Return to Transcripts main page

The Situation Room

Trump Appeals to Supreme Court on Immigration Removals; Trump Issues More Controversial Pardons; Hamas Leader Killed?; New Visa Restrictions. Aired 11-11:30a ET

Aired May 28, 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)

[11:01:17]

WOLF BLITZER, CNN HOST: Happening now: caught in limbo. With their school year wrapping up, international students at Harvard University are now facing a very uncertain future, as President Trump takes direct aim at the prestigious university.

Welcome to our viewers here in the United States and around the world. I'm Wolf Blitzer. Pamela Brown is on assignment today. You're in THE SITUATION ROOM.

ANNOUNCER: This is CNN breaking news.

BLITZER: And we begin this hour with the breaking news.

Secretary of State Marco Rubio is announcing a new visa restriction policy. He says it applies to -- quote -- "foreign officials and persons who are complicit in censoring Americans."

Let's go live right now to CNN national security correspondent Kylie Atwood. She's following all of this over at the State Department.

Kylie, tell our viewers what more you're learning.

KYLIE ATWOOD, CNN NATIONAL SECURITY CORRESPONDENT: Well, listen, Wolf, this just came through in the last hour, so we're trying to wrap our arms around it, but the secretary of state announcing in a statement that there's going to be new visa restrictions from the State Department for those who are seeking to censor Americans, censor Americans' free speech, who are responsible for that free speech, saying in a statement that the encroachments on American sovereignty are not going to be accepted by the Trump administration.

I want to read to you a portion of this statement from the secretary, saying: "It's unacceptable for foreign officials to issue or threaten arrest warrants on U.S. citizens or U.S. residents for social media posts on American platforms while physically present on U.S. soil. It's similarly unacceptable for foreign officials to demand that American tech platforms adopt global content moderation policies or engage in censorship activity that reaches beyond their authority and into the United States."

Now, we know that countries around the world have taken action or threatened to take action against American social media platforms like Twitter if they haven't made changes that the countries are demanding of them. We have seen Elon Musk stand up in some of those fights. So this could have connections potentially to Elon Musk.

What we don't know are the examples of those foreign officials who are threatening warrants against Americans for what they're saying on social media. We're looking to learn for some examples of that.

But, Wolf, we should note that this comes as the administration itself has been going after -- kicking out some foreign students here in the United States, revoking their visas because they have taken part in Gaza protests. It also comes on the heels of what the State Department is now engaged in, an effort to bolster its vetting, social media vetting, of student visa applications here to the United States.

So there's a lot going on in this visa space right now from the Trump administration, and all of this is unfolding simultaneously. We're trying to figure out what exactly it means for that entirety of that process, when someone applies for a visa in the United States, what that entire process is really now going to look like.

BLITZER: Yes, lots of questions need to be answered.

Kylie Atwood at the State Department for us, thank you very much.

Meanwhile, international students hoping to study in the United States are facing a very uncertain future, as the State Department pauses all new student visa appointments to -- quote -- "expand social media screening and vetting."

All this comes as current international students at Harvard University find themselves swept up in the escalating feud between their school and the White House. The nation's oldest university will head back to court tomorrow as it fights for its ability to enroll international students, who, by the way, make up more than a quarter of the world's largest university student body.

[11:05:13]

Joining us now for more on all of this is Zilin Ma, a Harvard Ph.D. student from China who has spent the last decade studying here in the United States.

Zilin, thanks so much for joining us.

You graduate tomorrow. What's it been like living through all of this these past several days and weeks?

ZILIN MA, HARVARD UNIVERSITY PH.D. STUDENT: It -- definitely, it feels kind of chaotic. There's a lot of uncertainties that we don't know about.

Tomorrow, there's a hearing. I guess we will find out live during our graduation what's going to happen to the future students and the students who is going to graduate and work in the United States, because the work permit is also attached to the student visa.

So, I should have felt more celebratory, but because of this shocking news, everybody right now is feeling very uncertain.

BLITZER: What are you hearing, Zilin, from other international students at Harvard University?

MA: So, while everybody is waiting for the hearing tomorrow, I think people felt very puzzled, very shocked because everybody -- all the international here are just doing their research, conducting faithful contributions to the scientific community in the United States.

And they're -- when -- while they're met with this kind of news, they, as expected, will feel very sad and then shocked. And I just want to mention that a lot of people still have work to do right now, but I can see that there are -- although, given those pressure, they're still working on their important projects.

BLITZER: Has this impacted, Zilin, your plans following graduation?

MA: My current plan is still to finishing up my research at the Harvard Business School. I haven't made any changes to this plan yet waiting for the hearing.

But, if anything, I'm thinking about plan B's of if the proceeding -- I mean, if this passes the -- more proceeds, then I probably have to find another way to finish out my research.

BLITZER: The White House has unveiled various steps to cut out all new federal research grants at Harvard University. Your Ph.D. work includes research to support humanitarian negotiations in developing countries.

How important has funding been to your research?

MA: I would say funding is the most important thing. That's like the oxygen to research.

So, we pay -- you -- the fundings are used to pay us, the student workers, to pay the study participants, to pay the software licensing, publication fees, everything. So, basically everything that is important at Harvard regarding research is being funded by those federal fundings.

So it will be devastating for the university and for the future of American scientific research if all of those fundings are gone.

BLITZER: What's your message, Zilin, to the White House?

MA: My message is very simple, that we have followed every rule. We have got our visa. We have passed all of the checks. And we have paid a ton of taxes in federal, state, and sometimes even Social Security that we may never benefit from. We're contributing to the U.S. scientific research, education, and

economy, and we shouldn't be the one facing uncertainty at this point. And then, currently, I think the U.S. is sending a message that international talents are not welcome. If that's the case, then people will stop coming.

And, if that happens, the next breakthrough in artificial intelligence, next cancer research, the next Nobel Prize, it will happen somewhere else. And I think this is much bigger than immigration. It is about whether the U.S. wants to lead still in science, tech, and education or give that up.

And we're not asking for special treatment. We're simply asking to be doing the work that benefits everyone.

BLITZER: Zilin Ma, thank you so much for joining us. We really appreciate it.

(CROSSTALK)

BLITZER: And as I have said on many occasions, I went to graduate school at the Johns Hopkins University School of Advanced International Studies here in Washington, D.C., and there were many international students who I met there, got to be friendly with, and I learned so much from them.

[11:10:05]

It was really -- it was really wonderful to meet with all the international students. And I feel bad for a new generation, potentially -- I hope it doesn't happen -- of American graduate students and undergraduate students who won't have that benefit of getting some insight from a lot of foreign students.

So, Zilin, thanks once again for joining us.

And we're also following more breaking news right now. The Israeli prime minister, Benjamin Netanyahu, says the de facto leader of Hamas in Gaza is dead. Netanyahu says Mohammed Sinwar was killed in a recent airstrike in Gaza. He's the brother of Yahya Sinwar, who also led the terror group in Gaza before an Israeli strike killed him back in October.

Let's get right to CNN Jerusalem correspondent Jeremy Diamond.

What more, Jeremy, do we know about Sinwar's death and the impact, potentially, it will have on Israel's war with Hamas?

JEREMY DIAMOND, CNN JERUSALEM CORRESPONDENT: Well, Wolf, it's been two weeks now since the Israeli military carried out this airstrike targeting Hamas' de facto leader in Gaza, Mohammed Sinwar.

Over the course of the last two weeks, we have been told that he was likely killed. But today is the first time that we have heard from the Israeli prime minister directly saying that Sinwar was in fact killed in this strike, although we should note that the Israeli military, which would typically confirm a high-profile killing like this, has yet to put out a statement about his death.

The Israeli prime minister made these comments as he was listing a slew of Hamas leaders whom Israel has killed over the course of this war, arguing, in his words, that Israel has changed the face of the Middle East. Now, Sinwar was considered to be as hard-line a figure as his brother Yahya, whom he succeeded as the de facto leader of Hamas in Gaza.

He was also considered to be one of the architects of the October 7 massacre that Israel -- that Hamas carried out on October 7 and the kidnapping of 250-plus Israelis on that day. The question now is, what will the impact be on the war itself? It is unlikely to lead to a conclusion of this war.

Israel has made clear that its goals go beyond the killing of any one leader of Hamas, but, rather, routing Hamas from power entirely in Gaza. Sinwar did also have a role in the cease-fire and hostage deal negotiations. And now the question is, who will the new de facto leader of Hamas be in Gaza, who will have to green light any cease- fire or hostage release deal going forward in order for it to be carried out on the ground?

And there's some uncertainty about that at this moment. And while Sinwar has been described as someone who stood in the way of cease- fire negotiations in the past, he was also the one who ultimately green-lit the release of the Israeli-American Edan Alexander, in the hopes that it could lead to broader negotiations to end the war.

The day after Edan Alexander's release, Wolf, is when Israel carried out that strike targeting and ultimately killing, according to the Israeli prime minister, Mohammed Sinwar.

BLITZER: And, as you know, Jeremy, the former Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert is now blasting the country's current political and military leadership in a brand-new interview with CNN, saying he can no longer defend Israel's military actions.

Tell our viewers what else Ehud Olmert is saying.

DIAMOND: Listen, he's saying that what he is seeing on the ground in Gaza, for him, is that Israel is committing actions, in his words, which -- quote -- "can't be interpreted any other way" than committing war crimes.

He is obviously not the first to accuse the Israeli military of conduct -- of carrying out war crimes in the Gaza Strip. A number of humanitarian and human rights organizations have accused Israel of the same thing.

But to hear it from a former Israeli prime minister, even one considered to be on the left wing of the spectrum like Ehud Olmert, truly is quite striking. And he mostly lays the blame at the feet of the Israeli prime minister, Benjamin Netanyahu, whom he accuses of effectively prolonging this war as a war of political survival.

Now, most Israelis will likely disagree with Ehud Olmert's comments. But criticism of the war is indeed growing in Israel, and, certainly, opposition to the continuation of the war has reached new heights, with a majority of the Israeli public favoring an end of the war and a deal that will free the remaining 58 hostages over the expanded military campaign that we are now watching the Israeli government and the Israeli military beginning to carry out.

And so, ultimately, Wolf, the Israeli government insisting that this campaign is happening to pressure Hamas at the negotiating table, to increase its leverage there, so far, that strategy has not yielded the results Israel would like to see, but those negotiations, of course, Wolf, very much ongoing.

BLITZER: Yes, very significant statement from Ehud Olmert indeed.

[11:15:03]

All right, Jeremy Diamond, thank you very much.

Jeremy is in Tel Aviv.

Still ahead: new questions this morning after President Trump pardoned a reality TV couple known for its over-the-top lifestyle who was once convicted of fraud and tax evasion.

Plus, President Trump once again asking the U.S. Supreme Court to give his aggressive immigration policies the green light. We will have details.

Stay with us. You're in THE SITUATION ROOM.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[11:20:15]

BLITZER: We're following the latest presidential pardons.

President Trump has issued full pardons to reality TV couple Todd and Julie Chrisley. Their claims to fame stem from their show "Chrisley Knows Best," as well as their 2022 convictions for conspiracy to defraud banks out of more than $30 million.

And this follows President Trump announcing on Monday that he would pardon a former Virginia sheriff who was sentenced to 10 years in prison, federal prison, I should say, as part of a $75,000 bribes-for- badges scheme.

Joining us now to discuss this and more, former federal prosecutor Alyse Adamson.

Alyse, thanks for joining us.

We should note that the Chrisley daughter spoke at the Republican National Convention last year and was -- has been a very vocal Trump supporter. What's your reaction to these two pardons?

ALYSE ADAMSON, FORMER FEDERAL PROSECUTOR: Wolf, she also gave -- the daughter Savannah Chrisley also gave an interview to FOX News' Lara Trump recently, and she has been on this campaign to get her parents pardoned for some time now.

There's another pardon that also recently happened, that of Paul Walczak for tax evasion. And the reporting said that his mother had recently attended a fund-raiser at Mar-a-Lago.

So I think, taken together, along with the dismissal of the Eric Adams indictment, seems to be signaling that it pays to be in the Trump orbit, and I think also more broadly that the Trump administration is de-emphasizing these fraud and public corruption-type cases, which sets a very dangerous precedent because it essentially says to potential fraudsters, the government is not looking at you.

Because, if the president will pardon folks for committing these types of offenses, it's unlikely that they would then target, DOJ would target such crimes and prioritize them.

BLITZER: As a former federal prosecutor -- and you are a former federal prosecutor -- is that something that prosecutors prepare themselves for, that the convictions from the cases they work on, sometimes for a long, long time, could actually be pardoned?

ADAMSON: Wolf, absolutely not.

I will just say that the president enjoys wide latitude in granting these pardons. It's his constitutional right, his authority under Article II, Section II. But presidents have exercised restraint and discretion with the granting of these pardons. We don't see pardons being given to complex white-collar fraud criminals, especially like the Chrisleys, who went to a jury trial and were convicted by a jury of their peers.

There's also no indication that they were victims of political weaponization. They committed a crime and they were found guilty. So, no, when prosecutors spend years investigating these cases, they bring them and they try them, they know that they might get reversed on appeal for technical legal issues, but a president kind of deciding that a pardon is appropriate because of a family campaign is not something that is on the mind of federal prosecutors.

BLITZER: Alyse Adamson, thank you so much. Appreciate it.

ADAMSON: Thanks, Wolf.

BLITZER: President Donald Trump is also asking the U.S. Supreme Court now to make it easier for the Department of Homeland Security to deport migrants to countries they have no connection to at all.

Trump's appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court comes just days after the administration tried to transfer detainees to war-torn South Sudan without giving them a meaningful opportunity to contest their removal. The case could test conservatives on the court, who often side with the president, but have been more wary on various issues of immigration.

CNN correspondent Priscilla Alvarez is here with me in THE SITUATION ROOM.

So, what else are you learning? What's the latest?

PRISCILLA ALVAREZ, CNN CORRESPONDENT: Well, Wolf, this has been a case that dates back to earlier this year, and it was sort of just moving along, until it absolutely took off when the administration tried to send detainees to South Sudan.

Now, the position that this judge has taken in his orders was essentially the administration could send migrants to countries where they have no ties as long as there was some level of due process, so an ability to contest their removal, for example, to those countries and given reasonable notice that they were going to be sent there.

Well, when the administration tried to send migrants to South Sudan, the judge found that they had completely flouted what he had said, because they were told on Monday evening they would be going there and then they were flown there on Tuesday morning, which he said was certainly not enough.

Well, this is not sitting well with the Trump administration, which has been pushing the bounds of the law on the issues of immigration. And this is exactly where the Supreme Court has been a bit wary, because, while the administration does have wide latitude on issues of immigration and national security, they also -- the Supreme Court has said that migrants also need to have some level of due process, even if they haven't fully defined what that looks like.

[11:25:09]

Now, the administration yesterday in their ask of the Supreme Court said the following -- quote -- "As a result, the United States has been put into the intolerable choice of holding these aliens for additional proceedings at a military facility on foreign soil, where each day of their continued confinement risks grave harm to American foreign policy or bringing these convicted criminals back to America."

I will say, Wolf, what is interesting about this case and something that we saw in a judge -- the judge's order earlier this week is essentially him saying, I did what you wanted me to do. I narrowed my ask to you, the administration, to give these migrants due process. You said that you wanted to do these reasonable fear interviews where they are, in this case, a military base in Djibouti. I'm not requiring you. I didn't require you to bring them back.

So there is an interesting tension at play here, which is going to be interesting to see how the Supreme Court interprets that, because, clearly, the judge was leaving some room to say, look, I'm going to narrow this as much as possible because you have asked me to do as much.

So we will see how the Supreme Court decides on these matters. Of course, immigration has been landing at their door multiple times already during the Trump administration, because there's this constant tug-of-war between the judiciary and the executive on just how far they can go when it comes to deporting migrants, and, in this very specific case, deporting migrants, I should also note, Wolf, migrants with criminal records, to South Sudan, a country that they have no connection to.

BLITZER: Because there was some talk the other day of the Trump administration wanted to deport migrants to Libya as well. What's the latest on that?

ALVAREZ: Well, these are conversations that have been ongoing across the administration to send migrants to multiple different countries, far-flung countries.

Now, Libya has pushed back on this. The administration does not appear to have moved in this direction. But attorneys had said that some of these migrants had been told initially that they were going to be sent to Libya.

So what it is telling of, Wolf, is, ultimately, that there continues to be a push within the administration to find countries that are willing to take migrants that are not their own, it's not their home country, as they try to up their deportation numbers, because, at the end of the day, some countries are just really hard to send people back to because of icy diplomatic relations and the rest.

So this is an opportunity for the administration they see to deport them, even if it's not their home country.

BLITZER: Priscilla Alvarez, expertise, thank you very, very much.

And, up next, we're talking with former FBI Director James Comey weeks after his social media post led to a U.S. Secret Service investigation -- why he calls the whole thing life-altering.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)