Return to Transcripts main page

What We Know with Max Foster

Soon: Trump Speaks With Officials From Rwanda & D.R. Congo; Supreme Court Limits Judges' Power To Block Executive Orders; Trump Vows To Push Agenda Forward After High Court Ruling; Details Emerge Of Secret U.S. Efforts To Restart Iran Talks. Aired 3-4p ET

Aired June 27, 2025 - 15:00   ET

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


[15:00:34]

MAX FOSTER, CNN HOST: The U.S. Supreme Court has just handed President Donald Trump a major win and more power to pursue his agenda.

This is WHAT WE KNOW.

It's already been a momentous day for U.S. President Donald Trump after a huge ruling by the Supreme Court. Details of that in just a moment.

We are scheduled to see the president. He's got a meeting with ministers from Rwanda and the Democratic Republic of Congo at the White House this

hour, after those two countries signed a peace deal. We'll bring you those pictures as soon as we get them in.

But first, to that landmark Supreme Court decision that curbs the power of federal judges to block Mr. Trump's executive orders. The U.S. president

calls it a monumental victory, vowing to press ahead with a raft of controversial policies.

The case was technically about his effort to restrict birthright citizenship, but the bigger picture is the court removed a check on

presidential power, ruling that lower level judges lack the authority to issue nationwide injunctions.

A dissenting judge says no right is safe in this new legal era. Mr. Trump disagrees.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

DONALD TRUMP, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: This decision, and thanks to this decision, we can now promptly file to proceed with numerous policies

that have been wrongly enjoined on a nationwide basis and some of the cases were talking about would be ending birthright citizenship, which now comes

to the fore. That was meant for the babies of slaves. It wasn't meant for people trying to scam the system and come into the country.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

FOSTER: Joined now by former U.S. District Court Judge Shira Scheindlin.

Thank you so much for joining us.

I mean, for your industry -- I mean, this is huge, isn't it? But am I right in saying, you know, if I really if we really break down a hugely complex

issue, it basically means that the executive orders that the president signs are more likely to go through because there's less to push back on

them now?

SHIRA SCHEINDLIN, FORMER U.S. DISTRICT COURT JUDGE: It's not entirely correct. It means that the judgment day is delayed. They're still going to

be a check by the court, but it's only the final court at the end of the day. So, it's true that the immediate check is gone. He can go ahead with

his executive orders, even if they're blatantly unconstitutional, as this one is about birthright citizenship. But some day of reckoning will come

when the when the merits get to the Supreme Court. And at that point, there is still a check on executive authority.

So, my prediction is when it finally gets to the Supreme Court, they will say he's wrong. And the Constitution means what it says.

FOSTER: But are you saying in the case of every executive order or that this whole idea will go back to the Supreme Court?

SCHEINDLIN: No, no, no, not this idea. This is done, there will be no more national injunctions issued by district courts. But I'm saying there's

still a check and balance in our system of three co-equal branches of government. It still means that at the end of the day, the U.S. Supreme

Court can say your executive order is unconstitutional. You're wrong about birthright citizenship. Anybody born here will be a citizen.

The problem is, we may have -- may have to wait two years for that day to come.

FOSTER: Well, exactly. And also, he could fire out 20 executive orders a day. In reality, in reality, that's going to be too much for the system to

handle. If everyone\s going to end up at the Supreme Court, you know? So in practice, his power is increased.

SCHEINDLIN: Yes, that's true. In practice, he has now become a more powerful executive than he was two hours ago or four hours ago, before

this, before this decision came down. But I will say that many presidents have been very unhappy with these national injunctions. It started under

George W. Bush, then Obama, then Biden, and of course, Trump. First time around, now Trump the second time around.

It depends whose ox is being gored. When national injunctions were being issued against Obama or Bidens executive orders, they were equally unhappy

with the courts for issuing national injunctions.

FOSTER: Yeah, he's often following up, isn't he, with what other presidents got frustrated with. And, you know, having some success.

But as you say, when people are talking about the under -- the Constitution being undermined, probably not true because it was still ultimately the

Supreme Court who made the final decision here. So, they haven't lost power here.

[15:05:01]

SCHEINDLIN: Well, they have and they haven't. As you pointed out, not all these cases can get to the Supreme Court, and they can't get there fast

enough. So in in essence, we don't really have three co-equal branches anymore. In essence, this president will have great power to do a lot of

harm. Whatever executive order he wants to issue, even if it's unconstitutional, will be in effect for a period of time, whether its 18

months, whether its two years, it will be in effect.

So, for example, if he wanted to fire all those people who work for the federal government on his say so, now he can do it. That had been enjoined

by a national injunction. Now, that's not going to happen. So, he will be able to go forward with his actions.

FOSTER: Do you think the Supreme Court has undermined the Constitution?

SCHEINDLIN: I can't go that far that its undermined the Constitution because there was some credibility to the majority opinion. Historically,

there were no universal or national injunctions, nationwide injunctions issued. This is a recent -- a recent practice only in the I say in the 21st

century has this become common, that courts began to issue nationwide injunctions. We manage 200 years without them.

But then again, executives didn't seem to govern by executive order. So, both sides have changed. The presidents are now acting by executive order

instead of through legislation, by Congress, where it should be. And now the courts reacted by issuing these universal or nationwide injunctions. So

one begat the other, so to speak.

FOSTER: Former U.S. District Court Judge Shira Scheindlin, thank you so much for explaining that in really clear terms.

We're very grateful because, Kevin, you've been going over this today as well. It is very complex, but it does actually change so much. I mean,

fundamentally, I think what the former judge is saying is he's become a lot more powerful in practice.

KEVIN LIPTAK, CNN SENIOR WHITE HOUSE REPORTER: Well, and I think he thinks he's become a lot more powerful. And you heard that in his press conference

earlier today as he sort of listed through all of the areas that are currently on hold due to these nationwide injunctions. But now which he

will return to and try and get them released, whether it's his firing of federal employees, whether its blocking some of these federal funds, for

instance, for transgender medical care, which is an example that he used specifically.

And so clearly in the president's mind, he is more powerful. And of course, he does already have this expansive view of his executive authority.

There's no president in recent memory who one has issued so many executive orders, but two has seen so many of those orders held up in court on a

nationwide basis. Now, the president essentially saying that he's free from those shackles.

And when you heard the president talking today, he continued to sort of go back to this criticism of judges that he has been repeating over and over

again over the course of his presidency, saying that some of these judges, in his words, liberal judges, have exceeded their remit, essentially, that

they've gone beyond what they were allowed to do.

And this court ruling today, I think, does provide him some vindication. There was one line that White House officials were sharing amongst

themselves that was written by the Justice Amy Coney Barrett, who wrote the majority opinion saying that when a court concludes the executive branch

has acted unlawfully, the answer is not for the court to exceed its power, too.

And so, in the view of many White House officials, she's lending voice essentially to some of what the president has been saying over the last

year or two.

And I think it was notable that Barrett was the one who wrote this opinion. You know, over the last several months, the president behind the scenes had

been griping about Amy Coney Barrett. Remember, he appointed her to the bench during his first term and the view among many of the president's

closest allies was that she was not necessarily putting down the rulings that they would have expected from her. They didn't see her as loyal to the

president in some ways, but also sort of upholding the points of view that she shared with the president during her interview when he nominated her.

This, I think, will probably change his opinion. And in fact, he did say in his press conference today that he was thanking her, that he thinks that

she's a very respectable woman. And so, I think that all is a very interesting component to all of this.

The president, of course, has three appointees on the Supreme Court. There's really no other president who puts so many justices on the bench.

But then now has four years to sort of reap the benefits of his own appointees making rulings about his orders and his policy. And that's a

unique sort of facet, at least in recent American history, of how the Supreme Court is ruling on all of these issues.

[15:10:03\

FOSTER: All your days are very busy. I know keeping up with Donald Trump. But at the same time, he's also fallen out with Canada again, it seems.

LIPTAK: Yeah. And he is calling off trade talks with Ottawa. This is a big deal. The U.S. and Canada have been sort of heating up these trade

discussions ahead of that early July deadline that the president has set to reach new trade deals or have punishing new tariffs go into place.

What the dispute is over is this digital services tax, the Canadians putting on this 3 percent tax on American technology companies like

Netflix, for example, that was going to go into effect on Monday. The president I think really taking offense at that.

The Canadians I think had been using this as leverage in the trade talks, and it did appear, at least on the surface, that the president and the

prime minister, Mark Carney, had been getting along fairly well. We saw them in the oval office. The president was in Canada at the beginning of

last week for the G7. It seemed as if their relationship was much better than the president's relationship with Justin Trudeau, who is Carney's

predecessor.

But clearly now on this issue, specifically of this digital tax, the relationship souring somewhat, and I think it will cause now some chaos, as

the president says, that he will decide on a new tariff rate for Canada within one week. Obviously, these two countries, major trading partners, it

could really wreak havoc potentially on all of these industries that could potentially be affected.

FOSTER: Kevin Liptak as ever, thank you for joining us from the White House.

Amid all the drama at home, the White House is also celebrating a peace deal in Africa, Rwanda and the Democratic Republic of Congo have signed a

truce that was brokered by the Trump administration. Officials from both countries were in Washington today, more than 7,000 people have been killed

since January, as militias do battle with the DRC in the eastern part of the country.

Larry Madowo is in Nairobi for us tonight.

I mean, you've been reporting on this for years and it is pretty complex. It seems incredible that it might just be over, but, you know, the militia

signed up to it. That's the crucial question. This is meant to be the side that Rwanda is backing, right?

LARRY MADOWO, CNN CORRESPONDENT: They're not a part of this. And that's one of the big questions hanging over this deal. The M23 rebels that the DRC

accuses Rwanda of supporting are not a part of this. Their alliance, the Congo River Alliance, are not a part of this as well. However, they're

involved in a separate mediation process that's being set up and run by Qatar. Qatar helped facilitate this peace agreement signed today that was

mediated by the United States.

The foreign ministers of Rwanda and the DRC are expected the White House. President Trump said they were very honored to be there. And he says, were

wrapping up that war today. They're essentially putting an end to it.

But the background that he may not he may not know is that this conflict has been running for a long time. Millions of people have been displaced

this year alone, nearly 7,000 people have been killed. And that's at the heart of this dispute.

What they've agreed to is that Rwanda and the Democratic Republic of Congo will respect territorial integrity, will disarm all non-state actors, all

the militias, and they will allow for humanitarian access for return of refugees and internally displaced people. The implementation will be

crucial here. They're setting up a joint security mechanism to make sure it's implemented.

But it was curious what President Trump said about this. Rwanda, DRC deal, specifically about the rare earth minerals component of it, which has been

rumored for a while. But he expressly said this.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

TRUMP: We're getting for the United States, a lot of the mineral rights from the Congo as part of it. They're so honored to be here. They never

thought they'd be coming to.

Look, this is a very tough part of the world. They never thought -- they were just telling me. They never thought they'd ever be coming to the White

House. And they're so honored.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

MADOWO: The Democratic Republic of Congo has the world's largest reserves of cobalt. That is the mineral that powers everything from mobile phones,

computers to electric cars. And it's in very high demand. And that's already getting criticism from Congolese on social media, from other

Africans who feel that this is an exploitative deal. It's a way for the U.S. to get their hands on these crucial rare earth minerals.

It did not come up in the actual signing agreement by Marco Rubio and the foreign ministers of Rwanda and the DRC, President Trump praised Massad

Boulos. That's his senior adviser on Africa, who's also the daughter, the father in law of his daughter Tiffany, for helping make this happen. He

says the expert in Africa.

But the detail about that rare earth mineral component will be interesting. And I think a lot of the questions will be asked about how did that become

a part of this deal? Wasn't the U.S.'s interest to do this? And why did the African Union not get this across the line?

The African Union chief was there, Max, but they didn't really play an active part in this. And mediation efforts here in Nairobi, in the Angolan

capital, Luanda, so far have not borne any fruit.

[15:15:02]

FOSTER: Okay. I think you'll keep reporting on it.

Larry, thank you so much for joining us with that.

We turn to CNN exclusive reporting now on the Trump administration's secret efforts to restart diplomatic talks with Iran. This includes an undisclosed

meeting at the White House the day before the U.S. attacks, the discussion of easing sanctions and the possibility of helping Iran access up to $30

billion for a civilian energy producing nuclear program that does not involve uranium enrichment.

Our U.S. security correspondent, Kylie Atwood, joins us now from Washington. I mean, it is fascinating to see how the White House has been

working on all of this, and it does speak to the idea that they, you know, they're most focused on a diplomatic solution.

KYLIE ATWOOD, CNN U.S. SECURITY CORRESPONDENT: Yeah, that's right. We've learned that as they were planning for these military strikes, they were

simultaneously working on these new terms. This was just the day before the military strikes occurred. There was a secretive meeting at the White House

with Gulf partners to talk about some of the terms the U.S. could put on the table with the Iranians.

Those conversations with Gulf partners to discuss these terms have continued even after those U.S. military strikes against Iran's nuclear

facilities and some of the terms that have been discussed include lifting sanctions on Iran, freeing up $6 billion in Iranian funds that are

currently restricted from being used, and also gaining access to investment of $20 billion to $30 billion for Iran's civilian nuclear program, not for

a program that would have any enrichment, but effectively just for a program that would be able to pursue, produce, excuse me, nuclear energy.

Trump administration officials warn that there are many ideas being floated right now that nothing is set in stone. Nothing has been formally presented

to the Iranians as far as we know. But these talks are critical, as we consider what the next steps here might actually be. Trump said that next

week there would be talks between the U.S. and Iran. We have not heard anything from the Iranian side confirming that that is set to take place.

But one thing that we heard from lawmakers today who are getting a briefing from top Trump administration officials after these U.S. military strikes,

was that Secretary Marco Rubio said that the U.S. does want to sit down face to face with the Iranians, not through interlocutors, to have these

discussions, but of course, even Republican lawmakers are wary of that tactic, saying that, you know, the Iranians might sit down, but then they

might disappear, go underground for some time, really, that even if you had those direct talks, they wouldn't necessarily produce the ends that the

Trump administration is seeking.

We really have yet to see where this all goes. It hinges, of course, on communications on a meeting actually coming to fruition.

FOSTER: We have actually had some images, haven't we? Some recent images of the fordo nuclear facility in Iran, which is what America attacked. Take us

through what you're seeing here and what stood out for you.

ATWOOD: Yeah. These are new images that just came out today showing activity around that Fordow nuclear site in Iran that was struck by U.S.

military strikes in recent days, but also was previously struck as part of the Israeli military operation.

As far as we can tell, these images demonstrate that there is evacuation happening at this site. But this comes as there are many questions about

what the actual final assessment will look like in terms of these U.S. strikes that went for this facility. We don't know what that final

assessment actually is yet. We know those efforts are ongoing, but it's clear that the Iranians are getting on the site now.

We should also note, however, that the IAEA is no longer there, and they have been a crucial partner for the world and really understanding what

Iran's nuclear program looks like, what capabilities they have, what inventory they have. Without them there, that is critical eyeballs that the

international community no longer has, which will be a challenge going forward, particularly as Iran is now trying to get the IAEA out of the

country in an indefinite period going forward.

FOSTER: Kylie Atwood, thank you so much for bringing us that. Israel's military denying a new report that soldiers were ordered to fire at unarmed

Palestinians waiting for humanitarian aid in Gaza. More than 500 people have been killed in the past month as they gather around food trucks,

according to the Palestinian health ministry.

A report from the Israeli newspaper "Haaretz" claims that Israeli commanders were ordered -- ordering troops to fire on those crowds, even if

they pose no threat.

The IDF says it strongly rejects the claims, and the Israeli prime minister has called them, quote, vicious lies.

Nic Robertson is in Jerusalem.

They are investigating, though, aren't they?

NIC ROBERTSON, CNN INTERNATIONAL DIPLOMATIC EDITOR: They are. The military's advocate general, according to "Haaretz", has tasked the IDF's

body, military investigation body that searches for the possibilities of breaking of the laws of war, and looking at this, with the possibility of

it being of potential war crimes.

[15:20:18]

That's what "Haaretz" is reporting.

Look, this is very, very damning from the article by "Haaretz" and the allegations its putting forward. The ministry of health, as you say in

Gaza, has said more than 500 people have been killed over the last month or so. And this really tracks with the existence and the operation of the Gaza

humanitarian foundation.

This Israeli U.S. body that the United States has committed, $30 million more to that only has these four aid distribution sites in places that are

very hard to reach for Gazans and put them in places of danger. And now, we're learning more about that danger.

And it's worth just adding here that we've heard from Medecins Sans Frontieres, Doctors Without Borders, who have doctors on the ground in Gaza

who are treating casualties they say are being brought in from these areas around these aid distribution points. And they say and, quote, they've seen

a stark, stark, their word, increase in the number of gunshot injuries coming in from Gazans who are trying to get from these sites. Humanitarian

aid.

And what Haaretz has said is that a commander told soldiers to fire at the civilians, unarmed civilians who weren't putting the soldiers in danger as

a means of crowd control. One soldier described it as a killing field. The -- where it wasn't just heavy machine guns that were being used, but

mortars, small sort of artillery pieces, if you, if you will, were being used on crowd control.

What we do know is that on a number of occasions recently, the IDF has said that they've used gunfire to shoot over the heads of the crowd as a warning

for crowds to disperse. But all of this really speaks to the grave concern that international humanitarian organizations, you know, from the U.N.,

from the U.N.'s top bodies all the way down about the suspension of their aid distribution, the way that that's been curtailed and everything's been

put in this new operation that is putting people in danger.

And that's what these allegations that the soldiers are telling "Haaretz". But as you said there, the IDF has said that this isn't true. That's what

the IDF has told CNN. The prime minister, the defense minister, have called it blood libels, an effort to undermine faith in the IDF.

It is, of course, incredibly contentious and if proven to be true, would be incredibly damning, but that evidence in the public domain hasn't come

forward yet, Max.

FOSTER: Nic Robertson, thank you, in Jerusalem.

Coming up, a stunning rebound in the U.S. stock market. We have those numbers, and what's behind the big shakeup, coming up.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[15:26:20]

FOSTER: Well, the S&P 500 and Nasdaq hit record highs today, but the numbers dipped slightly lower after President Trump wrote on social media

he's ending trade talks with Canada.

Let's take a look at those numbers then. You can see that the Dow is up. Still, two thirds of 1 percent. The other two are up slightly. But

incredible.

Richard, I mean, we've been waiting for this to happen. Richards in Canary Wharf, one of the main financial districts here.

I mean, you were waiting for this to happen, but it is incredible to see this, despite all the uncertainty in the world right now.

RICHARD QUEST, CNN BUSINESS EDTIOR-AT-LARGE: Yes, the uncertainty in the markets rallying and the market continues to rally sharply. But there is a

fragility to this rally that we certainly see today. If you bear in mind, it took the president's comments about the trade with Canada and the

digital tax to take the top off the market. You can really rapidly see it wouldn't take much for it all to evaporate again.

So, any -- look, the market wants to rally. Let's get that clear. The market likes what it sees. It sees good policies. It sees growth. The

market is still very bullish. However, it is vulnerable. I think that's a good word this Friday, vulnerable. And it would not take too much to tip it

over.

FOSTER: What does it say of President Trump's economic, you know, ability that the markets are up so much over his presidency?

QUEST: I have long since given up trying to square the circle between the Trump economic policies, the Trump statements, and the markets. Because if

you were to ask me and I'll answer my own question, why on a random Friday in June should President Trump decide to pick up on the digital sales tax,

which has been around for some time, no one can tell. But the effect is there.

And bearing in mind that Donald Trump was with Mark Carney earlier at the NATO summit, so there was plenty of opportunity to and indeed at the G7.

So, there was plenty of opportunity to hash all these things out. Theres no rhyme or reason to it. Whether or not this is just the market, the old

TACO, Trump always chickens out or something else, I don't know.

But the fragility is there. And one would be foolish to believe that there is depth and range to this.

FOSTER: Okay, Richard, thank you so much.

Now, first came the negotiations, then came the bombings. And now Donald Trump is back to diplomacy with Iran. Will the U.S. president ever win the

Nobel Peace Prize that he craves?

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[15:32:35]

FOSTER: Well, a week that began with United States bombing Iran is set to end with an African peace deal being signed in the White House.

And Donald Trump is left wondering, why won't anyone give him the Nobel Peace Prize?

Mr. Trump raised the question a week ago when first announcing his Rwanda truce with the DRC. He complained, saying, quote, no, I won't get a Nobel

peace prize no matter what I do, including Russia, Ukraine and Israel, Iran, whatever those outcomes may be. Pakistan has nominated him for the

prize, which is awarded in October.

So, what we want to know is, could Donald Trump win the Nobel Peace Prize one day?

Joining me now is someone who might know, or at least works out -- knows how these sort of prizes work. Dan Smith, director of the Stockholm

International Peace Research Institute.

Thank you so much for joining us.

I mean, how does someone win the Nobel peace prize?

DAN SMITH, DIRECTOR, STOCKHOLM INTERNATIONAL PEACE RESEARCH INSTITUTE: Well, you do what you do. People nominate you. And then a committee thinks

about it for months. And they do a lot of careful research. There is a -- the Nobel Institute in Oslo has a huge library. They look into the

background. They look into what has happened, and they assess it against their criteria.

I think that the idea that this is the -- what was in Nobel's will was that it was outstanding activity for peace in the previous year, but obviously,

the way that the peace prize has developed, actually, you have people who are really being awarded for their lifetime service for peace.

FOSTER: Yes. Often ideas, isn't it, ideas that create peace. It appears that it's moved towards a bit in more recent times, but you could take a

situation like Pakistan and India, which, you know, you know, people were very concerned, was about to really escalate into a major war between two

nuclear powered countries.

And it probably was if there's some evidence that President Trump actually defused that . That is, you know, a single peaceful event, isn't it?

SMITH: Yes. Theres some evidence of that. Actually, in the case of India, Pakistan, I think its a bit murky because there have been some denials that

he actually played a role at all, and some sense that that what happened was there was an explosion of violence. And then kind of strike and counter

strike -- a little bit the way that you've seen with Iran responding symbolically rather than meaning, you know, real, really heavy, serious

destruction.

[15:35:09]

So, I think that the problem for Donald Trump, in terms of his prospects for peace prize are that what he can really claim are a couple of

ceasefires which have barely lasted any time at all. The Rwanda DRC Peace Agreement, which seems very vague and has been criticized by Denis Mukwege,

himself a former Nobel Peace Prize winner for 2018, saying that essentially this is a -- this is rewarding Rwanda for its support for the M23 militia

and asking DRC to just lie down and let Rwanda steamroller over it and let the west take the minerals.

So I think -- I just think there's, you know, what is your definition of peace? It surely has to be a bit more than the fighting stops. And so far

as we've seen at the moment, I don't think you could say Donald Trump has really generated peace.

I think there are others who would go a little bit further and say that because he has to some degree, at key moments, turned his back on diplomacy

and opted for a much more kind of forceful approach, as, for example, in the case of Iran, then, you know, there's some worries about what he's

doing to prospects for world peace as he goes on his way.

FOSTER: How -- you know, in terms of the people that sit on these committees, presumably they're completely influenceable because, you know,

they've got that history, haven't they? They're completely independent, which is why the prize is so credible. But would they -- you know, they are

being pressured to give it to him, by him. Would that affect their decision? Would that make them less likely to give it to him just to assert

their independence?

SMITH: I think -- I think you cannot pressure the Nobel Peace Prize Committee into giving the prize. I think you could put pressure on and find

that they then got very resistant about that. It's very independent.

It's very confidential as well. Nobody really knows what goes on in there. And when the former secretary of that committee, the previous day, an

earlier director of the Nobel Institute, went public with memoirs about the conversations that there had been, he was subject to a huge amount of

criticism in Norway that this was just not an appropriate thing to do.

I actually spent a period as a fellow of the Nobel Institute in Oslo, and it was actually a period during the time that they were considering who

should be who should be getting the Peace Prize that October. And honestly, I had absolutely no idea what they were discussing. The wall of silence

around that committee is total. I don't think it's possible to pressurize it at all.

FOSTER: Dan Smith, thank you so much.

The U.S. Supreme Court has just handed a major boost to the U.S. president, Donald Trump, and his use of executive power. The conservative dominated

court ruled that lower courts do not have sweeping power to issue nationwide injunctions that block presidential executive orders.

The ruling severely limits the courts as a check on the presidency. Mr. Trump has argued the courts had much too much power over him.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

FOSTER: Instead of merely ruling on the immediate cases before them, these judges have attempted to dictate the law for the entire nation. In

practice, this meant that if any one of the nearly 700 federal judges disagreed with the policy of a duly elected president of the United States,

he or she could block that policy from going into effect, or at least delay it for many years. Tied up in the court system.

This was a colossal abuse of power, which never occurred in American history. Prior to recent decades.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

FOSTER: Well, we don't know, actually is, has Trump undermined the Constitution?

Joining me now is CNN chief Supreme Court analyst Joan Biskupic.

Thank you so much for joining us.

I mean, we have to ask the question because people are saying he's undermining the Constitution, but he didn't make this decision. It was the

Supreme Court. So what's your view?

JOAN BISKUPIC, CNN CHIEF SUPREME COURT ANALYST: That's right, Max. It's good to see you.

There is a fundamental constitutional question at the heart of this case, and that goes to President Donald Trump's effort to try to lift birthright

citizenship here in America.

But that question of whether he will actually be able to follow through with that is still unknown, because that was not directly at issue here.

What was directly at issue was the power of lower court judges to block that order temporarily.

And what the Supreme Court did in essentially erasing that power from lower court judges is not only to let new litigation start over this birthright

citizenship policy, but also over a whole swath of Donald Trump's new programs and policies, rolling back federal grant money, trying to overhaul

the federal government, you know, getting rid of employees, getting rid of funding -- all sorts of things that have been tied up in courts and that he

suddenly has a new green light on those efforts.

[15:40:27]

Now, to get to your question about birthright citizenship, that's -- that's really what's going to matter here and Justice Amy Coney Barrett, who read

parts of her opinion for the majority from the bench, said outright, this has nothing to do with birthright citizenship, and I'll get a counter to

that in a moment from a dissenting justice.

But what she really stressed was that federal court -- lower court judges had gone overboard. What she said there, and I think you have it on the

screen. Federal courts do not exercise general oversight of the executive branch. They resolve cases and controversies consistent with the authority

Congress has given them. When a court concludes that the executive branch has acted unlawfully, the answer is not for the court to exceed its power

to.

That is the order that a lower court judge can give can only affect the parties who have brought the case. Now, Justice Sotomayor really pushed

back on the premise that this is not going to affect birthright citizenship down the road. And she said at one point today, the threat is to birthright

citizenship. Tomorrow, a different administration may try to seize firearms from law-abiding citizens or prevent people of certain faiths from

gathering to worship.

Her point, Max, was that all sorts of rights are now up for grabs because of how the Supreme Court has eliminated one of the judicial checks on the

president of the United States. So, to answer your bottom line question, is Donald Trump undermining the constitution? Today's ruling gives him a

little bit more breathing room authority to do that down the road.

FOSTER: Okay, Joan, thank you so much for explaining it to us.

We'll be back in just a moment.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

FOSTER: Just a few weeks now to go until Ukraine's Oleksandr Usyk takes on Britain's Daniel Dubois at Wembley, and all four boxing heavyweight titles

are on the line. But with the war still raging, raging in his homeland, the 38-year-old knows he's fighting for much more than the belts and his

legacy. Usyk is training for the fight in Spain, but his heart is thousands of miles away with his people.

Our Amanda Davies went to visit him.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

AMANDA DAVIES, CNN CORRESPONDENT (voice-over): He's arguably the best boxer in a generation, preparing for one of the biggest fights of his life.

OLEKSANDR USYK, UKRAINIAN BOXER: Look, mum. I can fly.

DAVIES: But family and country are inescapable for Ukraine's Oleksandr Usyk.

Tell me this. What is this?

USYK: It's signed only Ukrainian hero.

DAVIES: The military flag filled with inspirational messages, with one he's keen to point out.

USYK: It's signed the mama for Ukrainian soldiers.

DAVIES: That's from Oleksandr Matveyevsky (ph), his mother, a Ukrainian soldier who's defiance moments before he was executed by Russian soldiers,

became legend.

USYK: This man stayed like this. Russian, what you want to say? This guy take a cigarette. Slava Ukraine. This guy, kill.

DAVIES: We're 2,700 kilometers from Kyiv, at this training camp in southern Spain, that Usyk has made his home away from home. But with Ukrainian

symbols everywhere, the war is very much front of mind. And though he says he tries not to read the news, he's well aware of Ukraine's daring drone

strikes on Russian air bases.

USYK: I would like to express my deep gratitude to Vasily Vasilievich (ph). Boss, great job!

DAVIES: A shout out for the head of Ukraine's security services, one of the many military figures Usyk crossed paths with while serving his country.

He joined the territorial defense forces when Russia launched its full- scale invasion in 2022, and has visited the front lines several times since. His success in the ring has seen him become a source of inspiration,

but also of some respite for those at the front.

What are your friends on the front line saying to you? What are they telling you in terms of the mood, how they are doing?

USYK: They're more interested in what I'm doing when I ask them questions, they say, wait, wait, wait. Tell us about yourself. What's going on with

you?

We try not to talk about the scary things they do to defend our country. What is happening there? What kind of shelling is happening, how they're

being attacked, how they're heroically defending our country.

DAVIES: Out of sight, out of mind -- well, not quite for most Ukrainians and neither for Usyk. His sons may be here within arms reach, safe. But

some of his family remain at home.

USYK: The girls, my two daughters and my wife, they are in Kyiv and it's a little difficult to balance things up.

DAVIES: Three and a half years after Russian troops marched on Kyiv, Usyk is still unbeaten in his professional career.

USYK: It's difficult, but I can switch off to do my job so that I can help my country more later on.

DAVIES: The next challenge, July's heavyweight fight against Britain's Daniel Dubois at Wembley, a moment to send a message around the world.

USYK: Easy day today. It's an easy day.

DAVIES: Amanda Davies, CNN, Gandia, Spain.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

FOSTER: Still to come, Jeff Bezos big wedding night in Italy. What we know about the big party coming.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[15:52:04]

FOSTER: There's a big question in Venice tonight. Is this the big wedding night for Jeff Bezos fiancee, Lauren Sanchez is believed the couple are

saying their "I dos" right now on the small island of San Giorgio.

The cost of the three-day celebrity-filled event, estimated to be up to $55 million, or about 48 million euros. But none of us really know.

Melissa Bell, though, is floating through the canals of Venice in search of the happier couple. She told me about it last hour.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

MELISSA BELL, CNN SENIOR INTERNATIONAL CORRESPONDENT: It's been a very, very hot couple of days. The sun is just setting over Venice, and what we

understand is that on San Giorgio Maggiore, that very small island with that very ancient church where the celebration is happening tonight, that

ceremony is now underway. Weve been kept well away, as you can imagine, because we've been kept away from all of the events throughout.

So, like the many paparazzi that are here in Venice over this course of this three-day extravaganza, we've been doing what we can to dart around on

our very modest little boat here and to try and see what we could still. We understand that Jeff Bezos and Lauren Sanchez are now man and wife, since

those were the timings the gala celebration expected afterwards on that very small island. And it is the events of tomorrow, really, that everyone

is looking towards now.

What we understand from our affiliates is that Lady Gaga, no less, is going to be performing for the guests. Now, originally, it had been planned that

these events would take place to the north of Venice in a very old ancient medieval cathedral La Misericordia, that had to be moved simply because of

the protesters threatening to jump into the canal to prevent it from happening.

But let me just allow you to enjoy the sights and sounds of Venice at this hour. As the sun sets and the sweltering heat dies down. It's been an

absolutely extraordinary couple of days. This city always is. So far, the protesters have not managed to get in the way of the celebrations. The only

thing that dampened proceedings was a huge thunderstorm late last night. On the first day of the celebrations, when the guests were gathered at the

Madonna Dell'Orto.

When the heavens opened and it was a washout. What appears to have happened is that 250 or so guests, these A-list celebrities, invited to the wedding

who, by the way, were made to sign non-disclosure agreements, apparently abided by the signal not to use their Instagram. So, all we saw of the

celebrations were them trying to get onto boats. The water filling their boats as they left last night, and not a great deal else.

So. they respected the agreements with the happy couple, married, as I say tonight. There were --

(END VIDEOTAPE0

FOSTER: The happy couple and the happy reporter in her boat. Finally, listen to this.

(MUSIC)

[15:55:02]

FOSTER: Oh, the original version.

"The Mission: Impossible" theme, immediately recognizable to fans of the TV show and the movies. Of course, Lalo Schifrin, the composer who wrote that

catchy tune, though, has died at the age of 93. During his long career, Schifrin won four Grammys and was nominated for six Oscars. "The Associated

Press" reports. Schifrin died on Thursday due to complications from pneumonia. He was at his Los Angeles home surrounded by family.

I'm Max Foster. That is WHAT WE KNOW.

"QUEST MEANS BUSINESS" with Richard down in Canary Wharf, up next.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

QUEST: Closing bell about to ring on Wall Street. Do we have records? The magic number tonight are 6144 on the S&P --

END

TO ORDER VIDEOTAPES AND TRANSCRIPTS OF CNN INTERNATIONAL PROGRAMMING, PLEASE CALL 800-CNN-NEWS