Return to Transcripts main page
What We Know with Max Foster
Trump: Iran & Ukraine Wars Could End "On Similar Timetable"; King Charles In New York On Day Three Of U.S. Trip; Former FBI Director James Comey Surrenders, Appears In Court; Hegseth Spars With Lawmaker On War, Iran's Nuke "Ambitions"; Supreme Court Strikes Down Race-Based Congressional Map; Second Day of Musk's Testimony In His Suit Against OpenAI. Aired 3-4p ET
Aired April 29, 2026 - 15:00 ET
THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.
[15:00:28]
MAX FOSTER, CNN HOST: Donald Trump speaks to Vladimir Putin about the war in Iran.
This is WHAT WE KNOW.
Beginning with that breaking news here in Washington, U.S. President Donald Trump says he believes the wars in Iran and Ukraine could end on, quote, "a
similar timetable". The president was speaking to CNN's Kaitlan Collins just a few minutes ago, confirming he had spoken to his Russian
counterpart, Vladimir Putin, about both conflicts.
Mr. Trump also said the Russian president had offered to help with Iran's uranium stockpiles
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
DONALD TRUMP, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: Well, we talked about more about the war in Ukraine, but he would like to be of help. I said before
you help me, I want to end your war. So, we had a good talk. I've known him a long time. I think he was ready to make a deal a while ago. I think some
people made it difficult for him to make a deal. But we talk more about Ukraine.
KAITLAN COLLINS, CNN CHIEF WHITE HOUSE CORRESPONDENT: But which war do you think ends first?
TRUMP: That's an interesting question. You know, coming from you, that's very interesting. Which war would end first? I don't know, maybe they're on
a similar timetable.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
FOSTER: Kevin Liptak at the White House. I mean, it's such a bizarre idea, but maybe there's some genius in it in a way, because obviously, Russia is
the common link between the Ukraine and the Iran war. What do you make of that?
KEVIN LIPTAK, CNN SENIOR WHITE HOUSE REPORTER: In some ways they are. And it sounded from what the president was saying, that Putin had offered
something that he's offered in the past, which is to take shipment of this stockpile of highly enriched uranium that is inside Iran. It's been buried
underground. It is a sticking point in the discussions to try and bring the war to an end.
The president has insisted that Iran give that up. And so, Putin seems to be offering to take that essentially off of Iran's hands. It is something
that Russia has some experience in. That was their role in the 2015 Obama era deal that Trump later pulled out of.
Now, in the past, after Russia has suggested this, because it's not a new proposal, they have offered to take this on previously over the course of
this conflict, the president has sort of shrugged them off. It sounded like he was doing that again today, saying that he was hopeful that Putin would
focus more on ending the war in Ukraine rather than providing assistance in the war in Iran. But it's just interesting to hear that Putin has raised
that again in the phone call today.
Now, when the president says that the timetables for these conflicts may be similar, I think that's going to raise some alarm bells, particularly among
the president's supporters who are watching Republican popularity wane over the course of this conflict. Remember, President Trump said that this war
in Iran would last no longer than six weeks, and we are now well within the eight-week -- eighth week of the conflict.
The war in Russia shows no signs -- or the war in Ukraine shows no signs of ending. The president's attempts at diplomacy. There really have
essentially gone nowhere. That has been stalemated for quite some time. And so, when he's talking about them both being on similar timetables, that's,
I think, alarming for people who want to see a very swift end to the war in Iran, even as the president is now suggesting the blockade that he has in
place of Iranian ports will remain in place until Iran caves to some of his demands, I think, signaling that neither of these conflicts has a
diplomatic solution that seems readily apparent at the moment.
But the president, I think, hopeful that both will come to an end, but without a clear pathway to how he will realize that.
FOSTER: Okay, Kevin, at the White House, thank you.
Other top story, King Charles and Queen Camilla's four-day state visit to the U.S. They're now in New York for a series of engagements. A short while
ago, they visited the 9/11 memorial and met with first responders there. This follows a whirlwind day here in Washington on Tuesday, which included
an address to Congress and a white tie state dinner at the White House.
President Donald Trump has now suggested King Charles supports the us position that Iran should never have a nuclear weapon, putting Buckingham
Palace in a pretty awkward position. They had to respond to that, revealing apparent details from a private conversation with the monarch. A big
protocol problem, he's also just said that, actually, King Charles would probably agree with President Trump on both Iran and Ukraine.
Let's bring in Richard Quest.
He's there amongst the crowds who I imagine are quite excited, Richard, but what did you make of what the president has been saying about the king?
RICHARD QUEST, CNN BUSINESS EDITOR AT LARGE: Well, you know, it's one of those classic and you know this better than anybody. It's one of those
classic statements that at one level, you know, you can imagine the king absolutely agreeing that Iran should never have a nuclear weapon. And
indeed, that is British government policy, that Iran should never have a nuclear weapon.
But of course, it's the way it was said. And the mechanisms and these are the ways in which these seemingly non-controversial statements become
highly controversial because of the way they're said, or maybe I should say, instead of controversial statements of the obvious become highly
controversial because of the way they're doing it. But as you know as well, Max, the palace takes all this sort of stuff in its stride. And the royal
road show rolled on into New York.
I've never seen a motorcade quite as long, except for the president. It was vast. And there were people on the west side highway who had come to see.
Here, you're seeing their majesties with Mike Bloomberg, the former mayor of New York again, arguably some controversy when they did meet today, the
current mayor of New York, Mamdani, there are some suggestions, you know, because of his policies on various things, including Israel, et cetera.,
that this would be more controversial than perhaps it was.
But their majesties have now separated and are going off doing different engagements here in New York.
FOSTER: This is the first taste, I guess we get of what the public, think of the couple. And particularly Camilla who hasn't done a high profile
visit like this before yesterday was about, you know, leaders today is about the public. What do you think the reaction is to that?
QUEST: Loving it. Absolutely loving it. Those I spoke to on the street, I mean, obviously, they're anglophiles to a certain extent. And monarchists,
if you like, because they're going to come out and see. But I think there's just a sheer admiration, knowing what he was getting into coming here, the
way in which he's handled it with such gracious dignity and put everything first. Now, it's interesting this afternoon, of course, her majesty, she
gets to read some Winnie the Pooh to children.
This is right up her street reading literacy, very much on her agenda. So that will be important. The king's agenda this afternoon is more about
community education, the homeless. And then they come together for the final couple of events of the day.
But frankly, Max, I'm exhausted just reading these. They're in there. You know, he's in his 80s or heading there and it's exhausting what they've got
to do. And they've still got to get back to Washington tonight in time for their engagements tomorrow.
FOSTER: Yeah. On to Virginia after this. Richard, thank you so much.
QUEST: Thank you.
FOSTER: Former FBI Director James Comey surrendering to authorities today at a federal courthouse in Virginia. Comey was charged with making a threat
against the U.S. president and transmitting a threat in interstate commerce. It's the second time he's been indicted by the Trump Justice
Department.
Last year. Comey posted a photo of seashells that spelled out "86 47". "86" typically means to get rid of an American -- in American slang. Donald
Trump is the 47th us president. Comey says he's still innocent.
Corey Brettschneider is a political science professor at Brown University, where he teaches constitutional law. He's also the co-host of "The Oath and
the Office" podcast.
Thank you so much for joining us, Corey.
I mean, I have to say, for people outside the United States, they're pretty confused by this story and they hear about the shells. It becomes even more
confusing. Can you just make sense of it for them?
COREY BRETTSCHNEIDER, POLITICAL SCIENCE PROFESSOR, BROWN UNIVERSITY: Well, I'd say it's as awful as it looks that the right to free speech, the right
to criticize our leaders, the right to use expressions that are common in our vocabulary are all what democracy is about. And in any stable
democracy, we have a right to free speech that gives us the ability to criticize our leaders. And that's obviously, I mean, on its face, what
Comey is doing. This was not a threat. It was a criticism, at best, of the administration.
And yet he's finding himself on trial. He hasn't yet on trial. But facing an indictment. And what that's about, if you just zoom out a little bit, is
Trump's promise to shut down his political opponents and going after Letitia James, he tried to go after Comey with a different set of facts.
Now he's looking for another set of facts.
And he also, you know, in the past, our department of justice would have said, were bound to uphold the law. And now what we have in the Department
of Justice is a bunch of flunky loyalists, and they're willing to do whatever this president says. He got rid of his previous attorney general
because she wouldn't do this kind of thing. And here you have it an attempt to shut down the opposition, to shut down free speech.
FOSTER: I mean, isn't that the most extraordinary part of this? Legal experts like yourself all seem unanimous in the view that there isn't a
case here.
[15:10:03]
It's the -- you know, and, you know, legitimately, the president can have his issues with Comey and Comey can have his issues with the president. You
know, no one's arguing with that freedom of speech and all that. But it is extraordinary that the courts are already siding, in a way, in a case that,
you know, most legal experts should be brought.
BRETTSCHNEIDER: Absolutely. I mean, you know, one temptation, of course, is to say this is unprecedented. And what we've been doing on "The Oath and
the Office" podcast is talking about why, although it is horrific, it's not unprecedented.
We've had moments in our past in which this has happened, an extraordinary period is if you go all the way back to the founding of the United States
in 1798, John Adams was essentially offended that newspaper editors were criticizing him and his family, including his son, and passed the Sedition
Act, which made it a crime to criticize him, the president, but not a crime to criticize his chief rival, the vice president of the United States,
Thomas Jefferson. And what ensued were 126 political prosecutions that did shut down the opposition party.
That was a long time ago. But you see Trump trying to do that. I think that's the parallel. People talk about Nixon, and there was an enemies
list, but Nixon didn't try anything in the open like this. He really is trying to use the arm of government, the arm of the criminal law, in order
to shut down the opposition.
FOSTER: Do you think its backfiring for the president because of the way Comey's handling it?
BRETTSCHNEIDER: Look, I wish I could say that democracy is resilient, which it is, and I certainly have hope that we have a long tradition in
this country of democracy and free speech. And if movements like "No Kings" can tap into that, well, then I'm hopeful. I'm also hopeful that the court
system will say that there is no case here and won't allow this to move to trial. But the reality is that is that the president is enormously powerful
in our system, which is increasingly the system of the unitary executive, where the president has complete control over the Justice Department and
has figured out how to exercise that control by firing anyone who disagrees with them.
You know, there's a danger. And look, even if this doesn't result in a successful prosecution, there's a chilling effect. And opponents of the
president start thinking to themselves, do I really want to go through the risk that I might wind up in prison? As I said, we've seen this before. If
you go back to the 18th century.
But we had thought as a country, we had rebuffed that -- the newspaper editors in that story I told used their own trials to put Adams on trial
and never did the Sedition Act return. Thomas Jefferson allowed it to expire. And yet here we have a crime of criticizing the president,
essentially being revived, not in explicit law, but by looking for these phony prosecutions. And yes, as much as I want to say it won't work, it
could work. And it's a dangerous point for this country and for the world.
FOSTER: Okay, Corey, appreciate it. Thank you.
Now, the U.S. has spent roughly $25 billion so far on its war against Iran, would you believe? The Pentagon's top financial official tells lawmakers
most of the spending is on ammo, like these rockets and missiles. The total comes as Congress considers President Trump's $1.5 trillion defense budget
request for fiscal year 2027.
The U.S. defense secretary was also before the House Armed Services Committee today. During the hearing, Pete Hegseth clashed with the panel's
top Democrat over why the war was deemed necessary in the first place
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
PETE HEGSETH, DEFENSE SECRETARY: Well, their nuclear facilities have been obliterated, underground. They're buried, and we're watching them 24/7.
REP. ADAM SMITH (D-WA): Whoa, whoa, whoa, whoa, whoa, whoa, whoa, whoa, whoa, whoa, whoa, whoa, whoa. Whoa, whoa, whoa, whoa, whoa.
HEGSETH: So we know where any nuclear material might be.
SMITH: Reclaiming my time for a quick second here.
HEGSETH: We're watching that.
SMITH: We had to start this war, you just said, 60 days ago because the nuclear weapon was an imminent threat. Now you're saying that it was
completely obliterated?
HEGSETH: They had not given up their nuclear ambitions, and they had a conventional shield of thousands of --
SMITH: So Operation Midnight Hammer accomplished nothing of substance. It left us in exactly the same place we were before.
HEGSETH: You're missing the point.
SMITH: So much so --
HEGSETH: The facilities were bombed and obliterated. Their ambitions continued. And they're building a conventional shield --
SMITH: Let me try again.
HEGSETH: It's the North Korea strategy. You know this very well. The North Korea strategy was used conventional missiles to prevent anybody from
challenging them so they could slow walk their way to a weapon.
President Trump saw Iran at its weakest moment, took an action to ensure in a way that only the United States of America could do with our Israeli
partners to ensure their conventional --
SMITH: And yet they still haven't given up the nuclear --
HEGSETH: -- shield was brought --
SMITH: All right. One other question.
HEGSETH: -- we've done.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
FOSTER: Haley Britzky is in Washington for us.
I mean, this is an important debate, isn't it? Because if they use up too much weaponry and it's very expensive, as we pointed out, they're going to
have to go back to Congress and ask for more money. And they've got to justify that. And there are many in Congress who feel that, you know, this
is a waste of money, frankly.
HALEY BRITZKY, CNN U.S. NATIONAL SECURITY REPORTER: Yeah, Max. So that was one of the main themes of this hearing today, which is still going, by the
way, nearly five hours later, where the president and the defense secretary, the budget they're requesting is $1.5 trillion.
[15:15:03]
But that does not seem to include an additional supplemental ask that we know will come to replenish a lot of these stockpiles to do repairs to U.S.
installations overseas, which have sustained a lot of damage from Iranian drone and missile attacks. We heard today the roughly, as you mentioned,
$25 billion thus far spent on -- on the war. And so, we can expect that officials will want to come back to Congress in addition to that $1.5
trillion request and ask for more funding.
We heard during a budget hearing last week at the Pentagon that they weren't totally sure how much money that was going to be, that they were
going to be requesting. So, certainly, something that that were expecting to see develop in coming weeks and depends on how long the war goes, right?
And how many more munitions, if any, that the U.S. military expends. But we saw during this hearing a very frustrated Pete Hegseth, very combative, as
we just saw in that clip with Congressman Adam Smith frequently pointing back and criticizing the previous administration, as he's known to do.
When he was asked about questions about his decision making and the president's decision making, particularly as it comes to Iran, he
frequently points back to things like the war in Afghanistan and other decisions made under the Biden administration. Instead of kind of
sidestepping those questions pointed directly to him.
He was also asked about the strike in Kuwait at the beginning of the war that killed six U.S. service members, six army reservists, and said that
the U.S. had taken a maximum defensive posture before these operations began, saying that they did everything in their power to protect U.S.
forces. Of course, we know 13 U.S. service members have been killed in these operations thus far, and it was something that got very testy with
the secretary.
And of course, as we heard just a little bit ago with you and Kevin Liptak at the White House, as the secretary is talking about the war and the
timeline, President Trump is saying that the timeline for the war in Iran could be similar to the war in Ukraine. And while Secretary Hegseth was
telling lawmakers this would not go on for years, that there were very clear end goals for the war with Iran, comparing it to the war in Ukraine,
where there does not seem to be a diplomatic solution here within grasp, will certainly raise a lot of questions and a lot of concerns. We saw that
in the lawmakers today, and those questions will only continue, Max, as this operation, as this war continues, without a clear end goal in mind.
FOSTER: Haley, thank you for joining us from Washington.
Now, meanwhile, President Trump says he won't lift the U.S. blockade in the Strait of Hormuz until Iran agrees to restart negotiations on its nuclear
program. The president told "Axios" he believes the blockade has been more effective than bombing, as the blockade continues, Pakistani mediators say
they expect to receive a fresh proposal from the Iranians in the next few days.
Still to come, did President Trump reveal political details of his conversation with King Charles? We'll hear what Buckingham Palace is saying
about it after the break.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[15:21:06]
FOSTER: President Trump revealing more personal details from his conversation with King Charles. The two met yesterday for a private
conversation in the Oval Office, along with members of the Trump administration. Traditionally, details of conversations like this that the
monarch has aren't revealed publicly.
Last night, the president revealed the king's possible feelings on Iran, and a short time ago, the president also said he and the king disagree on
Ukraine.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
DONALD TRUMP, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: He loves his country and he's a great king, and he's a great friend of mine. And I think if he were
doing that, if that were up to him, he would have probably helped us with Iran. He would have done he would have followed the suggestions we made
with respect to Ukraine because, you know, we have some disagreements on Ukraine.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
FOSTER: Buckingham Palace had previously tried to downplay those remarks on Iran, in particular as a constitutional monarch, the king is bound not
to speak out on political matters. What we don't know is how President Trump actually breached royal protocol by revealing alleged details about
the king's views.
Joining me now, royal historian Kate Williams.
I mean, there is a convention, if we can call it that, right? You don't share details of conversations with the monarch, but, you know, President
Trump isn't a British subject. So -- and he's also got a bit of a record for leaking these conversations. But just explain why for the first time
that I can remember, the palace actually confirmed what was said. Because, I mean, there's a big problem, isn't there, if Charles is seen to have a
different message from the government, basically
KATE WILLIAMS, CNN ROYAL HISTORIAN: Yes, Max. That's exactly it. Charles is above politics. That's the justification of a constitutional monarchy,
which Charles is. And the idea is that Keir Starmer or whatever prime minister is in power, they do the politics, they make the political
decisions. And Charles represents the country. And he also represents stability.
So, he is not supposed to make comment on British politics or intervene whatsoever. So this is where it is this complicated situation, because as
we know, there is a great gulf, really, between Keir Starmer and President Trump in relation to the war in Iran. Yes, we might say that both sides
don't want Iran to have a nuclear weapon.
But in terms of the sort of the solution for that, they are totally opposed. Keir Starmer has made it very clear that he doesn't want to be
part of the war in Iran. And Donald Trump has not responded well to that. So, the fact is that if, you know, Donald Trump has revealed what's gone on
behind closed doors, that is, yes, a breach of protocol. But as you say, he's not a British subject.
And I think, moreover, everyone planning the king's visit, everyone discussing the king's visit should have expected this. And I'm sure they
did that. The fact was that whatever was said to President Trump may have been leaked to the media, particularly if it was favorable to Trump.
And certainly, I think President Trump, you know, is very keen to show that the rest of the world is on his side in terms of Iran. And that's really
his focus here. It's his politics, not necessarily the state of the king -- that situation of the king.
FOSTER: Let's talk about today's controversy. It's an interesting one. I don't think too many people have noticed it yet. But in New York. The king
has met Mayor Mamdani, which you'd expect if he visits New York.
But let's -- I'm just going to play you what Mamdani said ahead of the visit. We don't know exactly what they spoke about, but this is what the
plan was.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
MAYOR ZOHRAN MAMDANI (D), NEW YORK: If I was to speak to the king separately from that, I would probably encourage him to return the Koh-i-
Noor diamond.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
FOSTER: Sounds, you know, like a throwaway comment. But this is huge, isn't it, Kate? Because I think I'm right in saying the Koh-i-Noor diamond
is the crown jewel, right? It is in the Tower of London amongst the crown jewels.
[15:25:00]
India says it belongs to them. We, the Brits stole it, you know, during colonial rule. And it's a huge debate in India, so controversial, in fact,
that the queen didn't wear that crown on her coronation.
I mean, this is -- him confronting the king with this is also a constitutional problem, right?
WILLIAMS: Yes. That's it. Now, we saw the footage of the king and Mayor Mamdani meeting. They seem to be having a very pleasant, happy meeting. But
what was said, we don't know.
And certainly, as you say, Max, the Koh-I-Noor diamond is the most controversial crown diamond, crown jewel. In fact, I would say it's the
most controversial royal possession that is in possession of the royal family. India has been asking for the Koh-I-Noor to be returned from
independence in 1947. It was taken in 1849.
The British say it was taken fairly. David Cameron in 2010 on a visit to India, said no, no, were not giving it back. But it has constantly been
asked for. Added to this is the complication that Pakistan and Afghanistan also lay claim to the Koh-I-Noor diamond. And that's why, as you say, it's
very controversial and it is in the queen consort's crown. It is meant to be too unlucky for a male monarch to wear or a male to wear.
But Camilla did not wear that crown. And I do not think we're going to see that crown being used again. But this question of restitution of what the
British took during colonialism is one of the big questions of British reparation, British restitution. It's not just in the royal collections,
it's in many of our museums.
And certainly, I think if Mayor Mamdani was to ask for that, that is a very significant move. And Charles probably would have to answer that, because,
yes, it's a political decision, but also it is a crown jewel, and he is the monarch, and the crown jewels are also under his remit.
FOSTER: Yeah. I wanted to ask you about that. Who -- you know, can he give them back or do they belong to the state?
WILLIAMS: They do belong to the state. So, the ultimate decision would be with the prime minister and the -- so far, the British governments attitude
is they're not going back. Certainly, when David Cameron said he wasn't going to give them back, he said, if you start giving that back, you'll
have to give back a lot in the British museum. I mean, that is also a questionable comment to have made.
But I think -- I mean, my vision, I have to say, Max, is that eventually the Koh-I-Noor diamond will go back, whether or not it goes back to which
country it goes back to or whether it's divided. That's the question. It was taken from the Punjab and a very young maharaja in 1849.
I really do think that the Koh-I-Noor, in these modern times, the 21st century, is not really feasible to be part of the crown jewels. So simply
one day it will go back. And I think it's very interesting that the mayor put that on his top agenda.
There have been so many other things he could ask the king about. Certainly, there was a very that very poignant ceremony today, wasn't it,
commemorating the 3,000 victims of 9/11 and how the U.K. and the U.S. stood shoulder to shoulder, which the king also talked about in his address to
Congress?
And I think that that the mayor put it really on, number one, on his agenda possibly really shows how it is a subject of deep concern in India. And I
think perhaps increasingly in Britain, we should recognize that.
FOSTER: Yeah. Kate, thank you so much.
As you say, you know, India accuses Britain of stealing it. But, you know, Afghanistan accuses India of stealing it. So, if it does go back, it won't
be the end of the story. Thank you so much.
Still to come, a ruling from the U.S. Supreme Court could change what Congress looks like. We'll tell you about the court wading into the
redistricting debate.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[15:31:59]
FOSTER: The U.S. Supreme Court today dealt a major blow to minority representation in Congress. The conservative dominated court tossed out a
congressional map for the state of Louisiana that produced an extra district dominated by black voters. The 6-3 decision will make it much
harder to challenge congressional maps, because they're racially biased. Experts say it could lead to major changes to congressional maps in the
Southern U.S. in particular, and provide a significant boost to Republicans.
Let's bring in CNN's chief Supreme Court analyst, Joan Biskupic, because this is interesting, because it is about ethnicity, isn't it? I mean, just
explain. It's quite precise.
JOAN BISKUPIC, CNN CHIEF SUPREME COURT ANALYST: It is. And it's good to see you, Max.
I cannot overstate the importance of this ruling to elections and minority voting power down the road, and also to revealing this very polarized court
and an agenda that the court has had since John Roberts became chief justice in 2005. The court has been on a steady march to restrict the
breadth of the 1965 Voting Rights Act. And, frankly, Max to take race out of all sorts of remedial measures.
You know, three years ago, the U.S. Supreme Court rejected racial affirmative action in higher education. And this is part of that bigger
picture. But when it comes to voting, it's going to have much more impact because this decision today, Max, is going to make it harder for blacks and
Latinos to challenge district maps that have been drawn in a way that dilute their voting power, dilute their ability to pick candidates of their
choice, and to have a voice in government and all that entails with the benefits and costs of government. It's going to make it harder to prove
that.
And in the courtroom, the gravity of this decision really played out. Justice Samuel Alito read for the majority, the justices in the majority,
all six of the conservatives were with him. And what he said is that no longer could -- should courts just look at to the effects of a potentially
discriminatory map that diluted voting power that challengers would have to show a discriminatory, discriminatory motive or show that the circumstances
gave rise to a strong inference of intentional discrimination. And that is very, very hard to prove.
So, after he finishes explaining this, sitting right next to him is Elena Kagan, who happens to be the justice who's going to speak for the three
dissenters. And she changes the tone in the room immediately, because he had been speaking in fairly dry technical terms. And she starts right away
by referring to, you know, the blood that was spilled for the 1965 Voting Rights Act. She refers to Bloody Sunday in March of 1965, when civil rights
marchers were beaten as they tried to cross the Edmund Pettus Bridge here and gave a lot of that history, invoked the civil war union soldiers, their
blood that was spilled to try to have equality, in voting.
So, as I say, not only will this affect immediately elections this fall and in 2028, just because states are already saying that they want to redraw
their maps in ways that will help in a partisan way, probably more Republicans than Democrats. But bottom line is it will make it harder for
racial minorities to try to bring a claim when they think these maps were drawn specifically to disadvantage them. So, it played out very much in the
courtroom. And now we're going to see an upcoming months, how it plays out in the elections here -- Max.
FOSTER: So sensitive, isn't it?
BISKUPIC: Yeah.
FOSTER: Joan, thanks for explaining it so well.
Now it's the final moment of trade on Wall Street. And stocks are lower. The Dow has been in the red for most of the day as investors worry about an
extended closure now of the Strait of Hormuz.
This is our Business Breakout.
Federal Reserve Chairman Jerome Powell confirmed that he will be stepping aside as central bank leader next month. Powell, though, intends to
continue his term as a governor, which extends until 2028. Powell's comments come as the Federal Reserve voted to keep interest rates on hold.
The Central Bank says the U.S. economy is growing at a solid pace despite inflation.
Meanwhile, the U.S. Senate Banking Committee approved Kevin Warsh as the next Fed chair earlier today. His nomination still must be approved by the
full senate, but is expected to clear that vote pretty soon.
Donald Trump met with leading oil company executives on Tuesday to talk about the situation in the Persian Gulf. They discussed steps that could be
taken to ease oil prices if the Strait of Hormuz remains blocked for months longer.
Day two of Elon Musk's testimony in a lawsuit that could reshape the future of artificial intelligence meanwhile. He's suing his former partners in
OpenAI, Sam Altman and Greg Brockman for $130 billion. Musk claims they betrayed the original nonprofit mission of the company when they saw how
lucrative it could be. OpenAI's lawyers say Musk is just upset because he was denied complete control.
Hadas Gold is in Oakland, California, where the trial is taking place.
I mean, certainly the, you know, the organization did change, didn't it, into a profit making organization. But how's Musk going to argue this when
he left?
HADAS GOLD, CNN MEDIA CORRESPONDENT: Yeah. So, as we speak, some of the most powerful people are in the courthouse behind me. Powerful people in
tech are in the courthouse behind me, just sitting feet away from each other. Once partners. Now they are archrivals, almost enemies. And Elon
Musk, of course, bringing this lawsuit against OpenAI. He's in the courtroom along with OpenAI CEO Sam Altman and OpenAI's president Greg
Brockman.
Elon Musk is still on the stand. He's now being cross-examined by OpenAI's attorneys. Much of the questioning has been focused on the sort of internal
emails, call logs, note -- meetings from notes about whether Elon Musk himself was pushing for a for profit structure of some kind for OpenAI,
with the theory being that they needed to really make money to be able to compete with the likes of Google.
For example, in one situation, OpenAI attorneys were showing evidence where, in meeting notes, he instructs some of his assistants to actually go
and create a for-profit corporation, go register that corporation, which they did actually do, asking, what about that? And Musk says he does not
recall.
But in other situations, he says essentially that he was a fool. He feels as though he gave OpenAI free funding because he donated $38 million in
OpenAI's early years. And he says that he feels like he was a fool because he donated this money. And then in the end, they created a startup.
So, there's been a lot of time going back and forth between these emails and text messages and call logs. There have been a few moments of fireworks
and tension. Those started even yesterday when the judge admonished Elon Musk for his post on X about the trial, telling him to stop posting
completely about the trial and some of Elon Musk's actually other posts on X have been brought up as evidence.
It seems as though the OpenAI attorneys are trying to paint Elon Musk as unreliable, because they would put something up that he had said on X and
then question him on the stand saying, well, is that true? You put on this post on X, you gave $100 million to OpenAI, but in reality you gave $38
million.
The judge also, at one point told Elon Musk to essentially stop talking because he was getting frustrated with the attorney. Attorney was trying to
ask him yes or no questions. Elon Musk was trying to say, you know, you're trying to trick me. These are more complicated than yes or no questions.
And at one point, he made the sort of classic reference to the loaded question of, have you stopped beating your wife? And the judge said, no,
we're not going to go there. You need to stop. So, there have been some moments of fireworks, but for the most part, they're really trying to dig
in on these emails and texts and call logs and try to paint a picture. At least OpenAI is to the jury that this is -- Elon Musk had wanted a for-
profit structure, and the only reason that he is bringing this lawsuit is because he couldn't get control of the company.
[15:40:06]
And now he has a competitor in xAI that is now competing directly with OpenAI. And that's why he wants to bring them down a notch. He was asked,
actually, why didn't you bring this lawsuit earlier? You know, the for- profit structure started way back in 2018, 2019, when they created a for profit subsidiary. And he said essentially, he didn't believe that they had
stolen the charity, as he was saying just yet. And he only decided to file this when he fully believed that they had stolen the charity or what was a
nonprofit.
I should note, OpenAI says that they are still controlled. They have a nonprofit foundation that sits on top of the for-profit benefit corporation
-- Max.
FOSTER: Hadas, thank you.
As you say, that the power in that room is extraordinary. Still to come, King Charles has a delicate a diplomatic job to do on his current state
visit. His solution has been a wave of royal one-liners
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
FOSTER: It's been billed as one of the most high-profile royal trips in recent memory. But when King Charles took the stage here in Washington on
Tuesday, it wasn't all rousing rhetoric and geopolitics. It was also a whole host of one-liners, from his address to congress to his toast at the
White House banquet, the king peppered his speeches with jokes, and most of them seemed to land pretty well.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
KING CHARLES III, UNITED KINGDOM: As Oscar Wilde said, we have really everything in common with America nowadays, except, of course, language.
(LAUGHTER)
KING CHARLES: King George, as you know, never set foot in America. And please rest assured, ladies, gentlemen, I am not here as part of some
cunning rearguard action.
(LAUGHTER)
KING CHARLES: Two hundred fifty years ago, or, as we say in the United Kingdom just the other day.
(LAUGHTER)
KING CHARLES: I cannot help noticing the readjustments to the East Wing. Mr. President.
(LAUGHTER)
KING CHARLES: Following your visit to Windsor castle last year, and I'm sorry to say that we British, of course, made our own small attempt at real
estate redevelopment of the White House in 1814.
(LAUGHTER)
KING CHARLES: Indeed, you recently commented, Mr. President, that if it were not for the United States, European countries would be speaking
German.
Dare I say that if it wasn't for us, you'd be speaking French.
(LAUGHTER)
(APPLAUSE)
KING CHARLES: Thank you, Mr. President and Mrs. Trump, for your splendid dinner this evening, which may I say is a very considerable improvement on
the Boston tea party.
(LAUGHTER)
(END VIDEO CLIP)
FOSTER: So, what we want to know is, did King Charles nail the comic timing?
Joining me now, Matt Friend, comedian, host of CNN comedy special, "America Laughs".
I kind of think I was around lots of people as those speeches were taking place. I mean, we laughed. He landed it, didn't he?
MATT FRIEND, COMEDIAN: I think he mauled and landed it, Max. I think it was able dibble. It was a thrill to see it.
No, he killed it. I mean, he has the timing of, like, a seasoned comedian. He should be the one who's hosting a comedy special on CNN. It really was
amazing to see, especially in the world we live in now, Trump joked. But there was some truth in the joke when he said King Charles did something
I've never been able to do get the Democrats to stand, which has never happened for me before.
And that's true. I mean, it's interesting that this was a very unifying moment where there seems to be little that can get all of congress to
stand. And the king was able to do that.
FOSTER: The best one-liner, I think, matt, no one heard apart from us. We were at the tea party, of course. Tea party -- yes, it was a tea party,
wasn't it? On day one, it -- I saw you --
FRIEND: Yes.
FOSTER: -- with our esteemed Kaitlan Collins chatting away.
FRIEND: Yes.
FOSTER: We -- we all chatted. The king came over. You asked me to film it. We're just going to -- we're just, you know, I'm just going to play it. And
then you can tell us how Charles was handling
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
FRIEND: Hello, it's an honor to meet you.
I've been working on an impersonation of you. It's not bad. I'm trying to study you.
KING CHARLES: Keep trying.
(LAUGHTER)
(END VIDEO CLIP)
FOSTER: I had to hold it together. I couldn't believe -- everyone was so nervous meeting the king. And there you are doing an impression of him. I
mean, you really went there.
Tell us what you said. Tell us what he said, though, because it was great.
FRIEND: Well, you've been following me on social media for years and you've seen what I'm about. But yeah, the king comes up to me and let me
set the context. I'm in a line with Kaitlan Collins, Tom Daley, the Olympian, Barbara Broccoli, James Bond producer, many ambassadors, Trump's
cabinet is around.
And I'm like a make a wish. I don't even know how this is happening. And then the king comes up to me. I meet the queen first, then I see the king
and I say, I've been working on an impression, an impersonation of you. I've been trying to do it.
And he looks at me without missing a beat and he goes, keep trying. And then he goes. And then everybody erupts. And then he goes, we're going to
give you marks of merit. And it was just one of those crazy moments.
I met Barack Obama. That was very fun doing him to him. I did the White House Correspondents' Dinner two years ago. I did Trump, Obama, McConnell
and Bernie.
But meeting an actual king and not being beheaded after it, I think is the biggest, biggest victory of my life. I was not -- I was not sent to the
tower, so to speak. So I feel -- it was a wild moment. I'm not sure what could top that.
FOSTER: Well, there's still time. You might be on the no-fly list. You never know. Thank goodness you didn't try it with Camilla because you don't
mess with Camilla. But she's got a great sense of humor. I don't think she saw any of that.
FRIEND: I don't think Camilla would have liked that at all. But I learned that the king actually his mother, Elizabeth, was a mimic. And this may or
may not be true, but I hear that it runs in their family too. And I think it's clear that he has a great sense of humor.
And I think we need a lot more of that in this country now, as we're seeing with the Kimmel ABC discourse taking place right now, I think humor
matters. And the king perfectly exemplified that.
FOSTER: Matt, appreciate you. It was a brilliant moment. Thanks for joining us.
Still to come, Simone Biles weighing her options ahead of the 2028 Summer Games. What she told our Amanda Davies about gymnastics, mental health and
a high-profile marriage.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[15:52:24]
FOSTER: Will she or won't she? Simone Biles says there's a 50/50 chance that she will be competing in the 2028 Olympics. Biles has stressed that
mental health will be a key factor. She shared her struggles since she was forced to withdraw from events at the Tokyo Olympics.
CNN's Amanda Davies caught up with Biles on Tuesday.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
AMANDA DAVIES, CNN'S WORLD SPORT: I know you've said you feel you will be at LA28 in some capacity.
SIMONE BILES, 11-TIME OLYMPIC MEDALIST: Exactly.
DAVIES: Do you have any more indication which capacity yet?
BILES: I feel like we're still at a 50/50. I mean, we're still on a time crunch here. Now it's almost half of 2026. So we're going to have to make
these decisions pretty quickly. So --
DAVIES: So, what will it depend on? What are the considerations?
BILES: I think mental health plays a big role in it because again physically my coaches will get me in shape. I can get myself in shape. We
believe in that ability. We're really thankful that I'm still healthy, but mental is a huge thing and it's a lot of dedication on that because the
road is not easy. It's long, but it's the work.
DAVIES: And yeah, the risks versus the rewards.
BILES: Exactly.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
FOSTER: The 11-time Olympic medalist also discussed her high profile husband, the NFL safety for the Indianapolis Colts, Jonathan Owens.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
DAVIES: How do you describe yourself as a -- as an American football -- WAG is a term in the States?
BILES: WAG is a term in the States. Actually, I feel like -- okay, if I had to grade myself as a WAG for showing up like outfits and everything,
100 percent like I'm definitely down in the -- in the mud. And that as far as football knowledge, I'm still probably at a 50 percent because yesterday
I thought I was being so cute on my Instagram story and I was like, oh, my husband's going off to training camp.
And he calls me. He's like, babe, it's not training camp, it's OTAs. But that is very cute of you.
And I was going to correct myself, but I was like, they know what I'm talking about.
DAVIES: Do you -- are you an angry supporter or are you a calm voice of reason on the sidelines?
BILES: I would say I'm a calm voice of reason because I feel like I'm still at that 50 percent scale. I'm not really sure exactly what's going on
the whole entire time, but I would say I am dedicated in watching my husband achieve his dreams. And so, when -- no, I would say in playoffs, if
they were to lose or close to losing before advancing, like I'm really nervous because I know the pressure that he feels. And so, I just feel for
him.
But other than that, I'm just there for a good time. Watch my husband. He looks pretty good in pads and stuff. So, it's good.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
FOSTER: Finally, tonight here in Washington, all eyes maybe on King Charles, but back home, there's a good reason for the next line -- next in
line to celebrate because it is the 15th wedding anniversary of the prince and princess of Wales.
[15:55:08]
In honor of the big day, the couple shared a picture of themselves in a summery scene with their three children lying in a meadow. Their wedding at
Westminster Abbey in 2011 was watched by millions around the world. The couple welcomed their children George, in 2013, followed by Charlotte in
2015 and Louis in 2018.
And it makes me feel very old because I reported on the wedding and the birth of all those three children. But there we are.
I'm Max Foster. That's WHAT WE KNOW. Stay with CNN. More after the break.
END
TO ORDER VIDEOTAPES AND TRANSCRIPTS OF CNN INTERNATIONAL PROGRAMMING, PLEASE CALL 800-CNN-NEWS
