Return to Transcripts main page
Connect the World
U.S.-Israel War with Iran; U.S. Senate Poised for Marathon Voting Session; SpaceX IPO; 2026 World Cup Ad Campaign; NBA Finals. Aired 10-11a ET
Aired June 04, 2026 - 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 with Becky Anderson.
BECKY ANDERSON, CNN HOST (voice-over): Welcome to the second hour of the show from our Middle East programming headquarters. I'm Becky Anderson in
Abu Dhabi, where the time is just after 6:00 in the evening.
And the U.S. Senate is about to kick off what's called a vote-a-rama over immigration funding. It could face some holdups over objections to Trump's
policies. I'm going to get you to Iran, where our Fred Pleitgen is finding a defiant atmosphere on the ground. That comes as the Iranian foreign
minister insists war will only end when it ends in Lebanon.
And later this hour, SpaceX has unveiled plans to raise $75 billion in an initial public offering of its stock, which could make Elon Musk the
world's first trillionaire. More on that coming up.
(MUSIC PLAYING)
ANDERSON: Well, we begin with a ceasefire under fire. Smoke rising after Israel and Hezbollah exchanged fresh strikes just hours after Lebanon and
Israel said yes to a conditional ceasefire. Yes again to a new conditional ceasefire.
It's important to note, for the truce to take effect, the Iran-backed Hezbollah, based in Lebanon, of course, must stop fighting and leave the
south of the country. Well, CNN's Jeremy Diamond is in Jerusalem. And in the past hour, I asked him how different this deal is from previous truces.
Here's what he said.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
JEREMY DIAMOND, CNN JERUSALEM CORRESPONDENT: Well, there are differences in terms of some of the language that is included in this statement from
Israel, the Lebanese government, and the United States, and also in some of the substance of the actual agreement, and some new ideas that are being
put forward.
First, on the language, it's quite clear here that there is a big onus that is being put on Hezbollah, which is not a party, not a wrecked party to
these negotiations, but this whole agreement, according to this statement, this joint statement is contingent upon Hezbollah ceasing fire on Israel
and also on Hezbollah leaving Southern Lebanon.
There is not a ton here about Israel's responsibilities or any concessions that Israel would have to make in order for this ceasefire to move forward.
What there is as well on the substance front is this new notion of these pilot zones. Pilot zones in which the Lebanese military would come in and
take control of areas that are free of any non-state armed groups, such as Hezbollah, for example.
But there is no timeline for when exactly those pilot zones would be established, and it does seem like once again this is a step that would be
contingent upon Hezbollah ceasing fire and withdrawing its forces from some of these areas in Southern Lebanon. So, but it does kind of lay out where
these discussions between Israel and Lebanon are going.
This is the first time we have seen a Lebanese government that is so publicly willing to not only discuss but talk about the actual
implementation of disarming a very powerful non-state actor like Hezbollah. And so, it seems like the discussions are about advancing relations between
Israel and Lebanon.
And one of the pathways to doing so would be some kind of cooperation between the Israeli and Lebanese armed forces, in which Israeli forces
would leave an area in order to have Lebanon take over and assure that Hezbollah forces would not enter, but those next steps are not discussed in
this latest ceasefire agreement between Israel and Lebanon.
It simply talks about what these pilot programs would actually look like going forward. What is clear also is that this latest ceasefire agreement
has not ceased the fire. We are continuing to see hours after this agreement actually went into effect, continued Israeli strikes in Southern
Lebanon, continued Hezbollah attacks against Israeli forces in Southern Lebanon, even with hostile aircraft detected in Northern Israel.
And that's important, because the Israeli government has said that should Hezbollah strike Israeli territory proper, specifically Israeli population
centers in Northern Israel, that would cross a red line.
[10:05:00]
And would trigger Israeli strikes on Beirut, which would have enormous regional consequences.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
ANDERSON: Well, Tehran is once again standing firm on a key demand that is shadowed negotiations for weeks, it seems. The Iranian foreign minister
says that the war with Israel and the U.S. will only end if the conflict in Lebanon ends as well.
And insists any agreement must also address Israel's military operations against the Iran-backed Hezbollah. With talks in flux, then, CNN has brand
new reporting from inside Iran. The country marking 37 years since the death of its founder, ayatollah Khamenei.
We should mention CNN operates in Iran only with the permission of the government there. It does maintain, though, full editorial control of our
reporting. My colleague, Fred Pleitgen, is on the ground and filed this report.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
FREDERIK PLEITGEN, CNN SENIOR INTERNATIONAL CORRESPONDENT: We're at an event here in Tehran to mark the death of the Founder of the Islamic
Republic of Iran, Ayatollah Khomeini. And as you can see, a lot of people have turned out here to pay their respects.
Now, in this year, as Iran is in this conflict with the United States. Of course, this event also has a special meaning for the people who have come
here. There's a lot of people that we are seeing who are waving red flags that say revenge on them, because, of course, there are still a lot of
people here who want revenge for the killing of Iran's Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, and that's also something that was voiced here by
the crowd.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: We don't want any agreement with the U.S. and Israel. We just want revenge.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Until now, there have been no advantages for us in negotiations with the United States. The U.S. never negotiates in good
faith.
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: We don't trust America, never ever.
PLEITGEN: At the same time, of course, the context that all of this happens in is extremely important. There are talks that are going on between the
U.S. and Iran, where both sides say they are trying to get to a memorandum of understanding that would then pave the way for broader peace talks to
try and end the war between Iran and the United States for good.
Also, though, of course, the security situation, especially in the Persian Gulf, remains extremely volatile, with the U.S. hitting some targets on
some Persian Gulf islands. The Iranians, for their part, saying that they were hitting targets affiliated with the United States in places like
Kuwait and in places like Bahrain, as well.
So, the security situation very volatile, the ceasefire very fragile. At the same time, both sides say that they are trying to find a way out of the
impasse. Fred Pleitgen, CNN, Tehran.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
ANDERSON: Well, let's get you a valuable perspective now of what is going on inside Iran from one of the preeminent scholars on the country, Narges
Bajoghli. She has written a new piece for "Foreign Affairs" magazine with her fellow Middle East expert, Vali Nasr, a regular guest on this show.
It is titled "Iran's New Grand Strategy."
And in it they contest that, quote, "Rather than breaking Iran, the crucible of war has transformed it in unanticipated ways. The war has given
rise to a new Iran," they write, "one that will reshape the Middle East and influence the course of geopolitics for years to come."
Well, Narges is with me now. She's associate professor of Middle East studies at Johns Hopkins University School of International -- Advanced
International Studies.
It's always good to have you. Thank you. You argue that rather than focusing on Iran's more visible leadership, like Ghalibaf, for example, you
say keep a keen eye on a new generation of leadership in the IRGC, an officer class, who you argue are actually behind Iran's arguable success in
the war.
They are, and I quote here, "establishment actors; pragmatic, hardened nationalists operating with a clear-eyed assessment of Iran's capabilities
and vulnerabilities."
I'm really fascinated by this.
Can you expand on this shift in leadership as you see it?
NARGES BAJOGHLI, ASSOCIATE PROFESSOR OF MIDDLE EAST STUDIES, JOHNS HOPKINS UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF ADVANCED INTERNATIONAL STUDIES: Sure. So there's
been, you know, these decapitation strikes against Iran, both in the 12-day war last June and in this most recent war was meant to really break the
Islamic Republic.
But what we're finding is that it actually, in many ways, has regenerated it by allowing the younger generations to come to the forefront.
The first generation of the revolution, who was at the helm up until just a few months ago, was one that was always consistently trying to prove the
value of the revolution to themselves, to their population and to the outside world.
These new generations that are in charge today, they were born and raised when the Islamic Republic was already in existence. They didn't feel like
they had to prove the revolution's worth to anybody. And instead they come to the forefront.
[10:10:00]
Very confident of what Iran has gained throughout this war and very confident in their position as Iranians, who have a particular kind of
strength and a position within the region. And that is a huge shift from the generation that came before them that constantly felt like it had to
prove itself.
ANDERSON: So what does that mean?
BAJOGHLI: It means that, first and foremost, just as you're reporting, was showing that Iran has upped the ante on the Americans and the Israelis, in
order to say these past few days that a ceasefire includes Lebanon, that it will not come and finalize a deal with the United States unless Lebanon is
included in it.
It means that, in the past 48 hours, we've seen a rise in escalation by -- on the Iranian end against the United States. And it has forced the U.S.
and Trump to say -- to look the other way. It means that Iran is going to assert itself as the main power in the Persian Gulf region.
And it means that it will no longer be OK with being contained, as the main U.S. foreign policy in the region has attempted to contain Iran for the
past 40-some odd years.
ANDERSON: So let's just talk about what is going on very specifically as we understand it in these negotiations, because you also argue Iran is
digging in on the Strait of Hormuz.
One analyst telling you, quote, "Sanctions relief is not important for us anymore because we know it won't come. And even if it does, it won't be
long lasting. We're not making the same mistakes as before. Now managing Hormuz is the key."
That certainly seems to fly in the face of what the U.S. is trying to negotiate here to end the war, doesn't it?
BAJOGHLI: Yes. But you know, the Iranian decision makers and especially over the past -- between the two wars in June and February, you had an
eight-month period. And during that eight-month period, this is when the younger generation began to come into the forefront.
Because they began to argue that, first of all, this idea of no war and no peace between Iran, Israel and the United States that had been going on for
decades obviously failed because the United States -- or Israel at that point and then the United States -- came in on the last few days of the 12-
day war against Iran.
That actually exposed Iran to a lot of vulnerabilities. And this idea that Iran was always negotiating for sanctions relief, many in the younger
generation had been saying that the United States does not give sanctions relief unless there is some kind of regime change.
And so it's -- continuing to push for sanctions relief as a key negotiation tactic actually ends up failing because the U.S. can't lift sanctions. It's
not just an executive decision. You also have congressional sanctions on Iran. You have sanctions throughout the different establishments of the
U.S. government agencies.
ANDERSON: Yes. And Marco Rubio --
(CROSSTALK)
ANDERSON: -- making that point -- actually making the point that these sanctions are across government agencies. Yes, yes.
BAJOGHLI: And that's why --
(CROSSTALK)
ANDERSON: -- looking to avoid Hormuz entirely, of course. Yes. But I want to just push you on this because Gulf countries -- and I'm here in the UAE
and that's one of the Gulf countries looking to avoid Hormuz in the future completely with new oil pipelines.
So this positioning by Tehran could actually, I mean, not in the very short term but medium to long term could actually backfire, couldn't it?
BAJOGHLI: It could. But the reality is, is that, even if some of the other Arab, you know, Arab countries in the Gulf begin to try to figure out
different ways to get their oil and gas out for the short to medium term, that's not going to be a realistic option.
And so what that means, actually, is that, because other countries are going to have to deal with Iran in order to get their oil and gas out, that
means that, in effect, the sanctions become moot.
ANDERSON: Yes.
BAJOGHLI: So what that means is that instead of relying on negotiations to lift sanctions, what Iran is going to attempt to do is use the Strait of
Hormuz as a way to actually enable transactions between third countries and Iran and then, therefore, U.S. sanctions don't even mean anything.
ANDERSON: You write -- and I quoted your great piece with Vali at the beginning of this interview -- and you write, in part, "The war has given
rise to a new Iran, one that will reshape the Middle East and influence the course of geopolitics for years to come."
And we've discussed what that kind of new leadership looks like or decision making infrastructure looks like. I just wonder if you just want to sort
of, you know, close this out by explaining what you think that new Middle East might look like.
[10:15:00]
We talk a lot here about navigating a new Middle East. And that would be a new Middle East which was de-conflicted, you know, de-escalated, certainly
from the UAE's point of view where I am. You know, they want to look beyond this conflict. What is -- what does that, you know, new Middle East look
like?
What does it look like to you?
BAJOGHLI: The Middle East, up until February 28th of 2026, was a Middle East in which the United States had hegemony across the region and Israel
was attempting to be the military hegemon of the region in the years to come.
Since this war, what we see now and I think what we will see going into the future is that Iran will no longer be contained. The Middle East no longer
has free rein across the region. It can no longer guarantee the protection of its allies across the region. And Israel can no longer be the sole
military hegemon of the region.
So what that means is that those factions and groups across the region that want to establish a particular kind of politics, that want sovereignty away
from the United States and want Israel's military hands to be pushed back.
Those forces now will have -- not only be ascendant but will also have the victories of this past war to point to as something that they will take
with them moving forward.
ANDERSON: The perspective of Narges Bajoghli, thank you very much indeed for joining us. Well worth a read.
BAJOGHLI: Thank you for having me.
ANDERSON: Thanks.
Next up, a rare rebuke of president Trump as pressure builds at home over his handling of the war with Iran.
(MUSIC PLAYING)
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
(MUSIC PLAYING)
ANDERSON: U.S. president Donald Trump is lashing out after the House, the U.S. House voted to limit his war powers in Iran. Now he says that the
resolution is, quote, "meaningless and unpatriotic." And he attacked the four Republican lawmakers who crossed party lines and joined Democrats to
help pass it, calling them grandstanders.
Mr. Trump also claims the vote came in the middle of his final negotiations to end the war talks, he says, that have gone very well.
Tehran offering a different assessment, saying there has been no, quote, "significant progress in recent days."
Well, U.S. Senate Democrats are preparing to put Republicans on the spot today as the Senate begins a marathon voting session known as a vote-a-
rama.
The first expected move, an amendment to send a $70 billion Republican immigration enforcement funding bill back to committee in an attempt to
block a controversial anti-weaponization fund supported by president Donald Trump.
Look, for more on this, let's bring in CNN chief congressional correspondent, Manu Raju.
It's always quite difficult to keep up with what's going on with these bills.
[10:20:00]
Because things get added into them, don't they?
And tagged on.
What can we expect on the Hill today and will it add to the political pressure, do you believe, on the Trump administration?
MANU RAJU, CNN CHIEF CONGRESSIONAL CORRESPONDENT: Well, president Trump's refusal to fully rule out this weaponization fund has made the lives of
Republican leaders that much more difficult.
This senator -- Senator Tillis, you -- and this weaponization fund, are you -- if this does not get added to the bill, could you support passage?
SEN. THOM TILLIS (R-NC): No, I'm not going to -- I'm not going to vote to get off. I voted to get on it with the goal of potentially getting an
amendment done or supporting some other member's amendment.
RAJU: So why is this so important to get this, get the -- to target the weaponization fund here, when the -- when the president is -- because the
president has kept this option open?
TILLIS: Well, even the AG has said that it's done. So I don't know why we just don't codify it. So Democrats are not raising the speculation that it
can come back at some point.
If the AG has said that, then why not codify it?
It doesn't seem to be at cross-purposes with the admin and it takes that argument away from the Democrats. That's a win-win, in my opinion.
RAJU: How do you feel about it?
(CROSSTALK)
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Yes.
QUESTION: How do you feel about him?
What about Todd Blanche and you know, could he get through the committee?
Would he have your support?
Could he get through the floor?
TILLIS: Well, I think -- I actually believe that getting this issue off the table improves Todd's chances of getting through Judiciary and getting
through the floor.
If this is still out there, can you imagine what the Democrats are going to do to that man during a confirmation hearing?
QUESTION: But just to be clear --
TILLIS: Can you imagine how that could potentially influence a couple of our members?
We take this off the table, Todd's chances of becoming confirmed as the AG go up, I believe --
(CROSSTALK)
RAJU: But if it's not -- but if it's not off the table, could you support -- if the weaponization fund is not completely off the table, if you don't
codify it into law, could you support Todd Blanche as attorney general?
TILLIS: We're looking at it. I haven't made a decision yet. But the key for Todd or anybody going through Judiciary Committee is being pretty tight
on January the 6th. They better not have said for one minute that the people that beat up police officers like these right down here were
righteous people.
You come even close to saying that you don't have a chair of getting my vote in Judiciary.
(CROSSTALK)
QUESTION: -- president didn't think that this weaponization fund had been put to bed?
I mean, does Todd Blanche --
(CROSSTALK)
TILLIS: -- the right hand and the left hand need to figure out what the hell they're doing, because I heard a guy who just got put forth as AG say
it's dead. And if it's dead, we should be able to codify that and be done with it.
RAJU: Was Blanche on January 6th?
Were you OK with what he said there?
QUESTION: Thank you.
RAJU: All right, Becky, if you're still with me, so the reason why -- he is a critical member here still with Thom Tillis. OK, great. So Thom Tillis
of North Carolina, of course, he sits on the Senate Judiciary Committee. He's really the center of so many of the big fights that are happening
right now.
One of them is what's happening on the floor of the United States Senate, this vote on this immigration proposal. He wants to target the president's,
as you heard there, weaponization front. He is front and center on that. He made very clear he's unlikely to support the final legislation if it does
not go after the weaponization fund.
And every vote is critical in the very narrowly divided Republican Senate. So that's something to watch.
But also, Todd Blanche, Todd Blanche was just nominated by the president to be the next attorney general of the United States. Thom Tillis sits on the
Judiciary Committee, which oversees the attorney general's nomination.
If he were to vote no on that nomination, that would be enough to tie up and kill the nomination altogether. So his vote will be paramount to see
Todd Blanche succeeding there.
Him saying two things; one, the weaponization fund needs to be off the table completely. And two, anything about January 6th that suggests that
they were OK with what happened January 6th or the political -- or the people who were arrested in January 6th and the people who came and stormed
this building.
If they said anything to that regard, that'll be enough for him to vote no. So two very significant developments there with a key member of the United
States Senate, Becky.
ANDERSON: Yes. And, Manu, there is a reason why you lurk around in those corridors of power, to grab a senator like that and get us some really, you
know, important news. Very, very good to have you on today. Thank you very much indeed.
And the timing perfect for us now. I want to bring in Maura Gillespie. She's the founder of a Washington, D.C.,-based strategic communications
firm. Before that, she was an adviser to former Speaker of the House, John Boehner.
So much going on there but, importantly, of course, this all goes back to tensions between Donald Trump and his own party.
What do you make of what we just heard from Tillis there?
MAURA GILLESPIE, FOUNDER AND PRINCIPAL, BLUESTACK STRATEGIES: Pretty, pretty stark to hear him draw some lines in the sand for other senators to
realize where he stands on things and when it comes to Todd Blanche.
[10:25:00]
I also think that the House, you know, hearings that went on last week with Pam Bondi and where she largely put a lot of the blame on Todd Blanche, I'm
curious how that will come up and how that will play during the Senate hearings about his ability to do this job and having questions that have
gone largely unanswered.
So I think Thom Tillis is pointing to one issue that he feels pretty strongly about. But I think there's some others that are going to pop up
during this potential confirmation hearing.
ANDERSON: Yes. And I think you're absolutely right. Apologies; I pronounced John Boehner's name incorrectly as I introduced you. So I wanted
just to correct myself there.
So why do you believe that we are seeing these, frankly, very rare rebukes from Republicans toward Trump's policies, not just his policies, things he
wants to get done?
GILLESPIE: Yes. So I think when it comes to the war powers vote that the House took last night, you saw some of these members who spoke up about
what their constituents are going through in terms of not agreeing with this war, which we know polls show us that the large majority of the
country is not in favor of the war.
And so some of the members who voted with Democrats, I mean, the Republican members, they cited that as being an issue with the gas prices being so
high. Others, like Brian Fitzpatrick from Pennsylvania, he reminded folks that there is a reason for this. It is the law, the 60-day threshold.
That while, yes, Pete Hegseth and president Trump think that this -- just because you say the word "ceasefire" resets the clock, it's not necessarily
how it works. I almost feel like I'm back watching "The Office," where Michael Scott says, "I declare bankruptcy" and assumes that resolves his
problems.
Declaring a ceasefire doesn't necessarily mean you're in a ceasefire. So I think that there needs to be a little bit of education there.
But Brian Fitzpatrick pointed out that it's illegal and that the role of Congress is to provide these checks and balances and that the president and
his team need to come to Congress and ask for the authority to do continued boots on the ground and attacks in Iran.
So I do think that there is some different reasons but I think people feel more emboldened right now.
ANDERSON: I want to have a listen to two of the Republicans who broke with Trump to limit his war powers. Have a listen.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
REP. BRIAN FITZPATRICK (R-PA): There's a law on the books, the War Powers Act of '73 says 48-hour notification and 60-day concurrence of Congress.
We're past the 60 days.
So you have two choices. You either follow the law or you change the law. You can't violate the law. That's not an option. So I offered an
alternative that would accommodate ceasefires for negotiations, real ceasefires and not ceasefires in name only. That was not taken up.
REP. THOMAS MASSIE (R-KY): People are tired of this. They're tired of $5 a gallon gas and $6 a gallon diesel and fertilizer we can't afford to put on
our fields in Kentucky. So I think it sends a good message that the people's House, which represents the people, is tired of this war.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
ANDERSON: So that was Thomas Massie of Kentucky, of course, the firebrand congressman who just lost his primary for breaking with Trump on Epstein
and Israel.
And before him, Brian Fitzpatrick of Pennsylvania. Warren Davidson of Ohio and Tom Barrett of Michigan, the others who voted against Trump.
You'll notice, viewers, and as I talk to Maura here, that they mostly represent swing states. It was the midterms approach.
Maura, is Trump already becoming a lame duck?
Is his influence over Republicans going to fade?
And I have to ask, does he care?
GILLESPIE: The latter question, I don't know that he necessarily cares. He's more or less said that he doesn't really care about the midterms. I
know that that was partially to try and signal to Iran that, you know, he's not going to be swayed just because of the election coming up.
But I do think that members of Congress, whose jobs are on the line, right?
I mean, president Trump's not impacted by what happens in terms -- directly in terms of his job as president. Now I would say that if Democrats took
over the House and the Senate, I'm sure impeachment trials will probably come up. But that's looking too far ahead.
And I think right now, members of Congress who are Republican, who are thinking -- polls are showing a massive disapproval of president Trump. And
those are their constituents who are saying that gas is too high, groceries have not gone down. And we're not in this golden age of America that
president Trump promised us.
What are you doing about it?
As my member of Congress, what are you doing?
And so they need to start showing up that they are actually going to be arbiters of the representation they promised to provide their constituents
and not just a stamp for the president's every whim.
ANDERSON: Yes, it's fascinating.
Finally, Donald Trump venting about those Republicans that we just heard from there, saying, quote, "Who would do such an unpatriotic thing?
"They know where the negotiations stand."
The negotiations on the U.S., that the U.S. has with Iran, for example, is what he's talking about.
Does he have a point that that action actually undermines the U.S. in front of its adversary, Tehran?
GILLESPIE: I understand that's the Republican -- like I saw that speaker Johnson also echoed that. And I think that's a smart play by speaker
Johnson to stand with the president on that end.
[10:30:00]
And talking about you don't want to disrupt negotiations and the leverage and any angle that the president is playing right now.
But I don't know that there has been full transparency, at least even to the conference members, of what's going on with the war. And because
there's been such a conflicting information coming out from not only from the president himself but also members of his cabinet.
So there maybe is not a clear sense of, you know, this idea that, you know, what's going on. I don't think people do know what's going on. And I don't
mean just us, the people who vote, but also the members of Congress who are supposed to be in charge there and be able to relay information to us.
And so there is a very big disconnect there. I think that the president tends to go on these social media rants, where he says, you know, you
should be ashamed, any time that someone doesn't do what he likes. So it kind of starts to feel as though it's carrying less weight. I think that's
what we're seeing right now.
ANDERSON: Yes, he certainly doesn't seem as if he's done very much to win over the public on his war of choice with Iran and why it is in America's
interests. Anyway, we'll leave it there. It's always good to speak to you. Thank you very much indeed for your perspective today.
All right. President Trump's former national security adviser is expected to plead guilty over handling of classified documents, sources tell CNN.
John Bolton has now reached a plea deal. Let's bring in our Katelyn Polantz. She is in Washington.
It's always breaking news, it tends to be, around Donald Trump or at least those who worked for him, Katelyn. Fill us in.
What's going on?
KATELYN POLANTZ, CNN SENIOR CRIME AND JUSTICE CORRESPONDENT: Well, this is out of the U.S. attorney's office in Maryland and the court in Maryland.
John Bolton, the former national security adviser in the Trump White House, he is set to plead guilty.
And it is going to be an admission of one count of the illegal mishandling or retention of national security information, meaning classified
information, that he would have gotten while he was serving in that first Trump White House.
Now this is a significant guilty plea because it is a plea of somebody that Donald Trump has wanted to see successfully prosecuted. Now this case is a
little bit different than some of the other cases, in that it had been investigated beginning in the Biden years of the Biden presidency by the
Justice Department.
They built a significant amount of evidence. There was a search by the FBI of John Bolton's home last August, where they were finding documents and
electronics marked secret, confidential, classified.
Ultimately, Bolton had been charged in court with 18 counts. He was set to go to trial at some point. But the Justice Department has reached a plea
deal with him and his attorneys.
What we are expecting to happen next is that John Bolton is set for a hearing in the federal court in Maryland at the end of June, where he would
theoretically tell the judge he was going to be pleading guilty to one count of retention of mishandling classified documents, retention or
mishandling of classified documents.
And then there would likely be a sentence. Now that's an interesting part of this as well. We're waiting to see what the Justice Department would
want. This is someone that Donald Trump has hated so much that he fired him.
He tried to block the publication of his memoir when he was writing about his time serving in the Trump White House. And what is alleged in this is
that Bolton was writing himself, essentially diary entries, sending them to himself and then having them printed it out for his own files, potentially,
as he worked on his book.
That's what was found in his home notes that would have contained classified information. But the Justice Department could ask for prison
time for the former national security adviser. That also that always doesn't happen in cases like these, where it's one count of mishandling
classified information.
There's also a request or, at least we believe, part of the agreement where John Bolton is agreeing to pay a fine of more than $2 million, now we're
still waiting to see the exact court documents and what they say about that agreement.
We would also be waiting to see what the judge decides as far as sentencing and penalties go for John Bolton. But that would be a lot of money for
someone to pay in a national security documents case like this. Still a very significant guilty plea secured by the Justice Department.
And expected to be announced at some point very soon with John Bolton headed to plead guilty at the end of June, Becky.
ANDERSON: Be fascinating to see what Donald Trump posts on his social media platform about that when it is released. Katelyn, always a pleasure.
Thank you.
Well, it promises to be the biggest stock market debut in history. We are talking SpaceX's astronomical valuation. That is up next.
(MUSIC PLAYING)
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[10:35:00]
(MUSIC PLAYING)
ANDERSON (voice-over): Welcome back. You're watching CONNECT THE WORLD with me, Becky Anderson, from our Middle East programming headquarters.
Here are your headlines.
Fresh strikes traded today between Israel and the Iran-backed Hezbollah. This comes just hours after Lebanon and Israel agreed to a new conditional
ceasefire. For that truce to take effect, Hezbollah must stop fighting and leave southern Lebanon. That is according to a joint statement following
the latest round of U.S.-mediated talks.
U.S. president Donald Trump lashing out at the House after it voted to limit his war powers in Iran. Now the president calling the resolution,
quote, "meaningless and unpatriotic." The rare rebuke from lawmakers to the president reflects growing congressional concerns over Trump's handling of
the conflict.
Meantime, president Vladimir Putin is expected to address Russia's premier economic gathering on Friday. The forum in St. Petersburg speak (ph) aims
to attract foreign investment and showcase Russia's economy.
Top guests include the Saudi energy minister, Prince Abdulaziz bin Salman, for example, and U.S. commentator Candace Owens, amongst others.
ANDERSON: SpaceX, it's set the stage for the world's biggest ever initial public offering. The rocket company, led by Elon Musk, of course, says it's
selling shares at 135 bucks each, which would value the company at almost $1.8 trillion.
SpaceX plans to raise $75 billion in the record-breaking IPO. It could also help make Musk, already the world's richest man, of course, the first
trillionaire. Well, Lisa Eadicicco is in New York, where SpaceX will make its debut next Friday, as I understand it, at least.
What more do we know at this point and what's the appetite from investors?
LISA EADICICCO, CNN BUSINESS TECH EDITOR: Yes. Becky. So in addition to learning about how much SpaceX is planning to raise and what it will be
valued at, we also got a deeper dive into its business, including what it sees as being its primary risk factors moving forward.
What it's currently spending on areas like AI and also how it plans to spend the proceeds from this offering. And I think that the key thing to
take away here is the massive spending that the company is putting toward AI infrastructure.
And this is something that Elon Musk has talked about in the past, the need for more compute power to fuel the AI buildout. And what we're seeing in
this filing is that, in the first three months of this year alone, the company has spent about $7.7 billion on AI infrastructure related costs.
[10:40:04]
And that compares to about $12.7 billion for the entire year of 2025. So that just kind of gives you a snapshot of how much more money this company
is putting toward AI.
And I think investor appetite is going to be really high because Wall Street is really eager to find new ways to cash in on the AI boom. And
we're seeing that already in the memory market. Memory is critical for the buildout of AI infrastructure.
And we're seeing companies like Micron, SanDisk and Seagate, really, their stocks have been soaring this year, 200 percent. So I think this will just
give investors another way to cash out -- to cash in on that buildout.
But what will be critical for companies like SpaceX and other companies that are expected to IPO soon, like Anthropic, which just filed
confidentially earlier this week, and OpenAI, which is also expected to IPO this year, is going to be really showing that there's a lot of use cases
for the technology right now.
It is gaining traction in businesses, especially in the tech sector. But to really kind of justify a lot of this spending, we're going to have to
really get a clearer picture of how people are using it and how it's really changing everyday life the way that these tech companies are claiming that
it will.
ANDERSON: Yes, yes, absolutely. You nailed it there. Thank you.
Let's take a look at the markets because we are seeing chip stocks actually being sold off. It's a bit of a split market today. The Nasdaq lower on
that selling of semiconductor chipmakers after a disappointing report from Broadcom.
Investors seem to be rotating their money into the shares that make up the Dow, the more classic shares now of those tech companies. But that's
today's story, of course. We will revisit again tomorrow. And perhaps it will be a different story.
Which brand is scoring in the World Cup ad race?
Well, that is after this.
(MUSIC PLAYING)
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
(MUSIC PLAYING)
ANDERSON: OK, folks. A week to go until the FIFA men's World Cup. It's not just the host country gearing up for the tourist. Brands, too, are in the
final stretch, competing for fans' eyes and for our money.
And as a Brit wad (ph) stood out to me, I have a --
(VIDEO CLIP, WORLD CUP AD)
ANDERSON: Joining me now to explore this ad and others is Rebecca Stewart, brand editor at ADWEEK.
I know that Ted Lasso tapping Visa spot was on your short list of best commercials, too, the brand turned the World Cup and soccer culture into
one action, taping.
What makes it so good?
[10:45:00]
Other than the fact it's got that great London cabbie with that great line in it.
REBECCA STEWART, BRAND EDITOR, ADWEEK: It's just this blend of sport, culture and entertainment that's really unique to that. Not only unique to
that sport story but as permeating all of the World Cup ads that year.
And, you know, the casting of Jason Sudeikis (ph) is amazing in it. And yes, I love that he just gets a little bit carried away with his debit
card. We've all been there. But yes, just more broadly.
(CROSSTALK)
ANDERSON: Definitely a real celebrity star player -- play -- yes. Go on. Go on. I mean, let me -- let me ask you a question. There's definitely
celebrity star power at play this year. I want to have a listen to a bit of the setup of a story advert from Adidas or Adidas and viewers will see what
we mean. Have a look.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: My dream team. Everybody know each other. Great chemistry. OK, buckle up. Here's the deal. I'm going to a game, three on
three. Win or go home. No referee, no rules. Street rules. Exactly. Everybody else, lock in. Like Lamine.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Who are we playing?
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: It's a local crew. I don't fly it. Just...
Hey, whatever you think you know, forget it. It's local crew. They haven't lost since 1996. It's not a winning streak. It's a legend.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
ANDERSON: Timothee Chalamet explaining the premise of a very long ad to football superstars Jude Bellingham. Lamine Yamal, Trinity Rodman. That's
not the end of the list, right?
I mean, how epic was that spot?
STEWART: Yes, absolutely love that campaign. So don't forget Bad Bunny and Messi are also in it. And it's just symptomatic of this broader overlap
between sport, entertainment and culture that we're seeing from the World Cup ads.
And you're right, it was like a five-minute movie, very cinematic. It got lots of Gen Zs and Millennials talking, which I'm sure is what Adidas
wanted and actually clocked up something like 65 million views within the first week of airing. So clearly a success for Adidas.
But you're right, there's lots of stars in this year's crop of World Cup ads. You know, Lay's has David Beckham and Steve Carell hosting a World Cup
watch party. There's lots of other ones.
But basically these celebrity ads are giving brands that shortcut to attention in what's becoming a really crowded tournament. And as a bonus,
they all come with these loyal audiences that brands can just plug into and will help extend their reach beyond the World Cup.
ANDERSON: I love these ads and so many of them are sort of, you know, a bit retro. Quite a lot of them are taking the mickey (ph) out. The fact
that this is, you know, a football tournament held in a country that calls it soccer.
It's not just footballers who are being cast. Lay's, the crisp company, cast funnymen Will Ferrell and Steve Carell in two different ads. Here's
Carell's offering.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Hi, how are you doing?
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: We were having an awesome viewing party and if you had Lay's, you can come with us.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: How about you?
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: She has a potato.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: It's a very nice potato but it's not Lay's.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Yes.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Chips?
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Nope.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: No Lay's, no games.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Oh, man. (INAUDIBLE).
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Come on, jump in. Nice to meet you.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: She has a --
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: She gets the whole cart in.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
ANDERSON: Beckham is in so many of these ads. That premise of going out into the public and speaking to apparently real people -- in this case,
grocery shoppers -- how does that motif go down with viewers?
STEWART: I think fans love it because it's making them feel like they're participating in the moment. You know, these brands are casting big stars
but ultimately it's still the fans and athletes that are at the heart of their campaigns.
And Lay's is a really good example of that. You know, as well as having this star studded ad, it's hosting a competition called Fan of the Match,
which is giving fans the chance to win access to the games. You know, the tickets are so expensive.
So I think these brands are you know, they're hiring big celebrities but they're also acting still in service to the fans.
ANDERSON: I'm whipping through these ads because I want our viewers to see as many as possible. Coca-Cola tapping not into celebs necessarily but
emotions. Let's just have a listen to this ad.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
UNIDENTIFIED MALE (voice-over): And a hush falls over the crowd. It'll be a free kick. Truly on edge here. Nothing remains but hope and belief.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Oh, what a goal.
ANDERSON (voice-over): I think this is brilliant.
What's Coke aiming for here?
(END VIDEO CLIP)
STEWART: Yes, I love that one. The Coca-Cola one's a little bit different because they didn't enlist a celebrity, unlike the rival, Pepsi, who's also
got an David Beckham ad.
[10:50:00]
But Coke's really tapping into that feeling that we've all experienced as a fan, like the highs and lows that come with being loyal to your team. So
it's really rooted in that insight and, you know, saying in those moments, have a Coca-Cola. It's a really simple message but I think it lands well.
(OFF MIKE COMMENTS)
ANDERSON: Well, not to be a downer, as my producer would say in my ear, given that we've just been watching all of these ads and we are all looking
forward to the World Cup.
Ticket prices are, of course, sky high and visa processes not the easiest, driving some foreign fans at least to skip the World Cup this year.
I wonder, should sponsors be worried?
STEWART: Yes, I don't think sponsors are too worried and the numbers prove it. So this year, FIFA's generating around 2.4 billion in revenues from the
top 21 global sponsors. That includes Coca-Cola, McDonalds, American Airlines and Hyundai. So some really big names that are still investing in
the World Cup.
You know, even amid fears that fans may have around traveling to the U.S. So fans may be worried. But I don't think brands are. A lot of brands are
also hosting fan activations for fans on the ground that, you know, didn't quite manage to nab a ticket.
So they're facilitating these experiences for brands. So I think for fans, sorry. So I think the brands still want to very much be part of it. And
they don't see it as much as a risk as the fans might.
ANDERSON: Got it. Good to have you, Rebecca. Thank you very much indeed.
We're going to take a very short break. (INAUDIBLE) break. Back after this.
(MUSIC PLAYING)
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
(MUSIC PLAYING)
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
ANDERSON (voice-over): Well, this was the scene at New York's Madison Square Garden watch party for Knicks fans, as their team won game one of
the NBA finals.
Now the Knicks defeated the San Antonio Spurs in Texas in a back-and-forth battle to start the championship series. Then there was this moment when a
fan rushed the court with his cell phone in hand and was immediately taken off the court. CNN's Omar Jimenez has more from the Knicks watch party in
New York.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
OMAR JIMENEZ, CNN CORRESPONDENT: This is the reaction after a Game 1 win in the NBA Finals for the New York Knicks. We have been outside Madison
Square Garden throughout all of this.
And look, if you doubt any of the enthusiasm, even for an away game for the Knicks, look no further than the crowd that gathered over the course of
this game.
But I want to show you what we've been seeing over the course of this, as the celebration really begins here in New York City. It's the beginning of
a long series. You know that if you're a basketball fan. But you can't tell the people here who have been chanting "Knicks in 4" for hours.
I was talking to them beforehand. They were saying "Knicks in 4" beforehand too. So this is just the beginning. They got a Game 1. It came down to a
back and forth game throughout all of it.
But the excitement in New York City is the chance to do something they have not done in over five decades now that they are back in a place they have
not been in more than two decades.
[10:55:00]
So moving forward, like we said, it's a long series. But the enthusiasm here, it is not going anywhere. Not going anywhere. You can't go wrong.
This is New York City. Back to you, guys.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
ANDERSON: As we spent so much of our show bringing you the latest on the Iran war from across the region, I do just want to pause for a moment to
remember a giant of Iranian culture.
The great French Iranian illustrator and film director Marjane Satrapi has died at the age of 56. She was best known for the graphic novel
"Persepolis," which shows the Islamic revolution through a child's eyes.
She later turned the work into film, which won her the jury prize at Cannes and an Oscar nomination. In a statement, the Elysee Palace paid tribute to
her, Satrapi, saying her work, quote, "captivated a global audience."
She was brilliant. That's it for CONNECT THE WORLD. Stay with CNN. "ONE WORLD" is up next.
END
