Return to Transcripts main page

One World with Zain Asher

CNN International: Trump In Abu Dhabi For Final Leg Of His Middle East Trip; Trump Floats Idea Of Making Gaza A "Freedom Zone"; Trump Says Deal With Iran Is "Close" During Doha Meeting. Aired 11a-12p ET

Aired May 15, 2025 - 11:00   ET

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

[11:00:00]

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

BIANNA GOLODRYGA, HOST, "ONE WORLD": President Trump continues his four-day tour of the Middle East in Abu Dhabi. One World starts right now.

Donald Trump hints at progress on a new nuclear deal with Iran. Plus, Ukrainian President Zelenskyy calls the Russian delegation at the

anticipated peace talks "phony" after Vladimir Putin decided to skip it. And a potential landmark case goes before the Supreme Court. At the center

of it, Trump's push to end birthright citizenship.

Hello, everyone. Live from New York, I'm Bianna Golodryga. Zain is off today. You are watching One World.

Big money deals, a whole lot of fanfare, and a little bit of diplomacy. U.S. President Donald Trump is on the final leg of the first major overseas

trip of his second term. He is set to arrive at the presidential palace in Abu Dhabi soon for a state visit before wrapping up his three-nation tour

of the Middle East. Trump was greeted with more pomp and pageantry in the United Arab Emirates a few hours ago, before sitting down with top

officials, including the country's President.

CNN's Becky Anderson joins me now live in Abu Dhabi. You've been following this whirlwind trip for the President in the Gulf states there, literally

getting the royal red carpet treatment in Qatar yesterday. Now, explain to us what's on the agenda in Abu Dhabi today.

BECKY ANDERSON, CNN HOST, CONNECT THE WORLD: Yeah, and it was a little bit more understated, I have to say, a bit of a nod to the younger generation.

You saw a lot of young Emiratis welcoming Donald Trump at the airport, and that is, I think, a nod to the sort of future-facing young nation here, and

its commitment to its youngsters, and you see that, as a resident here, quite frankly, time and time again.

Look, I think perhaps more than any other Gulf nation, the UAE sees its investment in the U.S. as central to its strategy of deepening ties, and

that means on defense and security, and also extracting some benefit for itself. And let me tell you what I mean by that. The UAE has got a clear

vision for AI-advanced and advanced tech. It is that it wants to be a global leader by 2031 and that is both in AI development and AI deployment.

And so, it sees these massive investments. It's already committed at $1.4 trillion over the next 10 years in these future-facing industries in order,

and these are of times, investments and partnerships, in order that it can sort of cascade that back here, very specifically in availability or

getting its hands on the sort of chips that fuel this AI future. So, there are some expectations here that we might hear some news on a big deal on

Nvidia chips. Now, do remember, that's a U.S.-based company which owns something like 99 percent of the market in these cutting edge chips. At

present there are export controls on those chips in the U.S. President Trump and President Biden didn't want to see those chips getting into

Chinese hands, of course, U.S. and China in this great sort of AI race.

So, the idea being here, certainly, when you talk to officials here, they want to be seen as deepening their relationship in the U.S. and getting

access themselves to the sort of stuff that will fuel their economy going forward. And as one senior diplomat put it to me, this is a once-in-a-

lifetime opportunity to diversify this economy away from its reliance on hydrocarbons and into this new future. So, as I say, expect, some news, is

what I am told at least here, perhaps on chips going forward, how much or how many, and this country needs millions of those to ensure that it is a

global leader going forward. We'll wait see and what happens on that.

But, yes, I mean, I think you know this trip has gifted, as it were, Donald Trump multi-billions in deals and trillions in commitments from both Riyadh

and Doha.

[11:05:00]

The AI and advanced tech sector is the focus here for the leadership, as they sit down with Donald Trump. Bianna.

GOLODRYGA: Yeah, and it's important you mentioned the China factor here, because China has trying to been positioning itself as a partner there for

Gulf states as well, something the United States has not looked upon very happily right now. So, clearly, the President trying to make as many deals

as the United States can get from those partners.

Becky Anderson, thank you so much.

Ambassador Dennis Ross is the Counselor and William Davidson Distinguished Fellow at The Washington Institute for Near East Policy. He is also the

author of the book "Statecraft 2.0: What America Needs to Lead in a Multipolar World". Ambassador, welcome to the program. So much to get

through on this whirlwind trip of the President. Obviously, deal-making had been a top priority here, and he does seem to have gotten, at least in

terms of commitments, quite a bit of financing from these Gulf states.

But, I also want to talk about some of the diplomacy that's taken place as well, because as we speak, the ceasefire-hostage deals are ongoing in

Qatar, and this happens after the Israelis had that targeted assassination attempt. We still don't know if it was a successful one against Mohammed

Sinwar, the military leader of Hamas right now, and Qatar's Prime Minister actually told our Becky Anderson yesterday that Israel's attacks in Gaza

this week, quote, "sent the signal that they are not interested in negotiating a ceasefire".

Now, I want to ask you about that, because at the same time, U.S. Special Envoy Steve Witkoff said in an interview that it was Hamas' conduct in the

last few months that, quote, "has been so poor that Prime Minister Netanyahu, in certain circumstances, has felt that he has no alternative",

adding that "any long-term solution in Gaza must include the total demilitarization of Hamas." How are you interpreting the current situation,

the talks right now? Are we anywhere near a deal?

DENNIS ROSS, COUNSELOR, THE WASHINGTON INSTITUTE FOR NEAR EAST POLICY: I think we probably do have a shot at a, what I would call a partial deal,

meaning a deal where, for another 45 days, you get a ceasefire. You get half of the live -- those hostages who remain alive released. Prime

Minister Netanyahu would portray this as he'll resume the war after 45 days, and he is getting back some of the hostages. Hamas, I think, doesn't

want to accept the deal, unless they know that at the end of 45 days there'll be an end of conflict. I think that Steve Witkoff is basically

trying to produce this now, why the President is still in the region or immediately afterwards, as a way of showing an achievement for President

Trump.

I think you could see each side having their own explanation of what it will be. It's not a guarantee it's going to happen, but I think that's

what's going on right now, is an effort to produce this in the next day or so, so that it's tied to the President's trip. I do think that the -- that

you've heard the President talk about bringing this brutal war to an end. Steve Witkoff has said the same to the hostage families. I think the

pressure would build if there is this 45-day ceasefire to try to come up with something that produces an end to the war. It does have to be tied to

a certain reality. If Hamas remains in control in Gaza, there'll be no reconstruction. No one is going to invest in Gaza if there isn't a formula

of reconstruction for demilitarization, because they know Hamas will take the time to build up and do this again.

So, there is, you have to come up with an outcome here. I think the Arabs, the Egyptians, came up with a plan, which was a half a plan, meaning they

showed how you could do reconstruction without having to move out the Palestinian population in Gaza. They didn't come up with the security side

of that plan. I think there is something there, if the administration is pursuing it. I know that the Emiratis, where the President is now, have had

a lot of discussions on this, a lot of ideas on this. I suspect it came up in the discussions in Saudi Arabia as well, and I suspect it was partly

part of the conversations in Doha.

So, my answer to you is, there is an ongoing effort. Whether it will succeed, remains to be seen. I think if we're going to see a deal that has

to happen within the next couple of days, or we're going to see an Israeli resumption of force in a more intensive way. Now, that may also be a lever

they're trying to use, not just on Hamas, but on Egypt and Qatar, and it may be a lever that the administration is using as well.

[11:10:00]

I do expect the administration will put pressure on Prime Minister Netanyahu if they think there really is a deal, and in the end, he is not

prepared to do it.

GOLODRYGA: Well, it's clear that the President wants a splashy deal to be announced, whether it is in Gaza, whether it is in Ukraine, or whether it

is with Iran. And on that issue, he said today that they are getting very close to securing a nuclear deal with Iran, and said that Tehran had sort

of agreed to the terms. NBC News is reporting that an advisor close to the Supreme Leader said Iran would commit to never making nuclear weapons,

getting rid of its stockpiles of highly enriched uranium, and agree to only enrich uranium to the lower levels needed for civilian use, and also to

allow international inspectors.

Should the U.S. sign on to a deal where any amount of uranium is allowed to be enriched within Iran itself, because we know that that had been a real

sticking point, many have argued that there is no use, no need, for a country that is only to use its nuclear program for civilian use, to be

enriching its own uranium, what do you make of that? And put your -- to quote your book, your Statecraft 2.0 advice in to play here for the

President of the United States.

ROSS: In every negotiation or in any effort at diplomacy, you should be guided by a very clear objective. What should our objective be for a deal

with the Iranians? The objective should be Iran gives up a nuclear weapon option. It isn't enough to say we don't want a nuclear weapon. They --

either you change the structure of their program to the point where that it's small enough that it becomes clear that's no longer an option, or they

can't enrich uranium in Iran, or they can enrich uranium, but they have to ship out whatever they enrich to get the fuel rods from outside.

In other words, there are at least, by my count, at least three different approaches. In my parlance of the book, you have an objective. What are the

means you have to achieve that? Well, the means here could be offering different ways to guarantee an outcome which makes sure there -- they can't

have a nuclear weapons option. There should, at the same time, be a very clear understanding. If Iran thinks if we provide them sanctions relief,

that they can then use the sanctions to try to rebuild their proxies. They need to understand that will trigger a reaction, potentially even a

military reaction. So, that may not have to be a formal part of an agreement, but it has to be an understanding of the Iranians of what we

would do.

So, here is a good example of what your objective should be, and what are the means you have to be able to do it? Those means also include getting

others internationally to support the outcome that we're trying to produce, because that will create greater leverage on the Iranians. They are very

sensitive to being isolated politically. So, just doing this on our own, without mobilizing other support, is reducing the leverage we actually have

on them. So, combination of military threats and political support and the economic threats, these, all together, I think, can act on the Iranians,

who have a pronounced need right now, not only because they're militarily vulnerable in a way they have not been, but also because their economic

situation domestically is really quite disastrous.

GOLODRYGA: Yeah. You're right to point out the JCPOA back in 2015, which then Trump subsequently got out of, included five signatories, this would

include just one or two, actually the United States and Iran. But, as the President says that they appear to be getting closer to a deal. We will

continue to follow this.

Ambassador Dennis Ross, thank you so much for the time.

ROSS: My pleasure.

GOLODRYGA: Well, the Ukrainian President says that he'll send a delegation to Istanbul, led by the defense minister, to attend peace talks with a team

from Russia. Volodymyr Zelenskyy landed in the Turkish capital of Ankara earlier today, where he met with the Turkish President. He dropped plans to

go to Istanbul himself after the Kremlin confirmed the President Vladimir Putin would not attend, but send a Russian delegation instead. Speaking to

reporters, President Zelenskyy urged other nations to put more political and economic pressure on Moscow if it fails to engage in those ceasefire

talks.

Nick Paton Walsh is in Kyiv, Ukraine. But, let's begin with CNN's Clarissa Ward in Istanbul. Clarissa, walk us through some of the other points that

we heard from President Zelenskyy, not very surprised that his Russian counterpart didn't show up.

CLARISSA WARD, CNN CHIEF INTERNATIONAL CORRESPONDENT: Certainly not surprised, although he did say that he thought it was disrespectful that

the Russian delegation does not include people of the same level or level of importance that the Ukrainian delegation does, but also of the Turkish

and U.S. officials who will be here.

[11:15:00]

He pointed out, Ukraine is sending its defense minister. The foreign minister is already here. U.S. Secretary of State Marco Rubio is already in

Turkey for this informal NATO foreign ministers gathering, and also, of course, the Turkish foreign minister. So, he said he thought it was

disrespectful. But, nonetheless, Ukraine is sending a delegation. That delegation will be arriving here in Istanbul, probably later today. The

expectation, although we don't have any concrete timings, is that those talks will begin tomorrow.

This is still significant in that it is the first time the two countries will hold direct talks with each other since the spring of 2022 after the

invasion, where there have been talks in Belarus and also in Turkey. Those talks really fell apart after Russian forces were pushed out of the north

of Ukraine and the full-scale of their atrocities became visible in cities and towns like Bucha. So, not insignificant, and yet, it doesn't seem that

hopes are terribly high. The Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy also saying, listen, we are still ready for an unconditional ceasefire, and also

saying, we're not the impediment to peace. We are ready to seize what he called this fragile opportunity.

So, certainly expectations that these talks will go ahead, but not a huge amount of optimism that they are going to net any big results, or certainly

not the kind of optimism that was being sort of bandied about earlier in the week when it appeared possibly that President Putin might talk to

President Zelenskyy directly, Bianna.

GOLODRYGA: Right, because it was President Zelenskyy who quickly took on President Trump's call for a 30-day ceasefire, and President Putin didn't

reciprocate that call, instead just suggesting that these talks would begin this week, and as we've noted, sending a lower level delegation, himself

not traveling to Turkey for these talks.

I want to get to Nick Paton Walsh here, because, Nick, it is clear that both President Zelenskyy and President Putin are trying to show President

Trump that they are serious about bringing this war to an end. But, as we heard from Clarissa Ward, it does appear that Ukraine's actions are more

sincere and adhering to that pledge versus what we're seeing from Vladimir Putin sending what President Zelenskyy called are "theater props" for these

talks.

NICK PATON WALSH, CNN CHIEF INTERNATIONAL SECURITY CORRESPONDENT: Yeah. I mean, look, it's important to just remind everyone that what we're seeing

play out here is essentially what the Kremlin have suggested should be the format of peace talks. They have completely ignored the weekend demand of

an unconditional ceasefire from four key European powers. That is originally an American proposal, and frankly, the Europeans said there

could be significant sanctions if indeed they did do that. Hopes were placed on these talks on Thursday, and Zelenskyy then upped that to turn

this potentially into a presidential meeting.

But, really, this is the White House now, Donald Trump, potentially finding his wrath limited. I mean, we heard from him just moments earlier that he

thought nothing would happen until he and Vladimir Putin met. I mean, ultimately, I think that sent a signal to the Kremlin that until that

bilateral is upon both those men, they can pretty much continue to slow roll this as we're currently seeing. The nature of this particular

delegation, technical, as it described itself, is lower level enough. Yes, as President Zelenskyy suggested, they could suddenly declare a ceasefire

tomorrow.

There has been utter reluctance on the Russian part to go along with that 30-day proposal from the United States, Ukraine and Europe as well. Unclear

entirely why. There are strong suggestions from images we have seen from U.S. intelligence assessments that the Russians are amassing significant

numbers of troops near the Eastern Front and maybe trying to push forwards when indeed the weather turns hot and the ground hardens up.

But, I think what we're seeing with this Istanbul meeting, and it is possibly likely we'll see the Russians return to more maximalist set of

demands, and these talks get underway, is another bid by Moscow to reset the negotiation process, another people, another venue. The Americans, of

course, will turn up in number and seniority tomorrow. Will they be able to influence anything further forwards? Unclear. They've had their separate

meetings in Saudi Arabia with the Russians here.

And so, clearly, I think a Kremlin feeling, it can play for time. It can set the agenda. It can be the scheduler of who attends what meeting and

when, and not at this point, seeing a White House willing to take strident moves that make them feel, potentially, inside the Kremlin's walls, that

they are indeed under pressure. In fact, to some degree, the opposite, Trump cajoling Putin to potentially turn up for a number of days, saying

he'd like it. Maybe Putin would like him to attend himself, and then now saying nothing will happen unless the two men meet directly. So, very much,

Russia calling the agenda here, and that is the one that we are seeing play out now.

[11:20:00]

GOLODRYGA: Yeah. And from all of our reporting, Vladimir Putin would like nothing more than a one-on-one meeting with President Trump as well. So,

who knows, given what the President just intimated that that is what would get them to move. Maybe we would see that happen in the weeks and months

ahead as well.

Clarissa Ward, Nick Paton Walsh, thank you so much.

And we'll have much more on these talks in the next hour of One World. We will speak with William Taylor, the former U.S. Ambassador to Ukraine. That

is coming up in the next hour.

And when we come back, the U.S. Supreme Court considers an issue that many see as a fundamental part of the U.S. Constitution. If you were born here,

can you stay here? That's coming up. Plus, Sean 'Diddy' Combs' defense team cross-examines his ex-girlfriend Cassie Ventura. We'll look at how they'll

try to counter her two days of graphic, emotional testimony.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

GOLODRYGA: Two huge legal issues are being argued in front of the U.S. Supreme Court right now. The court is hearing a case about birthright

citizenship in the United States. On his first day in office, President Trump issued an executive order, saying children born to undocumented

immigrants in the U.S. should not be granted citizenship. And though the birthright issue is getting the most attention, the court is mostly focused

on a crucial side issue. It is debating whether judges have the power to tell the federal government what to do.

Now, in this case, three judges have issued nationwide injunctions holding up implementation of Trump's executive order, while the larger issue is

litigated in the courts. Trump's lawyers say no judge should have more power than the President, and that is the fundamental question the Supreme

Court is dealing with today. Let's hear some of the arguments.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

VOICE OF SONIA SOTOMAYOR, ASSOCIATE JUSTICE OF THE SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES: The argument here is that the President is violating an

established -- not just one, but by my count, four established Supreme Court precedents. We have the one arc case where we said, fealty to a

foreign sovereign doesn't defeat your entitlement, your parents' fealty to a foreign sovereign, doesn't defeat your entitlement to citizenship as a

child.

[11:25:00]

We have another case where we said that even if your parents are here illegally, if you're born here, you're a citizen. We have yet another case

that says, even if your parents came here and were stopped at the border and -- but you were born in our territory, you're still a citizen. And we

have another case that says, even if your parents secured citizenship illegally, you're still a citizen. So, as far as I see it, this order

violates four Supreme Court precedents.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

GOLODRYGA: To help us sort through all of this, I'm joined by Jeff Swartz. He is a former Judge in the State of Florida and a Law School Professor.

The President, Jeff, said that he was so happy that the justices will be taking up the citizenship issue, because, as he has said it, it has been so

misunderstood. As we have noted, that's not really the focus of these arguments. Instead, it is about nationwide injunctions issued by federal

judges. Just walk us through what's at stake here, because from what we've heard thus far from the justices, both conservative and liberal, that there

seems to be quite a bit of skepticism with the case the administration is making.

JEFF SWARTZ, FORMER MIAMI-DADE COUNTY COURT JUDGE, & PROFESSOR, THOMAS M. COOLEY LAW SCHOOL: Yeah, it is. They're trying to claim that the relief

that would be given to someone who is, for example, in this case, seeking to show that they are, in fact, a citizen of the United States through

birthright, that any decision made by the court should apply only to that one person. That would allow the government, in this case, Mr. Trump's

administration, to continue to violate the 14th Amendment, knowing that it will never get to the Supreme Court if they lose, because they will just go

forward and make everybody litigate on their own.

And the second part of their argument, the answer to that is that they want Trump's people, the solicitor general wants rule 23 of the rules of civil

procedure, which deal with the issue of class actions, to apply. That is, if they think they can establish a class, let them file a class action. The

problem is, it takes months to certify a class. It slows down the litigation while the executive branch continues to violate the 14th

Amendment in this particular case.

So, they're very skeptical of all of this. They like the idea of resolving issues quickly, and I think that this is not where they're going to end up

going.

GOLODRYGA: Well, nationwide injunctions are quite significant here, because time and time again, we have seen courts stop and intervene with some of

the policies that they've deemed through executive orders that the President has signed at rapid pace, we should know, to be unconstitutional.

So, what would happen if the Supreme Court on this issue sides with the administration?

SWARTZ: If they side with the administration, then they would have to set aside the injunction in question here for this particular plaintiff, for

lack of a better way to put it, to set it aside, only to the extent of its universality and that's really the problem. That means that now everybody

who wants to claim their citizenship will now have to file their own litigation, and the government will be in truth. I don't understand why

they want that, because they'd be overwhelmed. The DoJ is a skeleton of what it was before, and they won't be able to handle the actual number of

suits that will come their way. That's the same thing that goes for the courts. It backs up everything that they do.

So, I don't think that the idea that this is going to happen in this case, it doesn't fit for the justices. It doesn't fit for justice. It doesn't fit

for the Constitution. It only fits for an executive who wants to continue to violate the Constitution.

GOLODRYGA: And it all really does come down to executive power here, and the --

SWARTZ: Yes.

GOLODRYGA: -- amount of power that this President, in particular, but let's argue that future presidents would then have as well, versus the other co-

equal branches of government.

SWARTZ: That's correct. The idea would be that if that -- this precedent is set, the way that the government is arguing, that in the future there would

be no ability until you can establish a class, for example, if the government is told you're doing something illegal, and it only applies to

one person. Another person who has the exact same problem now has to go to court and try to enforce a decision from another court and say we've

already got a decision that says this is illegal.

[11:30:00]

Why do I have to litigate this all over again? That's the idea of the universality of the decision that was made in this particular case and

matters relating to constitutionality of the actions of the executive.

GOLODRYGA: And we know how cumbersome that could be for individual litigants. Just quickly before we let you go, on the issue of birthright

citizenship, there has been precedent set. It was codified by Congress as well. That precedent going back to 1898 in a landmark ruling. This was

codified by Congress in 1940. Do you see any scenario in which it is overturned?

SWARTZ: I really can't see it. I know that the people think that has been abused in the past. They are concerned about the issues involving giving

people who are not citizens their children all the rights of a citizen, and that is the protections of the government and the protections of the state

for children. I know they don't like that, because it's their money. But, we have been a nation like this for decades, if not hundreds of years, and

it's -- we are a nation built on immigrants, and a lot of us would have a real problem establishing that we are citizens today. I mean, my

grandfather illegally entered this country. Does that mean I'm not a citizen and I have to prove my citizenship and pass a naturalization test

that I'm not entitled to birthright citizenship?

That is the end result of what the Trump administration is arguing. They want to be able to deport people, anyone they want, for any reason they

want, and that they can't be stopped because you're not really a citizen. That's the way it goes.

GOLODRYGA: We will be following. Jeff Swartz, thank you so much for your time.

SWARTZ: Thank you.

GOLODRYGA: Well, for the last two days, jurors have heard graphic details about Sean Combs' alleged abuse of Cassie Ventura. Now his defense has

their turn to question her.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[11:35:00]

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

GOLODRYGA: Welcome back to One World. I'm Bianna Golodryga in New York. Here are some international headlines we're watching today.

U.S. President Donald Trump is in Abu Dhabi, the final leg of his visit to the Middle East. He is meeting with top officials, including the UAE

President and National Security Advisor. He has also toured the landmark Sheik Zayed Grand Mosque.

Well, dozens of people were killed across Gaza overnight, as Israel continues intense strikes. That includes at least 57 deaths in Khan Younis,

according to Nasser Hospital. The strikes follow a vow from Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu earlier this week to escalate Israel's force in

Gaza in order to destroy Hamas.

U.S. Secretary of State Marco Rubio is in Turkey for an informal meeting of NATO foreign ministers. They're discussing security priorities for the

Alliance, including ending the Russia-Ukraine war. Rubio says President Donald Trump is open to virtually any mechanism to reach a lasting peace in

Ukraine.

Well, defense attorneys in the Sean 'Diddy' Combs trial are delving into his relationship with ex0girlfriend Cassie Ventura. Over the past two days,

she described an emotional and graphic detail the abuse and blackmail, she says, she suffered at the hands of the rap mogul. Combs has pleaded not

guilty to sex trafficking and racketeering charges.

So, how will the defense attempt to counter her graphic and emotional testimony? We're joined by Entertainment Lawyer Lisa Bonner with some

perspective. A lot of pressure here on the defense during their counter now, as they were going to be cross-examining this witness, and the fact

that Cassie got into such graphic, emotional detail about their relationship, about the abuse that she endured at the hands of Sean 'Diddy'

Combs, what is the defense's job here now in terms of trying to address some of that damaging testimony?

LISA BONNER, ENTERTAINMENT ANALYST, & FORMER LITIGATOR: Well, they have a big job ahead of them, considering the explosive testimony that Cassie gave

yesterday. She was very graphic. She was very detailed. At some point, she was rubbing her belly. She was visibly disturbed in tears. So, the defense

has a very difficult task at this point of really trying to undercut her testimony, show that she actually had agency, that she was aware that she

had consented to these freak-offs and that she was a participant and also set them up.

But, you have to remember, at the time, Cassie was 19, 20, 21, very early, very different than the 38-year-old woman, married woman with children,

that you're looking at now. This woman on the stand yesterday has been through therapy, through trauma therapy, through rehab. So, they have a

very difficult task of trying to discredit her, but also not riling her up too much to get her visibly more upset, and that would lend itself to more

sympathy -- to her being more sympathetic to the jury. So, it's a tough task.

GOLODRYGA: Yeah. And we know that this is a female attorney that's going to be cross-examining her for the defense for that very reason, in order to, I

would imagine, portray to the jurors that that they are indeed sympathetic to her story and the abuse that she suffered at the hands of Combs, which

they have acknowledged as well. And you noted she rubbed her belly. She is visibly pregnant, nine months pregnant, due within the next few weeks. As

they attempt to try to discredit her while also remaining respectful, what do you think some of their target issues are going to be here?

BONNER: Some of her target issues are going to be that she actually consented, that she looked forward to these freak-offs, that she set them

up, that she was willing, ready, willing and able to do all of these things that she -- and the freak-offs that were visibly disturbing to her. So,

it's very -- it's -- like I said, it's a -- they have to be perceived very gingerly. But again, in terms of trying to plan out the sex trafficking and

trying to establish that, that is where they have to -- the prosecution is going to have to continue on redirect, the fact that she did not consent.

We saw a video of her trying to run away. He used blackmail to keep her forcibly in this relationship and drugs to -- she said I had to take drugs

to numb myself from the pain. So, that really does undermine, in my legal opinion, the consent.

[11:40:00]

And so, they're going to have to really try to establish that. But, again, we're going to have to redirect on with the prosecution, where they can

come in and re-establish that, no, no, no, she did not have agency. She was very young. There was a very big age difference. She was 19 when they met

and he was 37. So, that's a very big age difference.

GOLODRYGA: And she also, yesterday, stated that as part of their legal settlement, she received $20 million from Combs. The role of that very

disturbing video where the abuse took place in a Los Angeles hotel lobby or hotel hallway by the elevator, the full video was shown to the jurors. How

impactful is this for the prosecution's case, just the visual of that video itself?

BONNER: That visual is very disturbing. Again, in order to establish the sex trafficking, they're going to have to show that she was forced, fraud,

induced and non-consensual in these freak-offs, and you have her establishing that I was trying to run away from the freak-off that was

happening in the room, and I got dragged back. And that is very damning.

And they also have other videos. They have testimony by eyewitnesses, by people under his employ, which goes to the RICO statute that they are going

to -- that they are trying to establish. And all of this is that she alleging this, but these are the things that they have to prove. But, you

have that very graphic video that we were just discussing that actually nullifies the consent there. There is no way that you can say that any

reasonable person, in my opinion, can say when you are due, she is being dragged back after she is trying to run away, that that is consensual. That

is not agency at that point.

GOLODRYGA: And there is more context, given that we now know what she says happened was, she was trying to escape and run away from one of those

alleged freak-off incidents.

Lisa Bonner, thank you so much for joining us.

BONNER: Thanks for having me.

GOLODRYGA: And when we come back, we'll return to the U.S. Supreme Court, where protesters are making their voices heard, as the high court considers

the issue of birthright citizenship.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[11:45:00]

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

GOLODRYGA: OK. We want to get back to one of our top stories this hour. Right now, the U.S. Supreme Court is hearing arguments about Donald Trump's

efforts to limit birthright citizenship. One of the major issues being considered is whether federal judges have the power to block Trump's

executive order on this issue. Now, today's arguments have brought out protesters who feel the birthright citizenship issue is a crucial one in

the country's immigration debate.

Our Brian Todd is outside of the high court now, and clearly, you see how high emotions are behind you, as protesters have gathered around the

Supreme Court. You can hear them shouting. Just talk to us about some of the exchanges, what you've heard from these protesters.

BRIAN TODD, CNN CORRESPONDENT: Well, Bianna, a very loud, growing and boisterous crowd here in front of the Supreme Court, at least two groups

protesting against President Trump's executive order denying birthright citizenship. The group RefuseFascism.org is a little bit over there. We'll

spray the crowd a little bit with our cameras. Our photojournalist Nick Leimbach will show you the crowd and the signs and everything. These people

have been out here since early this morning. So, the group RefuseFascism.org is over there a little bit. This group, CASA, actually

has attorneys inside the Supreme Court arguing for -- arguing against President Trump's executive order.

And I have someone here whose family would be directly impacted by Trump's executive order if it were to go through and if she were to be born kind of

after it went through. This is Linda. She does not want to give her last name. She is the child of undocumented immigrants. She is a college student

here in the United States. Linda, talk about your life experience. What would happen with your family and yourself if the President's executive

order were to go through and you were to be born after this?

LINDA, CHILD OF UNDOCUMENTED IMMIGRANTS: If it was able to go through and I was able to be born after this, I would lose my education. I would lose the

impact that I've been able to have on many communities within me and outside of me as well. I wouldn't be able to tutor over 200 students. I

wouldn't be able to be the face of incoming freshmen at my college dormitory. I wouldn't have been able to graduate -- help graduate over 15

students at my high school. There is much impact that I've been able to have because of this gift to be a citizen here in the U.S.

TODD: And you've accomplished a lot, obviously. You're only 21-years-old. You're a college student. I'm going to present you the Trump argument here.

Donald Trump and his supporters say that they have to have this executive order in place to prevent what they call birth tourism, expectant mothers

coming to the U.S. just to give birth so that they can secure citizenship for their kids. They say it's gotten out of control. What do you say to

that?

LINDA: That it is not a loophole, that it is not a shortcut, that it is a right for everybody that comes into this country, on U.S. soil and its

birth here, to have the rights, to have their constitutional rights, that it's not -- that it's unconstitutional to get those rights taken away.

That's what it is to me. And more than anything, I want to show the world how far the daughter of immigrants has truly come. Coming from a low income

society where I where my parents earned less than 30k, coming from an environment where I was not supported to go to higher education, throughout

all the odds of my mother having cancer and not being able to get funding for her cancer treatments, my dad unable to have a job during COVID because

of everything shutting down and no help for immigrants.

Throughout all those odds, I've been able to graduate at the second of my class in high school. I've been able to give back to refugee communities in

Clarkston in Georgia. I've been able to give back to children. I've been able to tutor, to give resources, to give scholarship opportunities, and

I'm proud to say that now my youngest sister is now graduating first of her class.

TODD: So, you've got two very highly accomplished high school students in your family who would have been denied citizenship. Linda, thank you very

much for talking to us. We really appreciate it. Good luck to you and your family.

So, Bianna, this is the situation out here. This crowd is going to be here probably for another couple of hours, at least while the arguments go on.

We've had members of Congress out here. The decision on this case could be coming, maybe at the end of June, maybe later. All these groups say they're

going to be back out here for that decision, Bianna.

GOLODRYGA: So much at stake here. All right. Brian Todd outside the Supreme Court for us. Thank you so much.

With some tariffs kicking in, the government sends us a report card on the U.S. economy. First up is retail sales. We'll bring you the numbers after

the break.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[11:50:00]

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

GOLODRYGA: Well, we're getting the latest report card on the U.S. economy. First is April's retail sales, which barely inched up. Sales went up a

tenth of a percent last month compared to March, when they grew 1.7 percent. Also, the Producer Price Index shows how much U.S. producers

charged. How much U.S. producers are charging for their goods. It dropped a surprising half a percent in April, which is better than March, when it

fell 2.4 percent.

Matt Egan takes a look at what these numbers mean for the economy. So, from retail sales to PPI, what are we digesting? It appears that we're seeing

some sort of a slow slowdown.

MATT EGAN, CNN REPORTER: Yeah. Bianna, it does. And look, consumer spending is the backbone of this economy. So, everyone is on high alert, looking for

any sort of signs of softness. And it does seem like we are getting some of that in this retail sales report, right? We had blockbuster sales in March,

and now we have this very significant slowdown, right, barely staying positive in April. And we know that the strength in March, right, almost a

two percent gain, that was driven by desire to beat the clock on tariffs. Right? It was pulling forward all of this demand. And now we have a little

bit of a give back, right, a little bit of a hangover.

And I think that's clear when we look into some of the categories here, right? Most obviously on cars. Car retail sales and for car parts,

skyrocketed by 5.5 percent in March, but in April, they went slightly negative, and that kind of makes sense, right? If you bought a car in

March, you're not going to be buying that car in April or May.

Now, we also saw something similar in some of the other categories, electronics and appliances, clothing, sporting goods and hobby stores, all

of them slowed significantly after solid gains in March. I think economists at EY, they summed it up best. They said that the pre-tariff shopping spree

is over. Now, economists look at what's known as core retail sales. That excludes gasoline, autos, building materials and restaurants. That

unexpectedly turned negative. And that is notable because that's something that feeds into the GDP report.

The one silver lining that I'll leave you with here, though, Bianna, is restaurants. Restaurant spending slowed, but it stayed at a very healthy

level, and that's also backed up by some really timely indicators from OpenTable on restaurant reservations. So, that does suggest that consumers

are not completely hunkering down here, right? They are still spending money at restaurants, but we are seeing a hangover in some other areas,

especially autos.

GOLODRYGA: Let me ask you about the PPI report too, because it does seem to suggest that companies are absorbing some of the hit that we've seen thus

far from the tariffs that have been introduced by the President.

EGAN: Yeah, that's right. I mean, this Producer Price Index report, the headlines were really very encouraging, right? We saw the biggest month-

over-month decline for this metric of wholesale inflation since the COVID crisis in 2020. That was unexpected. And we saw the annual rate also slow

down significantly to 2.4 percent. That's about a full percentage point better than the March reading.

[11:55:00]

So, the headlines are encouraging, but when you dig in, you do start to see some impacts of tariffs and some hints at possible trouble ahead. For

example, one of the big drivers here was the fact that there was a plunge in trade services. This measures profit margins for retailers and

wholesalers. And so, it suggests that, yes, they are having to eat the cost of some of these tariffs, and economists say that that is likely to

eventually translate to some of these companies passing along the cost all of us as consumers, and that's where you get the inflationary impact. Also,

when you look at core goods, which excludes food and energy, that accelerated to the fastest monthly pace in two years. So, again, you put

those two things together, and it does suggest that we could be in a calm before the storm situation. At least that's what economists are expecting.

Now, Jerome Powell, the Federal Reserve Chairman, he also weighed in on this a bit today, saying that he thinks that inflation could be a little

bit more volatile going forward than it has been in the past. Take a listen to Powell.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

JEROME POWELL, CHAIR OF THE FEDERAL RESERVE OF THE UNITED STATES: We may be entering a period of more frequent and potentially more persistent supply

shocks, a difficult challenge for the economy and for central banks.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

EGAN: Now, Powell did not directly mention tariffs or the trade war, but Bianna, that, of course, is the elephant in the room here, and we're just

going to have to wait and see what happens going forward with all these inflation readings.

GOLODRYGA: Yeah. Also ominous to hear from Walmart saying they may have to soon start raising prices as well.

All right. Matt Egan, thank you --

EGAN: Thanks, Bianna.

GOLODRYGA: -- so much.

And stay with CNN. I'll have more One World after the break.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[12:00:00]

END