Return to Transcripts main page

The Story Is with Elex Michaelson

U.S. And Iran Reach Agreement But Key Questions Remain; Unexpected Results Shake Up Monday's Group Openers; Zelenskyy To Meet With World Leaders In Coming Hours; U.S. and Iran Reach Agreement but Key Questions Remain; Israel, Hezbollah Strikes Continue Despite U.S.- Iran Agreement; U.K. Planning to Ban Social Media for Kids Under 16; Anti-Government Protests Gain Steam in Albania. Aired 1-2a ET

Aired June 16, 2026 - 01:00   ET

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

[01:00:00]

VICTOR BLACKWELL, CNN ANCHOR: Leaders at the G7 Summit in France as few details emerge about his memorandum of understanding with Iran.

And protests continue in Albania over plans Trump's daughter and son- in-law have to turn an area of natural beauty into a luxury resort.

Plus, Britain becomes the latest country to ban social media for kids under 16.

It's 7:00 a.m. in Evian-les-Bains, France, where the U.S. President Donald Trump is touting his memorandum of understanding with Iran. The agreement was signed digitally. The President says it will prevent Tehran from having a nuclear weapon. And he claims the Strait of Hormuz will be completely open by Friday. But others in his administration suggest it could take more time for that oil shipping route to return to normal. And they're far more skeptical of a nuclear commitment by Iran.

Mr. Trump met with French President Emmanuel Macron Monday. And on Tuesday he's scheduled to speak with the emir of Qatar and the president of the United Arab Emirates. Reporters pressed for more details about the Iran agreement.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Mr. President, when will the text of the MOU be released?

DONALD TRUMP, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: I think pretty soon, I would say. I mean, I want it to be released because it's a very powerful document. Probably pretty soon. I would say after sometime after Friday.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

BLACKWELL: The agreement has not been released, but Vice President J.D. Vance discussed a few details of the document. Here's what he told CNN's Jake Tapper. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

J.D. VANCE, VICE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: So the MOU, Jake, is about a page and a half. So it is a very general document, but this has been very much part of the conversations that we've had with the Iranians. And on a number of issues, we are going to have to figure this stuff out during the technical negotiation phase. The important thing about this agreement, Jake, is that everything from what Iran gives us on the nuclear program, and of course, that's the most important thing is the commitment verifiable to never building a nuclear weapon. All of these things come along with benefits if Iran delivers and nothing if Iran doesn't deliver.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

BLACKWELL: There are already conflicting statements ahead of the signing ceremony on Friday, especially on the Strait of Hormuz. President Trump says that passage through the waterway will be permanently toll free. But Iranian media report that Tehran will allow free transit for the 60-day negotiation period and plans to impose fees after that.

CNN's Kristie Lu Stout joins us live from Hong Kong. What are you hearing from the people who own these ships and the companies that insure these ships about the Strait?

KRISTIE LU STOUT, CNN CORRESPONDENT: You know, Victor, the ships are staying put. They are not moving. And in fact, a new alert has been released by the Joint Maritime Information Center calling the regional threat level there around the Strait of Hormuz, "severe." U.S. President Donald Trump may be saying and hailing the reopening of the Strait of Hormuz after that MOU was signed between Iran and the United States on Sunday. But shipping executives are not convinced.

In fact, what they're telling me is they still remain deeply concerned about a number of threats. Number one, kinetic threats like mines, drones, potential missile attacks. They're also concerned about potential harassment by naval fleets as well as crew exhaustion. You know, keep in mind, tens of thousands of seafarers have been stranded in the Gulf since the conflict broke out in late February. And that has exacted a severe mental toll that could affect operational abilities.

Now, U.S. President Donald Trump, he took to True Social to send out this post on Monday. He made this declaration, "Ships are starting to move, many loaded up with oil, out of the Strait of Hormuz." This is not the operational reality out on the water. In fact, according to marine traffic monitors, they say that there has been no significant movement on the Strait of Hormuz since the MOU was signed on Sunday.

According to Kepler, it counts that there are around 220 tankers, 500 ships still stranded in the Gulf. Now, one shipping CEO based here in Hong Kong, he operates the second largest ship management firm in the world. He told me he has about a dozen ships that remain stranded, stuck there in the Gulf, and they're not moving. He says this, "We are maintaining enhanced manning and citadel readiness until we have 30 days of incident free transit, not three days, 30."

I also spoke with Tim Huxley, another top shipping executive based here in Hong Kong. He's the chairman of Mandarin Shipping, and he's also sharing his wariness and concern. He says, 'Even if things go smoothly, and everything goes back to normal, it is going to take some time before trade flows are back to normal. And a lot of infrastructure has been damaged in the Middle East, which will take time to fix." Throughout the conflict, the Strait of Hormuz has emerged as this flashpoint.

It has snarled global shipping traffic. It has also pushed energy prices higher. Remember this, I mean, before the war broke out, about 20 million barrels of oil, that's about one-fifth of the global supply, would transit through this critical waterway each and every day. Back to you, Victor.

[01:05:10]

BLACKWELL: Kristie Lou Stout for us in Hong Kong, thank you.

Politics loomed over the pitch in Los Angeles on Monday. It was a draw between Iran and New Zealand during the World Cup's latest group stage opener. The U.S. and Iran make FIFA history as the first host nation to be at war with a contestant. Now, after the game, Iran's players and staff are traveling back to Mexico, because they're expected to commute across the border between every match after the U.S. refused to host the Iranian team because of the war.

Despite FIFA's ban on political flags and apparel, some fans inside the stadium refused to stay silent. A group in the stands unfurled banners reading Manab 168, likely referencing the tragic bombing of an elementary school in Manab, Iran. More than 160 people, many of them children, were killed in that attack after a U.S. Tomahawk missile reportedly struck the building on February 28th.

Joining me now for more on this is Lindsay Sarah Krasnoff. She is a sports diplomacy expert and a professor of sports business at New York University. Thanks so much for being with me. And just late this evening, Iran released another propaganda video featuring their national team. Sports diplomacy, as we see, is not always used to thaw relations.

LINDSAY SARAH KRASNOFF, SPORTS DIPLOMACY EXPERT: Exactly. That's right. You know, there's many useful uses of sports diplomacy, which really helps to bring people together to facilitate the conversations in and around the sporting arena. However, it's important to understand that sports diplomacy is not a magic wand. It cannot immediately create fixes. And, you know, it can also be used for a wide variety of uses, positive and negative as well.

BLACKWELL: Yes. The FIFA president, Gianni Infantino, promised a more inclusive World Cup, expanding it from 32 teams to 48 teams, 104 matches, a record, the most ever. From what you're seeing, and again, it's day six, is he making good on that promise?

KRASNOFF: Well, so FIFA World Cup is a phenomenal platform, unlike pretty much anything else that we have, mostly because it is all around one sport. When we look at the data that came from FIFA over the World Cup final in 2022, one in two people worldwide engaged around that final. Even the Olympics can't quite do that in the same way.

So, you know, what we're seeing with 48 teams already, we've got some really interesting storylines that are helping to change and reshift global narratives about countries that might not normally otherwise be in the international media spotlight. Earlier today, Cap Verde tied with Spain, Spain being one of the favorites to win the whole thing. And, you know, just really kind of showed that they're able to show up to perform and to engage with the rest of the world, like all of the other 47 teams. And so that has a certain weight and gravity to it as well.

BLACKWELL: Yes. The United States co-hosting this with Canada and Mexico and many opportunities here. What do you see are those opportunities for U.S. sports diplomacy and any signs that they're living up to that potential?

KRASNOFF: I think we're all very aware of some of the constraints given the current environment and the current administration's policies and, you know, how there have been some who are unable to enter the United States, whether to referee matches or to attend as fans. But I think one of the really interesting things that's been highlighted over the last six days since the competition began is how much a lot of the opportunity for diplomacy is not happening, say, at a national state level, but actually at the informal everyday people- to-people level, which is also one of the benefits of hosting a major sporting event like a FIFA World Cup.

We've seen some really interesting, amazing, humane stories coming out of the way that international teams or fans are engaging with local U.S. populations. I think one of the ones I've been following a lot is the way that the Algerian team has been received by the people of Lawrence, Kansas, who really kind of gone all out and embraced the Algerian team, learning the national anthem, learning some of the more local music, the pep band at the University of Kansas, learning the national anthem and playing it during their opening training session a few days ago, and really doing their best to not just make the Algerian team feel welcome, but also as an opportunity to learn something or many things, quite possibly, about Algeria in a way that they would normally probably not even think to do in the same context.

[01:10:23]

We also see examples of the Tartan Army coming over from Scotland and overtaking Boston and everywhere else where the Scottish team is playing. And, you know, other -- I think the important thing in that story is how they're bringing a little bit of their joy and magic enthusiasm. And, you know, that's kind of what being at a World Cup is all about and seeing it and engaging with it at different levels.

BLACKWELL: Yes. I mean, you don't have to rely only on government to government or the official channels for that diplomacy. It's person to person in some of these communities. Let me look at this conversation from a different angle. We obviously see how sports and politics can overlap. Can they be separated?

KRASNOFF: No, I don't think you can truly ever separate sports and politics because, you know, at its very basic level, who has access to playing sports and who plays which sports and why? A lot of that is based on politics and political decisions or policy. So I don't think you can fully separate the two.

BLACKWELL: Now, Lindsay, I know you're also a fan, right? And so who do you think is going to win?

KRASNOFF: Well, so I am a fan. I'm also a specialist on France and French sport. And so obviously that is where I am rooting in this tournament. There are several other heavily favored teams, but the French team is gunning for a third star, third world title from FIFA. And, you know, they have a very compelling roster, rich of talent, a very deep bench. But we also know that what you have on paper, it also translates a little bit differently in terms of team chemistry and what happens on the field.

And a World Cup stage is a stage unlike any other in which there's a wide variety of different kinds of emotional, physical, environmental considerations that come into play that are not necessarily there in a lot of other different kinds of sports competitions.

BLACKWELL: All right. Lindsay Sarah Krasnoff, we'll see if you're right. If you are, we'll have you back and talk about it. Thanks so much for being with me.

KRASNOFF: Fair enough.

BLACKWELL: All right. The U.S.-Iran agreement expected to dominate the G7 Summit. But Ukraine and tariffs and A.I. also part of the conversation as well. We'll discuss with our European affairs commentator just ahead.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[01:17:16]

BLACKWELL: President Trump is in France where he and G7 leaders are scheduled to meet with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy. President Trump is touting his memorandum of understanding with Iran. He'll speak with leaders from Qatar and the United Arab Emirates a bit later. But Tuesday's first meeting will focus on Ukraine.

French President Emmanuel Macron hopes that he's going to persuade G7 leaders to agree on additional support for Kyiv and to apply new pressure on Russia to end this five-year war.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

VOLODYMYR ZELENSKYY, UKRAINIAN PRESIDENT: We offered Putin to meet anywhere where real decisions to end the war could be made. He does not want it. And we discussed with the U.S. and France the possibility of a meeting with Russia around the G7 with all democratic nations represented. Putin does not want it. (END VIDEO CLIP)

BLACKWELL: Let's bring in now CNN European affairs commentator Dominic Thomas. Dominic, hello to you. Of course, the top story of the day is this memorandum of understanding and the anticipation of the details. So as we carry that over to this conversation with the G7 on Ukraine, is there any residue of the MOU, the progress or the process with Iran that impacts the Russia-Ukraine conversation?

DOMINIC THOMAS, CNN EUROPEAN AFFAIRS COMMENTATOR: Yes, so that's a great question and angle in terms of thinking about this, Victor. So I think that the first thing that is clear that is unfolding here at this meeting is really in many ways it's a G6-plus President Trump meeting in France because there's a deep realization that whether they like it or not, working with the United States on the Iran question, on the Ukrainian question, is absolutely indispensable if they want to move forward and have some kind of certainty in global markets and on the geopolitical landscape, and that in order to reach those objectives, the leaders present at this particular meeting in France are doing everything they can to get President Trump to be present and focused.

It is absolutely crucial that he believe that there is support for this memorandum, even though everybody knows that in the 60-day period that this memorandum has been mapped out for that there still remains tremendous uncertainty. But ultimately there is a realization that unless the Iranian situation is resolved, President Trump will not be able to focus on the Ukrainian question in the way that the European leaders present at this G7 meeting absolutely have made that a priority for them in order to restore stability to that region of the globe, Victor.

[01:20:02]

BLACKWELL: And so what do Ukrainians want? So we've heard from President Zelenskyy, also from the defense there in Ukraine, they want decisive and substantive response from G7. What's within reach?

THOMAS: Well, at this particular juncture, unless President Trump is willing to put his full weight behind solving the Ukrainian problem, it is going to continue to just stagnate in the way that it is. And that means continuing to pressure the Russian leader. As far as Ukraine is concerned, and as far as Russia is concerned, obviously there's going to have to be compromise as these negotiations move forward.

But there are red lines for Ukraine. Now that they know that essentially NATO membership is not going to be possible, accession to the European Union is absolutely key to protect their future, their identity, and their well-being moving forward. They need President Trump to support that particular objective, to continue to demonstrate a willingness for U.S. military support in the face of ongoing Russian onslaughts on Ukraine and on the Ukrainian people.

And unless that happens, ultimately there will be no outcome to this. So I think that the leaders present here at the G7 are hoping that their final statement reaffirms American commitment, G7 commitment to solving this problem and to pressuring the Russian leader to bring him to the negotiating table with the understanding that both sides are going to have to compromise over a number of questions.

BLACKWELL: And so in practical weapons support, the air defenses after the 11 Ukrainians killed in the latest Russian attacks and this 1,000- year-old cathedral in Kyiv that has been damaged heavily, those, do you believe, are still off, long off, as Zelenskyy is asking for them?

THOMAS: Well, I mean, I think that at this particular moment, no, there's going to be an incremental increase in support and in giving him what he needs so that the Russian leader understands that these are operating as threats but also hopefully as deterrence.

But President Putin knows that without President Trump unyielding commitment to solving this situation and to supporting Ukrainian claims in this particular conflict, there will be no path forward. And thus far, precisely because of the distraction of Iran and other issues, the focus on Ukraine has moved to the background. And the goal of this G7 meeting is to bring it back into the foreground and to make everybody understand that this is a priority for global security and for restoring stability in the European region.

BLACKWELL: You know, it's interesting that what we heard from the President on Monday was that it sounds like both sides want to do something. It is reminiscent of what President Trump has said for this entire term during this war, is that he thinks they both want to reach a deal and that it never gets to that point. There was a period in which the President questioned whether Putin was tapping him along.

We've gone now into, what, 17 months since the start of this administration. What do you think informs that, even after the Alaska summit, even after so many meetings with Putin, that the President still at this date thinks maybe there's something here from Vladimir Putin?

THOMAS: Yes, well, I think at this point there's exhaustion. I think in his particular case, the question of winning and finding solutions to military economy has been a priority for Trump in terms of his narrative and in terms of his rhetoric, and he's struggled in that regard.

So it's crucial for him that he be able to do this. But I think this goes back to your original question. The difference between President Trump being in Washington in his bubble, surrounded by his team of supporters, surrogates, et cetera, is very different than getting him in a sustained dialogue with these leaders in France over a period of days in which the narrative shifts.

And he is, as we know, has a tendency to morph and adapt to the room. The question is, once he leaves France at the end of this week, is whether the commitments he's made move forward. And that's exactly what you said, is that it's a constant vacillation from this administration on stating commitments and then going back on those.

And in this particular case, I think that the hope of the European leaders here in getting him to remain at this G7 Summit, which he left early on the previous occasion, is to get him to focus, to make tangible, meaningful commitments to a solution here, particularly in Ukraine, and then to carry that momentum forward into pressuring the Russian leader.

BLACKWELL: Dominic Thomas, I appreciate the analysis. Thank you.

[01:24:50]

Fresh strikes in southern Lebanon as the U.S. and Iran reach this agreement. Next, we'll have the latest on the clashes between Israel and Hezbollah.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

BLACKWELL: The U.S. and Iran have virtually signed an agreement to end the war. The official signing ceremony is expected on Friday. President Trump claims that Tehran has agreed to never have a nuclear weapon. But while Iran's president says the memorandum is a significant step towards halting the war, a final agreement has not yet been formalized.

[01:29:41]

Israel and Hezbollah are continuing to clash in southern Lebanon despite an agreement between the U.S. and Iran which seeks to end military operations on all fronts, including Lebanon. President Trump was reportedly upset with the Israeli prime minister for striking a Beirut suburb over the weekend.

On Monday, Benjamin Netanyahu said that he and the U.S. president don't always quote, "see eye to eye", and he vowed that Israel will continue to occupy parts of Lebanon, Gaza and Syria for as long as necessary.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

BENJAMIN NETANYAHU, ISRAELI PRIME MINISTER (through translator): Regarding Lebanon, we created there a buffer zone, a security zone. We will stay there as long as necessary. Iran wanted us to retreat from there. It didn't happen.

Do you know why it didn't happen among other things? Because I stood very, very firmly. I was very, very decisive about this thing.

And I think that our American friends respect this decisiveness and firm standing.

We are staying there because we need to protect the residents of the north. And there are other things, too in anyways, we want to preserve and act to preserve our freedom to act.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

BLACKWELL: Some Israeli lawmakers are blasting the U.S.-Iran agreement. National security minister Itamar Ben-Gvir says, "Trump's agreement does not bind us. Israel is not subject to the United States, and we are an independent and sovereign nation."

Opposition leader Yair Lapid says that, "We still need to hope that the reports about the agreement with Iran are not true. But if they are, this is one of the most shocking failures of Israel's foreign and security policy, and it is entirely on Netanyahu's account."

Vice President J.D. Vance offered a different take.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

J.D. VANCE, VICE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: Well, what we know is that this agreement is going to make Israel safer. It's going to make the entire region safer.

We feel quite confident the Israelis are going to be bought in on this agreement once we get a little further down the road.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

BLACKWELL: Joining me now for more on this is Yaakov Katz, co-founder of the Middle East-America Dialog. He's also the author of "Shadow Strike: Inside Israel's Mission to Eliminate Syrian Nuclear Power".

Thanks so much for being with me.

Let's start here with this agreement, broadly unpopular across the Israeli political spectrum. Explain why.

YAAKOV KATZ, CO-FOUNDER, MIDDLE EAST-AMERICA DIALOG: Well, Victor, I think that there's a lot of concern, right? Because there's still a lot of unknown. But primarily, for example, if we look at the nuclear aspect of this deal, what exactly is included, right.

The Iranians have a stockpile of highly-enriched uranium to 60 percent buried somewhere under Isfahan. That's enough for about 11 or 12 nuclear devices.

How is that being removed? How is that being taken care of? What about the future of enrichment of uranium? So all of this is still a bit of a mystery.

And depending who you hear in the administration one day they're removing it, one day it's staying in Iran, one day it's being taken care of together, one day they might have enrichment in the future, one day they might not.

Then there's the ballistic missiles. We've seen what thousands of these can do and the havoc and the destruction and the deaths that they can cause in the region, not just in Israel, but throughout the Gulf. There's no provision for that in the deal.

What about Hezbollah, Hamas, the Houthis, the terrorist proxy armies that set us on this course back on October 7th, when Hamas launched its devastating massacre inside Israel back in 2023.

So now the hundreds of billions of dollars that are going to go into Iranian bank accounts. Are they not going to go to Hamas or Hezbollah, or are they going to go to Hamas and Hezbollah?

So for all these reasons, you have a lot of concern right now here in Jerusalem.

BLACKWELL: Yes. The vice president said that the Iranians will have to meet certain benchmarks to get access to those billions of dollars. But again, it's a page-and-a-half that both parties have signed on to that at this point, there is no transparency because we haven't seen the actual document.

Let me get your response to what the vice president said there in NBC News, quote, "quite confident the Israelis are going to be bought in on this agreement once we get a little further down the road".

Is this sustainable? If the Israelis are not on board with this on day one, considering what that means for the fight against Hezbollah in Lebanon?

KATZ: Well, I think we got to ask ourselves a few questions here. Number one, this was a war that was launched jointly by the United States and Israel back in February 28th. Israeli F-15s, American F-15s flying together; command centers jointly manned by American and Israeli; intelligence shared.

I mean, the closest -- the best illustration of what this alliance looks like. How did we go from that to where we are today, where Israel is not even a part of these talks?

And what the vice president is saying is, at some point we'll buy in Israel, we'll loop them into what's happening here in the deal.

And there are, because of these Israeli concerns, you mentioned Lebanon, Victor. I mean, what happens there, for example, right. Does Israel -- is it allowed to continue to defend itself against Hezbollah, this Iranian proxy that continues to fire missiles into Israel, or is it not allowed to according to the deal. Or are there going to be limitations on where Israel can operate inside Lebanon, maybe just in the south, but not in Beirut or not in the north.

And we all know how this will play out, right. And that's the concern here in Israel.

[01:34:46]

KATZ: You start with, ok, we'll buy some time. We'll agree to not attack in the north of Lebanon. And then eventually there will be a request, well, why don't you pull out of all of Lebanon.

In the beginning, it will start with Iran. We'll just not do high enrichment. But then the Iranians will say, well, give us a little enrichment, and the Americans will want this deal to keep going. So they'll say, ok, well give you a little. And then it starts to deteriorate.

And that's the real concern, is we need something firm with verification. And of course, the ability for Israel, at least in this case, to be able to continue to independently defend itself, at least in Lebanon, where it continues to face an enemy.

BLACKWELL: And so this this brings me to a broader question. How is this impacting two relationships -- and I'm creating the distinction intentionally -- the relationship between the U.S. and Israel, and the relationship between Trump and Netanyahu?

KATZ: Yes. Well, you put it perfectly, Victor, because they really are two different, you know, tracks, right? There's the Netanyahu-Trump track, where Netanyahu has really aligned himself almost completely without a shadow with the president of the United States. Put all the eggs in one basket.

And we're seeing now a bit of a shift, at least on the surface. The president saying just the other day that Netanyahu doesn't have the right consideration of mind. He's not -- he's not making the right decisions. He's acting reckless. He's used curse words when referring to Netanyahu.

I mean, that's going to pay a price or have a price potentially for Netanyahu when we go to an election here in Israel has to be held by the end of October.

Netanyahu needs a good story to tell right now if he doesn't have a win or a victory in this war. And he also has now a tenuous relationship with the United -- with the president of the United States.

But to the other track, the Israeli-U.S. track, I believe it will remain resilient. I mean, what we saw over the last few months, really in this -- in this war was an amazing, close, intimate relationship between our military, between our intelligence agencies and between the peoples of Israel and the United States.

So I think if we put aside for a moment the politics and those can always get a little strained, even Netanyahu said we don't always see eye to eye. That's always going to happen at the top.

But I think at the basic level, hopefully we can retain and preserve this very important relationship for both countries.

BLACKWELL: Yaakov Katz in Jerusalem, thanks for the conversation.

Next on THE STORY IS, the U.K. joins a growing list of countries banning children from using social media. Here's why this ban may be the toughest one yet. We're going to have that for you.

[01:37:20]

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

BLACKWELL: In the U.K., the government plans to ban social media for kids under 16, scheduled to start early next year. Now, this would contain some of the world's toughest online restrictions for children to date. It would apply to apps like TikTok and Instagram, Snapchat, also block live streaming and gaming sites from allowing strangers to communicate with children. British Prime Minister Keir Starmer says the goal is to keep those

kids safe.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

KEIR STARMER, BRITISH PRIME MINISTER: Social media is making our children unhappy and unsafe. And as a parent, as much as a prime minister, I just can't let that go on anymore because our children deserve better. They deserve a happy, safe childhood in a stronger, fairer Britain.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: What are you most worried about?

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Not being able to contact my friends.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: I just feel that like it maybe shouldn't have been banned. Maybe it should be more restricted so you can't talk to people that you don't know.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

BLACKWELL: So the ban will not affect messaging services like WhatsApp. The government is also looking into overnight curfews and breaks in infinite scrolling for minors.

The U.K.'s announcement comes after similar policies introduced by Australia and other companies.

So let's talk to Terry Flew. He joins us now. He's a professor of digital communications and culture at the University of Sydney, and the co-director of the Center for Artificial Intelligence, Trust and Governance.

Terry, hello to you.

First, the threats to or the vulnerabilities as it relates to children and social media, that's not new. We've known about that for years. So is it clear what the catalyst is now for this ban in the U.K.?

TERRY FLEW, PROFESSOR OF DIGITAL COMMUNICATIONS AND CULTURE, UNIVERSITY OF SYDNEY: The catalyst has come up in a number of countries, including Australia, As you said in your introduction.

I think that the concerns have been there for some time, but there's been more of a galvanizing of parents' groups, school groups, others who've seen this as an issue. And I think not insignificantly, these measures have strong electoral support that in both Australia and the U.K., about 70 to 75 percent of voters favor some form of age restriction applied to social media for young people.

BLACKWELL: OK, so Australia, a little further down the road on social media ban for kids, there is some reporting that young people are able to, get around the age verification systems.

So what is the lesson for the U.K.? What can they take from the Australian experience? And we have on the screen here the percentage of young people with accounts, even after the media ban took effect, all of them above 60 percent. What can they learn from your experience in Australia?

FLEW: Well, one thing is that actually having a 30 percent reduction is not insignificant. But the other thing is that the ability to enforce laws like this is only as possible as the companies themselves wish to apply it.

And the age verification authorities have noted that there's been a lack of interest in drawing upon their software in applying these rules. and a lot of children have found, much to their surprise, that it was relatively easy to circumvent some of the requirements put in place by the platform.

[01:44:45]

FLEW: So I think that the main lesson taken by the U.K. has been that they're looking to apply this at a device level, as well as at a platform level, and thereby requiring companies such as apple and Google to start to put age verification measures on their own devices and Apple has been moving in that direction.

BLACKWELL: What's the degree of resistance from the tech companies to these bans? Are they fighting hard against them?

FLEW: I wouldn't say that they're fighting hard, but I wouldn't say that they're enthusiastically embracing them.

I would note that reddit is intending to take a case before the Australian high court to argue that the measures are unconstitutional. And certainly in the U.K., companies such as Meta and Google have responded relatively negatively to the proposals.

But I think there's an awareness that some sort of measures need to be in place. It's a question of how they'll be applied and who they will be applied to.

And there is a line of thinking that says, well, if social media presents all these risks to children, maybe it presents them to adults as well.

And so there's talk about how to deal with addictive design practices such as infinite scrolling and likes and so forth.

So there's questions around whether there needs to be intervention at the level of the architecture of how social media platforms work as much as age verification measures.

BLACKWELL: Yes. That's the thing is because governments are slow to regulate in that detail, right? We're hearing about bans, but some of those like small measure regulations, we -- certainly here in the U.S., lawmakers have sometimes displayed that they don't even understand the technology, the algorithm.

So is a ban even a porous one that allows 60 percent plus young people to still have these accounts better than doing the work, or easier than doing the work to figure out how to regulate at that level?

FLEW: Well, I think there is support for these measures, even if they are being circumvented. But there's certainly an expectation that with social media you have what are known as network effects.

So young people want to be on them because their peers are on them. So if that starts to work in the other direction, you're likely to get change.

The issues around the nature of how the platforms work are very alive in the U.S. at the moment. There's been a series of bellwether multidistrict litigation cases undertaken, most notably in the courts in Los Angeles and New Mexico.

And there could be up to 200 of those cases taking place, which is really starting to put some pressure on companies. And I believe Snapchat settled out of court on that.

Meta went to court, which was quite damaging for them, because going to court meant that depositions came out, which were able to give a sense that companies may be aware of the dangers associated with their product, but were not mitigating them.

So that's -- ultimately, countries like Australia are small countries, although there are a number of countries that are talking about these measures. If these sort of measures take off more generally in Europe --

BLACKWELL: Yes.

FLEW: -- I think there'll be a lot more pressure on the companies to adopt some form of practice worldwide. I should also add, Canada has this legislation of this nature.

BLACKWELL: All right. Terry Flew, thank you so much.

And we'll be right back.

[01:48:17]

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

BLACKWELL: Tens of thousands of Albanians are back in the streets for a third week of protests. This movement started over plans for a luxury resort, but it's since grown into a nationwide anti-corruption campaign.

CNN's Isa Soares reports the protesters are now demanding the prime minister step down.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

ISA SOARES, CNN CORRESPONDENT: Tens of thousands of people on the streets of Tirana demanding a new Albania. The largest anti-government protest the country has seen since the fall of Communism in 1991.

GERALD XHARI, PROTESTER: So we don't have to -- we don't have to sell our country. We don't have to sell our land to other investors.

SOARES: The Flamingo Revolution, as it's dubbed, started in response to a proposed luxury development linked to President Trump's daughter Ivanka, and his son-in-law and one of his chief negotiators, Jared Kushner.

The real estate project includes two areas: Sazan Island on the country's Adriatic Coast and some of the beachfront near the Zvernec Wetlands and the Narta Lagoon.

IVANKA TRUMP, DAUGHTER OF DONALD TRUMP: We were on a friend's boat and we stopped for a swim. We swam to the islands. We went on a hike, barefoot, all the way up to the top, and we were just captivated.

SOARES: The coastline is a protected area, home to several endangered species and a nesting site for thousands of flamingos. Protesters fear the project will destroy the habitat despite what Ivanka Trump has said previously.

TRUMP: We developed the opportunity to help realize its potential and transform it but with a lot of restraint and care. Because the land is so beautiful.

SOARES: Preliminary project documents seen by CNN show the project is intended to be massive in scale, with luxury villas, hotels with hundreds of rooms, a marina, and even a golf course, a casino and a water park.

They also reveal one of Kushner's partners in the Sazan development is the Qatari-based assets group owned by Mutaz and Ramez al-Khayyat.

[01:54:49]

SOARES: Syrian-born, Qatari-based billionaires with deep ties to the Qatari royal family. Both were at President Trump's inauguration.

Their other brother, Mohamed, not a stranger to Washington, either. He lobbied Congress to lift sanctions on Syria, proposing to build a golf course with President Trump's name in Syria.

Sazan Real Estate Development, LLC confirms Ramez and Mutaz are both involved, but said the project is still in its design phase and that they are prioritizing environmental stewardship.

Their partnership very important for the Kushners, as was that of Albania's prime minister, Edi Rama.

JARED KUSHNER, SON-IN-LAW OF DONALD TRUMP: We were on our friend Nat Rothschild's boat. One of the nights there, Prime Minister Rama came to the boat. I had not met him when I was in government.

SOARES: His and his government support is key according to Kushner.

KUSHNER: And we felt like the environment was perfect. But without the great work of the team on the ground, our partners on the ground and the government really creating a very pro-growth environment, we would not have engaged in the project.

SOARES: It's that so-called pro-growth environment demonstrators are now questioning, with protests demanding more transparency in other areas, accusing those in power of corruption, and calling on Prime Minister Rama to resign.

The Albanian prime minister has denied the accusations, and in his weekly podcast, rallied against protesters.

EDI RAMA, ALBANIAN PRIME MINISTER (through translator): The fascist spirit is the spirit that says Albania belongs to the Albanians, so all the others outside are not welcome, just as Germany was for the Germans and became the black sheep of Europe for years and years.

SOARES: Rama has vowed to push past the concerns of the thousands of Albanians who have come out in protest, claiming the project will transform the country for the better.

But with demonstrations going into their third week, it's hard to see this Flamingo Revolution backing down.

Isa Soares, CNN.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

BLACKWELL: And thank you for watching THE STORY IS.

I'm Victor Blackwell in Atlanta. I will see you tomorrow.

The news continues right here on CNN after a break.

[01:56:55]

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)