Return to Transcripts main page
The Source with Kaitlan Collins
Supreme Court Ruling Boosts Presidential Power; Trump: "Nothing Was Moved" From Iran's Nuclear Sites; Trump: Canada's New Tax Is A "Blatant Attack" On U.S. Aired 9-10p ET
Aired June 27, 2025 - 21:00 ET
THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.
NICK WATT, CNN NATIONAL CORRESPONDENT: So, he's saying, why do we make them do this? It's crazy. But a lot of these laws, we're going to have to change. For example, a lot of states have a law that the driver of every vehicle has to have a hand on the wheel at all time.
ANDERSON COOPER, CNN HOST: Right.
WATT: I mean, an algorithm doesn't have a hand. So, we need to rethink this.
But, listen, they do a lot of good. People love these Waymos. You're not going to get creeped out or assaulted by a driver. There are upsides.
COOPER: Yes.
WATT: But for the people who live around here, the downside is they can't sleep.
Anderson.
COOPER: Yes. Nick Watt, we appreciate it. Thanks very much. See what happens.
The news continues. "THE SOURCE" starts now.
JOHN KING, CNN HOST: Tonight, a historic ruling that shifts the balance of powers.
I'm John King, in for Kaitlan Collins. And this is THE SOURCE.
Tonight, the Office of the President of the United States is more powerful than it was just yesterday. And the current officeholder, very quick to celebrate.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
DONALD TRUMP, PRESIDENT, UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: Well, this was a big one, wasn't it? This was a big decision, an amazing decision, one that we're very happy about. This morning, the Supreme Court has delivered a monumental victory for the Constitution, the separation of powers, and the rule of law.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
KING: The conservative supermajority that President Trump helped put in place, on the Supreme Court, just set brand-new limits on one of the most potent checks on executive authority. It was a six-to-three decision, along ideological lines.
Justice Amy Coney Barrett, you see her there, she wrote the Majority opinion. In it, the court pointedly did not, this is important, did not rule on the President's push to end birthright citizenship. But the justices did deal a major blow to those who want to stop that Trump effort.
Federal judges, at the district court level, have issued nationwide injunctions, against some of President Trump's executive actions. That's something that has frustrated Presidents of both parties, over the years.
Today, though, the Supreme Court ruled that, quote, "[F]ederal courts do not exercise general oversight of the Executive Branch; they resolve cases and controversies consistent with the authority Congress has given them." And that, quote, "When a court concludes that the Executive Branch has acted unlawfully, the answer is not for the court to exceed its power, too."
Justice Sonia Sotomayor chose to read her dissent, aloud, from the bench, arguing, quote, "That holding renders constitutional guarantees meaningful in name only."
Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson said this in her dissent. Eventually, executive power will become completely uncontainable, and our beloved constitutional republic will be no more.
The opinion could impact a wide array of cases and issues. By the Justice Department's own count, just this term, judges have put in place 40 holds to block some, some, of President Trump's most controversial orders, a check on his efforts to expand executive power and to remake the government.
The President quick to lay out where he wants to quickly test this expanded power.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
TRUMP: We can now promptly file to proceed with these numerous policies, and those that have been wrongly enjoined on a nationwide basis, including birthright citizenship, ending sanctuary city funding, suspending refugee resettlement, freezing unnecessary funding, stopping federal taxpayers from paying for transgender surgeries, and numerous other priorities of the American people.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
KING: All of that, all of those actions the President just mentioned there, are the results of executive orders he has signed.
A quick reminder, little context, this might be helpful. This is how Republicans used to talk, about a president using executive actions to push through parts of his agenda. They said these things, when the President was a Democrat.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
JOHN BOEHNER, ORATOR AND FORMER SPEAKER OF THE UNITED STATES HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES: The President says, he's acting on his own. That's just not how our democracy works.
SEAN DUFFY, UNITED STATES SECRETARY OF TRANSPORTATION: Obama disagrees. He says, he doesn't have the authority. He said he would have to be a king or an emperor to take this move.
SEN. RAND PAUL (R-KY): He doesn't seem to grasp the checks and balances. But, if we don't have checks and balances in this country, you know, that can lead to a real problem.
BOBBY JINDAL, FORMER UNITED STATES REPRESENTATIVE: We don't have kings in this country. I know this president thinks he can just interpret the Constitution, apply the laws when and how he wants them. He thinks he can go around Congress.
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: In America, we do have a president. We don't have a king. And so, you cannot rule by fiat.
JEFF SESSIONS, FORMER UNITED STATES ATTORNEY GENERAL: It is an Executive fiat. It is an imperial act.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
KING: Our legal -- expert legal eagles are here.
Elie Honig.
Carrie Cordero.
Plus, the very well-sourced Jeff Mason of Reuters.
Elie, put this into context. You heard the President. He's happy. He wants to push. In reality, what does this mean?
ELIE HONIG, CNN SENIOR LEGAL ANALYST, FORMER ASSISTANT U.S. ATTORNEY, SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NY: This means that the President is far more powerful than the President was 24 hours ago. When I say the President, I mean Donald Trump, but I mean the Presidency, the Office, as an institution.
[21:05:00]
And it's really important to note, John, consistent with what you just showed us, that who opposes which of these, depends on which party's in the White House.
I want to read you something that was written by the Biden administration. In December of 2024, they submitted a brief to the Supreme Court, arguing the exact same thing that Trump administration has argued here. The Biden administration wrote, the district court issued a nationwide injunction. Such universal remedies exceed the power of the courts and conflict with longstanding limits on equitable relief.
So, this should not be seen as some mad power grab by Donald Trump. It's the same thing Joe Biden tried to do. Donald Trump is now the one who got the favorable court, and got the win. So, Donald Trump is going to have a lot more power to implement his policies. The courts are going to have a lot less power to stop him.
KING: We'll see how it plays out as we go forward now in the courts. But in today, the justices, as they have in other big cases, seem to be debating themselves, when you have the Majority opinion and the dissent.
Justice Barrett, in her decision, wrote directly to Justice Jackson's dissent. Justice Jackson decries an imperial Executive while embracing an imperial Judiciary... Everyone, from the President on down, is bound by law. That goes for judges too.
So now we just wait? Now so we get one district judge says, you can restrict birthright citizenship, another district judge says, you can't? Or in different appeals court districts, you get different decisions? And what happens?
CARRIE CORDERO, CNN LEGAL ANALYST: Yes, I think, as a result of this opinion, there's going to be a lot of uncertainty, and it's going to take a long time, actually, to work itself out.
On the birthright issue, in particular, the subject of what the substantive cases were about, that's not going to be decided for a long time, and this opinion doesn't even try to solve that issue as to the constitutionality of the President's order itself.
As to injunctions, even on the issue of injunctions, the Supreme Court majority is saying that, now lower courts are going to have some flexibility to be able to figure out how they're going to craft their order. So, I don't read this opinion to say that there absolutely will be no injunctions at all. But it doesn't allow this concept of universal injunctions to take place.
KING: Part of this, Jeff, depends on what the administration does with this win at the Supreme Court. From day one, it has been push, push, push, test, test, test, try to expand presidential power. Now what?
JEFF MASON, WHITE HOUSE CORRESPONDENT, REUTERS: Well, I think, number one, they go back and they challenge every single decision that was enjoined in all of the district courts that did them, and try to gain back the ground that they sought to gain, from the very beginning, on everything -- on all the list that was just played in the President's quote, sanctuary cities, transgender surgeries, birthright citizenship, all of these priorities.
Then, the broader question is, what other policies do they feel, Hey, we can now -- we can now pursue this too? I did speak to a White House official today, asking that very question. And he laughed at me a little bit and said, Why, because you think we've been holding back? So, I thought that was a fair point.
KING: Right.
MASON: Like, maybe there's not a long list of things that they haven't tried that now they're going to. But they're certainly going to try to make up for everything, or go back and get everything that they started to get with, the executive orders that he's began signing on January 20th.
KING: Right. You mentioned, Elie, there will be a Democratic president someday, either in 2029, or four years after that, or at some point, and they will have this same power, assuming something doesn't happen through the court system.
But given the issues, where President Trump is pushing presidential power, trying to expand presidential power, his authority to do things, why is this so important?
HONIG: Well, this is the rule now, moving forward.
And there's been a pattern, if you look back. Let's look back from Obama, Obama on, where the President signs some executive action, like some of the ones we just saw Republicans complaining about. In Obama's case, it was Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals, this DACA program. In Biden's case, there was the student loan programs.
Immediately, challengers run to district courts. They usually judge- shop, both ways, right?
KING: Right.
HONIG: If it's Republicans, they go to the Western District of Texas. It's Democrats, they go to the Northern District California, or some district in Maryland. And the district court usually says, OK, that's it. Everything's on hold for the whole nation.
Now, district courts cannot do that. Now, they can only say, OK, the parties in front of me, it's on hold as to you. So, as Carrie said, this is going to be much more complicated.
One thing that has to happen, the appeals courts, up to and including the Supreme Court, have to now be ready to act so much more quickly. Justice Kavanaugh, in his opinion today, said, Well, we're going to step up. We, the Supreme Court, we're going to act more quickly.
I'm going to believe that when I see it. The Supreme Court doesn't move quickly for anybody.
CORDERO: Aside though, from the substance of the birthright order that this case was got brought up with. You know, John, having been a lawyer in Washington, for 20 years, there really is something to the issue of litigation really preventing policy from getting done. And so, it's this increasing thing, and it's a bipartisan issue. And as the clips you played before, you see that members of both parties have been concerned about this. But the increasing in the litigation nature against everything that the other party disagrees with has prevented presidents from being able to achieve the agenda that they were elected.
[21:10:00]
Now, again, I'm separating out the substance of the birthright order, because from my judgment, and I think the consensus judgment, that order ultimately will be found to be unconstitutional.
But the issue of courts and the litigants getting in the way of every policy thing trying to get achieved? There really is something to that.
KING: There's a fantastic piece, here at CNN, Jeff, just a few weeks ago, about how the President was fuming about Justice Amy Coney Barrett.
MASON: Yes.
KING: He thought that she was not being loyal, that she was not remembering that he's the one who put her on the bench. If you watch a MAGA podcast, you watch other networks that are MAGA ecosystems, she has been pilloried in recent days.
Today, though, she's the Majority writer of this decision, and President Trump says?
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
TRUMP: I want to thank Justice Barrett, who wrote the opinion brilliantly.
I just have great respect for her. I always have. And her decision was brilliantly written today, from all accounts.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
KING: Is it really that easy?
MASON: Wasn't fuming today.
You know, President Trump will be up and down on people, whether it's close advisers, like Elon Musk, or friends, like Elon Musk, whether it's a Supreme Court Justice.
I think, right now, he's up -- or thinking more positively about her. And I think what will be interesting is if that will have an impact on the MAGA crowd. Because, you're absolutely right, there's been a lot of people within that circle, of his supporters, who have not been thinking favorably about her.
KING: Carrie, you mentioned it will be the next term, where we get the actual substance of birthright citizenship.
The Attorney General today did talk about it, though. This is what she said.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
PAM BONDI, ATTORNEY GENERAL: That's going to come down in October.
It will be a separate decision in October.
That will be discussed in October, when the Supreme Court hopefully rules in our favor, and we're very confident of that.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
KING: The term starts in October. We'll see how quickly the court gets to it. But is there anything at all, in this decision, really about injunctions and the power of local judges, regional judges, district judges, that tells you anything, give you any hints, about birthright citizenship?
CORDERO: I don't think on the merits of it. I mean, the Dissent wanted to go there. But the Majority, the opinion written by Justice Coney Barrett, stayed away from it completely.
I think the justices who were in the Minority, they really would have liked the Supreme Court, in this particular case, to get more into the substance of it. But I don't think the Majority went there, and we really will have to wait until the next term for that.
KING: We will wait for the next term for that.
Thanks everyone for coming in, on a Friday night. Appreciate it very much.
I want to turn now to Jose Antonio Vargas, the Pulitzer Prize-winning journalist and immigration rights activist, whose memoir is titled, "Dear America: Notes of an Undocumented Citizen."
Jose, grateful for your time on this big day.
You heard the lawyers talk about, there's likely to be chaos. In this part of the country, a judge says this. In this part of a country, a judge says that. You're very well plugged in with the immigrant community and immigrant activists. What's happening out there tonight after this?
JOSE ANTONIO VARGAS, JOURNALIST & IMMIGRATION ACTIVIST, AUTHOR, "DEAR AMERICA: NOTES OF AN UNDOCUMENTED CITIZEN": Well, I think what we're seeing is what immigrants, especially undocumented immigrants, have been living through for decades, which is chaos and incoherence, right? Like, chaos, like this is adding even more chaos to already chaotic reality, that undocumented people in this country are living through.
And when I think back, putting on kind of my journalist hat, immigrants have always been a pawn in this larger political game, right? And this is exactly what's happening. KING: And so, the lawyers will say, We need to come up with a national class action, right? We need to come up with a class. It's an option. The lawyers might say it works.
But take me through the reality of that in the immigrant community, because some of the people would have to join the class, if you will, to make the case, might be undocumented.
ANTONIO VARGAS: Might be--
KING: Might have the courage -- might have to have the courage to come forward in this climate and put themselves at pretty high risk.
ANTONIO VARGAS: Which, by the way, is I, personally, probably I'm up to 27 people who, like me, were raised in this country, got our education in this country, started our careers in this country, 27 people who have left, who have self-deported. Doctors, engineers, accountants, right? That's the reality.
And the reality is now, and we see this, we've seen this in Los Angeles, right? We see this in Los Angeles, in terms of this terrorizing that is happening within the community, right? From Home Depot lots, right, to the Fashion District, where a lot of people working in the fashion industry, making people's clothes.
So, I think what's happening here is it's going to take a tremendous amount of courage. And what I have to think about is being an immigrant, in this country, has always relied on having a lot of courage.
[21:15:00]
And I'm curious for me, because you can't separate the, what is it, 12 million undocumented population from the documented population, right? We are in the same family. And the chaos that this is instilling, right, is people asking around, going, Wait a second. Who's legal? Who's not?
KING: Right.
ANTONIO VARGAS: Just on Instagram today, I was seeing a sign that, apparently a woman was in an Uber, and actually caught -- texted ICE, or called ICE, to arrest the Uber driver, who's an African woman, because now there're signs saying, Hey, if you see someone who's an illegal alien, here's a number to call.
KING: Yes.
ANTONIO VARGAS: So, is this what's happening? People are now going to turn around, who's here as an illegal alien, and which -- you should be reporting who these people are?
KING: Yes.
ANTONIO VARGAS: Is that what we really want? KING: It's an interesting point you make. Because in my travels, I've met a number of people, who are seeking asylum, who did it legally during the Biden administration.
ANTONIO VARGAS: Yes.
KING: But they're worried that the Trump administration is going to find a way to not honor that. Even though they did the right thing, they came forward, they did the process, they went through the app, they have the paperwork.
And so, we're looking at the specifics of this Supreme Court decision, which is about injunctions, and about judges, more than really about the substance of any immigration issue.
But you mentioned the broader climate. And so, if you're an undocumented immigrant, out there, or if you're in a mixed family, somebody may have status, may even be a citizen, but somebody is undocumented, and you're having the self-deportation question or the hide question or whatever. What does it -- what does this do? Trump wins again. What is -- what does just that do to the climate, not the specifics of the legal ruling?
ANTONIO VARGAS: I've been doing this now for 14 years. As you know, I outed myself as undocumented, during the Obama era.
KING: Right.
ANTONIO VARGAS: When Obama was being labeled a deporter-in-chief, right?
The reality, though, is now, especially with the ruling today? Checks and balances is a fundamental principle of American democracy. Due process is a fundamental principle of American democracy. There's no due process at all. As you know, we've heard people, immigrants being arrested at the courthouse while they're trying to follow a legal process.
John, what I'm actually hoping here is that immigrants and society in general -- there was just a poll, I think, yesterday, the Quinnipiac poll, that said that 64 percent of people polled says that we should have immigration reform, that we should fix what's happening in this country.
Maybe what's happening here maybe a gift. Maybe President Trump and Stephen Miller is actually giving us a gift, exposing how broken the system is. We should live in a country, where there's no undocumented people. We should live in a country, where there's a process for people to actually legalize themselves, right? And we don't have that right now. And I think we are -- we are being pushed to the edge.
And what I'm hoping is that Americans who have not paid attention at all, who don't have any idea what ICE is, who didn't know that undocumented people pay taxes, that we have kept Social Security solvent, all of those things? Now that people are aware of the facts, the facts of this issue, that we can actually finally fix this broken issue, that's been broken for decades, by both parties, by the way.
KING: It'd be fascinating to see if a conversation like that started. I can tell you, in this town, right now, with Trump and the Republican House--
ANTONIO VARGAS: Well--
KING: --it's not going to happen here.
ANTONIO VARGAS: Well, John, we have a role in the media to do that.
KING: Yes. Yes.
ANTONIO VARGAS: When I watched the press conference today, and President Trump talks about the criminals in Los Angeles? I don't think there was a single journalist there who said, Wait a second. 60 percent of the people who were arrested in L.A. didn't have a criminal record at all.
It is our duty to inform our public, as a public trust, what the facts are, and not just let President Trump and Stephen Miller spread all of these lies. So we have a job in that too.
KING: We sure do. Facts matter.
Jose Antonio Vargas, appreciate it, sir. Thank you very much.
ANTONIO VARGAS: Thank you so much for having me.
KING: Thank you.
That Supreme Court ruling was not the only major win today, for the Trump administration. Up next. My legal sources take a look at the court's other big decisions, and what they mean for you.
[21:20:00]
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
KING: The Supreme Court did a lot more than just expand presidential power today. The justices also delivered decisions on several other big cases that draw new boundaries on First Amendment rights, from religious freedoms to free speech.
My sources are, Tom Dupree, the former Deputy Assistant Attorney General.
The retired New York State Supreme Court Justice, Jill Konviser.
And Jeff Rosen, Professor of Law at George Washington University, and Contributing Editor at The Atlantic.
Tom, to you, first. The Supreme Court wading into yet another culture war case today, backing a group of parents who believe they deserve the right to opt their kids out of class, if that class is engaging with LGBTQ books or materials in elementary school classrooms. What's the big takeaway from that?
TOM DUPREE, FORMER DEPUTY ASSISTANT ATTORNEY GENERAL: Well, John, this was one of the more important cases of the term, but I have to say, it was one of the least surprising outcomes.
I think the writing for this case was on the wall, back during oral argument, when it was clear that a majority of the court was going to affirm the parents' rights, basically, to control the religious education of their children.
This case involved a situation, where a school board denied parents, the right to opt their kids, out of LGBT-themed lessons and instructions.
And the justices -- this is a court that is very supportive of religious rights. It's a court that is very supportive of parental rights. And I think that what the justices perceived as the school district's inflexibility. They used to allow parents to opt their kids out of these things, but they no longer did, I think, really set the justices off a little bit. And they just thought it was unreasonable what the school board was doing, and this case provided the perfect vehicle for reaffirming the court's commitment to religious freedoms.
KING: And Judge, another big fight between the Majority and the Liberals. Justice Sonia Sotomayor in her dissent brought up the practical impact that she believes this could have, warning of chaos.
Do schools now have to give advance notice, every time a lesson plan might conflict with somebody's religious beliefs?
[21:25:00]
JILL KONVISER, RETIRED NY STATE SUPREME COURT JUSTICE: Probably does have to be some notice. And Judge Sotomayor was very clear that that was going to be chaotic and troublesome.
But she also said something else, from a legal perspective, that I think shouldn't get lost in this dialog, even though it was a dissent, which is that historically, the Free Exercise Clause deals with the government compelling someone to abandon a certain religious belief, not to discuss something that somebody may not agree with.
She's saying that -- Justice Sotomayor is saying, this is a complete misreading of not just the Constitution, but also case precedent on this precise topic, that this is not the government compelling anyone to think a certain way, or to abandon a religious belief. This is not something that would be protected under the First Amendment. She disagrees with the way, they handled this entirely. But yes, she does say, chaos is clearly the dish of the day with this ruling.
KING: And Jeff, to that point. Reporters in the courtroom, Supreme Court chambers, noted that when Justice Sotomayor was reading her dissent, Justice Alito appeared to chuckle, when she asserted that this could undermine the nation's public school system.
This is part of her dissent. Today's ruling threatens the very essence of public education. The Court, in effect, constitutionalizes a parental veto power... strikes at the core premise of public schools: that children may come together to learn not the teachings of a particular faith, but a range of concepts and views that reflect our entire society. Exposure to new ideas has always been a vital part of that project, until now.
What do you see as the impact here?
PROF. JEFFREY ROSEN, GEORGE WASHINGTON UNIVERSITY LAW SCHOOL, CONTRIBUTING EDITOR, THE ATLANTIC, HOST, "WE THE PEOPLE" CONSTITUTIONAL DEBATE PODCAST, PRESIDENT & CEO, THE NATIONAL CONSTITUTION CENTER: Well, this is going to, according to the dissent, just reignite the culture war in schools, across the country, will subject all sorts of curriculum to opt-outs, and will create chaos.
The Majority responds, schools already allow opt-outs for sex education. It's not that big a change. And the bigger takeaway for the Majority is, they refuse to re-examine all of their religious freedom jurisprudence. A case called the Smith case that said that generally- applicable laws that burden religious minorities are generally not constitutionally suspect, and the court did not re-examine that. Instead, it said, there's a fundamental right of parents to control their kids' education.
We saw that same strain in the transgender case, last week, where there was a real concern for parents being able to educate their kids as they want. So really, a clash between, on the one hand, the Conservatives, emphasizing parental rights, and the Liberals saying, public schools are all about hearing opinions and ideas with which you may disagree.
KING: And Tom, another big case. This Supreme Court, Majorities before this court, for decades, have embraced a pretty robust view of the First Amendment. The High Court, though today, rejecting a challenge from the adult entertainment industry on this issue. Explain that case, the Texas case.
DUPREE: Sure. Well, this was a challenge to a Texas law that essentially imposed an age verification requirement, for people looking to access sexually-themed content on the internet. It was basically a law that tried to prevent kids from accessing porn on the internet by having to show proof of age.
The justices wrestled with a pretty legalistic question during the argument, namely, the applicable standard of review for a challenge of this nature. Today's decision, the court kind of came down in the middle on that question. They said, they're going to apply intermediate scrutiny, but they upheld the Texas law.
I think, as far as the outcome of this case, and whether it's going to have widespread practical ramifications? I'm a little skeptical that it will. And that's because I think that the Supreme Court sees pornography as a little differently-situated from pretty much any other type of content.
And so, just because the justices approved an age verification requirement, for accessing porn on the internet, doesn't mean that state legislatures now have free rein to impose similar age verification requirements for any other type of content.
KING: Judge, there was a dissent, though, from the Liberals. And let's be clear, they are not supporting access of young people to pornography. What was the legal point they were trying to make?
KONVISER: The legal point they were trying to make after saying, there's a laudable goal here, which is to prevent children from accessing pornography. Nobody wants that. Everyone can agree on that.
But the important part or the constitutional point that's -- that the dissent pointed out was that the standard used for First Amendment analysis and free speech, under this type of scenario, has always been one of strict scrutiny, which is a legalistic term. But what it really means is it's a very, very high bar. And the Texas court took and -- the Supreme Court took a middle-of-the-road application, instead of requiring that strict scrutiny on First Amendment.
[21:30:00]
And you have the dissent saying, Texas, you can do better. You could still come out with the same result, we can still protect children, while doing what we have, for decades, in the manner in which we evaluate free speech, First Amendment analysis, and do it the right way. Stricter scrutiny, that's what they said. But yes, they agree on the merits. Of course, they do.
KING: Thanks everyone. Appreciate it. A big, consequential day on the final day of a pretty consequential Supreme Court term. Thank you all very much.
And up next. We have some brand-new reporting on why the United States did not use those bunker-busting bombs on one of Iran's nuclear sites. House members got their classified briefing, today, on those strikes. One of them is my congressional source, next.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[21:35:00]
KING: President Trump says he's confident the U.S. strikes on Iranian nuclear facilities have stopped Tehran's program, at least for now.
Here's what he told CNN's Jeff Zeleny, earlier today, in the White House briefing room.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
JEFF ZELENY, CNN CHIEF NATIONAL AFFAIRS CORRESPONDENT: I'm wondering now, sir, if you believe that Iran has given up its long history of ambitions with nuclear weapons. Or what you would like to see from them to prove that they do? And what type of meetings is your administration looking for, next week, with Iran?
TRUMP: So, Iran wants to meet. As you know, their sites were obliterated. They're very evil nuclear sites.
And again, time will tell. But I don't believe that they're going to go back into nuclear, anytime soon. They spent over a trillion dollars on nuclear, and they never got it together.
And nothing was moved from the site, by the way. To do that is very dangerous. It's very, very heavy material. Those cars were most likely the cars of masons, because they were pouring concrete at the top, at the hatch, as you know, the hatch going into the nuclear site. They wanted to reinforce it.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
KING: New satellite images, you see them there, appear to show some activity at Fordow, one of those nuclear facilities at the core of Iran's nuclear program. You can see excavators, other earthmoving machinery, around the tunnel entrances.
My source tonight is on the House Intelligence Committee, and received a classified briefing, a short time ago, on the U.S. airstrikes. He's Democratic congressman, Raja Krishnamoorthi.
Congressman, great to see you tonight.
The President says, Obliterated. Listen here to some of your Republican colleagues after today's briefing.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
REP. MICHAEL MCCAUL (R-TX): It's the enrichment capability -- capabilities that were taken out. There is enriched uranium in the facilities that moves around, but that was not the intent or the mission.
REP. ROGER WILLIAMS (R-TX): I think we did a pretty good number on them.
MANU RAJU, CNN ANCHOR AND CHIEF CONGRESSIONAL CORRESPONDENT: So does that mean they can't build a weapon again?
WILLIAMS: I can't say that. But I think it's evident that their program has totally been cut off right now.
REP. DON BACON (R-NE): It's really degraded. It's going to take them years to recover. I think that much is clear.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
KING: If somebody out there watching is a little confused, between obliterated and what they just heard from Republicans, tell it as plainly as you can, what is the state of Iran's nuclear program today, compared to the day before those strikes?
REP. RAJA KRISHNAMOORTHI (D-IL): We don't know. I think that -- first of all, I think we start from the principle a lot of us share that Iran should not ever be allowed to have a nuclear weapon. And although definitely facilities were obliterated, especially ones aboveground, there's hundreds of kilograms of enriched uranium that has not been accounted for, nor do we know about what happened with various components and secret sites that have not been accounted for either.
As a consequence, I think a lot of us are left with the conclusion that you have to negotiate at the bargaining table, an end to their nuclear program, because a military solution is not sufficient, as we just found out this week.
KING: Well, you've heard the rhetoric, from the regime in Iran. But you also hear the White House, and the President, saying, Let's try to get back to negotiations. Secretary of State Rubio wants to have one- on-one talks with Iran.
Are you confident that you -- to start a negotiation, for it to be successful, you have to kind of agree on what we're talking about, or at least have a general agreement. Are you confident that the two sides are there? Is it worth having negotiations now, detailed negotiations now? Or do you need to find a framework first?
KRISHNAMOORTHI: No, I think that they can have a negotiation now, about an end to their nuclear weapons program. The Iranian economy is in shambles. They are desperately seeking economic relief, right now. And so, there's something that the Iranians want.
And of course, the U.S., and our friends, partners, and allies, as well as others in the region, also have an objective, which is, Iran should never possess a nuclear weapon.
And so, I think knowing that those are the objectives of both sides, should be sufficient to at least start direct negotiations. But it has to be direct, and it has to be now.
KING: You mentioned in the first answer, where you said, We don't know, at least we don't know precisely what the current status of the program is. That there's enriched uranium. There have been reports about 900 pounds, or something like that.
How much and where? Did you get any indication of that today? Does the administration have a clear sense of, if you're thinking out, What's still on our list? What do we need to keep an eye on? We did some damage, but we need to watch this. How much and where is it?
[21:40:00]
KRISHNAMOORTHI: Yes, no, they did not answer that question. They -- what we know is that, according to published reports, they had about 900 kilograms of enriched uranium at about 60 percent enrichment. They need to get it to about 90 percent to be weapons-grade. And the IAEA did detect traces of weapons-grade uranium during one of their last visits and inspections.
All that being said, we don't know where this uranium is. Nor do we know where a lot of other components and other centrifuges that had not been installed, but that do exist, and have been kind of moved to different places in the country.
And, of course, we all know this, which is, you can't bomb their knowhow out of existence. They have already developed the infrastructure once, and they can reconstitute it. And that's in part why it's so important for us, if we want to end this nuclear weapons program, once and for all, to come back to the table and make sure, in concert with others, we use our diplomatic tools, to ensure that they don't have a nuclear weapon.
KING: As we wait to see if the negotiations actually begin and are fruitful.
You've seen the public release, satellite images, showing the presence of excavation machinery at Fordow. In the briefing today, have you seen the administration giving you any indication? Is that just cleaning up a mess, or is that something nefarious?
KRISHNAMOORTHI: We didn't get into that. I mean, I've reviewed a lot of classified information, over the past several days. I think people are really trying to sift through a lot of information. The battle damage assessment, as you know, will take some period of time to complete.
All that being said, I am concerned that intelligence might be shaped, or that people within the intelligence community might feel undue pressure, right now, from the White House, to shape it in certain ways. And we know that's really, really, really dangerous.
We've seen that before, in 2003 to 2005, with the Iraq War, and how, basically, the intelligence community was basically forced to produce information, consistent with then-President George W. Bush's narrative that there's WMD in Iraq. It led to a disastrous war. We can't repeat that now, and we need to make sure that the IC, the intelligence community, remains truth-tellers, who just call balls and strikes.
KING: Congressman, grateful for your time tonight, sir. Thank you.
KRISHNAMOORTHI: Thank you, John.
KING: Up next. It's been an incredibly consequential week for the President. To cap it off, he's calling off trade talks with Canada, after what he calls, quote, A direct and blatant attack. My political sources, here next.
[21:45:00]
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
KING: Tonight, President Trump says trade talks between the White House and Canada are over. The President abruptly pulling the plug on negotiations with a top buyer, the top buyer of U.S. goods.
The President, angry about Canada's new digital services tax. The President, as you see right there, calling it, quote, "A direct and blatant attack on our Country." He went on to write that the United States will let Canada know the Tariff that they will be paying to do business with the United States of America within the next seven day period.
You can see, right here, all three major stock exchanges reacting to the President's posts in real time. The Dow, the S&P and the Nasdaq briefly dropped on the news. But look at that. Not only a sharp rebound, but the Nasdaq and the S&P closing at all-time highs. Even as this tariff fight drags on, Wall Street rolls on.
My political sources are here.
Karen Finney, the former communications director for the Democratic National Committee.
And the Republican strategist, Shermichael Singleton.
Shermichael, on the one hand, Canada imposes the tax.
SHERMICHAEL SINGLETON, CNN POLITICAL COMMENTATOR, REPUBLICAN STRATEGIST: Right.
KING: We know the President. You punch him, he punches back, what he perceives is a punch. However, the markets are rebounding.
SINGLETON: Yes, they are--
KING: The President still -- still has issues out there with consumer confidence, and what Americans think about, right track, wrong track. Want to do this again now?
SINGLETON: Yes, look, I think the market is trending in the right direction.
I understand, and Karen and I were talking about this, I understand why the President would be somewhat frustrated with the tax from the Canadians. But I would also imagine the Canadians probably want to protect their own growing technology sector.
I would, however, want the Canadians to partner with us, and buy chips from NVIDIA versus chips from Huawei and the Chinese. And so, these are some of the global things that I'm thinking about. So, I'd probably go back to the conversation, if I'm advising the President, and say, Let's figure out a way to, at a minimum, lower the tax, so that the U.S. companies greater benefit.
KING: Right. But they didn't do it in talks. So that part's interesting.
KAREN FINNEY, CNN POLITICAL COMMENTATOR, SENIOR ADVISER, 2016 CLINTON PRESIDENTIAL CAMPAIGN: Yes.
KING: He did seem to be starting to have a decent relationship with the new prime minister.
But let me take the contrarian argument. They just announced a new tech retroactive to what, 2022?
FINNEY: Yes. KING: On some of our biggest companies, right? We're talking about Apple here. We're talking about Google here. We're talking about Amazon here. We're talking about Microsoft here.
So, forget the name Trump. Forget that he's a Republican. Shouldn't any American president say, Oh no, those are big players in my economy.
FINNEY: Of course they should. At the same -- but the problem is the that -- we're supposed to be having these 90 deals in 90 days. I think they've gotten about two of them. So the problem is the context we find ourselves in. Yes, you would want an American president fighting that fight.
KING: Right.
[21:50:00]
FINNEY: But as we've seen, the volatility in the market, the lack of consumer confidence. I mean, this anxiety that people are feeling is not going to go away. And if we hear the President, which I expect, we will, early next week, come out swinging, what is that going to do to the markets? Because, again, he could have said, We're going to continue to talk. That's not his way.
KING: Yes.
FINNEY: So of course, he's making a big deal about it, and we'll see how they react.
KING: When this became a big problem, turmoil in the markets, last time, there was at the 90-day pause.
Now we're 12 days away from the end of the 90-day pause, and the President says?
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
REPORTER: Which countries, if any, are close to agreements with the administration?
TRUMP: Well, that's an interesting question. We've made a deal with China. We've made a deal with probably four or five different countries, with the U.K.
But you know, we have 200 countries. You could say 200 countries-plus. We can't do that. So at a certain point, over the next week and a half or so, or maybe before, we're going to send out a letter. We talked to many of the countries, and we're just going to tell them what they have to pay to do business in the United States. And it's going to go very quickly.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
KING: Maybe a foolish question, because this is the way he is. This is the way he acts about this. And the people around him say it works, right? You threaten your bully, you threaten, you get back.
But given what happened, last time, with his own approval rating, with the turmoil in the markets and everything, don't you want to do this in private?
SINGLETON: Yes, look, I think the President is very sensitive to market ups and downs. Obviously, he cares a lot about that.
I actually think, though, John that this is perhaps a better approach. And I was stating this about a month ago, that I would have preference the President to go to multiple countries and say, Hey, this is a baseline for the United States in terms of trade.
KING: Yes.
SINGLETON: Let's all just agree to this and figure it out, versus piecemeal, going country by country.
It's 200 countries, that's a lot of countries, to try to figure out. I actually support the effort of saying, Hey, let's go to everybody and say, This is our baseline number. Let's agree. And let's move on with business.
FINNEY: They--
KING: Well -- go ahead.
FINNEY: They said they were going to get 90 deals done in 90 days. And we knew it, when they said it, that was not true, and not going to likely to happen. And here we are.
KING: Right.
FINNEY: And he said they've gotten four or five. And now he's saying, Oh, well, really, it's 200. And that's a lot, so.
KING: If you're covering campaigns, like I do? Or if you're planning campaigns and advising candidates, like you do? One of the big challenges is, which datapoint do we look at? Which datapoint -- there's conflicting datapoints. Which one do we think is going to matter closer to the election?
You're a Democrat here.
FINNEY: Yes.
KING: But the President did launch military action against Iran. There were no troops involved. The ceasefire appears to be holding. The markets did set some records today.
FINNEY: Yes.
KING: A good week for the President, after a stretch in which Republicans were getting nervous about the midterm climate?
FINNEY: Well, it's interesting, because also obviously today the President, this announcement from the Supreme Court, he's feeling emboldened.
And yet, I was looking at RealClearPolitics averages. We've seen several weeks, not just one outlier poll, several weeks of polling, where his approval rates are going down, his handling of the economy, immigration, foreign policy under water.
Quinnipiac poll, this week, right, showed people said they don't like the Marines being in California. They don't like the National Guard. They want a path to citizenship for people who've been here.
So, the problem that he has, and the opportunity that Democrats have, is to offer a different vision, and to make the point, it's not just a check on power, but like, let's make sure we're getting it right. Because one of the things that we're seeing is people are not happy with the way things are going. And he never talks about the economy--
KING: Well--
FINNEY: --which is the number one issue.
KING: One metric I always keep an eye on, are smart politicians from battleground areas. Tonight, CNN is told by sources that Don Bacon is not going to run for elections from Nebraska 2.
SINGLETON: Saw that.
KING: That is the blue dot. Biden won that district. Harris won that district. But Bacon has been a pretty popular Congressman, to be able to hold on to that district in tough climates. What does that tell you? He differs -- disagrees with the President, a little bit.
SINGLETON: Yes.
KING: Omaha just elected a Democratic mayor over the Republican incumbent, who's a pretty mainstream conservative, not a Trumpy mayor. What does that tell you about the climate?
SINGLETON: Look, it tells me that you're going to have to allow some of those vulnerable Republicans, the opportunity to disagree where they have to disagree, in order to maintain the majority.
Currently, we're hanging on by three seats. There's a number of vulnerable Republicans in purple districts. We want to maintain that majority. So, give them the room to disagree where they can, so that we can keep that majority.
KING: It's going to be interesting to watch, though, now that he doesn't have to worry about a primary because he's not running some reelection--
SINGLETON: It's true.
KING: --or worry about the President beating him up.
FINNEY: He's not.
SINGLETON: Yes.
KING: Where is his vote? Where is his vote on these big issues?
FINNEY: Yes.
KING: Fascinating to watch.
Karen. Shermichael. Thanks for coming in.
SINGLETON: Thanks, John.
KING: Coming up for us. You've probably heard, yes, I bet you have, about Jeff Bezos' multimillion-dollar wedding. But you might not know how much money, the City of Venice expects to make off of that wedding. That, and other stories you may have missed, next.
[21:55:00]
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
KING: Before we go tonight, three things you may have missed.
The University of Virginia's president says he's resigning, under pressure, to get rid of UVA's Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion programs. The New York Times says the Justice Department demanded James Ryan step down, in order to settle a civil rights investigation into the school. In a letter, Ryan wrote, in part, I believe deeply in this University. But I cannot make a unilateral decision to fight the federal government in order to save my own job.
[22:00:00]
The Trump Organization's new wireless provider no longer promises, on its website, that its smartphones will be made in America. Trump Mobile now says the phone was, quote, Designed with American values in mind. The name -- change comes amid experts saying the device seemed to very closely resemble a phone made by a Chinese manufacturer.
And the lavish three-day wedding of Jeff Bezos, Lauren Sanchez, is set to bring in more than $1.1 billion, that's right, billion dollars, for the City of Venice. Despite pushback from locals, the event could give the city's tourism business a nearly 70 percent boost.
Thanks for joining us tonight. Appreciate your time.
"CNN NEWSNIGHT WITH ABBY PHILLIP" up now.
