Return to Transcripts main page

The Lead with Jake Tapper

Trump Announces 10 Percent Global Tariff After Supreme Court Loss; Rep. Robert Garcia, (D-CA) Is Interviewed About Epstein Estate Reaches Settlement Of Up To $35M With Survivors, Les Wexner Denies Knowledge Of Epstein's Crimes; WH To Take Homan's Minneapolis Immigration Playbook Nationwide; Police: Search Of Andrew's Former Home Likely To Continue Until Monday Amid Investigation. Aired 5-6p ET

Aired February 20, 2026 - 17:00   ET

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

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

KASIE HUNT, CNN HOST: All right. Thanks very much to my panel. Really appreciate all of you being here. Thanks to you at home for watching as well. Now, don't forget, you can watch much more of The Arena tomorrow.

The Arena Saturday airs at noon Eastern right here on CNN. Would really love to have you do join us. You can also stream the arena live or catch up whenever you want in the CNN app. Just go ahead and scan that QR code below. But in the meantime, Jake Tapper is stand.

Hi, Jake. Happy Friday.

JAKE TAPPER, CNN HOST: I'm streaming "The Arena" live right now. It's just a -- there's a little bit of a delay, but just a teeny bit.

HUNT: Yes.

TAPPER: Just a teeny bit. Just a teeny bit.

All right, Kasie, we'll look for more next week in "The Arena."

HUNT: Have a great, though. See you.

[17:00:45]

TAPPER: Today, President Trump called six U.S. Supreme Court justices, quote, "a disgrace to our nation." The Lead starts right now.

The Supreme Court decision that has Trump fuming, attacking the justice who -- justices who shut down his sweeping international tariffs, I'm going to talk to the attorney whose arguments led to today's decision and we'll talk to one of the lead plaintiffs. And a growing show of force, the world's largest aircraft carrier deployed by the U.S. now in the Middle East. Is the U.S. closer now to war with Iran? What is the president's new message to the Iranian people? Plus, the new multimillion dollar settlement in a lawsuit brought on by some of the survivors of dead convicted sex offender Jeffrey Epstein.

Welcome to The Lead. I'm Jake Tapper.

The Lead tonight, President Trump's wild, personal and in some cases evidence free attacks on the U.S. Supreme Court after justices struck down his sweeping signature tariff policy in a six to three decision.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

DONALD TRUMP, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: They're just being fools and lapdogs for the rhinos and the radical left Democrats. They are very unpatriotic and disloyal to our Constitution. It's my opinion that the court has been swayed by foreign interests.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Do you have evidence of that? And if not, will you investigate that?

TRUMP: You're going to find out. You're going to find out.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

TAPPER: OK. Today's decision, something President Trump has no doubt been dreading. He touted tariffs on the campaign trail, often calling tariff his, quote, favorite word in the dictionary. But to be frank, legal experts predicted that this result was a foregone conclusion. The U.S. Constitution and the laws are pretty clear, they said.

And the Trump administration's argument was weak. The case appeared to keep him up back in December. One night he posted a Truth Social at 2:37 a.m., quote, "The biggest threat in history to United States national security would be a negative decision on tariffs by the U.S. Supreme Court. We would be financially defenseless," unquote. Today's ruling only rejected the president's authority to impose tariffs without congressional approval when citing emergency economic authority.

So the White House is trying to keep the policy such as they can, alive. The president is planning, we're told, to enact a 10 percent global tariff under a different trade law that can only be used for a maximum of 150 days than he would need an extension from Congress. Today's ruling by the U.S. Supreme Court did not address whether or not the administration will have to refund companies and taxpayers, frankly, billions of dollars for the tariff money already collected. The president says he is expecting an extended legal fight now.

One of the businesses is the lead plaintiff in today's monumental ruling. VOS Selections, that's a small New York based wine company run by a father daughter duo. You might remember we spoke with the founder Victor Schwartz here on The Lead for our Business Leaders series last spring.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

VICTOR SCHWARTZ, FOUNDER, VOS SELECTIONS: We were paying a, you know, few bucks a case. Now we're looking more like $15 to $20 a case. So if you're looking at a container with 1,000 cases, you know, do the math. You're at about 20,000 plus dollars just on a container which you have to pay up front. We're really on the front line here in the wine business as importers, we're kind of the canaries in the coal mine.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

TAPPER: Victor Schwartz is going to join us again coming up in the show. We've heard a range of stories on the issue of Trump's tariffs. We've talked to more than 80 business owners since President Trump enacted his sweeping tariff policy. Some are supportive, others not so much.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

DREW GREENBLATT, CEO, MARLIN STEEL: Tariffs are going to be very good for the American manufacturing worker.

BARTON O'BRIEN, FOUNDER & CEO, BAYDOG: The current tariff rate is actually higher than my operating margin. So if I don't raise prices, I'm just going to go out of business.

BRYAN GANZ, PRESIDENT & CEO, BYRNA TECHNOLOGIES INC.: We were very, very pleased to see these tariffs, particularly on China, on some of these competitive products because it's very difficult for us to compete on price.

SARAH PIEPENBURG, OWNER, VINAIGRETTE: I too am an American consumer and I'm feeling the pinch in my everyday life just as well as in my business.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

[17:05:06]

TAPPER: That's a small sampling from the 80 interviews we did for our Business Leaders series most opposed the tariffs.

Let's bring in Neal Katyal. He's the lead attorney for the plaintiffs who challenged Trump's tariffs in the Supreme Court case.

Neil, congratulations on the victory for you and your client. Before we talk about the decision today, I want to ask you about the president's stated workarounds. He says he plans to sign an executive order to implement a 10 percent global tariff by using Section 122. What did you think of that and what did you think of his response to the ruling today? All sorts of nasty words and an allegation that there's no evidence for.

NEAL KATYAL, ATTORNEY FOR PLAINTIFFS IN TARIFFS CASE: Yes, Jake, thank you for having me on. I'm not going to bother trying to respond to the president's comments. I'm not even sure how to respond. I couldn't really follow them too well. But I am focused on what the decision today is about, which is it's saying very simply, in America, in our constitutional system, tariffs are taxes and taxes are set by the Congress of the United States, not by the President.

You can't just alter them at will, up 150 percent for some countries, down to 10 percent for others and the like. You've got to follow the rules set out by Congress.

And the one thing that I could really follow from what the president was saying today is he was going to use Section 122, which allows him to, in certain circumstances impose a -- up to 15 percent tariff on countries around the world. You know, we've never had a problem with the idea that the president has some tariff authority under Congress's laws, but what President Trump tried to do in his so called Liberation Day tariffs, that Victor, this wine importer that you're about to have on the show, this brave wine importer and other small businesses challenged, they said that's not, you know, limited tariff.

What the president is doing is a tariff from 15 to 145 percent on the entire world. And no president has ever had that kind of sweeping authority. That was the essence of the legal challenge.

TAPPER: The chief justice of the United States, he decides who writes the opinions, who writes the majority opinion rather. And he gave himself the job of writing the majority opinion in this case. What did you make of that?

KATYAL: Yes, I think this is a decision which he understood was written for the ages. You know, it is always very difficult to challenge presidential action. There's a lot of deference given by the judicial system to presidents for rightful reasons. And particularly when it comes to a president's signature policy, it is incredibly hard to win. I was always confident that we could win because I thought what the president did was so blatantly illegal, such a betrayal of our American principles.

But you know, it's still a very, very rare thing to have the Supreme Court strike down a president's signature initiative. I mean, you can count it one hand. I think maybe not even that many fingers one hand. So it's a pretty remarkable thing that we've seen today. I think it underscores the genius of what our Founders did when they set up the government.

They said, people aren't angels, and we're going to need checks and balances, because when people come into government, you can have people who stray beyond the lines. And it's up to the separation of powers and the other branches of government to police when one branch goes too far. And hear what six justices said, Jake, and notably two of the six appointed by Donald Trump himself --

TAPPER: Right.

KATYAL: -- Neil Gorsuch and Amy Coney Barrett, they said this is unconstitutional. Chief Justice Roberts, not appointed by, you know, Biden or Obama, appointed by President Bush, saying the same thing. So I think, you know, it's an underscoring of really the genius of our system.

TAPPER: There's something that Gorsuch said in his concurring opinion that I thought was fascinating because it was almost as if this is my interpretation. I'm not a Supreme Court scholar, so tell me if I'm wrong, but it was almost as if he was writing a letter to President Trump. For those who think it's more important -- "for those who think it's important for the nation to impose more tariffs, I understand that today's decision will be disappointing." And it goes on and says "legislating can be hard and take time. It can be tempting to bypass Congress when some pressing problem arises."

But then he goes on to explain the deliberative nature of the legislative process, which is the whole point of the design, he says. Do you think he was talking to Trump in a way?

KATYAL: I think, Jake, he was talking to the American people as a whole. I think that was an incredibly powerful last paragraph. And it only has one predecessor, to my knowledge, which is Justice Jackson writing in the Steel Seizure Case. He said almost the exact same thing that Justice Gorsuch did. And it was like this one, a time in which the president was saying, I really need this power.

They are the power to seize the steel mills in the midst of the Korean-American War, and. And the Supreme Court said, that's a job for the nation's lawmakers, not for a job for you as president to do on your own. And Justice Jackson went on to say, look, this sounds inconvenient, that you've got to go get legislation and the like, but that is the American way.

[17:10:06]

And I ended my brief -- written brief to the Supreme Court with that quote from Justice Jackson and I ended my oral argument on November 5 to the Supreme Court with exactly that quote. And Justice Gorsuch is picking up and channeling that proud American tradition of saying, look, you know, we have debate in this country --

TAPPER: Right.

KATYAL: -- and then we have Congress go and pass laws when it deals with this. I mean, your montage before you had me on, had this debate among all of these different businesses. Tariffs good, tariffs bad. That's exactly the debate we should be having.

TAPPER: Yes.

KATYAL: We're not against the idea of tariffs. We just think it can't be done by the president on his own.

TAPPER: The court did not come down, come up with a remedy. And Justice Brett Kavanaugh, who was part of the three, who in the minority, he noted in his dissent that the court's opinion mentioned, quote, "nothing today about whether, and if so, how the government should go about returning the billions of dollars that it has collected from importers." But that process is likely to be a mess, and Gorsuch agreed that it would be a mess. What do you think should happen, will happen to the $134 billion or so that the federal government has collected in revenue from the tariffs?

KATYAL: Yes. So it's not surprising to me the court didn't get into it because we didn't ask the court to get into it. I mean, we got everything that we asked for about six things from the Supreme Court. We got each one of those six. But the reason why we didn't ask on the remedy question is because the government had already said in our case that they will give the remedies if we win, we will give refunds if we win.

Now, other, they might try and make some distinctions with other folks and the like, but there's a well-established refund process in the laws of Congress that the courts have used in past cases, and it'll be used here. And here the Supreme Court is saying, look, government, you collected hundreds of billions of dollars wrongly. So I don't think that, you know, the government can just pocket that money. I think that money is going to have to go back to the American taxpayers and small businesses who suffered from these tariffs in the first place.

TAPPER: Neal, always great to have you on. Congratulations again for your client and for yourself.

KATYAL: Thank you.

TAPPER: Coming up next, a closer look at Trump's alternative plan to enact tariffs. Plus, will you ever see any sort of refund from the revenue already taken in? And CNN's new reporting on the Trump administration's immigration playbook for Minneapolis that could soon be replicated nationwide.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[17:16:22]

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

TRUMP: We've taken in hundreds of billions of dollars, not millions, hundreds of billions of dollars. And so I said, well, what happens to all the money that we took in? It wasn't discussed. Wouldn't you think they would have put one sentence in there saying that keep the money or don't keep the money, right? I guess it has to get litigated for the next two years.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

TAPPER: Continuing in our money lead beyond whether or not you will get a refund because of today's U.S. Supreme Court ruling, there are questions about the new 10 percent tariffs that President Trump announced he's going to impose today. CNN's Vanessa Yurkevich is here.

Vanessa, give us the reality check. Can President Trump impose these new tariffs?

VANESSA YURKEVICH, CNN BUSINESS & POLITICS CORRESPONDENT: Yes. Yes, he can, Jake. And a new tariff you're hearing about today is that 10 percent global tariff under something called section 122. This tariff measure does allow actually for a tariff to reach up to 15 percent. But the president setting that global tariff at 10 percent.

The thing is, Jake, this tariff is only in effect for 150 days. It would take congressional approval to extend the length of time that this tariff is in place, something the president hinted he wants to keep in place for a lot longer than those 150 days. We also heard the president talk about increasing tariffs in other areas, something called Section 232. These are tariffs that can be put in place if the government believes there are national security concerns. These are investigations that usually take months to happen before the tariff goes into effect.

So there are actually potentially tariffs in effect right now under Section 232, 50 percent tariffs on steel and aluminum and also 25 percent tariffs in effect on cars and car. Part the president saying that he wants to expand investigations to look into other ways to apply these tariffs.

Another investigation into Section three -- excuse me, 301, this is a measure by which tariffs can be put in place if the government or the administration believes that other countries are in violation of trade agreements. And there are currently tariffs in place under Section 301 for some Chinese imports. Actually tariffs that have been in place since President Trump's first term.

Also some tariffs in place for aircraft and some goods coming in from the European Union.

Jake, another tool in the President's toolbox to add more tariffs in place of these IEPA tariffs is something called Section 338. This has actually been -- never been used by a president before. But it does allow for the president to lob significant tariffs of up to 50 percent on countries if the government or the president believes they are discriminating against the United States. Never been used, but a tool for the president to use if he chooses, Jake.

TAPPER: And Vanessa, so he can do these other tariffs. Will they end up costing the American consumer more?

YURKEVICH: Experts and economists we have spoken to say actually no. The IEPA tariffs had a higher average tariff rate than these new tariffs that the president wants to put in place. But just look at some of the relief that businesses and consumers will likely see soon. There was a 40 percent tariff in place on Brazil. That is now changing to 10 percent.

We import a significant amount of coffee, oil, fruits and vegetables from Brazil, so that lower tariff rate is significant. Also Mexico and Canada, a tariff rate of 25 percent and 35 percent on Canada was in place. That is now coming down to 10 percent for any products that were not under USMCA. And finally, Vietnam, a huge producer of the shoes and apparel that we import here to the United States, going from a 20 percent tariff to a 10 percent tariff.

[17:20:19]

Now, Jake, this is likely not going to lower prices for everyday Americans, but it will certainly change the calculus that companies have of whether or not they have to continue to pass these tariffs down to consumers, probably prices rising slower and probably companies saying we can absorb more and don't have to pass it on to you every day Americans who have been taking the lion's share of these tariffs, Jake. TAPPER: All right, Vanessa, great stuff. Thank you so much.

Coming up next, the major settlement today involving Epstein survivors. Plus the high profile depositions in that matter set to take place in a couple of days.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[17:25:03]

TAPPER: In our Law and Justice League, Jeffrey Epstein's estate agreed Thursday to pay up to $35 million in a settlement with at least two survivors. The final figure depends on the number of survivors who signed on to the lawsuit. If a federal judge in New York approves this settlement would resolve claims against the estate and two Epstein advisers accused of facilitating Epstein's sex trafficking ring. Meanwhile in Congress, the House Oversight Committee has two big depositions planned for next week.

The top Democrat on the Oversight Committee is with me, Congressman Robert Garcia of California.

Congressman, good to see you, sir. What's your reaction to the news of the settlement?

REP. ROBERT GARCIA (D-CA), RANKING MEMBER, OVERSIGHT COMMITTEE: Look, I think first, any time that survivors can get any type of justice, I think is a positive development. I mean, clearly there are settlements that this have happened in the past. It's important that survivors get closure and that certainly for the terror that they have been inflicted upon gets get some type of assistance and support.

Now, as far as the estate, more broadly, the executive of the estate, both of them, we have actually subpoenaed. We're going to talk to both Epstein's former lawyer and accountant who run the Epstein estate, where we've actually received and gotten many documents from that we've released to the public. So there's a lot of questions we have, obviously about the estate, about what both of those gentlemen know, what their involvement was in Epstein's crimes, if any. And we believe they have a lot of critical information about our investigation.

TAPPER: So following former Prince Andrew's arrest, you told CNN that the House Oversight Committee, that you're the ranking Democrat on, wants to talk to him, saying he has important information. Is there now bipartisan appetite, a bipartisan appetite in Congress to subpoena the former prince?

GARCIA: Well, we actually would love to have the former prince come and testify in front of the Oversight Committee. We've sent him now multiple communications. We're hopeful that he will accept those. It's difficult to subpoena, of course, someone that is not a United States citizen from the U.S. Congress. But two things are important here. One is he's going to have to be held accountable for what he has done for the arrest and justice in the U.K. and that's an important piece of all this. Survivors are watching this unfold carefully. At the same time he has critical information. So our message to the former prince is pretty clear. Look, you need to stand for the crimes you have committed and that's important. But you can also do the right thing, talk to our committee, give us information.

We think he has critical information about who else could have been in those rooms, who else could have been involved in the funding, who else could have been involved with the terrorizing and rape of women and children? And so we hope the former prince certainly stands trial, but at the same time gives the Oversight Committee important information.

TAPPER: So you were there for the five hour deposition of former Victoria's Secret owner Les Wexner on Wednesday in Ohio, at one point appointing a person sitting to his side, possibly his attorney, audibly whispered to him, and it was on tape, and not really much of a whisper, "I will effing kill you if you answer another question with more than five words, OK." Let's play that moment for our viewers.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: I will (BLEEP) kill you if you answer another question with more than five words, OK?

(END VIDEO CLIP)

TAPPER: What did you make of that moment? And did you find Les Wexner's testimony credible at all?

GARCIA: I mean, first, I think that was pretty stunning. I think that a lot of us that were in the room thought that the interactions with the attorney were quite odd. He kept objecting to a lot of the questions. This wasn't, you know, wasn't a courtroom and certainly had been coached throughout the process by that lawyer.

What I think was really concerning is, one, Wexner was not credible. He couldn't even admit at all that he was friendly or friends with Jeffrey Epstein. I mean, this is the man that provided more funding than any other single person to Epstein. There wouldn't have been an Epstein island or an Epstein plane, or he would have had the money to commit all the horrific crimes had it not been for the hundreds and hundreds of millions of dollars that were given to Epstein by Wexner.

We're talking about homes, properties, business ventures. I mean, Wexner opened up his entire fortune. He was -- gave basically Epstein the power of attorney over his fortune. And so to say then that they weren't friends or friendly, especially when -- as we all saw that, Wexner himself signed that infamous birthday book, your friend, Leslie, I mean, give me a break. It just completely not credible.

And it's incredibly concerning that the most powerful and wealthiest people in this country continue to be a part of this big cover up.

TAPPER: Wexner repeatedly insisted, as you note, that he knew nothing about Epstein's crime and that law enforcement never spoke with him, which is pretty shocking. Next week, the committee is going to hear from former President Bill Clinton and former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton. Hillary Clinton has said she and her husband have nothing to hide. What are you expecting to hear from the Clintons and what do you want

to know?

[17:30:14]

GARCIA: Well, look, I think first, I'm glad that we're going to hear from both Secretary Clinton and former President Clinton. We've said from day one that we want to talk to anyone with any information about Jeffrey Epstein. I think, look, I think first, obviously, as it relates to Secretary Clinton, I think she's been very clear.

She's had very little interaction with Epstein. I think for former President Clinton, we want to understand what he knows, who he thinks that Jeffrey Epstein may have associated with. Does he have any information, especially about any foreign government ties to Epstein? There's a lot of speculation and evidence, quite frankly, continues to grow that that may have been the case.

But the other thing that I want to be clear on is we think, and we've said from day one, we would like both of the testimonies given to be public. So if they're not going to be held in public and live, we're hopeful that the oversight committee on the majority will release both of those and the footage immediately after both of those happen. So I will be in New York this week as part of a team of oversight Democrats to interview both the former president and the secretary. Both those interviews should either be live or sent to the public and the media immediately after.

TAPPER: Democratic Congressman Robert Garcia, thanks so much. Appreciate it, sir.

Coming up, what could be the administration's new nationwide model for enforcing its immigration agenda? CNN's new reporting ahead.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[17:35:58]

TAPPER: Our Politics Lead now. President Trump is going to speak to Congress and the nation next Tuesday night in his State of the Union address. The economy and foreign policy will be in all likelihood among the major issues. Immigration will also likely be one of his biggest topics, given that it was one of the issues that helped him win a second term.

My panel of CNN's -- some of CNN's best joins me now. Priscilla, let's start with you. You have some new reporting today. The Trump administration plans to emphasize its targeted immigration enforcement and will essentially take the playbook that it's currently using in Minneapolis, not necessarily like a month or two ago, and apply it nationwide. So this is a departure from the more aggressive Bovino- Noem tactics. PRISCILLA ALVAREZ, CNN CORRESPONDENT: It's a rebuke of the tactics that have been used over the last year by Gregory Bovino, the top Border Patrol official who had the stamp of approval of the Homeland Security Secretary, Kristi Noem.

And in many ways, what Tom Homan ushered into Minneapolis is what the immigration and customs enforcement typically did. It was the targeted approach, which is to say they identify who they're going to go after, they strategize, they conduct the operation. And if someone else, another undocumented immigrant is in the vicinity, then that person can be picked up as well.

But the idea here is that it could look different. It's not that they're softening the immigration crackdown. That's what all of my sources stress. It's that the way that the American public will consume it, they hope, is different, which is to say that there's not going to be those broad immigration sweeps in areas trafficked by immigrants that can look disorganized and were under intense scrutiny and hit a boiling point in Minneapolis.

But rather, it's going to be more of what people anticipate, which is those targeted operations where they know who they're going after. And Tom Homan himself on CNN described how he moved toward that approach in Minneapolis. Take a listen.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

TOM HOMAN, BORDER POLICY ADVISER: I've made changes. I've created a unified chain of commands. Everybody's reporting up to one chain. I wanted to make sure it was targeted enforcement operation. I don't think it was happening in all instances. But I think the most important thing I did, I talked to the mayor. I talked to the governor. I talked to the attorney general.

We can't fix things talking in the echo chamber. We've got to talk to the other side. And that's how we fix things. That's how we got the unprecedented cooperation. That's why the state of Minnesota, I think, is safer today, because law enforcement is working with law enforcement.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

ALVAREZ: Now, this is the playbook that the administration wants to take to multiple cities nationwide. I asked the White House about this. They said the President's team is working together. But of course, notably, there are different factions within the administration in regards to the approach. And right now, it's the Homan faction that is seen as the one charged with immigration enforcement.

TAPPER: Right. But in the public's mind right now, it's the Noem, Stephen Miller, Bovino faction that is most resonant, the deaths of Renee Good, the deaths of Alex Pretti, being so confrontational with American citizens and on and on. How do you think the president might address that in the State of the Union? ALVAREZ: I think the President is likely to take on the theme that the administration has been going with over the last year, which is to talk about the agitators and protesters, but not -- I don't foresee him naming Alex Pretti and Renee Good specifically. But it is -- he's going to have to navigate the context, the moment that we're in where the American public lost the trust or rather the White House lost the trust of the American public in how they're conducting immigration enforcement.

And he's going to have to usher back in that confidence. And that's what they're hoping Homan's playbook does across the United States. And I can see how the President is going to try to do that as well by, again, reinforcing that we're going after the worst of the worst, exactly what he did at the White House podium not long ago when Minneapolis was starting to get very tense.

TAPPER: So, Jeff, the president obviously is going to talk about the economy. That's been an issue also that he's struggled to convince the American people that things are going the way he wants. And now, of course, this huge rebuke from the U.S. Supreme Court, you know, wiping away his tariff regime that was the centerpiece of his economic policy.

I mean, I guess it's possible he'll go in front of Congress, a joint session and say that the Supreme Court justices are unpatriotic and in the pocket of foreign influence and all the other insults he made today. But how do you think his advisers want him to approach?

[17:40:09]

JEFF ZELENY, CNN CHIEF NATIONAL AFFAIRS CORRESPONDENT: I mean, talking to White House officials and advisers, they hope he got that out of his system today when he was doing an extraordinarily vitriolic assessment of this. I mean, we have seen the President do many, many rants over the years. This was another level. I mean, directly going after the Supreme Court justices, a couple of which he appointed to the Supreme Court.

So I do not expect him to do that next week when some of the Supreme Court justices are sitting just a few feet away from him in the House chamber. We'll see if Neil Gorsuch or Amy Coney Barrett actually go. We know the chief justice will be there. But what the President wants to do or what his advisers want the President to do is effectively talk about his plan B going forward, how tariffs are still at the center of his policy. But things are different in every respect. He talked about a 10 percent global tariff under Section 122.

There is a limit to that for 150 days without congressional approval. There is no chance, very little chance in this Congress at this point of a midterm election year that Congress would extend that. So I think it'll be very interesting to see if he sort of downplays the defeat in the Supreme Court, because it makes him look weak and the eyes on China. He's going to China next month. I mean, this is a huge deal for his leverage. So that was the biggest blow today for his power on the world stage, his leverage to other world leaders that's been taken away from him. TAPPER: And just you and I are old enough to remember 16 years ago, President Obama had a State of the Union where he criticized the Supreme Court decision as dead wrong with Citizens United decision. And a whole bunch of Republican senators were so upset that he did that silent today, completely silent.

ZELENY: Alito has not been back to a State of the Union since then, and he said not true.

TAPPER: Yes.

ZELENY: But that is a different lifetime.

TAPPER: So, Kylie, Trump often likes to brag about all the wars that he has ended. You know, truth of that notwithstanding, he's currently weighing the idea of maybe starting a war, at least conducting serious military strikes against Iran. How does he balance that with his no new wars, America first message?

KYLIE ATWOOD, CNN NATIONAL SECURITY CORRESPONDENT: I think it's a really unique challenge for him going into the State of the Union, just because he's already on his heels when it comes to immigration, when it comes to tariffs. And when it comes to foreign policy, he actually feels like he's in a pretty good spot. And so when you look at where he is psychologically right now, one line that struck me today when he was speaking at the White House about the Supreme Court ruling was I can do whatever I want.

If that is psychologically impacting him when he thinks about Iran, he has so many of the Middle Eastern countries telling him not to go for strikes in Iran. The U.K. just recently told the United States that they couldn't use British bases to carry out these strikes inside Iran. And so if the President is, you know, psychologically on his heels right now, there may be a point where that impacts him trying to go ahead with these strikes because it makes him look strong.

And I think the State of the Union is all about the projection of that strength. It's not necessarily exactly about how the American public will respond, but how he looks to the American public, how he's perceived.

TAPPER: Thanks to all of you. Really appreciate it. CNN, of course, is going to have special coverage of President Trump's State of the Union address next Tuesday. Look for the speech plus in-depth analysis before and after the address. That's next Tuesday night starting at 8:00 p.m. Eastern. Watch on CNN or on the new CNN app.

[17:43:26]

Law enforcement in the United Kingdom say they could be searching homes related to Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor, that's the former Prince Andrew, into next week. The latest on the investigation into Andrew, next.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK) TAPPER: Back in the Law and Justice Lead, one day after the arrest of the former Prince Andrew, police in the United Kingdom say the search of his former home will likely continue until Monday. This as the British royal family faces its biggest crisis in decades. CNN Royal correspondent Max Foster has all the latest from London.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Your Majesty, how are you feeling after your brother's arrest?

MAX FOSTER, CNN ROYAL CORRESPONDENT (voice-over): Keep calm and carry on, Britain's wartime motto, seemingly what King Charles is going with as his brother Andrew's legal woes unfold. Charles promises full support for the investigation, saying the law must take its course.

We're now learning that London police are now contacting former Prince Andrew's personal protection officers. They're also assessing U.S. DOJ documents suggesting that London airports were being used to facilitate human trafficking.

But as searches continued at one of Andrew's former properties on Friday, experts warning the investigation into the former prince could be slow.

GRAHAM WETTONE, RETIRED LONDON METROPOLITAN POLICE OFFICER: Looking for offences relating to any potential misconduct in public office. So documents, e-mails, electronic messages, those sort of materials, which obviously these days can be held on like flash drives and USBs. It would be a very slow and methodical search.

FOSTER (voice-over): Now released from custody, police haven't said what led to Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor's arrest on suspicion of misconduct in public office. But it came after a tranche of documents relating to convicted sex offender Jeffrey Epstein were made public by the U.S. Department of Justice.

Some of the e-mails released appear to allegedly show Andrew sending confidential U.K. government trade material to the late Epstein. Whilst the appearance of someone's name in the files is not evidence of wrongdoing, Thames Valley police previously said it was assessing whether Andrew shared confidential material with Epstein during his time as a U.K. trade envoy from 2001 to 2011.

The former prince hasn't responded to the newest allegations, but he has consistently denied any wrongdoing related to Epstein, even claiming he terminated his friendship with a convicted sex offender back in 2010. Still, the sheer complexity and publicity around the case, also why some experts believe it may take some time for police to finish their investigation.

[17:50:08]

DAL BABU, FORMER CHIEF SUPERINTENDENT, METROPOLITAN POLICE: There's not a great deal of sympathy, but the police have a duty of care to everybody they arrest. They want to make sure that he receives all the support.

FOSTER: Whilst the authorities go through due process, the U.K. government is now coming under more pressure to act, and that's because Andrew, despite being stripped of his titles, is still eighth in line to the throne. But the U.K. government has not yet made a decision According to a poll released on Friday, 82 percent of Britons want him removed from the line of succession.

FOSTER (voice-over): So far, the government seems to be keen to see the investigation play out, but with mounting calls from lawmakers and the public, that resolve may be tested in the weeks to come.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

TAPPER: And our thanks to CNN's Max Foster there.

Coming up next, looking back at the fallout from another major Supreme Court decision. Hear from a member of the Little Rock Nine, how she courageously confronted others who tried to resist what the courts deemed unconstitutional.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[17:55:11]

TAPPER: In our National Lead, a chance to hear from a survivor who helped shape a key moment in U.S. history, Melba Pattillo Beals, one of the Little Rock Nine. She was one of the nine black students who bravely faced angry mobs in 1957 to integrate Central High School in Little Rock, Arkansas. Beals spoke with CNN about what she went through and how aspects of what she went through could be repeated today. CNN's Elie Honig has her story.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

ELIE HONIG, CNN SENIOR LEGAL ANALYST (voice-over): When Melba Pattillo Beals and her black classmates first tried to enter Little Rock Central High School, they were blocked by an angry mob.

MELBA PATTILLO BEALS, MEMBER OF THE "LITTLE ROCK NINE": You're dead. You know, you're not going to live. You might as well put your books down. You're not going to live to study.

HONIG (voice-over): In 1954, the U.S. Supreme Court issued a historic ruling, Brown versus Board of Education. In a unanimous 9-0 decision, the court prohibited racial segregation in public schools and declared an end to so-called Jim Crow separate, but equal laws.

Despite the Supreme Court's ruling, it would be three years until Arkansas high schools would integrate. Melba Beals, then just 15 years old, would be part of the first group of black students at Little Rock Central High School.

BEALS: Now, originally, there were 116 African-American children set to go to Central High School. A man, a white man, came to our house and knocked on the door, this is not going to be good for you. We're going to kill you and your relatives.

HONIG: And there was physical violence directed at you and your family as well?

BEALS: Physical doesn't begin to explain it. Shooting in the window.

HONIG (voice-over): The intimidation did deter some students. Only Melba and eight others ended up attending. Together, they would become known as the Little Rock Nine.

BEALS: My grandmother said, look, you're born on this Earth to do certain things. And if that's what you're here for, then you have no choice.

HONIG (voice-over): The first time they tried to enter the school, Melba and her black classmates were met by an angry mob. Arkansas Governor Orval Faubus had activated the Arkansas National Guard to block the black students from entering the school.

Later that month, President Dwight D. Eisenhower invoked the Insurrection Act to deploy the military, the 101st Airborne Division of the U.S. Army, to escort the students into Little Rock Central High School.

DWIGHT EISENHOWER, FORMER PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: I have today issued an executive Order directing the use of troops under federal authority to aid in the execution of federal law at Little Rock, Arkansas.

HONIG: What would have happened if President Eisenhower never utilized the 101st to protect you?

BEALS: I wouldn't be sitting here. I would be very dead, not a little dead, very dead.

HONIG: What was your time at Little Rock Central like?

BEALS: It was a horror movie. Put acid in my eyes. I see, for example, the liquid, that light, floaters go across. Pulling my hair, cut off my -- try to cut off my ponytail. I would go to the bathroom, and they would drop lit pieces of fire -- paper with matches and drop them over.

HONIG (voice-over): While Melba knew her role was important, the burden and the sacrifice were almost too much for her to bear. But when Martin Luther King Jr. visited the Little Rock Nine, he made it clear that their mission was much bigger.

HONIG: You met with Martin Luther King?

BEALS: I did. And he said, Melba, you're not doing this for yourself. You're doing this for generations yet unborn."

HONIG (voice-over): This was hardly the first time she'd face challenges. As a black child born in 1941 in the segregated South, Melba Pattillo Beals faced racism in every part of her life. BEALS: We'd go in public, and they'd call us the N-word all the time. So what it was like? It was a living hell, because from the beginning, my little spirit said, hey, you don't treat me that way.

HONIG (voice-over): As a child, Melba witnessed unspeakable acts of violence.

BEALS: Five years of age, I'm sitting in a church. And so, all of a sudden, this backdoor opened, and there were, probably, I don't know, 100, more than a 100 people, and in walked these dudes in their white sheets, and I know what that meant. That's Klan, right?

They went right after this man, and there were rafters in this church, and they strung a rope over the rafters. I was too little to look up to his face, but I could see his feet dangling as they were hanging him, and I could hear the argh in his throat, you know? I have never forgotten that.

HONIG (voice-over): In 1999, President Bill Clinton awarded Melba and the other members of the Little Rock Nine the Congressional Gold Medal for their role in the civil rights movement. Given her own lived experience, Melba worries about what she sees unfolding today.

BEALS: Sending troops is not the answer. Eisenhower sent in troops because Faubus was not in compliance. And so I think that, in the end, will we regret what's going on now? Let's wait and see.

[18:00:03]

HONIG (voice-over): Elie Honig, CNN.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

TAPPER: Welcome to The Lead. I'm Jake Tapper. This --