Return to Transcripts main page

CNN Newsroom

Supreme Court Temporarily Blocks Deportation Under Maritime Law; Interview With Rep. Tim Burchett (R-TN); GOP Bracing For Funding Fight To Pass Trump Agenda; Putin Declares Brief Easter Truce In War But Ukraine Says It's Still Under Attack; Survivor And Mom who Lost Sons Remember Oklahoma City Bombing; Trump Admin Dialing Up Pressure In Ongoing Battle With Harvard; Drake Expands Legal Battle With Label Over Lamar's Song; Easter, Passover Celebrations Will Come With Hail And Flooding. Aired 5-6p ET

Aired April 19, 2025 - 17:00   ET

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

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[17:00:01]

JESSICA DEAN, CNN HOST: You're in the CNN NEWSROOM, I'm Jessica Dean in New York.

And we are waiting to hear more from the Supreme Court after a rare early morning order pausing the Trump administration's use of the Alien Enemies Act.

The White House planned to use the centuries old law to deport a group of Venezuelan migrants in Texas this weekend.

The court did not explain its reasoning, but Justice Samuel Alito, one of the two justices who dissented this opinion, is expected to release a statement.

Let's go now to CNN's Julia Benbrook in Washington. Julia, walk us through this order and what it means.

JULIA BENBROOK, CNN CORRESPONDENT: Well, that overnight order released around 1:00 a.m. It paused the use of the Alien Enemies Act to deport a group of immigrants in Texas who said that the Trump administration was looking to remove them from the United States.

Attorneys for the Venezuelan migrants in this case filed an emergency appeal at the high court Friday evening and said that this group was facing an immediate risk of removal and did not have sufficient time to challenge these deportations.

We did reach out to the White House to get their reaction to this court order, and here's what White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt said.

She said in part, quote, "We are confident in the lawfulness of the administration's actions and in ultimately prevailing against an onslaught of meritless litigation brought by radical activists who care more about the rights of terrorist aliens than those of the American people."

Now, the Supreme Court's order comes after attorneys for the Venezuelan migrants in the case filed, that emergency appeal that I mentioned earlier. And we're pulling up that order for you now.

The court ordered that the Trump administration to respond to the emergency appeal once a federal appeals court in Louisiana, which covers cases from Texas, takes action on the case.

In the meantime, the court said, quote, "The government is directed not to remove any member of the putative class of detainees from the United States until further order of the court."

And as you mentioned, the order did draw some dissents from conservative Justices Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito. We do expect to receive a statement from Justice Alito at some point.

And at the center of all of this, the Alien Enemies Act, it's that same order, that authority that Trump used just about a month ago when he deported hundreds of alleged Venezuelan gang members to El Salvador.

It's an 18th century law, and it's not the first time that Trump's use of this law has appeared before the Supreme Court.

In fact, just last week, the court said that he can use this authority, but they stress that any migrant being removed using the act should be notified and should have time to bring it up to a court and challenge it if needed.

DEAN: And Julia, we're also learning the Pentagon and DHS will not recommend invoking the Insurrection Act at the southern border. Tell us more about that.

BENBROOK: That's right. Multiple officials familiar with the matter tell CNN that these departments are preparing to send a memo to President Donald Trump about the conditions at the southern border. And Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth and Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem are not going to recommend invoking the Insurrection Act.

The Insurrection Act is a 19th century law that would allow the president to use active-duty troops within the United States to perform law enforcement functions, such as arresting migrants, Jessica.

DEAN: All right. Julia Benbrook in Washington, thanks so much.

Joining us now to talk more about this Republican Congressman Tim Burchett of Tennessee. Congressman, thank you so much. I see you're in your Tennessee orange on this Saturday afternoon.

I first want to go back to what we were talking about just at the top of the show about this Supreme Court ruling overnight. It was a 7 to 2 ruling.

What does it say to you that a number of conservative judges joined the three liberals on that ruling?

REP. TIM BURCHETT (R-TN): Well, I think I mean, immigration is the hot button issue now. I think even I saw on CNN that I think about 53 or 54 percent of Americans think that immigration is -- the president's handling it properly, I believe.

And so, you know, you've got the last four years, you've allowed 20 million people in and the courts have not said peep about it.

And now you've got an illegal that was sent back to his own country of El Salvador and the courts have stepped in. So I think America is scratching their heads trying to get their head around this thing, because I think the courts are out of touch with the reality in their little sheltered environment.

DEAN: This was, though -- these were five conservative justices who are pretty conservative, have ruled with President Trump on a lot of things.

But I did want to ask you, though, this is specifically about they are essentially like saying pump the brakes. Let this play out in this Louisiana court. And then, you know, you need to act on this.

[17:04:51]

DEAN: Do you think that that's appropriate for them to just say, hang on, let this play out first?

BURCHETT: Sure. I think it's totally appropriate to go through the channels. Too many times, they've skipped over lower courts and tried to get something -- shop something to the Supreme Court. So I think anytime they do that, it's within their purview, of course. But it's within my purview as an American to be a dissenting voice on their thinking.

I've, you know, I can't tell you how many times I've talked to Americans who've lost a child to an illegal. And I -- and I wonder where their constitutional rights are. And they never get their day and they've lost their child. And that to me, has got to be the greatest loss of all.

DEAN: Of course, losing a child is horrific.

I do want to move on to something else where you're going to play a role, because I am very curious on your thoughts about getting the president's agenda through Congress.

You all are on recess right now. You're being directed to do some work while you're gone to try to get ready for this. This would be a funding bill that's going to include what you all hope will be $1.5 trillion in spending cuts.

I'm curious what you've been promised when it comes to those spending cuts.

BURCHETT: Well, I met with Leader Thune and, of course, Speaker Johnson. I've talked to the president about it, and I've expressed my concern primarily at the Pentagon. You know, they haven't passed an audit in the last eight audits. And you've got -- they can't account for over a half a trillion dollars. And good gracious, that's a -- that's an aircraft carrier they can't account for. And we just keep pumping them in more money.

I want DOGE to go through every department in government and but I wish Congress would get the guts. I think $1.5 trillion is a joke, because every 100 days we add $1 trillion to our debt. \

And we've got to get serious about this, these so-called conservatives pumping, hitting their chest, going home and talking to their folks and telling how many cuts they're going to do and they won't do anything.

DEAN: Are you willing to be a no on this if it's not the amount of cuts you think are appropriate?

BURCHETT: Yes, Ma'am. We're going to lose our country. There's economists that are well respected and they're not even in the conservative realm, that said we have possibly three years to turn this ship around or well lose everything.

The Chinese are holding our treasuries. They could dump those and flood the market. We've got so many, so many things out there on the horizon. I think it's just time. We need to be fiscally sound.

If we just go back to under pre-COVID spending levels, Ma'am -- I can't, I can -- nobody can name me one program that has been added since COVID that they could live without.

But yet, if we could go back to pre-COVID spending levels, we could -- we could take care of most of this. But we won't. We don't have the guts to do it. Everybody has got a finger in the pie, and we need to quit listening to K Street lobbyists and start listening to our folks back home. And that goes for Democrats and Republicans.

DEAN: I do want to ask -- I mean, there's a number of things. I know you mentioned the Pentagon you'd like to see looked at.

But I want to ask you about one that was getting a lot of attention, this proposal that was floating around that included eliminating funding for Head Start. That's a program that helps early childhood education, nutrition. It feeds little kids while their parents work -- low-income families.

In Tennessee, it's about 16,000 -- a little over 16,000 children served. What about cutting that? Can you promise those kids are going to have, you know, food and care that they've been promised?

BURCHETT: Well, a lot of the schools already offer free meals. And in the summer --

DEAN: These are little kids. So they're not in school yet, right?

(CROSSTALK) BURCHETT: Yes. Well, 16,000 I assume that Tennessee could take care of that. And, you know, the federal Constitution doesn't provide for a Department of Education. But oddly enough, the Tennessee constitution does provide for an education.

And so I would say I would think in our great state, we could find the funding for that.

DEAN: So you would see it go to the state over the federal funding would be your say?

BURCHETT: I would say it would -- I would -- I think it's a state function anyway. But you know, and let's be honest, a lot of these folks don't have parents. I mean, you know, we've -- we're subsidizing this, and we're enforcing bad behavior in some cases.

DEAN: Well, in a lot of cases they're keeping them so the parents can work. That happens, frankly, in a lot of these cases. They don't have childcare.

BURCHETT: Yes, Ma'am. But a lot of them don't have any responsibility whatsoever. But it's not the kids' fault. It's not the kids' fault. I would I would step over them to take care of the children, of course. But it is not -- it's not the -- it's not actually -- not government's responsibility, Ma'am -- life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Just the pursuit of happiness.

We've got to decide in this country, though, we got to quit paying people not to work. And we have to have some enforcement level. There has to be something in there that says that if these folks are able to work, will they work and are they working? And if they're not --

(CROSSTALK)

DEAN: Yes.

BURCHETT: -- and if they're not, they need to be cut off.

DEAN: And but if they are, they need some support to take care of their kids during the day.

BURCHETT: Sure. Sure, yes.

[17:09:48]

DEAN: Is that what you're saying?

(CROSSTALK)

BURCHETT: Yes, Ma'am. But we do that through our churches and through other civic organizations. I just don't know if that's always got to be a government function. Because when you get into government, you get into these wild value surfing as they do and interjecting things that have no place in it.

So if they just want to feed them and provide them a safe place, that's one thing. But if they start --

DEAN: And educate, yes.

BURCHETT: Yes, Ma'am, educate. Yes, Ma'am. Because if a kid doesn't learn how to read, if a kid can't read by third grade level, Ma'am, you can pretty much count he will not -- he or she will not graduate from high school.

DEAN: I totally hear you. And but that -- that -- that data shows that that early education is what helps ensure they do read at the proper level by third grade.

BURCHETT: Actually, Pre-K Vanderbilt University, which is not a conservative university by any stretch of imagination, did a -- did some serious research and they found that a lot of Pre-K programs added no value by the time the kid was third or fourth grade.

So I think we need to go back and make sure we're teaching what we claim we're teaching.

DEAN: All right. And just really quickly -- go ahead.

(CROSSTALK)

BURCHETT: Yes. No, I have a degree in education. I've come from a family of public educators. So I'm a fan of public education. But I think we need to address what we're teaching in the classroom.

DEAN: Ok, quickly before I let you go, because we are out of time, I do just want to ask you about extending these tax cuts for -- that the Republicans do want to make permanent. Do you want to make those tax cuts permanent or just extend them knowing, as you noted at the beginning of our talk today, that it is going to increase the deficit, of which I know you're concerned.

BURCHETT: That's -- that's Washington double talk, Ma'am, whether its permanent or not. If we had the guts to do it, we could we could remove them next year or add on to them next year.

I am in favor of tax cuts. We're not -- Washington D.C. and the IRS get enough of our hard-earned money. We need to start letting people take it home. We need to let the wealthy business people be able to invest more. And I don't see anything wrong with that --

DEAN: Even if it adds to the deficit.

BURCHETT: Well, then I think we need to find cuts to go along with it. I have no problem with finding those cuts. That's the problem. Nobody wants to make the cuts, but I sure do.

DEAN: All right. Congressman Tim Burchett, thank you for your time. We appreciate it.

BURCHETT: Thank you Ma'am.

DEAN: Still ahead, Russia says it wants a holiday truce with Ukraine, even as Ukrainian forces report more attacks. All of this one day after U.S. officials threatened to walk away from ceasefire talks. More on this when we come back.

[17:12:18]

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

DEAN: Russian President Vladimir Putin is declaring a temporary halt to the fighting in Ukraine for the easter weekend, but Kyiv is skeptical.

Air raid sirens rang out in the Ukrainian capital shortly after Putin made the truce announcement, and Ukrainian officials say Russian strikes have continued in the Kherson region.

The declaration comes just one day after President Trump said he wanted to get a peace deal between Ukraine and Russia done quickly.

CNN's Matthew Chance has more now from Moscow.

MATTHEW CHANCE, CNN CHIEF GLOBAL AFFAIRS CORRESPONDENT: Well, Jessica, this Russian ceasefire comes as a frustrated President Trump threatens to walk away from his attempts to forge a peace deal in the Ukraine war.

The Kremlin timing, perhaps intended to ease criticism of its own foot dragging. But the ceasefire, which the Kremlin leader, Vladimir Putin, says he expects Ukraine to follow, is for less than two days. That's far off the 30 days that President Trump demanded and which, of course, Ukraine has already agreed to.

One immediate issue is whether it will even hold. Ukraine and Russia accuse each other of violating a recent agreement to avoid targeting energy infrastructure.

And already the Ukrainian leader, Volodymyr Zelenskyy, has called the latest announcement yet another attempt by Putin to play with human lives.

But there's a much bigger question, too, whether this offer of a short ceasefire can be extended and perhaps even mark the beginning of the end of the Ukraine war, Jessica.

DEAN: All right. Matthew Chance in Moscow, thank you so much for that.

And for more, let's bring in retired Air Force colonel and CNN military analyst Cedric Leighton. Good to have you here with us.

Let's start there. Just hours after Putin announced this temporary halt in fighting. Ukrainian officials said Russian troops were continuing to launch attacks. Do you think that Moscow truly intends to stop fighting here?

COL. CEDRIC LEIGHTON, CNN MILITARY ANALYST: Well, Jessica, unfortunately, I do not. I think what the Russians are trying to do, even if they did go with a temporary ceasefire like this 30-hour one that Putin is allegedly -- well, has proposed, there is, you know, very little doubt in my mind that they would use that to consolidate their forces, perhaps to move some forces into certain areas where they think they can eventually seize the initiative from a military standpoint, along the front lines. And that is basically what they're going to do.

So I think in this particular case, you really can't trust what Putin is doing. And the very fact that the attacks are continuing like you mentioned at Kherson region and possibly in other regions, that really speaks volumes that the Russians aren't serious about this.

[17:19:41]

DEAN: Yes. And meantime, the Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy, wants the truce extended to 30 days for -- to, as he says, give peace a chance. Do you think that's even possible? And who would even enforce it?

LEIGHTON: Yes, that's a good question. Enforcement of a peace like this would really require some kind of a third party and nobody has agreed to do anything like that.

Now, in this particular case, I think that you have a possibility of at some point reaching some kind of a ceasefire. But 30 days, I don't think the Russians are willing to do that at this point in time.

I think Zelenskyy is right to ask for it because it really shows that the Russians aren't willing to stop their efforts, to stop their military campaign and really let things basically sit at the -- at the current, current state of affairs. So that, I think creates some real problems for the peace process going forward.

DEAN: And Putin's truce announcement came one day after the Trump administration said it was running out of patience with the war, that they may be ready to walk away from the peace process altogether.

What did you take away from that and what could that mean for Ukraine?

LEIGHTON: So yes, that's a very -- it was a very interesting use of, of language by both Secretary of State Rubio and President Trump when they spoke about walking away from the peace process.

In some ways, it's a warning to Ukraine that the U.S. may have lost interest in, you know, not only in protecting Ukraine and providing Ukraine with weapons, but also in providing Ukraine with a way out through a peace process.

On the other hand, for the Russians, this is probably one of the better deals that they could possibly get without major losses -- continued losses of life and equipment.

So in this particular case, I think what you're looking at is the fact that the Russians right now are trying to figure out whether or not the U.S. administration is serious about leaving the peace talks.

And in this particular moment, they're looking at actually trying to kind of assuage the U.S. and trying to provide some kind of a fig leaf with that 30-hour truce offer although we know at the moment at least it is not holding.

DEAN: And we also know that Moscow proposed a temporary cease fire in January the 20th through the 23rd for Orthodox Christmas. The Ukrainian government rejected that, saying it believed Russia had ulterior motives, ulterior motives planned to actually use that stop in the fighting to bring in additional troops to the war zone.

Are you concerned there are additional -- these like ulterior motives at work this weekend?

LEIGHTON: Oh, I think they definitely are, Jessica. I think there's a possibility of all kinds of ulterior motives. Now, sometimes those ulterior motives can result in positive developments for a peace process or ceasefire talks in this case.

One positive note is the fact that prisoners were exchanged. A very large volume of prisoners was exchanged between Russia and Ukraine today. So that's a positive side of things.

But the fact that fighting is still continuing shows me that the Russians are probably intent on moving forces so that they can take advantage of certain perhaps weaknesses that they perceive in the Ukrainian front line.

The Ukrainians have occupied some small territory in the Belgorod region of Russia, and there's still a small (INAUDIBLE) of Ukrainian troops in the Kursk region so that is something that I think bothers the Russians.

But they also want to take advantage of several weaknesses, and they believe that they have the advantage in terms of size of the military and their ability to actually prosecute that advantage. They think they can do that even though the Ukrainians are pretty tenacious at this point.

DEAN: All right. Colonel Cedric Leighton, thanks so much. Good to see you.

LEIGHTON: Good to see you too, Jessica.

DEAN: Still ahead, how the youngest survivors of the Oklahoma City bombing are reflecting on that tragedy now 30 years later.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

EDYE RAINES, SONS KILLED IN OKLAHOMA BOMBING: On the day that it happened, you think it's the end of the world. It feels like it's the end of the world.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

[17:23:45]

(COMMERCIAL BREAK) DEAN: Today marks 30 years since the Oklahoma City bombing, the deadliest act of domestic terrorism in U.S. history. 168 people were killed that day. And tonight we hear from the bombing's youngest survivor and a mother who lost her two sons.

CNN's Ed Lavandera has their story.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

ED LAVANDERA, CNN CORRESPONDENT: Watching these grainy home videos with Edye Raines is like stepping into a frozen vault.

RAINES: That was every day around the house. It was Monsterville.

LAVANDERA: Traveling back in time to see her two boys, three-year-old Chase and two-year-old Colton.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: I got cold on my shoes.

RAINES: It's like seeing a picture come to life.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: I said, shut up.

LAVANDERA: When you hear their voices.

RAINES: It's weird. I don't ever watch this stuff, ever.

LAVANDERA: When the world first saw Edye Raines, April 19th, 1995 she was a 22-year-old mother running around the Oklahoma City federal building.

Live news coverage captured her agony in the moments just after the bombing that killed 168 people, including 19 children.

In that moment, could you have envisioned what your life would be like 30 years later.

RAINES: On the day that it happened, you think it's the end of the world. It feels like it's the end of the world.

LAVANDERA: What is it that you specifically remember?

RAINES: I remember how loud I wailed and screamed and cried. I can almost hear myself in the back of my head.

LAVANDERA: Her brother, who was a police officer, would find the bodies of Chase and Colton in the rubble. They were in the daycare center on the second floor of the federal building, too close to where Timothy McVeigh parked the moving van filled with nearly 5,000 pounds of explosives.

[17:29:50]

LAVANDERA: When you think of your boys, what do you -- what do you think?

RAINES: They were such happy, like precious, wonderful little creatures.

LAVANDERA: The idea that you don't get to see what they would have become has to weigh on you.

RAINES: I do wonder, like what? What would they be? I don't know, so I wonder about that all the time.

LAVANDERA (voice-over): But six children did survive the bombing. They were called the Miracle Babies.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Whoo.

LAVANDERA: P.J. Allen was just 18 months old.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: When they found me out inside the building, I was on fire.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: P.J., look at you.

LAVANDERA: The blast burned more than half his body. Rocks and debris penetrated his skull. And when he left the hospital several months later, it was a headline-making moment.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: We're going home.

(LAUGHTER)

LAVANDERA: For almost 10 years, Allen lived with a breathing tube because his lungs were so badly scorched.

P.J. ALLEN, OKLAHOMA CITY BOMBING SURVIVOR: Which gives me the unique voice that I have now.

LAVANDERA (on camera): It is a unique voice. That's a great way to look at it.

(voice-over): Today, he's 31 years old, living in Oklahoma City. He has no memory of that day but has spent a life-time searching for meaning.

ALLEN: I believe that we all survived for a reason, and it's up to us to go through life and try to figure out what that is.

For me, I believe that trying to find a way to give back is my purpose.

LAVANDERA: Allen found that work as a technician repairing military planes at Tinker Air Force Base, and always fully aware that he's a direct link to one of the darkest moments in American history.

(on camera): Do you get angry about it?

ALLEN: No sir.

LAVANDERA: Never?

ALLEN: Too lucky to be alive to take a moment feeling any type of hatred.

LAVANDERA: You perhaps, maybe more than many people, who realize how grateful it is to take each breath that you have.

ALLEN: Oh yes, definitely. Don't ever take life for granted.

RAINES: He said, "I love you, Mommy"

LAVANDERA (voice-over): Just days after the bombing, Edye Raines spoke with CNN, showing Chase and Colton's untouched bedroom.

RAINES: It's all I have left.

LAVANDERA: In those early days, the weight of the future seemed unbearable.

RAINES: What do you do when people ask you, do you have children? What do you say? Why don't you have children? My children are dead. What do you say? You don't know what to say.

LAVANDERA: Raines would go on to have two more children. Thirty years later, she's learned to live with the memories of Chase and Colton.

RAINES: Well, the first 10 years, there were -- there was a lot of anger. I was angry. After this long, you can't just really harbor that hatred and resentment and --

LAVANDERA (on camera): Do you think most people have found some form of peace?

RAINES: I think everyone has dealt with our situation with grace and dignity, I mean, as much as you can.

LAVANDERA: Right.

RAINES: What else do you do? You can't change it.

LAVANDERA: I asked both Eddie and P.J. If they ever get tired of being asked about the bombing or talking about it.

And I was struck that they both told me, no. That almost every year they returned to the memorial at the bombing site on April 19th to be with other victims' families and survivors.

Talking about it, they say, is their way of keeping the memory of those who died alive. And in that, they have found great comfort and peace for three decades now.

Back to you.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

DEAN: Now 30 years.

Ed Lavandera, thank you for that. Next, we're going to talk with the Harvard professor, who says the

school has to resist President Trump's crackdown on top universities and explains why the rest of the country should care.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[17:37:59]

DEAN: The Trump administration is escalating its ongoing battle with Harvard University claiming, quote, "incomplete and inaccurate foreign funding disclosures."

The administration now seeking records going back a decade, and information on some foreign ties.

U.S. law requires universities report donations from foreign service exceeding $250,000 a year, and Harvard says it has filed such reports for decades now.

This is all just the latest move in what is becoming an escalating showdown. Harvard this week, becoming the first university to openly defy the administration's demands when it comes to campus activism, anti-Semitism and diversity, prompting billions to be, in funding, to be frozen.

And joining us now is Ryan Enos. He's a professor of government and the director of the Center for American Political Studies at Harvard University.

Ryan, thank you so much for being here with us.

I just, first, want to start kind of bigger picture. Harvard has an endowment of more than $50 billion. That is something we hear over and over again, especially from the administration.

Why do you think Americans across the country who maybe have no affiliation with Harvard and never will, should care about this? What are the broader implications?

RYAN ENOS, PROFESSOR OF GOVERNMENT & DIRECTOR, CENTER FOR AMERICAN POLITICAL STUDIES, HARVARD UNIVERSITY: That's the essential question, and I'm really glad you asked, because I don't think a typical American should really care about Harvard itself.

But what Americans do care about, what I care about is democracy. And Donald Trump is attacking Harvard because that's what authoritarians do.

You know, Vladimir Putin in Russia attacked -- attacked universities. Viktor Orban in Hungary attacked universities.

Authoritarians everywhere attacked universities just like they attacked the press and they attacked law firms. And that's what Donald Trump has done. And this is just part of that authoritarian playbook.

DEAN: And we saw the president of Harvard and the university, writ large, push back on the Trump administration this week.

What did you think about those efforts? And what has kind of happened on Harvard's campus and with people you're talking to since that's happened?

[17:40:01]

ENOS: Yes. You know, myself, and I think just think everybody else I talked to, both because we care about what happens at Harvard, but we also understand the larger context. I was really thrilled to see what happened when Harvard pushed back.

And it was very energizing. I mean, we want Harvard to be part of this fight for democracy that the United States is in right now. And I think a lot of us are very proud to be associated with an institution that is doing the right thing.

DEAN: And the Trump administration is hinging all of this on fighting anti-Semitism, that that's -- that's what they said this is all about.

Do you think Harvard has done enough and is doing enough to protect Jewish students on its campus?

ENOS: Yes, absolutely. And one thing to mention, of course, is that Donald Trump doesn't care about anti-Semitism. That is all a pretext.

Donald Trump has coddled anti-Semites. And that should really give us pause to think about what he cares about.

But Harvard itself is an extremely liberal place. I would say the students here are militantly anti- or militantly anti-prejudicial. They do not want to be associated with anti-Semites.

And anybody that has spent a day at Harvard's campus would understand this.

Donald Trump doesn't care about those issues though. What he wants to do is the same thing authoritarians do, which is try to control universities.

DEAN: And it was interesting. I talked to a colleague of yours who's also part of this lawsuit, on behalf of the professors who are suing, which I believe you are as well.

And he was making the case, too, that in his words, that "there are laws that you can use, the administration could use to go after anyone who was threatening Jewish students, who was actively breaking any laws," you know, in terms of, like, civil rights laws, that sort of thing.

Do you agree with that, that that's one way they could be taking as opposed to what they're doing otherwise -- instead?

ENOS: One hundred percent. There are very clearly laws. These are written down because we have laws in this country that protect people against discrimination. And rather than using those, what Donald Trump is doing -- he's doing

things like attacking, trying to attack funding that goes towards things like cancer research and research for tuberculosis and all kinds of other things.

Because, again, he doesn't actually care about anti-Semitism. What he cares about is trying to bring universities and the rest of American civil society under his control.

DEAN: So what do you -- how do you see this going forward? How do you see this continuing to play out? I mean, obviously you don't have a crystal ball. But as you're looking ahead, what do you think comes next?

ENOS: You know, one thing that I think has happened that maybe surprises all of us is that America seems to have really gotten behind Harvard. And I know that's a strange thing, because Harvard is sort of this, you know, elite institution that maybe people don't care about.

I was speaking to my mom, and she's out in small town in California wearing a Harvard shirt that I gave her, and somebody stopped her on the street and said, you know, we're -- we're behind Harvard. Harvard is so important right now.

And I think Harvard is sort of the catalyzing force, all of a sudden, that America needs. And that's the kind of thing that can push back against authoritarian.

It's going to be painful. You know, Harvard is going to take cuts and people are going to lose their jobs that don't deserve to lose their jobs. And that's awful.

But I think America is behind Harvard, and this is the kind of resistance we need to stop this authoritarian attack on our democracy. And I hope more institutions will stand up and join Harvard in doing that.

DEAN: Yes, it will be interesting to see because, obviously, other institutions are also under the microscope, under the gun here when it comes to what the Trump administration is demanding for them.

Ryan Enos, thank you very much for your time. We appreciate it.

ENOS: Thank you.

[17:43:39]

DEAN: Still ahead, entertainment or defamation? How Drake is trying to use Kendrick Lamar's Super Bowl show to bolster a lawsuit against his own record label.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[17:48:28]

DEAN: Drake is expanding his legal battle against his own record label over his ongoing feud with fellow artist, Kendrick Lamar. Drake claims Lamar's song "Not Like Us," which he performed at the Super Bowl and Grammys, damaged his reputation.

CNN's Elizabeth Wagmeister has more on the brewing legal battle.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

ELIZABETH WAGMEISTER, CNN ENTERTAINMENT CORRESPONDENT: What started out as a rap battle has turned into an epic court battle.

The feud between Rappers Drake and Kendrick Lamar has escalated, yet again, with Drake claiming that he was defamed by Kendrick Lamar at two high-profile events, the Super Bowl halftime show and the Grammy Awards.

Drake made the new claims in an amended complaint to the defamation lawsuit that he originally filed back in January against his own record label, Universal Music Group.

Accusing the label of defamation in the publishing and promotion of Lamar's song "Not Like Us." Both Drake and Lamar are clients of Universal Music Group.

In "Not Like Us," Lamar calls Drake a, quote, "certified pedophile," an allegation that Drake has fiercely denied, therefore saying that the diss track is defamatory.

The song was, quote, "broadcast to the largest audience for a Super Bowl halftime show ever," Drake's lawyers said in their latest filing.

Writing, quote, "It was the first and will hopefully be the last Super Bowl halftime show orchestrated to assassinate the character of another artist."

Now, during the Super Bowl halftime show, Lamar skipped over the "certified pedophile" lyric.

[17:50:00]

But he did rap another line where he accused Drake of targeting young girls, rapping, "I heard you like them young," and then looking directly at the camera, a moment that immediately went viral.

The week before the Super Bowl, Lamar attended the Grammy Awards, where he took home five awards, including record of the year and song of the year.

At the Grammys, clips of "Not Like Us" played during the ceremony when he won his award, and the crowd sang along very loudly to another controversial line about Drake.

Now, Drake's lawyers claim that these two broadcasts amplified defamatory language about Drake to massive audiences.

Lamar's halftime show brought in the largest audience ever for a Super Bowl halftime show, with over 130 million viewers, and the Grammy Awards drew over 15 million viewers.

Drake's amended complaint does not accuse Lamar of any wrongdoing, solely lodging allegations against Universal Music Group. UMG has repeatedly denied Drake's allegations, calling his lawsuit "illogical and frivolous."

The record label has said that the lawsuit should be dismissed, arguing that it could restrict free speech protections for musical artists.

Quote, "Drake, unquestionably, one of the world's most accomplished artists, and with whom we've enjoyed a 16-year successful relationship, is being misled by his legal representatives into taking one absurd legal step after another," a spokesperson from UMG told CNN.

The lawsuit is still in its initial stages, but if there isn't an out- of-court settlement, the trial is on track to potentially begin in summer of 2026.

Back to you.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

DEAN: All right, Elizabeth Wagmeister, thank you.

Eva Longoria is back with an all new culinary adventure. She is exploring the vibrant and daring cuisine of Spain, one bite at a time.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: What do you think is that chicharron.

EVA LONGORIA, CNN HOST: Shitake mushroom.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: This is a duck tongue.

LONGORIA: Duck tongue?! I didn't even know ducks had tongues.

Hello?

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Eva Longoria.

LONGORIA: Oh. Mucho gusto.

Hola.

Eleven generations ago, one of my ancestors left Spain for the new world and a new life. And 400 years later, I'm back.

I'm so excited.

to see how the land and it's people have created one of the world's most exciting cuisines.

I have an important question. UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Are you hungry?

LONGORIA: I'm hungry.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Oh, perfect.

LONGORIA: Wow. You can taste the land, the grass, what they eat.

Look at that guy. Ooh! Oh, yes. Food makes me so happy.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Yes.

LONGORIA: Is it supposed to be eaten in one bite?

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Yes.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: She's a pincho expert.

LONGORIA: I get to visit long-lost family.

Oh, la familia.

If you can preserve your food and your recipes, then you can teach the rest of the world who you are.

This is so beautiful.

Salud to that.

(LAUGHTER)

LONGORIA: Aaah.

This is cuisine at a different level.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: It is the best place to be a chef.

LONGORIA: Oh my god. We have found Spain.

(LAUGHTER)

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[17:58:01]

DEAN: Parts of the country are enjoying a sunny Easter weekend of weather, but CNN meteorologist Allison Chinchar explains some storms moving across the country have the potential to bring heavy rain and flooding -- Allison?

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

ALLISON CHINCHAR, AMS METEOROLOGIST: Roughly 40 million people are under some type of severe weather, and that stretches from Texas all the way up into the northeast. You've got a lot of cities that are going to be impacted by these

storms. And you're talking damaging winds up around 60, even 70-miles- per hour, hail. That could be golf balls or even larger.

And yes, the potential for some tornadoes exist, especially along the Mississippi Valley region and stretching back into the southern plains.

A lot of these storms have been ongoing since this morning. But we really start to see them ramp up overnight tonight. As you can see, more of those storms about 8:00, 9:10 p.m., really getting going across portions of Oklahoma and Texas.

The system is progressing eastward. It just doesn't really look like it is. And that's because it's a very, very slow moving system.

So even by around 9:00. 10:00 a.m. tomorrow morning, it's still raining across some of the same portions of Oklahoma and Texas, while some parts of it are starting to begin to spread eastward into the Ohio Valley and Tennessee Valley as well.

By Sunday, evening, that big line begins to form. But again, still looking at Wisconsin, all the way back to Texas. So still some of those same areas looking at some of these storms over and over again.

So not only do we have the potential for severe thunderstorms, but we also have the potential for flooding, simply because these areas are just going to continue to get rain in the same spots.

So you have the potential for some flooding, especially in the red area here, but really anywhere that's highlighted on this map has the potential for that flooding.

And the reason is widespread totals of two to four inches. But there will be some isolated pockets that could pick up five or even six inches of rain.

Keep in mind, for a lot of these areas while it's been dry the last few days, they had a tremendous amount of rain at the beginning of the month, so that ground is still pretty saturated in several spots.

[17:59:56]

By the time we transform into Sunday, you're still looking at another round of severe weather, a little bit slightly east compared to where it is today.

But still, St. Louis, Kansas City, Tulsa, even down into Shreveport, still looking at the potential for some tornadoes, some damaging winds, and some large hail.

(END VIDEOTAPE)