Return to Transcripts main page
Inside Politics
Trump Speaks After Supreme Court Gives Him Big Win On Exec. Power; House Members Receive Classified Briefing On U.S. Strikes On Iran. Aired 12:30-1p ET
Aired June 27, 2025 - 12:30 ET
THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.
[12:30:00]
DONALD TRUMP (R), PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: They should have lost none. You know, I sent the water down. I had to break into their water supplies because they just refused to do it. They're crazy. There's something wrong with them.
They have plenty of water. They don't have droughts or anything. They have plenty. We let it come down from the Pacific Northwest. They routed all the water out into the Pacific Ocean for environmental reasons, OK?
And now you have 25,000 houses, none of which would have burned down if you had the water. They didn't have water. They didn't have water for the fire pumps. They didn't have water in the sprinkler systems that people put in.
So the answer is we're going to work with governors. We're going to work with radical left Democrats and Democrats, and we're going to make it good for everybody. We'll have to stop the crime in those -- in the case of the cities. I think I can say just about all cities with heavy crime are run by Democrats.
(CROSSTALK)
TRUMP: Go ahead.
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Mr. President, thank you --
TRUMP: Yes, with the glasses.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: I'm with Iran International --
TRUMP: Go ahead, yes. Yes, no, no, the man behind you. Yes, please?
ANTHONY MERCHAK, REPORTER, MTV LEBANON: President Trump, Anthony Merchak from MTV Lebanon. I want to ask you regarding the threats posed by Iran's allies and proxies operating in the U.S. They were threatening your life. So what do you say about that?
And regarding the Lebanon, because Hezbollah is as well part of Iran's allies --
TRUMP: Yes. MERCHAK: -- is there any time frame in Lebanon regarding disarming Hezbollah in Lebanon?
TRUMP: Yes. Lebanon is a great place with brilliant people. You know, it was known for the professors and doctors and had an incredible history. And hopefully we can bring it back again.
I just appointed a friend of mine who's Lebanese, and I didn't know he was Lebanese. I've known him for 20 years, very, very successful man. And I just appointed him.
And I said, why would you want that? He said, because I was born there. I was raised there. I love it. I love it so much. I said, you know, it's very dangerous going to Lebanon as ambassador. And he said, that's what they say, but I don't care about danger.
I mean, this is a guy that is just a very big business guy. He wants to give up his whole life to go to Lebanon because he believes in it so much. We're with Lebanon all the way. We'll try and straighten it out.
MERCHAK: They are threatening your life, Mr. President, so what action --
TRUMP: Threatened my life, yes, they have threatened. I get that throbbing feeling every once in a while. Get that throbbing feeling. But you know what? That's OK.
This is a dangerous business. What I do is a dangerous business. You know, I tell the story of the car companies and different people in different professions. You have race car drivers, as an example.
One-tenth of 1 percent die. Bull riders, one-tenth of 1 percent. That's not a lot, but it's people die. When you're president, it's about 5 percent.
If somebody would have told me that, maybe I wouldn't have run. OK?
(CROSSTALK)
TRUMP: This is a very dangerous profession.
Yes, please.
(CROSSTALK)
TRUMP: Should -- by the way, so many questions. Should we keep this going, Pam?
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Yes.
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Yes.
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Yes.
TRUMP: This is the opposite of Biden. Biden would take a half a question and he'd leave without answering it. Go ahead.
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: On Iran, on --
TRUMP: You tell me when it gets boring, OK?
(CROSSTALK)
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: On Iran, on Iran, if Iran --
TRUMP: Are you from Iran?
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: No, I'm not from Iran. I'm from the U.K. But if the intelligence reports conclude that Iran can enrich uranium to a level that concerns you --
TRUMP: Yes.
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: -- would you consider bombing the country again?
TRUMP: Sure. Without question, absolutely.
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Do you had any confession --
TRUMP: It turned out to be unbelievable. But, you know, our incredible flyers and our -- I call them the shots. These guys are unbelievable. Think, from 52,000 feet, they hit the equivalent of a refrigerator door. They actually hit it right in the center, so it's much smaller than that.
And just bomb after bomb, going deeper, deeper, blowing up. Incredible, incredible thing. I don't know if you heard the general. He was very impressive. Razin Caine. You know, he's the one that beat ISIS for me. And he did it in a matter of weeks.
And I was told it was going to take four or five years. And when I got this job, I always said, if I get this job, I'm going to put that guy as the head of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. And Dan Caine, and he, when I heard his name was Razin. His nickname is Razin, Razin Caine. I said, you got to be kidding.
So I liked him right from the beginning. But he knocked out ISIS in a time that nobody ever thought possible. And when this attack was completed and so successful, I said, now I know how you knocked out ISIS so quickly.
But we have the best people. We have the best equipment in the world. You know, I rebuilt the military during my four years, during my other term. We have the best equipment in the world.
The problem is we gave away, you know, a lot of it, but small, relatively speaking. We gave a lot of it away to Afghanistan. Shouldn't have happened. That just shows how incompetent they were.
They gave all that equipment away. Billions and billions of dollars worth. Shouldn't happen. But that was small compared to what we have.
[12:35:03]
Now we have a great military with great people. OK.
(CROSSTALK)
TRUMP: Yes, please.
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Mr. President, congratulations. A couple of very different questions. One is Rwanda 1994, as you grew up in New York, we all knew how horrific those attacks were.
TRUMP: Right.
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Congratulations on that treaty. There are talks that perhaps --
TRUMP: That's going to take place today at 3:00 in the Oval Office. We're going to have a signing --
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Yes.
TRUMP: -- with Rwanda and the Congo.
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: I have a follow-up.
TRUMP: So I'm a little out of my league in that one, because I didn't know too much about it. I knew one thing. They were going at it for many years, and with machetes. It is one of the worst, one of the worst wars that anyone's ever seen.
And I just happened to have somebody that was able to get it settled. I mean, just a brilliant person who is very comfortable in that part of the world. It's a very dangerous part of the world. They said, are you uncomfortable there? People are being killed. Schoolchildren are being raided and killed.
And I don't even want to say how, but as viciously as I've ever heard. Are you uncomfortable? No, that's the part of the world that I know. Very comfortable.
Was able to get them together and sell it. And not only that, we're getting for the United States a lot of the mineral rights from the Congo as part of it. They're so honored to be here.
They never thought they'd be coming. Look, this is a very tough part of the world. They never thought -- they were just telling me, they never thought they'd ever be coming to the White House. And they're so honored. And so we're going to give them a great big reception. But that's after many years of fighting.
It's a great thing. That's at 3:00, I believe.
(CROSSTALK)
TRUMP: Yes, go ahead.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Sir, are you concerned at all about secret nuclear sites in Iran? Can you talk about maybe just --
TRUMP: Secret nuclear sites?
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Yes, there might be some (INAUDIBLE).
TRUMP: Not really. Can I tell you, they're exhausted. And Israel's exhausted too. And I dealt with both of them. And they both wanted it settled, both of them.
And we did a great job, but they're exhausted. The last thing they're thinking about right now is nuclear. You know what they're thinking of? They're thinking about tomorrow, trying to live. It's such a mess. It's such a mess.
The place was bombed to hell. And no, I'm not worried about it at all. And I'm putting out a little statement. I'm going to respond to the Ayatollah's statement yesterday that we won the war. Oh God, we won the war.
And I said, look, you're a man of great faith, a man who's highly respected in this country. You have to tell the truth. You got beat to hell. And Israel was beat up too. They were both beat up.
And it was a great time to end it. It was quick. They got the hate out, a lot of hate, a lot of hate. It would be great if they didn't have that hate. But the last thing they're thinking about is nuclear weapons right now.
(CROSSTALK)
TRUMP: Please.
IRIS TAO, WHITE HOUSE CORRESPONDENT, NTD: Thank you, Mr. President. Iris Tao with NTD Research Media with The Epoch Times.
TRUMP: Good.
TAO: Thank you so much for doing this.
TRUMP: Sure.
TAO: It's very refreshing for all of us here I believe in this room.
TRUMP: It's a good group. It's refreshing?
TAO: Very refreshing. Yes, we haven't had this in --
TRUMP: Probably.
TAO: -- you know --
TRUMP: I understand what you mean.
TAO: So thank you so much for coming out here.
TRUMP: Other than Karoline's done a great job. ALL: Yes.
TRUMP: You're referring to the past administration --
TAO: Yes, yes.
TRUMP: -- not to Karoline, right?
TAO: Yes. Back to the ruling today, if you don't mind. So you have always talked about winning for the American people.
TRUMP: Right.
TAO: How do you think today's ruling will enable you to further deliver for American families and workers across the country, not only when it comes to immigration, but also when it comes to trade, energy? What actions are you most eager to move forward with now?
TRUMP: Well, I think taking power away from these absolutely crazy radical left judges is a tremendous -- this is such a big day. This is such a big day. It's like -- it's sort of sad because we're doing the signing at 3:00. And I, you know, this may very well dominate the signing of a big war that was going on and really affecting the continent of -- think of it, the entire continent of Africa was being affected. And we're settling that war today.
And this will probably be a headline. But this is a very big moment. And it gives power back to people that should have it, including Congress, including the presidency. And it only takes bad power away from judges.
It really doesn't -- it takes bad power, sick power, and unfair power. And it's really going to be -- this is a very monumental decision.
Yes, please?
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Mr. President, on July 9th, is that July 9th date set for tariffs to snap back?
TRUMP: No.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Or could they -- could there be a --
TRUMP: We can do whatever we want. We could extend it. We could make it shorter. I'd like to make it shorter. I'd like to just send letters out to everybody.
Congratulations, you're paying 25 percent.
(CROSSTALK)
TRUMP: He doesn't want -- he's a much nicer person than I am.
(CROSSTALK)
TRUMP: Go ahead. You finish it up. UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Who are you considering for the Federal Reserve then? And are you speeding up that process? I see Secretary --
TRUMP: Oh, he's terrible. He's terrible.
[12:40:01]
I mean, I have a list of things. We're like 38 on the list. We pay, you know, Cameroon and different places are paying the same as us. Because, you know, you have somebody sets a rate at 4 percent or 4.5 percent. It's hard to go out and say, we should be paying 1 percent when you have your so-called experts doing that.
And the sad part is, you know, as per the question that you asked about tariffs, we've had the tariffs and we have less inflation than we had before. What we have is a hell of a lot more money, a hell of a lot more income. And we shouldn't be paying a rate like that.
In other words, when we pay a rate, I'll tell you, each point is the equivalent of $300 billion. So if we had it down three points, because I think we should be at one, you have Switzerland is at 0.25. In other words, 25 percent of 1 percent. And they're the number one right now. But we should be the number one.
And soon you're going to have, I believe, I think you're going to have where the people will pay, you know, will pay, like we had a few years ago, where you put up money, you loan money. And I mean, you actually, instead of paying, you get paid.
I love that. I don't know if it's any good. But I love it where you put up money, and you get paid. But we should be in a category. So we should be at the top of the list, not toward the bottom of the list.
But we have a man who's not a smart man. And he probably has Trump derangement syndrome. And he's just not a smart person. What he's doing, though, he's hurting us for years to come.
Because if we borrow money at two points higher than we should be paying, that's $600 billion. You wouldn't you say those numbers are about right, Scott. So it's two points would be about 600 -- actually more than that, but about $600 million dollars, all because the guy doesn't want to lower the rates.
He's doing the service a very -- and then he goes up talks about, I'd like to see costs come down. You know, he gets up and he does this little thing for five minutes, and he goes out and he goes back to the beach. He goes, I'd like to see costs come down.
Well, he could lower the interest cost by $900 billion a year. All he has to do is lower rates. And everybody's saying -- I was watching some of the business shows today. And they're saying, you know, Trump's right. He should really be cutting. The country's doing well.
We have no inflation. Now, despite him, we're doing great. But if we got the rates down, we would be a rocket ship.
So I think that'll be it. And I just want to thank everybody. This is a really big day. We've had --
(CROSSTALK)
TRUMP: We've had a big week. You know, we've had a big week. We've had a lot of victories this week. NATO is a tremendous victory.
The war was a tremendous -- look, we were talking about this for 30 years, about Iran being nuclear. And all I said is it will not be nuclear and it's not going to be nuclear. And, you know, I want to give credit to a lot of people, most importantly to our great military. Boy, they put out that fire.
Once that happened, once those bombs got dropped out, that war was over, that war was over. But I just want to compliment them. Incredible. The general and all of his generals.
Pete Hegseth was great. They were. And now I want to compliment Pam. A lot of genius went into this. You know, people -- if you don't say it exactly right, if the Supreme Court doesn't get it because it's incorrectly spoken about and that happens. A lot of cases are lost because they don't say the right words.
But I want to -- she's going to go down as a great attorney general. I may change my mind about that. I don't know. Maybe someday I'll set calls -- and I was only kidding. She's going to go down as a great attorney general.
This was a tremendous win. And we've had tremendous wins. But this was a tremendous win today. So I just want to congratulate you and Todd and your whole staff. Very brilliant people. And we can't forget John Sauer --
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: That's right.
TRUMP: -- who is with -- there's a medical emergency within his family, so he's taking care of that. And we said, absolutely.
So I just want to thank everybody very much. Thank you.
(CROSSTALK)
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Thank you, Mr. President.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Mr. President, thank you.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Thank you, sir.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Thank you, sir.
JIM SCIUTTO, CNN ANCHOR: President just leaving the White House briefing room. Welcome to Inside Politics. I'm Jim Sciutto in today for Dana Bash.
And we are following the breaking news, significant news. President Trump just addressed a monumental Supreme Court decision poised to redefine executive power in this country. He personally thanked the justices who ruled in his favor. The 6-3 decision sending shockwaves across the country as it limits lower courts ability to block president's executive orders by using a nationwide injunction.
This case specifically revolved around whether President Trump could enforce his ban on birthright citizenship. And the decision now clears a path for him to move forward with that, at least for now, even though the vast majority of constitutional scholars say it is unconstitutional.
CNN's Kristen Holmes is at the White House. Kristen, you listen to the president. They are clearly taking a victory lap, not just on the Supreme Court decision, given he has so many executive orders that have currently been blocked by injunctions such as this. But Iran, his Big Beautiful Bill, you name it.
[12:45:114]
KRISTEN HOLMES, CNN SENIOR WHITE HOUSE CORRESPONDENT: Right, everything. I do want to point to a couple of things because I think the most notable came in the form of him listing off the executive orders that have been stopped by a nationwide injunction.
He said, thanks to this decision, we can now probably file to proceed with these numerous policies for those who have been wrongly, he says, wrongly enjoyed on a nationwide basis. He includes birthright citizenship, ending sanctuary city funding, suspending refugee settlement, freezing unnecessary funding, stopping federal taxpayers from paying for transgender surgery and a number of other priorities. He said he had a whole list there.
This is really the crucial part of this ruling. It does expand the executive and it expands the executive under President Trump. They believe that now they have more of an opportunity to move forward with executive orders without the threat of having them stopped or paused by a lower court ruling.
And this limit of power is not going to just apply, as he said, to birthright citizenship, but to a much larger selection of issues that President Trump is going to try to push through using these executive orders, particularly now that this ruling has come down in the Supreme Court.
Now the other part of this that I thought was fascinating, you mentioned briefly, was him thanking the Supreme Court justices over and over again and thanking them by name. I'll just remind you, a couple of months ago, we reported that President Trump had been critical privately about his Supreme Court justice, that he appointed Amy Coney Barrett here.
He said that she was brilliant, that her writing was brilliant on this ruling when she was asked about it. Clearly, he is very happy with the ruling here --
SCIUTTO: Right.
HOLMES: -- but we don't generally hear presidents coming out and thanking the Supreme Court for their decisions, and that was probably another really notable moment here
SCIUTTO: Yes. Listen, brilliant when they agree with him. We've seen this pattern.
Kristen Holmes at the White House, thanks so much.
I'm joined now by a terrific group of reporters and analysts. CNN's Joan Biskupic, Jeff Mason of Reuters, Seung Min Kim of the AP, and CNN Senior Legal Analyst Elie Honig.
I want to begin with you, and I have a lot to get through with our constitutional experts here. But on the birthright citizenship piece of this, does this effectively allow him now to block birthright citizenship, which, as we said, constitutional scholars say the language is quite clear on in some parts of the country, at least for a period of time?
JOAN BISKUPIC, CNN CHIEF SUPREME COURT ANALYST: In theory only. Because first of all, this whole thing's on hold for at least 30 days. That was already written into the executive order, and essentially the court reminded people of that. Right now, as we speak, Jim, people are going to lower courts right now, trying to use alternative methods, trying to look for class action ability to sort of block it.
But what the court has given him, two major things here. First, at least an invitation to try to end birthright citizenship. And the other, as Kristen just mentioned, an invitation for a whole swath of policies that are arguably unlawful. I was in the courtroom when Justice Barrett read this.
And first of all, I just have to say it was a very big surprise that she authored this, only because the whole world up there works on seniority, and Chief Justice John Roberts had the authority to decide who would write this. And look who he gave it to, the most junior member of that sixth justice majority.
Gave it to her, first of all, in part because she does tend to be compared to her colleagues, not compared to the left for sure, a little more measured. And in fact, several of the other conservatives split off and wanted it to go further. But the point is that she got to do this, and she's -- and it's going to give a green light to countless presidential orders that right now had been stopped.
SCIUTTO: No question. I want to get to that list of orders, but before we do, Elie Honig, what do those who want to challenge this ruling, who want to protect birthright citizenship, what do plaintiffs do now to attempt to defend that in light of this decision?
ELIE HONIG, CNN SENIOR LEGAL ANALYST: Well, they have to either become parties themselves to a lawsuit, right? They can no longer rely on, well, one district judge in some other district blocked this nationwide. If someone wants to challenge this now, they have to either sue on their own or become part of what we call a class action, a large group of people going in and suing at once. It's way more burdensome than it was a few hours ago. And the bottom line takeaway from today is right now, the presidency -- forget about Donald Trump -- the presidency is far more powerful than it was --
SCIUTTO: Yes.
HONIG: -- at 9.55 a.m. this morning. What this says is that district court judges, by and large, cannot individually block a president's orders across the country. And it should be noted, this was a problem. This was a practice that bothered and upset and got in the way of presidential initiatives of Joe Biden, of Barack Obama, of George W. Bush to an extent.
[12:50:04]
But this has now fundamentally shifted the balance of powers away from the courts --
SCIUTTO: Right.
HONIG: -- to the president. And I should say with the press conference that just adjourned, the president is correct that he got a big win today. But there was some overstatement in there too. At one point, I think the attorney general said, now district court judges can't stop us from doing anything. Yes, they can. They can on a case by case, party by party basis.
SCIUTTO: Right.
HONIG: But their power to do that is much reduced.
SCIUTTO: No question. Listen, there are people watching this decision today whose children were born in this country, and the law as understood. And not just the 14th Amendment, but for instance, the 1898 decision, Wong Kim Ark, where the expectation was your child's born here, they're citizens, they have questions now. And they have questions about how they pursue that case if it's taken away from them.
I do want to bring in Democratic Congressman Jamie Raskin, ranking member of the House Judiciary Committee. Congressman, your reaction to this? Do you take Elie's -- Elie Honig's description there as this being a massive expansion of executive power?
REP. JAMIE RASKIN (D-MD): Well, it's certainly an expansion of executive power by virtue of the interpretation of the Judiciary Act of 1789 limiting the equitable jurisdiction of each individual court. But I think Donald Trump doesn't understand what's just happened because four different federal courts have struck down his attempts to nullify constitutional birthright citizenship.
Two judges appointed by Republicans, Reagan and Bush, two judges appointed by Democrats, Obama and Biden. Their holdings stay within their district courts, but the nationwide implications have now been reduced because of this order with the court saying that, you know, it's too much of an extrapolation from the power that Congress -- SCIUTTO: Right.
RASKIN: -- gave to federal courts in 1789. All right, fine. That means now that people are going to go out and file nationwide class action suits, which are still allowed. You can bring it as a class action, or they'll bring suits across the country.
I mean, in a certain sense, the universal jurisdiction that had been extended by these courts saved Donald Trump from a huge, blistering, continuing political defeat because the whole country is against him --
SCIUTTO: Right.
RASKIN: -- on his stupid order trying to nullify the first sentence of the 14th Amendment, which says all persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof are citizens of the United States.
SCIUTTO: Right.
RASKIN: It's plain as day. And the Supreme Court, the conservative court, trying to soothe his political ego said, oh, we'll give you a procedural win on the equitable power of district courts. But he's going to continue to lose on the substance --
SCIUTTO: Yes.
RASKIN: -- and he's going to lose on the substance when it goes up to the Supreme Court. That's probably one reason they gave it to Amy Coney Barrett to write --
SCIUTTO: Right.
RASKIN: -- the procedural (INAUDIBLE) for the president.
SCIUTTO: He did make his intention clear to end, at least his intention to end birthright citizenship by claiming, and I'm quoting him here, the 14th Amendment protections of birthright citizenship, was meant for just the babies of slaves there.
I do want to ask about another case, and that is one that relates to LGBTQ books in schools, because this, of course, was a case brought by parents in Montgomery County, Maryland, state you represent, an area you represent. Can I ask your reaction to this ruling here, which in effect gives parents the right to be -- to not have their kids see books with things like same-sex couples in them?
RASKIN: Well, you know, as the dissenting opinions point out here, the implications of this decision are just breathtaking, because, of course, if you have a religious free exercise right to opt out of a compulsory exercise, for example, what the Supreme Court said in West Virginia versus Barnette, it applies not just to an exercise of religious conscience, but a conscience generally.
If there are, you know, Jehovah's Witness kids who don't want to participate in the compulsory flag salute, it also applies to kids who are internationalists or pacifists or what have you. And it's the same thing here. If you can opt out of mandatory classroom readings because it offends your religious objections, you can do it because it offends your philosophical, you know, beliefs, your political beliefs, your moral beliefs, or what have you.
And the court basically says, well, we'll deal with all that down the road. There's going to be a lot more cases where people are saying, you know, our family doesn't believe in evolution, so we don't want our kid --
SCIUTTO: Yes.
RASKIN: -- to be in class when evolution is taught. It offends our religion. Our family doesn't believe in war, so we don't want to be -- we don't want our kids in class when World War II is being taught about. And so the courts are going to have to figure that out.
And so, again, they're trying to flatter a particular political group, a mega group here, and I think it's going to cause chaos going forward in terms of trying to figure out what it means to have a public education system.
SCIUTTO: Well, you can imagine just the remarkable possibility of books, just schools rather just taking books off the shelves of their libraries. Just very quickly because we're near the top of the hour here, classified briefing regarding the results of military strikes on Iran. Can you give us a read as to how far the damage went?
[12:55:04]
RASKIN: I cannot give you that read, and I don't think it's totally clear. And I really don't know much more than, you know, any of us know from reading the newspaper. For me, the critical point is Congress should not be briefed after the fact. There's a reason that the Constitution reposes the power to declare war exclusively in the Congress.
The framers did not trust a president because they'd seen all of these wars of fancy and vanity and profit being waged by kings. They thought it was way too much power to put in one person, and they wanted the representatives of the people deciding. So everything I've learned about this publicly or otherwise indicates to me we've got to stick to the Constitution.
SCIUTTO: Congressman Jamie Raskin, we do appreciate you joining us.
We're close to the top of the hour. Jeff and Seung Min, I want to get your thoughts on this. And first, if we could put up on the screen all the Trump administration actions that had been paused by nationwide injunctions, or at least several of them. And this gives you a sense, Jeff Mason, of what this means for him.
JEFF MASON, WHITE HOUSE CORRESPONDENT, REUTERS: Yes. You know, what comes to my mind is I think he'll be writing a thank you letter to Mitch McConnell, because it all goes back to having the Supreme Court have the members that it does right now, that were certainly not expected at the end of the term that preceded the last one.
SCIUTTO: Sure.
MASON: So it's just such a big deal for him to have that much conservative energy on the Supreme Court. And this is a president who came in for his second term really wanting to exercise executive power, and that was strengthened before by the Supreme Court, before he came into office, and it's been strengthened again today.
SCIUTTO: Seung Min, the president left a little daylight for his -- what had been his deadline to pass the Big Beautiful Bill.
SEUNG MIN KIM, CNN POLITICAL ANALYST: Right.
SCIUTTO: He'd wanted by July 4th. He did say there, well, maybe, you know, that'd be nice if we did. Where does that stand now? Is it -- especially given the parliamentarian's rulings?
KIM: Right. I mean, the reason why he said it's not the end all if they don't make this July 4th deadline is because the bill is in a much messier place than perhaps just a few days ago, because of the Senate parliamentarian who decides it's kind of the balls and strikes caller of the Senate. She decided there are a lot of provisions of this bill that were not -- that would basically need 60 votes to pass, not a simple majority.
So the Senate's working it out right now. July 4th, obviously, is a very tight deadline for both the House and Senate to pass their measures of the bill. The real deadline is when the nation reaches the debt limit, because the debt limit increases in that bill that's expected later this summer, and all the tax rate deadlines are effectively the end of the year.
SCIUTTO: Yes.
KIM: So that's another deadline that they have to meet. July 4th was kind of made up. It was more patriotic.
SCIUTTO: And listen, with those rulings, what they do is they take away a lot of the pay-fors that Republicans --
KIM: Right.
SCIUTTO: -- had planned for these tax cuts, and the bottom line is going to be a bigger add to the debt. Joan, given there are so many constitutional questions here, we have two and a half minutes for you to distill them for the world.
BISKUPIC: I'm ready.
SCIUTTO: But one thing that strikes me, how can the court not decide on the merits of birthright citizenship now if the practical effect of this decision is that it might take it away from some people for a time?
BISKUPIC: Number one, they can do whatever they want. SCIUTTO: Yes.
BISKUPIC: Number two --
SCIUTTO: We should have learn that lesson (INAUDIBLE).
BISKUPIC: Number two --
SCIUTTO: Yes.
BISKUPIC: -- Justice Barrett said from the bench, we expect this question to be back here soon. Now, you just heard President Trump's spokesperson say they'll decide it in October. Probably what they'll get is they'll get a case by the fall --
SCIUTTO: Right.
BISKUPIC: -- and then next year at this time, the five of us will be here --
SCIUTTO: Yes.
BISKUPIC: -- again deciding it. But no, they -- part of the test, Jim, real quick, is that for a judge's court order to try to block something, is the -- is a question about the merits. Is this constitutional or not? And the justices blew past that and said, actually, if any party's going to be harmed here, it would be the president. So we're going to side with the president at this point.
SCIUTTO: Yes. Elie Honig, I know that Republicans will say the judges are the ones who are imperial by trying to block the president's decisions with these nationwide orders, but this is a very powerful presidency that this court envisions here with this decision. A step closer to an imperial presidency?
HONIG: Well, for sure. And it's not just Republicans who object to this. It's whoever's in the White House at any given moment.
SCIUTTO: Right.
HONIG: I mean, you go back two years, it was Democrats saying that when Biden was in the White House. But for sure, the presidency is so much more powerful than it was just a few hours ago. I said, a year ago was the immunity ruling. That, of course, expanded presidential power, but this is a bigger deal. This is systematic, system wide.
And to a point Jeff made earlier, all the big decisions today were 6- 3. And Joan knows Chief Justice Roberts really tries to avoid those 6- 3s. But when we get down to the big ones, they retreat to their corners.
BISKUPIC: That's right.
SCIUTTO: And as you said, you were surprised by Amy Coney Barrett.
BISKUPIC: I was surprised they gave it to her. But, boy, that just -- that says something. That really says something about Amy Coney Barrett as his partner, as his lieutenant. And as Jeff said, it goes back to those three Trump appointees from the first administration that he had.
SCIUTTO: Yes.
BISKUPIC: And who knows what's going to happen in the next three years.
SCIUTTO: No question. Well, again, big decisions not just on nationwide injunctions, but as we touched on with Congressman Raskin on LGBTQ books in schools or just books that contain any LGBTQ content.
Thanks so much to all of you for distilling these important issues in the span of minutes and seconds. And thanks to all of you for joining Inside Politics. I'm Jim Sciutto.
CNN News Central starts right now.
