Return to Transcripts main page

One World with Zain Asher

Supreme Court Allows Lisa Cook To Remain At Fed In Loss For Trump; 1,450 Confirmed Dead, 3,000 Plus Injured As Hopes Of Rescues Fade; U.S. Official: U.S. And Iran "Will Stand Down For Now"; Comcast To Spin Off NBCUniversal In Major Restructure; Brazil And Japan Battle For Spot In Last 16; How Britain Learned Of America's Independence. Aired 12-12:45p ET

Aired June 29, 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]

BIANNA GOLODRYGA, CNN ANCHOR: Hello, everyone. Live from New York, I'm Bianna Golodryga. Zain is off today. You are watching the second hour of

"One World."

Donald Trump is reacting on social media after the Supreme Court handed down a slew of decisions, giving the U.S. president a major victory along

with several losses.

Although the High Court barred Trump's attempt to immediately fire Federal Reserve governor, Lisa Cook, it expanded the president's power to fire

officials at independent agencies like the Federal Trade Commission.

The ruling overturns nearly a century of precedent. President Trump calling it a big win and a historic ruling.

Meanwhile, Liberal Supreme Court Justice Sonia Sotomayor, who read the dissent from the bench, says the president is emerging with far greater

powers than ever before.

Ankush Khardori is a legal analyst and former federal prosecutor. He joins me now live. Ankush, welcome back to the program.

So, we should note that Chief Justice Roberts wrote both opinions here, one expanding the president's power to fire independent agency heads and

denying it for the Fed for at least the time being. This case, I believe, goes back to the lower courts.

On what constitutional ground does the court say the central bank is different from every other independent agency?

ANKUSH KHARDORI, FORMER FEDERAL PROSECUTOR: This is an excellent question. So, according to the majority in the Federal Reserve's -- at Federal

Reserve case, they ground their decision in what they claim is the distinctive nature of the Federal Reserve as historic entity going all the

way back to the founding and framers and the first banks and all that stuff.

So, they claim that they're sort of a unique constitutional and statutory design around the Fed that provides a greater insulation from the sort of a

firing for cause that now it can be achieved in every other agency.

I say that, but the claim that there is a major historical distinction between these of the Fed and everyone else is quite dubious and it has been

attacked, criticized heavily by scholars ever since the Supreme Court first telegraphed that this would be its outcome.

So, there's a state in rationale grounded in the conservative majorities' claims about historical record, but it is a disputed one.

And another way of thinking about this decision is this about these pair of decisions, I should say, is more practical, which is to say, you know, the

Republican and conservatives have wanted this expanded authority to fire independent agency officials for decades.

But I think we saw from the course of the last year that the markets in the Republican Party really recoiled at the notion that -- that President

Trump, in particular, might be able to interfere with the Fed, in particular, given its -- as I'm sure you could discuss very -- more

ultimately than me, its broad impact on the domestic and global economies.

GOLODRYGA: Yes. And we'll talk about that in our next segment in more detail.

But the president, we should remind viewers, justified Cook's firing with a mortgage fraud allegation that he framed that as cause for her firing.

In this ruling today, did the court define cause or did they leave that open?

KHARDORI: They left it open, I would say, and we're still good. You know, of course, the processing is the (INAUDIBLE) of opinions, but the outcome

sends the case back down to the lower courts.

The court basically says, you cannot just fire her the way you have done so, the way you've done with other agency officials, it says that to the

government, but also that Lisa Cook's position that there is essentially these extraordinarily robust protections goes too far.

So, they said basically she's entitled to the least notice and hearing on the allegations and potentially more process for lower courts to resolve.

There's an open question, of course, about whether the Trump administration will actually now continue to push this, given its considerable victory

concerning the rest of the agencies and the nature of the political dynamics around it that have changed since Trump has since been able to

appoint Kevin Warsh as the chairman of the Federal Reserve. So, I think he's perhaps down back a little bit on the Fed stuff, but we'll see.

GOLODRYGA: Yes. And let's talk more about the expansion that the court gave for the executive over independent agencies outside of the Federal Reserve.

This is a 1935 precedent establishing a for cause protection here. It was itself, interestingly enough, an FTC case at the time.

With this ruling, did -- did the court overturn it or narrow it down? So, is this -- is this precedent completely blown up or was it just narrowed

down in your view?

KHARDORI: I think it's completely blown up. I mean, I don't know if the majority is maybe somewhere in the decision tried to carve it out, but it's

completely blown up as a practical matter.

[12:05:03]

I mean, the decision held that there were -- there were protections for cost-firing protections, and now the court seems reversed -- has reversed

itself and precisely the same -- the same agency in the same set of circumstances.

So, it is an over-rolling the decision. And the practical implications are extraordinary. You know, this is the way the Congress had decided that they

wanted to structure independent regulatory oversight to give the executive branch these agencies but to insulate the heads from firing and to make

them more politically evenly balanced based on sort of appointment procedures.

And the court, the court's Republican appointees have basically said, Congress, you cannot do that. It's an extraordinary ruling. It's an

extraordinarily aggressive ruling.

And if the roles were reversed, conservatives and Republicans would be out there attacking this court as an extremely out of control activist body.

Because this is a really, really remarkable ruling and destabilizes the regulatory regime and this country.

And it will require major rethinking, I think, by Congress concerning what these agencies actually do and how they go about effectuating Congress'

objectives.

GOLODRYGA: Yes. And instead, though, the reverse is happening, a number of conservatives who may or may not approve of Trump's administration itself

have been embracing this particular ruling thus far since it's come out a couple of hours ago.

All right. Ankush Khardori, thank you. We appreciate it.

And let's talk about the political and business angle here. CNN business and politics correspondent, Vanessa Yurkevich, joins me now from New York.

There had been a lot of concern, given how the president has continued to attack the Federal Reserve, going after Lisa Cook in particular. And,

obviously, Jay Powell as well at the same time.

What is the reaction on Wall Street and among the global community, I would say, in response to this particular case, which so many have been watching

closely?

VANESSA YURKEVICH, CNN BUSINESS AND POLITICS CORRESPONDENT: A collective sigh of relief, really. Because, as you mentioned, investors, businesses,

folks who are very involved in both the U.S. economy policy and global economic policy have been really worried about what this SCOTUS ruling

would mean for the wider economic impact here.

That is because the Federal Reserve was set up by Congress to be independent from the executive branch, an executive branch of which

President Donald Trump runs.

And this ruling really says, and really brings into question, can a sitting president fire an elected -- excuse me, an appointed official to the

Federal Reserve? And essentially, the ruling here says that causes in question, and especially because Lisa Cook, the Fed Governor, in question

did not get a chance to kind of make her case in court and explain why this cause that the president was bringing up, these allegations of mortgage

fraud -- fraud were, in fact, not valid.

So essentially, what happened was that Wall Street is breathing a sigh of relief here, economists are breathing a little bit of sigh of relief. This

does not mean that Lisa Cook could not be removed eventually, but for now, the Supreme Court saying that Lisa Cook essentially did not get her day in

court.

She released a statement a little bit earlier about this big Supreme Court ruling. And here's what she said. She said, "This was never about mortgage

documents signed years before I became a Federal Reserve Governor. It was an attempt to remove me on a manufactured pretext because I refused to bow

to political pressure and continued to set interest rates based only on what would best serve the American people."

And as we know, President Donald Trump had been upset for several years with the way that the Federal Reserve was operating, that they would not

cut rates for a long period of time because of higher inflation.

And Lisa Cook is one of those members of the voting board that helps to decide where interest rates fall. And it is up to these Federal Reserve

officials to make decisions based solely on economic data, not on any outside pressures coming from the executive branch or elsewhere.

Lisa Cook, many people know her name now because she obviously was involved with this case, with the Supreme Court and President Donald Trump. But she

was the first black woman appointed to serve on the Federal Reserve Board under President Biden. And her term is long. It is through 2038.

And so if she was, Bianna, in fact removed from her role, that would create an opening for President Trump to appoint another Fed official that could

make decisions on interest rates that may be more aligned with what the president is looking for.

But really at the core of this was a question about the Fed's independence and economists and researchers and investors really wanted to make sure

that the Federal Reserve did remain separate from the control and pressure of the president.

[12:10:02]

And at least in this ruling, what the Supreme Court justices, the majority is saying here, is that Lisa Cook needs a chance to explain herself and

needs to be given due process to fight against these accusations made by the president.

Because as we know, if there were any changes to the Federal Reserve, by an outside body, by the president of the United States, that would certainly

rattle markets and global economies, Bianna.

GOLODRYGA: Yes. The High Court now kicking it back to the lower court, but that's not to say that they would not be revisiting, perhaps, in the future

this case once again. But for now, Lisa Cook can get her day in court and keep her job for now.

Vanessa Yurkevich, thank you.

Well, aftershocks are rattling Venezuela, reigniting fear five days after the nation was rocked by twin earthquakes. The 72-hour golden window for

rescues has come and gone, but teams are not giving up.

Just hours ago, one miraculous rescue.

It's incredible. Venezuela's acting president posted this video of crews pulling up a 21-year-old man out of the rubble.

The official death toll has climbed to at least 1,450, but many more remain missing. Aid organizations from around the world are flooding into the

country to help with rescue and relief efforts.

CNN contributor Stefano Pozzebon joins us now from the capital of Caracas in Venezuela. And, Stefano, it is those glimmers of good news, of miracles,

that 72 hours plus that golden window when there is still a chance to find survivors.

The fact that that window has passed and that -- and survivors are being found right now, that is a moment that everyone can celebrate. But it

remains clear that this is a huge catastrophe and they are nowhere near finding all of those missing.

STEFANO POZZEBON, CNN CONTRIBUTOR: Yes, absolutely, Bianna. I think the image I would like to use is a spark of hope in the darkness of the moment

that this country is living through right now.

Of course, this whole -- this whole search and rescue operation that is still happening behind my back is being fueled by -- by those images. It's

being fueled by the feeling that, yes, it is still possible perhaps to find someone alive to rescue and bring someone to safety.

We're here coming to you, Bianna, from the center of Caracas. This is a place where, by the way, I used to leave for years and you would, you know,

these were an absolute normal corner of the city where you would have coffee and meet friends now, of course, it's completely shattered.

And they're using two excavators down there to remove the largest piles of debris, especially stacked concrete floors that -- that are being stacked

one on top of each other.

And at the same time here, you can also appreciate the logistics of the search and rescue operation with volunteers and professionals from more

than 24 countries coming here to Venezuela to try and bring their help.

They're all here, here with me -- for example, Mexican personnel, of course, a lot of locals, Venezuelans.

But in the last few days, we've pretty much met with everyone. I've met United States citizens. We had Spaniards, Italians, French, Dutch, rescue

workers. There is a feeling of the world being aware of what is happening in Venezuela, of course, responding.

And I think that the President, Delcy Rodriguez, did acknowledged that feeling of Venezuela being, of course, on the mind of so many people on the

globe.

But at the same time, here on the ground zero of the search and rescue operation, we feel like that it's, once again, it's now or never, they're

working around the clock.

We were here last night, and we saw them still working pretty much up until it was no longer possible because of the darkness.

And this morning, we were here at 5:00 A.M., and there was already people working around this area.

So, you can feel the fact that the operation, the machine is still going on and pining through the exhaustion by the spark of hope that is generated by

images like the one that you just played. Bianna?

GOLODRYGA: All right. It keeps those rescuers going, that's for sure. But the country needs all the help that it can get at this point.

Stefano Pozzebon, thank you.

POZZEBON: Yes.

GOLODRYGA: Coming up for us, conflicting messages and troubling signs once again from the Strait of Hormuz. The U.S. and Iran are now letting the dust

settle after a violent weekend. Those details, just ahead.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[12:15:14]

GOLODRYGA: President Trump says American and Iranian officials will meet in Doha on Tuesday, though there is much uncertainty over how to get these

discussions back on track, or if they will happen at all.

One of Tehran's top negotiators says no technical talks with the U.S. have been scheduled. This after, over the weekend, the two rivals traded

multiple attacks near the Strait of Hormuz. U.S. officials say the U.S. and Iran will, quote, stand down for now.

Operators in the Strait are facing a difficult choice over which path to take. Some shipping experts say traffic through the Iran-approved route,

however, remains steady.

Julia Benbrook is tracking these developments live from the White House. So, we're hearing one thing from the president, another not surprising from

the Iranians.

Who, from the president's statements, do we know will be attending these meetings, if in fact they take place tomorrow?

JULIA BENBROOK, CNN CORRESPONDENT: Right. And despite those recent comments on the Iranian side, President Donald Trump himself has said that these

meetings will take place in Doha, Qatar.

That matches what we had previously heard from an administration official. Trump also added, though, that it was Iran that requested these meetings.

White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt spoke on this a bit more earlier today, as she spoke with Fox News. She said that these talks will

take place at a high level, and that special envoy Steve Witkoff, as well as Trump's son-in-law Jared Kushner, will take part in that on all aspects

of the memorandum of understanding, and that there will be some other technical talks taking place on the sideline as well.

But during all of this recent back and forth that really started on Thursday and escalated throughout the weekend, the main question has been,

what will this mean for the ongoing negotiations?

And a senior administration official tells me that those are going to continue on as planned. They went on to say this, "Nothing has been

canceled, technical talks regarding the implementation of the MOU are on track for the coming days as planned. And deconfliction channels are up and

running after the Lake Lucerne Summit."

It was just last weekend now that Vice President J.D. Vance led the delegation along with Witkoff and Kushner to really kick off these

technical talks.

And during that time, he said that he believed that great progress had been made. A reminder that the memorandum of understanding that we've been

discussing, that's what the United States and Iran have agreed to. It really is just a starting point. It kicked off this 60-day time period to

work through some of the major details related to Iran's nuclear program like the fate of its stockpile of highly enriched uranium.

Officials have also said that after that back and forth, that right now there's an agreement on both sides to halt the fighting as they take these

next steps.

So, the main takeaway is Trump says that the meeting is on tomorrow, that these talks will take place at a high level, and that there is a halt in

fighting that is coming from an administration official for the time being.

[12:20:10]

GOLODRYGA: Yes. Each side, it appears, over the weekend, trying to retain its own deterrence.

J Julia Benbrook, thank you.

Steven Cook is a senior fellow for Middle East and African Studies for the Council on Foreign Relations. Steven, good to have you back on.

I feel like this is sort of a deja vu evergreen segment that we've been having since this MOU has been announced and perhaps not surprising, given

that it really lacks in detail here and leaves open for interpretation, whatever each side wants to claim.

When you have the president making statements saying there's discussions going on tomorrow, Iranians sort of contradicting that or saying nothing

scheduled as of now, what is it that you look at to see where things stand? Is it what's happening in the Strait?

STEVEN COOK, SENIOR FELLOW FOR MIDDLE EAST AND AFRICA STUDIES, COUNCIL ON FOREIGN RELATIONS: Yes, absolutely, Bianna. It is all -- all of the action

is really in the Strait. I mean, I think the president is trying to gain the Iranians and the Iranians are trying to gain the president back with

these conflicting statements about there being negotiations.

What's really happening is that the Iranians are trying to assert their control over the Strait of Hormuz and that is why they attacked commercial

shipping on Thursday.

They have maintained, all along, despite what the president has said that the status quo, and then going back to February 27, will not be the

situation in the Strait of Hormuz and that they, along possibly with the Omanis, will be charging some sort of fee for transit through -- through

the Strait.

And they're attacking commercial shipping to remind everybody that they are in control of the Strait.

The United States had to respond and we were back and forth. It sort of makes a mockery of both the endless number of ceasefire as the president

has announced as well as this most recent development, the MOU.

It's very unclear how far they're going to get negotiations in this memorandum of understanding while the Iranians are shooting in the Strait

of Hormuz.

GOLODRYGA: And that's how much weight do the presidents, at times, draconian threats carry for the Iranians now? He, over the weekend, then

said, we could just go back to war and annihilate -- I'm not phrasing him or not quoting him directly, but he was essentially saying that we could go

back to -- to fighting and having kinetic action take place.

Are the Iranians viewing this seriously?

COOK: I think by now after the president has threatened this over and over and over again that they no longer believe these threats. And they also

believe that they've weathered the worst of the American military and the Israeli military.

So, that whatever the president is going to do is not going to be returned to sustained military operations if he orders any kind of strikes

whatsoever.

So, the Iranians believe they really have an upper hand here and are generally dismissive of the president's threats.

GOLODRYGA: You mentioned the Israelis. It should be noted how historic that -- that deal was that was signed between Israel and Lebanon last week that

included gradual Israeli withdrawal sort of a trial run from the south to give Lebanese armed forces a chance to go after Hezbollah and also

recognizing Lebanon for the first time the state of Israel as well, though a lot of hurdles remain.

But I do want to quote something that Amos Harel, a military analyst in Israel for Haaretz, wrote over the weekend and he talked about the

difference in these two agreements, the MOU versus this Lebanon deal.

And he says, "Clause 11 of the Lebanon agreement includes a commitment to prevent the transfer of funds meant to rebuild armed non-state groups and

their affiliates, namely Hezbollah. Meanwhile, the MOU was supposed to inject hundreds of billions of dollars into Iran's coffers."

Is that not a glaring contradiction between these two deals?

COOK: It is a glaring contradiction. I -- I think that anybody who understands anything about Iran and the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps,

which is in control of Iran now, is that they will not use this -- the funds that they are getting to rebuild the economy, but to rebuild their

regional defenses, and that includes supporting groups like Hamas, Hezbollah, the Houthis and Iraqi militias.

There is really two separate tracks in American foreign policy. You have the Iran track, which is being piloted by Vice President J.D. Vance, who

wants to see sort of normalization of Iran and normalization of ties between the United States and Iran.

And then you have the Lebanon track, which is being overseen by Secretary of State Marco Rubio, which is a more traditional type of diplomatic

approach to these problems in the region. And the differences in these two agreements are -- are very, very clear.

There are tremendous hurdles to implementing the Lebanon agreement. And one of them is exactly what you pointed out, Bianna, is that the Iranians are

looking forward to a tremendous amount of sanctions relief.

[12:25:04]

And I think history will tell us that the Iranians are likely to pour significant portions of it toward their proxy militias around the region.

GOLODRYGA: And we know Hezbollah has already rejected this deal. Israel today has hit three Hezbollah command centers, or actually that was

yesterday.

And speaker, a very powerful speaker, Nabih Berri, said flatly that this deal won't be implemented.

So you talked about the hurdles that remained there. Is this deal already close to collapse just a few days after its historic signing?

COOK: Well, there are tremendous forces in Lebanon who are opposed to the deal; Hezbollah, Nabih Berri, the Speaker of the Parliament. Hezbollah was

able to mobilize its supporters in the streets to oppose it.

In one of these areas where the Israel is supposed to withdraw and the Lebanese army is supposed to come in, one of these pilot areas, communities

there have already rejected it.

President Aoun and Prime Minister Salam remain committed to it. President Aoun said that he remains committed to deploying the Lebanese Armed Forces

up to its southern border, which is brave talk, given the -- the obstacles that they face domestically to implementing this agreement.

GOLODRYGA: All right. We'll be watching closely as always. Steven Cook, thank you.

COOK: Thank you.

GOLODRYGA: Well, France has been one of the countries bearing the brunt of a deadly heat wave in Europe over the past few days.

French health officials say around 1,000 excess deaths have occurred during the extreme heat. Temperatures in many towns and cities, including Paris,

are past 40 degrees Celsius or 104 degrees Fahrenheit.

The heat wave moved eastward over the weekend with Denmark, the Czech Republic and Poland recording all-time high temperatures. Tourists in

Poland expressed their surprise.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

KIM DICKINSON, TOURIST: I come from Australia, the Gold Coast, and we get fairly warm days here, but nothing like this.

LEE HUNTER, TOURIST: No, I don't expect the weather to be this bad. I thought Poland would be like OK, like in the 20s, but this is too much.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

GOLODRYGA: Yes, too much. So, many people now bearing the -- the heat wave here now and just how many days it has been hitting almost of Europe.

Today, Italy and the Balkans are feeling the heat as well with more scorching temperatures expected and fears of wildfires growing.

Well, forecasters are warning of dangerous heat wave in the U.S. as well that's expected to intensify through the week, just as millions of

Americans gear up to head outdoors to celebrate the Fourth of July holiday.

Forecasters say oppressive heat and humidity will blast the Midwest early this week and then move into the Mid-Atlantic and Northeast by Wednesday.

The sprawling heat dome over the U.S. is expected to peak by Friday, one day before the big weekend, marking the country's 250th birthday.

All right. Coming up, either win or go home. The World Cup is now into the knockout stages and the stakes couldn't be higher. We'll have the latest

results and fixtures.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[12:30:21]

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

Comcast is splitting up its media empire in a major shake-up of the entertainment industry. The company says it will spin off NBCUniversal and

its European media business, Sky, into a new publicly traded company. The deal still requires regulatory approval.

CNN chief media analyst Brian Stelter is here with the latest. So, some 15 years later, Brian Comcast is saying this is all about growth. But for the

average viewer, is this good news or just companies reshuffling trying to make Wall Street happy?

And on that note, how much should we read into Charter stock jumping on this news as well?

BRIAN STELTER, CNN CHIEF MEDIA ANALYST: Yes. I think this is the beginning of another wave of media merger and consolidation activity. And we don't

know exactly where the wave is going to go.

But Comcast is getting itself ready for new deal making, whether that means buying some smaller assets or more likely, maybe these Comcast assets being

sold to big tech players.

We don't know how it's going to pan out, but the starting point is this announcement today about the spin-off of NBCUniversal.

Basically, Comcast pitched itself 15 years ago as having everything under one roof. Broadband and wireless, theme parks and movie studios. Now, it's

breaking that apart with one side of the house devoted to connectivity, meaning broadband and wireless, and the other devoted to content to NBC, to

Bravo, to Peacock, to Universal, to all of those assets.

Now, there's a lot of speculation among Wall Street analysts about whether one or both sides of that house are going to be valuable in the media

marketplace in the next few years, whether Charter, you mentioned the other big broadband provider in the U.S. is going to try to merge with Comcast.

And on the content side, whether Netflix or Apple or Amazon or some other big player will try to swoop in and buy NBCUniversal.

In some ways, what we're seeing is a domino effect that started when Paramount won the bidding war for CNN's parent company, Warner Brothers

Discovery. Analysts at the time said that was probably going to trigger more deal making. And now you have Comcast deciding the best way to unlock

its stock, which has been beleaguered for years, is to break itself in half, hoping that Wall Street and investors will better see what the

company is all about when the two halves are separate, Bianna.

GOLODRYGA: So, Brian, aside from the Comcast name at some point being removed from the top of 30 Rock, what does this mean for viewers,

subscribers, their cable bill, their streaming options?

STELTER: Well, when you think about the streaming wars, this is a war dominated by Netflix and to a lesser extent by HBO Max, by Disney Plus. NBC

has been a little bit of a -- of a runner up with Peacock.

So, that streaming -- that streaming service probably going to change hands or change shape in the next couple of years based on how this goes through.

But you mentioned, this does require regulatory approval. It'll take about a year for this to take effect. So, any of those M&A possibilities I

mentioned might take a year or two to actually unfold.

But it is clear Comcast is looking at the marketplace and believing that pure play companies are what Wall Street is valuing and rewarding right

now.

We've seen similar actions from other companies like G.E. trying to slim themselves down to appeal to investors.

When it comes to viewers and what to expect, we're continuing to see big tech players take an eye toward buying -- buying media assets, whether

that's Amazon buying MGM, Netflix gobbling up studios, maybe Netflix is going to look to buy NBC Universal next. Very much a question mark at this

point, but we remember Netflix tried to buy Warner Brothers just a few months ago.

So, increasingly, you see Silicon Valley, Northern California, those tech giants looking to own the content that we're all watching on their devices.

GOLODRYGA: Yes. Some seismic changes happening right now in the media landscape. You've been covering it all for us, Brian. It's not over yet.

Thank you.

STELTER: Thanks.

GOLODRYGA: Well, the stakes are getting higher as the World Cup gets into the knockout stage. And the round of 32 has claimed its first casualty.

[12:35:01]

South Africa's World Cup dreams are over beaten by co-host Canada on Sunday. And later today, Brazil takes on Japan for a place in the last 16

followed by the Netherlands playing against Morocco.

From more what we can expect today from the World Cup, let's bring in CNN's Don Riddell. Don, how's Brazil looking going into this game versus Japan?

DON RIDDELL, CNN WORLD SPORT: Well, it's in these games where we really find out, Bianna, how good these teams are.

Brazil doing OK so far. They kicked off with a tough game against Morocco in their group, and then they had a couple of straightforward games after

that, but this is where it really counts.

And Japan could be quite a tricky opponent for them. The Japanese are the strongest team in Asia at the moment. They actually played Brazil in a

friendly towards the end of last year in Tokyo. And they were two-nail down in that game, and they came from behind to win that game 3-2.

So the Japanese team will be, I think, buoyed by the very recent memories of that. They are well known to be very organized, tactically disciplined,

and they can hit teams on the break.

I think their big question will be, can they stop Vinicius Junior, who is such a dangerous threat for this Brazilian team. If they can't, Brazil may

well be advancing to the next stage.

But I think this will be -- this will be an interesting game for Brazil. And whilst they're the favorites, it's by no means a gimme.

GOLODRYGA: I have to say that game that Japan played versus Sweden last Thursday, where it ended in a draw, I was really impressed by their goalie,

who, I'll be honest, I don't watch all of these soccer games religiously, but when it comes to the World Cup, I try to.

Zion Suzuki, quite impressive. So somebody to keep an eye on, obviously, today as well.

Don Riddell, always fun having you on covering these games. Thank you.

Well, as the United States prepares to celebrate 250 years since its break with Great Britain, here's a little known fact about the birth of America.

While the founders were signing the Declaration of Independence, Britain was completely in the dark.

In fact, the British didn't realize what had happened until several weeks later.

CNN's James Frater brings us this history lesson.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

RUTH MACLEOD, ARCHIVE AND LIBRARY, NATIONAL MARITIME MUSEUM: When the Declaration of Independence was written, nobody knew how significant the

language of it was going to be and who writes the document knowing that we're going to be looking at it in 250 years' time.

JAMES FRATER, CNN PRODUCER: When the Continental Congress approved the Declaration of Independence on the afternoon of Thursday, the Fourth of

July, 1776, it took a whole six weeks before Britain learned of what had happened.

Now that, according to historians, was a pretty quick turnaround.

FRATER (voice-over): So, how did events unfold? Overnight, on the 4th into the 5th of July, copies of the Declaration were printed at John Dunlap's

print shop in Philadelphia. They were called the Dunlap Broadsides.

Within days, historians say, some of those copies had reached New York and into the hands of British informants.

On the evening of the 9th of July, the very same night New Yorkers were tearing down the statue of King George III, a copy had reached the British

fleet, blockading New York Harbor, commanded by Vice Admiral Molyneux Shuldham.

MACLEOD: They did know that this was significant. He knew that this was something that had to be reported back to London as soon as possible.

FRATER (voice-over): Vice Admiral Shuldham immediately wrote a brief letter, and a handwritten replica of the declaration was made, both

dispatched on a mail ship, the Mercury Packet.

Traveling North via Canada, the Mercury made the Atlantic crossing in just a month, arriving in Falmouth on Thursday the 8th of August. The following

day, the documents, by horse, had reached London.

FRATER: And this is Shuldham's letter. Just one surprisingly short paragraph for what you might think would be a seismic bit of news. And here

is that handwritten version of the Declaration of Independence, starting with the words "A declaration by the representatives of the United States

of America, in general Congress assembled."

FRATER (voice-over): Curators here at the National Maritime Museum in London believe this is the first complete text of the declaration to have

arrived in the U.K.

FRATER: When his letter arrived at the admiralty, what do you think the reaction was to this letter?

MACLEOD: The letter says, "this long expected," so I suspect that it was a kind of, oh, right, right. It's happened. We were kind of prepping for

this. Let's take our next steps. Let's respond.

FRATER (voice-over): Then on Saturday, the 10th of August, 37 days after it was first approved, the admiralty quietly released in the state newspaper,

word of America's decision to split from Britain.

It then took more than seven years and a revolutionary war for Britain to formally recognize America's independence.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

[12:40:03]

GOLODRYGA: A little history lesson there.

Also, a new form of cheating on exams has emerged using A.I. glasses. In parts of Asia, in obsession with top grades, has turned the region into

ground zero for this kind of cheating.

Twice last month in South Korea, people were caught using smart glasses to cheat on English proficiency exams. The emergence of the technology has

caused countries to step up inspections before testing.

It has become more prevalent as the devices and technology have become cheaper and more easily accessible.

That's becoming harder and harder to be a teacher these days with technology.

That does it for "One World" Today. I'm Bianna Golodryga. I'll be back in about 15 minutes time with "Amanpour." "African Voices" is up next.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[12:45:00]

(AFRICAN VOICES)

END