Return to Transcripts main page
Erin Burnett Outfront
Trump Slams Supreme Court; U.S. Message To Iran; Chopra & Epstein. Aired 7-8p ET
Aired February 20, 2026 - 19:00 ET
THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.
[19:00:19]
BRIANNA KEILAR, CNN HOST: OUTFRONT next:
Trump slams the Supreme Court after conservative justices helped put an end to his emergency tariffs. But tonight, the president vowing to start another trade war.
Plus, breaking news, President Trump with a message for Iran as satellite images show the U.S. is ramping up its military presence across the region. Is a military strike imminent?
And bestselling author and wellness guru Deepak Chopra's relationship with Jeffrey Epstein. CNN's sifting through hundreds of messages between the two.
Let's go OUTFRONT.
Good evening. I'm Brianna Keilar, in for Erin Burnett.
OUTFRONT tonight, Trump lashes out at the Supreme Court after they handed him a major defeat ruling his signature policy is unconstitutional. The 6-3 decision with three conservative justices ruling against him. Chief Justice John Roberts, Neil Gorsuch and Amy Coney Barrett joining the liberal justices in rejecting what has been Trump's most powerful tool to punish other countries.
For months, he has used tariffs as leverage and threats against other nations. Today's decision left Trump fuming.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
DONALD TRUMP, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: The Supreme Court's ruling on tariffs is deeply disappointing and I'm ashamed of certain members of the court, absolutely ashamed. They also are a -- frankly, disgrace to our nation. Those justices -- I think their decision was terrible.
REPORTER: Mr. President --
(CROSSTALK)
TRUMP: I think it's an embarrassment to their families. They're very unpatriotic and disloyal to our constitution.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
KEILAR: But Trump not about to concede defeat. Instead, he tried to spin today's loss as a win.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
TRUMP: The good news is, it's like Justice Kavanaugh said, very strongly said, you have other ways you can go. You don't have to go that way. You can go either way. There are numerous other ways.
We're immediately instituting the 10 percent provision which we're allowed to do. And in the end, I think we'll take in more money than we've taken in before.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
KEILAR: Now, Trump's plan B, which he just signed in the oval office allows him to reimpose sweeping tariffs, but only temporarily. After 150 days, Congress would have to extend the tariffs, and that seems highly unlikely. But Trump, insisting the rules don't apply to him.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
TRUMP: We have a right to do pretty much what we want to do, but we're going to charge it starting effectively. I think it's three days from now.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
KEILAR: Kristen Holmes is OUTFRONT live from the North Lawn of the White House.
And, Kristen, a level of anger that we don't often see from President Trump.
KRISTEN HOLMES, CNN SENIOR WHITE HOUSE CORRESPONDENT: Yeah, Brianna particularly in the second term, I mean, he came out there and it was almost visceral how angry he was. He said, they should be ashamed of himself. These judges who had ruled against his tariffs. And as you heard him there, he played this sound saying that it was an embarrassment to their families.
Now, clearly, he was taking this incredibly personally. And clearly he believes that these justices, who he appointed to the Supreme Court, particularly Amy Coney Barrett and Neil Gorsuch, who had ruled against his tariffs should have owed him something, should have voted in favor of him because of this, saying again that he was ashamed of them.
Now, there are obvious options here that president Trump has. We know that he just moments ago signed a 10 percent global tariff to put into place around using a different tariff law. They're going to be working around with various tariff laws, which he announced there.
But that doesn't take away the fact that President Trump views this as a personal blow to him remember, you brought this up in terms of foreign policy he's used all these tariffs for leverage. It's also a key part of his economic policy. They've been relying on this revenue from these tariffs in particular. They were going to be relying on revenue from tariffs to pay an offset, some of these enormous tax hikes that we're in the Big, Beautiful Bill that he signed off on.
There are a lot of questions about what's going to happen next in terms of the money that has already been collected, some of it already been used. President Trump and his entire team believe this is going to be tied up in litigation. We actually just heard from one administration official who said they believe is going to be in the courts for years, and it's the courts -- it's the court's duty to help fix this because they didn't write about it in their decision.
But yeah, again, this was a level of ire that President Trump has really largely not put forward this term, and goes to show you just how critical these tariffs are to him and now how much more he's going to have to work to try and get them to be instituted and deal with these refunds and the potential backlash on that?
KEILAR: Yeah, a lot to follow here. Kristen Holmes, thank you so much.
Everyone is here with me now.
Ryan Goodman, how concerning is it, first off, just to see the president attacking the Supreme Court like this?
RYAN GOODMAN, JUST SECURITY CO-EDITOR-IN-CHIEF: I think it's very disturbing and unfair. It's disturbing in the sense that he's calling them unpatriotic and disloyal. And that is a signal to people in this country in which we're sitting in a political environment in which there are threats -- death threats against the justices and the judges across the country. I don't think these justices will cower. But it also might mean that it's sending a signal to lower court judges.
And the reason I say it's unfair. I mean, this is a six-member majority, and the judges below in the lower courts are almost uniformly the same way as the outcome today. There's one dissenting judge in the lower courts below, but this is basically the way that most lawyers and the conservative legal community saw that the outcome was writing on the wall, that this is how they would decide this opinion, because the law really did not give him the basis for these tariffs.
KEILAR: And, David Frum, the vice president also bashing the justices in the majority, saying, quote, "This is lawlessness from the court, plain and simple," after Trump's extraordinary rebuke earlier today, which -- let's play some of that
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
DAVID FRUM, STAFF WRITER, THE ATLANTIC: I'm ashamed of certain members of the court, absolutely ashamed for not having the courage to do what's right for our country. They're just being fools and lapdogs for the RINOs and the radical left Democrats. They don't want to do the right thing. They're afraid of it. I think their decision was terrible.
REPORTER: Mr. President --
(CROSSTALK)
TRUMP: I think it's an embarrassment to their families, if you want to know the truth.
KEILAR: What is your reaction, David, to that incredibly strong reaction from the president?
FRUM: Here is the alternative that President Trump had on Inauguration Day, on his so-called Liberation Day, and that he has today, write a tariff bill, submit it to Congress, let them enact it and then raise tariffs on everybody.
Had he done that, I would have opposed it. I'm a free marketeer. I believe in trade. I think tariffs are stupid.
But clearly, tariffs passed by Congress are legal. They're in Article One of the Constitution. But he didn't want to do that and not just because he didn't have the votes because Congress recognized as I do that tariffs are stupid and harmful.
He didn't want to do it because the whole point of this exercise from the beginning was to increase his personal, arbitrary power over others and to open the opportunities for corruption that flow from arbitrary power. That's what he's mad about, not the loss of tariffs. He could submit a tariff bill tomorrow, and he's got still majorities in both houses of Congress.
It's not the tariffs that he wants. It's the arbitrary personal power and the right to sell favors and exemptions to that power. That's what this is about. It's about, is this a constitutional republic or not? Does Article One bind the president or not? And the Supreme Court? I'm amazed. There are three justices who decided this wrong with the Supreme Court said 6-3.
Article One is there. Tariffs belong to congress. You want tariffs? Write a tariff bill.
KEILAR: Former Congressman Max Rose, what do you think?
MAX ROSE (D), FORMER U.S. REPRESENTATIVE: I think we're totally missing the point here. Look, the separation of powers ship sailed off a long, long time ago. This is about the policy decisions that the Trump administration is getting behind. They need money.
Why do they need money? They need money to pay for tax cuts for the wealthiest amongst us. They need money to take away health care from poor people, and they need money to fund forever wars. And they are choosing, irrespective of the Supreme Court, irrespective of the Constitution, to get that money by taxing working people on the things that they buy.
And they believe in this so much that they don't care who objects to it. That's what matters here. These are policy decisions yet again, illustrating how the Trump administration absolutely despises and opposes the interests of working people.
KEILAR: David, maybe you can react to that. But also, I want to see what you think about this because Trump really went out of his way to praise the three justices who sided with him on the tariffs, only one of whom he appointed, right, and dissented from the majority. Let's listen to that.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
TRUMP: I'd like to thank and congratulate Justices Thomas, Alito and Kavanaugh for their strength and wisdom and love of our country, which is right now very proud of those justices. You got to do what's right for the Constitution. That's why I respect so much Justice Thomas and Alito, Kavanaugh, because they not only dissented, their dissent is so strong.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
KEILAR: I mean it can be strong. It can be weak. It's the dissent. It isn't the law of the land.
I wonder what Trump's reasoning there David, tells you about just how he's seeing this. And, you know, maybe to Max's point there.
FRUM: There are four basic powers of Congress Donald Trump has been invading in the second term. The first is the power to tax he claimed that through these tariffs. The second is the power to spend, because Donald Trump has been taking the revenues that have been collected from tariffs $40 billion a month, almost $200 billion already, more than $2 trillion if these laws, these tariffs had remained in place over the next 10 years.
[19:10:09]
And he's been taking that money and he's been spending it, beginning with payoffs to farmers, but there's other spending coming, too. So, he's ignoring Congress's power to tax. He's ignoring Congress's power to spend.
He tried to indict members of Congress for things they said ignoring not only the First Amendment, but the speech and debate clause of the Constitution which says members of Congress can say what they want as part of their duty. So he's invaded that, and now were getting ready for him to ignore Congress's war power, because it looks like we're on the eve of a major war with Iran without a vote in Congress or without even so much as a debate in Congress.
There are a lot of merit to striking the Iranians to help the Iranian people. But Congress should -- should be involved. Congress members can't be indicted for things they say. Congress must tax. Congress must spend.
KEILAR: And a lot of people making that point today. You're making it very broadly there, David.
Ryan, I just want to kind of get into the nitty gritty of the specific justices here, because I know that you were surprised that Justice Kavanaugh dissented. Why? And what do you think where he landed on this might signal?
GOODMAN: So, it's a bit of a surprise to see him in this three-member dissent because they're basically wrong on the law and the supermajority of federal judges have said so. But it's also the way in which Justice Kavanaugh wrote his opinion.
Chief Justice Roberts does something quite unusual. He actually chastises Kavanaugh a bit by saying that the government's argument was echoed point by point by the principal dissent, and that is Kavanaugh. When he's saying that, he's basically saying, Chief Justice Roberts is saying that Kavanaugh was parroting the government's position, which Justice Kavanaugh does not need to do. He's a obviously a high intellectual, and his ability to reason his own way through.
But the fact that he parrots it, the fact that he's in the dissent, I think gives him more room to maneuver back into the majority when other cases are coming up before the court, in which I do think he might very well invalidate some of the actions. He's already moved off of the mark on ICE immigration enforcement actions. He had first suggested that racial profiling was a legitimate factor, and then recently took an opportunity to kind of back away from that. I think also seeing the public reaction to ICE's actions and calling them Kavanaugh stops.
This is giving him more of a maneuverability. See all the praise that he got from the president today, in the future, when he does maybe decide with the majority to invalidate other actions. I think he's bought himself and the court more legitimacy and more room to do so.
KEILAR: Yeah, Congressman, I wonder -- I wonder how you see that appraisal by Ryan there considering this is a justice who obviously is supposed to just be looking at the law. I think that's a really interesting point you make, Ryan. I wonder what you think, Congressman.
ROSE: Look in the end, right whenever the Supreme Court comes out with a ruling that one side opposes and the other side agrees upon, there are loud exclamations of emotion. There are critiques. There is opposition.
That is not what we should be focusing on in this particular instance today. This is about tax decisions. And it is yet again about how Donald Trump ran on one thing. He ran and said that he was going to be the peace president and now all he does is conduct forever wars. He said he was going to run on affordability and now everything is more expensive. And he said he was going to run to put more money in working people's pockets. And yet again today, he's doubling down on taxing them.
This is not about legalese. This is not about minutia. This is about policy decisions that once again stick it to working people, too many of whom unfortunately believed what this president said on the campaign trail.
KEILAR: Max Rose, David Frum, Ryan Goodman, thank you to all of you. Appreciate it.
OUTFRONT next, the head of the busiest port in the U.S. says today's decision leaves them with more questions than answers like will there be refunds? Will consumers see a drop in price? The ports executive director is my guest.
Plus, breaking news. The world's largest aircraft carrier now racing closer toward Iran. Could a strike by the U.S. trigger a full-blown war in the Middle East?
And ICE agents using an obscure law to arrest Americans? But as a CNN investigation discovers, those charges often fail to stick.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[19:18:56]
KEILAR: We do have breaking news stocks jumping after the Supreme Court blocked Trump's tariffs. All three indices closing up today. But there are still major economic questions about what happens next, including what happens to the roughly $134 billion that 300,000 American companies are demanding be returned from Trump's unconstitutional tariffs?
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
TRUMP: 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.
So they write this terrible, defective decision, totally defective. It's almost like not written by smart people. And what they do, they don't even talk about that. Your question is very basic. That was the first question I asked also to make you feel good.
I said, what about all the money that we've taken in? Sir, they don't discuss that. How crazy is that?
(END VIDEO CLIP)
KEILAR: Multiple importers tonight already have pending lawsuits seeking refunds for the tariffs, citing lower court rulings that found Trump's tariffs are not legal.
[19:20:05]
OUTFRONT now, Gene Seroka. He is the executive director of the port of Los Angeles, which is the busiest port in the United States.
Gene, great to have you this evening.
And first, just talk to us a little bit about the immediate impact of this ruling.
GENE SEROKA, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, PORT OF LOS ANGELES: Good evening, Brianna. Well, we probably have more questions now and fewer answers than we did even at the top of the day. But here's what we know at this juncture, 6-3 vote, rescind those IEEPA tariffs which accounted for about two thirds of all the tariff money that was collected, very quickly shift to a new tariff regime under section 122 of the Trade Act.
But, Brianna, that's' only temporary. The law permits that to be in place for 150 days maximum. So, there will be yet more decisions down the line on what tariffs may or may not look like.
And then lastly, what companies are telling me right now, as I've been in New York all week, is they're evaluating what taking away the IEEPA tariffs and now putting in the 122s will mean financially to their organizations. And if they come in a little bit lower, they may buy just a bit more over the weeks ahead, following the lunar new year holiday.
KEILAR: Yes, Trump posted, Gene, just moments ago, "It is my great honor to have just signed from the oval office a global 10 percent tariff on all countries, which will be effective almost immediately."
I mean, I know you're saying that this under section 122 is going to be temporary. It's hard to see Congress extending it. I just wonder how are shippers, how are importers navigating that? What are they telling you?
SEROKA: There has been some research recently of CEOs across the supply chain, by the American supply chain management board and asking them, how long is your planning horizon? And they say anything past six months is futile. So, it's really difficult.
And that's why jobs hiring are soft capital. Investments have been weak. And realistically speaking, we just saw the fourth quarter GDP numbers also off for a number of reasons. But companies have hit the pause button not making deep investments because they don't know what policy changes will be shifting. And all of this resulted in 2025 to have the widest trade gap since 1960.
KEILAR: And on that question of the refunds or potential refunds, the president argues the court should have addressed what happens to the money that has already been collected, and now it's going to end up in court for years. How do you see this playing out?
SEROKA: Well, companies are lining up just like you had in your preview, Brianna, asking that question. If they're illegal, they're unconstitutional, I'd like to get in line for that refund. What's the process? How long will it take? Supreme Court didn't address it others will. This is very serious.
KEILAR: And if refunds do eventually come, do you think individual customers will see any of that money?
SEROKA: Remains to be seen. CNN just put out an article with some experts saying it will be really difficult for companies either to roll back prices or get down to the consumer level. But with our GDP and our economy counting on all of us buying, 70 percent is that consumer spend here in the United States, it's a very important issue to settle quickly. This conversation of affordability is nationwide and real.
KEILAR: Yeah, it certainly is and I think there may be an expectation that it doesn't get back to individual consumers because U.S. Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent said today he had a warning about how those -- meaning corporations asking for a refund might be perceived. Here's what he said.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
SCOTT BESSENT, TREASURY SECRETARY: If there is a payout, it looks like it's just going to be the ultimate corporate welfare.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
KEILAR: Is that how you're reading that? It goes to the corporations who you know, may have passed it on to consumers, but may not pass the refund back onto consumers?
SEROKA: And he went on to say that he's asking a question about did China manufacturers lower their prices to compensate for the tariff? There is no known research right now that states that.
So realistically speaking, you flooded the market with additional money tax on American imports by American companies that in many cases absorbed, tried to find efficiencies but more than likely passed it on to us.
KEILAR: Yeah. Gene Seroka, thank you so much. Really appreciate it.
And OUTFRONT next, breaking news, President Trump putting Iran on notice tonight as the largest U.S. military buildup in the Middle East in 22 years is getting even bigger, is a military strike imminent?
Plus, CNN reviewing hundreds of messages from the Epstein files that are shedding new light on the close friendship between wellness guru Deepak Chopra and the convicted sex offender.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[19:29:28]
KEILAR: We have breaking news. President Trump sending a new warning to Iran as he weighs a range of military strikes that could come as soon as this weekend.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
TRUMP: They better negotiate a fair deal.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
KEILAR: As Trump is pressuring Iran to make a nuclear deal, the largest U.S. military buildup in the Middle East in 22 years is on the verge of getting even bigger. The USS Gerald Ford carrier strike group entered the mediterranean sea today, putting it closer to striking distance inside of Iran.
OUTFRONT now Democratic Congresswoman Madeleine Dean.
[19:30:01]
She's a member of the Foreign Affairs Committee.
Congresswoman Dean, is a U.S. military strike on Iran imminent, in your opinion?
REP. MADELEINE DEAN (D-PA): I hope not. I truly hope not.
Good to be with you, Brianna, and this is not a quiet Friday. And it is not a quiet Friday if you consider the implications from the United States Constitution. Article One, Section 8 talks about war powers and the war powers rests within Congress.
I'm very worried about the build up around Iran. The language of our president that is not diplomatic. That is not seeking answers through diplomacy, sanctions and the required secretary of state engagement. So, I'm very worried about that. Maybe you have seen the joint statement from the house foreign affairs committee, intelligence and armed services committees. I serve on appropriations and foreign affairs, and the warning is that we strongly, and I joined this statement.
We strongly oppose preemptive strikes in Iran that we must focus on diplomacy first that we must focus on sanctions. And the constitution is clear, where powers lie within the American people within Congress. Number one, under Article One but also the president needs to make the case to the American people. None of that has happened.
KEILAR: I do want to ask you because during the last strike on Iran, there were Democrats not many of them just a couple, but they supported what President Trump did. And then you had a number of other Democrats who supported the policy, but they didn't support how it was done. They also had the war powers objections that you are raising.
But knowing that, I mean is there a possibility with this strike that it could achieve something that actually a number of Democrats might be satisfied with?
DEAN: The greater risk is the risk to American lives? Look at the massive buildup of military might in the region. The risk is to American lives. Are we supposed to without any justification from the president, without any coming to Congress, say sure, put military lives, U.S. military lives at risk of being injured, of losing them?
I can't justify that. And the president clearly can't justify that. What dismays me is the failure of the president to adequately use his department of state.
Where is Secretary Rubio in all of this? Why are we always talking about Jared Kushner and Mr. Witkoff? I just returned Wednesday morning from Israel. Again. It is all about, others talking about diplomacy or trying to figure out peace and pushing forward in terms of the 20-point plan between Gaza and Palestinian and Israeli peace, why not go with true diplomacy, not dealmakers, not people who see this as a corporate extension of themselves? Let's go with diplomacy. Let's go with the Constitution. Let's go with advising the American people and asking for the consent of Congress.
KEILAR: Is it clear to you what the objective is here? Is there clarity on that? Because the White House has given several reasons for the attack to stop Iran's nuclear weapons program, to retaliate after the regime reportedly killed thousands of protesters here recently to destroy Iran's ballistic missile program, to end Iran's support of proxy forces in the region. Do you have clarity on the objective?
DEAN: No, we don't. And obviously -- and I think you just listed many objectives very well. And what we need are the facts and the truth what the president has said he is upset about, and I share this upset, is the killing of protesters in Iran. He said he was going to be locked and loaded around that issue. And then, of course, Iran says that, no, it's not 30,000 protesters, it's 3,100 protesters.
None of that is good. Iran is a bad actor. We know that but the president needs to do this not in an erratic way and to identify his mission. Is it about the nuclear program? We have an interest in making sure that Iran does not enrich uranium and develop nuclear weapons. That needs to be absolutely defined and focused.
Unfortunately, the president has walked away from that kind of oversight and is not being clear on actually what he is interested in. Is he interested in protecting some sort of an attempt at democracy and protecting protesters who are being slaughtered?
[19:35:06]
It doesn't seem that way. Is this about oil? I don't know what is the president interested in?
The erratic nature that we see. He did a build-up in the area of Venezuela. He went after Greenland in a very absurd way. And now, Iran.
And all of this -- as I said, I just returned from Israel. We don't want to provoke a kinetic war in Iran, in the region without an understanding of exactly what the mission is and exactly what our partners believe is the best issue.
KEILAR: Congresswoman Madeleine Dean, thank you very much for being with us on such a big day as we see these -- a lot of this military material mobilizing. Thank you.
And now I do want to bring in retired Army Brigadier General Mark Kimmitt.
General Kimmitt, if the U.S. does move forward with a military operation in Iran, do you think there is a likelihood that it could escalate into something much larger in the region? Or do you think there's a way to keep it limited?
BRIGADIER GEN. MARK KIMMITT (RET.), FORMER DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF OPERATIONS FOR COALITION FORCES IN IRAQ: No, I think that there's a very good chance that the Iranians will respond in a greater way than they did last June. They have threatened it. And one thing that we do know about the Iranians is they usually live up to their promises.
KEILAR: And so, what would that look like, in your opinion?
KIMMITT: I think it would be twofold. First of all, we've already got groups that are proxies talking about responding if Iran is attacked. Hezbollah has claimed it will respond. So, number one, the proxies.
Number two, they really didn't launch their significant amount of ballistic missiles and rockets that they have in the June operation. I would expect that if we or our allies couldn't take out those ballistic missile sites that there would be a pretty large launching of those against not only the Israelis, but against U.S. bases in the region.
KEILAR: Talk to us a little bit about the range of options the military has here when we're looking at what's in the area. The Ford carrier strike group entered the Mediterranean Sea today as its moving within striking distance of Iran, it's going to be the second carrier strike group in the region. That includes other combat ships, other -- includes fighter jets. That's also in addition to the attack and surveillance aircraft that is stationed at numerous air bases throughout the region.
What are the possibilities here for what this strike potentially could look like?
KIMMITT: Oh, well, the potential is it can go small, medium or large. Obviously, there could be a selective strike against perhaps the remaining nuclear infrastructure, but it could expand into other infrastructure such as oil platforms, oil production facilities, and then something even larger, a multi-week operation, which it looks like were prepared to do, could also include military headquarters, IRGC, Quds force headquarters, the security forces, and that operation might not simply be air operations. That will certainly include naval operations.
The Iranians are not going to let our ships in the Persian Gulf go unprotected or un-attacked. And I think there might even be some special operations against key IRGC and Basij leadership that killed those 3,100 protesters that were talked about earlier.
KEILAR: It is a lot to keep our eyes on. And General Kimmitt, we appreciate you taking us through it. Thank you.
OUTFRONT next, CNN going through hundreds of messages between best- selling author and wellness guru Deepak Chopra and Jeffrey Epstein. DOJ files show messages about sex spirituality, and the appearance of women.
Plus, a special CNN investigation into the obscure law that ICE agents are using to arrest Americans.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
ICE AGENT: You are impeding operations.
ICE AGENT: Impeding operations.
ICE AGENT: Next time you will be arrested for impeding.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[19:43:52]
KEILAR: Tonight, authorities searching a home that belonged to former Prince Andrew a day after his arrest. It's a home that he moved out of just a few weeks ago. Police also looking to Andrew's royal protection officers about what they saw or heard.
Andrew remains under investigation for misconduct in public office related to his links to Jeffrey Epstein. Andrew has not directly addressed the allegations, but has previously denied any wrongdoing over his ties to Epstein.
This as the Epstein files are also shedding light on Epstein's friendship with spiritual author Deepak Chopra.
MJ Lee is OUTFRONT.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
MJ LEE, CNN SENIOR NATIONAL ENTEPRISE CORRESPONDENT (voice-over): Bestselling author and wellness guru Deepak Chopra had a close friendship with Jeffrey Epstein, discussing with the convicted child sex offender spirituality and sex, visiting his homes and bantering about women's appearance according to a CNN review of the Epstein files.
Chopra and Epstein were in frequent contact between 2016 and 2019, the year that Epstein was arrested on charges of operating a sex trafficking ring and sexually abusing underage girls, with Chopra telling Epstein in the summer of 2017, "I'm deeply grateful for our friendship."
[19:45:03]
Chopra has not been accused of wrongdoing related to Epstein, who was convicted in 2008 for soliciting prostitution from a minor.
In a statement posted on X after the latest release of the Epstein files, Chopra said, "I was never involved in nor did I participate in any criminal or exploitative conduct. Any contact I had was limited and unrelated to abusive activity. Some past email exchanges have surfaced that reflect poor judgment in tone. I regret that and understand how they read today." But CNN found that Chopra's interactions with Epstein were not limited, with hundreds of messages between the two men in the Epstein files, the pair arranged to see each other in multiple cities, with messages indicating that Chopra visited Epstein in his New York city townhouse, West Palm beach home, as well as his Paris apartment. They frequently discussed everything from spirituality to health and wellness to mutual friends, and at times, girls.
On at least two occasions, Chopra who is now 79 years old, invited Epstein to bring his girls on trips according to the files, if you want to use a fake name, bring your girls, Chopra wrote in a 2017 email asking Epstein to come to Israel. The files show Epstein's passport identified him as a convicted sex offender. Chopra followed up with a subsequent note. Your girls would love it, as would you. The same year, Epstein to join a workshop that he was hosting in Switzerland, Chopra again encouraged Epstein to come with your girls.
Once discussing former Saudi Princess Ameerah al-Taweel, Chopra described her as being very sweet, like your girls. The DOJs Epstein files also contained videos of Chopra, including guided meditation and discussions about spirituality.
DEEPAK CHOPRA, AUTHOR: Be aware right now of the space around you.
LEE (voice-over): None of the videos that CNN reviewed feature Epstein or appear to be made specifically for him. In one of their more philosophical exchanges in 2017, Epstein asked Chopra, "Did |you find me a cute Israeli?" Chopra responded, "Universe is human construct. Cute girls are aware when they make noises." He later added, "God is a construct. Cute girls are real."
And in one 2016 exchange that began with a link to a TED Talk about the end of physics, Chopra wrote to Epstein, "Statistics is like a girl in a bikini. What she reveals is obvious. What she conceals is more interesting."
CNN has reached out to a spokesperson for Chopra for comment. Chopra was recently approached at the airport and repeatedly asked about his relationship with Epstein and whether he has any regrets.
CHOPRA: It will all come to light.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: It will all come to light. Look, is there anything that you can tell me here and now to at least start to put this to bed?
CHOPRA: No misconduct.
LEE (voice-over): The files show Chopra often showed warmth and respect towards Epstein, affectionately signing off some of his messages with love or XO.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
LEE: And Epstein files show that Chopra and Epstein were in touch in the months leading up to Epstein's arrest in 2019, and more than once, Epstein lamented the bad press that he was receiving at the time, and Chopra responded by encouraging Epstein to meditate -- Brianna.
KEILAR: MJ Lee, thank you.
And we will note that Chopra has denied any criminal conduct and the presence of someone's name in the files is not indicative of wrongdoing.
OUTFRONT next, a CNN investigation into how ICE agents are able to detain Americans. But as we found out, their strategy oftentimes falls apart in court.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: We've seen when the rubber hits the road in the courtroom they're backing off.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[19:53:14]
KEILAR: Tonight, ICE's favorite law. A CNN investigation finding federal agents repeating the same obscure law in video after video as they take U.S. citizens into custody. But are the charges sticking?
CNN senior investigative correspondent Kyung Lah is OUTFRONT.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
ICE AGENT: Stop following us. You are impeding operations.
ICE AGENT: Impeding operations.
ICE AGENT: Next time you will be arrested for impeding.
KYUNG LAH, CNN SENIOR INVESTIGATIVE CORRESPONDENT (voice-over): If you look at some of the videos posted by people recording immigration officers, you hear the same language.
ICE AGENT: Here's the thing, 18 USC 111.
ICE AGENT: 18 USC 111.
ICE AGENT: 18 USC 111, do you understand?
ICE AGENT: We're arresting them for 111 impending, you understand?
LAH (voice-over): You can hear impeding or 18 USC 111 over and over in dozens of videos. Officers have said it in Chicago, North Carolina, Oregon.
But what is it? It's a federal law that punishes anyone who forcibly assaults, resists opposes, impedes, intimidates, or interferes with the U.S. officer, force, or even the threat of force is an essential part of the crime. UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: She's not impeding. It's not impeding. It's observing.
LAH (voice-over): We looked at Minnesota and three other places in the country with some of the most intense anti-immigration enforcement protests and we found in the federal courts covering Minnesota, Chicago, Los Angeles and Oregon, more than 12 times as many people have been charged under the impeding statute in the first year of the Trump administration, as compared to the last year of the Biden administration.
ICE AGENT: Stop the call.
LAH (voice-over): The number of Americans being detained under 18 USC 111 is much higher.
ICE AGENT: Arresting two individuals for impeding.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Oh, no, no, no, no, no. Hell no. Nope.
ICE AGENT: We warned you, sir.
LAH (voice-over): Like Ryan Ecklund.
RYAN ECKLUND, U.S. CITIZEN DETAINED BY ICE: I felt somewhat protected by my First and Fourth Amendment rights.
[19:55:01]
You can see in very short order that that's not the case. I pull into my local grocery store, and I saw what was very clearly an ICE vehicle. I just decided to grab my phone and record them from inside my vehicle.
LAH: Had you done anything like this before?
ECKLUND: I had never followed an ICE vehicle before and I didn't start my day looking to do that.
LAH (voice-over): Ryan was in the parking lot. He says he'd been recording for 90s when the agent first approached him.
ECKLUND: Morning. How you doing?
ICE AGENT: Not bad. Yourself?
ECKLUND: Good. Doing just fine thanks. What can I do for you?
ICE AGENT: You get one warning.
ECKLUND: One warning for what?
ICE AGENT: You will not be following us anymore or you will be arrested.
ECKLUND: I can follow you wherever I want. ICE AGENT: You will be arrested.
ECKLUND: Great sounds good. Have a good one. Thanks.
LAH (voice-over): Ryan keeps driving. After another couple of minutes, the agents decide they'd had enough
ICE AGENT: You've been warned that you're continuing to follow us and you're breaking a lot of laws.
ECKLUND: Oh, no, no, no, no, no. Hell no.
ICE AGENT: We warned you sir.
ECKLUND: Nope. I'm a U.S. citizen. Get your hands off of me.
That's when they actually pulled me out of the car and put me to the ground.
LAH: What happened to you when you hit the ground, physically?
ECKLUND: The three or four ICE agents kind of restrained me some knees and lower legs kind of on my body to hold me down so I got some road rash on my face at that point. From there I was put into handcuffs and then immediately walked across the street to a white unmarked passenger van.
No, no, no, no, no.
LAH (voice-over): In the video, you can see this patch on the agents arm SRT. That means he's part of ICE's elite special response team.
Here's how DHS describes them. Trained to serve high risk warrants under hazardous conditions and dealing with hardened criminals such as drug cartels and violent gang members.
ECKLUND: I think it's ridiculous. I am not a hardened criminal. I am not a drug cartel member. I'm a local real estate agent who was following them in my car.
LAH: Ecklund knew where he was going because he first heard this, the sound of protest. From there, he was led inside the Whipple federal building, where he was led to a very specific table.
ECKLUND: On the wall, a large piece of cardboard that had been written on by hand in black marker, said USC 111.
LAH (voice-over): He was put in a cell others eventually joined him.
LAH: And are you told that you are being arrested or charged?
ECKLUND: No. What I was told by one of those agents was that I could be held for up to 48 hours without being charged
LAH (voice-over): Ryan was held for nine hours and then released. There were no charges and no fines. JOHN CHITWOOD, CRIMINAL DEFENSE ATTORNEY: They are deploying this,
tossing it out like candy on Halloween at anyone who just even looks at ICE the wrong way. I wasn't even familiar with this statute until about four weeks ago.
LAH (voice-over): Minnesota criminal defense attorney John Chitwood has seen the rise of 18 111 cases.
CHITWOOD: We've seen when the rubber hits the road in the courtroom. They're backing off.
LAH (voice-over): In Minneapolis, prosecutors have dropped many of the charges to a misdemeanor or a fine. In Los Angeles and Chicago, most of the cases ended in acquittal or dismissal and that's if they even make it to court. We found these citations that show U.S. attorneys have declined to prosecute, leaving people with something that's essentially a speeding ticket.
CHITWOOD: The cruelty is the point. They want to get these people off the streets immediately, to intimidate them, to make them feel as if there's a consequence for speaking their mind.
LAH (voice-over): The line between free speech and crime is a debate happening on Capitol Hill.
SEN. RAND PAUL (R-KY): Jawboning, complaining, protesting, yelling.
LAH (voice-over): Immigration agency leadership acknowledged in this hearing that people can't just be arrested for exercising their First Amendment rights.
PAUL: Is filming of ICE or Border Patrol either an assault or a crime in any way, Mr. Scott?
RODNEY SCOTT, CBP COMMISSIONER: No, sir.
PAUL: Mr. Lyons?
TODD LYONS, ICE ACTING DIRECTOR: No, sir.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
KEILAR: And Kyung joins us now.
Kyung, you reached out to the Trump administration about this. What did they say?
LAH: Well, they did decline to speak with us on camera specifically about the story, but we did get some statements from the Department of Justice. A spokesperson tells CNN this Department of Justice continue to seek the most serious available charge against anyone who puts federal agents in harm's way and will never make charging decisions based on the opinions of woke law professors.
We also heard from the Department of Homeland Security, a spokesperson telling us, quote, "there are myriad factors that affect the outcome of any given prosecution. The fact remains that anyone who assaults one of our officers is committing a felony, and anyone who obstructs them is committing a federal crime" -- Brianna.
KEILAR: And is the expectation that this policy will continue in other cities?
LAH: If you talk to the people who are following some of these officers on the ground, a lot of the observers who we spent a good deal of time with in Minnesota, they say the answer very simply, is yes, in large part because many of them there is no paper trail left when they are taken into custody.
KEILAR: Fascinating report. Kyung Lah, thank you so much.
And thank you for joining us.
"AC360" starts now.
