Return to Transcripts main page
What We Know with Max Foster
$1.8B Anti-Weaponization Fund Derails Trump Immigration Agenda; U.S. Official: Trump, Netanyahu Hold Tense Phone Call; Sources: Iran Rebuilding Military Faster Than Expected; Violence Erupts In DRC Amid Misinformation About Virus; SpaceX IPO Could Make Elon Musk World's First Trillionaire; White House Postpones Signing Of Executive Order On A.I. Oversight; Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor Documents Released. Aired 3-4p ET
Aired May 21, 2026 - 15:00 ET
THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.
[15:00:26]
MAX FOSTER, CNN HOST: Donald Trump in a fight with Senate Republicans over his new fund.
This is WHAT WE KNOW.
Republicans are turning on President Trump's plans to compensate his allies, derailing his political agenda in the process. The controversial
new fund anti weaponization fund, which promises compensation for those who think they have had a raw deal from. The Justice Department is facing
opposition from within Mr. Trump's own party. And since Republicans are unable to agree, they've given up for now on passing a massive immigration
bill.
Acting Attorney General Tom Blanche met with Republican senators earlier on Capitol Hill to discuss the nearly $1.8 billion fund in what was called a
tense meeting. Some of those senators say they have serious concerns about several January 6th rioters getting some of that cash. One of those
senators didn't hold back.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
SEN. THOM TILLIS (R-NC): These people don't deserve restitution. They many of them deserve to be in prison. Some of them deserve the pardon because
they were over prosecuted. But this is -- I mean, this is just stupid on stilts.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
FOSTER: Well, chief legal affairs correspondent Paula Reid is in Washington.
It's fascinating to see Republicans turning on the president in this way. But just explain what is so controversial about this fund.
PAULA REID, CNN CHIEF LEGAL AFFAIRS CORRESPONDENT: All right. Let's go back to the beginning of the week. On Monday, the Justice Department
announced this roughly $1.8 billion fund where anyone can apply if they believe they've been unfairly treated by the Justice Department. They can
file for an apology and or a monetary settlement. Now, this was actually part of a settlement between the Trump administration and the president,
his sons, and his business over a lawsuit that they had filed against the IRS.
So, instantly, the questions were, okay, why do you have a Trump lawyers negotiating this settlement fund that could primarily benefit the
presidents allies? Because, of course, one group that is expected to apply for monetary settlements or apologies here are the people who are convicted
and then pardoned or their sentences commuted related to January 6th. So there were a lot of outstanding questions about how this fund would work.
The Trump team pushed out this announcement on Monday without a lot of details, because I'm told they were working to try to get ahead of a
deadline that was looming related to that website that might have sort of tied up their ability to do this in litigation for a while. So they push
out this enormous settlement with not too many details.
And so, a lot of questions around whether people convicted of assaulting law enforcement officials, could they get money? The acting attorney
general, Todd Blanche, the vice president, suggested that that could be the case. I sat down with the acting attorney general last night, and he
reiterated that statement, said, yes, they can apply, but it has surprised a lot of people that someone like that would be eligible. He also doubled
down, insisting that this is something that taxpayers should support because of what he says is the weaponization of the Justice Department over
the past few years.
Now, of course, Todd Blanche, formerly President Trump's personal defense attorney, he does believe that his client was treated unfairly, but its
unclear if he really understands the blowback that this is getting now. I think it was made more clear to him when he headed to the Hill today. He
encountered members of his own party, lawmakers who were clearly hostile to this idea.
But I think the biggest problem is they just don't have a lot of details about how this is going to work. We don't know the five people who are
going to vet these claims. He has a month to announce those individuals, the rules that they'll use to look at these individual claims, because
right now, what they haven't been able to establish is how are you going to protect these taxpayer funds from becoming sort of a slush fund for the
president's allies, or all the people who are mad they were investigated because let me tell you, everyone who's ever been investigated by the
Justice Department was upset about it, right? No one ever thought it was fair. So, not a lot of answers from the Justice Department right now on
that.
FOSTER: Okay, Paula, thank you so much.
We are also learning of a tense phone call between the U.S. president and the Israeli prime minister, signaling a potential rift over the Iran war. A
U.S. official says the allies are split over the next moves in the conflict, after the U.S. called off strikes planned for Tuesday at the
request of Gulf allies. An Israeli source says Benjamin Netanyahu is skeptical that the U.S. can reach a deal because Iran has so far refused to
give up its enriched uranium.
They say the Israeli leader is pushing to resume attacks on Iran. This as new U.S. intelligence says Iran is rapidly rebuilding its military machine.
[15:05:01]
Sources tell CNN, Tehran has restarted drone production during the ceasefire and could have full drone attack capability in just six months.
I want to bring in Kevin Liptak here because this is the first sense, isn't it, Kevin, of a -- of a proper rift between these two very close allies.
KEVIN LIPTAK, CNN SENIOR WHITE HOUSE REPORTER: Right. And they are still close. But I do think it underscores kind of the divergent positions that
the United States and Israel now have when it comes to this conflict. Benjamin Netanyahu, I think, adamant that the war aims that the U.S. and
Israel set out at the beginning of this conflict have not yet been met and can only be achieved if the U.S. begins the bombing campaign anew -- things
like ensuring that Iran not be able to obtain a nuclear weapon, wiping out its missile capabilities, both objectives that at this point have not been
fully achieved.
And that, I think, was the argument that he was trying to make to President Trump in that phone call. You know, they've held a series of phone calls,
obviously, over the course of this conflict. But just over the course of this week as well, one of them was on Sunday, and it was after that
conversation that Netanyahu had the impression that president Trump was prepared and ready to start the war again.
Of course, it was the day after that that the president said that, no, in fact, he was not going to do that. He would allow some more time for the
diplomacy continued. Fast forward to a day -- next day, they had this very tense phone call in which they discussed the wisdom in doing that.
You know, from President Trump's perspective, I think its becoming clearer and clearer that he is, in fact, reluctant to bring begin the war again.
You know, you've heard him in public say that he doesn't want to take steps that will cause widespread death inside Iran. He's also, you know, acutely
aware that this war is unpopular. It's now stretched well past the six week mark that he said it would last. And it's causing all kinds of economic
turmoil in the United States.
And so, there are all these number of reasons that the president may not want to begin the bombing again. And so, you can see how the U.S. and
Israel are just on very different pages on this front. Now, when it comes to the diplomacy that the president says he wants to allow, he has been
relatively optimistic, I think, over the last few days, saying that the talks are continuing, that the Iranians want to make a deal. We heard that
as well from the secretary of state, Marco Rubio, earlier today, who said that the diplomacy was continuing apace.
What we don't understand yet is how they've resolved any of these differences, namely, that Iran be able to keep its stockpile of highly
enriched uranium. You know, it's about 1,000 pounds of it. It's believed to be buried far underground. President Trump has said very explicitly that
that needs to come out of Iran before they can end the war.
There were some reporting today in "Reuters" that the supreme leader of Iran had made clear that that would not happen, that it would remain inside
the country. The U.S. says that that's not a stipulation, that it has heard as part of these negotiations just yet. And so, clearly, a lot of sticking
points that will need to be resolved. But President Trump, at least at this point, allowing the diplomacy to continue -- Max.
FOSTER: Okay, Kevin. Appreciate it. Thank you so much.
Now, tensions are flaring in the Democratic Republic of Congo as the country faces an Ebola crisis. Angry residents threw projectiles causing a
blaze at a hospital treating Ebola patients. One local official tells CNN misinformation about the virus is spreading amongst communities, saying
many believe Ebola is a lie.
Today's violence erupting when the relatives of a young man who died from the virus tried to take his body by force.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
LUC MAMBELE, CONGOLESE POLITICIAN: I'm at Rwampara Hospital. We're locked down here. Look at the protesters. They're angry. Theyre setting fire to
the tents of Ebola patients because they want to forcibly retrieve the bodies.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
FOSTER: Health authorities in the DRC say at least 148 people are thought to have died in this outbreak. So far, only 51 cases have been officially
confirmed, but hundreds more are suspected.
Larry Madowo is in Nairobi, Kenya.
It's a frightening situation, isn't it, for local people if they've lost faith, trust in the authorities trying to handle this very serious crisis.
LARRY MADOWO, CNN CORRESPONDENT: And, Max, that's what the authorities have to fight against because the community sensitization is a key part of
stopping the chain of transmission. And for many of the people in this epicenter of the outbreak in Ituri, they are a little exhausted. They've
had 17 outbreaks of Ebola in the DRC. In this specific instance, police had to use tear gas, fire warning shots to disperse an angry crowd. It all
began when family members of one man believed to have died of Ebola showed up, tried to take his body by force. They were not allowed.
The reason they were not allowed is because Ebola often spreads at funerals.
[15:10:00]
In fact, this current outbreak is believed to have started at a super- spreader event, a funeral of somebody who died on April the 20th and was buried on May 5th. It's after social media and local media reported of
deaths connected to that funeral that they sent testing and confirmed that there was an outbreak. An investigation still going on. But that's why they
don't want people touching the bodies of those who have died suspected of Ebola, but they want the bodies so that they can bury them using local
customs and traditions. They don't like the PPE, they don't like the spacesuits. They want to bury these people in dignity.
And that is the tension between the health authorities trying to maintain this kind of very controlled situation and the people trying to, you know,
give them a proper sendoff. So that's where we're coming up to this case, where people are essentially having protest and burning down two tents for
the treating patients. The local NGO in charge there, and the local government told us that there were six patients in those tents. None of
them escaped. They've been moved to the main hospital and theyre still receiving care, but is really traumatic situation, underscoring the
difficulty of controlling a situation like this in a community that's already exhausted.
FOSTER: Okay, Larry. Appreciate it. Thank you so much.
Now, Elon Musk is on the verge of becoming the world's first trillionaire. Musk's company. SpaceX, has filed to go public, proposing a huge $1.25
trillion IPO. Musk's contract with SpaceX calls for him to get bonuses based on what the company's worth, and a special bonus if SpaceX manages to
establish a human colony on Mars. The bonuses, combined with Musk's existing shares of SpaceX, should allow him to easily pass $1 trillion in
net worth.
Let's bring in CNN business senior reporter David Goldman.
I mean, the figures here are quite extraordinary, but he has to deliver, right?
DAVID GOLDMAN, CNN BUSINESS SENIOR REPORTER: Right. Yeah. I would take a little bit of that. I'm sure you would too. But I think that the big
question is, what is this company and how is it going to make money? Because it certainly doesn't have a revenue problem, $18.7 billion in
revenue last year. That is quite a bit, but it lost almost $5 billion. And that was all of 2025.
Now, fast forward to this year, the first three quarters of this year, it has already lost over $4 billion. And so, what is going on here? Why is
SpaceX losing so much money? Its because of the enormous expense of A.I.
This is the ambition that they have. They want to launch data centers into space. Now, it actually is a really compelling idea. It's not science
fiction. It's real. You can put a data center in space, you get free cooling, right? Space is cold. You get free power. You have the sun at your
back. You can point your solar panels at it. And so it solves two of the biggest problems that we have with terrestrial A.I. And SpaceX owns
Starlink. So it can beam that signal back down to Earth.
The question is, is it going to ever turn a profit if it has to spend tens of billions of dollars to do that? That's the question.
And then all the fun stuff, right? Elon Musk becomes not just a trillionaire, but a trillionaire multiple times over if we colonize Mars
with a permanent human colony, that doesn't sound like something that I'm willing to do. But if he finds people that are willing to do it and is
capable of it, he will be not just the richest person ever. He will be the richest person ever by a very, very long shot.
FOSTER: As you say, no one's done any of this before. And you know, you can always pluck these numbers out of the air, cant you?
GOLDMAN: Sure, they can.
FOSTER: And they've put that number on there. What are the investors saying?
GOLDMAN: That's the real question because what SpaceX says is we have a total addressable market of tens of trillions of dollars. Now that is sort
of corporate speak for we think that the business that we could create is going to be this big. And now, it's got lots of competitors. OpenAI, it has
Anthropic. Certainly the established players like Microsoft and Google, they all have what I guess is in theory, the same addressable market.
They're not going to get all of it. But SpaceX thinks that it has the advantage to do this.
Now, Elon Musk says a lot of really kooky things, but he also has a very established record of success between Tesla and SpaceX, which literally
takes rocket boosters careening back down to Earth and lands them like a pencil on a -- like an upright pencil on a floating platform. It is
stunning stuff, real achievements.
And so, investors are thinking that -- well, I don't want to be losing out on potential rewards here.
[15:15:05]
Elon Musk has time and time again proven that he is capable of doing amazing things. Maybe I want to invest in this company. So that's what
we'll see. We'll see if this IPO is successful in a few months
FOSTER: Okay, David, look forward to hearing back from you. Thanks for joining us.
The White House has once again canceled plans for a presidential executive order to regulate A.I. Meanwhile, President Trump was supposed to sign the
executive order today, but the event has been postponed with no word when it'll actually happen. The executive order would require A.I. companies to
share their products with the government before releasing them to the public.
Mr. Trump says he's worried the order would put U.S. companies at a disadvantage.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
DONALD TRUMP, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: I didn't like certain aspects of it, I postponed it. I think it gets in the way of, you know,
we're leading China, we're leading everybody, and I don't want to do anything that's going to get in the way of that lead.
We have a very substantial on A.I. It's causing -- it's causing a tremendous good. And it's also bringing in a lot of jobs, tremendous
numbers of jobs. Again, we have more people working right now than we've ever had. I really thought that could have been a blocker. And I want to
make sure that it's not.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
FOSTER: Let's go straight to Hadas Gold.
Of course, the White House wrote up this order. You know, what was the hitch here? Was there pushback from the companies?
HADAS GOLD, CNN A.I. CORRESPONDENT: We had been all set up for this executive order to be signed this afternoon. And we know that all the major
A.I. companies had actually been working with the White House on this executive order. They were all expecting, as far as my sources have been
telling me, they were all expecting for this to be signed this afternoon. They'd all been invited to send their top executives to the White House. I
even heard of one executive who was on the train when this was canceled at the last minute.
I had heard varying reasons why this was going on. I heard that maybe there weren't enough of these executives were going to make it to the White
House. Not a good photo op. I'd heard that maybe somebody got into Trump's ear at the last minute and changed his mind.
And then we heard from President Trump himself, as you just played there, where he was saying that he was worried he would get in the way of this
industry and its ability to beat China. According to my sources who were briefed on the executive order and the draft of the executive order that
was shared around one of the key aspects of this executive order was this voluntary framework, where the A.I. companies would submit their models to
the U.S. government for review up to 90 days before they would be publicly released to the world.
The reason being, as we've seen, these models are becoming so capable when it comes to the cyber capabilities. It is like having a million of the best
hackers working for you, 24/7. Being able to find these vulnerabilities that, you know, a human hacker might not be able to find in a period of
time. So there's a lot of critical infrastructure you can think of that you could think that the government has a hand in, whether it be the power
system or the financial system, that you would want the government to be able to take a look at these systems, these A.I. models, how do they work
and how do they shore up their defenses?
I do know from my sources, there was a bit of push and pull between the industry and the White House over that time period, because a 90-day
prerelease review, 90 days in the A.I. world that we stand now, that is forever. That takes so much time.
A.I. models are developing at such a rapid pace. You might have three new models in that 90 day period. According to my sources, the industry was
pushing for a shorter 14-day period. But were hearing from president Trump, maybe not was not necessarily anything like that. He was more worried about
hampering the A.I. industry.
And this is something we've heard from the Trump administration from the beginning. They wanted to have had more of a hands-off approach to the
industry. They don't want to hamper the development.
But with the development of these new models, with Anthropic Mythos, with these new models from OpenAI, there is, I think, a recognition and a sense
of urgency, including from within the U.S. government, that they need to be involved in some way. But what were seeing from president Trump pulling
this at essentially the last minute is that there's still a divide over exactly what role the government should play and how that will play out for
the industry -- Max.
FOSTER: Okay, Hadas. Thank you so much.
Now, coming up, the Andrew files. New released documents reveal details about how the trade envoy formerly known as prince, got his job. We'll go
through the files for you.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[15:22:26]
FOSTER: The British government has found no evidence that Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor was vetted before becoming a British trade envoy.
That's according to the U.K.'s trade minister, as a newly released trove of documents shed new light on Andrew's appointment 25 years ago. The files
also reveal that the late Queen Elizabeth pushed for her son to take a prominent role in promoting British national interests.
So what we want to know is how did the British government decide to appoint Andrew as trade envoy?
Joining me now, Quentin Peel, former foreign editor at "The Financial Times".
Quentin, thank you for joining us.
I mean, we are in a different era now, aren't we? But you know, back in the day, there was more deference, I guess, particularly to the queen. And when
she said she wanted something, it was pretty hard to say no.
Can you hear me, Quentin?
QUENTIN PEEL, FORMER FOREIGN EDITOR, FINANCIAL TIMES: I think that's absolutely right. I mean, to be honest, I'm really not very surprised that
this has come out because, it looked -- can you hear me?
FOSTER: Yes, indeed.
PEEL: I think a no-brainer --
FOSTER: I'm going to let you speak.
PEEL: -- in terms of appointing him, he was going to succeed another member of the royal family.
The previous trade envoy was the duke of Kent, and the queen appears to have said. I would very much like my son Andrew, the duke of York, which
was his title at the time, to take up this job.
And the truth is that at that stage, I don't think anybody in government or indeed in the civil service, thought to say, well, is he really an
appropriate man for the job? If the queen wants him, he gets the job. And that's the -- that's the difficulty that they had to deal with.
There was a very senior civil servant who was asked about this today. He was head of the civil service in 2001 when Andrew was appointed, and he
said it would have been unthinkable to have run a vetting check on the queen's son.
FOSTER: There was one letter that actually did have some pushback. Yeah, an official asking if he had the right experience considering he was just
coming out of the navy. He didn't have any experience in trade. But I'm just wondering what you think about the queen's legacy here, because, you
know, there are people suggesting that she shouldn't have used her position in this way.
[15:25:03]
Others saying, well, it was a government decision. But perhaps she's just acting like any mother would.
PEEL: Well, the truth is that this whole affair about the former Prince Andrew and his relations with Jeffrey Epstein and the fact that it appears
to have come out that while he was the trade envoy, he was leaking information to his friend Jeffrey Epstein. All of that does very much, I
think, undermine the position of the royal family.
This is a story that is just not going away. So the fact that the queen herself was involved, who, after all, is regarded in the United Kingdom as
almost beyond reproach, I think is an embarrassment. I don't think its going to actually really damage things now, but you never know if people
whip up a head of steam about this, it could yet give King Charles problems.
FOSTER: Yeah. Okay. Quentin, thank you so much for that. It's a story that is not going away for the royal family.
Still to come up, Donald Trump's $1.7 billion compensation fund for his allies has drawn waves of criticism. Next, his acting attorney general
insists this is what American taxpayers want.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
FOSTER: Let's get back to our top story. The acting U.S. attorney general tells CNN he doesn't think Americans have a problem with the Justice
Department's new $1.7 billion scheme to compensate President Donald Trump's allies.
[15:30:06]
Our Paula Reid sat down with Todd Blanche in Miami. He insists American taxpayers actually want their money to go towards this new fund.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
REID: But wouldn't the average taxpayer respond and say, okay, but why is that now my problem? Why do my tax dollars now need to go to people who are
upset about their involvement in investigations?
TODD BLANCHE, ACTING ATTORNEY GENERAL: Well, if you're just upset, you're not getting a dime. On the other hand, I think if you said to the American
taxpayer that there was a horrible wrong committed by your government, and now you can apply and you can have your lawyers fees back, you can you can
be compensated for what you lost financially, what American would say, oh my gosh, that's terrible? I mean, I don't -- I very much disagree with the
idea that the American taxpayer is indignant about the fact that a victim of weaponization, okay? A victim who suffered, whether it was legal fees,
loss of job, or had their life turned upside down in a way that was not appropriate.
If it was appropriate, there should be no compensation. And that's why we have five commissioners who will take a look at it. But I do not think the
American people have issues with that. To the contrary, I think they do want their tax dollars spent on things like that.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
FOSTER: What we don't know is, do Americans want their tax dollars spent on this new Justice Department fund?
Joining me now is former FBI special agent Daniel Brunner.
Thank you for joining us, Daniel.
Well, if you look at the reaction in congress and if those representatives, are representatives of the public, you get the impression that Americans
don't like this fund.
DANIEL BRUNNER, RETIRED FBI SPECIAL AGENT: Well, I can speak for myself, and from, you know, fellow members of the law enforcement community that we
are not for this. I mean, you look at it from this perspective, their position is that they're giving this to individuals that, you know, were
wronged by the government. Well, these individuals theyre also talking about are individuals that stormed the Capitol building on January 6th.
These are individuals that attacked police officers.
Meanwhile, at 9/11, we had hundreds of police officers, firefighters sacrificed their life to toxic fumes, and theyre fighting for millions,
just a fraction of that to pay for their health costs. They have to go to congress and ask for these -- ask for this support to pay for their -- for
their illnesses suffered during 9/11.
But yet individuals who attacked police officers at January 6th are going to get their fraction of billions, you know, $1.8 billion. I think this is
absolutely ridiculous.
The fact that firefighters, police officers, FBI agents who put their lives on the line can't get medical support. But yet those who attacked police
officers and were convicted, not accused, these were convicted individuals in court by a jury of their peers. They were also, you know, found guilty
because they pled guilty. They said, yes, I did that.
Those individuals do not deserve a dime of this money. And this is -- this is a tragedy right now.
FOSTER: There's also the idea that surely most people that have had run- ins with the Justice Department feel that they've been treated unfairly, which is a vast swathe of people, presumably. And this is very selective,
presumably, it'll have to be because it's only just over $1 billion. I know that's a lot of money, but, you know, if they're going to share about
amongst everyone that feels that they were treated badly by the Justice Department, you're not going to get very far.
BRUNNER: Well, I agree, I mean, anybody can say that they were treated unfairly by the Justice Department, and this could go down the line. This
doesn't have to be January 6th individuals. These are people that say, well, this wasn't fair. I shouldn't have been treated. I shouldn't have
been charged. I should have been ex -- so there is an endless amount of people that can stand in line to this. And what's difficult to really, you
know, wrap your head around is that this committee that was created by President Trump are the ones that are deciding.
Acting Attorney General Blanche just said yesterday in an interview that the individuals who are applying for this, all they have to do in the
application is put why they felt they were wrong. They don't have to -- they don't have to write down where they were convicted or pled guilty. And
that's the thing is, why cant they just come out and say, yes, anybody that was convicted, convicted, not accused, convicted, they're absolutely
ineligible to obtain any funding.
The problem is, a lot of his supporters, a lot of President Trump supporters, the Proud Boys, individuals at other companies, other groups
that were there at January 6th are the people that are applying already. The leader of the Proud Boys put in for $5 million saying that he's due to
that because of what he felt was unjust. But yet he was convicted and sentenced in court here in the United States.
There are FBI agents that I know that I'm good friends with. Tom and Jean O'Connor are fighting to get funding to support the 9/11 victims.
[15:35:00]
People like this. But yet, this is $1.8 billion is doled out just because you felt that they were wronged.
And the committee that is making these decisions, I feel that, you know, they're handpicked by President Trump or what he's saying by -- wasn't by
me, by other people, uh, acting attorney, Acting Attorney General Blanche, that doesn't matter. These are people that are going to make the decisions
on their own. And there shouldn't be -- this -- this is completely absurd and should be, you know, shut down by Congress right away. Please.
FOSTER: So, you know, he's got problems within the Republican Party. Do you feel that, you know, I know we're not here to talk about politics, but
it is interesting to see senior Republicans now outwardly breaking with, you know, the MAGA ranks, if you like, on this particular issue, just
explain why you think in America, it's divisive, not just between Democrats and Republicans, but within Republicans as well.
BRUNNER: Well, because I think were seeing in this last year of this administration and the first year of his second term, we're seeing a lot of
expenditures. We're seeing the, you know, you know, 200, 300, 400 million, and then became a billion for the ballroom. We see $250 million for the
arts.
We are seeing a lot of expenditures. And then everything that's being spent in the, you know, the battle in Venezuela, the war in Iran, and now soon to
be, I believe, you're going to see something happening in Cuba right now.
There is a lot of money that is being spent, you know, in just waves and fashions that the FBI, the -- you know, Kash Patel is spending exorbitant
amounts of money flying around the country to different events. And the, you know, coming out of the FBI budget, which should be used to conduct
investigations.
And FBI agents are here to support and defend the constitution of the United States, not to go around to parties and things.
So I think that people are starting to see $1.776 billion being handed out to convicted -- you know, individuals who are convicted in court, found
guilty of assaulting police officers, but yet that they can't come out and say, yes, these individuals are not getting. So I think Congress was kind
of had had their limits.
And I think the senior members of the leadership in the Republican Party in Congress are rightfully so, coming out and saying, no, this is -- this is
one too many. This is a line too far. The line has been pushed. And hopefully this is where they stand their ground.
FOSTER: Okay. Appreciate it. Dan Brunner, we're going to see how this rolls, but its moving pretty quickly, isn't it? Only came out this week.
Now it is the final moments of trade on Wall Street. And stocks are edging higher today. The Dow Jones up half a percent, as you can see.
Our Business Breakout for you.
No respite for U.S. drivers, the price of gas now above $4 a gallon in all 50 states. When the war in Iran started, the national average for regular
gas was just below $3.
Delays and cancellations have continued today at New York's LaGuardia Airport. This after a sinkhole was found near one of the airports two
runways. The airport expects the runway to be open, though by tomorrow.
The U.S. government is giving $2 billion to boost American quantum computing companies. Half of that will go to IBM to bolster the building of
supercomputers. Firms are racing to build new technology that could solve problems beyond the ability of even the most advanced computers.
Now, Netflix is expanding into daily live programming, the streaming giant has announced its TV version of the popular radio show, "The Breakfast
Club". It's a morning show co-hosted by Charlamagne Tha God, DJ Envy and Jess Hilarious, and it will stream on Netflix every weekday starting June
the 1st.
The move marks Netflix's latest push into live programming. It's also added NFL games and live comedy in its lineup.
We're joined now by entertainment journalist Michael Musto.
Michael, we wanted to get you on this because it is a shift, isn't it, for users. And the company is an experiment, or is this something really
strategic for Netflix, do you think?
MICHAEL MUSTO, ENTERTAINMENT JOURNALIST: Well, there's really a shift in late night talk shows, which well get to when we talk about Colbert, but I
think it's all realigning itself to adapt to the current landscape. Podcasts enter the picture. Everyone on earth except me has a podcast,
radio shows are hot again, and this is really a return to not late night, but a daytime live talk show. So it's different from a late night
television show.
And it's going to bring some interesting energy because they're going to talk about celebrity gossip, politics, opinions, dating news, the kinds of
things that everyone's interested in. I'm probably not hip enough to really listen to it, but, I think its going to be big and its a very smart move
for Netflix to go into that field more than they have.
FOSTER: Yeah, it's interesting, isn't it? I mean, you mentioned Stephen Colbert, the last broadcast on Thursday, right?
[15:40:06]
So, just explain to people outside America, what this means, you know, because a lot of people are going to tune in, as I understand. And then,
well, where he goes next.
MUSTO: Donald Trump hated Colbert because he attacked Donald Trump a lot. So Donald Trump advocated for him to be fired. We have no idea what the
back door manipulations were.
But sure enough, CBS announced that he was over and out the door, and he showed a lot of character, Colbert. He became a champion for First
Amendment free speech, which is essential to our democracy. And sure enough, he's going away.
Everyone has rallied behind him on the liberal side, all the other talk show hosts are having just reruns tonight so as not to compete with his
last show. I wouldn't be surprised if some of them want to really tick their bosses off and show up on Colbert show tonight.
We don't know who the guests are going to be, but he's been having people like Bruce Springsteen, David Byrne, David Letterman, everyone showing
support, and Colbert, I think, will maintain his sense of humor, which will get him through this very difficult new chapter in his career. He'll
probably end up on Netflix (ph).
FOSTER: Yeah, exactly, with a live show, perhaps. But, I mean, he is hugely popular, but there is this issue, isn't there, across all of those
talk shows that the ratings were on the way down as well. And they're expensive to run. So there was a bit of that involved here as well, right?
MUSTO: Well, CBS claims that it was strictly a financial decision to get rid of him. I'm not so sure about that. And I'm not sure of what other
factors factored in to the finances at play. But yes, it is kind of a diminishing field because everyone has a podcast, everyone is now going to
have a live daily show.
I think it's great. Andy Warhol said everyone's going to be famous for 15 minutes, but now that that's a reality, how do we sustain that
economically? I don't know, I'll do things for free. So it's not a problem for me.
FOSTER: Well, I'm waiting for your podcast, Michael. It's worth a go. You know, can't beat them. Join them. Thanks for joining us.
MUSTO: Thank you.
FOSTER: The World Cup now 21 days away. Still to come, we'll take a look at the unique challenges Iran's national football team is up against.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[15:45:31]
FOSTER: Now, members of Iran's football team, the national football team attended visa appointments in Turkey with about three weeks to go until the
men's world cup.
But there is still some uncertainty over whether they'll actually be able to play, given the war between their country and the tournament co-host,
the U.S.
Matias Grez has more.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
MATIAS GREZ, CNN CREATOR: Iran take part at the upcoming FIFA World Cup. That's been the question. Hanging over the Iranian national football team
ever since the us and Israel launched strikes on Tehran on February 28th. And with just three weeks to go until the start of the tournament, there
remains some uncertainty.
MATTIAS GRAFSTROM, FIFA SECRETARY GENERAL: Iran will play in the World Cup.
GREZ: This past weekend, FIFA Secretary General Mattias Grafstrom met with the Iranian Football Federation president in Turkey. Both said talks were
positive, but the team and delegation are yet to secure visas.
GRAFSTROM: I think we're working closely together and looking very much forward, welcoming them in the FIFA World Cup 2026 in USA, Canada and
Mexico.
GREZ: His words echo what FIFA President Gianni Infantino has been saying for months, that Iran will play at the World Cup. But despite those
assurances, there have been setbacks. Media reports said Iran's football association president, Mehdi Taj, was denied entry into Canada for the
annual FIFA congress due to his previous affiliation with Iran's Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps, which Canada lists as a terrorist entity. Taj
later denied this, saying he and his staff chose to leave after being held and questioned for three hours at the airport.
Iran also laid out conditions to ensure its participation in the World Cup. Chief among them allowing entry for all Iranian staff, including those with
a military background.
Then there is Trump, who has flip-flopped in his comments. During one of his social media sprees in mid-March, the U.S. president said the Iranian
team shouldn't travel to the us for their own life and safety. But a couple of weeks ago changed his tune and said, let them play.
TRUMP: I think let them play, right?
GREZ: And if Iran doesn't compete at the upcoming FIFA World Cup, just how damaging will that be for FIFAS and Infantino's reputation?
JAMES MONTAGUE, THE ATHLETIC: I think it's -- I think it's hugely damaging. I think it's -- it does put a shadow over the World Cup. This is
an expanded World Cup 48 team World Cup. So there's a lot of pressure on this World Cup being a success and having Asia's best team essentially not
going, because the person who you've given a peace award to has declared war and bombed and killed thousands of people in that country.
GREZ: How difficult is it for a team bearing in mind a very talented Iranian team, who many would expect to perhaps do quite well, be a dark
horse at the World Cup? How truly difficult is it for them just to focus on what they want to do on the pitch, when they have all of this going on
around them?
MONTAGUE: It's the biggest job that the coach has is to how to block out the noise. And recently I interviewed, Carlos Queiroz, who was coach of
Iran during this 2022 incident where, you know, before the England game, would they sing the national anthem, would they not? And, you know, for
him, it was -- he was trying to keep out the noise by making himself the story. That's how he described it.
But there was also, you know, you had you had the regime was in the dressing room. And its not like, people can make a decision and then go
back to their normal life. If you go out and say something against the regime, if you go out and say something, I'm not going to or make a
symbolic gesture, then you'll be punished. And not only will you be punished that your family could be punished as well. And I think there's
expectations or there has been expectations from people within Iran that these players have to represent, you know what theyre -- what theyre kind
of what they want to represent. And there's also what the government wants, which is for them to show strength on the international stage.
And those two elements, those two conflicting elements in many respects, I think are going to be there as well.
GREZ: This situation is unique. Never before has the host nation of a World Cup been at war with a participating nation. Iranians have also been
split on whether the team should compete, even if they are allowed. But for American Iranian soccer influencer Shauyan Noorfeshan, the answer is easy.
SHAUYAN NOORFESHAN, AMERICAN IRANIAN SOCCER INFLUENCER: I think this has been such an interesting topic that so many people have said, oh, Iran's
not going to play, Iran is going to play. I think Iran should play in the World Cup. It's just -- it's just cut and dry.
In my eyes is they qualified. They deserve to be there. They did what they had to do.
[15:50:00]
It's as simple as that.
GREZ: What do you see this team as representing?
NOORFESHAN: For me personally, I think the majority of this team represents the people. I mean, from the interactions I've had, I've been
fortunate enough to meet a handful of the players on this team, be able to speak to them on a personal level.
And I personally feel like theyre just like you and me right here on these cameras talking just football fans that are chasing their dreams. And I
think they feel everything that they feel. It's just -- sometimes in their line of work, you just have to, you know, play the football. And that's
just the way that they try to make people happy.
I think one iconic moment was the interview Ramin Rezaeian had after the game against Wales, where he said that goal, the goal I scored was for my
people in Iran. I know many of them are suffering and I think I resonated a lot with that.
And you can -- and you -- you've seen it in many instances in their games, like you referenced in the previous World Cup in 2022. How much of an
emotional toll it took on those players. So, all in all, I do feel like they do represent the people of Iran.
GREZ: Whether Iran takes to the pitch for its World Cup opener on June 16th remains to be seen. For FIFA, the decision could define the
tournament, but for millions of Iranians, the stakes may go far beyond football.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
FOSTER: The Trump administration is keeping the heat on Cuba. There is word that a U.S. aircraft carrier and other warships have arrived in the
Caribbean, not far from Cuba.
Today, U.S. Secretary of State Marco Rubio spoke about the possibility of regime change. Rubio said the U.S. prefers diplomatic negotiations, but he
didn't rule out military action.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
MARCO RUBIO, SECRETARY OF STATE: Cuba not only has weapons that they've acquired from Russia and China over the years, but they also host Russia
and Chinese intelligence presence in their country, not far from where we're standing right now. So, Cuba has always posed a national security
threat to the United States.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
FOSTER: Rubio's comments came a day after the U.S. indicted Cuba's former leader, Raul Castro, on charges that include murder. China voiced criticism
of the indictment, saying the U.S. needs to stop threatening Cuba and abusing the judicial process.
But the indictment is incredibly popular among the Cuban expat community in Florida.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
UNIDENTIFIED MALE (through translator): We have the perfect administration to make a definitive decision because you don't negotiate with communists.
Communists have no way of dialoging other than with arms. The proof is in Venezuela and the proof is in Iran.
[15:55:02]
With communists, you always have to deal with them as they act themselves to the extreme. They have been the ones who have sown terror in the world.
They are the main violators of all the rights of United Nations agreements.
And now they want to present themselves as if they are the victims. No, they are not a constitutional government. They are outlaws. They are
criminals who took over the nation and have turned it to dust.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
FOSTER: Finally, tonight, a record number of climbers scaling Mount Everest in a single day, 274 people reached the peak. The previous high of
223 people were set in May 2019. The route on the Nepali side of the mountain attracts heavy crowds in May. The weather conditions are pretty
favorable, as you can see.
In recent years, many climbers have complained of overcrowding, with reports of queues up to the top in an area known as the Death Zone.
I'm Max Foster. That's WHAT WE KNOW. Do stay with CNN.
END
TO ORDER VIDEOTAPES AND TRANSCRIPTS OF CNN INTERNATIONAL PROGRAMMING, PLEASE CALL 800-CNN-NEWS
