Return to Transcripts main page

First of All with Victor Blackwell

Who All Gon' Be There?; Today: Kushner, Witkoff Expected To Head To Pakistan For Talks With Iran; Political Pressure For Iran Deal Grows As Trump Insists No Rush. Aired 8-9p ET

Aired April 25, 2026 - 08:00   ET

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

[08:00:42]

VICTOR BLACKWELL, CNN ANCHOR: First of all, who all going to be there? Good to know for parties, better to know for high stakes diplomatic talks. President Trump's son in law, Jared Kushner and envoy Steve Witkoff are expected to head to Pakistan today. But it's still not clear who they'll actually meet with when they get there.

Iran's foreign minister is in Pakistan, but Iranian semiofficial state media say that negotiations with the U.S. are not on the agenda. The White House says that Vice President Vance is standing by, ready to go if necessary. They claim that there has been some progress toward talks.

President Trump said yesterday Iran will be making an offer, but he did not share or even seem to have details yet. He claimed this week that he feels no rush to make a deal. But as we wait for all the above, Americans are seeing their gas prices going up as polling shows that their views of this war and this president keep going down.

Here for the conversation, Tia Mitchell, she is the Washington Bureau Chief for the Atlanta Journal Constitution. And Charles Carithers is a former intelligence official and National Security adviser on Capitol Hill. He's now principal with Cornerstone Government Affairs. Welcome to you both.

And Tia, let me start with you with the reporting because as we said, the Iranians are saying, at least publicly, there's no plan to meet with the Americans in Islamabad. The White House has to expect that that's just rhetoric for public consumption. They're not going to send over Witkoff and Kushner to just stand by.

TIA MITCHELL, WASHINGTON BUREAU CHIEF, ATLANTA JOURNAL CONSTITUTION: I think that it's confusing, like so much has been confusing since this war began. There's been no consistent message from the White House. Things have been said, reversed. There were ceasefires, they ended more ceasefires.

And then from the Iranians, I think, you know, what we've learned is there may be tactics on both sides. So, we can't necessarily take everything that's said at face value. So, you know, we -- I think the public, both governments, we can't take what they say at face value, which is fine if they're meeting behind closed doors, but I think a lot of American Voters are just confused because as you mentioned, the most tangible thing that we're seeing from the war is that gas prices are very high.

BLACKWELL: Yes. And consider a week ago, President Trump said that the Iranians agree to everything. They're going to give up the nuclear material. They have given up their -- their program. Of course, the Iranians said that's not going to happen.

Charles, how much can we tell by who will potentially be at the table? Last time around, it was the Vice President and it was the head of Iran's parliament. This time it's the foreign minister and, and Jared Kushner and Steve Witkoff, if they get to that table.

CHARLES CARITHERS, FORMER NATIONAL SECURITY ADVISER ON CAPITOL HILL: I think it's important to realize that these things take time. And oftentimes you start at individuals who are the subject matter experts, who are nuclear experts on this particular matter. And so, you want to get the right people in the room, because timing is everything. You know, when we worked the JCPOA, the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action, the Iran deal, that took two years. That took two years and sometime before that to, to set up the actual deal.

So, I think it's important for the administration to take its time to get things right and to have clear ask. You know, what is it that we want? What are we going to receive and are we going to be able to verify, you know, what we're asking for, what's going to be our measure -- measure of accountability? And our allies and our counterparts in the region, are they going to be willing to accept a deal from the current regime?

You know, that's 42 years of state sponsoring terrorism. So that's the backdrop out of all this. The vice president not being there is not necessarily a bad thing, but the fact that he's on call, I think, is a decent symbol that if things get a little bit more serious or as close to a deal or some sort of framework they can work off of, I think that's not a bad thing.

BLACKWELL: Well, the Vice President came in last time by request because the Iranians don't trust Jared Kushner or Steve Witkoff. The last time that they were talking, the Iranians thought at the end of February that there was progress to be made. The next day, there was bombing in Tehran. And so, if the Iranians have identified these two as people they cannot trust, why send them back?

[08:05:06]

CARITHERS: Well, the reason you send them back because in good faith, you need negotiations to keep going, given the conflict, given that Iran now sees that, hey, by closing this strait, we can tip the scales of the geopolitical economic outcome. So you have to keep going back to the table because a deal needs to be made to resolve this situation that we're in. And we're -- it's now been two months since this war has started. A lot of individuals, you know, gave the pretext that this would be, this would be quick. But you just can't flip a switch and think that the Strait of Hormuz can magically reopen. You know, Pentagon officials were on Capitol Hill last week or this week briefing that the mines that the Iranians set up could take six months to clear. You know, so you're talking about a constant disruption of a quarter of the world's oil, liquefied natural gas. And what's not getting talked about is about 40 million -- at least 40 million metric tons of fertilizer.

BLACKWELL: Yes. And we know that 70 percent from a recent survey from the American Farm Bureau shows that 70 percent of American farmers say that the fertilizer is too expensive. And we are right now in the planting season. So, Tia, let me come to you.

Charles said that obviously these things take time. The president went from saying, we're going to win this. It's going to be quick, four to six weeks. We're now at the start of week nine.

He is now saying, don't rush me. I'm going to take as much time as I want. How does that match what's happening off camera? The urgency inside the White House?

MITCHELL: Well, in there's urgency not only inside the White House, I think, from some of Trump's closest advisers, but they're hearing it from members of Congress who are on the ballot later this year who know that not is it just the president's approval ratings that are going way down, in part because of the war and its effect on gas prices and fertilizer and all the other things. But they're worried that every indication is that Democrats have started winning. And they're winning because American people are saying they want to change. They're not liking what they see in the White House. We know midterms tend to be a referendum on the White House, on the president.

So there's just a lot of hand wringing. The Iran war isn't the only thing, but it is a big thing. Again, it goes down to basic pocketbook issues for a lot of voters.

Gas being, you know, a huge indicator because we're such a vehicle heavy society. And the White House and Republicans in Congress are very aware of that. They want this war to end. They don't want to have to vote on a war powers amendment, a war powers resolution.

They -- Republicans have held firm. But when we get past day 60, I think it's going to be harder for some Republicans, moderate Republicans, swing district Republicans to continue to vote against war powers resolutions.

BLACKWELL: Yes, day 60 is an important point because there is the law after Vietnam that undeclared wars, Congress has to weigh in after 60 days or they have to end. There could be a 30-day extension, according to CNN reporting, if it is just to make sure that the service persons can get out safely. But we'll see if the White House even pays attention to that when that comes up this week.

Let me ask you the last element here about the Lebanon part of this. Hezbollah says that this cease fire between Israel and Lebanon is meaningless because the strikes have continued. How much does that have the potential to blow up what might be on the table in Islamabad between the U.S. And Iran?

CARITHERS: Well, it's certainly a factor because it affects regional stability. You know, Israel may have its, its own strategic and military priorities, but the global impact here is that we need some sense of that ceasefire to hold because if it doesn't, it's going to impact, you know, the region and Lebanon's allies in Iran. So, it's really important that, you know, we speak to the fundamentals of this ceasefire holding because if not everything might be for naught, you know. Things will certainly spiral out of control and we have to get things on track here.

BLACKWELL: All right, Charles, Tia, thank you, both. Americans are suffering the consequences of war, but tonight D.C. will be partying for the first time. President Trump as president says he's going to the White House Correspondent's dinner. I'll speak to a leader of the national association of Black Journalists, which signed on to a letter calling on journalists to take a stand tonight.

Plus, black babies face disproportionate danger of death. Does focusing government money to address that risk being racist? I'll speak with an attorney whose client says she was denied support from a black infant health program because she's not black.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[08:14:50]

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

KAROLINE LEAVITT, WHITE HOUSE PRESS SECRETARY: I know the president is very much looking forward to it. I think it's quite fitting that in our nation's 250th year, the most transparent and accessible president will be attending the White House Correspondent center for the first and his speech will be very entertaining. That is what I will tell you, so everyone should tune in.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

[08:15:09]

BLACKWELL: As you heard there, Donald Trump will attend the White House Correspondents Dinner for the first time. As president, his team is promising entertainment. But a large collective of journalists and press organizations are worried about more attacks on the First Amendment.

The national association of Black Journalists is one of the groups that have seen signed onto a letter, and they're calling on members of the media in attendance to take a stand. And not just stand by. Here's a line from the letter.

"There's a long tradition of presidents attending the White House Correspondents Association Dinner, but these are not normal times. And this cannot be business as usual with the press standing up to applaud the man who attacks them on a daily basis."

Eva D. Coleman is with me now. She's vice president of NABJ. Thank you for being with me. Let me read another line.

I have the letter here. It opens as, "We, the undersigned, call upon the White House Correspondents association to use the occasion of the White House Correspondents Dinner to forcefully demonstrate opposition to President Trump's efforts to trample freedom of the press." What would you have that look like?

EVA D. COLEMAN, VP-PRINT, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF BLACK JOURNALIST: Well, Victor, thank you so much for having me, first of all. And you know, we've all heard about, you know, breaking bread with our enemies, but it doesn't mean we have to smile and chew on, on the poisonous stew. It's just really a time for us to come together and stand up in unison to go against the attacks that have been happening in our industry.

BLACKWELL: And so let me ask you used this breaking bread with our enemies. It is the president who calls the media the enemy of the people. Your use of that word, I want more clarity around it. Is the president the enemy of the press?

COLEMAN: You know, it's just really, it's very well documented. The list is long of all of the infractions, all of the efforts and attempts to trample on press freedom. You know, this is a critical time for us. And, you know, we're beyond shock and awe at this point.

And now it's time for collective action. We have to stand up and go against how we've been treated. It's just -- it's time out for all of those things.

And so, you know, when people talk bad about you or speak ill about you, what other words can you use? You know, there are times where he has basically said why he has skipped the dinner in the past, and he talked about being treated poorly by the Press. Now, to me, it's like for someone who treats us poorly, now is the time to show up. Let's make it make sense, you know.

It is really just an interesting take on it all. But we have to be unified in our approach.

BLACKWELL: When you say what other word can you use? And I have other questions here, but I want to make sure we get right on this word of enemy because the president has been criticized heavily for calling the media the enemy of the people. Is it your position that the media should see the president as an enemy?

COLEMAN: No, that's not my position. You know, we see him as, you know, he is the elected leader of our country. But it is very a sad time when we have an elected leader that is intentionally speaking ill of journalists, that is intentionally doing things to block our efforts to simply do our jobs. It is really -- it's a dangerous time to trample on our rights.

And when it comes to press freedom, that's a nonnegotiable. You know, that is something that we will stand up for and we will be 10 toes down the entire time when it comes to protecting our rights as journalists. BLACKWELL: And so let me go back to the first question. If you want there to be a forceful demonstration, what should that demonstration be tonight?

COLEMAN: As the letter stated, you know, we want people to be confident when they do speak. So speak about the things that are being said and done. I think it's just not a time for us to smile and clap and cheer.

You know, the White House Correspondents Dinner has been just for years, that opportunity where there's usually lots of laughter. Well, what's happening right now with our industry? A lot of people are not laughing because it's not funny. It's not funny. What's happening.

And its really just opportunities for us to stand together and say, you know, enough is enough. It's not funny.

BLACKWELL: Let me read another line here from the letter. And again, this letter signed by several organizations, Society of Professional Journalists, National Press Photographers Association, Freedom of the Press Foundation, Coalition for Women in Journalism, Radio Television, Digital News association, including NABJ. Also in this letter, President Trump's systematic, sustained and unprecedented attacks on the Free Press release render his presence at such an event a profound contradiction of its purpose. Was it a mistake to invite the president, do you think?

[08:20:12]

COLEMAN: You know, we invite the leader of our country to numerous events. You know, it wasn't a mistake. I don't believe it was a mistake to invite him, but I do feel that in his presence, we know what he's about. He's proven and shown us what he's about.

His administration, they've been directed to do things to harm our industry. And so, the invitation has always been declined, you know, but it's just, I think it's interesting that it was accepted this time.

Again, I don't think we've changed in our approach to how we cover him. But now is the time that you want to show up because again, as I mentioned before, he talks about not showing up in the past, about being treated poorly or badly by the press, but treating us poorly and bad. Is now -- now the time to show up?

BLACKWELL: Well, we'll see what --

COLEMAN: It's a contradiction. It's a massive contradiction.

BLACKWELL: We'll see what the reception is from both sides tonight. Eva D. Coleman, vice president of the national association of Black Journalists, thank you.

And you can watch the White House Correspondents dinner live tonight at 8:00 on CNN and on the CNN app. Question, should the U.S. government compensate Lebanese Americans whose homes are destroyed in Israeli airstrikes? An Arab American civil rights group plans to sue to find out. You're going to hear from the leader of that group who lost his own family's home in a strike, next.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[08:26:04]

BLACKWELL: Right now, there's a ceasefire in effect between Israel and Lebanon. But for people in southern Lebanon, it doesn't feel like it. This morning, new satellite images are giving us a sense of the scale of destruction there from Israeli airstrikes. Here's some of what CNN's Jeremy Diamond found.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

JEREMY DIAMOND, CNN CORRESPONDENT (voiceover): In one town after the next in southern Lebanon, rows of homes have been flattened, shops torn to the ground, entire neighborhoods erased.

Over six weeks of war, the Israeli military systematically demolished the town of Ayta Shaab, now practically wiped from the map. Along this street in the border town of Adaisa, which once held a pharmacy and auto repair shop, one building after the next has been reduced to rubble. Even the local mosque was not spared.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

BLACKWELL: And many of the homes destroyed there belong to Americans from Lebanon or their families. Given the US Support of Israel's military, what does the government owe them? The Arab American Civil Rights League wants to put that question in front of a court. There are more Arab Americans living in Michigan than anywhere else in the country.

The largest community, including those specifically of Lebanese descent, live in Dearborn. And that's where a lot of people spoke out this week and announced plans to file a lawsuit against the U.S. Government. Nasser Bedoon is chairman of the Arab American Civil Rights League in Dearborn. He's also a business owner and former Democratic Senate candidate in Michigan.

Nasser, good to have you on. I just first want to just set the table. Help us understand the scale of loss for people in that part of metro Detroit based on what we're seeing from these airstrikes from Israel.

NASSER BEYDOUN, CHAIRMAN, ARAB AMERICAN CIVIL RIGHTS LEAGUE: Well, for instance, I give you an example of vintage bell, which Israel is currently in the process of leveling. There are thousands of Americans who live here who own homes in vintage bell that the U.S. I mean that the Israelis are destroying as we speak in this so-called ceasefire.

BLACKWELL: And so explain why you're now suing the U.S. government and others. But let's start with the U.S. Government.

BEYDOUN: Well, under the Leahy Act, you know, the US Government has an obligation to make sure that weapons and aid to certain countries are not used against humanitarian or genocidal or illegal wars. And what Israel is doing is a circumvention of international law which falls under the preview of the Leahy Act.

BLACKWELL: These Leahy laws have been on the books for several decades now. There's one that applies to the Department of State, one to the Department of Defense, and they prohibit U.S. Government from using funds for assistance of units of foreign security forces where there's credible information implicating that unit in the commission of gross violations of human rights. And you believe that the IDF is committing those violations?

BEYDOUN: IDF is the textbook example of those violations. Whether it's the genocide in Gaza or the continued demolition of homes in south Lebanon and businesses and trying to erase of years of culture and memories from these villages and ethnically cleanse the south and steal the land.

BLACKWELL: And so, what Israel says is that this is to fight Hezbollah and that they are in a defensive position. They also say that Hezbollah, much like Hamas in Gaza, uses the civilian infrastructure and they use the local people as human shields and that they work to try to prevent civilian loss. And what do you say to that?

[08:30:08]

BEYDOUN: That's a bold. These are the ones that are destroying civilian infrastructure, the ones that human shields, whether it be Palestinians in Gaza or Lebanese and south Lebanon. You know, this is the pattern that the Israeli regime, the Zionist regime continues to use over and over as it tries to create their vision of greater Israel.

What we've learned, what we've seen is that Benjamin Netanyahu and his cohorts in this government, you know, are basically forcing America to commit crime against humanity.

BLACKWELL: Nasser Beydoun, I thank you for spending some time with us. We of course will follow your lawsuit and hope to speak with you again as it makes its way through the courts.

All right, it only just came out and people already have thoughts on the new Michael Jackson movie. Here's some of them, including perspective from MJ collaborator and friend.

Does he think the film got "Michael" right? We have that for you next.

Also remember, First of All is available as a podcast. You can scan the QR code below for more information. You can follow and listen wherever you get your podcasts.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[08:36:22]

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

BLACKWELL: The long awaited "Michael" movie is now in theaters and some of the die hard Michael Jackson fans love it.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: I don't need to see any other movies for the rest of the year. That was the movie of the year.

UNIDENATIFIED FEMALE: When I tell you this film is outstanding, I mean it is outstanding.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: End of the first 15 minutes, I had tears. Last performance I stopped breathing.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: At some points I really felt like I was watching archival footage of the real Michael Jackson. Because they were that good.

BLACKWELL: Yes, but not everybody loves this movie.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Now I know why Janet was upset. Now I know.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: The movie lacked depth. It told us nothing new.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: It's like someone genuinely went on the Wikipedia page and decided, eh, let's just film some of that.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: When this comes out on Netflix, that's when you press play if you're bored and it's raining outside.

BLACKWELL: And then there's the review from Robert Daniels of RogerEbert.com entitled Michael Jackson biopic is Bad. Bad. You know it.

What was wrong with the movie? What didn't you like?

ROBERT DANIELS, ASSOCIATE EDITOR, ROGEREBERT.COM: It doesn't have much to say about Michael as an artist or as a person. He's basically hermetically sealed within this pop idolatry that he occupies in our pop culture.

And the film doesn't, you know, explicate anything about him, his personality, his views, or his family for that matter. His brothers are mostly extras. And Janet Jackson doesn't even appear in the entirety of the film.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Man, you can get the hell on out of here.

BLACKWELL: I reached out to somebody who actually knew Michael Jackson. Travis Payne worked with him for 17 years, ultimately became the creative director of his This Is It tour.

Do you think the movie gets Michael right?

TRAVIS PAYNE, CREATIVE DIRECTOR: I do not envy Antoine Fuqua for having to, you know, pull together just over two hours of information to try and tell this guy gargantuan story. So I think that this -- the movie got a lot of things right. But for me, I know that there is so much, the story is so layered. You know, Michael was such a multifaceted individual, a human being, you know. But of course, I certainly hope that there will be a continuation so that so much more can be covered.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: This movie know what it got and it know how to use it and they got the music and that's all it need.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: This movie, I will say, had me so singing, dancing.

BLACKWELL: Is there a difference between a good film and a good theater experience? And is Michael a good theater experience?

DANIELS: "Michael," I don't think is a good film at all. But I do think for fans it will be at least a fun theater experience to see many of their favorite music videos, many of their favorite Michael Jackson clips recreated on the big screen and very good sound quality.

BLACKWELL: So when it comes to the Michael movie, see it now, wait or skip it.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

BLACKWLEL: All right, let me know what you think on socials. Also coming up, an expectant mother is suing a program aimed at helping black babies. She claims she was turned away because she is not black. Her attorney is here to make their case. Next.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[08:44:02]

BLACKWELL: Mother's Day, just a couple of weeks away. Being a mom is hard. We know that. And the path to becoming a mother can be dangerous, especially for black women and their babies. That's why specific resources and programs exist to help black mothers and their families.

But now the act created to protect minorities seems to be being used against them. Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 prohibits discrimination on the basis of race, color and national origin. Well, now plaintiffs are citing it as a reason why they should be accepted into race specific programs.

We're seeing it play out in California right now. A mother in Pasadena filed a federal class action lawsuit against her local public health department and other government agencies. She applied to the state's black infant health program when she was pregnant with her son. It's an incredibly helpful program. Here's one patient to explain.

[08:45:00]

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

DR. JONI RICKS-ODDIE, MOM: You know, they send you home with the paperwork after you leave the hospital with the fine prints on the, you know, these are the things, you know, the really horrible complications that you can have. But it's really unlikely and it probably won't ever happen to you. I ended up being that person, right?

I ended up being that person having the rare complication that almost killed them. You never think that you're going to be that person that this actually happens to. And so this is one of the reasons why I'm really grateful for Black Infant Health.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

BLACKWELL: Here's the thing. That mother in Pasadena involved in the lawsuit, her son G. Both, they're not black. And she says that's why she was denied from the program and referred to other resources. Her attorney, Andrew Quinio, joins me now. He's with the Pacific Legal Foundation. Andrew, thanks for coming on.

First, can you explain how your client came to apply for these support services from the Black Infant Health Program? Did she organically go in and try to get help or was this a situation where Pacific legal identified this program and she's being used as a vehicle to challenge it?

ANDREW QUINIO. ATTORNEY FOR PLAINTIFF ERICA JIMENEZ, PACIFIC LEGAL FOUNDATION: Victor, thank you so much for having me on. Our client, Erica Jimenez, was interested in the services of the Black Infant Health Program. While this program was something that has been on Pacific Legal Foundation's radar, it was something that Erica had contacted. She was interested in getting those services.

And when someone from the Black Infant Health Program got back to her, she was told very explicitly, this is not for you. The law demands equal treatment and she was not being treated equally because of her race. And that's something that government programs cannot do.

BLACKWELL: OK, so let's talk about the constitutionality of this that a judge will have to determine. You say that it violates Title VI. There are exceptions for use of race in government programs. But of course, as you know, it has to pass strict scrutiny, survive that scrutiny. And there's a two-step process.

So the first step is to determine whether the program serves a compelling government interest. So let's talk about some of the statistics here. According to the Centers for Disease Control, black women are three times more likely to die from a pregnancy related cause than white women.

From the HHS Office of Minority Health. In 2023, the mortality rate for Black infants was 95 percent higher than infants nationwide. Black infants were about two and a half times more likely to die from problems related to being born too early or with low birth weight compared with infants in the U.S. overall.

On the question of compelling government interest, can you explain why quantifiably reducing the mortality rate of a specific population is not serving a compelling government interest? QUINIO: So the Supreme Court was very clear in its decision in Students for Fair Admission versus Harvard that there is only one compelling interest that would satisfy the 14th Amendment, and that is to address specific instances of government discrimination.

Black Infant Health Program does not attempt to address specific instances, for instance, where black mothers were being turned away or discriminated against. And I want to be very clear about what this lawsuit does. This lawsuit does not attempt to or seek to kick out current moms on the program or exclude any moms from the program.

What it attempts to do is open it up to all mothers because all mothers matter here. We all want to care about the health of all mothers and their infants, and no mother should be turned away because they're the wrong race.

BLACKWELL: The National Institutes of Health, the Health and Human Services, CDC, KFF all point out that there are programs that treat black women and black infants differently. There are lower quality NICU units that black women are serviced by.

So, when you suggest that there is no specific government record of discrimination, courts have accepted in the past that there are societal disadvantages that are afforded specific populations, and it has survived that element of strict scrutiny.

Let me move on to the second one here, that these have to be narrowly tailored uses of race. No more than necessary. So I've read the statistics. The program says that it exists specifically because black women and babies die at alarming rates and try to compensate for those shortcomings.

So what is the argument against what they see as narrow tailoring, using race no more than necessary?

QUINIO: The concerns about disparities and infant mortality still remain concerning.

[08:50:00]

What this program doesn't do, though, is narrowly tailored, is to be narrowly tailored to those specific concerns because there is no income threshold. There's no income requirement for this program. It is only strictly based on whether you are the right race.

BLACKWELL: Well, Andrew, let me ask you this. You suggest that there's no income threshold. What the science says is that the disparities exist regardless of income level for black women and children, that there are worse outcomes and worse treatment irrespective of socioeconomic.

So, in the suggestion that income is the only measure of need that is removed, is it not because the disparities exist across all levels of income?

QUINIO: And not only does this program not look at income, though, it doesn't look at individual circumstances. It doesn't look at individual hardships. When Erica was connected to this program, they didn't ask her about her individual circumstances or her individual hardships or what she was going through. They simply inquired whether she was the right race.

The law demands more. The law demands individualized treatment. The Black Infant Health Program doesn't do that. Now, keep in mind, this program has been around for 37 years. And despite that, these inequalities continue to persist.

So we've had separate care, separate assistance, yet unequal results. I think it goes to show that separate still remains unequal.

BLACKWELL: Well, you were to use that phrase, your client was referred to other programs. Right. Did she avail herself of herself of those?

QUINIO: So moms like my client Erica are unfortunately in this unfortunate limbo as far as getting assistance for a lot of programs. In California, you have an income threshold. She doesn't -- her income isn't low enough to qualify for a lot of these programs where you have to be on Medical, which is California's version of Medicaid.

BLACKWELL: Yes.

QUINIO: But then at the same time, there's other programs that are racially targeted. So, she's caught in this limbo where she can't get this assistance because of income and her race. The Black Infant Health Program would have provided her with the resources that she needed because she was otherwise eligible, but for her race.

BLACKWELL: All right. Andrew Quinio, thank you so much for being on the show today. We'll of course, follow the case. We did reach out to the California Department of Public Health. They said they do not comment on pending litigation. We'll be back.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[08:56:45]

BLACKWELL: Hey. This morning I want to introduce America's top teacher, Leon Smith. He's the 2026 National Teacher of the Year. He teaches at Haverford High School in Pennsylvania.

His classes jumped out at me considering this moment we're in as a country. Advanced placement U.S. history and African American studies. I asked Mr. Smith about the importance of those concentrations and how he approaches them.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

LEON SMITH, NAMED THE 2026 NATIONAL TEACHER OF THE YEAR: Well, I think anytime that teachers can teach critical thinking and being able to help students to navigate looking at sources and looking at different scenarios is very important because we want our students to be critical consumers of information. This is a society where there's a lot of technology, a lot of

information and sources that are available. And the students have to be able to look at them and analyze them and understand bias and understand perspective so that they can make up their own minds.

And so I think for me, what we really work on in my class is you're going to be in the real world. You're going to need to be civically engaged. You want to create the world that you're going to live in and raise your children in. And so we don't just learn content in my class. We learn skills that will help them to create the society that they want to live in.

I'm truly fortunate in the community and where I teach. I was able to bring that course to the school. But in many ways we did an audit and the community wanted it, the parents and the students. And so the beauty of the class, it's interdisciplinary.

So it really is quite enjoyable because we're able to bring in literature and music and fashion and architecture. Because when you're studying a group of people, it's not just history, it's multidimensional. And I think that the students get a lot out of it because it's often focusing on how is it that we can learn about this group of people in ways that are dynamic.

And so the class is very diverse and in the sense that we have a lot of people that don't just love history, they love English, they love photography, they love art. And so it's so beautiful to have just an assortment of students together in that way with different learning styles and different interests all together learning about this topic.

And also for me is beautiful because I've had to learn different teaching strategies because I didn't have to analyze literature before, I didn't have to analyze poetry or photography. And so it's actually made me a better teacher teaching the class.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

BLACKWELL: Yes, isn't that great? Mr. Smith said he actually found out that he'd be getting the honor a bit before the official announcement. And it was tough to keep it between just he and his wife. I asked how his students reacted.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

SMITH: I'm truly blessed. Today I walked into my classroom, it was all decorated with balloons and congratulatory messages. They surprised me. Students that I had last year been coming by all day. So it just -- that's what I love about teaching, that teaching you have a tremendous impact on students' lives and you will make it so that they will never forget you.

[09:00:00]

And you're not doing it because of that. You're doing it because you care and you want to make a difference. Because in many ways we've all had a teacher that has done that for us.