Return to Transcripts main page
Isa Soares Tonight
Democrats Divided After The Senate Passes A Funding Deal To End the Longest Government Shutdown In U.S. History; Russia Advances On Key Ukrainian City; Mexico Begins A Major Crackdown On Criminal Gangs, Deploys Soldiers To The Streets Of Michoacan; G7 Foreign Ministers Meet To Discuss Ukraine And The Middle East; Footage Showing Russian Troops Approaching Pokrovsk; Suicide Bombing In Pakistan; Mexico Cracks Down On Criminal Groups; Landmark Shift In Women's Health. Aired 2-3p ET
Aired November 11, 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: A very warm welcome to the show, everyone, I'm Isa Soares. Tonight, Democrats divided after the Senate
passes a funding deal to end the longest government shutdown in U.S. history. We are live in Washington with the latest.
Then, is Russia about to seize a key city in east Ukraine? We have new footage which shows troops could be closing in. Plus, Mexico begins a major
crackdown on criminal gangs, deploying soldiers to the streets of Michoacan. That, and much more ahead. But we start this evening with
exclusive CNN reporting on a significant rift between two close allies.
Sources tell CNN, the United Kingdom is suspending some Intelligence- sharing with the United States, and the reason for that, the American attacks we have seen on suspected drug-trafficking vessels in the
Caribbean, a story that we have been focused on here on the show. U.S. strikes in the Pacific and Caribbean have so far killed more than 70 people
just in recent months.
Trump officials insist their actions are legal. But sources tell CNN, British officials believe these actions violate international law. And by
the way, it's not just Britain, sources say Canada doesn't want its Intelligence used for these deadly strikes either. Our Natasha Bertrand
broke this story for us. She joins us now from Brussels, Belgium.
Natasha, good to see you. Look, this is a significant move by the U.K., and it clearly here suggests concerns over the legality of this strike,
something that you and I have discussed before. Just give us a sense of what you've been hearing from your sources, and how long ago the U.K. has
actually stopped sharing Intelligence. How far back does this go, first of all?
NATASHA BERTRAND, CNN NATIONAL SECURITY CORRESPONDENT: Yes, Isa, so what we're told is that the U.K. stopped sharing this particular Intelligence
with the U.S. over a month ago. So, the U.S. has been going without this Intelligence from the British to carry out its lethal strikes on vessels
for about six weeks, we're told.
And you're right. I mean, this is so significant. And I think that in large part, this is the U.K. sending a very strong signal to the United States
that it does not agree with this policy.
What we're told from our sources is that the reason that the U.K. stopped sharing this Intelligence with the U.S., is because they fundamentally
believe that these lethal U.S. military strikes are illegal, that they violate international law, and they don't want their information being used
by the U.S. military to kill civilians, which is what the U.K believes these drug traffickers are.
Essentially, the United States is making an argument that they are in an armed conflict with these cartels, with these criminal organizations, but
that's something that legal experts and as we're seeing now, the broader international community does not necessarily agree with, and the Trump
administration has really not made a robust public legal case for that argument.
They are relying on a Justice Department opinion for this legal justification for striking these cartels in a lethal way that has not been
made public. And so, the U.K. made a decision to step back for now, as you said, Canada also does not want its Intelligence being used for lethal
targeting by the U.S. military.
They are willing to help with known operations, not ones that are, you know, ad hoc and going after boats with lethal strikes. But you're starting
to see this come to ahead with allies and something that has already been coming to ahead internally in the Pentagon. We reported just last month
that the commander of U.S. Southern Command, who was in charge of this entire operation, actually offered to resign because he had been raising
concerns about the legality of these strikes.
So, a significant departure from what the U.K. had been doing, which was, you know, gladly sharing Intelligence with the U.S. as long as the U.S. was
interdicting these boats, arresting those on board, not killing them. That is the fundamental difference here.
SOARES: So, as you put, Natasha, this picture together, not just from the U.K., Canada, but also, of course, like you said, defense officials raised
-- Pentagon officials raising concerns. We've also seen for several weeks, in fact, many voices on the human rights side raising concerns.
[14:05:00]
Volker Turk, the U.N. human rights chief recently said that the strikes violate international law and amount to extrajudicial killing. As we put
all of this together, Natasha, what is the U.S. -- how is the U.S. reacting to this, not just U.N. chiefs, but also allies, close allies here?
BERTRAND: Well, they're very defiant, and we're told that the U.K. decision has not impacted the U.S.' calculation here. The U.S. completely is
committed to this military operation. And we've seen multiple strikes on drug vessels in the Caribbean and in the Eastern Pacific by the U.S. in
just the last week.
They're happening on a near-daily basis now, 76 people have been killed across roughly 19 or 20 strikes now. The U.S. is completely undeterred by
the criticism. And that's because the Trump administration feels like it is on solid legal ground. They are arguing that they are in an armed conflict
with these organizations.
The problem, though, is that they have not shown any kind of public justification for these strikes, proving that these are, in fact,
individuals that are part of these cartels, that they are, in fact, ferrying drugs. The most public evidence that they have provided are those
-- are those videos that they publish every time they carry out a strike.
But it's worth noting as well that a lot of the heartburn over this comes from the fact that the U.S. acknowledges itself that they do not know the
identities of every single person on board those boats before they are striking them. All they have to do is come up with Intelligence that says
that they have an affiliation with these groups. So, that is part of the reason why so many people are raising concerns about this.
SOARES: Yes, Intelligence, which, by the way, they have never shared, right? We've never got our hands on any of this Intelligence, which is
important to note. Natasha, good to see you, thank you very much indeed. Let's stay on the story. I want to bring in Christopher Sabatini, who is a
Senior Fellow for Latin America at Chatham House, a well-known face here on the show. Chris, great to have you back on the show. Let me pick up where
Natasha just left off --
CHRISTOPHER SABATINI, SENIOR FELLOW FOR LATIN AMERICA, CHATHAM HOUSE: Thank you --
SOARES: Really that decision by the U.K., this according to Natasha's sources, to not share Intelligence with the U.S. And this really growing
dissent we are seeing on this.
SABATINI: This has been brewing for some time, and we've seen international jurists claim that these amount to, as Natasha said, extrajudicial
killings. The equivalent of wouldn't shoot a suspected drug trafficker on the streets of -- well, wherever. If you thought they were trafficking
drugs, and this is what's happening.
And the Trump administration has been really boldly brave in trying to assert these are narco terrorists, which really is an original term, but
also do not represent an immediate armed threat to U.S. citizens, which is what, in the case of terrorism, has to -- has to meet that standard. So, a
number of governments have become uncomfortable with this.
Multilateral institutions have become uncomfortable with this definition. But then there's also, of course, this entire idea that there's no
Intelligence sharing. They're making broad claims that -- and if you -- by the way, read a very good series of articles by the "Associated Press",
they've been talking to some of these fisher people in Venezuela, primarily, who have been accused of trafficking drugs, who have been in the
boats.
Many of them are simply minor level people who are trafficking drugs to augment their income. They are not tied to any broad cartel that one could
define as being a narco terrorist cartel. So, there's a lot of elements of this that simply don't sit right with multilateral institutions,
international jurists, and a growing number of U.S. allies.
SOARES: Yes, and I saw that journalism by the "Associated Press" and those interviews they carried out with, I think, 4 or 5 people who were involved
in these attacks. Men -- like you said, Chris, many of them very minor roles, like a boat driver of some sorts, but clearly, not the head of any
sort of narco terrorism group.
But, you know, this decision to halt Intel-sharing from the U.K. comes, and you and I have spoken about this, but we've seen the intensification now of
this as the USS Gerald R. Ford carrier strike group has now arrived, I believe, near Latin America. We see this -- we're seeing this show of
military might grow in the region. Which then begs the question, why do they need all this firepower just to target small boats? So, what is the
goal here, Chris?
SABATINI: That's right, Isa, this is overkill. Approximately 10 percent of U.S. Naval assets are and probably more will be parked off the coast of
Venezuela or in the southern Caribbean. You don't need that level of firepower.
[14:10:00]
Nuclear submarines, amphibious vessels guiding -- destroy -- destroyers with guided missiles or the largest aircraft carrier in the U.S. fleet, the
USS Gerald Ford, to take out individual boats of what could be fisher folk, or as well as just simply traffickers going back and forth between Trinidad
and Tobago.
What's really at the heart of this, Isa, is this an attempt to try to promote regime change in Venezuela? That may not be a bad thing. The
Nicolas Maduro government is indeed deeply and complicit in illicit narcotics trafficking and human trafficking, in illegal gold mining.
But the truth is, this really is an attempt to try to rattle the military and those around President Nicolas Maduro of Venezuela, to defect and
promote a change of government that is more in line with U.S. interests. Again, that's not necessarily a bad thing --
SOARES: Yes --
SABATINI: But do you need this much firepower? Do you need this much show of power to do that?
SOARES: Yes, and I know you called it gunboat diplomacy, and we've been, you know -- we haven't seen this level of a push of President Trump's first
term, but it's certainly very distinct. On the question of regime change or trying to dislodge Maduro, the "New York Times", I'm not sure if you saw
this today, Chris.
"New York Times" looking at comparing, making parallels between Panama's General Noriega in -- back in 1989 and President Nicolas Maduro. And it
says here, and I'm quoting, "Mr. Noriega's capture sometimes came up during debates in Mr. Trump's first term about how to deal with Mr. Maduro."
This is according to two former officials from the time. Among the options, Trump officials considered at the time were a large scale U.S. invasion of
the country, and a smaller special operation targeted directly at Mr. Maduro. Mr. Trump's former Defense Secretary, Mark Esper wrote in a 2022
memoir. I mean, is it that straightforward? Just speak to the risks for Venezuela and abroad. Do you think that President Trump, this
administration wants to go there?
SABATINI: I don't think it really does. I think it's trying to do this change on the cheap, much as it did in 2019 when it created with the
opposition, a shadow government under Juan Guaido, which was elected by the national assembly and the U.S. government tried to back basically
international governments to support more than 60 did, his government over Nicolas Maduro and then Juan Guaido and the U.S. government tried to
advocate for the military to defect, to swing its support from Maduro to Juan Guaido.
Again, this is what they're trying to do. Now they're trying to do it with weapons. I don't think the Trump administration will invade Venezuela. It's
a much more complicated proposition than even Panama. Venezuela is a country of 28 million people. Panama was a country of 3 million people.
The U.S. had a military base at the time in Panama. And the truth is, Noriega had already been threatened with a military coup in 1989 before the
U.S. invasion. So, there's already much more fragility in Noriega's inner circle, and there's much more consensus and presence for the U.S. military
to do this.
So, the question is, what comes next? The shoot first, ask questions later, in the case of alleged narco traffickers is clearly a dangerous policy,
quite likely in violation of international norms, that would become even more so if the U.S. started to basically attack land sites in Venezuela.
Now, it probably wouldn't be able to attack individual, for example, narcotics labs.
They don't exist in Venezuela. It would attack quite likely airstrips, ports, and the question of whether the CIA could engage in some sort of
covert operation, which, by the way, Isa, the -- Trump announced that they were engaging in covert operations in Venezuela. It's not a covert
operation if the President is announcing it. What they're trying to do is scare Nicolas Maduro.
SOARES: Yes --
SABATINI: The truth is, some -- such smash and grab operation is likely --
SOARES: Yes --
SABATINI: Not going to produce the type of regime-change they want --
SOARES: Yes, and look, important to point out, it's not just to try to shake Nicolas Maduro critically with a show of force. Those around him, the
military, the support around him -- important also probably to point out, all of them depend financially on this narco-trafficking, of course, and
illegal drug mining and gold mining as I've reported on for many years. Chris, great to see you, always --
SABATINI: Yes --
SOARES: Appreciate your analysis. Thanks, Chris --
SABATINI: Good day, Isa, also evening --
SOARES: Christopher Sabatini, thank you. Now I turn to United States because U.S. government may be on the verge of reopening after what has
been six long, painful weeks for millions of Americans. The House could vote as early as Wednesday on Republican measure after it passed the
Senate, if you remember, on Monday.
But the bill does not include what Democrats were holding out for, an extension of health care subsidies. And that's led to a bitter divide
within the Democratic Party.
[14:15:00]
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
REP. HAKEEM JEFFRIES (D-NY): Listen, it's unfortunate that you had eight or so Democrats -- seven Democrats who made the decision to vote in a
different way than the overwhelming majority of the Senate Democratic caucus. And what you'll see from the overwhelming majority of House
Democrats when the bill comes over to us.
But they're going to have to explain themselves. This fight continues, and over the last several weeks, we have successfully elevated this health care
issue, such that the American people are demanding action.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
SOARES: Explain themselves. Well, millions of Americans, meanwhile, are struggling without critical food aid during the shutdown amid rising
grocery prices, something President Donald Trump seemed to downplay during an interview on "Fox News". Here's a little clip.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Then why are people saying they're anxious about the economy? Why are they saying that?
DONALD TRUMP, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: I don't know that they are saying that, I think polls are fake. We have the greatest economy we've
ever had. We have -- we will have over $20 trillion come into our economy, and it's largely because of my election, but it's also largely because of
tariffs.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
SOARES: And until the ink dries on a new deal, flight delays and cancellations will keep piling up. Experts say it could take months for air
traffic to recover from the impact of the shutdown. The ongoing travel chaos could keep House members from returning to Washington, delaying, of
course, that key vote.
Our Gustavo Valdes is tracking developments at Hartsfield-Jackson International Airport in Atlanta. But first, CNN politics senior reporter
Stephen Collinson joins us from Washington. So, Stephen, let me start with your latest analysis, which is always so spot-on that you put on cnn.com,
entitled "Trump's Shutdown Win Just Landed Republicans" -- you write, "With a Huge Political Headache".
That headache, it seems to be in the form of health care, right? Talk us through what he promised and what they're laying out potentially here.
STEPHEN COLLINSON, CNN POLITICS SENIOR REPORTER: Right, so this shutdown started because Democrats tried to leverage their position in the Senate to
get Republicans to extend these enhanced subsidies for the Affordable Care Act. Insurance plans -- they didn't get that demand, but during the
shutdown, Republicans said they were willing to talk about helping people whose premiums are shooting up because the subsidies expire at the end of
the year.
Well, now, we're at that point. It's on the Republicans who control the White House and both chambers of Congress. Now, to deal with this problem
that has millions of Americans potentially on the cusp of losing their health care because they can't afford the premiums without the subsidies
that they were expecting from the government.
Democrats are already more trusted than Republicans, according to most polls in handling health care. And this is something, I think that's
playing into this wider issue that we're seeing of Americans being very upset about the cost of groceries, the cost of housing. And you saw the
President being confronted with it there.
So, heading into the midterm election year, next year, this is a very dicey subject for Republicans, and it's not clear that they have any way out.
Indeed, President Trump has been promising great, beautiful health care at a low cost, that's far better than Obamacare for both or during the span of
both of his presidencies, and has pretty much come up with nothing. So, there is a bit of a political spot here.
SOARES: Stay with us. Let me go to Gustavo in Atlanta. And Gustavo, I mean, the final vote from what I understand, doesn't mean, of course, the travel
disruption will be over. That kind of fast enough. Just talk us through kind of the cancellations and the impact, the real time impact this is
having on the ground there.
GUSTAVO VALDES, CNN CORRESPONDENT: Well, Secretary Duffy said today that even if the government reopens today, this is not going to solve the
problem immediately. They say that the restrictions on flights will continue until the conditions state that it's safe for everybody to be
going back to normal here in Atlanta Hartsfield-Jackson Airport, the busiest in the world.
Yesterday, we saw a lot of frustration, a lot of people coming back from weekend trips were stranded, especially on connecting flights. Today is a
lot calmer. There are still over a 1,000 flights canceled nationwide, but it seems like the airlines are communicating better to their customers.
They come prepared, the cancellations are being announced way in advance, so that is softening the blow for those trying to get to their destination.
There's also a Winter storm in the midsection of the country that is worsening things, but today, we're seeing a calmer environment in the
airport here in Atlanta, and they are reports of short-staffing for air traffic controllers, but things seem to be going smoothly.
[14:20:00]
And I may point out that it's not just the air traffic controllers, the security checkpoints, the TSA agents are also working without a paycheck,
and it's surprising that there is no wait time to get past security, which means those workers are still doing their jobs without receiving a
paycheck.
SOARES: Gustavo, stay with us, Let me go back to Stephen. So, Stephen, I mean, the -- clearly, as we heard there from Gustavo, the fight over health
care is not -- you know, it's not just impacting federal workers benefits. We're seeing the fallout at airports. If Republicans quite simply cannot
convince voters they have the solution for this -- to this, as President Trump has been saying that he has.
How damaging could this potentially be given, of course, the polling that you were saying that they don't trust the Republicans -- no, they trust
more of the Democrats than the Republicans over this when we're talking about the 2026 midterms here.
COLLINSON: Well, ultimately, it could lose them losing the House of Representatives, and that would change the dynamics in Washington so that
the final two years of Trump's term would face much deeper scrutiny than they have from a fairly tame Republican majority. So, those are the
political stakes. We have those two elections last week in Virginia and New Jersey for gubernatorial races.
The affordability issue that was stressed by Democrats there was very key in them winning those races with far bigger-than-expected majorities. They
were in Democratic states, but they got a lot more independent and even soft Trump voters to vote for him. Those two Democratic gubernatorial
nominees.
So, I think the forecast is set fairly well for Democrats for next year in terms of winning back the House. The Republicans have a very small
majority, and history suggests that Presidents often get a rebuke from voters two years after they're elected. The question, however, is how can
they fix this? Because with that small majority, with an election approaching, given all the splits in the Republican Party about how to pay
for health care historically, it seems very difficult to see where the political running room is here for a major reform.
SOARES: Yes, the battle s not just with the Democrats, right? Like you said, it's tearing the Republican Party unity as well. Stephen and Gustavo,
thank you very much to you both. And still to come tonight, Israel's parliament advances two controversial bills today, one which would mandate
the death penalty for certain crimes.
Plus, take a look at this. New footage appears to show Russian troops nearing the strategic Ukrainian city of Pokrovsk. All the details just
ahead.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[14:25:00]
SOARES: Far-right Israeli Minister Itamar Ben-Gvir calls it the most important bill in Israel's history. Today, lawmakers advanced a measure
that mandates the death penalty for certain murders. It's aimed squarely at Palestinians, saying terrorists convicted of killing Israeli citizens with
the aim of harming the state of Israel will be sentenced to death.
The law would not apply to terrorism against Palestinians. Ben-Gvir, who himself has been convicted of supporting Jewish terror against
Palestinians, handed out sweets, as you can see there after the initial vote, the bill still requires two more readings. And it comes amid a surge
of attacks against Palestinians in the West Bank.
Just today, dozens of masked settlers set fire to Palestinian land as well as vehicles. Some of them were carrying clubs. The IDF says four Israelis
were arrested after what it calls extreme violence. And it says four Palestinians were injured and evacuated for medical treatment. Israeli
lawmakers are also advancing a bill that would give the government more control over news coverage by foreign media outlets.
Reporters Without Borders calls it the first nail in the coffin of broadcast media's editorial independence in Israel. Our Jeremy Diamond is
following developments tonight for us from Tel Aviv.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
JEREMY DIAMOND, CNN JERUSALEM CORRESPONDENT (on camera): Two controversial bills pushed by Israel's right-wing have now passed a preliminary hurdle
inside Israel's parliament, known as the Knesset. One of these pieces of legislation concerns expanding the death penalty in Israel, the other aims
to potentially shut down foreign media outlets that are operating in Israel.
Now, on that first piece of legislation, and this is one that's been pushed by Israel's right-wing for years now, and it would expand the death penalty
to be applied to convicted terrorists and individuals found guilty of nationalistically motivated murder. Making clear that it is only aimed at
those with nationalist intentions aimed at harming the state of Israel.
Meaning it would apply only to Palestinian convicted terrorists and not Jewish convicted terrorists in Israel. This piece of legislation was pushed
in large part by the National Security Minister Itamar Ben-Gvir, who has claimed that this would create a, quote, "substantial deterrence against
terrorism". Interestingly, this piece of legislation was previously opposed by the Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu.
But now, with the release of all living hostages held inside of the Gaza Strip, the Prime Minister now supports this piece of legislation. This bill
would also amend Israel's military courts law, meaning it would expand the authority of these military courts that rule over the lives of Palestinians
in the occupied West Bank.
To allow those courts to impose the death penalty by simple majority, rather than by unanimous vote. And this system of law has already been
heavily criticized in the past by human rights groups and by the United Nations because of the fact that while Palestinians are subject to military
law in the West Bank, Israeli civilians such as those who live in settlements in the West Bank, are subject to civilian law.
Now, this second piece of legislation which also passed what's known as the first reading in Israel's parliament, would aim to give the Israeli
government the power to shut down foreign media outlets without a court order, effectively making permanent an authority that the Israeli
government used during the war last year to shut down "AI Jazeera's" ability to broadcast inside of Israel.
At the time, that was used because it was a time of war, a time of national emergency. But this piece of legislation would now aim to make that
authority permanent for the Israeli government, for its own reasons, to choose to ban any foreign media outlet without relying on any court.
Reporters Without Borders has already condemned the proposal, calling it the, quote, "first nail in the coffin" of broadcast medias editorial
independence in Israel. But the latest signal, of course, of backsliding of press freedoms in Israel. Jeremy Diamond, CNN, Tel Aviv.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
SOARES: Well, G7 Foreign Ministers are meeting in Ontario in Canada. Arctic security, Russia's war in Ukraine, as well as securing peace in the Middle
East are all on the agenda. There's never before been a G7 Foreign Ministers meeting where so many of the ministers were so recently
appointed. Anita Anand was named as Canada's Foreign Minister in May.
She's been a guest on the show, and Marco Rubio was only appointed as U.S. Secretary of State in February. The longest-serving Foreign Minister is
Italy's Antonio Tajani, who's been in the job since 2022. Well, new footage appears to show Russian troops approaching the eastern Ukrainian City of
Pokrovsk. Russian forces are said to be on the brink of seizing the strategic urban area. Would be a symbolic victory that Russian President
Vladimir Putin has been pursuing for 21 months at an increasingly heavy cost to his army.
[14:30:23]
And this video about to show you just circulating on social media seems to show a convoy of Russian troops making their way, as you can see, they're
on foot, bicycle and by car along one of the main roads into the city. Our Nic Robertson has all the details for you.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
NIC ROBERTSON, CNN INTERNATIONAL DIPLOMATIC EDITOR: What you're looking at here is a Russian soldier's view riding into the heavily contested
strategic city of Pokrovsk in the east of Ukraine. The checkpoint is blasted apart and then they get to the fork in the road in the south corner
of the city. And you can see most of the troops seem to be riding motorcycles, the vehicles battered, heavily laden.
It's taken them 10 months to get just three miles up the road at the beginning of the year. They were very close. The rail center at the center
of the town is two miles from where they are right now. And it could take many months before they get there. That rail hub, hugely important for the
Ukrainian government, strategically gives value. We were there a few years ago watching Ukrainians being evacuated, even some returning in a town, a
city so important that President Zelenskyy visited last year. Not clear when the Russians will, if they're able to take control of all of it, but
getting a foothold in it for sure now.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
SOARES: Our thanks to Nic there. And still to come tonight, a suicide bombing in Pakistan leaves at least 12 people dead and raises regional
tensions. The details of who's claiming responsibility.
Plus, cracking down. Details ahead on how the Mexican government is battling organized crime in one of its most violent regions. Both those
stories after a very short break.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[14:35:00]
SOARES: Welcome back. A suicide bombing in Pakistan's capital Islamabad has killed 12 people and left another 20 injured. It happened on Tuesday
afternoon near the city's high court and was the most deadly in Islamabad in nearly two decades. One of the victims described to CNN what he saw in
the moments leading up to the attack. Have a listen.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
MANZAR ABBAS, ISLAMABAD BLAST VICTIM (through translator): When I was crossing the police station close to the courts, I saw the police car pass
me, and I saw the man go towards it wearing his jacket. I saw the explosion happen. I saw about 40 people fall immediately. I've been hit as well and
bled a lot, but thank goodness I was saved. There was a security guard who picked me up and helped me get me to the hospital.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
SOARES: A faction of the militant Pakistani Taliban has claimed responsibility for the blast. Pakistan has faced a surge of violence since
the Afghan Taliban swept Kabul in 2021.
Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi is promising those responsible for a deadly car explosion in Delhi will be brought to justice. Officials say at
least 10 people were killed in Monday's blast in a densely populated capital region. More than 30 were badly injured.
The explosion happened near the Red Fort. That's a major tourist hub. Police say a slow-moving vehicle came to a stop near a red light, then
exploded. Airports, railway stations and government buildings in India are on high alert. Our Mike Valerio has all the details for you.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
MIKE VALERIO, CNN CORRESPONDENT: This is being investigated under one of India's anti-terrorism laws. We're starting to hear as the hours go on from
more and more officials, notably from Prime Minister Modi as well as India's defense minister, that anybody who is responsible for this will be
brought to justice, paraphrasing their comments lightly for the sake of our conversation.
But I want to take you to the scene. Let's play about five seconds of this clip, what people saw at the tail end of rush hour in Delhi yesterday.
Let's watch this.
So, that is the scene outside just a couple meters away from the Red Fort metro station. Six vehicles torched. Three auto rickshaws also torched from
that explosion. Now, let's listen to somebody who was in -- at the scene. Take a listen to how they described it.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
UNIDENTIFIED MALE (through translator): When we reached the spot, we could find only bodies. We went there with about 10 ambulances and found about
four to five bodies and brought them to the hospital.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
VALERIO: And I think it's important to note that even though we are hearing from more and more officials, even at the top of India's government, that
are militating towards this being a deliberate act, still police and authorities at the top levels of India's government have not blamed an
individual. They have not pointed blame towards a specific group of any sort.
In terms of the ripple effects of this story, this is affecting so many cities in India, airports, rail stations, heritage sites and landmarks, all
in a heightened state of security after this.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
SOARES: Mike Valero reporting there for us. Now, sending a message. Mexican President Claudia Sheinbaum has unveiled new plans to fight organized crime
amid a violent surge in Michoacan. In the coming days, Mexican military members will be deployed to one of the country's most violent regions. And
here you can see the first 300 soldiers who arrived on Monday.
And this crackdown comes less than two weeks since the assassination of the mayor of Uruapan. Valeria Leon is tracking the story live from Mexico City
for us. So, Valeria, give us a sense of how wide, how large this operation is going to be. We've seen 300 there already setting up. How wide is it
going to be? And when does it really kick off here?
VALERIA LEON, CNN CORRESPONDENT: Well, Isa, what we're seeing is this moment as a turning point after the murder of a mayor. Mexico's government
has moved from reaction to action. But President Claudia Sheinbaum is facing one of the toughest moments of her presidency. The assassination of
the mayor of Uruapan, Carlos Manzo, has triggered demonstration and outrage nationwide.
[14:40:00]
Manzo was popular and outspoken critic of the federal government. He had repeatedly asked for more help to reinforce security in his city, but his
pleas went largely unanswered. His death has now become a symbol of how urgent Mexico's security crisis has become. And now, the government is
taking the matter into its own hands.
This weekend, President Sheinbaum launched a new security strategy called Plan Michoacan for Peace and Justice. And, Isa, this is a massive effort to
crack down on organized crime and restore peace, backed by an investment of about $3 billion, according to Mexico's government. We're talking about
nearly 2,000 additional troops that are being deployed to the state, part of a wider operation to contain homicides, prevent extortion, and also to
stop criminal groups from moving in and out of Michoacan.
But Sheinbaum insists that this isn't just about soldiers on the ground. The plan also includes major infrastructure and job creation projects. It's
an effort to bring stability and new opportunities to communities that have lived under cartel control for years. And we're talking especially about
avocado and lemon producers that have denounced extortion, kidnappings, and also killings linked to organized crime. Just weeks before Manzo's murder,
a leader from the local lime sector, Bernardo Bravo, was also killed. And this, Isa, was another reminder of how deeply criminal groups are embedded
in Michoacan's economy. Isa.
SOARES: Yes, let's stay with this, because I think it's interesting, you're talking about the Uruapan mayor, Carlos Alberto Manzo, who, from what I
understand, gained popularity for his stance, particularly against cartels. And his killing, of course, his assassination, has really stirred up so
many emotions. How exactly, though -- how exactly is this plan going to work out in the long term from Sheinbaum here? How is that being received?
LEON: Yes. Well, Carlos Manzo became mayor of Uruapan about 14 months ago. And he wasn't backed up by a Morena Party. He ran as independent candidate.
And in several occasions, he called for more security, not only the state governor of Michoacan, but also directly to President Sheinbaum. He also
had criticized the security strategy.
So, the difference between Carlos Manzo and President Sheinbaum's strategy was that Manzo was calling for a direct attack against criminals, and
Sheinbaum was against it. It was -- Sheinbaum's strategy is more focused on attending the causes of the violence.
But this crisis goes far beyond one state. Michoacan is a test now of whether her government can deliver both peace and justice, not just with
force, but by rebuilding trust, protecting local leaders, and breaking the cycle of fear. The way she handles this challenge could decide not only the
success of her presidency, but also the credibility of the Mexican state itself. Isa.
SOARES: A real test for Sheinbaum there. Valeria Leon, thank you very much indeed. And still to come tonight, a landmark change in women's health
policy in the U.S., our chief medical correspondent explains how a shift in the recommendations for hormone treatments could have far-reaching impact.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[14:45:00]
SOARES: From what is being described as a landmark and life-changing result for women's health, the U.S. Federal Drug Administration has announced it's
changing its warnings on hormone replacement therapy for women going through menopause. The decision announced Monday adjusts decades of so-
called black box warnings. Those were labels placed on hormone replacement therapy treatments warning of potential side effects.
Those warnings sent the number of women who chose to take the treatments plummeting. The FDA now says the benefits of taking these treatments far
outweigh the downsides for most. Our chief medical correspondent, Dr. Sanjay Gupta, explains.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
DR. SANJAY GUPTA, CNN CHIEF MEDICAL CORRESPONDENT: It's somewhat of a wild story. If you think about it, it made total sense for women to take hormone
therapy. When you start going through menopause, ovaries stop making as much progesterone, estrogen. The idea of replacing that made sense.
So, they did a study. You know, the study started in 1997, the Women's Health Initiative Study. And within five years, they actually stopped the
study early because they had some concerning safety signals. We now know that those safety signals were probably overstated. Subsequent studies did
not replicate those safety signals as strongly. But they put this black box warning out there, which is the strongest warning a medication can get.
Take a look. I mean, you can understand why this was so frightening, warnings about endometrial cancer, cardiovascular disorders, breast cancer,
all sorts of things. So, that's what was happening about a quarter century ago now. And it led to a significant decline in the number of women
actually taking these medications.
Prior to the black box warning, you had about one in four women taking these medications, and then it dropped to about one in 25 women. So,
millions and millions of women who did not take these medications, it dropped about 70 percent. And I can tell you, just on a personal note, I
watched my mom trying to navigate this, and I watched my wife trying to navigate this. It was really confusing.
What they say now is when they look at the data, they basically said, look, a couple of things sort of jumped out. First of all, there are newer
formulations of estrogen and progesterone. In the past, they were sort of lumping all the formulations together. If it was a patch, it was a spray,
it was a cream, it was treated the same as taking pills, for example. We know that there's different risks involved. But I think the biggest change
was really looking at the age of the women and when they started taking hormone therapy.
So, in the original studies, when they looked at it, women who were older, they had the highest risk of having some harm without the benefits. But
women who were younger and who started taking hormone therapy within 10 years of the onset of menopause, they had significant benefits.
So, take a look. I mean, think about these benefits, up to 50 percent reduction in cardiovascular disease, for example, significant reduction in
Alzheimer's disease and bone fractures. My mom had a bone fracture last year. Her doctor said to her, had she been on hormone therapy, she may have
reduced the chance of having that bone fracture because her bone density would likely be stronger.
So, you know, what we're seeing here is the black box warning now going away. Hopefully, women aren't as frightened, the FDA says, by taking
hormone therapy as long as it's done in a judicious way. And keep in mind, there are some women still who are not going to be good candidates for
this. Women who have had a previous history of blood clots, for example, or certain types of cancer. But again, there was a significant drop over the
last 25 years in women taking this. FDA says hopefully, that will change.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
[14:50:00]
SOARES: Our thanks to Dr. Sanjay Gupta. Still to come tonight, their tennis rivals and also friends off the court. Our Amanda Davies speaks to Jannik
Sinner and Carlos Alcaraz. We'll have part of that conversation next.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
SOARES: Well, two names have dominated men's tennis in recent years, Jannik Sinner and Carlos Alcaraz. In fact, the pair have split all Grand Slam
titles over the past two seasons. Our world sports Amanda Davies spoke to the duo ahead of the ATP finals in Turin, and here's part of the
conversation.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
AMANDA DAVIES, CNN SPORTS ANCHOR: Do you like the word rivalry?
CARLOS ALCARAZ, SIX-TIME GRAND SLAM CHAMPION: I think that the word rivalry is tick on the professional part, just, you know, in the tennis side. We're
trying to find the weaknesses, you know, from each other on court, but then when the -- we shake hands and we are off the court, we're totally
different. We sometimes forgot about the rivalry we were getting, you know, on tour, and we became persons.
DAVIES: And so, this week, I mean, we have to talk about this trophy. How much for you, Carlos, is this week about winning the finals, and how much
is it about ending the year with your hands on this trophy, the world number one?
ALCARAZ: It comes better for me, because obviously I got to do a really good result here if I want to end number one. So, for me, the goals are
quite the same right now.
DAVIES: Because Jannik, you've kind of been playing down talk of the year- end number one part of it.
JANNIK SINNER, FOUR-TIME GRAND SLAM CHAMPION: Yes. I mean, you know, for me, you know, it has been, you know, a different kind of year. You know,
having some very unusual situations. And there is for sure this, you know, extra motivation, extra pressure. You know, it's also a privilege to be in
a position. It's, you know, something great to finish, you know, the year with a win or with an incredibly big trophy.
But again, you know, you also don't have to forget how the season went and everything, you know, we both have done, you know, again for now two years.
And it has been, again, a great year.
DAVIES: How do you sum up your year in hair?
ALCARAZ: Just two changes -- or three changes, actually. My teammates are scared about the next year.
[14:55:00]
So, I mean, this year has been really good with the changes. If something worked, what should I change?
DAVIES: Jannik, how do you sum up his year and hair?
SINNER: Amazing. Amazing. Unexpected.
DAVIES: Have you got any inspiration, maybe, that you're taking?
SINNER: Honestly, I'm good with this messy hair. But again, you know, whatever it is, it's great, you know. And it suits you very well. I like it
like this, you know, with the black and white. It's also good because we're in Turin. You know, you can cheer for Juventus. It's perfect.
ALCARAZ: I didn't think about it actually.
DAVIES: It's been a real pleasure to speak to you. Thank you. Good luck, both.
ALCARAZ: Thank you very much.
SINNER: Thank you so much. I appreciate it. Thank you.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
SOARES: Yearend hair, who would have thought? And that does it for us for tonight. Do stay right here, "What We Know" with Max Foster, who has great
hair, by the way, is up next.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[15:00:00]
END
