iranian nuclear installations. In total, right now, as this conflict is
taking place, all of this extremely important to the folks here.
Fred Pleitgen, CNN, Tehran.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
ANDERSON: Well, while Israel is -- Israel's prime minister was quick to declare a, quote, "great victory" for his country against Iran, the path to
a resolution in Gaza is still unclear, and tensions remain in the wider region.
Last hour, I spoke to veteran foreign correspondent Kim Ghattas. I asked her if she could see further normalization deals or further signing of some
sort of normalization deal with Israel. Take a listen.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
KIM GHATTAS, CONTRIBUTING WRITER, THE ATLANTIC: My short answer is no. I think Lebanon and Syria will come under a lot of pressure for -- from the
United States to sign some kind of agreement with the Israelis, whether it's a security agreement or normalization agreement. I don't see it
happening. I know there are talks between the Syrians and the Israelis on security issues. But, you know, Lebanon is very far from agreeing to any
peace deal with Israel.
I think the lead will have to be taken by the Saudis. They have some of their own demands, including towards the United States. I think they still
want their defense pact and so on. And I think it's important to point out, Becky, Saudi Arabia is not joining the Abraham Accords. Saudi Arabia
doesn't join anything. They want their own peace deal, normalization deal, whatever we want to call it.
And they bring with them, you know, 22 Arab countries and billions of Muslims. So Saudi Arabia will take the lead, and then Lebanon and Syria
will potentially join that. But the Israelis always try to do side deals. And it's been historical pattern with Israelis to do side deals that ignore
the Palestinian question. So if Saudi Arabia is going to insist on a Palestinian state in return for normalization or with establishing ties
with Israel, the word normalization is a little bit of an odd one.
It's become jargon, but establishing ties between Saudi Arabia and Israel, if that is a requirement of Saudi Arabia to have a Palestinian state, then
yes, the Israelis and the Americans are going to try to see whether they can pressure Lebanon and Syria into signing something with Israel. I think
that will be very difficult, despite all the pressure. And it will again ignore the core of this issue.
The core of the problem, which is the historical injustice done to Palestinians with the Israeli -- continued Israeli occupation and the
devastation of two years of war, almost two years of war in Gaza.
ANDERSON: I do want to talk about potential talks between the U.S. and Iran as well. All of this, of course, is connected. In an interview yesterday,
Iran's foreign minister responded to White House comments on talks. Have a listen.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
ABBAS ARAGHCHI, IRANIAN FOREIGN MINISTER (through translator): No agreement has been made to resume negotiations now. I'm stating clearly that no
agreement has been made. No promise has been made, nor have we talked to all about restarting negotiations. But the fact that we are examining among
ourselves what is in the interest of the Iranian people is another discussion. So far, there has been no agreement, no subject for
negotiation.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
ANDERSON: The landscape today, of course, very different from that which it was two weeks ago before the Israeli strikes and consequent American
strikes on the nuclear facilities. Iran now not only pushing back on the possibility of talks, but pushing back on the possibility for the moment of
access by the IAEA back into Iran to assess the state of the nuclear program and the infrastructure there.
What options do you feel Iran has at the moment? How do you read their calculus?
GHATTAS: I want to pick up on a few words that we just heard there. We will study what is in the interest of the Iranian people. I don't think the
Iranian regime, the leadership of the Islamic Republic is doing much in the interest of its own people.
[10:15:06]
Otherwise it would very quickly engage in talks, make concessions on its nuclear program, and lift so many of the restrictions and the oppressive
measures it has taken against its people.
And I think it's important to point out, Becky, that at the moment the Iranian people feel like they're, you know, a ball that is being tossed
around by their leadership, the Americans, the Israelis, the Gulf countries, and they've just lived through 12 days of horrific war, feeling
abandoned by the world, by their own leadership, even if we saw some sort of nationalism and rallying around because Iranians were not waiting to be
liberated by an Israeli bombing campaign.
And I think that the move towards a pushing for change from within the Iranian -- from within Iran has been set back. I suspect that the Iranian
regime will now clamp down even further because its key goal is survival, and that's what they're going to be studying. Should they make some
concessions, get access to those funds that have been frozen so that they can ensure their own survival? That's what they will be looking at very
closely, how to achieve that.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
ANDERSON: Kim Ghattas.
Well, breaking news to bring you from the U.S. Supreme Court. There's a ruling on a major case just in.
Let's get some legal analysis on this. David Schultz is a constitutional law expert, a professor at Hamline University in Minnesota.
David, you've been reading through this ruling. Just explain what we have here and what you understand at this point.
DAVID SCHULTZ, U.S. CONSTITUTIONAL LAW EXPERT: OK. So it's a long opinion, but there were two issues going into this case. One of them was whether or
not an executive order could overturn what's called birthright citizenship. That is, citizenship conveyed on individuals who are born in the United
States. And then the second question was regarding whether or not a federal court could issue what's called a universal injunction to basically prevent
the government from being able to act in certain cases, such as here, moving to deport people who they claim were not citizens.
The court avoids the issue of addressing the constitutionality of the executive order, so it doesn't rule on the merits of birthright
citizenship. Instead, its focus is on the universal injunction. And here I'm going to describe this as a win for the Trump administration because
what the Supreme Court says is neither under the Constitution nor under what's called the Judiciary Act of 1789 is there any evidence that lower
courts have the authority to issue injunctions or prevent the government from acting beyond how it affects the particular parties in the case.
And this is a big win, I think, actually, for the Trump administration, because going into the Supreme Court case, they realized that they were
probably going to lose on the merits of the executive order but were hoping that they could say that, well, courts can only issue injunctions in
particular cases affecting particular parties. So this is a narrow opinion written, by the way, by Amy Coney Barrett.
Many of us were suspecting it would be written by Chief Justice Roberts, but it also was essentially a 6 to 3 opinion falling down along the
partisan or ideological lines that most people thought that the case was going to come down upon to.
ANDERSON: Before we get into the dissents, because Justice Sotomayor has dissented, and I've got a small part of what she said, I just want to step
back for a moment and be very clear about this. Why is it that you believe that this is a win for Donald Trump when it comes to birthright
citizenship?
SCHULTZ: OK, OK. So the reason why it's a win, had the court said universal injunctions are in place, what would it have allowed it to happen here is
that one party bringing a case saying you can't deport me would have prevented the president or the, let's say, the Justice Department or INS or
ICE, I should say ICE, from being able to deport anybody for possible violations of this act. Instead, what it's now going to say is that for
each particular act of efforts to try to deport, there's going to have to be an individual case, individual, let's say, litigation. And the courts
can only prevent a deportation in that particular case.
This is going to make it much more costly and difficult, where each party facing deportation is going to have to now fight the deportation itself, as
opposed to this issue getting resolved, let's say, by one case now.
[10:20:10]
ANDERSON: Right.
SCHULTZ: So that's one issue. And then the other issue is going to be here is that how this potentially now adds a lot of court cases to the
immigration courts in the United States. But certainly this is what the Trump administration wanted because it now has the resources to be able to
bring lots of cases and hope that many situations people don't have the resources to be able to challenge them.
ANDERSON: Stand by. I want to bring in some more legal minds into this conversation. You can never have enough, of course. Raul Reyes, attorney
who writes frequently for CNN's opinion page, and Joseph Moreno is a former prosecutor for the U.S. Department of Justice.
You all have heard David's thoughts there on this ruling.
Raul, let me start with you. Your initial response to what we've just seen.
RAUL REYES, ATTORNEY AND CNN OPINION WRITER: Right. I would echo his sentiments that for now this is a win for the Trump administration.
Whatever you think about the ruling, it is basically what they wanted. And again, I think it's so important to emphasize this is not a ruling on the
merits of birthright citizenship. The court was really just looking at whether or not federal courts, the lower courts in the U.S., can issue
these nationwide universal injunctions.
The relief that now people going forward will have is to bring litigation on their own. And we think of that as potentially hundreds of thousands of
cases. However, remember, we are talking about, when we are talking about undocumented people, their children, people in the U.S. temporarily, it
will be extraordinarily difficult for them to mount cases. States cannot bring class actions on behalf of such people.
So in my view, it will be a tremendous hardship for them to seek relief from -- seek relief from the courts going forward. I think the average
American has difficulty in many cases, finding a lawyer to litigate their case when they come into a legal situation. The idea that undocumented
people and their children can now seek relief through the federal court system and beyond, practically speaking is really a hard concept to wrap my
mind around.
And even though this what's interesting about this case, it is involving immigration. But at a broader level, it's about presidential power. It's
about redefining, at least temporarily, who is an American. And it's about the role of the judiciary as a check on executive authority.
ANDERSON: Joseph, as a former prosecutor for the U.S. Department of Justice, how do you assess this ruling through that lens?
JOSEPH MORENO, FORMER U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE PROSECUTOR: Well, I think it's a showing of how important it is when you get Supreme Court
confirmations of a certain ideology. Right? I mean, this is exactly the 6 to 3 majority when you look at conservatives versus progressives on the
court, and it shows that those nominations that are so fought bitterly are really important when it comes time to actually rule on cases.
And I agree with, you know, my colleagues here. I mean, this is a big win for the Trump administration. I think it's frustrating that the 14th
Amendment birthright citizenship issue was not decided on the merits. Hard to believe since 1868 it's never precisely been ruled on, but not
surprising. This is actually very consistent with the court, where they want to keep their decisions narrow.
But as far as effectively ending these nationwide injunctions, short of certifying as a class action, which is difficult, it effectively puts to
rest that process of being able to go to any district judge, all 680 of them across 94 districts, and getting what you want.
ANDERSON: David, the opinion says this, and I think everybody is just getting an opportunity to just read in here, the court grants the
government's applications for a partial stay of the injunctions entered below, but only to the extent that the injunctions are broader than
necessary to provide complete relief to each plaintiff.
My team is reading this as I am as restricting the lower courts. Correct? Are we right in saying that? And as you read through more of this, what
else is jumping out at you?
SCHULTZ: Well, I think you're correct in reading. And just to remind people here is that as one of my professors used to say, you know, cases are all
about two parties, you know, party A versus party B fighting about something here, and what the court is saying here, the Supreme Court
appears to be saying here is that any injunctions should only apply to the particular parties in the case, which means in this case here, as I'm
reading, my colleagues want to say something different here, the court is saying that the injunction that was issued in this particular case here
only applies to the parties here, but not applies to anybody else who's, let's say, similarly situated or is also seeking relief from deportation.
[10:25:22]
So this is also a, at the same time, expansion of executive power. It is a significant shrinkage, I would argue, of judicial power in the United
States. And this is going to have big implications, not just for Trump but for -- Trump administration, but for U.S. politics going forward because it
has been a practice to be able to find that one district court in the country, or one judge to be able to get a ruling that applies across the
country.
But here, this is going to really put in a situation where not just with immigration, but with a whole bunch of issues now where I think the court
hasn't thought through, I think, well the implications of what this means in terms of how much more of a burden this is going to place not just on
plaintiffs, but on judges across the United States and courts. There's going to be a lot more litigation in this area.
ANDERSON: I do think for our viewers' sake, we once again, as ever with these SCOTUS rulings, need to step back and just remind ourselves, and I'll
start with you, Raul, what does this actually mean in terms of birthright citizenship? That's the big -- that's the big issue here, even if it's not
the specific legal issue, that this ruling is about process and sort of logistics.
REYES: Exactly.
ANDERSON: But behind that is a huge contentious issue in the United States at this point.
REYES: Exactly. Exactly. It's not so much a contentious issue in the United States because birthright citizenship has been in the Constitution. It's
been settled law for 125 years. However, in this case, although it turned on legal and some procedural issues, it's impossible to ignore the
practical impact. What this potentially means going forward that people around the country, as I'm reading through this very thick opinion, it
potentially means that some people will be subject -- subjected to President Trump's executive order and other people, depending on what
states they were in or whether they were part of the original plaintiff class will not.
And think about this. In the United States, every year there are something like 200,000, 225,000 children born on American soil to undocumented
parents or people here temporarily. That is the group of people writ large that could be impacted by this decision in the moment, although the case
won't be decided maybe for a few years. In the meantime, what will happen to these children born on U.S. soil in the meantime? Will they -- will
their citizenship be questioned from state to state? Will it be -- will they be a U.S. citizen in one state? And if they move, not in another?
And although that seems like a radical idea, well, in my opinion it is, the idea that your that your rights could change from state to state, we have
seen this before with the Dobbs decisions, where American women now, their right to reproductive care, it does change from state to state. Only now we
are talking about something as fundamental as citizenship here.
ANDERSON: Joseph, where does this leave the executive order?
MORENO: Well, it's going to make its way through the courts now on the merits. And I think it's -- I'll take issue with one thing that was said. I
think the 14th Amendment language has largely been read a certain way, but the courts have never truly ruled on its precise language, which is someone
who's born in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof. And there's an argument to say that if your parents are here temporarily
and they're citizens of another country, that that language carves out that birthright citizenship that's been taken for granted so long.
Now, I don't know how that will go. It'll probably go with the way the amendment has been read all these 150 years. But that issue has yet to be
determined, which is really fascinating. And so it will work its way up through the courts. And I think ultimately in a few years, the court will
have to grapple with what it did not decide on today, which is what precisely does that language in the 14th Amendment confer in terms of
citizenship? And should we deviate from the way it has been read these past 150 years? And then one more thing, retroactively, what does happen to the
people in the meanwhile, which is a tough question.
[10:30:08]
ANDERSON: David, I've got another line from the majority ruling here. So let's get that for our viewers. You will have seen this. When a court
concludes that the executive branch has acted unlawfully, the answer is not for the courts to exceed its power, too. That's Justice Amy Coney Barrett
writing. She went on, quote, "The court today puts an end to the increasingly common practice of federal courts issuing universal
injunctions."
Does this ruling, restricting lower courts from issuing nationwide decisions, does that mean that every single court across the country will
be hit with these suits about alleged unconstitutional issues? I mean, that is going to clog the court system surely, if that's the case.
SCHULTZ: That's certainly the case here. I mean, what's interesting about Amy Coney Barrett's line is I could almost read that juxtaposed to perhaps
the most famous line in U.S. Supreme Court history from Marbury versus Madison that says it's clearly the province of the court to declare what is
constitutional. And I say that because under Marbury, which is considered the most foundational case in American law, it does seem to assert broad
authority for the courts to be able to check presidential power when it's exceeded its authority.
Here this is almost as if the court is trying to avoid a conflict with the president of the United States, as opposed to saying that it's our job to
make a decisions about constitutionality. And it's also in the process here similarly limiting lower courts, creating, as I pointed out here, this
potential for significantly more litigation. And in the process, I think what the court is hoping is that over the next several years, as this case
works -- these cases work through the court that maybe at some point Trump is no longer president, maybe the executive orders rescinded.
I think it's trying to avoid a direct conflict with the president. But in the process, as my colleagues are saying here also, it's placing
potentially hundreds of thousands of people in limbo regarding their status. And this is really backing away in terms of how the court decided
to act today, backing away from, again, what I think is the most foundational principle of what the federal courts are supposed to be about,
declaring the constitutionality of laws.
ANDERSON: Very significant decision by the Supreme Court, ruling just in the past half hour.
Raul, Justice Sotomayor dissents, writing, and I quote, "The gamesmanship in this request is apparent, and the government makes no attempt to hide
it. Yet, shamefully, this court plays along."
What does she mean? And are dissents normally that strongly worded?
REYES: Yes. Well, increasingly and lately I would say yes. But I think I get what she means. These cases, when these questions were in the lower
courts three times, in Massachusetts, in Maryland, in the state of Washington, the Trump administration lost in all of those cases. They
bypassed the Court of Appeals. In a different court, in a different Supreme Court makeup, it's not even clear that the highest court would have even
accepted this case.
But the Trump administration, I think their sense correctly, as it turned out, is that this court, the conservative majority, is generally favorable
to their view of expanding presidential power. So in my view, what Sotomayor is saying is that the administration, in a sense, is taking
advantage of what they see as a favorable climate at the at the makeup of the court right now and has moved quickly because we've had nationwide,
universal injunctions used in the last five different administrations with a different court makeup, when federal courts have challenged, for example,
President Biden or President Obama's executive orders, then the Supreme Court did not allow, did allow, excuse me, did allow these executive orders
to go ahead that that stopped things like the expansion of DACA and some provisions of Obamacare.
But now the court, in a sense, is reversing. And it's hard to see it or not on outside of ideological lines. They are saying that national injunctions
are not cool when they're done by more liberal courts around the country. But they are all right if they're coming -- that they are not all right
when they're coming from the progressive judges. And I can't emphasize enough that what we are potentially creating here is this self-perpetuating
underclass of stateless children.
[10:35:07]
They will not be American citizens in some places. They have no connection to the countries of origin. And going forward, it's just going to be a mess
to sort out what their citizenship will be, where they belong, and whether or not they indeed are Americans.
ANDERSON: Joseph, your final thoughts, if you will. And to Raul's point there, how many kids are we actually talking about here?
MORENO: Thousands. It's an issue that does need to be resolved on the merits. So I think -- and I think this is frustrating for those of us that
would have liked to see that. I understand the court's predisposition to take literal readings of things, but they do also have to take the
practical realities. And I do think that the -- those that are in between, kind of stuck in between, I think are going to be in a really tough spot.
Ultimately Congress has to figure this out also about the national injunction issue. Remember, other than the Supreme Court, which is created
by the Constitution, all the district courts are created by Congress, and Congress can fix this ultimately by saying, yes, there is a need for
national injunctions in certain circumstances. Here's how to do it. Maybe it's a panel. Maybe they'll go to the D.C. circuit. Maybe they get fast
track to the Supreme Court. But ultimately, our lawmakers really need to step in here and figure this out.
ANDERSON: Look, we couldn't have done this without you guys. A big decision by the Supreme Court today. Impactful and important that we get really good
analysis on this for our viewers around the world. Thank you.
We are going to take a very short break. Stay with us.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
ANDERSON: Welcome back. You're watching CONNECT THE WORLD with me, Becky Anderson. Here are your headlines.
And a major ruling coming from the Supreme Court this hour, stemming from a case over the enforcement of Donald Trump's birthright citizenship order. A
majority of the justices backed President Trump's effort to curtail lower court orders that have hampered his agenda. However, they signaled that the
president's controversial plan to effectively end birthright citizenship may never be enforced.
Well, U.S. House members are getting a classified briefing today on the U.S. strikes in Iran from Trump administration officials. The Senate got
their briefing yesterday. And afterwards, Republicans seemed to back President Trump's insistence that the attacks obliterated Iran's nuclear
program. Democrats expressed skepticism over that claim.
Well, multiple sources tell CNN the Trump administration has been engaged in secret efforts to get Iran back to the negotiating table. U.S. envoy
Steve Witkoff and U.S. Gulf allies reportedly met at the White House a day before U.S. strikes, and discussed options, including allowing Iran access
to billions of dollars to build a civil nuclear program without uranium enrichment.
[10:40:06]
Well, the U.S. and China may have resolved a major sticking point in their trade negotiations. Beijing is signaling that it will approve a deal to
export rare earth minerals to the United States. Now, these minerals are in -- they're essential in the production of a wide range of high tech items,
from electronics to fighter jets, and have been a source of friction between the two nations until now at least.
Let's take a look at where some of those Asian markets close the trading day. And a really a very mixed picture there, which is likely the reason
we've seen a less than enthusiastic, I will say, less than enthusiastic start to the trading day in the U.S. The futures market had indicated a
flat to sort of slightly higher start. So the markets are in better shape than they were an hour or so ago. But again, you know, the idea that the
U.S. and China are anywhere close to a sort of full trade deal, which is not the suggestion here, of course, but at least this is a sort of, you
know, a step in the right direction.
Perhaps investors might have been expected to buy into these markets a little more. Anyway, that is the picture. Dow up three quarters of 1
percent. Nasdaq up just over half. And the S&P around the same. And that S&P market sitting at an all-time highs or thereabouts at present.
Well, President Trump's domestic agenda is facing a possible setback. The Senate parliamentarian whose job it is to see that the Senate follows its
own rules, struck down key parts of his big, beautiful bill. According to a White House official, the president is planning to stay in Washington this
weekend to keep up the pressure on Senate Republicans as they work through the weekend. They promise to rewrite it. They are hoping to have it ready
for his signature on July the 4th.
On Thursday, the president hit out at Republicans who are holding out against the bill.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
DONALD TRUMP, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: I shouldn't say this, but we don't want to have grandstanders where one or two people raise their vote.
We are, we vote no. And they do it to grandstand, that's all. Not good people. They know who -- who I'm talking about. I call them out. But we
don't need grandstanders.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
ANDERSON: Parliamentarian says some provisions of the bill don't meet Senate rules of the kind of legislation that can pass with a simple
majority.
Even before this setback for the bill, the proposed changes to Medicaid were drawing opposition from Democrats and even some Republicans because of
the impact they could have on their home states.
Jeff Zeleny went to Missouri to find out more.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
COURTNEY LEADER, DAUGHTER RELIES ON MEDICAID: I know that they're saying that they're not planning to cut Medicaid, right? I reached out, concerned
that if any changes are made, there will be this trickle-down effect that will impact families like mine.
JEFF ZELENY, CNN CHIEF NATIONAL AFFAIRS CORRESPONDENT (voice-over): The front lines of the Medicaid debate are right here in Courtney Leader's
kitchen.
What is the face of Medicaid, do you think? And is it different than you think some people may assume?
LEADER: I mean, we are the face of Medicaid.
ZELENY (voice-over): The Missouri mother of five wrote her Republican senator, Josh Hawley, to explain how slashing benefits would be devastating
to her 9-year-old daughter, Serena, who lives with brain damage and cerebral palsy.
LEADER: Our private insurance won't cover the formula. It doesn't cover the feeding tube pump. The hit on our budget, it would be over $1500 a month
just for the formula, just for the pump rental. And those are things that we have to have to keep my daughter alive.
There's my beautiful smile.
ZELENY: We came along for the ride, sitting behind Serena's nurse, who's funded by Medicaid, as they drove to weekly therapy sessions, also paid by
Medicaid, which more than one in five Missourians rely on for health coverage.
LEADER: We cannot let people like my daughter lose her benefits. And if anybody tells you that, oh, she's covered, she's protected, I would really
encourage you to say how. What provisions have you made to make sure that those who meet eligibility requirements are covered?
ZELENY: We visited Ozarks Food Harvest, which distributes food across one third of Missouri.
What is the demand like for food?
BART BROWN, CEO, OZARKS FOOD HARVEST: Unfortunately, Jeff, right now the demand for food is quite a bit higher than it was even at the height of the
COVID crisis.
ZELENY (voice-over): Congress is weighing billions in cuts to food assistance programs like SNAP, once known as food stamps. That will
increase demand at already crowded food pantries like this.
How important is this food to you?
JUNE OWENS, MARSHFIELD, MISSOURI, RESIDENT: Well, it really helps us get through the month, and they have a good variety of things.
ZELENY: Your husband got hurt in an accident?
OWENS: Yes, he fell between 10 and 11 feet, landing on top of his head, but it kind of changed everything.
[10:45:01]
We were in the process of getting all our ducks in a row, so to speak, for retirement. And then he got hurt really bad and it just upside-downed
everything. And so food pantries do that -- have helped us through the situation.
ZELENY (voice-over): Another hotly contested piece of the spending bill is deep cuts to rural hospitals. Inside a maternity ward in Clinton, Missouri,
Dr. Jennifer Blair worries for her patients.
DR. JENNIFER BLAIR, GOLDEN VALLEY MEMORIAL HEALTHCARE: Missouri has the fourth largest number of maternity care deserts. We actually are surrounded
by several maternity care deserts. That's defined as a county that has no or very limited access to obstetric services for their patients. If we were
to lose that access, the birthing center here at Golden Valley, our patients would have to travel more than 60 miles.
CRAIG THOMPSON, CEO, GOLDEN VALLEY MEMORIAL HEALTHCARE: Four out of five babies that are delivered in our hospital are covered by Medicaid. And
that's not unique to us.
ZELENY: Craig Thompson is CEO of Golden Valley Memorial. He said many rural hospitals in Missouri and across the country are at high risk for closure.
Is your hope for what happens over the next couple of weeks in Washington in this debate?
THOMPSON: Well, I think the thing that, again, would be beneficial is for better understanding of who Medicaid serves and what the real Medicaid face
looks like because, again, I think that's been lost somewhere along the way.
ZELENY (voice-over): Courtney Leader shares that hope, too.
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Good girl. Oh, my goodness.
LEADER: I do not have my daughter enrolled on Medicaid so that we can have fancy things. I have my daughter enrolled in Medicaid so that we can keep
her alive.
ZELENY: What do you worry about the most?
LEADER: I'm worried that the red tape is going to affect our Medicaid because of just the oversight burdens, and that as a result, I'm going to
lose my daughter.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
ZELENY (on-camera): Now, these are many of the real-world implications from the bill that could have a real effect on people's lives. Now, even as the
Senate works into the weekend to try and make changes to the bill, President Trump is calling any naysayers grandstanders and urging for a
quick vote. But Republicans also have deep questions about these Medicaid cuts and how they would affect their constituents. That was so clear as we
traveled through Missouri.
Jeff Zeleny, CNN, Washington.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
ANDERSON: Well, we will be right back after this.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
ANDERSON: Well, the composer of one of the most iconic theme songs ever has passed away. 93-year-old Lalo Schifrin died peacefully at his home on
Thursday after battling pneumonia, according to his son. Over the course of his long and successful career, Schifrin won four Grammys and six Oscars
and wrote more than 100 arrangements for film and television.
Well, billionaire Jeff Bezos and Lauren Sanchez are about to tie the knot in Venice. The event has drawn celebrities and protesters to the Italian
city. Reports say the wedding ceremony will take place today with a party on Saturday. Among the A-list celebrities attending, Oprah Winfrey, actor
Orlando Bloom, singer Usher, Kim and Khloe Kardashian, Ivanka Trump, the list goes on. But the lavish celebration has also sparked protests.
[10:50:02]
Well, "F1" the movie releases today in the United States, and with Brad Pitt in the driving seat, it will surely be revving up the adrenaline. The
movie was filmed extensively in Abu Dhabi over the course of three separate production visits over the course of several weeks. 284 local crew members
were involved, including 15 young interns selected to work on the project. All 10 Formula One teams were engaged in the production. It's Warner
Brothers Pictures film which shares the same parent company as CNN.
CNN's Elizabeth Perez has more.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Some people look at Sonny Hayes, they see a guy who lives in a van, a gambling junkie who missed his shot. The best that never
was. But I see possibility.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: I've seen trailer. It looks really, really cool.
ELIZABETH PEREZ, CNN ESPANOL (voice-over): Brad Pitt in a Formula 1 car and some serious highest speed Hollywood magic. That's right. The Hollywood
star is starring in a brand-new Formula 1 movie named "F1" film at real Formula 1 races with real teams and real fans watching. This could be one
of the coolest racing movies ever made.
In the film, Brad plays a retired racing legend, Sonny Hayes, who is pulled back onto the grid for the last shot at glory behind the wheel. With Lewis
Hamilton producing, the actual F1 teams involved and "Top Gun: Maverick" director Joseph Kosinski calling the shots, this movie promises a lot.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Action.
GEORGE RUSSELL, MERCEDES DRIVER: It is very surreal for sure. You know, I've grown up seeing all of Brad Pitt's movies and he is obviously such a
worldwide superstar, but he came into our world and he wanted to hear from us. He wanted our views, our opinions, how they can make the movie better,
how they can make it as authentic as possible. So, you know, I really can't wait to see it. And I feel this movie is going to be the one that we are
going to love and everyone else will, too.
TOTO WOLFF, MERCEDES TEAM PRINCIPAL: Such a good personality. Humble. He was really interested in the sport and learning about it. And it's always -
- you see when somebody is successful is that the character is also very, very good. And that was why working with Brad and with Javier and with
Jerry overall was just a pleasure.
JERRY BRUCKHEIMER, PRODUCER, "F1: THE MOVIE": We make movies that entertain audiences. We call it -- we're in the transportation business. We transport
them from one place to another, and we're transforming them inside Formula 1.
What I love making, and I've made a lot of them, is take you inside a world that you'll never be a part of and show it how it actually works. You will
see how these teams are run and how the teams come together, the drivers come together, and it's just, it's a fun experience.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: When was the last time you won a race?
BRAD PITT, ACTOR, "F1: THE MOVIE": Sunday, Daytona.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Oh, I'm sorry. I meant, Formula 1.
PITT: Oh, I'm sorry. Then same as you.
PEREZ (voice-over): And in addition to the enthusiasm of the teams, the cast of "F1" are also excited for this summer blockbuster to get to the
front of the grid.
SIMONE ASHLEY, ACTRESS IN "F1: THE MOVIE": I'm such a fan of Formula 1. So to be able to attend all these races and be on the grid, shooting these
scenes amongst all of the chaos and the adrenaline, I'm just so deeply grateful that I got to witness and experience with this.
KERRY CONDON, ACTRESS IN "F1: THE MOVIE": So, she's the technical director of the team, which is basically in charge of the car. Everything got to do
with the car comes through my character. So the driver feedback about the car, if we need to change something on the car, is it going to work with
the rest of the car when we get to a track? Is our car good at straights or turns? It's like basically everything that to do with the car is, I'm the
brains. And then also there's romance. I love a little romance.
PEREZ: Who are you kissing?
CONDON: You got to watch the movie.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Relapse. Relapse the lifetime.
PEREZ: The "F1" movie is already a pole position pick for motor sports fans. Catch it in theaters on June 25th internationally and June 27th in
the United States.
Elizabeth Perez, from Miami, Florida.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
ANDERSON: And of course, the red carpet event here just earlier on this week given that that movie was shot here in Abu Dhabi.
Well, an update now on our breaking news this hour. The U.S. Supreme Court has issued a ruling that backs U.S. president Donald Trump's efforts to
curtail lower court rulings. The decision is seen by legal experts as a win for the president, whose agenda has been hampered by lower court rulings
for months. The court did not rule on the merits of the birthright citizenship case that was brought before it. At this point, it is unclear
if or how the Trump executive order to end birthright citizenship will be enforced.
This is one of multiple high profile decisions today, as the court wraps up its current session for the summer break.
[10:55:07]
And we are wrapping up our couple of hours here on CNN. That's it for CONNECT THE WORLD. Stay with CNN, "ONE WORLD" is up next.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
END
