Return to Transcripts main page
One World with Zain Asher
Sources: U.S. National Security Adviser Expected To Leave Post; U.S. And Ukraine Sign Minerals Deal After Months Of Talks; Job Cuts By U.S. Government Made Up Largest Chuck Of Layoffs; Sources: Trump Weighs Sending Migrants To Libya And Rwanda; U.S., China Urge Pakistan And India To De- escalate; Federal Judge Rules Trump Use Of Alien Enemies Act Unlawful; Trump Administration Releases Review Of Gender Dysphoria Treatment; Training Dogs To Sniff Out Landmines; Aired 12:00-1:00p ET
Aired May 01, 2025 - 12:00 ET
THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: This is CNN Breaking News.
[12:00:30]
ZAIN ASHER, CNN ANCHOR: All right. Coming to you live from New York, I'm Zain Asher. My colleague, Bianna Golodryga, is off today. You are watching
ONE WORLD.
I want to begin with a major shake-up in the U.S. national security establishment. Sources are telling CNN that national security adviser Mike
Waltz is expected to step down in the coming days.
It's the first major cabinet reshuffle since U.S. President Trump took office in January. Sources say that Waltz has been on shaky ground and lost
most of his influence after he inadvertently added a reporter to a group chat on Signal about military strikes in Yemen. His deputy, Alex Wong, is
also expected to leave his post as well.
Let's go to CNN's chief international security correspondent Nick Paton Walsh, joining us live now from London.
So, Nick, I was listening to you earlier just talking about how consistency is really important when it comes to negotiations. The fact that you now
have Mike Waltz leaving his post and his deputy as well. Just talk us through how that's going to affect negotiations with Ukraine do you think.
NICK PATON WALSH, CNN CHIEF INTERNATIONAL SECURITY CORRESPONDENT: At this point, we don't actually fully know what the impact is going to be because
we don't know who Waltz's replacement is going to be. But it's really more negotiations with Russia, probably, that are going to be impacted by this.
Waltz, along with U.S. Secretary of State Marco Rubio, have been the two key figures spearheading the discussions in Saudi Arabia with Russian
officials.
Steve Witkoff, Trump's U.S. envoy to Russia, had been having his separate channel, but it was ultimately at those meetings in Saudi Arabia with
Ukraine as well, where a lot of the hard crunching of diplomacy got.
And indeed, the suggestion of an unconditional ceasefire for 30 days emerged from a meeting with Waltz, Rubio, and their Ukrainian counterparts.
So I think there's certainly going to be anxiety in Kyiv as to who the replacement's going to be. There was a backbone, I think, of traditional
Republican values and assessments of Moscow with Mike Waltz.
He was, prior to his appointment, very outspoken about Russia's full-scale invasion of Ukraine and the atrocities that they committed. And all that
dampened as he joined the administration, so eager to pursue a peace with Russia.
But I think there's also definitely a window here for Moscow. They are masters at changing their cast of diplomats and venues of agendas, clearly
over the past months now trying to eke out the lengthiest diplomacy they can possibly find.
To buy time for success on the battlefield, the departure of one of their main American entry lockage, depending on who the replacement is, this
person may be more advantageous to Russia's position. It certainly buys them a chance to say, hang on a minute, the personalities on your side have
changed, Washington. Let's have another meeting to discuss that.
So unclear what the impact is going to be here, exceptionally unpredictable. But we've had now, I think it's fair to say, the first
public casualty of some of the disarray in the Trump National Security Administration here. And I think it's going to have a severe impact on this
Ukrainian peace process. Not that there was one imminently about to yield results, as far as we could see on the surface.
A lot of resistance from Moscow, but I think they will see an opening here in the change of U.S. personnel.
ASHER: All right. Nick Paton Walsh, thank you so much. Appreciate that.
All right. Let's begin Sean Savett. He's a former spokesperson and senior director for press for the National Security Council. And Brett Bruin,
National Security Council official, rather, in the Obama White House.
Sean, let me start with you. Let me just get your quick reaction to this idea that Mike Waltz is leaving his post about a month or so after
Signalgate happened.
SEAN SAVETT, FORMER SPOKESPERSON AND SENIOR DIRECTOR FOR PRESS, NATIONAL SECURITY COUNCIL: Sure. Well, on the one hand, it is quite stunning by
traditional Washington standards that a president would fire his national security adviser just over three months into office.
On the other hand, by the standards of the first Trump administration, this is exactly part of the course, you know, the president's first national
security adviser, Mike Flynn, lasted about 24 days. He had other quick firings, quick hirings, and so that kind of turnover was what we expected
in the first term.
But I think without a doubt, this is -- this is unfortunate for the sake of instability on the world stage.
You know, Mike Waltz is someone who had been a member of Congress and who the Biden administration and the prior national security adviser, Jake
Sullivan, had spent months briefing and preparing his part of a handover.
And I think the giant question mark, as Nick says, is who is his replacement going to be? Is it going to be someone who is, you know, more
aligned with traditional Western values and going to strengthen support in our alliances?
Or is this someone who's going to further withdraw from the world stage? And that is a big question right now.
[12:05:03]
ASHER: Let me pose that question to Brett Bruen. So, Brett, I mean, who are the possible replacement candidates here for Mike Waltz?
BRETT BRUEN, FORMER NATIONAL SECURITY OFFICIAL: Yes. On top of the list, Steve Witkoff, who would be familiar to a lot of international viewers, as
he's been handed so many of these crisis cases and told to go secure a deal, whether it's Iran, the situation in Gaza, Ukraine.
And yet, at the end of the day, despite all of Trump's braggadocious claims, he hasn't been able to advance the ball very far. In some cases,
like with Gaza, it has actually fallen apart on his watch.
And I think a lot of us more seasoned diplomatic officials would say, Witkoff doesn't really have that international experience certainly to go
toe-to-toe with the Kremlin. And there were a lot of concerned voices when Witkoff went to Moscow, when it appeared that he was parroting a lot of the
Russian propaganda lines.
So he's pretty internationally inept, at least in these first 101 days. So putting him into the position of national security advisor, that last voice
that the president hears before he makes a decisive move, that would be concerning.
ASHER: Yes, but we all know that Trump values loyalty more than perhaps other factors.
So, Sean, just in terms of the factors at play here as to why Mike Waltz is being fired. I mean, if you look at Signalgate, I mean, obviously in the
immediate aftermath of Signalgate, Donald Trump came out and forcefully defended Mike Waltz, along with everybody else who's on that chat,
essentially saying that despite this mistake of adding this reporter from "The Atlantic," Jeffrey Goldberg, that, you know, Mike Waltz is a good
person. He's a good man. He made a mistake. He learned his lesson.
Just talk to us about the other factors possibly at play in terms of Mike Waltz losing his job here.
SAVETT: Sure. Well, I think we should read into this that no one is ever truly safe in Trump world. If I were Pete Hegseth, I would be very
concerned as well, since, you know, he has been in the spotlight.
And quite frankly, the -- what Waltz did, by accidentally adding the reporter to the Signal chat, is I think pales in comparison to what Pete
Hegseth did, in terms of actually violating classification laws and putting U.S. troops at risk by sharing, you know, highly sensitive information in
an unsecure environment that could have put our troops lives at risk.
And so I think you can read two things in this. One, no one is really truly safe and in Trump world and he can turn on you just like that.
And two, that Trump is more concerned about the cover-up, the fact that we all know that this happened than he actually is about laws being violated.
So I think those are the two lessons as it relates to Signalgate.
You know, more broadly speaking, you know, Waltz, as Nick and Brett have said, has been come from the more traditional Republican national security
view, more internationalist. And if it is someone like Steve Witkoff who's very new to the scene, who does not have those seasoned diplomatic chops
and who has parroted Putin and Russian propaganda, as Brett said, I think that's something that we should be concerned by.
ASHER: Brett, should Pete Hegseth really be worried? I mean, you know, Donald Trump does appear to be a lot more loyal to him. And, you know,
despite the fact that, yes, he did share as Sean was just saying, very, very sensitive information that could have put American military men and
women at risk in terms of these strikes in Yemen targeting Houthi rebels.
But is the situation -- and also not to mention that there was a second Signalgate chat involving him, his wife and his brother and his lawyer,
just -- is the situation though, despite all of that, a little bit different for Pete Hegseth just because his relationship with Donald Trump
just appears to be that much more cozy?
BRUEN: I don't know that it is. And if I was Pete Hegseth, I would be updating my LinkedIn profile at the moment. Because as Sean indicated, what
he did was so much more dangerous than Mike Waltz' inadvertent adding of a journalist to the Signal chat.
And on top of that, I think we heard from President Trump in the interview with Terry Moran from ABC News that he wasn't 100 percent behind Pete
Hegseth. And there have been other indications, other reports out of the West Wing that Hegseth is on thin ice.
And Waltz' departure today is going to be a shot across the bow of the Secretary of Defense. And, you know, whether it comes in the next days or
weeks sometimes, you want to do these things all at once. So you just rip the Band-Aid off.
Or whether or not it will wait for the next shoe to drop. I think Hegseth is certainly in danger. And just broadly, Zain, if I could, I mean, the
insecurity of these individuals, these senior national security individuals in the Trump administration is really worrying, Russia, China, other
adversaries are going to take full advantage of this just revolving door of figures, this concern about job stability at a time when there are so many
threats around the world.
[12:10:25]
ASHER: So, Sean, based on all of that, why wait the extra month to get rid of Mike Waltz? I mean, Signalgate happened, you know, what is it, four or
five weeks ago, back at the end of March, March 25th, I think? Why wait until now?
SAVETT: Well, I think Donald Trump does not want to give what his advisors have called a scalp to the media. I think he, in the face of public
scrutiny, his instinct is always to double down and he doesn't want to give his opponents or his critics, or in this case, the people who were just
pointing out what the law is and how it was violated, a win by immediately firing one of his top advisors.
That all said, it's clear that it really ruffled the president's feathers and rubbed him the wrong way, inspired him to lose trust in Waltz.
And the other thing that could be at play here is that Laura Loomer, who's a far-right conspiracy theorist, she has been on the proverbial warpath
against National Security Council officials over the past month. You know, she has been doing her own, what she calls vetting. She's been researching
National Security Council staffers and trying to expose their ties to, you know, the traditional National Security establishment, which I think we
would just call qualifications.
And as a result, some other Waltz staffers have been fired in recent weeks. And we know that she's got a target on Waltz' back and on the back of his
deputy, which she's used racist language to, you know, to describe, you know, Waltz' deputy, who apparently was fired today as well.
And so I do have to wonder here if this is Laura Loomer's influence as well, pushing Trump to people who are more traditionalist and who have been
in Washington for a longer period of time. And then that, you know, is a bit worrisome because who comes in their place?
ASHER: Yes. A lot of people have questioned the possibility that Laura Loomer could have influenced Donald Trump's decision here.
All right. Sean Savett and Brett Bruen, thank you so much to both of you. Appreciate it.
SAVETT: Thank you.
ASHER: And U.S. Treasury Secretary, Scott Bessent, describes the new minerals deal with Ukraine as a win-win for both nations.
After weeks of tense bargaining that at times turned sour, Washington and Kyiv have signed an agreement that sets the stage for a longer-term
relationship between the countries.
The U.S. gets access to Kyiv's rare earth minerals in return from investing in Ukraine's reconstruction. Ukraine's Foreign Minister hails the deal as
an important milestone.
Kyiv says it will retain full ownership and control of its resources, determining which minerals to extract and from where.
U.S. President Donald Trump has long-framed the deal as Ukraine, essentially paying back the U.S. for its aid in military assistance. The
White House today echoed that claim.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
STEPHEN MILLER, WHITE HOUSE DEPARTMENT CHIEF OF STAFF FOR POLICY: We'll move it and operationalize it as fast as we possibly can. But it's meant to
pay back the United States. It's the key point for the hundreds of billions of dollars that our taxpayers have spent subsidizing the war in Ukraine. So
it is repayment to the United States.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
ASHER: For some reaction from Ukraine, let's bring in Alexei Gontroenko. He's a member of the Ukrainian Parliament and joins us live now from Kyiv.
Thank you so much for being with us.
Just sum up from Ukraine's perspective, how much of a win is this deal for your country? How favorable are the terms do you think for you?
OLEKSIY GONCHARENKO, UKRAINIAN PARLIAMENT MEMBER: Hello. It will be a win if after this deal we will have more cooperation with the United States.
And if after this deal, President Trump will put a real pressure on Russia.
Because signing of this deal is showing once again that the only obstacle to peace is Russia, that Ukraine fulfilled all the conditions which were,
like said by President Trump, said we need to sign this deal. We did it.
He said, I want to have a complete ceasefire unconditional right now. Ukraine agreed on this. So we did everything.
And now Russia, which is not doing anything, they're just not agreeing to a ceasefire. They're playing some games with some two-day ceasefire, one-day
ceasefire, some talkings. They are sending to President Trump his portraits. They are praising him, but they're doing nothing in the
direction of peace which President Trump proclaimed as his ultimate goal.
So now I hope after this deal, President Trump will put a real pressure on Russia, including imposing serious sanctions like secondary sanctions
against countries which are buying Russian oil, that sanctions against Russian banking sector, sanctions against Russian shadow fleet which
transport Russian oil and others.
[12:15:08]
ASHER: So that is the hope. That is the hope that Ukrainians have. That somehow, as a result of the deal, we're going to see the U.S. put more
pressure on Russia.
But based on what we've seen in the past, just in terms of the relationship between the Trump administration and Russian officials, do you think that
actually is going to be the case?
GONCHARENKO: I don't know, but we did everything we should in this direction. We need the United States of America to be our partner and ally.
There is no other country in the world which can replace the United States as a source of military support to Ukraine.
So we agree to all the conditions. We are showing our goodwill in all directions. We want to have as much economic cooperation with the United
States as possible. We want to see American companies earning money here in Ukraine. We -- so -- and we are ready to give absolutely special conditions
to them, which this deal is saying.
So that -- we did what we could do. Now, we hope that our partners will be fair with us and will do everything they can do.
ASHER: How do you feel about the fact that security guarantees ended up not being a part of this deal after all?
GONCHARENKO: We knew this. It's not news. From the very beginning, President Trump was clear that it will not be part of the deal. It was not
in the deal which was not signed on February 28 on this awful day with this very bad meeting between President Trump and President Zelenskyy in D.C.,
in Oval Office. So it is not news at all.
Do I like to see security guarantees? Yes. Am I ready to accept that this can be a part of security guarantees? And after this deal, do I have a hope
that United States will be more willing to give a backstop to European forces or in other way to help Ukraine to receive security guarantees? Yes,
I have this hope. I do hope.
ASHER: All right. Oleksiy Goncharenko, thank you so much for being with us. Appreciate it.
All right. Still to come, the Trump administration's potential plan to send migrants to Africa. We'll have details on that after the break.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[12:20:03]
ASHER: All right. After a slew of key data out this week, including a worse than expected GDP number, we are awaiting another major bellwether of the
U.S. economy.
The highly anticipated April jobs report, set to be releasing Friday morning. It comes as we learn that job cuts by the U.S. government made up
the largest chunk of layoffs so far this year, up a whopping 680 percent compared to the same period in 2024.
CNN's Matt Egan is covering the latest for us from New York. So what are we expecting? I mean, obviously, this jobs report is hugely important.
Everyone is watching it closely because of the tariffs. What are we expecting?
MATT EGAN, CNN REPORTER: Yes, Zain. We are expecting a slowdown in hiring from tomorrow's government jobs report.
And I've got to tell you, the last 24 hours or so, we've gotten three labor department indicators. And none of them really had been good, right? ADP
said the private sector hiring slowed down sharply. Weekly jobless claims also ticked higher.
And then there's this from outplacement firm Challenger, Gray and Christmas. They found that U.S. based employers announced 105,000 job cuts
in April. Now, the good news here is that is actually a significant decline from March. And that's because there were fewer federal government job cuts
that were announced.
But the bad news is here. This is a 63 percent increase from April of last year. In fact, Challenger has been tracking this data going back to 1989.
And this is the third highest level in history for the month of April.
Now, let's look at the trend here. And what you can see is this is job cut announcements year-to-date. So, how are we stacking up relative to history?
And look, this shows that job cut announcements, they are very elevated, clearly, over 500,000 so far this year.
You go back, there's only two years in history, back to the 1980s, that were higher. And these were not two years that you want to be associated
with. This was 2009 during the Great Recession. This was 2020 during the once in a century health crisis. So again, this shows that layoff
announcements, at least, are elevated.
Now, where are these layoffs taking place? Well, we have seen an uptick in the technology sector. But two things that really stand out here are the
impact of DOGE. Elon Musk's effort to try to cut federal government spending. Because nonprofit layoff announcements up more than 200 percent
that does appear directly relink to Doge.
And look at this, federal government job cuts have skyrocketed almost 700 percent as DOGE takes an axe to the federal workforce and also cuts grants
and research as well.
Geographically, also, you can see a little bit of a DOGE effect here because the one region that really stands out is the east. You see there's
been a more than 200 percent increase in layoff announcements in the east. This is led, not surprisingly, by Washington D.C., which has seen about an
eightfold increase in layoff announcements, so far this year relative to last.
And so that brings us to tomorrow's government jobs report. This is the big one. The expectation is that this is going to show 155,000 jobs were added
in April. That would be a -- that would be a sharp deceleration from what happened in March.
Although it would still be a positive number, the unemployment rate is expected to stay relatively low, Zain, at 4.2 percent, but I do think that
all of these concerns about the trade war, all the uncertainty of Washington, makes you wonder how long unemployment can stay this low.
Back to you.
ASHER: Yes. And if that is the April number, you have to wonder what the main number could be as well, especially if it does get worse.
Matt Egan, thank you so much.
EGAN: Thanks, Zain.
ASHER: All right. Sources are telling CNN the Trump administration is considering the possibility of sending migrants to Libya and Rwanda. We're
told the potential deals would involve migrants who have criminal records and that the U.S. has already had discussions with both countries about the
matter.
Secretary of State Marco Rubio had this to say during Wednesday's cabinet meeting.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
MARCO RUBIO, U.S. SECRETARY OF STATE: We are actively searching for other countries to take people from third countries. So we are active, not just
El Salvador. We are working with other countries to say, we want to send you some of the most despicable human beings to your countries. We do that
as a favor to us. And the further away from America, the better. So they can't come back across the border.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
ASHER: CNN's Priscilla Alvarez joins us live now.
So Marco Rubio there saying, we want to send you our most despicable human beings. Obviously some people laughed at that, even though it's no laughing
matter. We want to send you some of our most despicable human beings. The further away, the better, so they can't come across the border.
What more do we know about these discussions?
PRISCILLA ALVAREZ, CNN CORRESPONDENT: Well, we're learning more about who exactly they are speaking with or at the very least considering.
[12:25:02]
Now, this ask or these asks with the administration has been considering stem from an executive order from President Donald Trump when he took
office, which is to say that the president had directed his senior officials to work with other countries, to strike bilateral multilateral
agreements for them to take deportees.
Now, the conversations, we're told, in some parts are focused and centered on migrants with criminal records, as you heard there from Secretary of
State Marco Rubio. Two of those are Libya and Rwanda.
For Rwanda, for example, where there have been conversations, this would be on an ad hoc basis and they are still finessing, for example, the cost.
Because unlike El Salvador, the idea here would be to send deportees to other countries, but not necessarily to prisons within those countries.
Now with Libya, the administration has tossed around an idea to go a step further, which would be a safe third country agreement. The reason that is
a step further is because it would also go to include asylum seekers who are apprehended at the U.S. Southern border. Those are considerations
within the Trump administration. And there are still questions as to what nationalities could be subject to an agreement like that.
In the first Trump administration, this idea, the safe third country agreement, did also come up mostly with the Western Hemisphere. The notion
is that it will ease the asylum backlog in the United States by pushing people to seek asylum elsewhere.
But all the same, it's these types of actions that are certainly likely to face legal challenges because of where they're considering sending people
already. A federal judge has said that migrants cannot be sent to a third country if they are not provided notice ahead of time and if they are not
given the ability to contest it.
This, of course, was before our reporting, but it goes to show that there has been a trend here of the administration wanting to send countries -- or
migrants to other countries.
And as you mentioned there, we have seen this with El Salvador. The administration sent Venezuela and migrants to El Salvador. And that was
very specific to sending it to their prison.
This is a little separate from that because, again, it wouldn't be to prison. But the idea, the basis, is still very much the same, which is to
get migrants out, send them far away even if it is not their native country.
ASHER: All right. Priscilla Alvarez live for us there. Thank you so much.
All right. There is some new tension in an old conflict. International leaders are urging India and Pakistan to ease tensions off the days of
heated rhetoric. We'll look at whether or not it will help.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[12:30:18]
ASHER: All right. Welcome back to ONE WORLD. I'm Zain Asher.
Back to Washington now, where the first major shakeup in the Trump administration seems to be imminent. Multiple sources tell CNN that U.S.
national security advisor Mike Waltz will step down in the coming days, along with his deputy, Alex Wong.
Sources say Waltz's job had been in question for weeks. After he added a journalist to a group chat discussing highly sensitive military strikes in
Yemen.
Alex Marquardt joins us live now. So, Alex, obviously we know that Signalgate happened in March. It's been about a month. Why did Donald Trump
wait so long before getting rid of Mike Waltz?
ALEX MARQUARDT, CNN CHIEF U.S. NATIONAL SECURITY CORRESPONDENT: Well, Zain, the conventional wisdom is that he didn't want to give a victory to the
press that had broken the story specifically "The Atlantic" and Jeffrey Goldberg who was on that chat. And he also didn't want to give the
impression that there is chaos.
ASHER: Alex, Alex, can you hear me?
MARQUARDT: Yes.
ASHER: I think we don't have your microphone. Do we have your microphone on? We don't.
MARQUARDT: I apologize, Zain. Can you hear me now?
ASHER: Yes. I hear you perfectly. Thank you, Alex.
MARQUARDT: All right. Apologies for that.
ASHER: No worries.
MARQUARDT: The sense was that Trump didn't want to give a victory to his critics and to the journalists who were obviously covering this massive
story. At the same time, give the impression that there was chaos reigning in his administration like we had seen the first time around.
And so there was a bit of this delay, but there's no doubt that Trump lost confidence in Waltz over the following weeks.
Now, it was certainly Waltz who committed the original sin, if you will, by setting up that conversation with other top national security advisors. But
I would argue that it was Pete Hegseth, the Defense Secretary, who did worse by putting that extremely sensitive, probably classified information
into the chat about those looming strikes against the Houthis in Yemen.
I just spoke with a senior Western official and non-American official who said that they never imagined that Waltz would be the first to go.
But when you look at the makeup of Trump's government and particularly the National Security team, you really do have essentially two firm camps. You
have the more traditionalist hawks in Mike Waltz and Marco Rubio, as Secretary of State.
And then you have more of the MAGA figures in JD Vance and the -- and Pete Hegseth over at the Defense Department. So you do have essentially these
conflicting views. Rubio and Waltz have tried to play nice in MAGA world, but clearly, it has not gone very well because Waltz has had to share so
much of his portfolio with the others who I just mentioned.
And so this has been a long time coming. Both people inside of the administration and outside. Numerous foreign officials I've spoken with
today expecting that this shoe would drop at some point. And that it was just a matter of not if but when. Zain.
ASHER: All right. Alexander Marquardt live for us there. Thank you.
All right. India has shut its airspace to Pakistani Airlines as tensions soar over the recent massacre in Kashmir.
India's move comes after Pakistan closed its airspace to Indian Airlines just last week. The two countries have engaged in tit for tat hostilities
after the killing of 26 tourists in India administered Kashmir last month.
India accuses Pakistan of being involved in the attack, a claim that Pakistan denies. Both the U.S. and China urging the two governments to de-
escalate tensions.
However, Pakistan's information minister claims his government has, quote, credible intelligence that India intends to carry out a military attack on
Islamabad very soon.
CNN's Becky Anderson spoke to the Pakistani official about that potential threat.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
ATTAULLAH TARAR, PAKISTANI MINISTER FOR INFORMATION AND BROADCASTING: We keep receiving intelligence reports, having said that, our armed forces are
on alert. Our armed forces are ready. And we're conducting our exercises. And there are much details of operations which at operational level, which
I can't tell you right now.
[12:35:07]
But having said that, our armed forces are on alert and they are always ready to defend their country.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
ASHER: Just after we conducted that interview, CNN reported a conversation between India's defense minister and his U.S. counterpart, Pete Hegseth.
Following the court. India's defense minister released this statement saying, quote, ''Pakistan has been exposed as a rogue state, fueling global
terrorism and destabilizing the region. The world can no longer turn a blind eye to terrorism.''
Time now for The Exchange. Joining me live now is Ravi Agrawal, the editor- in-chief of "Foreign Policy." Before joining that media organization, he worked for CNN for more than a decade in full-time roles, including as a
stint as the network bureau chief in New Delhi and correspondent as well.
So, Ravi, thank you so much for being with us.
Before we get to sort of the background, just in terms of Kashmir and the history of the conflict there, with sort of both sides claiming Kashmir and
obviously this sort of disagreement that goes all the way back to partition in 1947, I do want to talk about the sort of current situation with a level
of tensions right now, because a Pakistani official has been claiming that they have credible intelligence that India is going to carry out some kind
of military action in Islamabad.
Just walk us through what we know on that particular front.
RAVI AGRAWAL, EDITOR-IN-CHIEF, FOREIGN POLICY: So Pakistan hasn't exactly divulged what exactly that evidence is. But I have to say, India has been
quite clear and public about the fact that it is going to retaliate in some form.
So all of us, even before we heard those lines from the Pakistani side, have been anticipating some kind of Indian action. Here's the thing though,
behind the scenes in terms of diplomacy, New Delhi has been speaking to hundreds of diplomats in New Delhi from other countries, but also to
leaders on phone calls around the world and also at the United Nations here in New York, where I am.
What India is trying to do is build a support for the fact that it should be allowed to defend itself and respond. But most of all, it is racing to
try and prove that the militants in question had a linkage to Pakistan. There is no proof for that right now that we know of or that has been made
public. India is trying to find that proof and then publicize that proof to gain legitimacy before and if they do in fact try to retaliate in some form
at Pakistan. That is going to be very important here.
I should say, there is a history of terrorism in India, which has linkages to Pakistan, but history is not proof of the present.
ASHER: That's such a good point. I mean, one of the reasons why the whole world is watching the situation very closely is, of course, you've got two
sort of nuclear armed nations that are at loggerheads right now.
And just in terms of the history of this conflict, I mean, you know, Kashmir is a dangerous flashpoint that really goes back decades in terms of
the relationship between India and Pakistan.
As I mentioned, both countries claim this disputed region. And obviously, the conflict goes all the way back to partition in 1947 when the British
sort of divided the two countries. Just talk to us about that.
AGRAWAL: Yes. So this has been a stalemate for a long time. India- administered Kashmir, Pakistani-administered Kashmir, both sides claim all of it, as you say.
It's been an uneasy stalemate. Wars have been fought over them. But, you know, those wars have also deescalated. The last time we saw a major
skirmish was in 2019, when there was a major attack on an Indian military base. And then the two sides found ways to claim victory as it were, even
though those lines of victory were not as clear.
Here's the thing. Since 2019, one big change is that India has moved Indian-administered Kashmir under federal control. And what this means is
that some of its prior sort of independence is gone. And this means other Indians, Hindus, mostly from other parts of India, can move to Kashmir, in
some cases by land and settle there.
And, you know, this has been problematic, I think, for the Muslim majority of Indian-administered Kashmir, also problematic for Pakistan, because it
kind of reinforces the borders as they were, lessening their claims. That is some of the backdrop to the current moment.
But I will say, for Modi, who has really bet on a lot of tourists going to Kashmir and proving that he can keep it secure, this is a blow. And because
it is a blow, he is less constrained to want to react.
ASHER: Yes. There is a lot of pressure on Narendra Modi in terms of responding to this.
So, what does de-escalation look like here, Ravi?
[12:40:00]
AGRAWAL: De-escalation would look like there being more military to military communication, more diplomatic communication. And that is not
happening right now. They have expelled each other's diplomats.
So, you know, for now, we are looking for two routes for de-escalation. One is through other countries. Many other countries now have offered to help
mediate Iran, the United States, of course, the U.K., a lot of foreign ministers and leaders around the world have been making calls to Delhi and
Islamabad to try and calm down tensions, but also act as go-betweens.
The other strangely enough is the media. There is a lot of rage and anger on both sides, a lot of revisiting and bringing up old histories and
resentments. And, you know, one of the things I often look to in these moments is when either side claims a victory, even if that victory isn't
real, that often allows for a pressure valve and allows both sides to de- escalate in public.
So, you know, this is what we saw happen in 2019 when India claimed to have shot down a Pakistani F-16. We, at Foreign Policy, of course, found out
that was untrue, but India denied it, used it as a victory, used that moment as de-escalatory.
ASHER: All right. Ravi Agrawal, so good to have you on. Great to hear your perspective. Thank you so much.
All right. Just ahead, we'll take a look at what's in a new report from the Trump administration on treatment for gender dysphoria in children. We'll
talk about that next after the break. Stay with us.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
ASHER: All right. I've got some breaking news for you. A Trump appointed federal judge in Texas has ruled that the president unlawfully invoked the
Alien Enemies Act to deport Venezuelan migrants. That judge has blocked the administration from quickly deporting some alleged gang members.
Katelyn Polantz joins us live now from Washington. So, Katelyn, what more do we know here?
KATELYN POLANTZ, CNN CRIME AND JUSTICE CORRESPONDENT: Zain, this is the sort of opinion from a judge in order from a judge that we have been
waiting to see what the courts would do.
This is a judge in the Southern District of Texas who's saying that Donald Trump cannot use the Alien Enemies Act of 1798 to remove people who are
allegedly members of the Venezuelan gang, Tren de Aragua, to deport them out of the United States and send them to a Salvadoran prison, as he has
tried to do at least twice so far in this administration.
There have been several legal challenges, several ongoing court cases around people in this type of group, the people who are alleged to be Tren
de Aragua that the Trump administration wants to send out of the United States and none of these cases have gotten this far.
This is a judge looking at the use of the Alien Enemies Act, which the judge notes has only been used in three wars in the past. Times of war of
the United States, the War of 1812, World War I, and World War II, especially after the bombing of Pearl Harbor in the United States.
[12:45:29]
And this situation where Trump says, we may be in a time of war wanting to use the Alien Enemies Act, the judge says it doesn't pass muster. This is
not an invasion in the way that Congress was looking at the use of that sort of law, the Alien Enemies Act.
So what is happening now is these men, Venezuelans, being held in the Southern District of Texas, they are not going to be able to be deported
under the Alien Enemies Act as the Trump administration wanted to use. They are people that just narrowly avoided being deported in March under this.
And these cases like this will continue on.
There are cases in other states, Nevada, Colorado, Pennsylvania, other parts of Texas where people who are being represented by the ACLU are
challenging the use of the Trump administration -- the Trump administration's use of the Alien Enemies Act.
And that challenge is very likely to go on in multiple courts ultimately for the Supreme Court to look at and determine, is this wartime provision
able to be used by the Trump administration? As of right now, for these people in Southern Texas, it cannot be.
It is a very, very important decision because it is the first of its kind in this country and an important interpretation of what the Trump
administration can and cannot do as they are being so aggressive with their immigration policies.
Zain?
ASHER: All right. Katelyn Polantz live for us. Thank you so much.
All right. The Youth Department of Health and Human Services has released a 400-page review of treatment for gender dysphoria in children. It follows
several actions by President Donald Trump's administration. It's a halt, gender-firming treatment of transgender children and adolescents and cancel
research about the transgender community. The department did not disclose who authored or reviewed the report.
Let's go to CNN health reporter, Jacqueline Howard.
Jacqueline, just walk us through what this report actually says.
JACQUELINE HOWARD, CNN HEALTH REPORTER: Yes, Zain. Well, this report is titled treatment for pediatric gender dysphoria. It describes itself as a
review of evidence and best practices.
But as for what it says, it highlights the risks that it says are associated with medical interventions related to treatment. So puberty
blockers or surgery. And it also highlights another form of what it's calling treatment to be exploratory therapy. That's kind of like therapy
with a counselor, like talk therapy, for instance.
But what we know from other medical groups like the American Academy of Pediatrics and the American Medical Association and many others, they have
affirmed gender-affirming care for children and adults, even calling it life-saving in some cases.
But as for what the Trump administration is saying about this new report, Zain, the National Institutes of Health Director, Dr. J. Bhattacharya, said
this, quote, our duty is to protect our nation's children, not expose them to unproven and irreversible medical interventions. We must follow the gold
standard of science, not activist agendas.
What he means by irreversible medical interventions, again, he's referring to those interventions that I said, the report points to like puberty
blockers or like surgeries.
But in response to the report, we have heard from some LGBTQ plus advocacy groups like the Trevor Project. In response, the Trevor Project argues that
this report is, quote, troubling and says exploratory therapy, which I mentioned is highlighted in the report.
The Trevor Project calls this to be the same as conversion therapy, which is another form of therapy that has been found to be harmful in some cases,
so -- or has been found to be harmful.
So we are seeing this tension emerge, Zain, between the Trump administration and between what the LGBTQ plus community is saying.
ASHER: All right. Jacqueline Howard live for us there. Thank you so much.
We'll be right back with more after the short break.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[12:50:06]
ASHER: Los Angeles Lakers fans are heartbroken after their team was eliminated from the NBA playoffs in the first round.
After the game, 40-year-old superstar, LeBron James, admitted he's unsure whether or not he'll be back on the basketball court next season.
Our Andy Scholes has more.
ANDY SCHOLES, CNN SPORTS: Well, Zain, Lakers fans got super excited about the potential of this team after trading for Luka Doncic and securing the
three seed in a very tough Western conference.
But the glaring weakness of this team ever since that trade was that they did not have a center. And Lakers coach JJ Redick tried to go small in game
five, but didn't work.
Timberwolves' center, Rudy Gobert, just dominating, dropped 24 rebounds, scored 27 points. Minnesota missed 40 three pointers in this game, which is
a lot, but Mike Conley made a big one with under 90 seconds to go.
The final was 103 to 96. Timber wolves win the series in five. And here was LeBron afterwards when asked how much longer he's going to play.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
LEBRON JAMES, LOS ANGELES LAKERS FORWARD: I don't know. I don't have the answer to that. Something I sit down with my family, my wife, and my
support group and kind of just talk through it and see what happens.
And then they just have a conversation with myself on how long I want to continue to play. I don't know the answer to that right now, to be honest.
So we'll see.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
SCHOLES: The Rockets, meanwhile, surviving to fight another day. They jumped on the Warriors from the start in game five. Amen Thompson had five
steals, as Houston just smothered Steph Curry and the Warriors, leading by as many as 31. The final was 131 to 116.
So game six of that series now going to be Friday night in San Francisco.
And, Zain, you -- Steph said the Rockets clearly set the tone from the start in game five and they didn't match it, but it's going to be a
different story back in the Bay. We will see. This will certainly be a huge test for this young Houston team if they can compete on the road in an
elimination game.
ASHER: All right. Thanks, Andy, for that.
They're taught to save lives and work in the world's most dangerous conflict zones, but not until they've been through some pretty rigorous
training.
Isabel Rosales takes a look inside the canine training center in Bosnia that is repairing some remarkable dogs for the Ukrainian frontlines.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
ISABEL ROSALES, CNN CORRESPONDENT (voice-over): Sit. Stay. Search.
At this Bosnian facility, a dog's training can be the difference between life and death. Tail wagging as she springs for a red ball.
May isn't just learning to fetch, she's learning to sniff out landmines.
KENAN MUFTIC, HEAD OF GLOBAL TRAINING CENTER, NORWEGIAN PEOPLE'S AID (through translator): Since the establishment of the center, more than 500
demining dogs and hundreds of dogs for other purposes have been trained.
ROSALES (voice-over): Norwegian People's Aid runs this Sarajevo training center, sending dogs to conflict zones around the world. Countries like
Cambodia, Zimbabwe, Iraq, and now Ukraine.
[12:55:08]
Land mines and unexploded ordnance litter Ukrainian land. After more than three years of war, the country is the most mined in the world, the U.N.
says.
It's a deadly mess. Also a blow to exports and tax revenue, as undetonated explosives and agricultural fields keep farmers away.
Twenty-six specially trained dogs have been sent to some of the most embattled regions of Ukraine so far, and more will soon join them. Agents
like May, whose keen canine senses are vital to the safety of civilians and soldiers alike.
MUFTIC (through translator): We have this expression, this parallel, which says, one mine found, one family saved.
ROSALES (voice-over): And it all starts here. Paws scurrying, tails wagging, heroes in the making.
Isabel Rosales, CNN.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
ASHER: All right. That does it for this hour of ONE WORLD. I am Zain Asher. Appreciate you watching. "AMANPOUR" is up next.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
END
