Return to Transcripts main page

One World with Zain Asher

Trump Expected to be Briefed on Military Options for Iran; Iranians Protest in the Face of Harsh Government Crackdown; Backlash Mounts over Grok AI-Generated Sexual Images; Minnesota, Illinois Sue Trump Administration Over I.C.E. Operations; Supreme Court Hears Cases on Trans Student Sports Bans; Broadcaster Seeking to Have Trump's $10B Lawsuit Dismissed. Aired 11a-12p ET

Aired January 13, 2026 - 11:00   ET

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

[11:00:00]

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

CHRISTINA MACFARLANE, CNN HOST, ONE WORLD: President Trump says he's canceled all meetings with Iranian officials suggesting the window for

diplomacy is closing. "One World" starts right now. As the Trump Administration's scrutiny of Iran intensifies, Tehran's brutal crackdown on

anti-government protesters continues.

Plus, Minnesota and Illinois are taking the Trump Administration to court over its immigration crackdown. And the Supreme Court is hearing all

arguments in two cases concerning transgender female athletes. Live from London, I'm Christina Macfarlane, great to have you with us.

This is "One World". As the Iranian regime intensifies this brutal crackdown on protesters nationwide, the White House is escalating its

pressure campaign on Tehran, while also threatening to reignite its global trade war. In a social media post on Monday, President Donald Trump warned

that the U.S. will impose a 25 percent tariff on any country doing business with Iran, effective immediately, without providing any details.

Well China, which is Iran's largest trading partner by far, is vowing to safeguard what it calls its legitimate interests. It comes as Trump is set

to meet later with his national security team to discuss potential military action Iran after threatening a possible attack for more than two weeks.

Iran says it's ready for war or dialog. Meanwhile, due to a near total internet blackout, information out of Iran is hard to come by, but it

appears the death toll is sky rocketing. A U.S. based Rights Group says nearly 2000 protesters have been killed in the last two weeks.

Well CNN's Nada Bashir is here in London with me. But first, let's go to Kevin Liptak, who's joining us now live at the White House. So, Kevin, all

eyes on Donald Trump as he weighs potential intervention in Iran. And a little over just what an hour ago, we had a post from Donald Trump on Truth

Social saying he has now canceled all meetings with Iranian officials until the quote, senseless killing of protesters stops and that help is on its

way.

You can see the message here. So, Kevin, is all of this a clue to what is coming now? How should we be reading this at this point?

KEVIN LIPTAK, CNN SENIOR WHITE HOUSE REPORTER: Yeah, and I think it's probably the president's way of saying that this diplomatic window that he

seems to identify only two days ago on Sunday, after these apparently conciliatory messages between the Iranian Foreign Minister and Steve

Witkoff, the President's Foreign Envoy, that now he believes that window may be closing.

Now he does say in here that the meetings had been canceled. It's not entirely clear that any meetings had actually been scheduled or been put on

the books, but the president had said that, because of these messages, that they were going to try and pursue some sort of negotiation with Iran.

And even just yesterday, when we were talking to the Press Secretary, Karoline Leavitt, she indicated that diplomacy was going to be the first

option for the president. But he seems to have been swayed by these images, limited images, to be sure, but by these reports certainly of this major

crackdown on protests overnight.

And now suggesting that, that idea that diplomacy could proceed here is no longer valid. And he did say to the protesters to keep on protesting. He

advised them to take over institutions. And perhaps most intriguingly, he said that help is on the way. Now he didn't specify what that meant, but we

do know that among the options that the president will be briefed on later today are, you know, the so called non kinetic options.

Steps that would fall short of firing a missile into Iran. Things like perhaps a cyber-attack on some of the regime facilities that are

orchestrating this crackdown. We also hear discussion of potentially trying to send in technology that would bolster the internet in that country, that

would allow the protesters to get around this crackdown on connectivity and information.

You know, the president spoke over the weekend to Elon Musk about potentially sending in more Starlink apparatuses to help get around that

information blackout. And so, the president certainly looking at all of these options, he has not ruled out air strikes by any means, that's

something that the president is still considering

[11:05:00]

The question, of course, is on what targets, whether it's on the Iranian nuclear facilities continuing to go after those sites after taking action

against those in June, or whether he goes after some of the security services that are leading the crackdown in protesters. So, you see how this

sort of unfurling list of options will be in front of the president.

Of course, each of those options comes with its own risk of reprisal by the Iranian regime. So, I think it's going to be a lot for the president to

think about and talk about with his team later today.

MACFARLANE: Yeah, an enormous amount away. Kevin, stand by for us. Thank you. I just want to turn to Nada Bashir here. So, Nada, as Donald Trump

meets with his national security team, we know that the situation in Iran is bleak. Almost 2000 protesters killed in the past two weeks.

But of course, the information trickling out is very limited. What more do we know?

NADA BASHIR, CNN CORRESPONDENT: Look, I think it's important to underscore that, that death toll that you've just mentioned has risen at a staggering

rate, from what we had heard yesterday from a U.S. based Human Rights Organization, they had placed that figure at just over 500 protesters.

Now we're talking about 1850 protesters, at least. And we can't independently verify these figures. And as you mentioned, there is still

that internet and communications blackout, which is making it very difficult to get real time updates on the ground about what is happening,

what is unfolding.

But what we do know, given the snippets of information that we have been provided by some individuals on the ground who have managed to get

connection to the outside world via landlines, is that the security forces are really ramping up that crack down on protesters.

And of course, these protesters have been going -- protests have been going on since late December. What we have heard from one contact on the ground

is that the situation appears to have waned slightly in the sense that protests were slightly smaller in scale on Monday night, potentially

because of that violent crackdown, that deadly crackdown that we have seen over the weekend.

I've been hearing from one contact who said their relative was able to reach them for just a matter of seconds on the phone, calling them from

Iran to the UK, saying that some of their students had been shot at and arrested that security forces were shooting indiscriminately at protesters.

But again, this is just the snippets of information that we have been able to receive. And we've been hearing from Human Rights Organizations who have

been speaking to their contacts whatever way they can. And of course, hospitals are said to be overwhelmed.

We've seen videos now emerging showing body bags lined up outside a morgue and a medical complex on the street as family members try to identify their

loved ones. So, we are getting this grim sense of the deadly impact of this regime crack down. But again, this is just a small fraction of the

information that we would normally be getting given this internet blackout.

And of course, what we've been hearing from the regime, according to state media, is that this internet blackout will remain in place until, in their

words, the security situation is restored, until security is restored. And of course, that really raises concern as to what protesters will continue

to face over the coming nights as these demonstrations continue.

MACFARLANE: Yeah, some really distressing stories, details coming out, as far as we know. Nada Bashir, thank you. And thanks also to Kevin Liptak,

let's dig a little deeper into this. Sina Toossi is a Senior Fellow at the Center for International Policy, and he joins me now live in Washington.

Thank you so much for your time. I just wanted to get your immediate thoughts on what we are now hearing from Donald Trump in a Truth Social

post, saying that he will now not negotiate with Iran. At this after Iran's Foreign Minister had reached out with a conciliatory message, suggesting

Iran were ready to negotiate.

If we are now back to the prospect of military intervention from the United States, what would that spell internally, and would it be welcomed by the

protesters, given all they are suffering right now?

SINA TOOSSI, SENIOR FELLOW, CENTER FOR INTERNATIONAL POLICY: Yes. So, Trump kind of boxed himself in early on with these Iran protests when he tweeted

before the upsurge in protests that occurred last Thursday, that he would strike Iran, he suggested he would strike Iran if they kill protesters.

And now, as you reported, you know, the crackdown has been very brutal and harsh, and hundreds, at least, are confirmed dead.

And so now it seems he's weighing various options, but neither of which are really good, and neither of which, I would argue, could really help the

prospect of democratic change in Iran or helping this protest movement. One of them is, you know, these kinetic options, or these so called non kinetic

options, the kinetic or military option would be faced with would be a gamble.

[11:10:00]

Be a wild card in the effect of the protest movements, effect on regime cohesion. And Iran, as we saw in June, in the June war, there were no

protests in the June war, and Iran hit back at Israel, hit at a military base in Qatar, U.S. military base. So, it could really create a more

explosive situation.

MACFARLANE: I mean, if we are to take Donald Trump at his word in this Truth Social post, he appears to believe you know, that the wave of

protests could still amount to change. I just want to get your assessment of how secure the Iranian regime appears to be at this moment about the

success of their crackdown and the suppression of these protests, particularly in light of what Nada was just telling me that the death toll

has risen overnight from 500 now to 2000 protesters.

TOOSSI: So, the Iranian government's strategy seems to be two-fold. The first one is very severe and really unprecedented repression, as your

correspondent said, shooting at these crowds, these bodies piling up at morgues, the other one is to silence communications tools, cut off the

internet and really mobilize its social base and give them a narrative of foreign intervention behind these protests.

So, we've seen that the protests really reached a peak last Thursday and Friday. Since then, the internet has obviously been disconnected, so it's

very hard to understand what's going on the ground. It seems like the protests have diminished. The government rallied its supporters yesterday.

But in general, the Islamic Republic, the Iranian government, is going to have very -- is going to have immense difficulty in trying to return to the

previous, already volatile status quo in Iran. These protests are unlikely to be squash or the underlying drivers of them and the underlying

grievances, but the question of you know, will U.S. intervention help?

It doesn't really have a track record of helping. You know, in these kinds of interventions in the past, it's uncertain to say, but again, it depends

where a critical mass of Iranian society goes. If a critical mass of Iranian society, then feels emboldened enough to take to the streets or

afraid of war and instability and decides to stay at home.

MACFARLANE: And at this stage, what would military intervention mean for regional stability, and also concern about the possible fragmentation of

Iran that might come with that?

TOOSSI: Yes, there's many risks on the table. We know obviously with past similar interventions, including against Libya in 2011 which was a so-

called humanitarian intervention. You know, 15 years later, Libya still in a state of civil war and chaos and fragmentation.

Syria is obviously still an unstable situation today. Iran also has many fault lines and many risks of greater conflict. I think it really depends

on the nature of the U.S. military intervention. Trump has shown a preference for kind of limited symbolic actions, including, for example,

the Maduro kidnapping, the attack on the Iranian nuclear facilities last June.

He may offer some kind of symbolic military action, like hitting a one off, maybe Iranian security base, Iran will probably respond in a tit for tat

manner, and then it could dial down after that. But if Trump opts for a major military attack on Iran, Iran has, you know, more sophisticated

military capabilities in some of these other countries that the U.S. has engaged in in the past.

You know, notably its ballistic missile program, and it could hit, you know, bases in the region, hit Israel or destabilize the Persian Gulf,

which can have an impact on the global price of energy.

MACFARLANE: Well, look, we will wait to see. I mean, it's obviously a big day. We'll wait to see what the outcome might be. And Sina, we will come

back to you. Thank you so much for your analysis at this moment, thanks. Well, we're learning that the Pentagon is testing a device that could be

behind mysterious ailments that hit American spies, diplomats and troops.

The illness first emerged nearly 10 years ago. That's when U.S. diplomats in Havana, Cuba reported vertigo, severe headaches and other signs of

trauma. Later, cases of so-called Havana syndrome were reported worldwide. Sources say the device was purchased for millions of dollars in an

undercover operation in the last days of the Biden Administration.

Senior National Security Reporter Zach Cohen joins us now from Washington. What more you learning about this, sir?

ZACHARY COHEN, CNN SENIOR NATIONAL SECURITY REPORTER: Yeah, it's interesting. Sources telling us that the Pentagon spent millions of dollars

to purchase this device as part of an undercover operation conducted jointly with the Department of Homeland Security in the waning days of the

Biden Administration.

[11:15:00]

And that U.S. officials have spent over a year now examining the device studying it, and still have not definitively concluded whether or not it is

linked to those mysterious health incidents over a dozen that we know of have been reported, but there is evidence suggesting, new evidence

suggesting that it potentially was.

And we're learning from our sources that the makeup of this device really is something that investigators have honed in on they've found that the

device produces what's known as pulse radio waves. That's something U.S. officials and academics have long speculated to be the source, the cause of

these symptoms that have been reported by U.S. spies, diplomats and troops around the world and some domestically.

We're also learning that while not entirely Russian in origin. The device is comprised of various Russian components, which obviously raises

significant concerns and questions about a country that the U.S. considers to be a foreign adversary, potentially having some role in developing this

device that is suspected of being used to target U.S. officials around the world.

And we're also told to a key part of this is that the device is relatively small and it can fit into a backpack. And that gets to one of the core

questions that has been on the top of mind for U.S. officials, is how can a device that cause so much damage, the damage that's been reported by these

victims, but also be portable?

It seems this device would check that box as well. So, if we're going to continue to push the U.S. government, the U.S. intelligence community, the

Pentagon and Department of Homeland Security for more clarity on this, you may remember that the CIA, their response to these victims has really

shifted over time.

Those victims feel largely that the Biden Administration, and to date, the Trump Administration, has largely dismissed their reported symptoms, their

calls for some sort of an answer, as to an accountability, as to what happened while they were serving their country.

And key concern here as well is, if this device does prove to be viable, it could mean that it was potentially proliferated, meaning that there could

be several foreign countries that have this capability and could potentially use it against U.S. service members, U.S. diplomats abroad in a

way that is this device is expected to have been used.

MACFARLANE: Important to follow up on and to, you know, hopefully find out more for those victims. Zach, appreciate it. Thank you. Now RSVP no, Bill

and Hillary Clinton say they won't testify before Congress in the Jeffrey Epstein investigation. We're live on Capitol Hill with the latest reaction.

Plus, Elon Musk artificial intelligence tool Grok is stirring controversy worldwide. A look at how the scandal unfold and what's being done to

address it. Just ahead.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[11:20:00]

MACFARLANE: Well, we will not see Bill or Hillary Clinton on Capitol Hill this week. The former president and first lady have refused to testify in

the House investigation into convicted sex offender Jeffrey Epstein. Their lawyers telling the Chair of the Oversight Committee they have already

provided all the information they have about Epstein and his partner Ghislaine Maxwell.

Committee Chair James Comers says the Clintons could now face charges for not showing up.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

REP. JAMES COMER (R-KY): As a result of Bill Clinton not showing up for his lawful subpoena, which again, was voted on it unanimously by the committee

in a bipartisan manner. We will move next week in the House Oversight Committee mark up to hold former President Clinton in contempt of Congress.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

MACFARLANE: Annie Grayer is on Capitol Hill with the latest. Annie, what else did the Clintons say about their no show and what can we expect to

happen next?

ANNIE GRAYER, CNN SENIOR REPORTER: So, the Clintons gave a very direct and lengthy letter to House Oversight Chair James Comer that I've obtained from

sources that lays out why they did not show up today. And they also had a letter from their attorneys going into more legal detail about why they

didn't show up.

And they're -- the crux of their argument is that comer and the House Oversight Committee subpoenaed a number of individuals as part of this

investigation, and they've allowed a number of people to provide written testimony instead of coming for an in-person deposition.

Now the Clintons have given written testimony voluntarily to the committee and say that, that should suffice for what this committee is looking for as

part of this investigation. They don't believe that they have anything further to share, but Comer has repeatedly said to the Clintons that that

excuse does not work well enough that they want the Clintons sitting for behind closed doors to be grilled by committee investigators.

And I just want to -- and they've been going back and forth for months on this. Since August, the Clintons and comer have been trying to negotiate.

Comer multiple times, has pushed back their deposition days, trying to find a day that the Clintons would actually come in for.

And I just want to read for you a piece of the letter from Former President Bill and Former Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton, just showing you kind

of where they're at in this process. They said, quote, every person has to decide when they have seen or had enough and are ready to fight for this

country, its principles and its people, no matter the consequences.

For us, now is that time. So here the Clintons are saying we are ready to accept whatever you throw at us, so we are not going to budge. So, what

comes next here is the Oversight Committee will meet next week to vote on contempt of Congress for the Clintons next it would have to get a vote in

on the House floor.

Then it would be referred to the Department of Justice that sets up a lengthy legal battle over the Clintons testimony, which is likely where

this is headed. Now, the Clintons say that they don't have any relevant information for the committee. Bill Clinton says that he had no

acknowledgement, no knowledge of any of Jeffrey Epstein's crimes.

And that he broke ties with Epstein before he was Epstein was arrested in 2019 but comer says that there is information that he still wants to get

from Bill Clinton. When the Department of Justice released the small batch of files from the Epstein state last month that included images of the

former president with Epstein and his co-Conspirator, Ghislaine Maxwell, there were photos of Clinton in a pool with an unnamed individual whose

face was redacted.

Now, Clinton spokespeople say that the Department of Justice just released these photos in such a small batch, because, you know, they were trying to

embarrass the Clintons and trying to take attention away from President Donald Trump and his involvement and all this, but, but Comer is serious

that he thinks that the Clintons have things to answer for.

So now today was a big day, marking that tomorrow. Hillary Clinton was scheduled for her deposition. We now know that she's not going to appear

either, so we are setting up for a lengthy legal battle as part of this investigation on Capitol Hill.

MACFARLANE: Yeah, a lot more to come by. The sound of it. Annie, appreciate it. Thanks. Elon Musk AI tool, Grok is coming under fire after its

undressing function flooded social media platform X with user generated requests to create explicit images, some even showing children.

In a world first, Grok has been temporarily blocked by Indonesia and Malaysia, and here in the UK, independent regulator Ofcom has launched an

investigation into the platform. CNN's Hadas Gold looks into the alleged the latest allegations against the so-called everything app.

[11:25:00]

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

HADAS GOLD, CNN CORRESPONDENT (voice-over): Elon Musk defiantly defending his AI chat bot Grok ability to digitally undress images of real people as

countries around the world take action against the AI tool after Grok's X account was flooded with requests to create deep fake, non-consensual,

nearly nude images of adults and, in some cases, children.

KEIR STARMER, BRITISH PRIME MINISTER: This is wrong. It's unlawful. We're not going to tolerate it. I've asked for all options to be on the table.

It's disgusting.

GOLD (voice-over): X has said it is taking action against those who prompted Grok to create sexually exploitative images of children, and has

since restricted image generation request on Grok's X account to paid subscribers, though users can still digitally undress images by chatting

with Grok directly.

Meanwhile, Elon Musk repeatedly attacked UK Prime Minister Keir Starmer on X and reposted AI generated images of him in a bikini. They want any excuse

for censorship, Musk wrote. And reposted a claim that no similar action is being taken against other AI companies, though no other major AI model is

woven into a social media platform like Grok is with X.

Musk's AI company is also facing challenges in Asia, where Indonesia and Malaysia are enacting temporary bans on the AI chatbot. Indonesia's Digital

Minister saying over the weekend that the ban is meant to protect women, children and the broader public from the risks of fake pornographic content

generated using artificial intelligence technology.

Meanwhile, the United Kingdom's communications regulator Ofcom announced on Monday it is launching a formal investigation into X that could lead to

fines or even blocking the platform in the country.

LIZ KENDALL, UK TECHNOLOGY SECRETARY: The government is crystal clear. We want those images taken down. They are despicable. They are abhorrent.

GOLD (voice-over): In the United States, the Departments of Justice and Homeland Security have said they will prosecute any producer or possessor

of sexually explicit material of children.

DONALD TRUMP, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: OK, there we have it.

GOLD (voice-over): Last year, President Trump signed the Take It Down Act, which makes it a crime to publish nonconsensual intimate deep fakes and

will soon force platforms to remove such images within 48 hours of notice. Now, experts on AI and the law say more needs to be done so AI companies

can rigorously test their models and prevent them from producing such content in the first place.

RIANA PFEFFERKORN, POLICY FELLOW AT STANFORD INSTITUTE FOR HUMAN-CENTERED AI: The laws don't have any exception for good faith testing or research

type purposes. And so, we found that there's a real fear of these laws that was impeding what are called red teamers.

People who are trying to act as a malicious actor would and test the model to see if it can be misused from doing that kind of work in the context of

child sex abuse imagery.

GOLD (voice-over): Hadas Gold, CNN, New York.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

MACFARLANE: All right, coming up with no end in sight to President Trump's immigration crackdown. Two U.S. states are taking legal action against the

administration. Those details just ahead.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[11:30:00]

MACFARLANE: Welcome back to "One World". I'm Christina Macfarlane in London. Here are some of the headlines we are watching today. Donald Trump

is expected to meet with his national security team later today to discuss possible U.S. military intervention Iran.

It comes one day after the president threatened to impose a 25 percent tariff on any country that does business with Tehran. Nationwide anti-

government protests, meanwhile, are now in their third week. One Rights Group says nearly 2000 protesters have been killed.

Hundreds of thousands of households are without power in Ukraine's Kyiv region after an intense wave of Russian drone attacks. Ukrainian President

Volodymyr Zelenskyy says Russia launched more than 300 attack drones overnight. He accused Russia of targeting the energy network while

temperatures are well below freezing.

The backlash against the Justice Department's criminal investigation of Jerome Powell is growing. Several House Republicans are expressing

concerns, saying the probe looks, quote, fishy and doesn't make a lot of sense. Powell has tied the probe to political pressure over interest rates.

Greenland's Prime Minister says the island will not accept to take over by the U.S. under any circumstances, after Donald Trump repeated his

insistence on acquiring the Danish territory in his words, one way or another. Six of Denmark's NATO allies released a joint statement last week

supporting Denmark sovereignty over Greenland.

And we are tracking two high profile lawsuits brought by Minnesota and Illinois this hour, both states taking legal action against the Trump

Administration. It comes at a tumultuous time for President Trump's crackdown on immigrants. In recent months, the federal government has

stepped up operations in democratic strongholds like Chicago and Minneapolis, St. Paul.

Minnesota and Illinois, argue those operations are a violation of the constitution. Their lawsuits invoke the 10th Amendment in Defense of States

Rights. Both states claim the tactics used by federal agents are terrorizing their communities. Minnesota says that's imposing an

unacceptable strain on local police.

Claiming officers' overtime will cost the city more than $2 million dollars. Minnesota's Attorney General says sending in federal agents was a

case of overreach by the administration.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

KEITH ELLISON, MINNESOTA ATTORNEY GENERAL: It never should have started. These agents have no good reason to be here. Minnesota's non-citizen

immigrant population is just 1.5 percent, which is half the national average.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

MACFARLANE: Well Former States and Federal Prosecutor, David Weinstein is joining me now. Good to see you, David. Look, these cases certainly send a

tough political message, but when we consider the legal merits of both. How strong are they?

DAVID WEINSTEIN, FORMER STATE AND FEDERAL PROSECUTOR: Well, Christina, we're going to find out shortly, but they both make out very good arguments

that states are entitled to not only enforce the law within their states, but also impact and prevent other people, federal governments as well, from

interfering with the rights of the people in their state to live freely, to move about freely, to have free speech rights and to not have their

individualized rights infringed upon by someone outside of the state.

Both of these lawsuits have similar allegations. They talk about overreach. They talk about quality of life. And what they're seeking to do is enjoin

the federal government from acting in this, what they call arbitrary and capricious manner and interfering with the lives, the daily lives, of the

people who live in their communities.

MACFARLANE: So, do you think these lawsuits have a good chance of succeeding? What do you think both states could expect from this at the

very least?

WEINSTEIN: A quick hearing. They're both seeking injunctions at the moment to preclude the government from engaging in behavior they've alleged that

is unlawful and in violation of their rights. So, they're going to get in front of a judge quick, and that judge is going to make them prove what is

your irreparable harm. Show me how the government is doing this.

[11:35:00]

Show me where the basis of fact is in their allegations, and then, if they agree, they will enjoin the government I.C.E. from conducting the

activities that they're conducting. And from that point, you can absolutely expect an appeal by the government to the Court of Appeals.

We've seen this play out before. It's somewhat similar to the National Guard cases. They're talking about overreach here. And so, what we're going

to see in the coming days are the states presenting facts, witnesses, statements, a lot of it in both of these complaints, showing just how the

federal government is engaged in this overreach.

MACFARLANE: Yeah, you mentioned those previous National Guard cases and the fact that they have found success in the courts. I mean, last year, of

course, there was the federal judge in Illinois who temporarily blocked the president's deployment of the National Guard members when the governor

objected.

What was the difference in those cases versus this? Or could a similar logic be applied in this case too?

WEINSTEIN: The similarities are with who is bringing in the action that is the federal government coming into the states, but they're distinct in the

National Guard cases, the National Guard was being brought in not at the direction of the governor, but at the direction of the president, to quell

unrest because the states weren't getting the job done.

And to protect the federal law enforcement agents who were engaging in conduct to protect the people and the country. In these instances, while

similar, it's the agents themselves that are engaged in the conduct. It's not the National Guard being called in and what the states are saying, if

these people are engaging in conduct and practices and policies that exceed their rights and abilities.

And so, they'll rely, in part a lot about some of the arguments that were made, but it's different, because while it's the federal government, it's

not this extra body of law enforcement officers that's being brought in. They're complaining about the immigration agents themselves and the way

they're handling their policies.

They're overreaching. They're doing things in violation of state practices and procedures, so similar, but certainly with distinctions that matter.

MACFARLANE: Yeah, and by overreaching, you mean whether or not I.C.E. have acted beyond the boundaries of their authority. Do you think that could be

the point on which these cases turn?

Well, certainly those are arguments that are being raised more vociferous Lee in the Minnesota lawsuit, because they're talking about expanded border

searches and who it is they're stopping, and what they're doing and the activities they're engaged in.

In the Illinois lawsuit, they're talking about violations of local laws, hiding license plates, violating masking laws, but making some of the same

arguments about overreach, about the stops that they're conducting, what sort of suspicion they're engaged in, whether or not they're discriminating

against people based on the color of their skin or the accents that are in their voices.

So again, it's going to be an overreach argument, but it's directed at the conduct, and is it going beyond what I.C.E. can do in a certain situation?

MACFARLANE: All right, David, do stay with us. A lot of consequential court cases underway today. We'll have you back with us in just a moment to

discuss another. Now, the U.S. Supreme Court is taking on transgender athletes. After the break, we'll look with David at what's behind the cases

and what each side is arguing.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[11:40:00]

MACFARLANE: At this hour, the Supreme Court is hearing arguments on one question, should schools allow transgender athletes to play on sports

teams. This time is from cases brought by two transgender students, one from Idaho and the other from West Virginia.

They're challenging two key legal aspects, where the states can separate school sports teams on the grounds of biological sex without violating

Title IX. That's the civil rights law that prohibits sex-based discrimination in education programs. And also, whether trans restrictions

violate the Equal Protection Clause in the constitution.

29 states currently ban trans athletes from playing on teams consistent with their gender identity. Several of the justices brought up the fact

that the woman bringing the Idaho case against her school will soon be graduating. Well, let's bring back Former State and Federal Prosecutor

David Weinstein to discuss.

Obviously, David, this is a highly politicized issue in the United States, and worth mentioning. I think that the lower courts have already sided with

these two women in previous cases. Although I should say that Becky Pepper- Jackson is actually a teenager. She's 15 years old.

Can you just begin by laying out for us what legal arguments both sides will be putting forward today on the central issue here of sex

discrimination?

WEINSTEIN: Well, they're both arguing that the court should be looking at this with a much higher level of scrutiny before they overturn the lower

court's ruling based on the allegations that are being made that it's affecting the Equal Protection Clause. The states disagree. The federal

government disagree with that.

They look at a lower level. We're talking about in legal terms, strict scrutiny versus a rational basis, meaning strict scrutiny, higher standard,

as opposed to just showing -- basis is for this alleged discrimination. It's rather interesting in, you know, the Idaho case, as you mentioned,

that these athletes encouraging them to not even hear the case, because she's no longer participating.

And so that's an interesting aspect, because she takes a position that's discrimination against me as discrimination against everyone, whereas in

the West Virginia case, and the position taken by the federal government is no we need to decide this, because we need to make a ruling and have one in

place that addresses this transgender issue.

They're also addressing a core issue of, what is the sexual gender of an individual? Is it based on what's on your birth certificate, or is it based

on what you are right now, physically? Can you use drugs to prevent or change what's going on in your body? So, there are a lot of different

arguments that are being thrown up in the air under the guise of equal protection.

We want men to compete against men and women to compete against women.

MACFARLANE: Yeah, and I think if we consider what's at stake here today in this hearing. I mean, in the West Virginia case, attorneys are also arguing

the ban violates Title IX, which is the federal law prohibiting, as I mentioned, sex discrimination in schools. If the Supreme Court ruled that

trans people are not covered by Title IX, how likely are we to see this boost moves to restrict other anti-trans policies civil rights? I mean, how

much could this escalate?

WEINSTEIN: Oh, it will absolutely escalate, because you're getting a decision granted it's based on the facts, and certainly people are going to

argue that it should only apply to this instance. But a decision like that is going to cause other states, the federal government, to say, see, we

have a decision that says it's not in violation of Title IX.

So therefore, all those other rules and regulations, all those other acts of litigation, should be halted, and we should be allowed to proceed.

There's no violation of Title IX here, it certainly will embolden those who wish to undertake practices that many believe are in violation of Title IX.

[11:45:00]

MACFARLANE: And it's the first time you know, a trans case has reached the Supreme Court, which is why it's so consequential. The Supreme Court have

displayed much more skepticism, really, in recent years over the inclusion of trans women in sport. And we saw, I think, with the block on transition

hormone therapy last year, a demonstration of that. So where do you expect the justices to fall on this?

WEINSTEIN: I think they're going to fall where they've been falling all along. You have a conservative block that is falling in line with the

government's position. We've seen that, not only in this case, but in virtually every other case that we've seen come before the Supreme Court in

recent terms.

So, I think that's going to happen here. The question is, where is that swing vote? Can the people who are not on the majority side sway somebody

to say that, no, you're just not seeing it at this higher level of scrutiny. It doesn't require this rational basis. It is discrimination.

It is in violation of Title IX. Can they get that person to swing to the other side? They haven't been able to do it before. Let's see what happens

with this one.

MACFARLANE: Yeah, and the crux of this really is whether or not these athletes have an unfair advantage. I mean, in the case of Pepper-Jackson,

who is the only trans athlete in her state, she's been saying that she has been taking medication to prevent herself from undergoing puberty.

And therefore, you know, feeling the effects of that advantage, or male advantage. How likely do you think that is to be viewed by this court, and

how much weight that may hold in her defense?

WEINSTEIN: Well, it's certainly an argument that's being pushed strongly by the defense in that case. As the arguments were undergoing, there was

questioning that was being raised about allowing these types of drugs but prohibiting the use of, say, steroids. In other cases, they said that you

were allowed to prevent that.

But she's making a good argument here. And again, that goes to it's not what was on my birth certificate, it is what is my physiological makeup

right now, and because of those drugs that I took that blocked the male puberty from coming on. I am not a male, I am a female, and so therefore

you are discriminating against me.

It'll be interesting to see how much science impacts a lot of the argument and the decision itself.

MACFARLANE: Yeah, consequential decision when it comes and an important day really. David, we appreciate all your analysis and for being here for us.

Thank you.

WEINSTEIN: You're welcome.

MACFARLANE: We all know that pollution is a bad thing. So, what happens when the U.S. government says there's nothing to worry about? Well, that's

coming up.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[11:50:00]

MACFARLANE: Well, "The New York Times" is reporting the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency is about to make a major shift in how it sets air

pollution rules. It says that when making rules governing pollutants like emissions from power plants and industrial sites, the EPA will no longer

put a monetary value on improved human health due to cleaner air.

Critics warn that could open the door to weaker protections and dirtier air. Want to bring in CNN Chief Climate Correspondent, Bill Weir. And Bill

that clearly this is very concerning.

BILL WEIR, CNN CHIEF CLIMATE CORRESPONDENT: This is a big change, Christina. And every cost benefit analysis that every sort of regulation is

pinned upon tries to weigh out, what is this doing? What is the regulated pollution actually doing to our populations?

Well, the Trump Administration now seems to want to eliminate the benefit side of that ledger entirely. For 40 years or so, different administrations

have debated the price you put on a human life, on human health, asthma attacks, days lost from work these metrics.

But now this EPA under Lee Zeldin and Donald Trump, eliminating that entirely, just so you understand what we're talking about. This PM 2.5 is

the kind of pollution that's 2.5 micrometers across, small enough to get into your lungs, into your bloodstream, into your brain.

It comes from power plants and wildfires and car emissions. Long term exposure leads to asthma, heart, lung disease, even moderate exposure to

2.5 is like smoking on a regular basis. That was how the Biden Administration saw this. The Obama Administration, over the Democrats, over

the generations, have tried to tighten regulations the stuff coming out of smokestacks now they're rolling it back entirely.

We did get a statement from EPA in which they say, like the agency always have, EPA is still considering the impacts that PM 2.5 and ozone emissions

have on human health, but the agency will not be monetizing the impacts at this time. Not monetizing does not equal not considering or not valuing the

human health impact.

There you go. Many experts will debate that again, the cost benefit analysis, everything when it comes to regulation right now, and every other

indication we've gotten from EPA and when it comes to opening up an 1800 number for pollution waivers, for companies to call.

Just this could not be -- is the golden age of super pollution in the United States these days, under this administration, which has made no

secret that there's big favors to big oil and gas.

MACFARLANE: Yeah, and this is yet another roll back of another regulation. How is that being full on the climate front?

WEIR: Well, we've already seen 2025 for the first time in a couple of years, Planet cooking emissions went up by 2.5 percent, as a result of a

lot more coal fired power. They were dying. The economy of power these days completely leans towards renewable, solar, wind, the cheapest forms of

energy, and so to keep coal firing, literally, the Trump Administration has been incentivizing that, literally blocking coal plant closures. And we're

seeing it in the air, seeing it in the measurements.

MACFARLANE: Well Bill, we will continue to keep across it, as you say, another regulation and a new year. Bill Weir, thank you. Now, the BBC wants

Donald Trump's $10 billion lawsuit to be dismissed in a finding late Monday. Britain's publicly owned broadcaster argued that the court in

Florida lacked jurisdiction in the case because it did not broadcast in Florida.

The BBC adds the U.S. President could not prove damages because he was re- elected after it aired. Trump said the broadcaster defamed him by splicing together parts of a speech that made it appear he had directed supporters

to storm the U.S. capital. The BBC has apologized for the editing, but said it would defend the case. And finally, this hour, the International Space

Station has a new commander.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: This is been passed on for a long time. It's the key to the ISS. So, Sergey --

(END VIDEO CLIP)

MACFARLANE: U.S. astronaut Mike Fincke, handing over command of the ISS to his Russian crew mate, Sergey Kud-Sverchkov. NASA is bringing Fincke and

three other crew back to Earth earlier than planned due to an unspecified medical issue. They're all scheduled to splash down off the California

coast Thursday morning.

[11:55:00]

And that'll do it for us here at "One World". Stay with us. My colleague, Bianna Golodryga is up after the break.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

END