Return to Transcripts main page

CNN Newsroom

India's Foreign Secretary Accuses Pakistan Of Violating Ceasefire Agreement; Top European Leaders In Kyiv; First Day Of U.S.- China Trade Talks; DHS: More Arrests "On The Table" After ICE Facility Scuffle; First Look At House GOP's Tax Bill; Trump Floats Raising Taxes On The Rich To Pay For Agenda; Pope Leo Signals He Will Follow "Previous Legacy" Of Francis; DHS: More Arrests "On the Table" After ICE Facility Scuffle. Aired 4-5p ET

Aired May 10, 2025 - 16:00   ET

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

[16:00:00]

ANNOUNCER: This is. CNN Breaking News.

JESSICA DEAN, CNN HOST: You're in the CNN Newsroom. I'm Jessica Dean in New York. And we do begin with breaking news, as India's foreign secretary is accusing Pakistan of violating an hours-old ceasefire agreement after explosions were heard in both the India and Pakistan- administered parts of Kashmir. Pakistan's information minister is denying those claims, saying a violation of the ceasefire agreement from their side is, quote, "out of the question."

The back and forth coming after the two nuclear powers agreed to an immediate ceasefire that ended the worst fighting in decades between these two neighboring countries. The Trump administration says they helped broker that ceasefire. We are covering this story from all angles this afternoon. Our Nic Robertson is in Islamabad, Pakistan. Matthew Chance is in Delhi, India. Let's get to both of you.

Matthew, let's start first with you. Walk us through where things stand at this hour.

MATTHEW CHANCE, CNN CHIEF GLOBAL AFFAIRS CORRESPONDENT: Yes. Well, it's still pretty volatile at the moment. And the ceasefire that was implemented about 7.5 hours ago or so local time is still unstable. There are still reports coming to us from the Indian foreign secretary most recently that there are multiple violations of that ceasefire. The Indians accusing the Pakistanis of violating the terms of the truce. I know that's something that the Pakistanis have rejected.

There's also been sort of competing claims of who has come out of this very brief latest conflict between India and Pakistan with the upper hand.

The Indians on state television here and on all the sort of commercial television stations that have been watching are basically saying this was a Pakistani defeat and a big victory for India, vindication of Narendra Modi, the country's prime minister. I expect there's a very different point of view on the other side of the divide over in Pakistan. But -- and of course, the United States is taking credit with President Trump posting on Truth Social the fact that this truce was agreed because of the intervention essentially of his officials in the form of Marco Rubio and J. D. Vance.

The problem, though, with the truce is that even though the situation may settle over the coming hours and it may bring to an end the current fighting, it doesn't do anything really to address the underlying concerns and the underlying problems that have for decades been fueling the unrest in the disputed region of Kashmir. It's a majority Muslim population there, which is, you know, formerly part of a Hindu majority country. There's a strong independence movement as well. That all is has been fueling unrest over many decades.

There are allegations of human rights abuses. There's a terrorism problem. None of that is likely to be addressed in this sort of makeshift ceasefire that was put together and brokered by the United States. So, I guess the point I'm trying to make is that even if this ceasefire holds, the problems with Kashmir are likely to come back again, potentially with a vengeance in the future. And so, it's in that sense this a positive sign, but there's still a lot more to be done in terms of lasting peace.

DEAN: Right. And those key issues that you just walked us through as well. And, Nic, I want to get Pakistan's response where you are. I also understand you have new details about how the ceasefire came together.

NIC ROBERTSON, CNN INTERNATIONAL DIPLOMATIC EDITOR: Yes. I think when you look at the big picture of what's happening in the ceasefire, the big guns, the big missiles that were being launched by Pakistan this morning, the fighter jet attacks and the missiles that both sides were raining onto each other in the early hours of this morning, less than 24 hours ago, that has stopped. And I think that's pretty clear where the friction continues is along, as Matthew was saying, that disputed border area, the so-called line of control between Pakistan- administered Kashmir and Indian-administered Kashmir.

[16:05:00]

And that's where, you know, both sides are saying they are -- we're getting reports from our from our local journalists along the line there that the violations, if you will, are going both ways. But this what we've got, just a statement that's come in the last hour or so from the ministry of foreign affairs here.

Now, let me just give you some of the highlights here. It's pushing back pretty strongly, as you would expect, against the Indian accusations. It says, Pakistan remains committed to the faithful implementation of the ceasefire brokered between Pakistan and India, notwithstanding, it says, notwithstanding the violations committed by India in some areas, our forces, it says, Pakistan's forces are handling the situation with responsibility and restraint. So, I think you get the sense there, the differing narrative from both sides.

Look, as Matthew says, there are deep underlying issues. And the core issue around Kashmir has always been not just the religious issue there, but the fact that these mountains of Kashmir and the foothills of the Himalayas provide the water source for both countries, and that India has decided to turn off the water supplies from that region, the three main rivers that supply Pakistan's agriculture and power generation is one of the massive underlying issues. It's the historic issue, the water about Kashmir is what all this has been about since 1947, and that remains just as true today. In fact, officials I've talked to here see it as an existential issue.

Now, what I got from sources who were very, very close to the negotiations was just how this teetered on a knife edge, that there was almost a deal last night that was blown up by India's attack. Pakistan responded in a far bigger way than they had originally planned to do. India, according to Pakistan, backed down Marco Rubio, got directly hands-on involved. There was a violation by India. Pakistan responded. The talks continued. Another violation by India. Pakistan responded again.

And it wasn't until late afternoon that there was a two-hour pause and that was space to call that a ceasefire had been arrived at. But speaking to people involved in this, you can see the tiredness. They have been up for almost 24 hours and they knew if they didn't nail it down today, then an escalation would happen. And that was very real for both sides. It was deep tiredness on both sides, but the negotiations by the U.S. have been going on for a number of days, deeply engaged here in Pakistan, the White House coming in to add the heft over the last sort of 48 hours and a huge appreciation, frankly, by Pakistani officials here for the role of United States in achieving this.

DEAN: All right. Nic Robertson and Matthew Chance with really important updates from two key areas tonight. Thank you so much for that reporting.

Meantime, the truce between India and Pakistan, fragile as it may be, is the kind of deal President Trump has hoped he could broker in Ukraine. But now, Europeans are leading the effort to push Russia into a ceasefire in hopes of ending that three-year conflict.

Gathering in Kyiv, the leaders of Germany, France, the U.K., and Poland issued an ultimatum to Vladimir Putin, agree to a 30-day ceasefire by Monday or face possible massive sanctions. The European leaders say the demand comes with the backing of the White House, following a joint phone call with President Trump. Nick Paton Walsh has the latest now from Kyiv. He picks it up from there. Nick, what is the latest?

NICK PATON WALSH, CNN CHIEF INTERNATIONAL SECURITY CORRESPONDENT: Yes. I mean, this a seismic moment in the longest war in Europe since the '40s. It is the big breakthrough, potentially in diplomacy, that many here had hoped for. And certainly, the White House had long said they sought.

This an unconditional demand, really, from the four biggest military powers in Europe and Ukraine for an unconditional ceasefire that starts on the midnight between Sunday and Monday, as far as we can tell from the details we know. And it is, of course, backed by the White House.

The U.S., Ukraine proposal for a 30-day unconditional ceasefire, well, that's where it originated from and that's nearly two months old now. Russia has been always saying it might vaguely go along with this, but wanted to address, quote, "nuances," that essentially in the guise -- is the guise for conditions that the European leaders today said they wanted to hear none of.

So, this a very blunt statement from two nuclear powers, the French, the British, the Germans and the Polish all together here saying that really, they want to call Russia's bluff. If Russia is not willing to go along with this, then there'll be massive sanctions, Macron said, potentially against the banking and energy infrastructure. Zelenskyy, the Ukrainian president, said, and also potentially too, more military assistance for Ukraine as well. Here's what Zelenskyy had to say.

[16:10:00]

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

VOLODYMYR ZELENSKYY, UKRAINIAN PRESIDENT (through translator): Weve agreed that since Monday, 12th of May, a full and unconditional ceasefire must start for at least 30 days. We together demanded from Russia. We know that the United States support us in this. The unconditional ceasefire means no conditions and attempt to put any conditions is signaling intention to drag out the war and undermine diplomacy.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

WALSH: There's two things to be mindful of here. Firstly, is the technical way of implementing something like this, a 30-day unconditional ceasefire sounds easy, right? But ultimately, Ukraine's military, the tens of thousands, hundreds of thousands of troops deployed along an enormous frontline now have to be told, do they fight back if attacked on Monday? Do they reduce their activity in a bid to try and get the ceasefire to take hold? That's a complex task for the Ukrainian government here, certainly.

And Macron, the French president, also said the United States would monitor this. So, that means the U.S. has to get its significant capabilities up to a quality and quantity that they can measure this ceasefire document violations by either side and then present that evidence to justify potentially the sanctions and other measures they're suggesting they might potentially take.

The other side of this, too, it's important to remember, is that were currently in still the closing hours of a Russian unilateral ceasefire that was declared, critics of Russia say, to make the Victory Day Parade we saw on Friday in Moscow's Red Square go more calmly. Ukraine's accused Russia of violating that over 700 times over the last time I looked, saying that they never really meant to go along with that in earnest. And indeed, Ukraine didn't sign up to it either.

So, the concept of ceasefires here, mostly Russian, unilaterally declared ones with little notice, has been on very rocky ground. This is new. This Europe's allies and Ukraine all saying this must happen or there will be consequences they say with American backing.

But I have to tell you, I got the sense really, in that meeting, seeing those leaders together, hearing the tone of which they spoke about Putin's commitments to peace that they are pretty unsure he'll go along with this. And so, ultimately, this may be the next 30 hours or so, 48 hours, probably one of the most consequential we've seen, maybe since the start of the invasion, about sending a message to this Trump White House that Putin is not serious about peace, not serious about the U.S.-Ukraine proposal that's now two months old for an unconditional ceasefire, and that essentially Ukraine's allies now have to be a lot tougher on Russia still.

That's going to be a complex message, potentially to sell to the U.S. commander in chief. And that's why so much rest on exactly how the violence falls after midnight Sunday to Monday. Jessica.

DEAN: Yes. And we will be watching that. You make such a great point. Nick Paton Walsh, thank you so much for that.

Were joined now by Ivo Daalder, former U.S. ambassador to NATO, host of his own podcast and the author of "America Abroad" newsletter on Substack. Ambassador, thank you so much for being here with us.

As Nick was just laying out, this does seem to be the most significant diplomatic movement we've seen in this war so far. And he was talking about how Putin might respond or might not respond. How do you see the Kremlin responding to this?

IVO DAALDER, FORMER U.S. AMBASSADOR TO NATO: Well, I don't know, Jessica, how they're going to respond, that is the big question for the next 30 hours. I do think that Nick's right, that this a very, very important moment because the four European leaders who went to Kyiv to meet with President Zelenskyy have basically not only called Vladimir Putin's bluff and said, you have to agree to the ceasefire, frankly, they've called President Trumps bluff, too, because implicit in this threat and implicit in this statement is the idea that not only Europe, but the United States will finally put pressure on Russia, which is the one thing that has been lacking since President Trump came to office.

In fact, he has, from the very beginning, sought to get to an end to this conflict by siding more with Russia than Ukraine. You remember the Oval Office confrontation with President Zelenskyy, the blaming of Ukraine for this war. This now all seems to be changing.

Clearly, the White House is coming to the conclusion that the problem in Ukraine is not President Zelenskyy or the government of Ukraine, but as it has all along been, Vladimir Putin and the government of Russia.

DEAN: I did think that was interesting, what Nick was saying, was just this idea of it being twofold, as you note, that this about also too trying to impress upon President Trump and his administration that Putin isn't serious about ending this war. Do you think that that the Trump -- that the president will be open to that sort of message? DAALDER: Well, I think we've seen a change in the last 10 days or so in the president's rhetoric and the rhetoric from the White House, really, since the meeting that President Trump had in the Saint Peter's Basilica with President Zelenskyy, you remember the pictures of the two folding chairs sitting knee to knee to have a discussion. After that, the president, on social media said maybe, Vladimir Putin isn't really serious and he's tapping me along.

[16:15:00]

And we have heard more threats of sanctions, not only from him, but also from Vice President Vance. There's reports in The Wall Street Journal that he has been starting to ask questions of his aides whether Putin may have changed since the last time he was in office.

So, I think there is a growing realization importantly in the mind of President Trump, that Vladimir Putin is the problem. And that if he wants to move towards peace, putting pressure on Putin is now what is required. And I think the Europeans have given him an opening to join this threat, which I hope he will, of implementing sanctions if Vladimir Putin does not agree to what is, after all, a U.S. proposal, a 30-day ceasefire, unconditional.

DEAN: I do want to get back to our lead story at the top of our show, which is the India and Pakistan truce. Both of these countries, of course, nuclear powers. The world has a strong interest in keeping that area as calm as it possibly can be. We know that president -- Vice President J. D. Vance said just a couple of days ago that this was a conflict that was not our business. However, that changed very quickly over the course of the last couple of days.

What do you think changed the administration's view to get them to proactively help to broker this truce?

DAALDER: Well, I hope the realization dawned on the vice president and the president. And I look to Marco Rubio, this -- not only secretary of state, but now the interim national security adviser, of having to explain to the president that this very much our business.

When two nuclear powers start shooting missiles and drones and aircraft at each other at the rate that they were doing, the possibility of an escalation to include nuclear strikes, is very, very real. And the United States, as a major nuclear power itself has one overriding goal here, which is to make sure that nuclear weapons are never again used. It's not something we want to see, and it's very much in our interest.

So, I think Marco Rubio's decision to get involved, to start talking to both sides and to find a way out to get a ceasefire was critical. I'm glad that the White House seems to have done the same thing. But as both of you reporters on the region mentioned, ceasefire, one, is difficult to maintain, but two, the underlying problems remain very much there, including this issue of water that Nic Robertson talked about, which -- as the Pakistanis said, if that hasn't changed, if the water is stopped from flowing into Pakistan, that is indeed existential for Pakistan and is a casus belli, a reason for war. DEAN: Yes. Those core issues remain, and we have to see if any of them -- if progress can be made on any of those fronts. Mr. Ambassador, thank you so much for your time. We really appreciate it.

DAALDER: My pleasure.

DEAN: The Trump administration has touted a number of trade deals in the works, but when it comes to China, they are still working to calm trade tensions between China and the U.S. before those negotiations can even begin.

Plus, why Homeland Security says a trio of lawmakers could now face charges after ICE agents arrested Newark's mayor outside one of their facilities. You're in the CNN Newsroom.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[16:20:00]

DEAN: Day one of high-level trade talks between the U.S. and China just wrapped up. Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent is in Geneva, along with his Chinese counterparts, for two days of meetings. And they're seeking to ratchet down the tensions on their path toward a trade deal after president Donald Trump sparked a trade war by hitting most Chinese good goods with an additional 145 percent tariff.

But just hours after Bessent took off for Switzerland, Trump floated the idea of lower tariffs, posting this, quote, "80 percent tariff on China seems right. Up to Scott B."

CNN's Senior White House Reporter Betsy Klein is joining us now. Betsy, what are we learning from these talks and what are we expecting here?

BETSY KLEIN, CNN SENIOR WHITE REPORTER: Yes, Jessica. We are learning that the first round, after multiple hours of these trade talks between U.S. and Chinese officials, have concluded, according to a source briefed on the talks. And they are expected to continue tomorrow.

Now, what's notable here is that neither side is characterizing how these talks have gone so far, but I think it's certainly a positive sign and significant that the talks are expected to continue for a second day tomorrow in Switzerland.

Now, Trump administration officials really sought to tamp down expectations ahead of these talks, saying they really marked a good first step, but not to expect any sort of finalized deal this weekend. Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent, who's participating in these talks alongside the U.S. trade rep and other U.S. officials, said earlier this week that his goal was to de-escalate tensions with China.

Now, the president had imposed that 145 percent tariff on Chinese goods last month, and trade talks with China had really been at a virtual stalemate ever since, the president indicated Friday, ahead of the talks, some openness to softening the ground. [16:25:00]

He floated the possibility, you mentioned, of that 80 percent rate of tariff on China, saying it was up to Scott B., of course, referring to Bessent there. The White House later clarified that China also needed to offer concessions.

But I want you to listen to how the president was thinking about this when asked by our colleague Kristen Holmes in the Oval Office yesterday.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

KRISTEN HOLMES, CNN SENIOR WHITE HOUSE CORRESPONDENT: What parameters have you given Scott Bessent on negotiating with China this weekend?

DONALD TRUMP, U.S. PRESIDENT: We have to make a great deal for America.

HOLMES: Are you going to be disappointed if he comes back without a deal?

TRUMP: No, not at all. Because we already made a great deal. We're not doing business with China right now.

HOLMES: Have you given Bessent a number of how low you're willing to go?

TRUMP: Yes, I have.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: What's the number?

HOLMES: Are you willing to share that number?

TRUMP: 80 percent. But I put out a number today, 80 percent. So, we'll how that all works out.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

KLEIN: Mr. President Trump declining to say what specific number he gave Bessent to negotiate with. But of course, the White House watching these talks quite closely tomorrow and a very significant step forward today, Jessica.

DEAN: All right. CNN's Betsy Klein there at the White House with the latest, thank you so much.

Up next, President Trump floats the idea of raising taxes on the ultra-wealthy to pay for his sweeping tax and spending cuts package. But are Republicans on board with that?

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[16:30:53]

DEAN: President Trump says he is now open to raising taxes on wealthy Americans to help pay for Republicans' sweeping tax and spending cuts package. And that he's willing to, quote, "give people in a lower bracket," a big break by paying more taxes himself.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

DONALD TRUMP (R), U.S. PRESIDENT: What you're doing is you're giving up something up top in order to make people in the middle income and the lower income brackets save more. So it's really a redistribution, and I'm willing to do it if they want. I actually think it's good politics to do it.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

DEAN: Now, not all Republicans on the Hill, though, are embracing that idea. Reuters White House Correspondent Jeff Mason and Congressional Correspondent Abby Livingston both join us now.

Good to see both of you. Thanks for being here.

Jeff, let's start first with you. We heard the president in the Oval Office there saying he thinks this is good politics. I also think back to that Truth Social post that he put up where he said, you know, I don't know that they'll do it, but it's OK with me if they do. If they -- they probably should not do it, but I'm OK if they do, with two exclamation points.

What is kind of the thinking in his mind right now about all of this and the departure from his campaign when he was promising tax cuts?

JEFF MASON, REUTERS WHITE HOUSE CORRESPONDENT: Yeah, indeed. Well, I was in the Oval Office for that yesterday, and he did give sort of more detail about his own views on it with those remarks. I think the Truth Social post that you noted is useful to sort of see his -- a little bit of ambiguity on it in terms of messaging to his fellow Republicans.

But he wasn't that ambiguous in the Oval. He said, I'd really love to do it. And so I also think the word redistribution, which was just played in the clip that you had, is notable for the fact that that's very against Republican orthodoxy.

So he's got some talking into to do in terms of the lawmakers on the Hill. This is not something that normally goes in line with what Republicans want to do on -- in terms of tax cuts. And I know that some lawmakers were saying we don't want to raise taxes for anyone.

But it is a sign, I think, of President Trump's general populist views, even though he may not have forecast this particular idea on the campaign trail. It's not out of line with his general sort of appeal or attempt to appeal to the working class and to the middle class in terms of the electorate that he's tried to bring into his tent and the MAGA tent.

DEAN: Yeah. Yeah. No, you don't typically hear redistribution of wealth coming from a Republican president. Abby, I do want to go to you just on how Republicans on the Hill, House Republicans in particular, feel about this possibility. What are you hearing?

ABBY LIVINGSTON, CONGRESSIONAL CORRESPONDENT, PUCK: I think it's important to remember that cutting taxes is up there with being against abortion in the few issues that truly unite the Republican Party. And there are many members of Congress who specifically ran to cut taxes. And so this is really putting them in a difficult spot.

But there's another element, too, and it's the donor class. And I think it's an open question whether donors push back against Donald Trump on this one. And then if they do, whether or not he listens to them. And so I think it's putting -- it's really disruptive to the Republican Party. But then again, he's disrupted the party for the last eight years.

DEAN: Yeah. No, no. To your point, I think there were a number of people in that donor class that thought this would kind of be Trump 1.0, that they would be getting tax cuts and that sort of thing, that this could be quite a shock to them.

LIVINGSTON: Absolutely. And it's just -- there is nothing else on the congressional agenda this term except these tax cuts. The pressure on this is intense and it's absolutely they must get it done. But any time they compromise on one end of the spectrum on several facets of this versus the other, they end up losing votes. And as we all know, the House of Representatives margin is as close as it's been in anyone's memory.

DEAN: Yeah. Teensy tiny. Now, Jeff, the White House press secretary, Karoline Leavitt, had this to say about Republicans who vote against whatever the bill ends up being.

We'll listen to what she said.

[16:35:05]

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

KAROLINE LEAVITT, WHITE HOUSE PRESS SECRETARY: Anyone who opposes this bill will be opposing the largest tax cut in American history. They will be voting to raise taxes by the tune of four trillion on the middle class of this country. And we look forward to holding them accountable for that. Everyone on Capitol Hill on both sides of the aisle should be supportive of the president's tax priorities.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

DEAN: Jeff, how far does that kind of messaging and that kind of, you know, kind of, I think threat in a way go for these members who are trying to kind of balance as Abby was laying out what they promised, what they personally believe, what they want to vote for? And how confident is the White House that they'll be able to -- to really affect those members' decisions?

MASON: Well, I think, you know, the White House is at the height of its power right now, no doubt. The president came in with the strong vote that he had in November, and he's been wielding that political capital ever since he came in. And that that political capital lasts, you know, maybe until the midterms next year. It depends.

So certainly he's got some now for this summer and for this tax bill. I think the I think you're right to call it a threat when the Karoline, when the Press Secretary, Karoline Leavitt, says we'll be looking to hold people on both sides accountable. That certainly opens up the question mark of whether they will suggest primaries or encourage people to primary anyone on the Republican side who doesn't support the bill.

But I think also to kind of go back to our earlier conversation, there is some ambiguity about what the president is asking for. Will he eventually cave on this idea of raising taxes for the rich? He might. I mean, specifically -- especially since he's saying, well, they probably shouldn't do it. So I think he's leaving some wiggle room there. Certainly for himself and the White House and by extension for Republicans in the House.

DEAN: And then, Abby, in members you're talking to, how much does that float around in the back of their head, just doing what the president is asking them to do?

LIVINGSTON: Donald Trump threatening a primary scares the daylight out of almost any member of Congress, with a very small handful of exceptions. But for some of these members, there are parts of these tax cuts and spending cuts also that could be very unpopular in a general election. And there's only -- there's not that many who are in competitive districts, but of the ones who are, they may be having to pick their poison. Do they want to buy time in the primary by appeasing Trump and then have to face the wrath of angry constituents in the general election? This is really putting them in a pickle.

DEAN: All right. More to come. Jeff and Abby, thank you so much. We appreciate your time.

LIVINGSTON: Thank you.

DEAN: Up next, what the new pope might do to bridge the gap between tradition and change as he prepares to greet a 150,000 people for his first Sunday mass.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[16:42:20]

DEAN: In just a matter of hours, the first American pope is expected to greet up to one hundred and fifty thousand faithful in St. Peter's Square on his first Sunday as leader of the Roman Catholic Church. Pope Leo XIV made his first public outing earlier today, visiting the shrine of Our Lady of Good Counsel outside Rome. The site is an Augustinian sanctuary run by his religious order.

He then stopped to pray before the final resting place of the late Pope Francis. His visit came after his first formal meeting with cardinals, which began, as you see, with a standing ovation. In that meeting, Pope Leo indicated his papacy will follow closely in the footsteps of the late Pope Francis. Joining us now is Father James Bradley from the Catholic University of America, where he's an Assistant Professor at the School of Canon Law.

Father, thanks so much for being here with us. It's great to see you on this Saturday afternoon. I want to pick up just there where I left off. The new pope saying he plans to follow closely in his predecessor's footsteps. What does that tell you and what do you think people should anticipate?

REV. JAMES BRADLEY, J.C.D., SCHOOL OF CANON LAW, THE CATHOLIC UNIVERSITY OF AMERICA: Well, Jessica, it's great to see you. I think every pope is always going to embody both continuity and newness. The pope is elected by his predecessor's cardinals, essentially. And in the case of Pope Leo, a huge number of the cardinals in the conclave had been appointed by Pope Francis. So there's obviously going to be a lot of continuity there.

And of course, he stands in a line of continuity, not just to Pope Francis, not just to Pope Benedict, not just to Pope John Paul II, but all the way back to St. Peter. So continuity is the name of the game. But there's always going to be something new as well.

But that newness is going to be really in terms of style, in terms of approach, in terms of nuance, because the church exists not just as a historical reality, but as a reality in time today. And so responding to the needs of the day and the questions and challenges of the day as well.

DEAN: I think it's interesting, too, because we have a tendency to talk about a pope with kind of traditional political language, progressive, liberal, conservative, traditional. But you say that's not quite accurate to use those types of terms. Help us understand that.

BRADLEY: That's absolutely right. The frame of reference for the church is different to the frame of reference for the world. In the world, we're used to talking about people who are conservative and liberal, progressive and traditional and so on and so forth.

In the life of the church, the frame of reference is Jesus Christ. And so everything is spoken of, is directed by the teaching and life of Christ, by the scriptures, by the teaching of the church. So the frame of reference is just going to be completely different.

And there will be times when Pope Leo is praised by the world and there will be times, I'm sure of it, that will be challenges and people will find what he says difficult or challenging or even something that they can't accept. And that's just the nature of things. The church is there in the world to bring people to Jesus Christ.

[16:45:15]

And so for that reason, there's always going to be that tension. And the best evangelists, the best advocates for the church are the ones who are able to speak to the world without in any way diluting the message of the gospel.

DEAN: And now, in this last week, we have seen Pope Leo be elected by his peers, and watching all of that play out, you can't help but think we live in a time when everything's changing so much, and there is so much going on that is new and different.

There was so much tradition, obviously, on display. What were kind of your thoughts as we now have had a couple days for all of this to sink in? Obviously, the first ever American pope, but as you kind of are now trying to take stock of what we saw play out over the last week, what kind of comes to mind?

BRADLEY: Well, a sense of joy to start with. I mean, it's just wonderful to see Pope Leo appear on the balcony and to learn a little bit about him. I think most people didn't really know much about him, what his background was, and we didn't know which baseball team he supported, for instance, and now we do.

So it's great to kind of learn a little bit about the person, about the man, but also I think that first message on the Lodger of Benedictions overlooking St. Peter's Square was so beautiful and so moving. He spoke, first of all, with the words of Jesus Christ, and he spoke the words of peace, peace to the church, peace to the world, peace to the whole of the human race. And I think if that's not a message to get behind, I don't know what is.

DEAN: And he talks about being a bridge builder. What do you think that might look like?

BRADLEY: Well, that is fundamentally the role of the successor of St. Peter. He is to confirm the brethren, as the scripture says. He is to be the one around whom the followers and disciples of Jesus Christ come to know the truth.

And so he's -- it's innate in his office to be the Pontifex maximus, the bridge builder, the greatest bridge builder in the life of the church. And that will manifest itself, I'm sure, in all sorts of ways that people hope for and ways that will surprise them.

DEAN: All right, Father James Bradley, thanks for your time. We really appreciate it.

BRADLEY: Thanks, Jessica. God bless.

DEAN: Homeland Security says members of Congress could face arrest after a scuffle outside a New Jersey ICE facility that ended with the mayor of Newark in handcuffs. More on this when we come back.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[16:52:14]

DEAN: Tonight, the Department of Homeland Security says three members of Congress, all Democrats, face the possibility of being arrested. All three were present Friday when a scuffle broke out as Newark's mayor was arrested when he tried to join the lawmakers on a scheduled tour of an ICE facility.

CNN's Gloria Pazmino is following this. She joins us now with more on this. What is Homeland Security saying this afternoon, Gloria?

GLORIA PAZMINO, CNN CORRESPONDENT: Yeah, Jessica, this all appears to have been a really significant escalation after these three members of Congress showed up to an ICE detention facility in Newark to do a tour of the facility. This facility has been sort of under the microscope because the mayor of Newark, Ras Baraka, says that they do not have the proper permits to be operating.

Ras Baraka also tried to join that congressional tour yesterday, and it was during that back and forth while they were trying to get access to the facility that Ras Baraka was taken into custody by immigration officers.

I've watched all of this video. It really seems to be a significant escalation. But now, a day later, we're really hearing sort of a he said, she said version of the story with the Department of Homeland Security now threatening to arrest more members of Congress as after what they are describing as a rushing of the gates at this facility as they were trying to gain entrance.

I want you to hear directly from the assistant secretary of Department of Homeland Security and what she said about this incident to our Victor Blackwell this morning. Take a listen.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

TRICIA MCLAUGHLIN, ASSISTANT DHS SECRETARY: There will likely be more arrests coming. We actually have body camera footage of some of these members of Congress assaulting our ICE enforcement officers, including body slamming a female ICE officer. So we will be showing that to viewers very shortly.

VICTOR BLACKWELL, CNN ANCHOR: You say a video of members of Congress body slamming ICE officials?

MCLAUGHLIN: That's correct. That's correct, sir. It's disgusting.

BLACKWELL: OK, and so if you have that video, are you suggesting that members of Congress will be arrested who were there yesterday?

MCLAUGHLIN: This is an ongoing investigation, and that is definitely on the table.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

PAZMINO: Now, Jessica, the Department of Homeland Security has since released the body cam video. I have combed through all of the video that they made available. We're going to show you portions of it now.

And you can clearly see that, yes, there was very much a scuffle, a lot of pushing and shoving. I should note that you see the blurred faces there. That was done by the Department of Homeland Security. They gave us the video with the faces blurred. But at no point throughout this video do you see anybody slamming of

officers going on. And we spoke to Congresswoman Coleman about that this morning for her to describe exactly what happened there. She was one of the three members of Congress who was trying to get access to the facility yesterday. This is what she said actually happened during the scuffle.

[16:55:18]

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

REP. BONNIE WATSON COLEMAN (D-NJ): He's given permission to his cabinet and those who yesterday. And she's lying, too. And so I was there. I saw it. I was a part of it. I was in the middle of it. We did not in any way, shape or form disrespect the physicality of any of those ICE agents. And to say so is just to perpetuate the kind of lying that we are experiencing in this country at the highest levels. And it's disgusting.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

PAZMINO: Now, Jessica, going back to why this facility has been such a source of focus for lawmakers, this is slated to be a pretty large ICE detention center in an area where, as you know, there is a large immigrant community. We know that the Trump administration has an immigration agenda that will require additional resources. This is expected to be part of those resources.

But the local lawmakers, including Mayor Ras Baraka, have been critical not only of the facility, but of the fact that they say the facility is operating without the proper permits. In the meantime, Mayor Baraka is facing trespassing charges. And it's unclear whether or not we will see any additional action against these other members, as Secretary McLaughlin suggested earlier today, that there would be as a result of this ongoing investigation.

Jessica.

DEAN: OK, Gloria Pazmino, thank you so much.

High level trade talks between the U.S. and China will resume tomorrow. Just how far will these negotiations go?

You're in the CNN NEWSROOM.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)