'Diddy' Jury Deadlocked
47:50 Share

With a Venmo debit card, you can Venmo more than just your friends. You can use your balance in so many ways. You can Venmo everything. Need gas? You can Venmo this. How about snacks? You can Venmo that. Your favorite band's merch? You can Venmo this. Or their next show? You can Venmo that. Visit venmo.me slash debit to learn more. The Venmo MasterCard is issued by the Bancorp Bank, and a pursuant to license by MasterCard International Incorporated card may be used everywhere MasterCard is accepted. Venmo purchase restrictions apply.

Put us in a box. Go ahead. That just gives us something to break out of. Because the next generation 2025 GMC Terrain Elevation is raising the standard of what comes standard. As far as expectations go, why meet them when you can shatter them? What we choose to challenge, we challenge completely. We are professional grade. Visit GMC.com to learn more.

It's Wednesday, July 2nd, and here's what's happening right now on CNN This Morning. The jury in the case against Sean Combs will continue deliberating today after coming to a partial verdict, the charge they are deadlocked on. Plus... Hopefully we're voting on this by tomorrow or Thursday at latest. President Trump's agenda back in the House, but it's not the same bill they passed before. We're taking a deeper look at the changes to AI and Medicaid.

And in the age of Ozempic and GLP-1s, is the body positivity movement dead or can these two trends coexist? 6 a.m. here on the East Coast and here's a live look at the Capitol where there will be another busy morning.

Hello everybody, I'm Audie Cornish. I want to thank you for waking up with me and we are going to start today with that trial of Sean Combs. It's almost over. The jury in the case reached a partial verdict, meaning on almost every count against the rat mogul.

After more than 12 hours of deliberation, the jury then told the judge that they've made a decision on four of the five counts, including sex trafficking and transportation to engage in prostitution. They seem to be deadlocked on the most serious charge, racketeering conspiracy, which carries a sentence of up to life in prison. Now, in a note to the judge, the jury writes, we have jurors with unpersuadable opinions on both sides.

The judge told them to keep at it, and they will be back in a few hours to do that. Joining me now to talk about all this, Elise Adamson, former federal prosecutor. Elise, we're almost there. It's been a long time, almost two months. Is it wild to have a partial verdict?

So I wouldn't say wild. I've seen this before when I was trying cases. It's rare. There's a lot of charges here. And as you just noted, the racketeering conspiracy was the most serious, but it was also the most complicated. And as we've discussed previously, we knew the jury might struggle reaching this racketeering conspiracy because it was a novel use of this charge. And there was a lot of evidence in this case. So I would say

not surprising that the jury is struggling a bit with this top count. So yesterday the judge was like, "Eh, maybe you go back and try some more." But I hear there's a more formal way to make that instruction, and that could come if they continue to struggle. So help me understand. Yeah, that's right. The jury is only deadlocked on this first most serious charge. All the other counts, they've indicated they've reached consensus. But when a jury deadlocks, and usually, to your point, it's not usually just one charge, it's usually the entire set of charges,

The judge wants to encourage a consensus. Nobody wants a retrial, really. It's not efficient. It leaves uncertainty to the defendant. Both sides have an interest of finality. So yesterday what happened was the judge did something called a modified Allen instruction. And what an Allen instruction is, is it's a formal charge to the jury that encourages them to reach consensus. It's to prevent misconduct.

a mistrial. There is criticism about using this particular charge. Some in the legal community find it coercive because of its language, which basically instructs the jury to go back and to re-examine their beliefs. So the judge didn't do that yesterday. Like you said, he basically said, can you guys go back and just

try to continue deliberating and reach consensus. But if they come back this morning and they say, "Judge, we continue to be hopelessly deadlocked," you might see the judge go ahead and issue that more formal language to encourage consensus in this case. - And then we're looking there at the number of jurors, women, majority men,

Is there a sense of, I mean, most of us only know this stuff from Law & SVU, so we don't have a sense of how real jury deliberations break down. What are the things that Diddy's attorneys might be worried about? What are the things that the prosecution might be worried about with these jurors?

Well, Adi, quite frankly, if I was Diddy's attorneys, I'd be extremely concerned right now. And here's why. The only charge they're deadlocked on is that racketeering conspiracy. And let's just think about what that note said. It says jurors, plural, are unpersuadable on both sides. So we know some jurors want to convict on that racketeering.

purpose of that conspiracy was to facilitate the sex trafficking. All right? So if you have some jurors that are indicating that they are going to convict on this serious and complicated count where sex trafficking is underpinning it, most likely we're going to see a conviction on those sex trafficking charges.

Because you need to have found one to find the other. Don't make any predictions yet because we have a long morning ahead. No, no, no, no, no, no. And I know that. And I mean, we said before, you don't want to, it's very hard to read a jury. I'm just saying why Diddy's attorneys are likely very nervous right now, because that is what it could mean. There was not a straight acquittal. They have been out for 13 hours. So we know that at the very least, the government put on a very persuasive case. And if you are the defense,

defendant and you are potentially looking at life in prison, you're going to be very, very nervous. So I think the defense would welcome a mistrial at the end of the day. It's better than the conviction because racketeering conspiracy carries a potential for life in prison. I think if you're the prosecution right now, you're concerned because you know at least some jurors do not believe, they have doubts and they don't believe that you have proved that case. And as we've said, a lot of people were saying it was a potential overcharge

for the facts of this case. - All right, Elise Adamson, thank you so much for explaining it. Big day ahead in that trial. Coming up on CNN this morning, that spending and tax bill just passed a key committee and its next step is to the president's desk when it could advance to the full House floor. Plus a plea deal on the table for the man accused of killing four college students in Idaho. I'm gonna talk about what's in that agreement. And is Elon Musk about to get dozed? President Trump says it's not off the table.

I don't know. I think we'll have to take a look. We might have to put Doge on Elon.

This episode is brought to you by Blink, an Amazon company. Think you're ready for Prime Day? With up to 50% off Blink smart security, you will be. With crisp HD video, real-time alerts, and two-way talk, you'll know the moment your packages arrive. Save big on Blink smart security, starting at just $19.99 with the Blink Mini 2 plug-in camera. Shop now at Amazon.com slash Blink.

I'm CNN tech reporter Claire Duffy, this week on the podcast Terms of Service. For doctors, diagnosing diseases early is a huge priority, but doctors can't know everything. In recent years, though, some doctors have added a new tool to their screening toolkit.

And that's AI. So overwhelming to be in the seat of a patient. To help me understand how this works, I invited Dr. Pierre Elias to our studio. It's super hard to try and navigate all of that information. And I think this can be a wonderful resource in helping people do that. Listen to CNN's Terms of Service with me, Claire Duffy, wherever you get your podcasts or watch it on Spotify.

President Trump's sweeping tax and spending bill now before the House barely got out of the Senate thanks to a tie-breaking vote by the vice president. I don't know what's going to happen in the House. They're going to take it up pretty soon. Do they have the votes to pass exactly what we did? I don't know. I just think we delivered for the president.

And overnight, the legislation passed a key committee in the House, and it's an important step towards that full House vote. But what does the Senate version of the so-called Big Beautiful Bill deliver for Americans? Well, according to the Congressional Budget Office, nearly 12 million more Americans will be uninsured by 2034. Fewer Americans will be able to receive food stamps, and it will be more difficult to enroll in the Affordable Care Act.

CNN senior politics writer Zachary Wolf points out that all Americans will feel the impact of this bill in its current form. He writes, just because you aren't on Medicaid doesn't mean your health care wouldn't be affected by this bill. Hospitals are warning that the steep cuts to Medicaid could force some hospitals, especially in rural locations, to close.

So joining me now in the group chat, Zach himself, author of the What Matters newsletter, Sabrina Rodriguez, national political reporter for The Washington Post, and Kristen Soltis Anderson, CNN political commentator, Republican strategist, and pollster. Welcome back, you guys.

So, Zach, I want to start with you because I remember covering Congress and all those last minute deals are what get you the votes you need. Murkowski voted for this bill. She's someone who people wondered like, is she going to, is she not? What do you think happened there?

Well, we know what happened. They gave Alaska a bunch of stuff, exemptions from SNAP cuts. They gave more money for Alaskan rural hospitals than for those in other states. And even I was reading very specific tax deductions for boat captains

in Alaska. It was very simply the way politics used to work on Capitol Hill. And it feels a little gross these days. I mean, I'm old enough to remember when after they passed Obamacare and there was the Cornhusker kickback, there was a lot of outrage. It probably cost Ben Nelson his job, the senator from Nebraska at the time. But there doesn't seem to be the same kind of outrage now just because Murkowski is this sort of very unique

And caring about her state. I want to turn to you, Kristen, because in a way we're kind of talking about winners and losers. Who are the people who kind of win, so to speak, out of this bill? Who less so? What do you see in that? So the argument that Republicans are making is that when you talk about who's going to lose health care, who's going to lose benefits,

The argument that Republicans on the Hill are making is that the people who are going to lose benefits are folks who are not legally authorized allowed to be in the country or folks who are able-bodied, working age, and are not working. And the real test is going to be, is that accurate? For things like work requirements,

for programs like Medicaid? Is the paperwork too onerous and therefore people who ought to qualify for these benefits just unable to get through the bureaucratic system to get it? Those are the sorts of things that 18 months from now I think are going to play a big role in whether there is true negative political impact

from this bill among the very voters that Donald Trump brought to the jury. - Right, you mentioned those Medicaid work requirements, also adding veterans and former foster youth to the work mandate for food stamps. And one that interests me, cap on student loans for kids and their parents who also take out loans. You know, the House Republican from Kentucky, Tom Massey, who's been kind of a thorn in the side of the caucus, opposes the bill still. And the president is threatening to primary him. And here's what that sounds like.

I just don't think he does a good job for the country. He's always a no. I call him Rand Paul Jr. He's always a no. Nothing constructive at all. I mean, just terrible. Are you seeing people head for the exits? I don't know if there's anyone left to head for the exits under the threat of primary. Are we actually going to see any real opposition here? I mean, I think of

- I think in the case of Massey, he is a very strong conservative. This is not a case of like a moderate who doesn't really know what to do with Trump. - You're talking fiscal conservative. - Fiscal conservative. In the last iteration of his back and forth with Trump, he was saying, "I've always been America first. "I've been MAGA before MAGA."

Um, so in his case, it's going to be interesting to see he represents a very conservative district and Republicans still haven't figured out exactly who they would have primary him. We've seen that Elon Musk has said he's going to throw a lot of money into that race. So that'll be an interesting one to watch. But I think for folks that we're trying to work with bipartisanship who believe in like the old days of, oh, let's negotiate and let's try and reach an agreement.

That's a lot harder to come by. I mean, we saw Senator Tom Tillis announce that he's not running for reelection. You know, Don Bacon as well. So for figures who were in that camp of, okay, I want to try and work across the aisle, that's certainly not the popular demand today. Yeah, and in the meantime, leaving kind of where we started, Alaska Senator Lisa Murkowski, who was asked about her yes vote?

Senator Paul said that this was, that your vote was a bailout for Alaska at the expense of the rest of the country. Oh my God. That's what Senator Paul said. I didn't say it ma'am, I'm just asking for your response. My response is I have an obligation to the people of the state of Alaska. Do I like this bill? No. Because I tried to take care of Alaska's interests.

Okay, group chat, stay with me. We've got a lot more to talk about in this legislation later. And you can actually read more of Zach's writing in the What Matters newsletter. It publishes on Monday through Friday. You can sign up now on CNN Online. I am a subscriber. You be too.

Ahead on CNN this morning, it's official Zoran Mamdani is the Democratic nominee for mayor of New York City. President Trump is already making false claims about him. Plus, body positivity and Ozempic. Is fatphobia on the rise because of all the new weight loss drugs? My insurance won't cover my Ozempic. I don't know how to get it. I started Trizepatide in December of 2022, where I weighed over 300 pounds. Today, I weigh about 173.

Okay, you might be among those who are planning to get those popular weight loss drugs like Inozempic or Wegovy. Well, then you might want to check with your insurance plan first as well. Some health insurers say they no longer plan to cover them as pharmacies get flooded with generic medications that are available at much lower costs.

So what happened to body positivity or in a rush to get these drugs? Is all of that kind of over now? This is what I talked about with Virginia Sol Smith. She's author of Fat Talk, Parenting in the Age of Diet Culture. Spoke to her recently on the assignment. Take a listen. You know, I think there is a co-opting of fat liberation rhetoric happening. Meaning what? Like what kind of rhetoric? Oh, the rhetoric of like weights, like your weight's not your fault. Like the weight stigma is real, right?

When Oprah sits down with a whole bunch of folks on a special and has people talk openly about experiencing weight discrimination, that's huge in terms of a cultural moment. That's giving voice to something very real that millions of Americans have been living with.

And yet then her solution is, well, don't worry, we can make you thin. So you don't have to experience that anymore. And the problem with that being the solution is it doesn't erase the underlying bias. It only codifies the bias because it says, well, we'll just make it, you know, you just won't be visible as a fat person anymore. Now you won't experience the bias. But nobody had to actually change their minds about how they felt about fat people.

All right. You can look for new episodes of The Assignment every Thursday on That Conversation and more. Coming up on CNN this morning, we're going to talk about the jury in the Sean Diddy Combs trial. Deadlocked on one count, can they reach a verdict when they re-incumbe in just a few hours? Plus, a setback in the Senate for the Trump administration in the battle to regulate AI.

Live Aid brought together the world's biggest musicians for one important cause. 40 years later, a new CNN original series explores how it came to be. Live Aid, when rock and roll took on the world. Premieres Sunday, July 13th at 9 on CNN. Good morning, everybody. I'm Adi Cornish. Thank you for joining me on CNN this morning. It's about 28 minutes past the hour here. Here's what's happening right now.

House members racing back to the Capitol as GOP leaders try to get President Trump's agenda over a final legislative hurdle. House Speaker Mike Johnson says he hopes to get the Senate version of the bill voted on no later than Thursday.

And a ceasefire deal between Israel and Hamas to end the war in Gaza remains in limbo. Israeli sources tell CNN they have not agreed to a plan to end the conflict for 60 days in exchange for hostages. President Trump had said Israel had "agreed to the necessary conditions to finalize a deal."

and in just a few hours the jury will resume deliberations in the trial of sean diddy combs they've reached a partial verdict on four of the five counts but remain deadlocked on the most serious charge of racketeering conspiracy so what is next in the trial for the rap mogul well the judge is pressing the jury to keep deliberating even as the jury told the court they have quote jurors with unpersuadable opinions on both sides

Inside the courtroom, Combs seems to be focused on his family, whispering to them before they left for the day, quote, "I'll be all right. Love you." Joining me now to talk about this case is CNN legal analyst Elliot Williams. Elliot, usually we talk about a bunch of things, but today we're going to focus on just this. What does it mean that these jurors would say sex trafficking

we think you may have done that. All these other cases, you may have done that. And then they stop at what? You may have had other people work with you in doing that? What is it that they're pausing on?

RICO or racketeering is just a far more complicated charge because you have to establish that the defendant established a criminal enterprise or was part of a criminal enterprise that served to commit a number of other criminal acts. It's just there's a lot more going on there. It's very different than saying I brought this person across state lines to have sex with them or to coerce them to engage in a sex act. So it's just a bigger, more complicated. The charge is saying I got others involved in helping me do that. Yeah.

arson, drug traffic, or arson or drug trafficking or witness tampering or sex acts or whatever else. It's just more complex. Now, you know, it's not impossible. And based on the evidence that's been established so far, certainly a jury could find a conviction on a RICO charge here. But yeah, it is just a more complex charge than the other ones here. Um, how long can the judge keep them deliberating? Well, he can keep them as long as he wants. Now, if the question is, um,

When will they actually be deadlocked? There comes a point at which a jury will say, we cannot come to a unanimous decision here. Now, it is incredibly- Because the judge said yesterday, go back in a gentle way. But he can do a more formal instruction. He can do a more formal-

instruction that says that you have a legal obligation to find unanimity in some way. Juries often come back saying that they can't agree. The judge kindly and gently sends them back into the back room. And they usually work it out or often work it out, but sometimes they can't. And as they made clear on the very first day here, at least one juror, maybe others, were so dug into their positions, even from the moment they sat down, that it did not appear that they were going to find consensus.

And before I let you go, I emphasize the jurors, the idea that there is more than one person who is unpersuadable, according to these jurors. Yeah. And again, that's not uncommon either. It's different people come in with different positions. Now, it does appear, just based on that fact, that there are at least some votes to convict.

leading to the suggestion that they're probably convicting him on some of the other charges that aren't RICO because of the fact that at least some of the people on racketeering, pardon me, on the other charges, you know what I mean? Yes, yes. At least somebody is voting to convict him on racketeering.

So we'll see what happens there. Okay. All right, Elliot, I'm sure we're going to see more of you today as this conversation continues. Do we need to? I don't know. You know, we shall see. I mean, I like you, but I'm biased. Former federal prosecutor Elliot Williams. All right, so far, President Trump's controversial tax cut and spending bills turning out to have some winners and some losers. Among the winners, big tech and AI, a proposal to block states from regulating artificial intelligence for 10 years. Well, that has been scrapped.

It was soundly defeated in the Senate on Tuesday in a 99 to 1 vote. The measure faced stiff resistance from both parties and some of the president's biggest backers. When we look to the future, we cannot take away states' rights to regulate or make laws to protect the people in their state. There should be no compromise in this. It should be

The states, they should not block the states for ten years. This moratorium against the states for ten years is absolutely outrageous.

Joining me now to discuss is Kate Nibbs, senior writer for Wired. So Kate, I wanted to talk to you because it is so rare for lawmakers to vote on something 99 to 1. And this legislation would have prevented states from regulating AI for a decade. There was an attempt at a compromise. What happened to it?

Yeah, so on Sunday night, Senator Blackburn and Senator Cruz presented Congress with updated language for the provision.

It knocked the pause down from a full 10 years to five years. And then it also included some carve outs for things like child sexual exploitation content, child safety, things that Senator Blackburn really cares about because she has a big constituency in the music industry. So things like right of publicity.

She was really hoping, I think, that they would be able to take this and make something work because the White House really wanted this moratorium in the bill. However, the response to this compromise was just about as negative as you can get. I think I saw Steve Bannon and Bernie Sanders come out against it, which you don't see very often.

I was noting that ahead of it, Howard Lutnick at the White House was saying that he supported that compromise. And he also tried to say that the reason why it was necessary, it counters attempts by Gavin Newsom to impose a divisive race-based AI agenda nationwide. Sort of the argument here that there would be kind of a rush by maybe blue states to regulate. Why do you think that argument fell short?

I think it was just completely overwhelmed by all of the very legitimate concerns that a very diverse group of people had about the language in the compromise. There were a lot of fears that the compromise's language would basically give big tech a blank check to do whatever they wanted because of how broadly it defined undue burden, which, you know,

It was just sort of sloppily written and people saw that and they just strongly opposed it. This reminds me of this hearing in May where you had some tech leaders who were asked about their concerns about heavy-handed government regulation on artificial intelligence. For example, OpenAI CEO Sam Altman said this.

I think that would be disastrous. I believe the industry is moving quickly towards figuring out the right protocols and standards here, and we need the space to innovate and to move quickly. A patchwork of regulatory overlays will cause friction in the ability to build and extend what we're doing. We have to be very careful not to have these pre-approval requirements, including at state levels, because that would really slow innovation in the country.

Kate, we've seen CEOs from the AI industry, you know, they were in the Saudi court with the president. Like they have been involved in trying to move this industry forward. But where are we now? Where does regulation go from here?

So right now, because the moratorium was stripped from the bill, state lawmakers are still capable of passing the patchwork of laws that so many of the tech CEOs fear. I think everyone involved wants there to be some sort of federal regulatory framework for AI, but we are sort of back to where we started. All right. Kate Nibbs, senior writer at Wired, where you can follow her work. Thank you so much. Thank you.

It is official Zoran Mamdani is the Democrats choice for New York City Mayor. Yesterday, a final count of the city's ranked choice votes secured him the win. He clinched the nomination during last week's primary. He's made promises of free buses, low cost grocery stores, even stopping ice from deporting New Yorkers.

who in his nomination speech said he will defy ICE and will not allow ICE to arrest criminal aliens in New York City. Your message to communist Zorhan Mandami?

Okay, a couple facts for you. Mamdani legally migrated to the U.S. as a child from Uganda. Mamdani responded to the president on Spectrum News 1 last night.

What we're seeing in President Trump's rhetoric is an attempt to focus on who I am, where I'm from, what I look like, how I sound, as opposed to what I'm actually fighting for. Because to do so would be to display the stark contrast in our sincerity and actually delivering for the very working people who've been left behind by our politics.

Group chat is back. Kristen, I want to start with you because he is obviously, because of his success in New York, become a kind of literal lightning rod, right, where people are drawn to criticizing him. House Republican Andy, I think his uncle's tweeted that Mamdani is, quote, an anti-Semitic socialist communist who will destroy the great city of New York.

which I kind of expect to hear something like that, but it was the second part, a letter to Attorney General Pam Bondi calling for him to be subject of denaturalization proceedings. He's a naturalized citizen, I think, as of 2018. You have Laura Loomer tweeting about him. Can you talk about this effort to basically say you're not American?

Not that you're a bad politician, but you're not and shouldn't be an American and maybe we should do something about that. Yeah, if you believe in free speech, then you should believe that somebody can say something you disagree with and that does not remove their right to be an American. This feels very ugly to me. And frankly, a lot of this in some ways is a gift to Mamdani. To the extent that he won this Democratic primary,

which is not a really high turnout affair and is going to be headed into a general election in November, where it's not likely that a Republican will win, but they're going to be the independent challenge from Eric Adams, etc. Being this lightning rod and being someone who is on a very national level, coming under fire from Donald Trump and from the far right of the GOP, is something that I think can only help Mamdani to kind of unify even skeptical, more centrist Democrats.

behind him. Sabrina, you're nodding. I mean, is it the idea of going after him for that versus just being a sanctuary city? I notice New York Governor Kathy Hochul saying that, you know, if you threaten to unlawfully go after one of our neighbors, you're picking a fight with 20 million New Yorkers, starting with me.

Yeah, I mean, I fully agree with what Kristen said here 100%. I mean, the reality is this is drawing even more attention to Mamdani. This is drawing even more attention to his platform. I think it's unifying people who maybe don't agree with some of the more left-leaning proposals that he has. You know, we've seen in the immediate aftermath of the election, you know, more centrist Democrats kind of struggling with, oh, you know, some of the perception around what he said before about Israel or some concerns about, you know,

wanting to do city-run grocery stores and some, again, more of the left-leaning positions that he has. But when you have Donald Trump talking about deporting him,

that sort of brings together a lot of people to say, wait a minute. I might not like some of the policy positions he has, but we're talking about something completely different. But in a way, over time, it has worked in the past to go after the reputations of members of the squad, so to speak, in the House. I don't know, Zach, how you're feeling kind of about, as I like to use from your newsletter, what matters here. I mean, I don't think that the White House minds having a fight, and they

with Mamdani, they would love to build him up and have him be kind of the person that people associate with the Democratic Party. That's something that they would invite. And I don't think that they care about if the language that they use to do it is ugly or is frankly wrong. That's not something that's going to concern them. I'm going too long here, but Kristen, I have to ask. It's one of those things where it's one thing to call someone a Muslim socialist who is not.

it's another thing when someone is basically like, you can't hurt me with those words, right? Like these are the things that he stands for. And it's a new sort of position in the Democratic Party of strength, Democratic Socialists. - This was a surprising win and it is,

I think notable about where at least the Democratic base is in a city like New York. I don't know how transferable that is to things like a broader Democratic Party nationwide, but our politics look very different than they did 10, 10 years ago. Yeah, and for a time we looked at New York and thought, are things changing there? So we'll see. Group chat, stick around. We've got a lot more to talk about. In fact, still ahead on CNN this morning as Elon Musk and Donald Trump are at it again, why the president is now threatening

to turn Doge on the former first buddy. Plus, Republicans are racing to pass Trump's agenda through Congress. But what will that actually mean for you? We're gonna take a closer look at how the cuts to Medicaid could be felt for millions. More from our friends here at the table after this.

I wish every senator who voted for this had to shadow a doctor like me for just one day. They'd see the patients that I had to talk to about affording their chemotherapy, mothers rationing their kids insulin because they can't afford it, and people dying too young, not because medicine failed them, but because finances did.

Okay, so Medicaid may in fact end up looking very different if the President's spending bill passes and now Republicans seek to add a new work requirement that could impact millions. It's part of an effort to rein in the nation's safety net program with up to a trillion dollars in cuts. While the bill would cap and reduce taxes states impose on hospitals, it would also require most adults to work, volunteer or study 80 hours a month to qualify for enrollment.

So what does that mean for the millions of people who rely on the program? Well, we're joined now by Julie Rovner, Chief Washington Correspondent for Kaiser Family Foundation Health News. Julie, good morning. - Good morning. - So I wanna talk about this work requirement. The idea of work requirements is not new. States have done it for a while. Can you talk about what's distinct about how it's done in this bill?

Yeah, most people on Medicaid already meet these requirements. They either work or they go to school or they care for someone at home. The problem isn't the work requirement itself. The problem is the paperwork that's involved with the work requirement. What we found in states that have tried to do this is that people have difficulty reporting these activities or

proving that they've done these things. They have trouble uploading documents. Someone described it as like having to file your income taxes every month. That's how eligible people end up losing coverage. And indeed, the Congressional Budget Office says that perhaps as many as 12 million people could lose coverage if this bill becomes law.

I also want to talk about the effect on hospitals because I don't always understand hospital math, right? How do changes to Medicaid affect everybody else? What does it mean for that industry?

Well, people get sick regardless of whether they have insurance. So if they have Medicaid and they get sick and they come to the hospital, the hospitals get paid. They don't necessarily get paid as much as they would if the people had private insurance or Medicare, but they do get paid something. If these people lose their insurance, they're still going to come to the hospital. The hospital is still going to treat them, but now they won't get paid. This is a huge problem for hospitals.

that have large populations of Medicaid patients. That includes inner city urban hospitals, but also rural hospitals where a lot of people are on Medicaid. So if these people become uninsured, the hospitals could well go under. And finally, the math. I don't know if it's semantics about whether these are cuts or changes or increases. Help me understand the talking points.

Yeah, this goes back years and years and years to when Congress used to try to cut Medicare and there were arguments that we're not really cutting it. It's true that Medicaid spending will continue to grow, but if it doesn't keep up with the cost of health care or the number of the numbers who are eligible, then there will be less money there for these hospitals, for these people. So, yes, the

In the aggregate, Medicaid spending will go up, but that doesn't mean that people won't lose their coverage and hospitals won't be hurt by the fact that they're going to have to treat patients who don't have any insurance. Julie Rovner is chief Washington correspondent for Kaiser Family Foundation Health News. Thank you, Julie. Thank you. It is now 50 minutes past the hour. Here's your morning roundup.

Paramount agrees to pay a $16 million settlement over Trump's 60 Minutes interview lawsuit last year. Trump accused the company of editing a question with former presidential candidate Kamala Harris. Now, as part of the settlement, Paramount agrees to release full transcripts of all future presidential candidates. The settlement money will go directly to Trump's future presidential library. Notably, the settlement does not include an apology.

And the man accused of killing four college students in Idaho is set to enter a plea deal today. The deal helps Brian Koberger avoid the death penalty. At least one of the victim's families is not happy with this. There are still so many questions unanswered that likely would have come out during the trial, including why the students were targeted.

And overnight, the European wildfires have now turned deadly in Spain. Two people were killed. It's a combination of extreme winds and record high heat that are causing these dangerous conditions. But some relief is in sight. A cold front is expected to move in by midweek.

And a California warehouse of fireworks up in flames. You can see multiple explosions sparked at the facility yesterday. This is, of course, just days before the 4th of July holiday. It's unclear what caused the blast and officials have not yet said whether anybody was hurt.

And in the next few hours, we're going to learn Tesla's latest sales numbers. Wall Street analysts are bracing for more fallout from CEO Elon Musk's latest feud with Donald Trump. Tesla's share prices slipped again this week as Musk reopens his battle with the president over the tax and spending bill making its way through Congress.

Musk has been slamming the bill for increasing the deficit and says members who vote for it will, quote, lose their primary next year if it is the last thing I do on this earth. The latest attacks from the former first buddy are drawing the ire of President Trump. He's now threatening to unleash Musk's old government job, the Department of Government Efficiency, against the man who created it in the first place. You might have to put those on, Elon. You know? You know what those is?

He always uses the monster that might have to go back and eat Elon. Wouldn't that be terrible? He gets a lot of subsidies. Musk responding to those comments on X, writing, so tempting to escalate this. So, so tempting. But I will refrain for now. The group chat is back. It's the last thing he'll do on Earth, folks. But he's planning to go to Mars. So I feel like maybe...

That's not so long. Interesting out. I don't know. I don't know. Okay, so let me go back to what's in the tax and spending bill, if we can put that up, because one of the things I notice is an end to EV tax credits, and Tesla, of course, would like automated vehicles, and Tesla itself benefits from these tax credits. Are we looking at a business spat, or just this is really a personal breakdown? Because I thought Musk had apologized or at least withdrawn. Anyone? Anyone?

Who knows? But it's definitely a spat. I think that's what we can confirm. You know, Elon Musk's politics are so weird in a lot of ways because on the one hand, he's very interested in climate change. He wants to go to Mars because he feels like the human race is going to end if we don't get interplanetary. There's something driving him there. But he also wants very little government. So, I mean, the guy is kind of...

- I know, well, no, it's interesting you say that 'cause I think of that very much in line with the tech right, which is what he's the leader of, right? Like they care about population, they care about clean energy. It doesn't fall along the typical party lines. - Well, and what makes it extra challenging for Musk in particular is that so many of the businesses that he has

are in markets that are not sort of good commercial ripe markets for consumers. So you are reliant on yet. And so you are reliant on government contracts for your rockets, for tax credits for your cars. I mean, I think some of his other companies are things like they bore a lot of tunnels. That's the sort of thing where you can see there being a big role between his business and the government.

It's kind of tough when you're also of the mind that government ought to be doing as little as possible. But it's also personal. I mean, they had a close relationship. You know, Elon Musk was on the campaign trail with Trump, was really locked in at the beginning of this administration. I mean, he became sort of like the boogeyman for Democrats framing everything around what Elon Musk was doing. So some of this just feels like a really bad breakup that has like gone to the public and hearing sort of that back and forth over, yes, policy, but again, just like a

personal personal gripes. So there may not be this like big movement behind him, political movement. But looking at the latest Quinnipiac poll, it did find that the big, beautiful bill has taken a big hit in this debate and this you're nodding. Is that true? Well, the big, beautiful bill. I mean, most polls are showing opposition as a majority or higher. Yeah, this one's from Quinnipiac. It's tough about polling. This bill is like the Cheesecake Factory menu of

policies, everything is in there. And so Republicans are voting for it because it has some things that they really love, even if there are some things that maybe not all of them love, as we saw in that Murkowski clip earlier. And that means that how you frame it in a question, which items off that menu you decide to put at the foreground of your poll question will affect it. I've also seen polling that says if you talk about it as we're going to make sure that benefits are just for legal Americans and we're going to have work requirements, that those things can test well.

The question is when they're implemented, then what does it look like for the other people? - Yeah, and something we played earlier, I wanna bring back Lisa Murkowski of Alaska. This is a good example of the awkwardness now around talking about this thing, right? You mentioned in your newsletter that she managed to get what she needed done for her state.

Yeah, and you know, her state needs a lot of federal funding. I think it's more federal spending per resident than most, the vast majority of states, maybe not the most, but it's a lot. At the same time, there are a lot of people on Medicaid in Alaska. So this bill will disproportionately affect

them in a way that I don't think she really understands. And by the way, that sound bite was so amazing because she- Oh, we gotta play this again. So somebody actually asked her about her vote. She voted yes on the bill after a lot of reluctance. Here that is. Senator Paul said that this was, that your vote was a bailout for Alaska at the expense of the rest of the country. Oh my God. That's what Senator Paul said. I said it was easy. Senator, we've got the- I didn't say it, ma'am. I'm just asking for your response.

My response is I have an obligation to the people of the state of Alaska. Do I like this bill? No. Because I try to take care of Alaska's interests.

Okay, as an ex-Senate reporter, that was the longest 14 seconds of silence in my life. I still feel it, and it wasn't my question. But it's like, you know, she needs an Oscar for that because she was going to get that question. She looked so surprised, but she absolutely knew that was coming, and she had to know how she was going to answer it.

But thanks to, you know, Ryan Nobles, our former colleague, he stuck with it and didn't give up. So good for him. And I want to ask you guys now what you're keeping an eye on. We are just here in the middle of the week. We're obviously paying attention to the Diddy verdict, maybe, and this House vote. Sabrina, can I talk to you? What are you keeping an eye on?

Tariffs. The deadline, the 90-day deadline that President Trump had set to negotiate. With all these countries. With all these countries is up next week. How many people have actually made deals so far? Very limited. They've made headway on certain conversations, but in terms of the 90 deals in 90 days, we're very far from that.

And Trump himself said this week in an interview that he, you know, was, well, we don't need to have deals with all of them. So I think the tariff conversation is going to come back up. And I will say personally, I'm following a lot of Love Island. So that's my love. Island is a job I can't commit. Kristen, you what are you keeping an eye on? So much more boring than that.

I'm keeping an eye on this North Carolina Senate race. It's one of the most contested Senate races that's going to be coming up next year. Democrats obviously eager, if not to outright win control of the Senate, to at least make some inroads, make it harder for Republicans to corral all of their, herd all of their cats over there, so to speak. And the possibility that Lara Trump could enter this race. I expect that she would clear the field because I don't think anybody wants to be on the other side of the Trump family in a contest like that. So that's

Okay, Zach, last minute to you. Does Elon Musk follow through with his America Party? And what does that look like? Who does this thing appeal to? Like, you know, we talked about his weird politics before, but just, you know, the idea of a third party. You have a Democratic Socialist in, you know, winning the Democratic primary in New York. You have Elon Musk on the right. Both people that Donald Trump apparently wants to try to deport, by the way. So, you know, kind of an interesting...

And both people who have a deft use of social media. Elon Musk, just through the sheer force of will, and Mamdani, just showing you can really execute in that social media space where you can get a lot of attention and momentum and break through sometimes with mainstream audiences. You guys, thank you. We talked about a lot today. We did it all. I want to thank you all for being with us, for waking up with us. I'm Adi Cornish, and CNN News Central starts right now.

This week on The Assignment with me, Adi Cornish. George Takei is a cultural force. Teachers and librarians are the pillars of democracy. They can teach that even great presidents can be stampeded by hysteria. I'm talking to George Takei about the cost of silence, the power of protest, and what his life says about democracy in a moment when it feels like it's under threat.

Listen to The Assignment with me, Audie Cornish, streaming now on your favorite podcast app. Why would rich kids get in the business of killing? The CNN original series Billionaire Boys Club goes inside the shocking story of 1980s greed and murder. Watch the premiere Sunday, July 13th at 10 on CNN.