Return to Transcripts main page

The Lead with Jake Tapper

Justices Consider Key Immigration Case And Power Of Courts; Supreme Courts Hears Arguments On Birthright Citizenship; Supreme Court Considers Whether Lower Courts Can Block Trump's Order Ending Birthright Citizenship; Senate Democrats Question Hegseth On Qatar Jet Security Risks; Combs Defense Turns To Tough Cross-Examination Of Cassie Ventura At NYC Sex Trafficking Trial; Florida Bans Fluoride From Drinking Water, Joining Utah; FEMA Not Ready For Hurricane Season; Wisconsin Judge Pleads Not Guilty To Obstructing Immigration Arrest. Aired 5-6p ET

Aired May 15, 2025 - 17:00   ET

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

KARA SCANNELL, CNN CORRESPONDENT: It along to the examiner. So, definitely engaged today when this was about his text messages and his exchanges with Ventura.

KASIE HUNT, CNN HOST: All right, Misty Marris, Kara Scannell, thank you both very much for being with us. And thanks as well to our panel for being with us here in New York. Really appreciate it.

Jake Tapper is standing by for "The Lead," where you're going to have much more reaction, I understand, to the reporting from your new book with Alex Thompson. You guys are going to be here in New York having a conversation with David Remnick in just a few days.

JAKE TAPPER, CNN HOST: That's right. Book comes out on Tuesday and I can't wait to talk to you all about it. But I'm not allowed to do that until then. Thank you, Kasie. We'll see you back --

HUNT: See you soon.

TAPPER: -- in "The Arena" tomorrow.

[17:00:37]

JAKE TAPPER, CNN HOST: The U.S. Supreme Court took up birthright citizenship. And The Lead starts right now.

The Trump administration did as they said and got the issue of birthright citizenship before the U.S. Supreme Court. But could the ultimate decision be based on a technicality? Coming up, the high stakes hearing over the power of the district courts.

Plus, attention Walmart shoppers. Instead of rolling back prices, America's biggest retailer just announced they're raising them and they're blaming Trump's tariffs. How many more stores are going to have to follow Walmart's lead?

And first on CNN, with hurricane season brewing fast, an internal report reveals that FEMA is nowhere near ready.

Welcome to The Lead. I'm Jake Tapper. We begin in the law and justice lead in a fight over the U.S. Constitution and its separation of powers, executive, legislative and judicial branches. It's a fight that could impact millions of people born in the U.S. but whose parents, one or both, are undocumented and not here legally. Today, as demonstrators took -- stood outside and attorneys argued inside, the U.S. Supreme Court heard arguments on whether federal judges can block President Trump's executive order ending what's called birthright citizenship.

His order, issued on the first day of his new term, was immediately challenged in the courts and federal judges blocked it. And that was actually the question before the nine justices today, whether individual federal courts have the power to universally block presidential orders, even though they only represent a specific area.

Of course, there is the other larger question over birthright citizenship. The 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution reads, "All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside." For more than a century, courts have interpreted all persons to mean just that, all persons, regardless of the immigration status of their parents. The Constitution at times is quite specific.

In a long Truth Social post today, President Trump focused totally on this issue, on birthright citizenship, writing of the 14th amendment, quote, "It had nothing to do with illegal immigration for people wanting to scam our country from our part -- from all parts of the world, which they have done for many years. It had to do with civil war results and the babies of slaves who our politicians felt correctly needed protection. Please explain this to the Supreme Court of the United States," unquote.

So let's start today with our CNN Chief Legal Affairs Correspondent, Paula Reid.

Paula, how did things go inside the court today?

PAULA REID, CNN SENIOR LEGAL AFFAIRS CORRESPONDENT: Jake, it was a mixed bag for the Trump administration today. The good news for them is that it does appear that a majority of the justices are open to limiting or ending this power where a single judge anywhere in the U.S. can block a policy for the entire country. And if that happens, that would allow President Trump to more quickly implement his agenda without immediately getting bogged down at legal challenges. I also want to note, this is not just a Trump issue. All the modern presidents of the past 25 years have been annoyed by this.

The past five Justice Departments have all said that these so called nationwide injunctions are a problem. But where it gets murky for the administration is that this case came before the Supreme Court as part of a challenge specifically to his executive order ending birthright citizenship, which you were just talking about. Most legal experts agree that is likely unconstitutional. You can't do that through executive order. And it appeared that the liberal justices agreed with the challengers that if ever there was a policy where you needed one nationwide court order to abide by, it's who is and is not a citizen. And Justice Kagan kind of got at this in her questioning. Let's take a listen.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

ELENA KAGAN, SUPREME COURT JUSTICE: I think that's the important question in this case. Let's just assume you're dead wrong. How do we get to that result? Does every single person that is affected by this EO have to bring their own suit? Are there alternatives?

How long does it take? How do we get to the result that there is a single rule of citizenship that is not -- that is the rule that we've historically applied rather than the rule that the EO would have us do?

(END VIDEO CLIP)

REID: Even Trump appointee Justice Kavanaugh was confused over how exactly he would implement a citizenship policy without a nationwide policy governing this question. Let's take a listen to his questions for the solicitor general.

[17:05:12]

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

BRETT KAVANAUGH, SUPREME COURT JUSTICE: This is just a very practical question, how this is going to work. What do hospitals do with a newborn? What do states do with a newborn?

JOHN SAUER, U.S. SOLICITOR GENERAL: I don't think they do anything different. What the executive order says in section two is that federal officials do not accept documents that have the wrong designation of citizenship from people who are subject to the executive order.

KAVANAUGH: How are they going to know that?

SAUER: The states can continue to -- the federal officials will have to figure that out.

KAVANAUGH: How.

SAUER: So you can imagine a number of ways that the federal officials could --

KAVANAUGH: Such as? They're only going to have 30 days to do this. You think they can get it together in time?

(END VIDEO CLIP)

REID: So it's unclear is how many of these issues the Supreme Court is going to give us a concrete answer on. We expect that they will give us some sort of answer opinion on the power of district court judges. But it remains unclear whether they're also going to weigh in on whether birthright citizenship is constitutional. That would open the door for them to possibly give a win and a loss to the Trump administration. But no question, Jake, this is high stakes for President Trump.

TAPPER: What happens next, Paula?

REID: So we expect an opinion late next month. And no matter what they decide here, this is going to have an enormous impact to not only on President Trump, but also on future presidents. Because as I said, over the past quarter century, these kinds of nationwide injunctions have become more and more common. So if this is something that presidents are not going to run into immediately, this is going to help them implement their policies, specifically through executive orders. So I would say this is one of the most consequential issues right now facing the administration and his lawyers.

President Trump's lawyers have told me they are thrilled to have this before the Supreme Court. Now when it comes to birthright citizenship, they're not quite as confident on that specific policy.

TAPPER: All right, Paula Reid, thanks so much.

Let's get the insights of our experts and correspondents who follow this story. Joan Biskupic, best Supreme Court reporter in the country. You were in the courtroom today watching the justices. Were there any hints about where individual justices might be heading, both on the issue of whether or not judges in districts can rule for the entire country and also on the larger birthright citizenship issue?

JOAN BISKUPIC, CNN CHIEF SUPREME COURT ANALYST: Well, I'll tell you what was most surprising. Those two issues were entwined the whole time. You know, we had wondered if they were going to say anything about the merits of birthright citizenship. But what came through loud and clear is they felt like that was definitely a very large backdrop so that whatever they say on nationwide injunctions at this point is going to affect whether that any part of that policy can be enforced. And if it is, the threat to people who would not qualify under Donald Trump's new policy.

So I thought the frustration was palpable. I thought that they did not like how entangled it was. The Trump administration has said only rule on nationwide injunctions, don't go near birthright citizenship, because they know the Trump administration suspects, rightly, that's a losing issue. But I think that in the end, what we're going to see is either a very narrow ruling or potentially the justices say, you're going to have to come back and we're going to have to open up the briefing on the actual merits of whether what Donald Trump did on January 20th was constitutional to suddenly carve out exceptions to what has been considered for more than 150 years guarantee in the 14th Amendment that anyone born or naturalized in this country is automatically a citizen.

TAPPER: So, Priscilla, let's talk about this idea of the narrow issue. If the U.S. Supreme Court says, OK, basically local district courts, you can no longer issue federal injunctions for the entire country, you can't do that anymore. What happens? How messy could that get?

PRISCILLA ALVAREZ, CNN CORRESPONDENT: Very. And I can give you an example. It's not an apples to apples comparison, but it gives you an idea of just how confusing it can get. So, for example, the Alien Enemies Act, we've talked about it multiple times, Jake. This is the sweeping wartime authority that the administration wants to use to swiftly deport undocumented immigrants.

Currently, that authority and whether it can be used is sitting across multiple district courts across the country. Some district courts, many of them have said that the administration can't use it in their district applying to only the detainees who are held in their district. So then you have this patchwork of rulings of these people can't be deported under this authority, but those in that other district can because there hasn't been a lawsuit there yet. And on top of that, what we are seeing in some of these rulings is some judges do believe there's an invasion, others don't. Others say due process.

Well, 12 hours might be OK, or actually, you need more than that. And so you can see how where someone is detained in the country right now could determine whether or not they could be subject to this authority or whether they're blocked. So this sort of speaks to, again how it can be so difficult to navigate when there is not uniformity across the country, but when it's decided at the district level.

[17:10:00]

TAPPER: And Elie Honig, let's talk about the larger issue about birthright citizenship, which Joan points out. People had considered to be basically set of law.

ELIE HONIG, CNN SENIOR LEGAL ANALYST: Right.

TAPPER: President Trump does not. And he got to make the argument in court today. Section 1 of the 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution reads, "All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside."

All persons born or naturalized in the United States would seem to settle the argument. But the Trump people say, no, it doesn't. Why? Explain.

HONIG: Yes, lawyers always looking for the escape clause, right? Here -- and here, the alleged escape clause is the subject to the jurisdiction thereof. Now, going back to ratification of the 14th Amendment, 1868, that's been understood to be extremely narrow. It really only excludes foreign diplomats and invading foreign armies. That's why we have this very broad conception of birthright citizenship.

What Donald Trump is arguing is, no, it actually excludes anyone who's not here legally or permanently. And if that becomes the new law of the land, then that's going to make a huge change. It's going to really limit who can get birthright citizenship. And I will say, I think Trump's going to lose. Not -- you know, not here, because they're not going to rule in this here.

Eventually, I think he's going to lose. I think there's 157 years of jurisprudence. He's over six so far on this case, right? All the district courts and courts of appeals that have considered this have gone against him. And remember, there was that district court judge in Washington State, Reagan nominee from 1984, who said this is blatant. What Trump is trying to do is blatantly unconstitutional.

TAPPER: And Joan, this device of federal district judges blocking presidential policy across the country, as Paula mentioned, this is not just something that irritates Trump. This irritated Biden. This irritated Trump before. And this goes back to Obama. He was irritated by it, too.

BISKUPIC: Oh, yes, there have been scores of these nationwide injunctions covering just even from the Biden administration. You can remember various environmental policies, you know, the vaccine mandates. And they challenged him. The prior solicitor general, Elizabeth Prelogar, took the same position that John Sauer, the current SG is taking, you know, that they -- these have to be reined in.

But here's the interesting thing. The Supreme Court has heard that argument over and over again in, you know, not as directly as today. And the individual justices have complained, but they've never been able to come up with factors for when a judge should invoke the policy and not just because there are cases, just like Priscilla just said, where some sort of nationwide court order would be appropriate. Many times it wouldn't be. But this is not a one size fits all situation.

TAPPER: In a way, just because this is something that irritated politicians, presidents of both major parties, President Trump is doing something that President Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez might like, not on the birthright issue, but on the narrower ruling on whether district court judges can make nationwide law.

ALAVAREZ: I mean, look, when the, when it was President Biden, Republican red states had been fighting him every part of the way when it came to his immigration moves. And they would often win in court. There was nationwide injunctions. There -- I will say, though, Jake, as someone who covers policymaking and policy implementation, this world of injunctions has been so difficult for those that actually have to implement policies because there was often a running joke among Homeland Security officials of, well, we might have this policy today, but it might be enjoined tomorrow. So it is really difficult for those that are doing the implementing.

But when you have a hodgepodge, it just makes it all the more difficult. And it's why, even though there's frustration about nationwide injunctions, it's the kind of thing that can help when it comes to the actual implementation.

TAPPER: And we should note that both Democrats and Republicans judge shop.

HONIG: Oh, for sure. TAPPER: Look for a friendly district for their side. I believe that Florida and Texas are favorites of Republicans --

HONIG: Yes.

TAPPER: -- seeking to sue a Democratic administration. And Democratics, they go what, California?

HONIG: California, Massachusetts, New York, D.C.

TAPPER: Yes.

HONIG: Yes, look, this is the perfect bipartisan issue in that whoever's in the White House hates it, right? And if you look at history, this practice does encourage and reward judge shopping. Fun fact, all of the nationwide injunctions issued against Joe Biden, about 14 total, came out of Texas federal district courts. And Jake, you're right. I mean, liberals, Democrats always file their suits in California, Oregon, what we call the Ninth Circuit, Jersey, New York, D.C., Massachusetts. None of that is by accident.

TAPPER: But the fact this isn't settled, the fact that Democrats and Republicans haven't come together to say this needs to stop shows just how partisan this town is. They could agree on this, but they still want the power to do it against the other guy --

HONIG: Yes.

TAPPER: -- which is, welcome to watch.

HONIG: For sure.

TAPPER: Thanks to all of you.

Court is about to wrap in the biggest day yet in the Sean Diddy Combs trial. Diddy's lawyers questioning the music mogul's ex-girlfriend, the alleged victim, how they came after her testimony and how she responded with CNN observed inside the courtroom.

[17:14:47]

But first, the third and final stop on Trump's Middle East trip. And a member of his cabinet is making a major clarification about something President Trump said. Stay with us.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

TAPPER: In our world lead, President Trump today was greeted with fanfare in Abu Dhabi after leaving Qatar. It is the third and final stop of his Middle East trip that's already reshaping U.S. foreign policy in the Middle East. Today, the president toured a major landmark mosque there. He also invited the leader of the United Arab Emirates, a gentleman by the name of Mohamed bin Zayed Al Nahyan, known as MBZ, to the White House. CNN's Kaitlan Collins is in Abu Dhabi.

And Kaitlan, a lot of pomp and circumstance, but also a lot of policy changes. Put it in perspective for us.

KAITLAN COLLINS, CNN ANCHOR AND CHIEF WHITE HOUSE CORRESPONDENT: Yes, Jake, it has been quite the lavish international trip for the president. He spent the morning still in where we were yesterday, of course, where we were traveling after he first went to Saudi Arabia, then was in Doha. He was at that major military base that they are -- that is there. And they've touted this huge relationship between the United States and Qatar as the scrutiny has only continued to mount on President Trump over the plane that he is accepting from them. And then he traveled here to the UAE, where he received another lavish welcome as he has gotten essentially virtually on every stop of this trip, Jake.

[17:20:11]

He actually went to a mosque earlier today, the Grand Mosque here in Abu Dhabi, where he removed his shoes, as is customary. He went in, he was praising to reporters how beautiful it was inside. I actually think, Jake, this is the first time we've ever seen President Trump inside a mosque. I don't think he's traveled to one before on his previous trips and actually gone inside.

And then he attended a state dinner here with NBC, the leader here in Abu Dhabi as he was getting that royal treatment that he has experienced essentially on every stop of this trip and has been quite impressed by. But Jake, you're right on the terms of the policy deliverables and walking away from this, what this is going to look like. One thing I've been so struck by is the president's overtures to Syria and the new leader there as he announced not only in Riyadh that he was lifting sanctions on Syria, but then met with the new president, who is a former member of Al Qaeda and fought against U.S. forces, but the president essentially accepting his strong past, as Trump described it. That is something that has actually earned Trump rare bipartisan praise. I mean, some of the harshest Democrats who have the harshest criticism for him have actually praised this and say they do believe it is a good move on President Trump's behalf to embrace the new leader and see what can come out of Syria.

TAPPER: One place the president did not go today, despite speculation, was Turkey. The grand plan for peace talks between Russia and Ukraine to be held there, I guess that fell short?

COLLINS: This is an idea that has started to percolate in recent days. When I was on Air Force One with the president yesterday, Jake, I asked him about these talks and what happens if President Putin does not show up, as he had delivered that ultimatum to Zelenskyy to essentially meet him in person. And Trump said that he did not think Putin would want to go unless Trump was also there meeting with him in person. That is something that Trump embraced more fully today, essentially saying that he doesn't think Putin and Zelenskyy will meet until Trump and Zelenskyy meet, and essentially arguing that that would be necessary for any breakthrough to happen. And we also heard from Secretary of State Marco Rubio on this front, who had this to say.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) MARCO RUBIO, SECRETARY OF STATE: The president is impatient to end this war. There's too much destruction. And I think he's ready to have that engagement and determine once and for all if there's a path forward and what that path is. And it's my assessment that I don't think we're going to have a breakthrough here until the president and President Putin interact directly on this topic.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

COLLINS: Now, Jake, some people have asked, does that mean that the two will be meeting in Turkey in the coming days? We just looked at the White House schedule for tomorrow as the president wakes up here in the UAE and has a few more stops before heading home to the United States. It is not on the schedule right now. But it is a notable shift in position of what has to happen next before those direct talks between President Zelenskyy and President Putin according to the U.S. are going to happen.

TAPPER: All right. Kaitlan Collins in Abu Dhabi, UAE. Thanks so much. Travel safe.

Excuse me. And Kaitlan will have more from the UAE on her show "The Source with Kaitlan Collins." Her guest this evening, California Attorney General Rob Bonta on the U.S. Supreme Court drama today over the court -- the issue of district courts and birthright citizenship. That's tonight at 9:00 Eastern only here on CNN.

While President Trump made plenty of deals while on this Middle East trip, it's the deal he made before he left that's still causing quite a stir. President Trump saying he will accept a luxury jet from Qatar to turn it into Air Force One worth somewhere between $300 and $400 million.

With me now, Democratic Senator Tammy Duckworth of Illinois. She's an Iraq War veteran and Purple Heart recipient.

Senator, today you and a group of Democratic senators wrote a letter to the secretary of Defense, Pete Hegseth, calling the move a, quote, "Threat to presidential protection," unquote. The letter says that when Trump said he would accept the jet before it was even in U.S. custody, it, quote, "provides a dangerous opportunity to exploit foreign intelligence agencies and adversaries seeking to do harm to the United States, who have a great incentive to gain access to the aircraft and individuals with sensitive knowledge and understanding of the Qatar royal family's Palace in the sky," unquote.

Yesterday, your Republican colleague, Senator Markwayne Mullin of in Oklahoma was on the show and he told us that that complaint was which had been made by Senator Ted Cruz, among others, that general idea of the security issues here was moot because there was, of course, going to be a full sweep of the plane. It would be broken down to its bones and then built back up. What's your take on that?

SEN. TAMMY DUCKWORTH (D-IL): Well, Jake, we've heard estimates the cost of breaking it down to its bones and building it back up will be over $1 billion and potentially as much as $2 billion. So it's going to cost the taxpayers a heck of a lot more money to accept this aircraft than actually the cost of the two aircraft that are already under contract to be built to be the future Air Force One. So this is the problem, Jake. He's accepting a bribe, which is unconstitutional and illegal, and he's going to accept an aircraft that then is going to cost taxpayers another billion dollars at a time when he's cutting -- you know, wants to cut funding for Medicaid. It's simply unacceptable.

[17:25:12]

TAPPER: So you call it a bribe. Markwayne Mullin said as far as he knows, this is just going to be the new Air Force One and it isn't going to go to the Trump presidential library after his term is over as has been reported. A new Air Force One has had been ordered in 2018. Boeing was supposed to deliver that by last year. Now Boeing is saying it might not be until 2027.

The current Air Force One is already about 35 years old. Forget the cutter offer for a moment, just table that for one sec, is it acceptable for any American president to be flying on this Gulf War era plane that was meant to be phased out years ago?

DUCKWORTH: Well, you should know that the Air Force One is fully upgraded with the most modern technology. So it is actually still a viable, technologically appropriate aircraft for the President of the United States to be flying in. What is not appropriate is for him to accept a bribe from a foreign country that is known to support terrorists. You know, this is a country that actually hosted Hamas leadership in Qatar for a very long time, funneled dollars into Hamas. So let's make sure that we understand who this money is coming from.

Air Force One is being constantly being upgraded, kept with the highest levels of technology. I agree with you. It is long overdue that we have the next generation of Air Force One, and we're working on that. But I want to make sure that whatever our President flies in is one that is sufficiently hardened to protect the commander in chief of the greatest military on the face of the earth, and also is one that cannot be exploited in terms of listening devices or any other technologies that might be buried into this Qatari aircraft.

TAPPER: On another subject, as many as 9,000 Afghan refugees currently in the United States are at risk of deportation because the Trump administration has ended the Temporary Protected Status, or TPS, that allowed them to stay here legally. Many of them, of course, risked their lives working for the U.S. military during the Afghanistan war as interpreters in combat and occupations like that. The White House says Afghanistan is no longer dangerous for them. What do you make of that claim?

DUCKWORTH: Well, it shows you how out of touch this White House is or how callous they are that they don't care. Remember that some of these Afghans are women who were serving in the Afghan government, standing up to the Taliban, fighting for the rights of women and girls who go to school. These are women who served in their parliament at the request of the American people. You know, we helped them write their constitution that said that I think 23 percent or 25 percent of their parliament had to be women. And so these are people who are also being affected.

It is the children of Afghans who escaped and they're now in threat of going back. In fact, many of them still have family members who are still living in hiding in Afghanistan because they're still being hunted by the people, by the Taliban that want to destroy them. And so this really shows how incredibly out of touch and callous this White House is.

TAPPER: The Illinois Department of Human Services says that more than 2300 Afghan refugees wound up settling in your home state of Illinois. Are you hearing anything from anyone directly impacted? What should they do?

DUCKWORTH: We're in touch with numerous organizations that have been taking care of them. They are very much living in fear. I'll give you an example. We were able to give an Afghan girls basketball team tuitions and scholarships to schools in Illinois as an example of the type of refugees that are in Illinois right now, as well as those who served alongside American servicemen and women when we were in -- when we were there. And so we are keeping in touch with the charities that are taking care of them.

We're hearing individual stories and they are just terrified right now.

TAPPER: Democratic Senator Tammy Duckworth of the great state of Illinois, thanks so much for joining us today.

DUCKWORTH: Thank you.

TAPPER: Damning new text messages, new details about a drug filled life. An explosive day in the Sean Diddy Combs trial that just wrapped up as lawyers for the former music mogul got their first chance to cross examine the star witness, his ex-girlfriend, his victim, allegedly. A CNN reporter who was in the courtroom will join me next.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[17:33:32]

TAPPER: Back to our Law and Justice lead now. Court just wrapped for the day in the Sean "Diddy" Combs trial with his ex-girlfriend and accuser Cassie Ventura back on the stand for a third straight day giving roughly 15 hours of testimony.

Today, Combs' lawyers cross-examined Ventura about her relationship with Combs and the freak offs that have been described as drug fueled sexual encounters between the two that also included male escorts paid for by Combs. We should note that Combs has pleaded not guilty to all the charges against him.

CNN's Elizabeth Wagmeister is live outside the courthouse along with criminal defense attorney Stacy Schneider. Elizabeth, let me start with you. So we heard a lot of difficult and graphic testimony in this trial, but today was Combs' lawyers asking the questions. Walk us through what you saw today in court. ELIZABETH WAGMEISTER, CNN ENTERTAINMENT CORRESPONDENT: This was Combs

attorney's chance to cross examine Cassie Ventura. And I've got to be honest with you, Jake, it's off to a very slow start. Now, probably the most prominent pieces of information that came out through cross- examination were some text messages.

Remember this is a couple that was together for around 11 years. So a lot of these text messages were sexually explicit. So sexually explicit that I am not going to repeat what they said here on your show, Jake.

But obviously Combs is defense. They're trying to show that Cassie Ventura was being sexual with Combs.

Now some of them that are appropriate for TV that I will read one of them, Cassie said, quote, I love our freak offs.

[17:35:04]

Then on the stand when she was asked about that, she said those were just words. Another text Jake Combs text Cassie, I want to freak off right now. She wrote back, me too. But then on the stand she said that was just me agreeing to it. You remember Jake, in her testimony over the past two days, she said that she was being physically violently abused and that she was coerced so that she always wanted to agree with him and do what he wanted, which she knew included those freak offs.

TAPPER: And Stacy, today, Combs, his legal team showed explicit and graphic text messages indicating ways that the couple discussed some of the freak offs. One text message read by Ventura said, quote, I love our, speaking of the freak offs, when we both want it. What are Sean Combs' lawyers trying to do here?

STACY SCHNEIDER, CRIMINAL DEFENSE TRIAL ATTORNEY: The defense is trying to show that this was a consensual relationship, that Sean Combs did not coerce her into sex trafficking. So they're showing this coupledom between them, how there was a flirtation, this was she was actively participating in sex acts within her relationship.

They also brought out how the two of them went to swingers clubs together. The defense wants this theme out, that this was the swingers lifestyle. They had Cassie agree to that on the stand. And they did something very effective, which is when they read the text messages in the defense attorney read Sean Combs' message and then they had Cassie read her responses back from the stand.

And some of those responses to Sean Combs were very loving. She wanted more attention from him. She was looking forward to some of the freak offs in the earlier days. And that was a very effective technique to get across the defense narrative that this was not coercion under a racketeering scheme. This was a relationship gone bad.

TAPPER: Elizabeth, you've been inside the courthouse watching every day of Cassie Ventura's testimony. So far, how has her demeanor changed on the stand, if at all? WAGMEISTER: You know, Jake, her demeanor actually changed greatly

today. Obviously the past two days have been grueling for her, talking about the graphic details of both those freak offs and the extreme physical violence that she alleges that occurred to her over this decade relationship.

Today, she was much more at ease and even laughed a few times on the stand. Combs defense even laughed with her. So there were some moments during this cross-examination that kind of humanized Cassie Ventura. There were a few moments that from my standpoint in there, I thought actually helped Cassie Ventura's case.

And since you're asking about Cassie's demeanor, I also want to tell you about Combs demeanor. I had a perfect viewpoint of him today where my seat was in that courtroom. And I have to tell you, he did not look happy today. He was passing a ton of notes to his defense. He had a very serious look and he was fixated on his defense attorney who was cross examining Cassie today.

TAPPER: Elizabeth, quickly, when does Combs legal team plan to wrap up Ventura's cross examination?

WAGMEISTER: So this was actually where the most fireworks happened today, Jake. So it was revealed that there was a prearranged agreement of sorts that Cassie Ventura was supposed to be off the stand by the end of this week. While, Combs' defense in this cross examination, it felt like they were going around in circles a lot. And the judge actually asked and said, when are you going to wrap this up? I need a reality check here. And they said that they were going to go all today, all tomorrow and into next week.

The judge said absolutely not. And I want to read you a direct quote from the judge, Jake. He said, in what universe did you not understand this was important that this witness was going to be done this week?

Well, I just spoke to a source, Jake, and I found out the reason why is because of Cassie's pregnancy. She is so pregnant that she could truly go into labor any day now, Jake. That's why she has to be done this week.

TAPPER: Elizabeth Wagmeister, Stacy Schneider outside court in Manhattan, thanks so much. This note, since we did discuss suicidal ideation in this trial, if you were anyone you know is dealing with relationship abuse, there are resources for help, including the National Domestic Violence Hotline. You can call at 1-800-799-SAFE, 1- 800-799-SAFE or you can text the word START to 88788, 88788.

Coming up, the big move by the state of Florida today that its Governor Ron DeSantis says is a response to government overreach. Plus, reporting first on CNN, an internal review at FEMA revealing that the agency is not ready for hurricane season, which is rapidly approaching in about two weeks. Stay with us.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[17:44:11] TAPPER: In our Health lead, Florida has become the second state in the nation, following Utah, to ban adding fluoride to public drinking water. This comes despite health experts including the American Dental Association, saying water fluoridation is safe and effective at greatly reducing tooth decay. Studies in both Canada and Alaska showed dramatic increases in children and adolescents needing dental procedures for cavities after fluoride was removed from the water. In Juneau, Alaska, it was a nearly 50 percent increase.

But Florida Governor Ron DeSantis says using fluoride on your teeth is fine, but forcing it into the water supply, his words, is basically forced medication.

In our national lead, FEMA is not ready for hurricane season, which starts in just a few weeks. That's according to an internal agency document first obtained by CNN. The Federal Emergency Management Agency helps communities before, during and after major storm.

[17:45:02]

CNN's Gabe Cohen broke this story first. Gabe, why is FEMA not ready for hurricane season?

GABE COHEN, CNN CORRESPONDENT: Well, Jake, we know that FEMA has really been an agency in turmoil for months now as they've been dealing with these constant attacks from the Trump administration, which is vowing to eliminate the agency altogether.

At this point, we know roughly 30 percent of FEMA's full time permanent staff are gone to layoffs and DOGE buyouts, a lot of them senior leaders within the agency. Morale has plummeted. And as we learn from this document we obtained as all that's happening, hurricane preparations have really derailed.

We learned that trainings have mostly been paused. A lot of the collaborations with state partners just really aren't happening right now. And as a result of that, there is all of this uncertainty at FEMA, from top leadership down to rank and file about what exactly their mission is going to be when hurricane season actually starts.

They don't know what the agency will look like, how many people will be there, when will they deploy. All of that as the president is promising, they're going to shift responsibility for recovery and relief to the states. They want the states to bear that burden.

The document says, quote, I want to read this. As FEMA transforms to a smaller footprint, the intent for this hurricane season is not well understood and thus FEMA is not ready. And so what does that mean for Americans who in the coming weeks could be facing these catastrophic storms?

Well, one FEMA official told me what Americans will see is a federal government that is either absent completely or if present, sputtering to deliver response and recovery resources. To be clear, FEMA's new acting administrator, just appointed last week, refutes that. This is what he said to a conservative radio station just a couple days ago. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

DAVID RICHARDSON, ACTING FEMA ADMINISTRATOR: We will be ready. We will meet the President's intent and we will make sure that the American people are safe. OK. We may do it a little differently. We will be criticized for it, but we will do it very, very effectively and I will ensure that.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

COHEN: So obviously he is saying they're going to be ready. A lot of these officials are warning though, they don't believe that the agency and this administration is ready to handle hurricane season.

TAPPER: Let's hope he's right. But you note that this is the acting FEMA administrator, David Richardson. The reason there's an acting FEMA administrator is because the previous acting FEMA administrator, Cameron Hamilton, was fired. What are you learning about that?

COHEN: Yes, it's a pretty unbelievable story that we're learning about now. So Cameron Hamilton was appointed by Trump in January to oversee FEMA. And we learned from sources that over time, he began to increasingly believe that despite what the president and what Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem were saying, that it was not in the best interest of the American people to eliminate FEMA altogether, even if it did have to be seriously reformed.

And we also know that during his time there, he really clashed with Corey Lewandowski, who is serving as a special government employee at DHS with Kristi Noem. And what sources are telling us is that it was really Corey Lewandowski who drove that decision to oust Hamilton last week and put Richardson in his place. But it happened really unceremoniously.

It turns out Hamilton was mistakenly tipped off that he was going to be fired. And it happened just a few hours before he was set to testify on Capitol Hill. He ended up testifying. He told lawmakers that he does not agree with eliminating FEMA. He does not believe it's in the best interest of the American people. Less than 24 hours later, he was out.

TAPPER: Interesting. Gabe Cohen, thanks so much. Coming up next, a sitting judge turned defendant. The day in court for a judge arrested and facing federal charges from the Trump administration. Stay with us.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[17:53:12]

TAPPER: In our law and justice lead, a strong plea of not guilty in a Wisconsin courtroom today from the defendant who is a sitting judge. She is Milwaukee County Circuit Judge Hannah Dugan, who entered her plea to federal charges accusing her of helping a man in the United States illegally evade immigration agents who tried to detain him in her courthouse. CNN's Whitney Wilde is in Milwaukee, Wisconsin. She was in the

courtroom today. Explain how today's hearing unfolded with this sitting judge appearing as a defendant as opposed to usually, you know, being on the bench.

WHITNEY WILD, CNN LAW ENFORCEMENT CORRESPONDENT: Right. A rare seat for sitting judge to be in the defense table, Jake. What we saw today was a very brief hearing. It was 4 minutes, 30 seconds long. Judge Dugan came in with her defense team. The Justice Department was represented by just one person. It was pretty quick. This was an arraignment.

As you mentioned, she pleaded not guilty after hearing her charges read to her. What is notable here, Jake, is that again, this is a sitting president, excuse me, a sitting judge who is now using a course precedent from the sitting president's past legal cases. Here's how.

This case started April 18 when immigration officials tried to try to arrest a man who was appearing before her in court. The allegation for prosecutors is that they say she basically ushered him through a jury door which would have taken him to a non-private part of the courtroom. It would have been difficult, if not impossible for those agents to arrest him.

And so that's what prosecutors really took issue with. They say that was obstruction of justice. Her defense team says no, no. She was moving people around in her courtroom. She has to judicial immunity. She is allowed to move people in and around her courtroom as she sees fit. That is an official act. And the court precedent that they want the judge to look at is the U.S. Supreme Court upholding President Trump's immunity from the election interference case in 2020.

[17:55:06]

Which was a surprising moment, Jake, when you consider that they are nodding to that case in a defense against now a sitting President Donald Trump's Justice Department. So, a really extraordinary filing there at this point. This case is moving forward. There's not a ruling on that motion to dismiss, but certainly a lot to watch here, Jake.

TAPPER: All right, Whitney Wild in Milwaukee, thanks so much. The big warning from Walmart today, it really got the nation's attention. The retailer says that they have to raise prices because of Trump's tariffs. How much more will Walmart customers be forced to pay? When on what? We'll get some answers, next.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

TAPPER: Welcome to The Lead. I'm Jake Tapper. This hour, they're known for their low prices. They're known for their affordable products. But now Walmart, the world's largest retailer, says that they're going to have to raise prices on some items and they are blaming Trump's trade war.

[17:30:05] So which items? How soon will other major retailers ---