Return to Transcripts main page

What We Know with Max Foster

Supreme Court Strikes Down Trump's Sweeping Global Tariffs; U.K. Police Contacting Andrew's Royal Protection Officers; Ford Carrier Strike Group Headed Toward Middle East. Aired 3-4p ET

Aired February 20, 2026 - 15:00   ET

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

[15:01:12]

MAX FOSTER, CNN HOST: Donald Trump's tariffs are ruled to be illegal.

This is WHAT WE KNOW.

This has been an extraordinary day in Washington, with the U.S. Supreme Court tossing aside one of Donald Trump's signature policies, and the

president responding with unusual anger. The court has ruled President Trump's sweeping global tariffs illegal. Three conservative justices led by

Chief justice John Roberts, joined with the court's three liberals to strike down a central piece of Mr. Trump's foreign policy.

Simply put, they say the president cannot make decisions like this on his own. He must get congressional approval. The chief justice called it a

breathtaking assertion of power by President Trump. The court did not say what should happen to the billions of dollars of tariffs already collected

by the U.S. government.

And then it was Donald Trump's turn to respond, and he blasted the Supreme Court decision, taking shot after shot at the nation's top legal authority.

He blamed foreign interests for influencing the court, and said the liberals on the court hate America. He vowed to use other methods to

accomplish his economic goals, and announced a new 10 percent tariff he says he has the authority to impose after all of that.

Now, when asked why he wouldn't just work with Congress to come up with a tariff plan, he said, "I don't have to."

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

DONALD TRUMP, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: The Supreme Court's ruling on tariffs is deeply disappointing and I'm ashamed of certain members of the

court absolutely ashamed for not having the courage to do what's right for our country. The very unpatriotic and disloyal to our constitution. It's my

opinion that the court has been swayed by foreign interests.

I am allowed to cut off any and all trade or business with that same country. In other words, I can destroy the trade. I can destroy the

country. I'm even allowed to impose a foreign country destroying embargo. I can embargo. I can do anything I want but I can't charge $1.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

FOSTER: Let's go to the White House, CNN's Kevin Liptak.

So from what we read from the Supreme Court, it was very clear that Trump needed congressional approval for tariffs. And Trump literally is saying

the opposite. So what's the truth?

KEVIN LIPTAK, CNN SENIOR WHITE HOUSE CORRESPONDENT: I think the truth is that he has no support. He doesn't have enough support in congress if he

were to go to them to ask them to approve his tariffs. Yes, the court was pretty explicit about where the authority lies. I think if President Trump

thought that he would be able to get some of his duties passed through Congress, he probably would have at least attempted it by now. But it is

clear, I think, that there are enough Republicans on Capitol Hill who are willing to vote against him, that that was never a realistic opportunity,

which is, in the end why he ended up at the Supreme Court in the first place.

You know, this was a remarkable appearance by the president in the briefing room. We haven't seen any of his predecessors lash out quite that acidly at

the Supreme Court. And it was very specifically directed towards those two conservative justices Amy Coney Barrett and Neil Gorsuch who appointed

during his first term, accusing them of being lap dogs, saying that they were under foreign influence although he couldn't provide any evidence to

that, and saying that their families should be ashamed of them.

And it is, I think, just more evidence that when the president selects someone for one of these supposedly independent positions, he really does

expect them to go along with whatever he wants them to do, whether it's at the Federal Reserve, whether it's at the FCC or now, whether it's at the

Supreme Court.

Now I think it was pretty clear that the president had given actually quite a bit of thought about what he would do if the court ruled against him. And

we know behind the scenes there has been, in fact, a lot of legwork at the White House to try and come up with a way to replace the emergency tariffs

with other initiatives.

[15:05:08]

And the president did announce there that he would be applying a 10 percent global tariff using a separate authority, it's called the 122 authority.

Now, there are some issues with all of these other sort of provisions that the White House plans to do. The 122 authority only allows the president to

put in place tariffs for 150 days.

And so that brings us about to the end of July. This is also never been used before. No president has actually used the 122 authority to apply new

tariffs and so that could potentially just end up in the courts as well.

The president also suggested that he would go, you know, these routes using Section 232, Section 301, all these, you know various numbers, those

require investigations. And those will take some time. And I think the reality is that nothing is going to be sort of easy going forward. If the

president wants to use the tariffs that the way he has been using them, which is essentially as leverage, not just in trade negotiations but in

foreign policy generally.

And so, this was a blow probably the biggest blow to any president's policy priorities and policy projects in recent memory. Clearly, the president

recognized that and seemed to be lashing out in sort of equitable form particularly against those justices who he essentially suggested had

betrayed him.

FOSTER: What's more powerful, the Supreme Court or the White House?

LIPTAK: They are equal. The constitution has denoted that very explicitly. Three co-equal branches of government. I think the president is obviously

aware of that. Every American grade school student learns that when they're young.

I don't think as president, he necessarily respects the division of powers. And I think because Congress is one of those three co-equal branches, and

Congress at present is run by Republicans who have essentially ceded all of the authority that they carry to the White House. He has been given such

wide purview in the executive authorities that he uses that. I think that is part of why the president seemed so wounded today, because it has been

so rare that his uses of executive power have been reined in in the way that the court did it today including in the past by the court itself.

You know, for as much as the president wants to go after the court today, he actually has a fairly good record at the Supreme Court, including the

ruling that granted presidential immunity. And many could have argued, essentially got him elected in the first place. And so, you know, that is

part of why I think the president appeared so upset today is that he is not accustomed to having his powers reined in.

FOSTER: Okay, Kevin really appreciate you clarifying all of that from the White House. An extraordinary day. This decision only came about because

two Supreme Court justices nominated by Donald Trump went against him. Neil Gorsuch and Amy Coney Barrett both joined the majority in a 6-3 ruling.

And in his written opinion, Gorsuch acknowledged it might not be popular, saying for those who think it's important for the nation to impose more

tariffs, I understand that today's decision will be disappointing. Yes, legislating can be hard and take time. And yes, it can be tempting to

bypass Congress when some pressing problem arises. But the deliberate nature of the legislative process was the whole point of its design.

Let's bring in our chief legal affairs correspondent Paula Reid.

These tariffs have affected, you know, millions of businesses in America and indeed around the world. Where does this leave them?

PAULA REID, CNN CHIEF LEGAL AFFAIRS CORRESPONDENT: It's unclear right now because it in the decision, the Supreme Court did not lay out a plan for

exactly how refunds would be issued. Justice Kavanaugh really focused on this in his dissent, and he said this was also said in the arguments. But

he went back quoting the argument, saying, this is likely going to be a mess because this will result sort of in a lawyer full employment act. This

all being litigated by lower courts.

Now, the president in his press conference he suggested that they were going to take a different route, that refunds won't be necessary. But

that's his opinion. That's -- you didn't hear the solicitor general who was on stage saying that, or any other legal voice in his administration saying

that they won't be litigating these refunds.

So, at this point, it really is unclear exactly how this will all play out in the court. And look, there's even a chance that all of this could go

back up to the Supreme Court depending on how the White House decides to proceed. But it's the Supreme Court's job to interpret the law, not

necessarily to lay out a plan of action once they decide it.

FOSTER: So, if a business wants a refund or wants to stop paying tariffs is the only option right now to test it in court.

PAULA REID, CNN CHIEF LEGAL AFFAIRS CORRESPONDENT: I would consult, I would imagine they would consult their in-house counsel or their lawyers and say,

hey what's our next move? There's a lot of uncertainty around this because the Supreme Court decision, in and of itself made it clear that he cannot

implement this group of tariffs under this specific law, didn't lay out how refunds would be issued. But then he said today at a press conference, he's

going to try some other avenues, things that he might be able to do at least one of which though, president has never used one of these sections

before.

So, this is going to be complicated. This is why businesses hopefully have good lawyers.

FOSTER: Yeah, absolutely. Paula, thank you so much. Many of them small businesses though, aren't they?

And the Supreme Court ruling is already having ripple effects around the world. One of the first major questions is what happens to the tariffs that

have been collected, of course, and Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh voted to keep the tariffs in his dissent, he wrote that the refund process

is likely to be a mess. One group of economists estimates that the U.S. has collected more than $175 billion in tariffs.

Donald Trump predicts that this will take years of lawsuits and slam the Supreme Court for not addressing it more

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

TRUMP: They take months and months to write an opinion, and they don't even discuss that point. We've taken in hundreds of billions of dollars, not

millions, hundreds of billions of dollars. And so, I said, well, what happens to all the money that we took in? It wasn't discussed. Wouldn't you

think they would have put one sentence in there saying that, keep the money or don't keep the money, right? I guess it has to get litigated for the

next two years.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

FOSTER: What we don't know is will the U.S. government have to pay out these tariff refunds?

Joining me now is Betsey Stevenson. She's a professor of economics at the University of Michigan.

I guess it wasn't up to the Supreme Court to clarify that. That's up to government to resolve, right?

BETSEY STEVENSON, PROFESSOR OF ECONOMICS, UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN: Yeah. I don't think that that was the question that was at the heart of the Supreme

Courts case here. It was, does the president have legal authority to impose sweeping tariffs under the Emergency Powers Act? And the answer was no, the

president doesn't have that authority.

Now that the presidents been doing something he didn't have the authority to do for, you know, the past eight or nine months, that's a mess that's

going to have to be cleaned up. But that wasn't what this case was about.

And really, the idea that we should just give the president that power because it would be too messy to clean up the past to me, is absurd because

the case is a permanent decision, not about tariffs, but about whether that particular piece of legislation gives the president legal authority. The

answer is no. And now, we're going to have to figure out how you know, how we mitigate him having done the wrong thing.

FOSTER: So, who's going to sort it out?

STEVENSON: Well, I do think it's going to end up with the courts. But look, the bottom line is a lot of this has been paid by consumers, and consumers

aren't going to get any kind of refund even if it goes back to the businesses you know, they're unlikely to pass it along to the exact

consumers who paid it.

In a lot of ways, you know, what's done is done. I obviously think businesses that have a lot of money on at stake, as Trump has said,

businesses and consumers, American consumers and American businesses have paid billions of dollars in taxes that the Supreme Court just said the

president didn't have the authority to levy. So, they will try to get their money back for sure.

But there's nothing in today's decision that is going, that speaks to that particular issue. And I think that the president is right in saying this is

going to take a long time to iron out, and it probably will have something to do with whether or not he's able to make other tariffs stick under other

authorities, how the courts might view the refunds.

FOSTER: So, his response to not being able to use tariffs was to increase them by 10 percent as you say, businesses will be thinking about getting

refunds, but do they pay the extra 10 percent?

STEVENSON: Yeah, exactly. So, I mean, the president is just going to say look, if I didn't have it under this authority, I have it under that

authority. He already said he is levying these 10 percent tariffs using a different authority than the one the Supreme Court ruled on.

And so, those will be legal. But he only has the right to do those for 150 days. So, he can't say retroactively that's what I was actually using.

They're going to go on right away, and then he'll have to figure out what he's going to do after July.

At the end of the day, broad sweeping tariffs are supposed to be approved by Congress. The president doesn't agree with that.

And today, I think the Supreme Court said pretty clearly, you know, it really is something that's supposed to go through Congress because you're

talking about a massive change in how we tax American consumers, where Americans and we're putting taxes on Americans based on what they're buying

from abroad. And that's something that both Congress and the president should agree on.

[15:15:04]

FOSTER: Betsey Stevenson, you're going to spend some time trying to make sense of this I know, but thank you so much for joining us.

Coming up, released from custody but still under investigation. We'll have the latest details following that stunning arrest of Andrew Mountbatten-

Windsor.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

FOSTER: We have new details following the arrest of Andrew Mountbatten- Windsor. Police say they are now contacting both serving and former protection officers asking what they have seen or heard during their period

of service with the royals.

And British lawmakers are considering introducing legislation to remove Andrew from the royal line of succession. That is, according to media

reports here in the U.K. Andrew is currently eighth in line to the throne, though authorities haven't said what led to his arrest. They have been

looking into claims he shared sensitive information with the late sex offender Jeffrey Epstein, while serving as U.K.'s trade envoy. He has

denied wrongdoing and hasn't been charged.

Now, police say the search of Andrew's former home in Berkshire will likely continue until Monday. This as the British royal family faces its biggest

crisis in decades.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

REPORTER: Your majesty, how are you feeling after your brother's arrest?

FOSTER (voice-over): Keep calm and carry on.

Britain's wartime motto, seemingly what King Charles is going with as his brother Andrew's legal woes unfold. Charles promises full support for the

investigation, saying the law must take its course.

We're now learning that London police are now contacting former Prince Andrew's personal protection officers. They're also assessing U.S. DOJ

documents suggesting that London airports were being used to facilitate human trafficking.

But as searches continued at one of Andrew's former properties on Friday, experts warning the investigation into the former prince could be slow.

GRAHAM WETTONE, RETIRED LONDON MET POLICE OFFICER: Looking for offenses relating to any potential misconduct in public office.

[15:20:00]

So, documents, emails electronic messages, those sort of materials which obviously can these days can be held on like flash drives and USBs. So, it

would be a very slow and methodical search.

FOSTER (voice-over): Now released from custody, police haven't said what led to Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor arrest on suspicion of misconduct in

public office, but it came after a tranche of documents relating to convicted sex offender Jeffrey Epstein were made public by the U.S.

Department of Justice. Some of the emails released appear to allegedly show Andrew sending confidential U.K. government trade material to the late

Epstein, whilst the appearance of someone's name in the files is not evidence of wrongdoing, Thames Valley Police previously said it was

assessing whether Andrew shared confidential material with Epstein during his time as a U.K. trade envoy from 2001 to 2011.

The former prince hasn't responded to the newest allegations, but he has consistently denied any wrongdoing related to Epstein, even claiming he

terminated his friendship with a convicted sex offender back in 2010. Still the sheer complexity and publicity around the case also why some experts

believe it may take some time for police to finish their investigation.

DAL BABU, FORMER CHIEF SUPERINTENDENT, MET POLICE: There's not a great deal of sympathy, but the police have a duty of care to everybody they arrest.

They want to make sure that he receives all the support.

FOSTER: Whilst the authorities go through due process. The U.K. government is now coming under more pressure to act, and that's because Andrew,

despite being stripped of his titles is still eighth in line to the throne. According to a poll released on Friday, 82 percent of Britons want him

removed from the line of succession.

FOSTER (voice-over): So far, the government seems to be keen to see the investigation play out. But with mounting calls from lawmakers and the

public, that resolve may be tested in the weeks to come.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

FOSTER: Later in the program, I'll be speaking to Attorney Gloria Allred about the latest developments in the Epstein case.

Now, British media outlets report that Prime Minister Starmer has blocked the U.S. from using its air bases for possible strikes on Iran. Mr. Starmer

has reportedly said their use could break international law. This as the U.S. moves one of the world's most advanced military assets, the USS Gerald

R. Ford, a carrier strike group, to the Middle East. It's all part of Donald Trump's pressure campaign on Iran to agree to a new nuclear deal.

Meanwhile, satellite imagery shows Iran is fortifying and hiding several of its nuclear facilities.

For more, I'm joined by U.S. security correspondent Kylie Atwood, live from Washington, D.C.

Obviously, the president has said that negotiation is his first option here, but there appears to be a sticking point.

KYLIE ATWOOD, CNN U.S. SECURITY CORRESPONDENT: There appeared to be a few sticking points really. Obviously, the first of which is, you know, if Iran

will be allowed to continue enriching uranium. Notably, during an interview earlier today, the Iranian foreign minister said that in diplomatic talks,

the U.S. lately has not said that it is their position that Iran not be allowed to enrich any uranium. That's a significant statement given we have

heard different statements from the president saying that Iran shouldn't be able to enrich anything.

So, it appears that behind closed doors, perhaps negotiators are allowing a little bit more room for maneuverability with Iran. That could indicate

their willingness, their desire to get to a deal. Given U.S. officials say that is President Trump's end state. But in the backdrop as you said,

players are preparing for the possibility that the U.S. does strike inside of Iran, with the U.K. telling the United States that they could not use

U.K. bases if those strikes were carried out. That's significant because the U.S. often relies on its allies military resources in the region for

strikes such as this.

Also the Iranians, as you said, fortifying what is left of their nuclear program with concrete, with then covering it with soil. Questions, of

course, about how effective those measures would be if the United States actually carried out really forceful attacks on that site that we have seen

in these satellite images has been covered, but it's clear that there are preparations by U.S. allies and, of course, by Iran. And as the United

States is building up its military presence.

As soon as this weekend, the U.S. military could be in a place where it could carry out strikes inside Iran and we know that the flip side of the

coin, you know, in in conjunction with the allies who are saying that the U.S. shouldn't go forward with this strike, is Israel, and they are saying

that the United States should go ahead with this strike. We know from Israeli sources that there are preparations in Israel for the possibility

of joint U.S. Israel military action against Iran that could be prolonged, going beyond the 12-day war that we saw play out in June of last year on

Iran.

[15:25:03]

So this is a very precarious problem set right now for the region and, of course, for the administration as well, who have not definitively made the

point in terms of why they think these strikes are necessary. President Trump, obviously, earlier this year was talking about how horrific the

Iranian crackdown on protesters was in the country. Now he has focused his ire back on Iran's nuclear capacity even though he said that those nuclear

resources were completely devastated following the U.S. strikes last year.

So, it's a little bit unclear exactly what the administration is setting out to accomplish here. But we'll watch and see what happens in the coming

days. President Trump has his State of the Union Address here in Washington on Tuesday night.

FOSTER: Okay, okay, Kylie, on the U.S. Capitol, thank you so much.

Now, still to come more on our top story. President Trump lashing out at the U.S. Supreme Court after its ruling on tariffs what he threatened to do

next.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

FOSTER: Returning then to our top story, U.S. President Donald Trump planning to invoke new trade authorities, including a global 10 percent

tariff. The move comes in response to the Supreme Court ruling Mr. Trump's previous use of tariffs was illegal. There are several sections within

current trade laws that the president said would give him more power to raise what he called potentially higher tariffs. The issue at the Supreme

Court was whether a president could rely on an emergency law to level a tariff without express approval from Congress. The Supreme Court said Mr.

Trump cannot. President Trump has made it clear since the beginning of his second term that many of his policies, both domestic and international,

rely on tariffs.

[15:30:00]

And here's what he said in the past.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

TRUMP: The number one country, anywhere in history, in the world anywhere in history for investment coming into the country and it's amazing. And

it's because of tariffs.

This money would not be possible without tariffs. The tariffs are taking in, you know, hundreds of billions of dollars. And we're giving some up to

the farmers.

Look, I'm ending war because of these tariffs. Americans would have to fight in some of these wars.

If you took away tariffs, we could end up being a third world country.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

FOSTER: CNN's senior political analyst, Ron Brownstein joins us.

Ron, this is a massive blow to him, isn't it? This is one of his benchmark policies. Certainly, the foreign policy.

RON BROWNSTEIN, CNN SENIOR POLITICAL ANALYST: Yeah, it's something that he is believed in for a long time. You know, a lot of Trump's views have

evolved over the years. But on tariffs, he's been extraordinarily consistent. On the other hand, Max, this is something that has consistently

really from the outset been quite unpopular with the American public. I mean, he was elected above all because people thought he would alleviate

the squeeze they felt when their cost of living, and largely because of the tariffs he now has consistently in polls, a majority of the country saying

he is intensifying rather than alleviating the strains on their living standards.

I can tell you that a lot of Republicans facing voters this fall were hoping were expecting the Supreme Court to rule against him and were hoping

that he would take that as a kind of an off ramp to back away from the tariffs. But instead, as you noted, he has doubled down, and says he

intends to pursue the same goals by other means.

FOSTER: A difficult, you know, unpopular amongst the public but also unpopular in Congress, which is presumably why he never went through

Congress in the first place

BROWNSTEIN : Right. Yeah. And but, you know, you have this situation where Republicans, I think, you know, on every front, are reluctant to publicly

confront Trump. And as I say, there were plenty of Republicans in Congress who were hoping that the Supreme Court would kind of do their work for

them. By invalidating these tariffs and thus providing Trump a way to kind of reposition on an issue that is clearly hurting them with the public.

Well, the Supreme Court invalidated the tariffs but instead Trump attacked the court and said that he intends to, you know continue seeking these

tariffs through other means and across the board. Global tariff for a few months while he launches the specific investigations needed to replace

these on a sector by sector or country by country basis. So, he is doubling down, I think, and cementing this policy even more, identifying himself

even more firmly with this policy because the court gave him the option to move in another direction. And he is very clearly choosing not to.

FOSTER: But he's battling with a group of lawyers, isn't he? So presumably if this ends up being bounced back to the Supreme Court you know, when he's

using these other powers effectively to install this 10 percent tariff increase, they're just going to come up with the same result, aren't they?

They haven't got much choice.

BROWNSTEIN: Well, we don't know. We don't know what the court will do. I mean, the court the majority said today that this ruling didn't prejudge

their verdict on any other authorities that Trump is using or might use in the future.

But I think the key political thing is that it's unlikely its virtually certain that his alternatives, particularly the across the board tariffs

that he said are going to affect within three days are going to be sued, and were going to see this move through the courts again. But it's not

likely to get to the Supreme Court. It may very well not get to the Supreme Court before the election.

And again, you know, these tariffs are facing 55, 60 percent opposition from the public in in polling. And it's highly likely that they will --

something of this nature will still be in place on election day. At the same time, the Republicans who are hoping that there might be some refund

or rebate for the tariffs that voters will be getting before November, and Trump kind of made clear today he's not moving down that front at all

saying that this would have to be litigated and probably wouldn't be decided for several more years.

So, if you're a Republican who didn't want to confront Trump in public, but were privately hoping these tariffs would go away, you're kind of getting

the worst of all possible outcomes today.

FOSTER: Presumably, Democrats are just watching this unfold with glee, because if its working against his, you know, base, then they just have to

sit and watch it happen and hope for the best for the midterms, right?

BROWNSTEIN: Yeah. Well, I mean, I think look, I always thought the Supreme Court would, would rule against him on this because it is kind of a twofer

for the Republican appointees. It offers a chance to display independence from Trump while also doing something that most Republican elites wanted

them to do in the first place.

Democrats have been surprisingly tight lipped on tariffs. You know, kind of that ancestral tie like Labour in the U.K. to organize labor has made them

reluctant to criticize these tariffs to the extent that public opinion would suggest.

[15:35:06]

They really haven't been jumping up and down to get rid of them. I think, as you say, they prefer to kind of stay out of it and let Trump and

Republicans fight about it while, you know, kind of in a -- in a more muted way, alluding to the tariffs as a pressure on peoples cost of living.

Again, you can't underestimate the extent to which Trump won in `24 because people thought he was going to make their life more affordable and now you

have close to two to one in polls saying that they believe his agenda is making life less, not more affordable. And that is the core problem facing

Republicans in this midterm election.

FOSTER: Okay. Thanks so much for that, Ron Brownstein.

Well, we haven't seen massive swings in the stock market since this tariff decision came out. If, in fact, the Dow has been seesawing between small

gains and small losses.

This is our Business Breakout.

The tariffs ruling wasn't even the start of the bad economic news for Donald Trump today. GDP numbers this morning showed the U.S. economy grew

at a much slower pace in the final quarter of last year. Growth came in at 1.4 percent, compared to more than 4 percent in the quarter before that.

Meanwhile, the calls have been have begun for the U.S. government to issue tariff refunds. As Ron was saying, the California governor, Gavin Newsom,

said it was time for Donald Trump to cough up after the Supreme Court ruling, California filed a legal challenge against the tariffs last April.

JPMorgan Chase has hit back at Donald Trump's lawsuit against the bank. The U.S. president is alleging that JPMorgan improperly removed him as a client

for political reasons back in 2021 and is also suing its CEO, Jamie Dimon. JPMorgan has now filed to move the case from a state court in Florida to a

federal one.

So, it's been a double whammy of economic setbacks then for Donald Trump with the tariff's decision and those GDP numbers, Mr. Trump insisted that

the U.S. economy is still, in his words, hot.

Joining us now is CNN's global economic analyst Rana Foroohar.

Thank you so much for joining us your columnist and editor with "The Financial Times". Of course. I mean, I was surprised to see the market

reaction today because it was such a profound moment wasn't it, to hear that the tariffs were illegal but you suddenly realize, don't you, it's

pretty complicated.

RANA FOROOHAR, CNN GLOBAL ECONOMIC ANALYST: Well, indeed, I think you wrapped it up well there. It was a significant moment for any number of

reasons. One, the sheer amount of money in play here. We're talking about, you know, billions over 175 billion by some counts of tariffs that have

been collected, which may now be flowing back to companies. You've got all the lawsuits that are going to be associated with that. So, it really is a

tangle.

But you know, on the upside, this shows that the Supreme Court is doing their job. I mean, the Supreme Court under Trump has been accused of being

quite political, letting his agenda go through. This is a ruling that says, you know, we may be a Republican-oriented Supreme Court appointed by

Republicans, but we're going to do what we think is right and what we think the rule of the law is.

So, lots to unpack. And I think the market is only just beginning to digest what is going to take weeks, months and even years to sort out

FOSTER: As you say, a lot of it will be worked out in court. Large companies can afford that, but many smaller companies have really suffered

because these tariffs, haven't they? Not just in America but around the world. Many of them have folded and they can't afford to go to court.

FOROOHAR: You know, it's a -- it's a great point. I'm so glad that you brought that up because there are so many vectors pushing against small and

midsize companies right now. I mean, we really are in an era of hyper corporate concentration, and you see all the things that that affects, you

see that the stock market in the U.S. is basically five large companies. It's being driven by the tech giants still.

You see the fact that small businesses can't afford to go to court over tariffs and many of them have folded, as you say. You see the fact that

they can't really optimize their supply chains to deal with geopolitical conflicts, you know like what we may see in Iran at some point again, these

are all penalizing small and mid-sized players. That actually has a geographic implication in the U.S. because a lot of the companies that are

in middle America in some of the places that really need growth, tend to be small and midsize companies, wealth tends to be a little more concentrated

on the -- on the coasts.

FOSTER: And if we go down another level to the consumers -- I mean, am I right in saying they're not going to win at all in this? Even if the

companies get money back? How likely are they to pass it along to the consumers who have actually been paying higher prices because of these

tariffs?

FOROOHAR: Yeah. No, it's -- it's a really important point. Companies may sue and over the course of months or years get money back from the

government. Consumers are not going to get that money back. So, anything that you've already spent on a good that is higher priced because of a

tariff, you're not seeing that back.

Are you going to see prices falling dramatically as a result? I don't think so. It's kind of a truism in economic circles that once people become used

to prices at a certain level, they rarely go down unless there's a big structural shift in the economy.

[15:40:09]

Inflation is sticky, and that's one of the reasons why the Fed and Central Bankers and policymakers work so hard to try and limit it.

FOSTER: Okay. Rana Foroohar, thank you so much for your analysis. Fascinating as ever.

Now still to come, police are now -- want to talk to ex-Prince Andrew's former protection officers as part of their investigation into Jeffrey

Epstein's crimes.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

FOSTER: Police are investigating Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor's links to convicted sex offender Jeffrey Epstein on multiple fronts. The Metropolitan

Police are now contacting the former prince's protection officers for any information that could assist their investigation.

Police are also looking into claims London airports may have been used to facilitate human trafficking and sexual exploitation in connection to

Epstein, Mountbatten-Windsor has faced scrutiny for years over his friendship with the disgraced financier. He has denied all accusations

against him and insisted he never witnessed or suspected any of the behavior of which Epstein is accused.

The former prince is under investigation for misconduct in public office. Not yet commented on those accusations. They are away from the sexual

misconduct accusations.

So, what we want to know is, will U.S. authorities make the same moves as U.S. authorities in the Epstein investigation?

Joining me now is Gloria Allred, an attorney for several of Jeffrey Epsteins survivors and a regular, sadly, actually, Gloria, I have to say on

this show, because we so often have to come to you.

But as I say, you know this police investigation currently in the U.K. isn't about sexual exploitation. It's about exploitation of his role. But I

did think of you and the last thing you said to me about how you are looking for accountability on this.

[15:45:03]

And, you know, the key thing, I guess for you is that not that he was questioned because he probably wouldn't have said much, but the fact that

they now have full access to his computers and emails and that will perhaps give you the light you're looking for into this web, at least a crack.

GLORIA ALLRED, ATTORNEY FOR JEFFREY EPSTEIN SURVIVORS: Well, I totally agree with you, Max, because after all it is the emails in the released

Epstein files in the United States that has led, or at least assisted the U.K. law enforcement in their pursuit of Andrew, formerly known as prince.

The emails that they discovered were from the estate of Jeffrey Epstein and those were not long ago provided to the -- to the law enforcement. In other

words, the Department of Justice.

So, yes emails. Texts, other forms of electronic communication are very important, in the trail of the relationship between Jeffrey Epstein and

Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor.

FOSTER: Speaking to a retired police officer yesterday, asking him about the protection officers because obviously, Andrew always had protection

officers with him. And I was told that there's a log of exactly where he goes when. I asked what sort of detail there might be beyond that, he said

you know, sometimes there's some details, sometimes there isn't.

But there was a debate at the time about how the protection officers were actually becoming too close to the people that they were protecting, but we

would at least that's an interesting investigation as well, isn't it? Because we would at least know where Andrew had been.

ALLRED: Well, that's really important. And I was very encouraged today when I heard that they are on the trail of where flights landed in London and

other parts of the U.K. because I was concerned that maybe, the crimes against children, the crimes against women, the sex trafficking would not

have been the priority or was no longer the priority or at all the priority of law enforcement in the U.K. But certainly, it is.

And so that's important because if Jeffrey Epstein was using private airports or public airport or both to sex trafficked women and or girls

into the U.K., then that is very important information. And whoever assisted him enabled him, supported him in doing so, needs to be held

accountable.

FOSTER: How does this all help you in your battle to make the Americans in Epstein's circles face similar accountability?

ALLRED: Well, you know, it's -- I don't think its going to happen in the criminal justice system. And the reason I say that and the evidence for my

statement, Max, is that in the last dump of the millions of pages of the Epstein files that were released as a result of the Epstein Files

Transparency Act passed by Congress and signed by the president, the deputy attorney general, Todd Blanche, of the DOJ said that there were not going

to be any prosecutions of men.

So, in other words, in a way, he's made up his mind doesn't want to be confused by the facts, is my opinion of what he was saying. So, unlike the

U.K., which for me is the gold standard for holding accountable those in the Jeffrey Epstein orbit, you know, and causing them to suffer

consequences because of their relationship with him.

The United States is far beyond and that is very troubling. But the survivors are persisting nonetheless, I'm glad to hear today, for example,

that there's an announcement of a class action settlement of a lawsuit against the estate because of the Zorro ranch in New Mexico, where Mr.

Epstein trafficked some of the underage girls. In other words, children as sex trafficked them there, potentially adults as well.

And so, that's a form of civil compensation from the estate to the victims for what they suffered at his ranch.

FOSTER: Yeah. It's amazing to think there's anything left in that estate. Just a final thought, you know, I know that you --

ALLRED: I think there is, yes.

[15:50:01]

FOSTER: Okay. Yeah. Obviously, we're talking here about misconduct in public office being investigated here in the U.K.

ALLRED: Yes.

FOSTER: Is it shocking to you that that's where the progress is being made? Not at the central place where all this started, which was sexual

misconduct. Where's the progress there?

ALLRED: Well, you're absolutely right. You're absolutely right.

I mean at this point, it seems that crimes against women and girls taking a back seat to the investigation of an allegation of misconduct in revealing

a state secret. So, in other words, financial improprieties, revealing information about U.K. trade policies that could benefit rich, powerful,

famous other businesspeople. You know that seems to have been a priority nonetheless if they are now trying to trail of what Epstein did and who was

involved with him in --

FOSTER: Okay, we're going to -- we've obviously got a problem there with the signal. But, Gloria, we always appreciate having her on representing

many of the survivors there.

We'll be back in a moment.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

FOSTER: President Donald Trump is ordering U.S. government agencies to release files related to alien life and UFOs. It's not clear what

information is in the records or when they'll be released. In a 2024 report, the Pentagon said it has found no evidence of alien life.

This past weekend, former President Barack Obama made news raised eyebrows when he told a podcaster that aliens are, quote, "Real, but I haven't seen

them".

Mr. Obama later said he was referring to the statistical likelihood of life on other planets.

Earlier this week, I spoke to the legendary astrophysicist Neil deGrasse Tyson. His new book is all about alien encounters, and he told me he

doesn't believe there's a cover up about encounters with alien life.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

NEIL DEGRASSE TYSON, ASTROPHYSICIST: Well, just consider how many people have paraded in front of congress in the past three years, insiders, people

who say they have direct contact with aliens. That's not a cover up anymore if everybody -- if insiders are saying they've met aliens.

[15:55:05]

How much of a cover up is that? So, and they're worried how the public will react. By the time you roll out an alien, it'll be anticlimactic, because

everyone would have already confessed to having seen one.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

FOSTER: DeGrasse Tyson, they're really saying it as it is. He's a scientist, of course. And he said he would, you know, if anyone knew, he

would know effectively. So, let's see what's in the report.

I'm Max Foster. That's WHAT WE KNOW. Do stay with CNN. We'll have more after this short break.

END

TO ORDER VIDEOTAPES AND TRANSCRIPTS OF CNN INTERNATIONAL PROGRAMMING, PLEASE CALL 800-CNN-NEWS