Return to Transcripts main page
Isa Soares Tonight
U.S. Fed to Announce Decision on Interest Rates; U.S. Deploys Third Aircraft Carrier Close to Israel; Iran's Supreme Leader Issues Grave Threat to the U.S. of "Irreparable Damage" If it Joins Fight. Migrant Families Describe Long Stays in Border Facilities; Republicans Divided Over Iran; Tehran Residents Flee North; Court Upholds Transgender Care Ban; The A.I. Warning from Amazon. Aired 2-3p ET
Aired June 18, 2025 - 14:00 ET
THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.
[14:00:00]
ISA SOARES, HOST, ISA SOARES TONIGHT: Hello, and a very warm welcome, everyone, I'm Isa Soares. We'll have the latest from the Middle East in
just a moment. But first, the U.S. Federal Reserve is announcing a decision on interest rates, and it comes amid uncertainty on tariffs, consumer
spending and large purchases such as homes.
The Central Bank has been cautious as you know about cutting rates this year, but just hours ago, President Donald Trump urged the Fed Chair to
slash rates, calling Jerome Powell stupid for not doing so. Richard Quest is keeping an eye on it. What are we expecting?
RICHARD QUEST, CNN BUSINESS EDITOR-AT-LARGE: Changed?
SOARES: As expected.
QUEST: Unchanged.
SOARES: Can we get the Dow as well in there?
QUEST: Oh, yes --
SOARES: I will just get my producer to show us that --
QUEST: And let -- yes, because it's going to be wincing. So, we're going to get the statement and we'll actually see. But they -- the Fed has left
interest rates unchanged for the fourth month in a row for the fourth meeting. We've had three cuts --
SOARES: Yes --
QUEST: The President is being as bellicose as he possibly can, wanting more cuts.
SOARES: Yes --
QUEST: But the Fed is basically not budging because there's too much uncertainty. They are worried about inflation, from oil prices, they're
worried about this, and there's a whole tariffs inflation. They're just worried generally. And in this sort of environment, you don't want to do
anything. If you look at the Dow, up 196, I guess if we looked at the chart of it as well, you'd also see that it actually is starting to spike. What -
-
SOARES: And --
QUEST: Now, wait a minute -- but I --
SOARES: Yes, you've got the clip --
QUEST: I got the statement, they still see, according to the dot --
SOARES: Yes --
QUEST: Plot and all of those sort of things, the Fed is saying inflation remains somewhat elevated. That means --
SOARES: OK, so that -- OK --
QUEST: Yes, still see 50 basis points, that's half a point to you and me. This year, but only a quarter point cut next year versus -- so, basically,
still got half a point now or before the end of the year --
SOARES: Yes --
QUEST: And a quarter point next year instead of half a point --
SOARES: But this will have President Trump and spitting feathers. This is not -- as fast as he wants this to go, Richard.
QUEST: Oh, this is -- I am only wondering what his spleen is going to disgorge with this. He's already called Powell stupid. He says there's no
necessity. What of course, the President is failing to acknowledge is that it's his policies that's causing the Fed to delay raising -- sorry, cutting
rates. They were on a trajectory. There was a smooth trajectory down.
But the tariffs is so uncertain, the potential for that, and the issue of stagflation is still -- is very much there. By the way, 4.5 percent
unemployment at the end of the year versus 4.4, so that's pretty much even Stevens. I would say this is the Fed just simply saying it's too uncertain,
we're not moving.
SOARES: And on the question of inflation, and you mentioned this, we just -- there's a lot we do not know regarding the trade war, the impact of
these policies. At what point will we get a sense of the impact? How long are we talking about?
QUEST: Well, we can see already --
SOARES: Yes --
QUEST: Because we've seen in terms of slowdown, we've seen in terms of -- we've said -- costs, we've seen what's happened with fuel prices. And now
we have a war, and now we have a war where if something were to happen to the Straits of Hormuz, that would absolutely change the calculation once
again.
SOARES: Richard Quest. Richard will be back with "QUEST MEANS BUSINESS" in about two hours from now.
QUEST: Thank you --
SOARES: Thank you very much, Richard --
QUEST: Thank you --
SOARES: Now, as we promised, we're back to the breaking news, taking you to the Middle East. Sources telling CNN, the United States is set to deploy
a third aircraft carrier close to Israel, and it comes as questions swirl over whether U.S. will enter the conflict and what that might mean for the
region, and indeed, for the rest of the world.
President Donald Trump says Iran has been given what he calls the ultimate ultimatum. He was asked today if he planned to give the green-light to U.S.
strikes on Iranian nuclear facilities. And this is what he said.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
DONALD TRUMP, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: You don't know that I'm going to even do it. You don't know. I may do it, I may not do it. I mean,
nobody knows what I'm going to do. I can tell you this that Iran's got a lot of trouble, and they want to negotiate. And I said why didn't you
negotiate with me before all this death and destruction?
Why didn't you negotiate with me two weeks ago? You could have done fine. You would have had a country.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
SOARES: Well, Mr. Trump says Iran has reached out to him and suggested a White House visit. But Iran's mission to the U.N. called that a lie, and
wrote in an online post, no Iranian official ever asked to grovel at the gates of the White House." Earlier, Iran's supreme leader rejected
President Trump's call to surrender and issued this warning to the United States.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
AYATOLLAH ALI KHAMENEI, SUPREME LEADER OF IRAN (through translator): Those who are familiar with the politics of the region, they know that the
Americans' involvement in this matter will 100 percent be at their loss. The loss they receive will probably be much more than the damage Iran will
bear. If America have a military presence on the ground, without a doubt, it will be irreparable loss.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
[14:05:00]
SOARES: Well, just a short time ago, sirens were heard in Tel Aviv after the IDF says it detected missiles launched from Iran. Our Nic Robertson is
in Haifa, Israel. But first, I want to go to CNN's Kevin Liptak who is at the White House. So, Kevin, he may do it or may not do it, but we are six
days now into this conflict, which looks like is expanding given the force posture we are seeing from the United States. So, talk us through President
Trump's strategy. What is he thinking? Who is advising him here?
KEVIN LIPTAK, CNN SENIOR WHITE HOUSE REPORTER: Yes, and it does seem based on the President's own comments, but also based on what officials have told
us behind the scenes that the President is clearly now warming to this idea of joining Israel in this campaign against Iran. And it was interesting to
listen to him on the South Lawn earlier today.
He has suggested that he thinks that it is too late to conduct diplomacy to somehow resolve this conflict. Asking why this wasn't done weeks ago. But I
do think it's notable that he didn't close the door entirely, saying that he still believes that Iran wants to make a deal, saying that it's never
too late to try and resolve these things diplomatically.
So, I think you hear in that the President essentially trying to get Iran back to the negotiating table, even if he doesn't sound entirely convinced
that they're willing to, or that it will be successful. And so, I think you hear a lot of sort of conflicting messages from the President in all of
this.
Clearly, he's not ruling out the prospect of going after Iran directly. And you heard him there trying to put some definition onto what he calls
surrender of Iran. You remember he put that on social media the other day, the unconditional surrender, and he said in his words that, that would mean
Iran says no more and that we, using that word, "we", would go in and bomb Iran's nuclear sites.
And so, you hear the President adopting something of a martial tone, which I think is reflective of some of the inputs that he's getting from various
people in Washington. You know, President Trump is someone who solicits advice, whose phone call -- whose phone number is known to many people.
He's been talking to lawmakers on the Hill. He's been talking to foreign allies, including Benjamin Netanyahu yesterday. And you do get the sense
that he is receiving some conflicting strains of information. On the one hand, you have people like Lindsey Graham, the Republican senator, who
wants the President to quote, "be all in on this."
And he has held a number of private phone calls with the President over the last several days. But you also have the other side of his party
represented perhaps by Marjorie Taylor Greene, the Georgia congresswoman who has been texting with the President, offering exactly the opposite
viewpoint that this doesn't have an American interest at hand, and that the President ran on keeping the United States out of foreign wars.
And you see sort of these conflicting strains of information all intersecting at the President himself. And I think that's part of what
explains sort of the mixed signals that you get from him as he weighs this most consequential decision, Isa.
SOARES: Yes, it will be interesting to see which faction has his ear right now, because his tone certainly sounds like it's becoming more hawkish. Let
me go to Nic Robertson -- just stay with us, Kevin. Nic Robertson is in Haifa in Israel for us. And so, Nic, as President Trump, as you heard there
from Kevin weighs his options here.
Mike Huckabee, the U.S. Ambassador to Israel said the U.S. is working on evacuation flights and cruise ship departures. Just talk us through what
you are seeing and how Israel is preparing for whatever comes next.
NIC ROBERTSON, CNN INTERNATIONAL DIPLOMATIC EDITOR: Yes, I think there are a couple of things to look at here. One is, there's concern of U.S.
citizens who live inside of Israel, those that were visiting and as Mike Huckabee said, 700,000 U.S. citizens live in Israel. That's a big number.
Many of them live here permanently, but some of them want to leave because they weren't intending to be here, now they can't leave because the
airport's closed.
So, Mike Huckabee indicating that there will be support, possible flights, possible use of ferries to get people -- to get people out. And then I
think the other piece of the picture here today, on this sixth day of the conflict is that, you know, Israelis are feeling -- I wouldn't say at ease,
of course, with what's happening with the barrage of missiles and the -- you know, the nightly calls to the shelter and the disruption to sleep
patterns.
But they are getting more used to it. There is a slightly more relaxed atmosphere on the streets. The government is lifting restrictions, allowing
people to gather in groups of up to 30, telling people they can return to their places of work as long as there's a shelter nearby. The schools won't
be open, and I think that's a key indicator that, you know, clearly the country is not out of this.
And I think there is a mood that says it looks like President Trump may be getting closer to giving Israel the military support that most people here
want, that they believe is necessary to strike deep into Iran's nuclear facilities, particularly the Fordo enrichment facility deep under that
mountain.
[14:10:00]
But there's another part of the picture here, and this comes from the Intelligence community -- and I was speaking to the former Mossad, the
former Israeli sort of foreign spy Intelligence service person who was formerly in charge of the Iran file. And, you know, her perspective was
that Khamenei is weak. His back is somewhat to the wall.
But the rhetoric that President Trump -- the rhetoric that President Trump is using is rhetoric that, you know, it could really -- could really put
the Iranian leadership off balance by, you know -- by forcing him into a position that we've heard today from Khamenei himself, that the Iranians
are not going to surrender.
This was the assessment the -- of several former Intelligence officers who in Israel, who I spoke to earlier today, that the language President Trump
is using is forcing the Iranian leadership into essentially a position where they have no -- there's no sort of off-ramp for them that --
SOARES: Yes --
ROBERTSON: The idea that they should unconditionally go into a ceasefire is an anathema to the Iranian leadership. Number one, resistance is
something that they do. Number two, United States is viewed as a great state. And number three, President Trump is the one that's viewed as
pulling out of the Iran nuclear deal several years ago during his last presidency.
So, there are so many reasons. And now -- and President Trump is adding on top of that, and other -- you know, an even greater threshold for Iranian
resistance. The bottomline is the concern here is that, that may push Khamenei to take unpredictable action, as he doesn't have senior leaders
around him --
SOARES: Yes --
ROBERTSON: And they sense that the Iranian leadership is in a weakened position.
SOARES: Such important analysis there. Nic and Kevin Liptak, thank you very much to you both. Now, let's get the view from Iran, the country's
supreme leader slamming Israel for launching attacks while Tehran was holding talks with the U.S. about its nuclear enrichment program.
Ayatollah Ali Khamenei says there was no indication of any aggressive military or hardline action from Iran prior to the strikes from Israel.
Meantime, everyday Iranians say they are living a nightmare following a barrage of Israeli attacks. Earlier, my colleague Christiane Amanpour spoke
in a CNN exclusive to Iran's deputy Foreign Minister, and asked him about the possibility of U.S. involvement in the conflict. Have a listen to this.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
MAJID TAKHT-RAVANCHI, DEPUTY FOREIGN MINISTER, IRAN: If the Americans decide to get involved militarily, we have no choice but to retaliate
wherever we find the targets necessary to be acted upon. So, that is -- that is clear and simple. Because we are -- we are acting in self-defense.
If you know, another country joins the -- joins the fight, so that is another instance for our self-defense. You do not expect Iran to be -- to
not use its right of self-defense based on Article 51 of the U.N. charter.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
SOARES: A view there from Iranian official. Our Nick Paton Walsh is with us here. Iran -- Nick, just give us a sense of what you are hearing from
those in Iran, because you and I were talking, what was it, 48 hours ago? And there was a sense of panic. We saw those cars kind of very much bumper-
to-bumper. What are you hearing from your contacts on the ground?
NICK PATON WALSH, CNN INTERNATIONAL SECURITY EDITOR: I mean, it appears that many have taken the heeding -- the warning to get out of the capital -
-
SOARES: Yes --
WALSH: As quickly as possible. And we saw another district, an industrial district in the south, being issued evacuation order by the Israeli
military in the past hours or so. And so, I think that is a sign that these operations continue to persist. The Israelis have said they have air
supremacy in the capital, that clearly seems to be the case.
But I think it's important to point out, much of what we've been hearing from Iranians on the ground is not a sense of them welcoming Israel's bid
for what Israel refers to as regime change. Quite the opposite. Anger at what's happening to them, chaos and panic too, on the ground. Here's what
we know.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
WALSH (voice-over): Try to flee Tehran, and you're lucky if the roads are this empty. A four-hour wait for gas, hospitals overflowing. People living
in tents by the roadside, one doctor told CNN. Everyone who can is leaving with the suitcase, they said, empty-handed or carrying their babies.
On the way out, temperatures in the 90s, cold water passed around. Government advice given to those caught in strikes while driving out,
reads, "if you can, get out, seek refuge and turn your back to the blast. If you're stuck in a gridlock, unbuckle, recline the chair back, cover your
head with your hands."
[14:15:00]
This baker's brother died in the strikes. He learned 20 minutes before this video was shot, his response to keep working.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: (SPEAKING IN FOREIGN LANGUAGE)
WALSH: In the north where most had fled, the flour ration has been raised owing to bread shortages, official media said. What they left behind is a
world upturned. This yellow building slant, a taste of ordinary lives bent beyond recognition.
(WOMEN WAILING)
WALSH: In Tehran, where two days ago, screams echoed, now the streets quieter, vacant. Well, they're made so by Netanyahu and Trump's warning for
the capital to evacuate all the constant blasts overhead and around.
Night after night, these barrages continue. Israel and Trump now saying they control the skies, and Iran strikes against Israel seem lesser.
Families crammed underground, normal here, gone tomorrow, panicked and unknowing.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
WALSH: A big question still, is exactly what Iran has left in its arsenal, because that ultimately dictates their stance. If they're running out of
missiles that can hit Israel, then that will limit their ability to have a deterrent, and it will slow down how ferocious essentially, Israel feels
the responses over the past night.
It's clearly been a lot less in the last three nights, and I think now Israel feels it has air superiority, clearly, does have, it has a number of
days now, potentially until its own stocks of ammunitions begin to get to less perfect levels to pick off the targets it wants around Iran. Does the
U.S. get involved in a strike against nuclear facilities? Hard to tell.
I think if that was going to happen, you might have expected it last night. It would have been an imperfect move. We simply don't know if that
would have ended the question of Iran's nuclear ambitions. Probably not. It might just exacerbate them. And so, probably, a few more days ahead, this
of Israel going through its target list and as ultimately waiting for where Trump decides to land on this issue.
SOARES: Yes, as we heard from Kevin Liptak, there hasn't been much clarity it seems, from this President. Thanks very much, Nick, appreciate it. Well,
early on the White House lawn, when asked if he'd made a decision to strike Iran, exactly what we were talking about just now. President Trump said,
quote, "I may do it. I may not do it."
It's a critical choice he is facing with a plethora of voices simultaneously encouraging him to intervene and warning him not to pull the
U.S. into another war in the Middle East. Notably, though, Trump continues to use the word, "we", when describing ongoing military action in Iran.
With me now is Bilal Saab, a senior managing director of the research and advisory institution TRENDS US.
An associate fellow with Chatham House. Bilal, great to have you on the show. Look, we heard President Trump say as we just outlined there, he will
do -- may do it, may not do it. This though, Bilal, as we see the third U.S. aircraft carrier set to deploy close to Israel, and as the U.S., as
you heard from our correspondent there, Nic Robertson in Haifa saying that the U.S. is working on evacuation flights for its citizens in Israel.
Is the U.S., Bilal, in your view, about to be dragged in into a war which it didn't start? How do you read this moment?
BILAL SAAB, SENIOR MANAGING DIRECTOR, TRENDS US.: Right, good to be with you, Isa. I mean, all the signs show that we are more likely to intervene
militarily at this point, even though you're seeing a lot of zig-zagging, a lot of, you know, unpredictability on the part of the President.
But he is warming up to the idea, and I agree with your colleagues of some kind of a military strike directive offensive action to support what the
Israelis are doing. It could just also well, be -- and this is where I might contradict myself, that this is all part of psychological warfare on
the part of the president to try to sort of force the Iranians to make some serious concessions.
Let's just stick to what the President said. He may and he may not do it. He thinks that being this unpredictable is actually an advantage. But for
someone like myself, I think that when the stakes are so high, you do need a bit of clarity, strategic clarity so that you can actually seize the
initiative as opposed to just, you know, changing your mind every now and then.
SOARES: Let me pick up on that, because you wrote today, and I'm reading part of what you wrote, "when a nation is at war or contemplating military
intervention to deal with an imminent threat, it is vitally important that it seize the initiative and control of its own destiny narrative and to
extend possible flow of events.
Confusion, unpredictability and inconsistency are the enemies of success at war." Have you seen from this administration -- I'm just thinking what we
heard from President Trump. You know, he said, I might do it, I might not do it. Yesterday, he said, we know where the supreme leader is hiding. He's
an easy target, but he's safe there.
[14:20:00]
How do you read these inconsistent statements, or rather, this ambiguity, Bilal?
SAAB: Yes, good question. So look, there's no question that we have witnessed over the past just few days, a very fascinating evolution in
Trump's position. And I think it's been influenced by two things. One about the spectacular Israeli military success against the Iranian targets. So,
he saw that -- he got pretty excited about it.
And then second is, I think his patience was wearing thin with the Iranians who rejected the deal that he offered them several weeks ago. So, that's
why you're seeing a lot of change in his mind. That's why you're seeing that evolution. But at some point, once again, when the stakes are so high,
I think as President of the United States, as commander-in-chief, as someone whose country's interests are at stake when the repercussions for
international security and the very future of the global nonproliferation regime, all of that stuff is at stake.
I think at this point, you've got to seize the initiative. You've got to be in control of events and not let a third party -- I don't care who that
third party is, by the way.
SOARES: Yes --
SAAB: Don't let that third party actually dictate the tempo and be in control. You've got to be in control.
SOARES: And this is so important for our viewers around the world, because sending the U.S. military or any military, in fact, who use force is one
of the most consequential decisions Presidents can make. So, just talk us through, Bilal, the strategy and the thought process. I mean, who is
advising this -- the President? Is he reading Intelligence?
Is he sitting down to read the Intelligence that is being provided to him? What is your -- what are you hearing on your end about this?
SAAB: Well, he's doing all of that. But the person who's actually advising President Trump is President Trump himself. He really feels like he has the
upper hand. And when it comes to such really complex decision-making, we've seen it obviously in previous crises and exponential training in Ukraine --
SOARES: But Bilal, this is not -- Bilal, apologies. This is not a real estate deal, right? This is high stakes. So, who -- I mean, is he -- are
you telling me that he's not listening to Intelligence advice? He's not sitting down and reading the files?
SAAB: That's not true. I mean, he is reading them, but at the end of the day, he makes the decisions, right? I mean, he did contradict his own
Intelligence community, his director of National Intelligence, who just three months ago said that the Iranians were not weaponizing the nuclear
program.
Now, they might have changed their minds since May, I don't know. But at the end of the day, he feels like -- with his own gut, with whatever
Intelligence he's getting from the Israelis, in addition to the Intelligence that he's getting from his closest advisors that, you know,
he's in charge.
But you're right, of course, this is not a real estate decision. But we've seen time and time again that this President relies much more on instinct -
-
SOARES: Yes --
SAAB: On his own gut, on his own calculations, political and strategic. And he's the ultimate decider.
SOARES: Let's broaden this out, Bilal, if we could, what we have seen repeatedly and you know this, you've covered this in terms of U.S.
involvement in wars, Iraq, Afghanistan, Syria. There is often a lack or an absence of some sort of exit strategy. If the U.S. does join in, what is
the goal? What is the exit strategy, which I haven't heard anyone talk -- from this administration, talk about this yet.
SAAB: Right, the hope is, and of course, I'm praying that we're not basing this on hope --
SOARES: Yes --
SAAB: But the hope is that this is all part of an attempt to apply more pressure on the Iranians to make the concessions that are needed. And the
concessions being that you just can't enrich uranium on your soil. Of course, the Iranians don't agree with that. They want to maintain that,
right. They want to exercise it.
So, we're sort of now at an impasse. If we're going to go with military strikes, offensive directive -- direct offensive action, then my concern is
-- my guess is that we're going to have to go all the way because we're going to get into some kind of a mission creep. And of course, we are going
to have to face the ultimate reality of regime change in Iran, which will have tremendous consequences not just for the Iranians, but also for the
entire region.
As you said yourself, Isa, we've seen this before. We've seen it in Afghanistan, we've seen it in Iraq. Now, imagine, a 90-plus million nation
that is much more -- I would say -- that has a much more important civilizational role in the entire region. And where instability in Iran, I
don't think we'll be limited to its borders. It will be outside of its borders.
It will definitely spill over. So, I'd love to hear an exit strategy. I'd love to hear some gaming of this. I'd love to hear more thinking about the
day after, but we're not doing any of those things right now.
SOARES: Bilal, really important that you came on and you gave us your perspective. These are important conversations and questions that we are
raising, hopefully we'll get some clarity and hopefully, more importantly, it doesn't end at that. The U.S. does not go there. Bilal Saab, thank you
very much, Bilal, good to see you.
SAAB: Pleasure, thank you.
[14:25:00]
SOARES: Now, it is a migrant nightmare. Court filings describe migrant children, even toddlers held for long periods of time in jail-like
conditions. We'll have the details just ahead.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
SOARES: President Trump says his immigration policy is aimed at deporting violent criminals. But migrant families are getting caught up as well.
Families with young children, even toddlers, and they're describing prolonged detention in border facilities, jail-like conditions,
overcrowded rooms with no windows.
And these details were just revealed in court filings. The attorney's tied to immigration advocacy groups submitted on Tuesday in a federal court. Our
correspondent Priscilla Alvarez joins me now from Washington D.C. So, Priscilla, talk us through the details that have been revealed here.
Further details on these court filings.
PRISCILLA ALVAREZ, CNN CORRESPONDENT: Yes, these are details that are being provided by the families themselves who were interviewed by
attorneys. These are families who had been in U.S. Customs and Border Protection facilities. Now, these are facilities that are not equipped to
care for people for long periods of time, including single adults.
But it is where families have found themselves for extended periods of time, including days if not weeks. And some of these families had very
young children. Now, what is alarming about this in particular, according to the attorneys I spoke with, is not only the conditions that they're held
in, which have long been known.
Again, because these facilities were never meant to care for people for more than a couple of days. But also the fact that border crossings have
plummeted, and still, they are finding themselves in these situations. So, what has ultimately unfolded is that some of these families with young
children are in these prison-like conditions for days, if not weeks.
And we have these declarations from these families describing some of those conditions. For example, a quote from one court declaration that said,
quote, "it was so crowded that we couldn't even step forwards or backwards. We spent all 42 days in that same place. We didn't see the daylight. We
only went outside when we went to the different place where the showers are."
Now, that declaration right there is from a mother who also has a toddler, and she was describing what it was like in this border facility. We also
have some data points. In fact, in February, 301 children were detained in CBP custody for more than 72 hours. Of those, the majority were detained
for more than seven days.
Then in April, 213 children were held more than 72 hours, and 14 children were held more than 20 days. And that is data that is based off U.S.
Customs and Border Protection reports to these attorneys because this -- all of this is part of this decades old settlement that essentially governs
how children should be cared for in government custody.
So, what the attorneys are doing here is what is known as a motion to enforce, essentially telling the judge that they -- that the judge needs to
request or to tell CBP that they can no longer do this practice. They need to release these families or essentially transfer them or even deport them,
because the settlement doesn't preclude them from doing so, but that these families just cannot continue to be held in these facilities for these
prolonged periods of time.
ISA SOARES, CNN INTERNATIONAL HOST: Important reporting there from Priscilla Alvarez. Thanks, Priscilla. Appreciate it.
And still to come tonight, cracks are forming within the Republican Party. Details ahead on the televised feuds, as MAGA remains divided over
America's role in the Israel-Iran conflict. That story just ahead.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
SOARES: If you're just joining us, let me bring up to date with our breaking news hour. In just the last few hours, Israel's military says it
has intercepted missiles launched from Iran. The Israel Defense Forces adds the public should go to a safe space and stay until they're given the all
clear.
Meanwhile, U.S. President Donald Trump says he's weighing his options for the Israel-Iran conflict. He also tells CNN, he appears to be warming up to
the possibility of using U.S. military assets to strike Iranian nuclear facilities. Iran's supreme leader, Khamenei, says the country will not
surrender and that any U.S. military intervention will result in what he calls irreparable damage.
Earlier CNN's Alayna Treene got this response from President Trump. Have a listen.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
ALAYNA TREENE, CNN WHITE HOUSE REPORTER: Mr. President, what do you say to the supreme leader of Iran who says that they will not surrender?
TRUMP: I say, good luck.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
[14:35:00]
SOARES: Short and sweet. While uncertainty over Trump's next move is creating an internal split within his own party. Many Republican hawks are
urging the president to eliminate Iran's nuclear program. However, the MAGA isolationists want the U.S. to stay far away from the conflict. And we are
watching the growing divide play out on conservative meeting -- media, pardon me, including this confrontation between commentator Tucker Carson
and U.S. Senator Ted Cruz. Have a listen.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
TUCKER CARLSON, HOST: How many people live in Iran by the way?
SEN. TED CRUZ (R-TX): I don't know the population.
CARLSON: At all?
CRUZ: No, I don't know the population.
CARLSON: You don't know the population of the country you seek to topple? What's the ethnic mix of Iran?
CRUZ: They are Persians and what predominantly Shia. OK. This is --
CARLSON: No, it's not even -- you don't know anything about Iran. So, actually, the country --
CRUZ: OK. I am not the Tucker Carlson.
CARLSON: No, no.
CRUZ: Expert on Iran.
CARLSON: You're a senator.
CRUZ: Who's says --
CARLSON: Who's calling for overthrow of the government. And you don't anything about the country.
CRUZ: No. You don't know anything about the country.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
SOARES: Well, that was quite the exchange. CNN's Annie Grayer is tracking this story from Capitol Hill. So, Annie, we just played that little clip
here, but it really gives you a sense of some of the divides within on Capitol Hill. Speak to those and what you have been hearing.
ANNIE GRAYER, CNN REPORTER: That's right. This issue has really exposed the divide among the -- within the Republican Party on foreign policy. And
President Donald Trump is stuck in the middle of it. There are the defense hawks, like Republican Senator Lindsey Graham, who are in the president's
ear saying that the president must be aggressive, that the U.S. should be aggressive here in prohibiting Iran from getting any nuclear capabilities,
and in fact, even using U.S. military if necessary. Senator Graham has been speaking with President Trump regularly throughout this these last couple
days. Take a listen to what he told us recently.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
SEN. LINDSEY GRAHAM (R-SC): Iran with a nuclear weapon is a threat not only to Israel, but to us. And four presidents have promised to make sure
that Iran never had a nuclear weapon, I think it will be Donald Trump who delivers on that promise.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
GRAYER: Now, on the complete other side of the debate are right-wing isolationist Republicans like Republican Congresswoman Marjorie Taylor
Greene, who's been advocating publicly and behind the scenes for days that the president should not enter into this war, that the U.S. should stay out
of it. She has been saying publicly, quote, "We have all been very vocal for days now urging, let's be America first. Let's stay out."
So, that just shows you the spectrum of opinions in the Republican Party right now with President Trump in the middle. And as we've been tracking
all day, the president has not indicated which way he's going to lead.
Now, on top of this divide though, Congress does have to decide if they are going to play a role here. There are -- there's been an introduction in
both the House and the Senate for the War Powers Act, which would require the president to get congressional approval for any military action. Now,
when those votes are happening, that's still being worked out, but that could also put Republicans in a bind, depending on what the president
decides to do.
So, there are a lot of factors at play here, and everyone on Capitol Hill is waiting to see what the president decides.
SOARES: Annie Grayer, I appreciate it as always. Thank you, Annie. Well, my next guest is an Iranian journalist and researcher at the Center for the
Middle East Strategic Studies, Abas Aslani. He joins me now from Tehran. Abas, thank you very much for taking the time to speak to us this evening.
You are our eyes and ears on the ground this hour. Can you first give us a sense, Abas, of what today has been like in Tehran, just the realities on
the ground for our viewers just around the world?
ABAS ASLANI, IRANIAN JOURNALIST AND RESEARCHER AND SENIOR RESEARCH FELLOW, CENTER FOR MIDDLE EAST STRATEGIC STUDIES: Well, we hear a number of
explosions in the capital city and also the air defense in the capital city engaged several times. And some of them were somehow a bit longer than the
others. And there has been back and forth between the two sites. Iran also launched a new barrage of missile attack against Israel.
So, that question maybe how long this will continue. Also, in the meantime, there's a question whether the U.S. will engage directly in this conflict
or not. And in the initial days or moments of this war, maybe some thought that -- specifically those in Israel, they thought that people would come
to the streets and protest against the government. One of the aims was to create chaos in this society. But it has been the opposite. They have been
supporting the response against Israel because they see from this perspective that a decisive response against Israel can create a deterrence
that could stop further and additional attacks coming from the Israeli or American side.
SOARES: And, Abas, we'll talk about the politics in just a moment of, you know, the tit for tat from both sides. But I wonder if you can paint a
picture of what you are hearing from friends and family members. Because our correspondent earlier in the day were giving us a sense really of the
panic, the sheer panic many people are feeling.
[14:40:00]
But also, the fact, as I've been reading, you can correct me here, the lack of food in the supermarket, just day to day, what that is like. I am seeing
that Iran has imposed temporary nationwide internet restrictions. I mean, we can see you, we can hear you. That's a good sign. But just day to day,
what that has been like -- life has been like in Tehran.
ASLANI: Well, in terms of internet, there has been some ups and downs. Hourly there were some, let's say, disruptions and the government said that
there were cyber-attacks and that was the reason, but they also said that there might be some limitations and they will try to restore it to the
normal.
And -- but in terms of, let's say, buying commodities, I didn't face any specific problems. Honestly, before this interview, I was outside making
some purchases. I had some shopping and I also had to go to gas station. There was no long line. It was a bit the normal line in the gas station.
But the number of people you are seeing on the streets is much less than an ordinary day. Some have left the capital city for other destinations in
order to avoid, let's say, risk or danger. But many are staying at their homes and they're -- but they're avoiding unnecessary commutes within the
city. That's why you see more -- much more quiet in Tehran these days.
SOARES: And we heard -- if we can turn to the politics, Abas. We heard President Trump today kind of playing hardball, saying he has given Iran
the ultimate ultimatum, which is what he said, where he's also said, nobody knows what I want to do, but I can say this, Iran's got a lot of trouble
and wants to negotiate. Do these words, do you think, have the desired effect that perhaps President Trump think it may have on Khamenei, on the
supreme leader, or does it have an opposite effect?
ASLANI: I think this will have, you know, the opposite effect. It will backfire. Honestly, I think the message given by the Iranian leader today
was meant to be addressing those issues raised by President Trump. He said two things. Iran will resist against the -- an imposed war, and more
importantly, which was crucial, I think, an imposed peace, which meant a negotiation which the United States will impose its terms to Iran.
Because from Iranian perspective, that will equal a complete surrender. And a surrender from Iranian perspective could have much more harms than, let's
say, a military conflict, which could have damages for the country. That's why, you know, any political surrender will not be the end for Iran, but
with -- it'll be a new beginning for further pressure, for further external threats or even military actions against the country.
What we are seeing these days is not just a question and weaken Iran's nuclear facilities, but it's aimed at, let's say, making Iran weaker in
terms of its military capability and infrastructure, eliminate its nuclear facilities as well as to create chaos in the society, which could raise the
question of regime change in the country.
So, that's why I think Iran considers that political surrender as the beginning of other, let's say, domino kind of actions in future, which
could create instability in the country.
SOARES: Yes, and we heard the supreme leader saying, Iran is not one to surrender. Abas Aslani. Thank you very much, Abas. Appreciate you taking
the time to speak to us on the show. Thank you. Live from Tehran there.
ASLANI: Right.
SOARES: And still to come tonight, a major decision from the U.S. Supreme Court has wide implications for the transgender rights. We'll explain after
this short break.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[14:45:00]
SOARES: Well, we got a major ruling from the U.S. Supreme Court today that will add debate across America about transgender rights. The high court
upheld a Tennessee law that bans minors from getting gender affirming care like puberty blockers or hormone therapy. There are 26 states where this
kind of care is banned for children, and today's decision is seen as a major blow to the rise of transgender people in the United States.
The 63 decision fell exactly along ideological lines with the court's conservative majority all voting to uphold the ban, while the three
liberals dissented. To help us understand this ruling and what it means, we are joined now by trial attorney Misty Marris. Misty, great to see you.
Just walk us through then, for our viewers around the world, this decision and what it means.
MISTY MARRIS, TRIAL ATTORNEY AND LEGAL ANALYST: So, this decision was one we were all waiting for now that certain very consequential decisions are
coming out before the Supreme Court's term ends at the end of June. And essentially, what this decision means is that a Tennessee law, which bans
puberty blockers, and other transgender affirming care, it is going to have the green light. So, this law will stay in place.
It was challenged by three families and physicians to say that this was -- it violated the 14th Amendment, which is basically equal protection clause.
The court found that it did not, and it was allowing this law to move forward. And the impact is that these other 26 states that had laws on the
books that were in limbo, because this case was pending, those are now also going to move forward.
So, there is a tremendous impact on the medical industry, on families and minors who were seeking this care, and severe penalties for violations
across the states where these statutes are in place. So, this decision not only has an impact in Tennessee, it has an impact across the country.
SOARES: And let just read, Misty, to view as what Chief Justice Roberts, what he wrote. It said, our role is not to judge the wisdom, the fairness,
or logic of the law before us, but only to ensure that it does not violate the equal protection guarantee of the 14th Amendment, which is what you
were talking about there, Misty. Having concluded it does not, we leave questions regarding its policy to the people, their elected
representatives, and the democratic process.
That critically will disappoint many. So, what -- how do you see this playing out across other states? We saw more legal cases being pushed on
that front?
MARRIS: Yes, it absolutely could. And just to explain what the basis for this decision was from the legal perspective, it was all about what
standards should apply to this review. So, for a law to be deemed constitutional, and that's what was being challenged here, whether this law
was constitutional or violated the 14th Amendment clause, which provides equal protection to all. So, you can't discriminate against somebody on the
basis of sex or gender.
So, the challenger said, well, this is clearly a law that's based on sex or gender, because whether or not somebody gets this treatment is based on
whether they're seeking it for transgender status. So, it specifically falls into that bucket. What the court determined is that the reasoning
behind the law in Tennessee was not because of sex or gender, it was based on age and the way the medication was used.
[14:50:00]
So, all of a sudden, that idea of it being a constitutional challenge goes away. And what happens is a standard called rational basis, which is a low-
level standard, was applied as opposed to strict scrutiny. So, I know I'm using a lot of legal words here, but the difference between the way this
case plays out at the appellate level versus now, what SCOTUS decided, is that this lower-level test that makes it easier for states to pass these
laws was applied.
And so, that's where we could see other legal challenges. And it doesn't have to just be about gender affirming care, it can be about other areas
where the 14th Amendment is implicated. So, this relates to transgender rights, of course, but it also could have more far-reaching implications as
more legal challenges make their way into the courtroom.
SOARES: Mista Marris, really appreciate you lying it all out there for us very clearly. Thank you, Misty. Great to see you.
MARRIS: Thank you.
SOARES: And still to come tonight, imagine the workforce shrinking because artificial intelligence has taken over. Amazon's warning its employees it's
likely to happen in the near future. But when is that? That's next.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
SOARES: There's a new warning for Amazon employees, job cuts are coming and you can thank generative artificial intelligence. Amazon CEO Andy Jassy
says, as it rolls out more A.I. tools, it will need to change the way work is done, and they'll need fewer people to do it. The warning comes just
weeks after one big tech CEO warned A.I. could wipe out half of all entry- level white-collar jobs over the next five years. My colleague Sara Sidner spoke to Claire Duffy earlier about this trend. Have a listen.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
CLARE DUFFY, CNN BUSINESS WRITER: It's remarkable how similar this warning from Amazon CEO, Andy Jassy, is to the warning that we heard from Anthropic
CEO Dario Amodei just a few weeks ago about A.I. wiping out entry-level white-collar jobs. Andy Jassy's warning is a bit more vague. He doesn't
give a specific timeline or a number of jobs, but he does say that agents are going to make workers more productive. It's going to allow them to
focus from -- on more advanced strategic work less on rote work. That sounds a lot like entry level work.
He says, it's hard to know exactly where this nets out over time, but in the next few years, we expect that this will reduce our total corporate
workforce as we get efficiency gains from using A.I. extensively across the company.
And his advice is very similar to Dario Amodei's advice as well. He says, educate yourself, learn to use A.I. tools in your work. But you know, this
also comes as Amazon is among those companies that is also building the technology that Andy Jassy is warning will take out jobs from his workers,
other workers.
[14:55:00]
And this is technology that's making Amazon even more profitable. Amazon's stock is up 17 percent over the last year. And so, I think there is some
question about how much of this is hyped to sell a product and how much of this is a genuine warning that employees should be heating right now.
SARA SIDNER, CNN ANCHOR: Yes, I mean there's a lot of concern about this that it's talked about pretty much every day, especially when you're
hearing these warnings come out week after week after week.
DUFFY: And my question to tech leaders right now is, how do you build a workforce over time if you're wiping out entry level jobs? How do people
get those higher-level jobs if they don't start somewhere?
(END VIDEOTAPE)
SOARES: Well, President Trump is standing by his previous statements that he does not want TikTok to go dark by making the company safe once again. A
White House spokesperson says Trump is expected to delay the enforcement of the law requiring TikTok to sell its wildly popular app, or end up getting
banned in the United States. The app has 170 million American users and is owned by China-based parent company. Critics of TikTok say the app poses a
national security risk.
That does it for this hour. I will be back though in the next five minutes or so for another hour on news after this short break. Don't go anywhere.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[15:00:00]
END
