Return to Transcripts main page

Anderson Cooper 360 Degrees

Supreme Court Backs Up Trump's Order to Curb Mail Ballots; Interview with Sen. Chris Murphy (D-CT); Bessent Announces Sustained Financial Operation Against Iran; Trump Again Calls WH Ballroom A "Military Complex"; Washington Post: Secret WH Bunker Undercuts Trump's Ballroom Lawsuit, Ex-Officials Say; "Like Hell": Deported From U.S. To One Of World's Most Dangerous Countries; Meta Trial Enters Week Two, Accused Of Addictive Social Media; Body Believed To Be Wife Of Murdered Police Officer Found Dead After Nearly Weeklong Manhunt For Her. Aired 8-9p ET

Aired August 24, 2026 - 20:00   ET

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

JULIETTE KAYYEM, CNN SENIOR NATIONAL SECURITY ANALYST: There's noxious, materials and liquids, but obviously they could leave something behind that would be dangerous to pedestrians or street.

SHIMON PROKUPECZ, CNN SENIOR CRIME AND JUSTICE CORRESPONDENT: Shimon Prokupecz, CNN, New York.

(END VIDEO TAPE)

ERIN BURNETT, CNN HOST: Obviously, just sort of unsettling to imagine something like that able to happen and even go down right next to Penn Station in New York City. Thanks so much to Shimon and thanks so much to all of you as always for joining us. We'll see you tomorrow, AC360 begins right now.

[20:00:32]

ANDERSON COOPER, CNN HOST, "ANDERSON COOPER: 360": Good evening, thanks for joining us. We begin tonight with the Supreme Court ruling that could inject some turmoil into the midterm elections a bit more than two months from now.

In short, it is a win for the President on a big issue for him. Mail- in voting. Today's emergency ruling says he can go forward with his recent executive order directing the Postal Service and Department of Homeland Security to take part in deciding who can or cannot vote by mail.

A group of Democratic led states challenged the order, contending that it infringes on their constitutionally granted authority to administer elections. A district court agreed and blocked it.

Now, a six to three divided court has lifted that injunction. As is typical with the emergency docket, the order was unsigned, with the six conservatives in the majority. Notably does not speak to the underlying constitutionality of the executive order. Only the timing of the challenge to it, the majority said states challenging the President's executive order could not show they were harmed by voting rules, which were not in effect yet.

Quoting now, "The court's disposition of this application does not mean that any measure taken by the government to implement the order will necessarily be lawful, on that score, time will tell." The court's three liberal justices dissented, with Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson writing that the ruling, quote, needlessly injects chaos and uncertainty into the upcoming midterm elections.

As you know, mail-in voting has been a longstanding issue for the President and a long running talking point.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

DONALD TRUMP (R) PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: Mail-in voting, which is so crooked. Mail-in ballots are inherently corrupt. Mail-in voting means mail-in cheating. I call it mail-in cheating. And we got to do something about it.

Mail-in ballots are a big fraud. You'll never have an honest election if you have mail-in.

COOPER: Well, keeping them honest though. Study after study and election after election has shown nearly zero level of voter fraud, whether in person or by mail. Certainly, nothing has impacted the results of a Presidential or congressional election.

The President's own attorney general said so after the 2020 election. If the President doesn't believe that, then why does he vote in Florida's elections by mail, including this year? Here's how he explained it back in March.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

TRUMP: Tell me about mail-in ballots, go ahead. You may not use the mail-in ballot you're probably saying, I did. Why did you? You know what? Because I'm President of the United States and because of the fact that I'm President of the United States, I did a mail in ballot for elections that took place in Florida because I felt I should be here instead of being, in the beautiful sunshine, taking.

REPORTER: But you are in Palm beach over the last few weekends.

TRUMP: That's right and I, and I've decided that I was going to vote by mail-in ballot because I couldn't be there, because I had a lot of different things.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

COOPER: A lot of ground to cover on this. CNN's Kaitlan Collins starts us off. Obviously, a big win for the President. What are you hearing from the White House?

KAITLAN COLLINS, CNN'S CHIEF WHITE HOUSE CORRESPONDENT AND THE ANCHOR OF "THE SOURCE": So far, the President himself has not actually responded to this, Anderson, which is pretty surprising given it's been a couple of hours since this ruling came down. But we've spoken to officials. They're happy about this.

They want to see the Presidents executive order go into effect, even though some of them have acknowledged and arguments and conversations. You know, the difficulty in actually implementing this, should it go forward.

And right now, it's still not even clear if that's going to happen, because, yes, the Supreme Court is ruling for now that key parts of this executive order can move forward. But in terms of legal challenges, they know that they are going to face potentially as soon as tomorrow. That is certainly something that's on the table.

And it's also a real question of actually implementing it with ten weeks to go before the Midterm elections, because there's two key parts of this.

One of it has to do with the post office actually sending out mail-in ballots to people that the White House and the administration believes are eligible to vote. That's still tied up in another case and this moment, we don't really know how the judge is going to rule there. But the other part of this, the proponent of this, Anderson, is dealing with the Department of Homeland Security and having a matching list with these states in terms of people that they believe are eligible to cast their ballots in November and in future elections.

And so, it's not really clear what that's going to look like in addition to the resources of all of this. And so really, what this is, is part of the administration's wider effort to try to rein in mail-in voting, something that the President, obviously, as you just heard, there, has been hot on for a big part of his political career, even though he himself votes by mail, a lot of Republicans want their voters to vote by mail because they live in rural areas. They're increasingly older voters.

And so, all of that is something that is at play here. But really, the question for this is clarity for the states in terms of actually administering these elections in just a few weeks from now. And what that's going to look like. And of course, the other part of this is the President has been pushing for the Save America Act, which right now is not getting passed in Washington, certainly not any time soon, is what the President himself is going to say, should the midterms not go his party's way in just a few weeks from now.

[20:05:20]

COOPER: Yes, Kaitlan, thanks. We'll see you at the top of the hour for "The Source".

Joining us now is former federal prosecutor and CNN legal senior legal analyst Elie Honig.

So, Elie Supreme Court didn't rule on the legality of the executive order. Can you just explain what this means, how we got here?

ELIE HONIG, CNN SENIOR LEGAL ANALYST: Right, Anderson, so this goes back to an executive order that the President issued in March that really does two major things. First, it tells DHS you have to put together these state citizenship lists. It doesn't specify how, but it basically says you put together for each state a list of everyone who's 18 or over and a U.S. citizen and hence eligible to vote, then send those lists over to the states and prioritize prosecution of any state official who sends a ballot to someone who's ineligible.

The second thing the order does is tell the postal service you are not to deliver any mail-in ballots to or from anyone who is not on those state lists. Now, 23 states, plus D.C. all sued to block this. They basically said it is our constitutional prerogative as states to run our own election. This is the federal executive branch trying to infringe on that. And the states won in the lower courts.

But today, the U.S. Supreme Court said this lawsuit is premature. There has been no actual concrete harm yet. Were still at a fairly early stage, and therefore the states don't have standing to bring this lawsuit yet.

So, it's a win for the Trump administration, but a temporary one.

COOPER: So, when would it go into effect, and would it impact the midterms or just future elections beyond this year?

HONIG: So, with respect to the 2026 midterms, in a word chaos. That's what Justice Jackson says in her dissent. Think about all the things that have to happen in the next 71 days between now and the midterms. DHS has to put together these lists. There's no indication they've even started doing that. That's a massive task.

The Postal Service has to put out a rule on how they're going to carry this out. Again, they've only just started doing that. The states have to figure out how they're going to comply with all this. And in the meantime, there's going to be ongoing litigation.

So, I think there's real questions, as Kaitlan was just saying, about whether this can realistically get implemented in time for midterms. But importantly, no matter what happens in 2026, this could well be in effect for 2028. So, it's not clear how it's going to affect the midterms. But if it goes into effect, then the next Presidential election is in play as well.

COOPER: So for states to appeal, do eligible voters have to be thrown off the voter rolls before the states can prove this will throw eligible people off the voter rolls?

HONIG: So that's the ultimate harm that I think states would have to show. But of course, you wouldn't necessarily know that until after the midterms. I think that this is going to be ongoing even in the next few days. For example, one thing that has happened is on Friday, the postal service formally issued their rule explaining how they're going to do this.

And I think just the issuance of that rule could give the parties enough to go back into court and say, okay, now we've gone from an executive order to an actual rule. Now the harms are more concrete. So, watch for this to keep going. There are various lawsuits. I don't think it's over. I think various parties are going to say, as we get closer and closer to the election, now we can show harm. We'll see if the courts find that it's enough harm.

COOPER: The elections clause of the constitution reads in part, "The times, places and manner of holding elections for senators and representatives shall be prescribed in each state by the legislature thereof. It goes on to say Congress can alter regulations. It does not mention the President. So how does the supreme court square that with the executive order.?

HONIG: And that's by design. The founders did not want to give the chief executive any power over elections. This is exactly the argument that the states made. This is exactly the argument that the dissenting, the three liberal justices said. They said this running of elections is up to the states or Congress. Theres no role for the President. Theres no role for the executive branch. The majority today says, well, all the President is doing is he's giving orders to his own federal executive branch agencies. That sort of overlooks, what's the practical effect of all this?

But for now, the supreme court has taken a procedural off ramp, and they haven't had to wrestle with that issue fully. Given that they've said this is premature. But you're right. That ultimately is the constitutional question here.

COOPER: Elie Honig thanks very much.

Joining us now is Democratic Senator Chris Murphy of Connecticut. His state, I should point out, is part of the suit that the Supreme Court ruled on today.

So, Senator Murphy, Connecticut is part of the, as I said, the coalition of the states that filed the suit. Is there going to be time to implement a major overhaul of voting rules ahead of this year's midterm elections?

SEN. CHRIS MURPHY (D-CT): Yes, I doubt there will be but as Elie just said, this is also a threat for 2028 as well. So, you got to pay attention to it no matter what happens in the next couple of months. I mean, listen, let's just back up and understand what's happening here.

This President is more and more unpopular every single day. The economy is a disaster. Gas prices are going up; he continues to mismanage this war in Iran that's making us less safe. It's the most corrupt White House in the history of the country. He's just stealing from American citizens every single day. People are ultimately going to go to jail for that.

[20:10:26]

But in the meantime, he can't win this election. His party can't win this election if it's fair and square. So, he's trying to cheat. He's trying to, you know, just muddle up the rules so that people will choose not to vote or in the worst case, have their votes invalidated. But I actually think he underestimates the American public. I mean, what we've seen is that when Trump tries to take away people's right to the polls, they come out in bigger numbers. So, no matter what happens between now and November, I think the American public aren't going to be dissuaded from registering their opinion on a President that is just more and more unpopular every single day.

COOPER: At this point, I mean, do Democratic states have any other options but to go along with these potentially new restrictions, if they want the Postal Service to deliver mail-in ballots?

MURPHY: Well, as you said, the Supreme Court very specifically didn't rule on the merits. And so, there are going to be lawsuits that I assume will move very quickly through the court system. So, the courts can decide on the merits. And the merits, I think are pretty clear here. The United States postal service essentially can't substitute for states when it comes to the setting of voting rules. So in pretty confident that in the end, these rules don't go into effect and states are going to proceed. Connecticut is going to proceed as we normally would in allowing people who are eligible to vote by mail.

COOPER: In your view, what is the harm in the Department of Homeland Security creating a list of eligible voters?

MURPHY: Well, ultimately, Trump doesn't want people to vote, and he's going to be very selective about who he doesn't want to vote. He doesn't want people who are more likely to vote for Democrats to vote. And so, you know, he's going to instruct the Department of Homeland Security or the Postal Service, potentially to remove people from the voter rolls or to profile people for removal from the voter rolls that are more likely to vote for Democrats.

For instance, people who live in cities, I mean, I don't think there's any secret about it. Trump is going to use whatever power he has available to him to make himself rich. He's going to use whatever power he has available to him to try to steal the election. Now, he's not going to get away with stealing the election because the law is still on our side. And I think the people are just going to come out in bigger numbers. But that's the real fear, is that he's going to be very selective in who he tries to disqualify from voting.

Again, I don't think it ever goes into effect, but that's clearly the danger. I also saw read that he has nominated and filled in some vacant seats on the board of governors for the Postal Service. Do you worry about him essentially trying to kind of influence the postal service?

MURPHY: Well, he's already got his guy in charge, a corporate ally of his, you know, he's obviously going to pack the postal service with people that are favorable to him. So yes, we certainly worry about the politicization of the postal service, something I don't think any of us thought we needed to worry about a couple of years ago. But again, this is just a sign of his desperation. You know, he's tried to redistrict the House

He didn't get away with it, in part because democrats fought back. He tried to come up with a plan to put soldiers in the polls, and the Supreme Court told him he couldn't do it. He wants to Save Act passed to set up a National Voter Registry. Congress won't pass it. Democrats are stopping it. So now he's left to do this weird postal service thing. It's a sign that his options to try to limit people's right to vote are becoming narrower and narrower. That's good news for our democracy not bad news.

COOPER: I want to get your reaction to the Treasury Secretary, Scott Bessent, threatening new sanctions on Iran today. The administration has heralded as an economic D-Day. Is that what today was, in your view?

MURPHY: Well, it's a sign that the President has lost the war militarily, and he's admitting that none of his objectives have been fulfilled. Iran's regime is stronger than ever. They're perfectly intact. They still have their missiles, their nuclear program, their drones. They can harass and attack us anytime they want. So, he's basically admitted that he can't win this war militarily, which is a disaster. And now he's sort of faking these new sanctions campaign.

[20:15:06]

He's faking it because we basically already sanctioned everything that we can. The only thing left to do would be essentially to declare a new trade war with China, to try to get China to stop buying Iran's oil, because Iran's economy will stay afloat if China continues to buy Iran's oil.

But the President doesn't seem and Bessent doesn't seem willing to do even that. So, this appears to be just kind of rhetoric to make it look like he's still fighting the war, even though the war is basically already lost. it's certainly lost militarily. And, well, if China continues to buy Iran's oil, which it looks like they'll continue to do, then you can't really deliver a death blow to the Iranian economy either. So just a lot of bluster amidst a growing incompetently run war that's hurting Americans.

COOPER: Senator Murphy, I appreciate your time. Thank you. Coming up next, we have more on this D-day pressure campaign with Iranian officials have just said about it a new attack on shipping in the gulf, why the Presidents own top economic official said that following through on some of what the administration is threatening could blow up the global financial system, his words.

Later why one of the President's loudest arguments now for building his ballroom, namely, the bunker being built underneath it may be undermined by what's already down there under the White House. We'll be right back.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[20:20:51]

COOPER: When and allied forces hit the beaches of Normandy on June 6th, 1944, their D-day assault on German forces wasn't surrounded by trash talk and potentially empty threats. The same could not be said for what the administration billed as an economic D-Day for Iran. We touched on this with Senator Murphy before the break. He said the war is tragically basically over, and this is, in his words, window dressing. The President started things off with a post this morning which reads in all caps. Iran is completely collapsing.

A short time later, several photos of him in Kim Jong Un followed with no text and no explanation. Just a digression. Perhaps the main course was delivered by Scott Bessent, his treasury secretary. He laid out sanctions on more than 60 entities and individuals and vessels that he says allow Iran to obtain nuclear and missile technology.

He also threatened damaging new sanctions on countries that refuse to cut economic ties with Iran, threatened, but stopped short of actually imposing them. Then, when asked why not, Secretary Bessent suggested that actually following through could be globally disruptive.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

REPORTER: You described this as an economic D-day, but D-day wasn't a threat of an invasion, and the U.S. didn't give a timeline to Germany, so why not impose the sanctions today?

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

SCOTT BESSENT, U.S. TREASURY SECRETARY: Well, we are giving everyone the opportunity to remedy bad behavior. Why would I want to blow up the global financial system?

(END VIDEO CLIP)

COOPER: Secretary Bessent's Iranian counterpart tonight is brushing off the sanctions and threats of war, saying, "apparently the U.S. Has now decided to try another failure."

Just moments ago, British maritime tracking organization reported that an oil tanker was hit and disabled by some sort of projectile off the coast of Oman. The ship's engine rooms damaged, but the crew was said to be safe.

Some perspective now joining us, CNN global affairs analyst Karim Sadjadpour and CNN global economic analyst Rana Foroohar.

Karim, Senator Murphy posted on social media earlier today. I want to read what he said. He said, the bottom line, Trump lost the military campaign and now he's desperate. So, in his humiliating defeat, he's selling this fake economic pressure to keep up the impression were still fighting. But the war is basically over. Tragically, Iran won. This is all window dressing. Is that how you see it?

KARIM SADJADPOUR, CNN GLOBAL AFFAIRS ANALYST: I see it a little differently, Anderson. Certainly, the United States has not won this war, but nor would I say Iran has been a great victor either. This is a country battling now 70 percent inflation, triple digit inflation. When it comes to food items, it's one of the most isolated countries in the world, both politically and economically. It's population largely despises it And so, over the last 47 years, since the 1979 revolution, this regime has really only compromised on two occasions. In 1988, when it ended the Iran-Iraq war and then the 2015 nuclear deal. And it's been when it's faced almost existential economic pressure, coupled with a clear diplomatic exit.

So, I think what the Trump administration is trying to do now is ramp up that economic pressure. But we don't see any signs that they have a clear diplomatic strategy in mind.

COOPER: Rana, to the announcement from Bessent today, China imports up to 90 percent of the oil Iran exports. When asked if China would be affected by the measures, Bessent said, no, no one is above this are they going to penalize China?

RANA FOROOHAR, CNN GLOBAL ECONOMIC ANALYST: Well, I mean, you know, it's interesting that both in his in his speech, but also in the FTT op ed that recently he avoided using the word China because nobody wants to say, yes, you know, China should be affected if were really going to keep these sanctions airtight. That's exactly what needs to happen.

You know, the question is, is this really something that is going to take on head on with China? Is it going to risk a Taiwan confrontation? Is it going to risk, you know, in the midst of an A.I. battle, a big fight with China right now? And also, why weren't these sanctions put in advance of any kind of military action?

I mean, I think it really all just makes the Presidents strategy look quite weak. And, you know, although the point is taken that Iran is in a very difficult place economically, there's a, you know, there's a saying in parts of the Middle East that the West has the watches we have the time. And I think that that is very true of the Iranian regime.

[20:25:14]

COOPER: Karim, do you think it's likely that the Trump administration is going to go after China on this?

SADJADPOUR: That is the most important question as Rana laid out, Anderson, to really strangle Iran economically, as Scott Bessent laid out, would require a confrontation with China, because Iran is almost wholly reliant on China economically, 90 percent of its oil exports go to China. So, that is the big question. The other question is, what will the United States do if Iran makes good on its threats to retaliate against energy installations throughout the Gulf?

They've threatened to do that. They've learned from this war that you don't win concessions from the United States by, by taking a step backward, you have to throw punches back. And, you know, we, we want to launch this new phase of economic warfare against Iran, but Iran gets a vote in how it responds to it.

COOPER: I mean, Bessent says, you know, he's concerned about blowing up the global financial system. Is that a real risk, in your view here?

FOROOHAR: Well, you know, in a way, were already on a slow burn trajectory towards that. I mean, you know, another part of this story is that the U.S. bond market is under tremendous pressure right now. Iran is by no means the only financial fight that the U.S. is waging.

The Treasury Department is having to go in and prop up the U.S. Bond market because foreign investors are less interested in U.S. treasuries. They're less interested in the dollar. There's concerns over how the administration has been handling finances.

So, it's a very odd time from my perspective, for Bessent to be adding on and for this administration to be adding on, uh, potential conflict essentially with, with China, because that's the major economic actor that would be penalized if you really want to crack down on Iran at a time when there are fewer buyers of U.S. treasuries, the dollar is under pressure, and were already having trouble with, basically people feeling less confident about the U.S. economy, it's not a great combination.

COOPER: Karim, Iran's main economic weapon has been essentially shutting down the Strait of Hormuz. What other tools for retaliation could you see them employing?

SADJADPOUR: Well, as I mentioned, Anderson, they've threatened to go after their neighbors. These, Persian Gulf oil producers to spike the price of oil. But indeed, as you said, Iran's main economic and defense policy is controlling the Strait of Hormuz. And, um, I think we can we should be expecting them to not take an economic warfare plan, sitting down, sitting on their hands. I think they will plan to retaliate. And this will require sustained pressure, sustained focus from President Trump and sustained diplomacy and those are two things he hasn't yet exhibited over the last six or seven months.

COOPER: Yes. Karim Sadjadpour, Rana Foroohar, I appreciate it very much. Thank you.

Coming up next, the President's latest argument that he needs the ballroom for the new bunker that will go underneath it, and some new reporting about a bunker that already exists under the White House.

And later, the Trump administration is now deporting migrants, some of whom have been legally spared from being sent back to their home countries out of fears for their safety to one of the most dangerous countries on earth.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: How are you all doing here?

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Doing here? Like hell.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Like hell.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Yes!

(END VIDEO CLIP)

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[20:30:00]

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[20:33:37]

ANDERSON COOPER, CNN ANCHOR: The President today again touted his ballroom construction in the White House and linked it to the building of an underground bunker that the administration has described as critical to national security.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

DONALD TRUMP (R), PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: As you know over there, we're building a military complex and a ballroom that will be second to none anywhere in the world. The great structure that's rising right next to the White House and that's going to be the ballroom/military complex. It's incredible.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

COOPER: According to the Washington Post, the White House already has a secret underground bunker. The Post says the current facility is buried more than 60 feet under the White House complex. It can withstand a nuclear blast and provides the President and his staff a secure place to shelter during a national security emergency. Despite that, the administration has argued in court that the ballroom is, quote, "absolutely required for the President's safety as he faces increasing threats from foreign adversaries and terrorists."

Joining me now is one of the reporters on the byline of the Washington Post article, Noah Robertson. So, what other details did you learn about this secret bunker under the White House? And to be clear, like a lot of national security reporters, you withheld certain details. You didn't disclose everything, I assume.

NOAH ROBERTSON, NATIONAL SECURITY REPORTER, WASHINGTON POST: Yes, Anderson, we did disclose everything just out of deference to the White House's security protocols and the ability to maintain those. But generally, what we reported is that the White House does have another bunker already underground and completed during the Obama administration.

This one, like you said, was built to be incredibly hardened for the administration of any party to make sure that they could have continuity of government in case of a national emergency, say like an attack on Washington to include an attack from a weapon of mass destruction.

[20:35:15]

This is built more than 60 feet underground and made to stand up against a range of emergencies so that if there was something, there would be no risk to the ability for America to govern.

COOPER: So what does the new construction or what is being proposed the -- what they're calling the military facility underground, what does that have that this bunker doesn't have? Do we know?

ROBERTSON: Well, the administration has made some of these arguments in private. They've had classified annexes to the Supreme Court and to other courts they've submitted in order to make this case. But broadly in public, they've argued that the new facility is necessary as a military complex.

You hear the President quoting that directly, calling it both a ballroom and a military complex. They've described this as an ability to really upgrade the existing facilities of the White House to have a hardened outer layer in the ballroom that would then protect the underground layer that itself is supposed to go more than five stories deep.

You would then have more office space and also coordinating cells with the administration to plan and then continue functioning if there were an attack on Washington. The officials who have spoken to us, though, have questioned what the new facility has that the old one, the existing one, does not.

COOPER: So there may be redundancy that exists between the two?

ROBERTSON: Well, the argument that they make is that if the President needs a place to shelter in case of an emergency, that that facility has already been constructed. That this was completed more than a decade ago and it was prepared to withstand, I mean, really some of the most serious threats that the administration could face.

The other thing that these former officials have told us is that there was a very different construction process, the old one versus the new one. You see the White House ballroom complex right now being built out in the open in large part. The White House says it's 65 feet -- 65 percent completed already, but it was done with the ability for foreign adversaries and really the public to be able to see through satellite imagery what is being built, potentially gaining access to sort of sensitive secrets that were supposed to exist without ever a foreign government being able to see those.

The old facility was built almost entirely in secret. We report that even congressional leaders, people who are very senior, were not aware of this for much of the time that it was being completed. And it's one of the most sensitive facilities that exists in the U.S. government.

COOPER: Wow. Noah Robertson, I really appreciate the reporting. Thank you so much. Appreciate it.

ROBERTSON: Thank you.

COOPER: Up next, the U.S. is now deporting migrants to a country that's considered so dangerous the State Department says Americans should never travel to. And if they have to, they advise leaving behind a DNA sample to be identified by. And later, an update on Meta's latest legal fight as it again faces accusations of creating addictive social media for children and teens. What's happening in court today, coming up.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[20:43:00]

COOPER: As part of the Trump administration's immigration policy, they've been ramping up so-called third-country deportation, sending migrants out of America to countries other than their own, often because the U.S. court has already ruled it's too dangerous for them to be sent to their home countries.

In June, ICE sent their first deportation flight to the Central African Republic, or CAR for short. It's considered one of the most dangerous countries on Earth. CNN's Isobel Yeung headed there to investigate.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: I was so scared. I was crying, and I said, I'm not going out.

ISOBEL YEUNG, CNN INTERNATIONAL CORRESPONDENT (voice-over): Asena (ph) thought she'd find safety in the U.S. She says she fled Turkey after facing death threats. But then she became one of thousands that the Trump administration has deported.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: First, my hands, and with my belly like this, and my foot.

YEUNG: So they handcuffed you and shackled you?

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Yes. Yes.

YEUNG: And you still didn't know where you were going?

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: I don't know where I'm going to. I said, where we are going, tell me. And he said, I don't know, maybe Central Africa. And I was in shock.

YEUNG: Have you ever heard of Central African Republic before?

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: No.

YEUNG: So we are here in Bangui, in the Central African Republic, trying to find out what happened with this ICE deportation flight that took place this summer going from the U.S. to here. We know that this flight happened in the shadows of secrecy. As far as we know, no one apart from U.N. agencies has managed to meet with these migrants. So we're here trying to track them down.

YEUNG (voice-over): At 8:58 p.m. on June 11th, 18 migrants from all over the world were brought to Alexandria Airport, Louisiana. They say they were handcuffed and shackled. Several claim they were severely beaten.

Two of the migrants say they were forced into a full-body restraint, like the one seen here in a demo video. A U.S. official called the allegation a flat-out lie and denied anyone was beaten. The maker of one such restraint said it's a last-resort tool intended to promote safety and prevent escalation.

Nearly 20 hours later, after a refueling stop, the plane touched down in Bangui, Central African Republic.

[20:45:05]

YEUNG: Maybe I can just start with, where are you from originally?

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: I'm from Georgia.

YEUNG: You're from Georgia?

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Yes.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Egypt.

YEUNG: Egypt.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Afghanistan.

YEUNG: Afghanistan.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Iraq.

YEUNG: Iraq.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Jordan.

YEUNG: Jordan. So, all different countries.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Yes.

YEUNG: How are you all doing here?

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Doing here? Like hell.

YEUNG: Like hell?

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Yes. No internet, no electric, too much of mosquito. Everybody have malaria.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE (through translation): The police detained us and then demanded money from us. Since that day, we have not left the building.

YEUNG (voice-over): The U.S. State Department warns people do not travel here for risk of kidnapping and terrorism, and advises those who must to leave behind a DNA sample so they can be identified by their family. YEUNG: A lot of the migrants have told us that they are terrified to be here. And you can understand why. I mean, this is a country where there's been an ongoing civil war that's still taking place. But even here in Bangui, there's very high rates of violence, very high rates of criminality, and very high rates of, you know, these armed groups operating here.

YEUNG (voice-over): I asked the police about the migrants' claims that they are part of the problem.

YEUNG: Some of the migrants here that I've spoken to say that, when they go outside, the police stop them and ask them for cash and threaten them.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE (through translation): No, no, those police officers are checking who those people are. I don't believe they're asking them for money.

YEUNG (voice-over): Very little is known about what terms the CAR government agreed to with the U.S. But what we do know is that, on May 18th, just one month before the first deportation flight, State Department diplomats traveled here to meet with the President.

For the past decade, the U.S. has given just a few million dollars per year to the U.N. Migration Agency IOM's operations in CAR. But this year, that figure shot up to $85 million. An additional $50 million was committed to the CAR Humanitarian Fund.

We asked the IOM about the money they're receiving. They did not respond to our specific questions, but told us that "IOM has a longstanding presence in the CAR and they're receiving funding from a range of donors." But this is at a time when the Trump administration has been slashing billions of dollars in foreign assistance.

YEUNG: We have been trying to get a hold of any U.S. officials to talk about what's been happening and why and how they've sent these migrants here, because they are ultimately the ones responsible. I mean, the State Department have emailed back saying."

As a policy, we do not discuss diplomatic negotiations or funding mechanisms." And the U.S. Embassy staff have not been replying to us. But we're going to try and knock on the door just to see if they answer.

So we just have some questions about the migrants that were brought here.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: All questions have to go to them. I'm not authorized to answer any questions.

YEUNG: All right. And is there anyone else we can contact at the U.S. Embassy?

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: At Bangui PD at state.gov the email I gave you.

YEUNG: Who are just going to ignore us and pretend that email never came. All right. Thank you.

YEUNG: Eventually, the State Department did get back to us. They did not reply to any of our detailed questions, but said "The U.S. will use foreign assistance to support countries that help us achieve our immigration priorities." It's a tacit admission that the money is tied to the deportations.

The U.S. government does have a responsibility towards these migrants. Most of those we spoke to here have protection orders from American judges, stopping the government from sending them to their home countries, where they're likely to face persecution, torture or death.

FIDELE GOUANDJIKA, SPECIAL ADVISER TO THE PRESIDENT OF CAR: Hello, hello.

YEUNG (voice-over): Fidele Gouandjika is a special adviser to the CAR's President. He also hosts a local radio show.

YEUNG: As you know, nothing happens in this country without a little sweetener. It's a little bit difficult to believe that zero money was given by the U.S. to Central African Republic. I mean, this is one of the most corrupt countries in the world, as you know.

GOUANDJIKA (through translation): I do not believe the government could be corrupt. I would not want to think for a single second that the Americans or Donald Trump are acting as corruptors.

YEUNG (voice-over): For Gouandjika, what's happened to these migrants is a sign of American cruelty.

YEUNG: When a powerful country like the U.S. comes knocking and asking for this help, is it difficult for a country like yours to refuse?

GOUANDJIKA (through translation): What saddens me about the United States, a superpower with all the resources could keep these migrants there and they send them here to us instead. The United States is a superpower, but it is a power without a good heart.

[20:50:02]

YEUNG (voice-over): Perhaps most concerning of all are those who have nowhere left to run to, like this young pro-democracy activist from Iran, who says she faced possible execution for partaking in protests. Initially, she was overjoyed when she arrived in the U.S.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: I was too much happy. The America, one of the best country in the world. And I say, it's OK. Now, I'm safe and I can make a new life here. I know if I -- I was in Iran, they going to kill me.

YEUNG (voice-over): Earlier this year, Trump himself encouraged Iranians to keep protesting, promising help is on the way.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Every time I think they're going to protect me, but American not protect me. When they send me here, really I lose my hope again. YEUNG (voice-over): Isobel Yeung, CNN, Central African Republic.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

COOPER: An extended version of Isobel's report will be available on CNN All Access tomorrow morning, beginning at 9:00 a.m. Eastern.

Up next for us tonight, the latest legal fight over children's safety and social media that could change how Mark Zuckerberg's Meta social media platforms operate.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[20:55:58]

COOPER: A lawsuit accusing Meta of creating addictive social media platforms for children and teens entered its second week today in federal court in Oakland, California. A lawsuit against the company that runs Instagram and Facebook was filed by 29 state attorneys general.

Meta estimates the states could potentially seek up to $1.4 trillion in damages. Several Meta executives, including CEO Mark Zuckerberg, are expected to be called to testify. The company calls the allegations unsubstantiated and says the states have, quote, "decided to chase an outlandish payout."

CNN Contributor and Technology Journalist Jake Ward was at the courthouse today. He joins us now. He's the founder of TheRipCurrent.com.

Jake, you've been there throughout this. Can you just talk about what the most damning or impactful evidence has been thus far?

JACOB WARD, CNN CONTRIBUTOR: Well, the hardest thing, Anderson, with this, right, has been being outside a company as secretive as Meta. And all tech companies keep their secrets close. But now, because of the discovery that this trial makes possible, we're seeing all kinds of internal research and we're hearing from internal people.

So the star witness for the states is a guy named Arturo Bejar, who basically ran Facebook safety for a time, then worked on well-being at Instagram. He met with Zuckerberg, he says, over 100 times. And he says essentially that Meta was measuring harm pretty accurately inside its walls, but publicly giving us very different numbers, which is pretty much at the heart of what the states are saying here.

He wrote a long letter, sort of a desperate final plea, as he put it, to Mark Zuckerberg on the day that Zuckerberg was responding to a big whistleblower situation. And he basically tried to lay out, you know, this is the problem. Fifty percent of kids are having a bad experience every seven days.

What are we going to do? And he said he never got a response. And at that point, he said, quote -- he realized, quote, "You just cannot trust Mark Zuckerberg with kids." So very damning evidence there. COOPER: Wow. Today, a former Instagram data scientist testified about what happened when the safety team tried to implement changes. What did he say?

WARD: Well, he said, you know, Meta has often said that they put lots and lots of people and lots and lots of resources toward this problem. But what George Volichenko, a former data scientist there, said was that basically every idea they had would be, quote, "whittled down to a pebble that made no real difference."

They said that they tried to make certain safety settings a default, but were told that they shouldn't do that because it would affect engagement and the numbers. And then he said that essentially he quit the job because he was told that this is more or less that his work in safety was more or less just legal cover for upcoming lawsuits. And so it's this stuff from inside that I think is really so powerful here.

I'll just say, Anderson, you know, I just feel like there's a thing I want to bounce off of here, which is that I feel like we have all been talking in this sort of open and abstract way about like something being wrong with the social media era. And I think the thing that has been so powerful about listening to these insiders talk is to understand that there is, in fact, a name for it.

And, in fact, there are experts who've been measuring it. And now at the, you know, end of this trial, there could, in fact, be a price established and it could be hundreds of billions of dollars.

COOPER: Meta says it takes teen safety seriously. A former top safety chief also testified under oath saying that that's not true. What is Meta's argument, essentially?

WARD: Well, Meta is trying to cast doubt on the scientific connection between social media and the trouble with mental health that we're seeing in this country. They're using a playbook that we've seen in lawsuits around cigarettes, in lawsuits around climate change. And in all of those cases, all they really have to do is try and insert the idea into the jury's mind that this isn't settled science.

But one expert that spoke on the stand today was really called upon to basically try and defend the whole idea of science, which is that you never reach a 100 percent conclusion. You're just trying to prove that something isn't wrong over time. And so there's this doubt that they're trying to inject into it. We'll see how far that gets them, Anderson.

COOPER: All right. Jake Ward, appreciate it. Thank you.

One final note tonight on a nearly week-long manhunt after the killing of a Massachusetts police officer named Kurt Solomon. His wife, Karen, was suspected of the crime, considered armed and dangerous. This is doorbell camera footage of her last Tuesday just minutes after police responded to the call.

Today, the search for her ended. Police say they found what they believe to be her body in the woods not far from where the video was taken. A gun was found nearby, and police are now calling the entire incident a murder-suicide.

That's it for us. Thanks for watching. The news continues. I'll see you tomorrow night. The Source with Kaitlan Collins starts now.