Return to Transcripts main page

One World with Zain Asher

Supreme Court Rules Trump's Emergency Tariffs Are Illegal; President Trump Calls Ruling Against His Tariffs "A Disgrace"; Trump "Considering" Limited Strike To Pressure Iran; Football Returns To Gaza After Two-Year Pause Made By War; U.S. Markets React To Supreme Court Ruling; Trump Administration Expected To Shift ICE Enforcement Tactics; Mexican Officials: No Sign Nancy Guthrie Is In Mexico; Girl Power Front And Center At Winter Olympic Games; Aired 12-1p ET

Aired February 20, 2026 - 12:00   ET

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

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[12:00:38]

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: This is CNN Breaking News.

ZAIN ASHER, CNN ANCHOR: All right. Coming to you live from New York, I'm Zain Asher.

BIANNA GOLODRYGA, CNN ANCHOR: And I'm Bianna Golodryga. You are watching the second hour of "One World."

And we are tracking a major loss for the White House at the Supreme Court. Short time ago, in a six to three ruling, the justices ruled President

Trump's sweeping emergency tariffs are illegal. Those emergency tariffs are one of the cornerstones of Trump's economic agenda. The court found that he

could not use an emergency powers law to impose the tariffs.

The ruling came down while President Trump was hosting the White House breakfast with governors. CNN is told that he called the ruling, quote, a

disgrace.

ASHER: Yes. Justice Brett Kavanaugh, one of the three justices who dissented, says that the president still has other tools to impose similar

tariffs.

GOLODRYGA: OK. Let's go straight to our chief Supreme Court analyst Joan Biskupic with more. And, Joan, just everyone that we've been speaking with

yourself included, really not surprised by this ruling, especially given that all three lower courts had ruled against the Trump administration.

And you also had very skeptical justices in the oral arguments for this case. Nonetheless, a big loss for the Trump administration and in an

unprecedented situation that the country now finds itself in, in trying to figure out what to do with all of those tariffs, all of that revenue that

has already come in.

Just walk us through your reaction to it and what this means going forward.

JOAN BISKUPIC, CNN CHIEF SUPREME COURT ANALYST: Sure. It was a -- good to see you both. It was a really dramatic moment in the Supreme Court

courtroom itself as Chief Justice John Roberts read the opinion from the bench, took about 10 minutes, tried to explain why this policy of Donald

Trump's had so exceeded executive branch power and pinched on Congress' power to tax. And he said, after all, what is -- what is a tariff but a

tax?

And he laid it all out. None of the dissenters spoke at all from the bench, but you've quoted Brett Kavanaugh there with -- with an important question

of, how does this -- you know, what happens going forward in terms of refunds? And what the Trump administration might do as alternative?

I should tell you that just as you said, you know, a lot of people predicted that this -- this policy would go down. The administration

already was sort of thinking about, you know, other plans and we'll probably start to see those because this was such a signature initiative of

Donald Trump's second term in office and he's been using them obviously for leverage on the international scene.

But when you come right down to it, the Emergency Powers Act that he tried to invoke here, which would have, if it had been allowed, permitted him to

go it alone. And, you know, if he wants to impose tariffs going forward, he really needs the cooperation of Congress. And that was the main takeaway

from the -- the opinion today.

And I have to say that, you know, this -- while it was expected, it was a difficult case and the justices splintered in their rationale. But the

bottom line from the Chief Justice was, look, if Congress wants to authorize a major policy change, it has to specifically spell it out.

And the Chief noted that the court had similarly struck down big policy changes during the Biden years. You might remember the student loan

initiative that President Biden had tried to roll back some student loan liability and that the Biden administration had also tried in the area of

environmental law and the court had struck those down.

And the Chief essentially said, Chief John Roberts essentially said, you know, if we're going to strike down those, we have to strike down these

two.

Now, they did not mention it all. The majority did not mention it all any kind of refunds. So that -- they're sending back to lower courts.

I also wanted to mention one other point here. And that's that the court has generally been giving the Trump administration what it wants. The Trump

administration has a -- a very high percentage of win rate here at the court.

And I -- I think that it will continue to win before this court. It's just that in this situation, it went way too far and there are other ways to go

on this.

About the majority, not just Chief Justice John Roberts, but two of President Trump's appointees, Neil Gorsuch and Amy Coney Barrett joined for

the majority, in dissent with Brett Kavanaugh where Clarence Thomas and Sam Alito.

[12:05:09]

So six to three opinion. I, at some point thought maybe it would be even closer just because, you know, the president does have a lot of authority

in foreign affairs, but when it comes right down to it, it's the power of Congress to tax the American people, tax businesses, and if Donald Trump

wants to take this initiative, wants to revise it, he's not going to be able to do it alone.

GOLODRYGA: All right. Joan Biskupic, it's so great that you were able to give us a real --

BISKUPIC: Sure.

GOLODRYGA: -- pay-by-play of what transpired as that ruling came down live in the courtroom --

BISKUPIC: Yes.

GOLODRYGA: -- for us there. Thank you so much.

Well, our next guest is Wendy Cutler, who once served as the acting deputy U.S. trade representative. Wendy, good to see you.

You said that you, like so many other trade experts, were not surprised by this ruling. I would imagine you think it is the correct ruling.

And my question is, why do you think ultimately the administration decided to go with such overreach in an acting IEEPA when they do have other clear

tariff statues that they could use, namely Section 301, 232, and 122?

WENDY CUTLER, VICE PRESIDENT, ASIA SOCIETY POLICY INSTITUTE: Well, look, the president took a gamble here. He wanted to choose the statute that

would give him the most discretion possible -- you know, possible, the most possible discretion, and he lost.

And you mention these other statutes, they will and can be used. The problem with them, from his point of view, is that they put limits on the

presidential authority, either with respect to the how high the tariffs can go, how long they can be in place, whether they require consultations with

stakeholders in Congress and other limitations.

So again, he went -- you know, he went big this time. He did not use a statute during his first term. And I think now, he'll need to rely on these

other statutes to keep tariffs in place.

ASHER: And can you just explain to our international audience the difference between these various statutes and the IEEPA, which is what was

struck down by the Supreme Court this time around? Because you have Section 232 and also Section 301 that essentially is part of or was part of the

Trade Expansion Act of 1962.

And that essentially allowed the U.S. president to impose tariffs if they deemed that imports potentially threatened national security. The president

has used those sections to justify tariffs on steel, for example, on aluminum, essentially saying that importing foreign metals would weaken the

U.S.'s defense readiness.

Just explain to our audience, because obviously we have people watching from all around the world, not necessarily all Americans, who might not

know the difference between the various sections I just mentioned as part of the Trade Expansion Act, and then also the IEEPA, which was what was

decided on today.

CUTLER: Sure. So Section 232 that you mentioned, that deals with imports that threaten national security. So the president has used them for steel,

aluminum, cars, copper, and those statues have not been challenged in the courts.

Second, he has the authority to use Section 301 to address unfair trade barriers in third countries. So that's the statute he used to hit China

during his first term. And there's also a Section 122 with deals with balance of payments in balances and allows the president for 150 days to

impose tariffs up to 15 percent.

And again, these all have some limitations. So the president decided, I'm going to go big in the second term, take this gamble, take this risk. And

again, you know, he let the chips fall where they did, and they didn't fall in his favor.

So now, the -- the administration is talking about rolling out their plan B of contingency tariff authorities they'll use. Things may be messy for the

short term.

But my sense is tariffs will remain in place. They'll need to be justified under the other statutes. And the trade agreements that the president has

reached thus far, I think will remain intact. I don't think our trading partners having negotiated these deals are going to want to test the

president here and walk away from these deals.

GOLODRYGA: Yes. And the U.S. trade representative still has an active Section 301 investigation into China ongoing as we speak now. But to your

point about Section 122, allowing for 150 days authority to keep the taxes in place at 15 percent, how soon can that be enacted?

CUTLER: Oh, that can -- that can be enacted immediately. But after the 150 days, in order for it to continue, Congress would need to im -- approve

that decision. So again, time-limited.

[12:10:06]

ASHER: I want to you to sort of expand on something you just touched on in your earlier answer. This idea that, you know, there's a lot of foreign

countries, trading partners that have negotiated trade deals with the U.S.

And they did that because President Trump threatened them with unbelievably high tariffs, in some cases 50 percent, in some cases higher, and that way,

they were forced to the table.

I'm sure a lot of these countries now feel duped. What recourse do they have now specifically?

CUTLER: Well, again, they might feel duped, but I think the president and his team were very upfront with our trading partners telling them that, you

know, you may be watching the IEEPA saga unfold in our courts, but we want to assure you that regardless of what happens to IEEPA, we have the tariff

tools to keep tariffs in place.

And he was able to convince them of that. And just yesterday, we announced a deal with Indonesia. One could argue Indonesia could have waited, but

they didn't. And so my senses are trading partners, whether they like it or not, they've done these deals. The deals will remain in place.

Now, maybe in the future, when tariffs are threatened, they won't carry the same weight. But at least for the deals done so far, I think they will stay

in place.

Again, things may be messy for a little bit. Certain tariffs may be reduced temporarily, like if -- if Section 122 is used with a 15 percent cap. But I

think over time, we'll -- we'll see tariff equivalency with what we have now in place for the most part.

GOLODRYGA: Yes. This was a -- a rare reminder of the three co-equal branches of government here, and this being the judicial branch really

stepping up.

And it's notable that Justice Gorsuch, who ruled with the majority here in striking down these tariffs, also made a point to say that Congress needs

to step up its part here as a co-equal branch as well, given that this is a power that the Constitution grants them.

Wendy Cutler, thank you so much.

ASHER: If only Indonesia had waited a couple -- held out a couple more days. It's going to be different. Wendy Cutler, thank you so much.

All right. We've just learned that President Trump is expected to make comments about this ruling later this hour.

Kevin Liptak is joining us from the White House. So, Kevin, we know that the president is obviously going to be dismayed by this ruling, of course.

One of the things that I think is interesting is that these tariffs were used not just as economic leverage, but also political leverage.

You had the president telling various countries, listen, if you do not do what I say in this particular issue, I'm going to wield X amount or X

percent tariffs over you.

We saw it specifically with Greenland and President Trump sort of threatening a lot of European allies with high tariffs unless they

supported his potential acquisition of the territory.

Now that this has been ruled illegal, how does it change the political and the power dynamics between the U.S. and various other countries around the

world, Kevin?

KEVIN LIPTAK, CNN SENIOR WHITE HOUSE REPORTER: Yes. And I think you'll have foreign leaders all now trying to assess where their relative power stands

compared to President Trump.

You know, the tariffs had been kind of the underpinning, not just of the trade agenda, but of the president's entire foreign policy when you look,

yes, at Greenland. And I think a lot of the reason that the European leaders didn't necessarily take that threat at face value is because that

they -- they knew that the Supreme Court decision was in the offing.

Obviously, they didn't know which way the court was going to rule. And, obviously, President Trump eventually backed off of that threat.

But that was not the only place where he had used tariffs to try and advance his foreign priorities. You saw it with India when the president

applied tariffs on New Delhi as punishment for their purchase of Russian oil.

And he did appear to have some success in convincing the Prime Minister Narendra Modi to wean India off of its purchases of energy products from

Moscow.

You saw it in Brazil as well. The president essentially punishing the government of Lula da Silva for its own treatment of his predecessor, Jair

Bolsonaro, essentially using this as payback for the way it was treating one of President Trump's allies.

So in all of these instances, the president using an authority that has now been deemed illegal to advance his foreign priorities.

And I think this is going to come in to very, very stark relief when the president visits China. You know, we just got the dates of that trip an

hour ago. It's going to start on March 31st. China is an area where the president was really relying on these tariffs to advance, not only the

trade agenda, which was enormous, obviously, the two world's largest economies, but also to convince China to reduce its shipments of chemicals

that go into fentanyl. So not explicitly related to the trade agenda, but trying to advance some of the president's other priorities.

[12:15:11]

Now, when he is in Beijing, sitting across the table from President Xi Jinping, President Xi, I think will look at Trump as someone who has had

some of that leverage and some of that power now reduced.

And what it means for those talks, I think, will be a subject of assessment here at the White House. And certainly the president has said that he told

governors this behind closed doors about an hour ago that he has a backup plan and there have been plan Bs in the works here at the White House for

quite some time.

But it will be, I think, a tough lift to get all of those stood up by the time the president visits China, for example, or as the president works on

all of these other trade deals around the world. It has now, I think, totally reordered some of the way that these countries saw their own

relative power compared to the United States and how all of that shakes out will be very, very important for the president as he at least tries to

maintain some of these initiatives that he's put in place using these emergency tariffs.

ASHER: Kevin Liptak, live for us. Thank you so much.

All right. Still to come, President Trump says that he's considering a limited strike on Iran as the U.S. continues its massive military buildup

in the Middle East. Is there room for diplomacy still? We'll have more on than that, ahead.

GOLODRYGA: Also ahead, please search a former residence of Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor for a second day after his arrest and release. We'll

have details after the break.

ASHER: And later as the search for Nancy Guthrie continues, authorities in Mexico are looking on their side of the border too. We'll have a report for

you from Mexico City.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

GOLODRYGA: Iran's foreign minister is adding a new element of uncertainty to an already-tensed situation that has the Middle East on edge.

During an interview, a short time ago on MS NOW, Abbas Araghchi said that the U.S. has not asked Tehran to halt uranium enrichment. Now, that is in

sharp contrast to what President Trump said over the weekend when he suggested that Washington will not settle for a deal that allows even low-

level enrichment.

ASHER: Yes. Those mixed signals coming as both sides make preparation for a possible U.S. attack. You can see the massive American military presence

here in the region.

Meantime, the U.K. is making it clear that it doesn't want any part in this. British media reports that the U.K. has not given the U.S. permission

to attack Iran from British bases.

[12:20:07]

Earlier, the U.S. president said he's considering a limited strike, but it remains unclear what the White House is hoping to accomplish.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

SEN. CHRIS COONS (D-DE): We've had precious little briefing or engagement from the Trump administration. We know what you know and your viewers know,

which is that two aircraft carriers, thousands of sailors and troops, Marines, destroyers and refueling vehicles, have been pre-positioned into

the Middle East.

So, I do expect Trump once again to use military force. I'm concerned, Kate, that he's learning the wrong lesson from missile strikes on several

countries. I think it was seven countries last year that you can do this without cost, without blowback and without a tax.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

ASHER: All right. Time now for "The Exchange." Joining us now is foreign policy analyst, Barbara Slavin. Barbara, thank you so much for being with

us.

I just want to start by talking about what the Iranian foreign minister said on MS NOW. That certainly surprised a lot of people, this idea that

the U.S. hadn't really asked Iran to halt the Iranian enrichment. They hadn't offered so far to suspend it voluntarily. What do you make of that?

BARBARA SLAVIN, FOREIGN POLICY ANALYST: I'm a little confused by it because it's my understanding that the United States is insisting on no enrichment

on Iranian soil.

The Iranians have proposed various formulas for some sort of multilateral consortium that would enrich uranium, but they've always said it has to be

located on Iranian soil, under Iranian jurisdictions.

So, if the U.S. is now coming around to that view, frankly, I would find that to be good news because I'm very concerned that we are stumbling into

some sort of military confrontation that will not turn out well.

GOLODRYGA: Well, this would be quite the bluff, if the United States has amassed a number of assets in the region now. The only equivalent we've

seen in terms of size and scope is what we saw in 2003 before the Iraq War.

The question also then turns to, what would that strike look like? And the president this morning suggesting that even a one-off targeted strike

perhaps could be something that the United States is considering as once again a final warning to Iran that they mean business and are serious. What

do you make about that possibility?

SLAVIN: Again, I'm trying to understand the logic here. I mean, obviously, the United States has enormous capabilities. It can hit whatever it wants

in Iran.

But how is that going to help the -- the process? The Iranian regime has its back to the wall. It's extremely unpopular. It's afraid to make any

kinds of compromises, whether domestically or internationally.

And it's -- it's, in a way, daring the United States to -- to go ahead and -- and strike. I -- I don't understand what that would achieve except some

sort of ego boost for President Trump, who likes to use his military as a sort of personal arm of vengeance.

I mean, really, what is this supposed to accomplish? President Trump has not given any long speeches. He's not issued any long statements. All we

have are these offhand remarks and Truth Social posts.

And that is not sufficient to begin military action against Iran without congressional authorization, without U.N. authorization. You know, it's --

it's -- it's simply inexplicable.

ASHER: Yes. And the goal of this potential -- of this potential military action has evolved. I mean, at the beginning, it was to assist the

protesters after the harsh sort of crackdown against the protesters. And then it sort of evolved into possibly seeking regime change as Donald Trump

has flirted with, and then also talking about Iranian enrichment as well and limiting that.

But just in terms of how you think -- you said just a second ago that this is clearly not going to turn out well, if there is military action. Just

explain to us how you might think this could backfire on the U.S. itself.

SLAVIN: Well, again, the Iranians have said that -- that they will respond and they will respond forcefully, that it won't be something symbolic,

something that is previewed in advance.

You know, in the past when the United States has hit Iran, we've seen strikes, but they have been telegraphed in advance and there have been no

U.S. casualties. I think the Iranians have made plain that that would not be their intention this time.

Also, you can start something, but you can't necessarily stop it. Is the United States trying to attempt regime change? I don't think that's

possible to do with -- with airstrikes alone. We know Donald Trump doesn't like long wars. He's not going to put boots on the ground.

[12:25:04]

So maybe it will be something that will, again, satisfy his ego, make him feel better about the tariff decision. Who knows what motivates him these

days?

You know, he can say he's fulfilling his promise to the Iranian protesters, even if it's coming 40 days too late. But what in the end will it

accomplish?

This is a ruthless regime. I -- I don't think there's anyone in this country or -- or in many places around the world that would shed a tear if

-- if the Islamic Republic was no more.

But how do you get rid of it? Will this help? What are the guarantees? What are the consequences, not just for the United States and its personnel in

the region, but also for U.S. allies in the region? So, I just don't feel that this has been very well thought through.

ASHER: Barbara Slavin, live for us. Thank you so much for your perspective.

All right. In Gaza, Palestinians have attended the first Friday prayers of Ramadan, worshipers gathered at The Great Omari mosque in Gaza City, which

was damaged during the war between Israel and Hamas.

GOLODRYGA: President Trump is aiming to spearhead the rebuilding of Gaza with his new Board of Peace.

One area he is focusing on is soccer, partnering with FIFA, which is pledging to raise $75 million for new projects.

Christina Macfarlane has more on why the sport means so much for so many people in Gaza.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

CHRISTINA MACFARLANE, CNN CORRESPONDENT (voice-over): A battered soccer field amid a wasteland of ruin in Gaza City.

For the first time in two years, Palestinians are playing again. Determined to get back on the pitch after a devastating war.

KHALED SAMI, FOOTBALL PLAYER, AL-SHATI CLUB (through text translation): Hope is an essential part of a human's life. Seeing this pitch amidst all

the rubble and debris gives you hope that we can play sport again in Gaza.

MACFARLANE (voice-over): The Palestine Football Association and Gaza's soccer clubs cleared rubble from a destroyed building that had collapsed

onto this half-sized pitch. Restoring it to life and using it to host friendly tournaments.

The ravaged landscape, a reminder that life beyond the pitch remains fragile and uncertain. But for these young fans, it's a momentary escape to

life as it used to be. Climbing over broken and collapsed buildings just to get a better view.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE (through text translation): As you can see surrounding this pitch is all destruction. All the other pitches have been destroyed.

Despite that, we try to create willpower with the least that we have.

MACFARLANE (voice-over): Since October 2023, more than 550 soccer players have been killed in the war, the majority by Israeli strikes. And more than

130 facilities destroyed, according to the Palestine Football Association.

Four months into the ceasefire, and the territory has seen almost no reconstruction. Most people still live in makeshift tents without enough

food or clean water.

But for these players, returning to the game is an act of resilience, a way to bring joy and life back to Gaza.

CAPTAIN MOHAMMAD KHALIL, FOOTBALL REFEREE (through text translation): Destruction does not prevent the future. We are building the future right

now. And we hope this tournament will make way for others.

MACFARLANE (voice-over): Christina Macfarlane, CNN, London.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[12:30:37]

GOLODRYGA: All right. Welcome back to "One World." I'm Bianna Golodryga.

ASHER: And I'm Zain Asher.

Returning to our top story now, the U.S. Supreme Court strikes down President Donald Trump's sweeping emergency tariffs. It is a huge blow to

Trump's economic agenda.

The so-called reciprocal terrorist raised duties on America's trading partners, including key allies as well.

GOLODRYGA: Today's ruling came down while President Trump was hosting the White House breakfast with governors. CNN is told that he called the move a

disgrace.

There are growing questions about how this ruling might impact the U.S. economy. So, let's discuss with our business and politics correspondent,

Vanessa Yurkevich.

And, Vanessa, right before we came on air, I saw that the retail federation had put out a statement as well for them. This is all about stability and

having some more certainty here.

But ultimately, I mean, is it fair to say that net-net this is -- this a win for the American consumer?

VANESSA YURKEVICH, CNN BUSINESS AND POLITICS CORRESPONDENT: Well, it's certainly a win for the American business because they are no longer going

to have to be paying tariffs. But as we know, businesses have passed down a significant amount of the price increases to consumers.

And it is certainly unclear and possibly unlikely that consumers will see a refund because of these tariffs.

But I am hearing from business groups all the way from restaurant associations to footwear companies who are saying that they're really

looking now for some really stable trade policy in order to lift the financial burden that they have been dealing with.

From the footwear association, we know that 99 percent of the shoes that are on our feet here in the United States come from abroad. So those shoes

have all been tariffed. They want trade policy that alleviates a lot of that.

Also, the Distilled Spirits Council, this is an alcohol industry group that is saying that this reversal is actually going to help bars and restaurants

here in the United States deal with customers who are really up against an affordability crisis. So helping to possibly lower the cost of alcohol for

consumers.

And as you mentioned, the National Retail Federation who came out with a statement and also said that they really want the swift refund of this cash

of the money that businesses have had to pay. Of course, that is the big question mark because that is not something that the Supreme Court made any

decision on.

In fact, Chief Justice Roberts who wrote that dissenting opinion said, yes, someone's going to have to figure this out, but it's going to be, quote, a

mess. So, that is really the big unknown here.

We are hearing today though from the port of Los Angeles here in the United States who says because of this tariff reversal, they are bracing now for a

surge in cargo at the shores of Los Angeles, because essentially, retailers now see this as a window to bring in that merchandise that is heavily

tariffed, heavily imported that no longer has a tariff and they want to bring that in very quickly.

So we're talking about toys of which 75 percent are imported here to the United States, appliances, electronics. Shoes as I mentioned, they are

nervous because they believe that Trump will look for other ways to reapply some of these tariffs. And they want to make sure that they are getting

that tariff-free inventory into the United States as quickly as possible in order to be able to possibly give some cost savings for American consumers

here.

GOLODRYGA: So if April 4th of last year was Liberation Day for the administration, perhaps today is Liberation Day to some degree for

businesses --

[12:35:07]

YURKEVICH: Yes.

GOLODRYGA: -- here in the U.S.

Vanessa Yurkevich, thank you so much.

YURKEVICH: Thank you.

ASHER: And we have brand-new reporting on what's coming next in President Donald Trump's immigration crackdown. It follows a controversial operation

in Minneapolis that sparked massive protests, thousands of arrests, and the deaths of two U.S. citizens.

GOLODRYGA: Homeland Security officials tell CNN that the Trump administration plans to take border czar, Tom Homan's, enforcement playbook

from Minneapolis now nationwide, by doubling down on targeted immigration actions.

That marks a significant shift from the broad sweep and aggressive tactics used by top border patrol official, Greg Bovino. You may recall Bovino was

sidelined after Trump dispatched Homan to Minneapolis.

Earlier, Homan spoke to CNN about what he did differently.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

TOM HOMAN, WHITE HOUSE BORDER CZAR: I made changes. I -- I created a unified chain of commands, every -- every voice reporting up to one chain.

I want to make sure it was targeting enforcement operation. I don't think it was happening in all instances.

But I think the most important thing I did, I talked to the mayor, I talked to the governor, I talked to the attorney general. We can't fix things

talking in the echo chamber. We've got to talk to the other side. And that's how we fix things. That's how we got the unprecedented cooperation.

That's why the state of Minnesota thinks it's safer today.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

ASHER: And CNN's Priscilla Alvarez explains more about the shift in immigration strategy.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

PRISCILLA ALVAREZ, CNN CORRESPONDENT: What is happening moving forward is really taking the playbook that Tom Homan used in Minneapolis and using

that in multiple cities nationwide.

It's a rebuke of Gregory Bovino's style. Gregory Bovino, of course, a top border patrol official who used those heavy handed tactics, who blasted

those on social media and who often did those broad sweeps in areas trafficked by immigrants.

This instead is a doubling down of what is known as that targeted enforcement meeting that ICE identifies who they're going to go after. They

build a strategy. They go after that individual or individuals.

And if there are other undocumented immigrants in the vicinity known as collateral, they too can be swept up. But this is still different from just

going to what we saw, for example, in multiple cities like the Home Depot and arresting individuals there seemingly at random.

So again, when I talk to my sources about this, what they stress is that this isn't a softening by the administration in their crackdowns so much as

deploying a new strategy amid the waning support among Americans over how the administration was conducting its enforcement.

One Homeland Security official told me this, quote, "ICE has been doing interior enforcement before Bovino got involved. They prefer to conduct

their ops without the optics. Border Patrol never wanted anything to do with these interior ops and will go back to focusing on the border."

Now, when I asked the White House about this, they also reiterated that they have been going after those national security and public safety

threats, telling me this in a statement, quote, "The President's entire team is working together to implement his immigration enforcement agenda,

which is always focused on prioritizing the worst of the worst criminal illegal aliens. The successful deportations to dropping crime rates and

historically secure border prove that. As always, anyone in the country illegally is eligible to be deported."

Now, data has shown that their -- the majority of those who have been arrested don't have the serious criminal convictions that the

administration says that they do, though, of course, it is always hard to parse that through, given that we don't have all of the information before

us.

But I will also note that when the White House talks about the president's team, the reality is too, that there are two different factions in the team

over how to conduct immigration enforcement. And that became abundantly clear with Homan and with Kristi Noem, who rarely speak to each other. And

Kristi Noem was the one who backed Bovino style.

So we'll see how things move forward. But currently, the plans that I am told, that can always change, is that Homan's playbook, that targeted

immigration enforcement that ICE typically does, is what is going to be used in cities across the country.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

ASHER: Priscilla Alvarez reporting there.

GOLODRYGA: All right. Coming up for us, in the most gender-balanced Winter Olympics ever. Girl power has brought us some of the most epic and

memorable moments of the games. We take a look at some of the victories by the incredible women of Team USA. That's after the break.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[12:40:00]

ASHER: All right. In the U.K., the former Prince Andrew has been released from custody following his arrest Thursday on suspicion of misconduct while

in public office.

GOLODRYGA: Today, authorities are searching his former home, the Royal Lodge in Windsor.

ASHER: Mountbatten-Windsor's arrest is dominating media coverage in Europe, of course, focused on his disgrace and the impact on the Royal Family.

GOLODRYGA: This image seeming to capture the shell-shocked former prince after his release from police custody late Thursday, quite the image there.

He has not been charged but remains under investigation.

ASHER: Yes. Police haven't said what led to the arrest specifically, but they had been looking into claims. He shares sensitive information with the

late sex offender, Jeffrey Epstein, while serving as U.K.'s trade envoy. Mountbatten-Windsor has previously denied any wrongdoing in connection to

his ties to Jeffrey Epstein.

In the U.S. lawmakers, this week, grilled billionaire, Les Wexner, about his relationship with Jeffrey Epstein as well. They have released video of

Wednesday's deposition with the House Oversight Committee in Ohio.

The 88-year-old is the former owner of Victoria's Secret. He at one point gave Epstein power of attorney over his vast finances. Wexner repeatedly

said that he was conned by the late sex offender and said, he did not witness nor had any knowledge of Epstein's criminal activities.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Did you at any time ever consider him to be a close friend?

LES WEXNER, FORMER CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER, VICTORIA'S SECRET: No.

As I look back at it, I was conned by the world Olympic all-time con artist. And when -- and -- and you look at, I read in the news all the

people he knew, royalty, kings, princes and all that, an incredible con artist.

He would make Bernie Madoff look like a boy scout. So complete, so diabolical. I mean, just incredible sinister.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

GOLODRYGA: The Epstein file show government documents named the retail tycoon as a possible co-conspirator, but the FBI did not follow up or

question him.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Has the FBI or DOJ ever directly contacted you or spoken to you about -- about Epstein?

WEXNER: Not to my knowledge.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Never?

WEXNER: Never.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Did you speak to any law enforcement agency of any kind regarding Jeffrey Epstein's investigation in New York in 2019?

WEXNER: Never. Didn't -- no, I don't remember ever talking to any law enforcement agency.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

ASHER: At one time, Wexner's lawyer interjected to tell him that he was talking too much. We listen to that moment.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: I will (BLEEP) kill you if you answer another question with more than five words, OK?

(END VIDEO CLIP)

GOLODRYGA: All right. We should know that Wexner has never been charged with a crime.

Turning back here to another top story we've been covering. Mexican authorities are looking for clues into Nancy Guthrie's disappearance, but

say there is currently no indication that the 84-year-old was brought into Mexico.

[12:45:10]

This comes as the search following her parent kidnapping drags into a third languishing week. But news of her case have -- has not reached many

residents in Mexico City.

CNN's Valeria Leon reports.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

VALERIA LEON, CNN CORRESPONDENT: On the streets of Mexico City, most people we spoke with had never heard of Nancy Guthrie.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE (through translator): I don't know much about the case.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE (through translator): I'm not aware of it.

LEON (voice-over): For many Mexicans, this lack of awareness is not surprising. Mexico faces its own crisis of disappearances.

LEON: In Mexico City, there's even a traffic circle where faces of the disappeared are on display. A constant reminder for families still waiting

for answers of their loved ones.

MIGUEL ANGEL, MEXICO CITY RESIDENT (through translator): Here, we've had many people go missing, and this shouldn't happen because we all want to

make it home.

LEON: In our research, we found very little newspaper coverage. If you take a glimpse at newspapers here, you'll see there's no mention of the Guthrie

case on any of their front pages.

And with so little information available, people remain largely uninformed about her apparent kidnapping.

ISABEL, MEXICO CITY RESIDENT (through translator): That's all I know that she's been kidnapped. It's been several days already. I don't know how

many.

LEON: That stands in sharp contrast to the United States where the case continues to generate intense speculation.

For now, on this side of the border, the disappearance of Nancy Guthrie remains distant.

Valeria Leon, CNN, Mexico City.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

GOLODRYGA: Well, as the Olympics come to a close this weekend, some of the most epic moments have been led by women. Let's take a look at some iconic

girl power wins.

Alysa Liu won a historic gold medal for U.S. Women's Figure Skating on Thursday, becoming the first American to claim gold in the sport since

2002.

ASHER: There was just two minutes left on the clock, Team USA turned around the scoreboard in the women's ice hockey final against Canada, winning two

to one in overtime.

An Olympic redemption for star skier, Mikaela Shiffrin, the American bagging gold in the women's slalom after an eight-year medal drought. And

here's how she prepared for that huge moment.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

[12:50:03]

MIKAELA SHIFFRIN, WOMEN'S SLALOM GOLD MEDAL WINNER: I went into the race really prepared for anything. And I was so sure about the mentality that I

wanted to have because my team has been driving it into my head. And I've been riding sticky notes on my mirrors and all of this self-talk stuff.

It's been more than I've ever done in my career. But in these couple weeks, I really -- I really bought into the self-talk idea.

COY WIRE, CNN WORLD SPORT: On a scale of one to I need vacation, where are you right now?

SHIFFRIN: You know what, I'm actually -- I'm -- I think I'm right in the thick of like processing, realizing what has happened in the last 24 hours.

I showed up to Cortina and the biggest dream I had, when you dream about medals and that's sort of its own little bucket category.

But the biggest like goal -- what we wanted to produce together as a team was like just the best skiing that I can do on the mountain.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

ASHER: For more on the Olympic action, let's bring in CNN's sports analyst and "USA Today" sports columnist, Christine Brennan.

I love that interview with Mikaela Shiffrin. She also talked about speaking to her late dad as well because her father passed away too.

And when you think about just the sheer volume of medals and the girl power element of this year's winter Olympics. I mean it's astounding. You've got

Alysa Liu ending that 24-year droughts and winning golds. You've got Mikaela Shiffrin, obviously, a star skier in her own right.

And then you've got the U.S. women's hockey team, essentially coming from behind as well against Canada to win gold too. Just -- and then Breezy

Johnson, not just winning, but also getting proposed to as well.

So many iconic moments' women this time around. Walk us through it, Christine.

CHRISTINE BRENNAN, CNN SPORTS ANALYST: Zain, you know, this is really happening now every Olympics winner and summer certainly for U.S. athletes.

And I'm glad you mentioned hockey because that is a college sport. And what we're seeing here are the effects of Title IX, the law that was signed by

Richard Nixon in June of 1972. So, it's coming up on 54 years.

And that opened the floodgates for girls and women to play sports in the United States and made it that you had to have at equality or at least

proportional opportunity for girls and women in high school and in college and that has changed everything.

That is why there's a hockey team. If there's no Title IX, there's no hockey -- women's hockey because you don't have college programs to be the

feeder system.

You can say the same about the U.S. women's soccer team in the summer Olympics. Again, if there's no Title IX, we've never heard of Mia Hamm and

Abby Wambach and Megan Rapinoe and Alex Morgan, never.

So, that's the difference there. And for example, the U.S. team -- now some of these are college sports. Obviously, figure skating is not known that

way, others are not as well.

But the U.S., there's -- it has nine gold medals. Six are won by women, two by men, and then one mixed, which is the U.S. figure skating team, men and

women.

So, you see it there, you see it everywhere in the last four Summer Olympic games for the U.S. from Paris going backwards to London, all four the U.S.

women won more gold medals than the U.S. men. That is a trend that I guess I'm going to predict will continue for the foreseeable future.

GOLODRYGA: Well, I'm never going to bet against you, Christine Brennan, because I remember being on with you earlier this week and I was already

sort of casting doubt on the women's figure skaters given the performance in the -- in their short period there and performance there, and then

obviously, we saw something last night in the longer form, Alysa Liu.

You say she didn't just end the U.S. women's 20-plus year drought, she obliterated it. And that was quite spectacular to see in the long program.

And also, the -- the mentality here where she came into these games by saying it wasn't about the medal, it was about taking the stage. Just --

just talk about the significance of that goal.

BRENNAN: Bianna, absolutely, that -- that is the essence of Alysa Liu. She was as free -- carefree and having fun as any athlete I've ever seen at the

Olympic Games. And you know I've covered a lot of them going back to Los Angeles in 1984.

I've -- she was smiling throughout that long program. We know the pressure in figure skating because we saw Ilia Malinin melt under that pressure and

have a terrible performance just a week ago.

And now look at how she handled that with joy, with delight, relaxed. I asked her if she was nervous afterwards, she said, no, not -- not nervous

at all. She was calm and confident.

And this is -- this is the -- this is Alysa Liu. She won her first U.S. national title at 13, her second at 14. She retired at 16 because she was

done with having people tell her what to do. She unretired at 18. She won the World Championship at 19. And now she's won the Olympic gold medal at

age 20. What a resume.

But -- but that's the attitude that works in figure skating. And it's really hard because the ice is slippery and you've got four minutes and the

pressure is extraordinary.

[12:55:04]

The women, all of them, not just the American women, obviously Alysa Liu winning that gold. First time of a U.S. woman winning gold since 2002 in

figure skating that was Sarah Hughes. But they all -- almost all the women skated very, very well.

The men, the previous Friday night long program, there were falls all over the place. So you're seeing these women step up in big pressure situations,

not just Americans across the board, and handling that pressure, at least at these Olympics, in that event, had to had men's versus women's. The

women are handling it much better than the men did.

ASHER: And -- and very quickly, because we've got 30 seconds, your favorite sort of highlight, and obviously, it's over by Sunday. So, what will you

miss the most?

BRENNAN: Well, I've just put a lot of time in figure skating and just the fun and the drama of that moment. I'll also say this, Zain, that going back

to Alysa Liu, she made sure to stand there at the National Championships and cheer for her competitors.

In fact, she was cheering by the ice. She didn't go backstage. She watched Amber Glenn and cheered her on. Amber Glenn was the only person who could

beat Alysa Liu and Amber Glenn did beat Alyssa Liu at those Nationals.

That what a statement that is for people who want to pit women against each other. These -- these women, especially Alysa Liu, Amber Glenn, and Isabeau

Levito, cheering for one another the way they did, was truly extraordinary, and Amber Glenn for the Japanese skaters as well.

ASHER: Beautiful.

GOLODRYGA: They make us so proud, honestly. And also, don't forget this weekend, men's ice hockey too. Kind of big but.

ASHER: Christine, thank you so much. Appreciate it.

GOLODRYGA: That does it for "One World." I'm Bianna Golodryga.

ASHER: I'm Zain Asher. We'll have much more breaking news after this short break.

BRENNAN: Oh, thank you. Take care.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

END