and pg&e has been a partner helping us to achieve that. we've helped the marine mammal center go solar, install electric vehicle charging stations, and become more energy efficient. pg&e has allowed us to be the most sustainable organization we can be. any time you help a customer, it's a really good feeling. it's especially so when it's a customer that's doing such good and important work for the environment. together, we're building a better california. >> announcer: this is cnn breaking news. it is 3:00 a.m. on the u.s. east coast. welcome to our viewers here in

the united states and around the world. i'm george howell at cnn world headquarters in atlanta. >> i'm max foster in london, and we are following breaking news for you this hour. >> max, good to be with you. a big loss for the u.s. president and his controversial travel ban. the decision came down thursday. a panel of three judges on a u.s. appeals court ruled to keep the ban on hold. as a result, people from seven mostly muslim countries can continue coming to the united states. the president signed the executive order two weeks ago. he says it is necessary to keep terrorists out of the united states. mr. trump reacted to the decision almost immediately on twitter. you see the reaction here. see you in court, the security of our nation is at stake, he says. >> it's a political decision that we're going to see them in court and i look forward to doing it. >> you believe the judges -- >> we have a situation where the security of our country is at stake, and it's a very, very serious situation. so we look forward, as i just

said, to seeing them in court. >> the background here, washington state and minnesota challenged the travel ban. washington's attorney general, bob ferguson, called the appeals court ruling a complete victory. listen. >> well, we've seen him in court twice, and we're two for two. that's number one. and in my view, the future of the constitution is at stake. >> it is a big decision. where do we go from here? cnn's dan simon is at the ninth circuit court of appeals in san francisco with this report for us. >> reporter: following the ruling, we did not see any anti-donald trump protesters outside of the ninth circuit. but had the ruling gone the other way, this plaza would be full of protesters. as for the ruling itself, the fact that two of the judges were appointed by democratic presidents should be no surprise what the end result was. but i think what is striking was

the tone, that this was a clear rebuke of this executive order. there were questions about the constitution at of the order. there were also questions whether or not there are threats around the world in these seven predominantly muslim countries that would justify this kind of order. it's almost as if part of the ruling was written by former secretaries of state john kerry and madeleine albright. they themselves wrote a declaration to this court saying they were not aware of any specific threat anywhere in the world that would justify this kind of executive order. from here, of course, this ruling is most likely going to head to the supreme court. given the ideological split, 4-4, what happens there if in fact you have a tie, the ninth circuit court of appeal will be the default ruling. that will be the law of the land. san simon, cnn, san francisco. >> thank you so much. let's get some context now on this big ruling. bringing in cnn legal analyst and civil rights attorney areva

martin live with us in los angeles. and former assistant chief deputy at the u.s. justice department, ron baum ya. it's going to have you both with us this hour. let's start with the first logical question here, the question that many people will be asking given this ruling. what will the trump administration do next given what happened? we saw the tweet that we showed just a few minutes ago. see you in court. and his adviser, kellyanne conway, had this to say just shortly after the ruling came down. let's listen to it, and we can talk about it here on the other side. >> does he see this as a set back? >> he sees it as the statute provides a president with great latitude and authority to protect the citizens and protect the nation's national security. this was not argued on the merits. now they'll have an opportunity to argue on the merits. we look forward to doing that. we look forward to prevailing. i think his tweet was perfect when he said, we'll see you in court. >> so the president saying we'll see you in court. this is a president who likes to

talk about winning. in this case, he certainly lost in court. ron, to you. you used to work at the justice department. where do you think the administration came up short in this case? what should be their line of attack moving forward if they want to win? >> well, a couple things. first of all, their only line of attacks -- well, there's two possible lines of attack. one is to go to an en banc hearing, which means a bigger panel of the ninth circuit court of appeal would hear the case, but that's a loser because three of those ten judges who would hear the case on an en banc panel are the three who just heard it. the odds are you're going to lose there. next is to go back to district court and litigate it there in front of judge robart, but that doesn't seem to be a very optimistic result for them. there's also the third option and a fourth option. the third option is to appeal to the supreme court after judge robart makes a final ruling on the tro, making it a permanent order. then you could appeal to the supreme court when you have a final ruling. or you could do what i would

recommend, and that's just withdraw your executive order as it's now written and rewrite it to address some of the concerns that were raised by the district court and make it more bulletproof for future review. >> so ron laying out a couple of scenarios there. areva, leaning on your expertise here, what are the risks should the trump administration take this to the supreme court? >> well, we know that the supreme court is short one justice, so we're talking about an eight-member court at this time, four of whom are likely to vote in favor of trump because of their backgrounds, but four who are likely to vote against him. and if he loses at the supreme court, if there's a tie between these eight justices, then the decision by the ninth circuit becomes the binding decision. trump is in a very, very difficult position. he's talked about the risks that the country faces from these seven countries, but he hasn't presented one shred of evidence. and the court, the ninth circuit court in its opinion called

trump out. they called out the administration for failing to present any credible evidence to justify this threat to our national security. and to date, we keep hearing about it in tweets. we keep hearing about it from his representatives, but it wasn't presented as evidence to the court. and courts are very different. you can't make these preposterous statements or these ambiguous statements without backing it up with documentation and evidence, and he failed to do that. his administration failed to do that. and if they don't have that evidence, they're going to continue to lose in court. so i don't see that he has very many options at this point. >> the u.s. system set up with checks and balances, and we're seeing that play out in this case. the president has gone after judges in the past, calling them so-called judges, specifically talking about a judge in washington state who ruled against the travel ban, suggesting that the decisions of those who disagree -- these judges who disagree with him, that they could be politically motivated. we heard from the governor of

washington state about this, and he had this to stay. let's listen. >> this president has an alarming attribute if you call it that or characteristic that when he loses, he tries to undermine respect for the judicial system. i have never seen that in my lifetime. richard nixon never even stooped that low. it's very important. there's nothing wrong with disagreeing with a court decision, but to try to undermine it, to call them so-called judges, to argue that their motivation is political rather than their judicial decision making, that's way out of line, and it's dangerous to our democracy where we do have to maintain a separation of powers. >> so areva, first to you. governor inslee suggesting here that the president trying to delegitimize his opponents, which in this case is the judicial branch. is there a danger in what's happening here, or does the president have some ground to stand on here? >> well, he has no grounds to stand on, and it's absolutely absurd that the president of the

united states is issuing statements and making statements to suggest that the judiciary is not doing what it is called upon to do. we've seen this, though, with donald trump throughout his campaign. if he didn't like something that a judge did, he would make some kind of disparaging remark about that judge. and there was a poll that came out tonight that i think is very interesting. it was a poll amongst donald trump's supporters, and they said overwhelmingly so that donald trump shouldn't have to follow the orders of a judge or decisions that are issued by a court. and the more he undermines the integrity of the judiciary, i think it's throwing red meat to his base. and the more they make statements such as he somehow is above the law and doesn't have to follow legitimate orders from the court, i think this is very dangerous, and hopefully the new attorney general, jeff sessions, will take a different approach and start to show the kind of respect for the judiciary that you would expect from the

president of the united states. >> ron, same question to you. this is a president who has been called a counterpuncher. you punch him, he punches back harder is what the critics say. but in this case, the punches don't seem to be landing when it comes to the judicial branch. >> well, areva is totally wrong on everything. first of all, president obama criticized the supreme court in the citizens united case. nobody complained about that. the threat or fear of somebody not following the rule of law, i don't hear people complaining about these sanctuary cities who are disregarding federal law. i don't find those arguments very compelling at all. the court in this case when they asked for evidence of the dangerousness of these countries, that's not their role. the law is very clear it's not their role. it's the executive branch's decision to make that call, not the courts. when you have the courts overstepping as the ninth circuit did and as judge robart did, that's when you have chaos. we have separation of powers.

when we try to write laws as judges or when judges try to write laws, people should be speak out and should be upset by that. that's not the way the country is supposed to work. the law is clear that the president has this authority over immigration. the congress gave it to him. now, they bent over backwards to find ways to find jurisdiction for the state of washington, which when you read the opinion it's kind of ridiculous to say because the university of washington has students that may be affected by this, that gives them standing. that's a big stretch. only when you get a court that wants to be activist do you get these rulings like this. so the president has legal footing. he has all the right in the world to go after this. unfortunately for him, he's in the wrong forum. >> george, can i respond to that? first of all, my name is areva, and to equate what president obama did with respect to comments about judges with what donald trump has done is ridiculous. president obama never made personal attacks on judges the

way that president trump has. so you can't even equate those two. and to say that the court is wrong, we have now two decisions by two courts, judges that have been appointed by republicans saying that the ban basically, although we haven't gotten to the merits, but have not upheld the ban by president trump. so when you say that the court's wrong, you're essentially saying that both federal courts got it wrong and that the only -- >> they did. >> and the only one right here is president trump? no. there's no evidence to support that. >> guys i'm going to have to stop you both there. we've seen the decision of two courts now. if this goes to the supreme court, we would have to wait to see what that decision is. also important to point out to our viewers that the ruling that came down today is not based on the merits of the case. it's simply based on the temporary restraining order. so, again, we can certainly get into the conversation about the merits of the case, but that has not been decided by the courts. it's good to have both of you and your opinions on this. we'll stay in touch with you

both. >> thank you. >> max, back to you. george, we're going to have a look at some of the politics at play here with donald trump's travel ban. we have the foreign editor of the sunday times. he joins me here in london. it's a test, isn't it? it's an interesting test with donald trump because he came into office very much on that ticket on immigration, his immigration policy. he's now trying to put it into force, and he's facing resistance. so it's an interesting process to see how he responds to this. >> it is indeed. this is really the first reality check, isn't it? this is donald trump coming up against the realities of the american system, separation of powers, the executive separate from the judiciary. he's fallen at the first test, and he's not happy about it as one would expect. >> but then we've got a taste of how he responds to that as well. he's basically going to go all the way to the supreme court obviously. >> he is going to do that. he's going to bluster about it. we've will this explosive tweet. he's going to go to the supreme court, but how long is that going to take? also when he gets to the supreme court, is he going to win there

because at the moment we got his nominee for the court hasn't yet come in. so we've got a court that's evenly split between four liberals, four more conservatives. there's no guarantee he's going to win there either. then what does he do? >> how does he set himself up for a possible loss in that because he would have been thinking about that surely. >> i think so. we saw a little bit of an indication of this, that he made some comments yesterday, i think, suggesting that he had actually wanted -- he asked for a delay. i mean come on. how plausible is that? >> so then he can blame the rollout of the policy for its failure. >> he can, and i think -- i mean in a sense he's in a sort of a win-win situation i think because even though, crazy as that sounds, even if he actually loses ultimately in the supreme court, he can appeal to his base. he can say, look, i wanted to protect your country. these judges, these unelected judges are not allowing me to do that. if anything bad happens, it's their fault. it's not my fault. >> he did trade on fear to a large extent.

this idea that america is under threat. i'm trying to protect you. will he not let his base down, though, if he loses this case? it will look as though he hasn't been able to protect them. >> i think that will only happen if something terrible happens, if, god forbid, there were to be a terrorist incident and it were in the u.s. and it were to involve someone that came from one of those countries. then again, you know, what can he do? he will say he had tried his hardest but the judges stopped him. i think the reality is that no doubt he will move on to another issue. this is the way that trump works. something seems to be a huge issue for 24 hours, then, ping another tweet lands and we're on to something else. >> your expertise in international relations, we had this interesting conversation overnight between the white house and donald trump's chinese counterpart. he stepped back from his opposition to the one-china policy, it seems. he seems to accept that's a thing now. you've written a book about, you know, u.s.-russia relations. on the international stage, the big test is going to be how he

handles china and russia, right? >> it is indeed, yeah. with china, we've seen this rowing back. with russia, we really don't know what's going to happen because as ever with this administration, they're just completely contradictory signals coming out. we have this broad impression that trump likes putin as everyone talks about this kind of great bromance between the two of them, even though they've never met. then you get other people within his administration who are saying, we've got to be tough on russia. russia is an aggressive power. we've got to contain them. >> that's going to be tested when? >> well, we've got a nato summit in may that trump is going to be at. there's a lot of speculation there's going to be a summit with putin maybe around that time or in july. >> peter, thank you very much indeed. fascinating process. we're getting a sense of this presidency and how he puts those policies into practice. u.s. senate confirmed tom price as the next secretary of health and human services a short while ago. democrats fought to stop price.

republicans hope he'll be one of the primary architects of a replacement plan for obamacare, george. still ahead, as "cnn newsroom" rolls on, president trump agrees to honor the one-china policy. we get reaction from beijing and a live report. stay with us. if your sneezes are a force to be reckoned with... you may be muddling through allergies. try zyrtec® for powerful allergy relief. and zyrtec® is different than claritin®. because it starts working faster on the first day you take it. try zyrtec®. muddle no more®. wepidemic before it happens?xt what if technology gave us the power to turn this enemy into an ally? mosquitoes are the ultimate field biologists, taking blood samples from every animal they bite. microsoft and its partners are using smart traps to capture mosquitoes and study the dna they collect.

using the microsoft cloud, we can analyze over 100 million pieces of dna in every sample, so we can identify where diseases come from and how they spread. with the cloud, what used to take 30 days now takes 12 hours, and every second counts. if we can detect new viruses before they spread, we may someday prevent outbreaks before they begin. we must be passionate. we must be bold. and never stop striving in our desire to make an impact.

. welcome back to "cnn newsroom." the president of the united states, donald trump, has indicated to the chinese president, xi jinping in a phone call that he will honor the one-china policy. under that policy, the united states recognizes beijing as the only chinese government and cuts official ties with taiwan. before taking office, mr. trump questioned whether the u.s. should maintain this longstanding agreement. let's go live to beijing for reaction. david mckenzie standing by this hour on the story. david, good to have you. this is quite a 180 from the series of tweets we saw from the

u.s. president before he took the oath of office. do we have any indication of why this about-face? >> reporter: well, i think the reason why is because fundamentally he cannot have any kind of relationship with mainland china, with china proper, without accepting the one-china policy. so it would have been the nuclear option if donald trump had really carried through with his threats to use the taiwan issue as a negotiating chip. but certainly they've taken the more steady route, the policy that's been in place since 1979 which allowed the u.s. and china to establish a relationship. that's been really the mainstay of that relationship. and in describing the phone call, both the u.s. and chinese officials said that it was a cordial discussion between the two leaders. this perhaps donald trump's most important bilateral relationship going forward with the chinese

and with xi jinping. the chinese saying that the one-china policy is an abiding policy, and xi jinping according to the readout saying that was a critical one to really form the basis of their relationship. so going forward, they'll be able to discuss these thorny issues like trade, the south china sea, climate change. but really they had to get this out of the way from the chinese perspective before they moved forward at all. george. >> reminding our viewers, of course, there was a point where president-elect trump took a phone call from the president of taiwan. what has been the response of taiwan given, again, what has been an about-face? >> reporter: well, we've just had word from the presidential office in taipei saying that taiwan will continue to maintain a close relationship to the u.s. and develop those ties. of course from taiwan's point of view, the relationship with the

u.s. is very important even if the washington doesn't recognize taipei as the government of taiwan, there are close ties, and that includes military ties with taiwan. it's a very difficult balancing act always between the u.s., taiwan, and china. but overall, the relationship with beijing is so critical on so many fronts that really they would have felt compelled to stick with the one-china policy. george? >> the u.s. president again saying that he will recognize, honor the one-china policy. david mckenzie live for us in the chinese capital. thank you so much for your report. a summit at the white house on friday. then they'll head tot president's estate in florida for a weekend round of golf. offered to invest billions of dollar in the u.s. economy, potentially creating thousands of job. the white house is responding to the latest string of ethics concerns about a trump

administration's relationship with the family's businesses. press secretary sean spicer says one of the president's top advisers, kellyanne conway, has been counseled after making a sales pitch during a live tv interview. >> go buy ivanka's stuff is what i would tell you. i hate shopping, and i'm going to go get some myself today. it's a wonderful line. i own some of it. i'm going to give a free commercial. go buy it, everybody. you can find it online. >> politicians on both sides of the aisle are now calling for an investigation into her comments with one prominent lawmaker say they appear to be a textbook violation. meanwhile, conway says she has full support of the president. >> so you spoke about that matter, and he is not -- doesn't have any intention to suspend you? >> we spoke about it a range of matters and he supports me 100%. it was a very heartening moment, in fact. >> now, just one day earlier,

the president used twitter to attack nordstrom department stores for dropping his daughter's product line. it rambles on, george. anger over the president's business conflicts is boiling over for some americans meanwhile. [ chanting ] >> that wasn't an exactly happy homecoming for congressman jason chaffetz when he returned. besides the potential business conflicts, protesters want chaffetz to investigate russia's interference in the u.s. election. still ahead, president trump loses big on his controversial travel ban. we take a closer look at the appeals court ruling and what happens next. live from london and atlanta to our viewers in the united states and around the world this hour, you're watching "cnn newsroom."

welcome back to our viewers here in the united states and around the world. you're watching "cnn newsroom." thank you for being with us. i'm george howell in atlanta. >> i'm max foster in london. u.s. appeals court has ruled

unanimously to keep president donald trump's travel ban on hold. that means people from seven muslim majority countries covered by the executive order can continue to travel to the u.s. mr. trump tweeted almost immediately, see you in court. >> max, the three u.s. judges rejected the trump travel ban in only a matter of two days. very quickly. in a unanimous opinion. cnn's laura jarrett said the judges found no merit in any of the arguments against the temporary restraining order. >> reporter: in a huge blow for the trump administration, three judges on the ninth circuit court of appeals have ruled that the travel ban will remain suspended. in a 29-page opinion, the judges rejected each and every one of the arguments the justice department used to try to justify a reinstatement of the ban, saying the government failed to prove why the travel ban was necessary as an urgent national security matter. the judges wrote that the government has pointed to no

evidence that any alien from any of the countries named in the order has perpetrated a terrorist attack in the united states. rather than present evidence to explain the need for the executive order, the government has taken the position that we must not review its decision at all. we disagree, the court wrote. essentially the court there is saying that while it does give deference to political branches on immigration and national security issues, it has every right to review this case unlike what the government argued on tuesday. in the end, the judges said that the government did not meet its burden in this case and, therefore, the travel ban must remain on hold. the government had previously suggested that the court should limit the ban to those people from the seven banned countries who had never stepped foot on u.s. soil. but these three judges rejected that option as well. right now, the justice department is reviewing the opinion and weighing its options on what will happen next, which could mean an appeal to the supreme court. >> well, the middle east wasn't

one of the primary targets, of course, of the travel ban, with iraq, iran, yemen and syria on the list. the reaction has been a mix of anger and disappointment, but the latest ruling is offering some faint hope. arwa damon reports. >> reporter: the fact that this temporary halt is being maintained does, yes, allow for a little bit more breathing room, especially for those who are hoping to go to the united states and are close to the end of the application process and have the opportunity to be able to travel within the next few days. but for so many, it has been such an emotionally draining process, especially those who are hoping to start a new life in america, who are hoping that america would be welcoming them as they really expected it too and instead are be faced with the reality that it might be closing the doors in their face. but even if this ban is not reinstated, you do have, as the

president of world relief brought up, another issue, and that is the dramatic reduction of the number of refugees that are going to eventually even be admitted to the united states. that number dropping from 110,000 to 50,000, which is really just a fraction of the global numbers if one even takes into consideration that turkey in and of itself is home to around 3 million refugees from syria alone. now, incidentally, president trump trump did also speak to his iraqi counterpart. among the many issues that were brought up which includes iraq's ongoing fight against isis, the broader need to collaborate when it comes to the war on terrorism, the iraqi leader also brought up the issue of visa regulations for his country's citizens, something which the iraqis say president trump did promise to address. but all of this has really put a sour taste in the mouth of those citizens from those seven predominantly muslim countries.

and, in fact, from citizens throughout the middle east and the broader muslim world who really believe that america had a reputation of being a country that welcomes immigrants. to a certain degree, being a country that at the very least, did the bare minimum to help those in need, and they're finding this current back-and-forth very difficult, one that is potentially going to do irreparable damage to america's reputation and image in the middle east and beyond. arwa damon, cnn, ankara. >> thank you for the reporting. the man who ran u.s. intelligence under former president barack obama, james clapper, is no fan of the trump travel ban. clapper tells cnn's jim sciutto that the ban was unnecessary and may have done more harm than good. listen. >> does the terror threat necessitate the ban from these seven countries? >> well, i don't believe we, the ic, were aware of any extraordinary threats that we

weren't already dealing with. and we're using, i think, some very rigorous vetting processes, which we constantly improved on. >> does a ban like this in your view, does it damage u.s. image but also counterterror partnership? >> yes. i do worry about those countries in question with whom we do deal and who are reliable partners. i also worry about this creating a recruiting tool for the extremists, that they will point to this proof that there is, in fact, a war on all muslims. >> and you're confident in the vetting that the u.s. is already doing for travelers to this country? >> i am. we have improved that process as we've gone. >> many international leaders, including traditional u.s. allies have spoken out strongly against that u.s. travel ban. the uk prime minister theresa

may again voiced her concerns at a news conference at downing street on thursday. >> in relation to the executive order that president trump signed now nearly two weeks ago with the various movement bans, we thought that was wrong. that was divisive. it is not a policy that the united kingdom would adopt. what we did do when it became clear that there was concern among british citizens that it might affect them, we worked with the united states government, with his administration to ensure that it was not going to affect british nationals and british dual nationals. >> shortly after the u.s. travel ban was introduced, angela merkel's office let it be known that she had reminded president trump of u.s. obligations to refugees under the geneva conventions. in a recent statement opposing the ban, merkel said the necessary and decisive fight against terrorism in no way justifies a general suspicion against people of certain

beliefs, in this case people of the muslim faith or from a certain origin. these ideas are against the core idea of international aid for refugees. more on british and european action to the ban, i'm joined by the former british ambassador to the u.s. ambassadors around the world or particularly in washington, d.c. right now must be really struggling with this because so many countries have a problem with this ban. but they've got to keep that relationship with washington and donald trump. >> that's true, and of course we saw that theresa may worked hard to get a very early visit to the oval office, which went well although the travel ban was announced just a few hours after. >> and there's a backlash to what she promised in washington. >> particularly here in the united kingdom, people didn't like the idea of the state visit being offered to somebody who had instituted this travel ban. so, yes, it's complicated relations with many european countries. the european council where all the heads of government came together just a few days ago in

malta was critical of a number of trump approaches and trump policies. but at the same time, people realize that they've got to do business. the uk particularly because trump has been very supportive of brexit and, of course, the british government, which is on its way to leaving the european union, is very keen to ensure that one of the early successes of that new policy is a new free trade agreement with the trump administration. trump has been very supportive, so the uk government is particular live keen to get that relationship going well. but everybody else has to deal with trump. actually in a number of traditional foreign policy areas trump has begun to moderate some of the worrying positions that we've seen on twitter from him as members of his administration get into the detail of policy and start looking at how best to manage relationship with different countries around the world. >> a good example of that was overnight when he spoke to the president of china and say that we do support the one-china policy, which he had been firmly against before. but how might he do something similar with this refugee ban to try to appease international concern but also that sort of

base of support that got him through the election? >> well, you're right about the china change of policy. i think that will have gone down well, clearly choreographed to beijing as things are. they've moderated their line on russia. the new u.s. ambassador has said we're not going to lift sanctions as long as the russians remain in crimea. he's moderated some of the language on nato. earlier he was talking about it being obsolete and if people didn't pay their dues, america wouldn't be there if people called on the guarantees. now it's a softer line. with the travel ban, he's not going to go down quietly. he said, see you in court. he doesn't like the fact that the judges have weighed in and said this is not legal. whether he can do something with that to try to build up relationships which were a bit frayed as a result of the travel ban, well, let us see. of course many countries -- the uk was one but there are lots of

others -- got immediate bilateral assurances that the travel ban didn't apply to due nation -- but it looks as though the travel ban isn't going to remain in place at all. that is something that will be reassuring and if they want to, it means that the trump administration can work on it. but at the moment he still seems to be very angry. >> if he wins in the supreme court and the travel ban stays, the likes of angela merkel are in a difficult position. it goes against their principles. what sort of backlash might there be on america from countries like germany because at the moment it's seen as a very domestic issue actually. but what sort of impact might there be internationally on americans if this travel ban stays in place, do you think? >> we'd have to see where the courts go, of course. one of the most important things about the way american politics work is that there are checks and balances. the reason independent judiciary, sometimes doesn't like that. so the travel ban may go, or it

may survive when there is a further appeal. i think if it survives, then there obviously will be concerns in many european countries. angela merkel has come out firmly against it. theresa may has come out against it. the french government don't like it either. i think it will remain a difficulty for many countries even if we've got bilateral assurances that it's going to be okay in terms of dual nationals. where does that go in the future? i think it means managing many of the middle eastern issues dealing with counterterrorism will be more difficult. >> thank you very much indeed. >> thank you. one of the nations that's part of that ban, iran. let's take live images now in iran. that nation celebrating revolution day. crowds lining the streets, sending a message to washington. "cnn newsroom" is back live next. only tylenol® rapid release gels have laser drilled holes.

they release medicine fast, for fast pain relief. tylenol®

revolution day, the anniversary of the 1979 islamic revolution. parades are lining the streets of the capital and president rouhani addressed the nation just a short while ago. >> fred pleitgen is live in tehran this hour. fred, there has been fiery

rhetoric, of course, against the united states specifically regarding the new trump administration. but there have also been images of support for americans. i was looking at your instagram account and just a short time ago you posted this image. young children holding a sign, "thanks to american people for supporting muslims." important to point out the fact there are many different voices coming together on this day, this very important day in iran. >> reporter: yeah, you're absolutely right, george. i think win of the things that the folks that you see here at this demonstration is obviously they do have some pretty vicious rhetoric towards the u.s. government. but they always make the differentiation between the american people and the government. it's the policies of the u.s. government that the folks that come to demonstrations like this one say they don't like. that specific kid that was holding up that sign, on the one hand it was obviously in reaction to the verdict that

came down yesterday not allowing that travel ban to come back in place. but also, of course, at the public uproar that was taking place in the united states when that travel ban -- when that executive order came into being. nevertheless, there is a lot of very vicious anti-american rhetoric here, anti-trump rhetoric here as well. in fact, the supreme leader of this country, the ayatollah khamenei, he told people to come out in force and give donald trump an answer. that's certainly something we're seeing here. there are literally hundreds of thousands if not a million people here at this demonstration who came and obviously a lot of them holding anti-donald trump signs. many of them saying they're quite angry at some of the things that have transpired from the u.s. administration in the first days that donald trump has been in office, especially of course those sanctions levied against iran but also of course the travel ban as well, which we have to keep in mind, george, hits iranians harder than pretty much any other group because there's so much travel back and forth between iran and the u.s., george. >> just to talk a bit more about that and also making the point

that you rightly point out, a lot of images there. we showed that image a moment ago, and there was another image we just showed that said "down with america." this ban affects many people between the united states and iran. just talk to us, fred, more about what you're hearing, what has been the reaction given what came out of san francisco. >> reporter: yeah, you know, many people are obviously very happy that the travel ban has not been reinstated, and one of the reasons that you state is absolutely true. there is so much travel back and forth between iran and the united states. people visiting their families. obviously especially in the california region, there's a lot of iranians who live there and a lot of folks who come and visit them. also a lot of iranians who go to study in the united states, who study here and then go work in the united states. so for them, this was really, really tough. of course it hit them pretty much out of the blue when it happened. there is a lot of anger at that. there is a lot of anger at the new administration in washington. but there's also people that we've been hearing who say,

look, donald trump, they say, is not unlike they believe other american politicians. they believe that they've had this antagonism towards themselves in the past, and one of the words that you hear here at this demonstration a lot is "resilience." the iranians saying no matter what the u.s. does, they are not going to give up their positions. at the same time, again, making that differentiation always between the american people and the american government, george. >> fred pleitgen has traveled extensively throughout iran, bringing us reporting and context this day on revolution day in that nation. fred pleitgen, thank you for the report. george, people in the northeastern u.s. will have to start digging out, it seems, after a snowstorm dumped snow across the region. airlines canceled almost 2,000 flights along the storm's path on thursday. three major cities shut down schools as well. bus services were shut down in some cities, and new york's mayor urged people to stay off the roads. there was one death. a doorman in new york who slipped and fell while shoveling the snow.

>> a great deal of snow in the northeast. let's bring in julie martin to talk more about the situation. julie, is there more on the way? what's the situation? >> well, the good news is the snow is now offshore. it has moved out to sea, and we are not going to be dealing with any more of that at least for the next couple of days. still cold in the northeast. that's going to be something to contend with, and still a bit blustery this morning as folks are waking up. that could be a concern with all of the drifting snow and transportation issues as well. but what's really impressive are these snow totals. take a look at some of these. 50.8 centimeters in perry, maine. east hartford, connecticut, more than 48 centimeters. by the way, central park picked up about half of that amount, but that is still quite impressive given that that is the heart of the city. so the snow is over, and i want to take you down under now where we had quite a different situation earlier this week. an actual fire tornado.

take a look at this incredible video. this was coming out of the western australia coast. some of these flames reached about 60 feet tall. now, keep in mind fire bans in place in australia, and the heat is the big story here. in fact, australia likely to set many more records in the coming days. so not only the fire's a concern but also power loss a concern in the country as well. taking you out now to the satellite, you can see high pressure certainly in control here and all of the moisture really kind of skirting around the heart of australia, which is where they really could use some much needed rain. not going to be the case, though. very hot here. above average temperatures for the coming days. in fact, we're looking at temperatures well above average. look at some of these numbers here. in sydney, the average high temperature, just 24 degrees. we're looking at highs at 37 for

saturday. sydney, by the way, could break a 121-year record for the hottest temperatures. melbourne also looking very hot at 26. a little bit cooler as we get into the beginning of next week. still, though, going to be very rough for the folks here over the next couple of days. so we're looking at the heat continuing here and some more cold air actually for the u.s., particularly the eastern u.s. at least for another day or so. then we'll see a big temperature turnaround, george. places like atlanta, georgia, we could be in the 70s by the weekend. >> 70s in atlanta. snow in new york. a friend of mine said it's the first big snow they've had all year, so they welcome it. but it's a headache. >> it's kind of a novelty because there hasn't been a lot of snow. >> thank you, julie. george, an exciting night on sunday night here in london. movie fans will be tuning in for the annual british film awards. th "la la land" singled out for 11

nominations including best film. also nominated for best film is "moonlight." it won best drama at last month's golden globes. cnn's neil curry spoke with one of its stars. >> reporter: the british actress naomi harris has walked the red carpet on some of hollywood's biggest blockbusters from pirates of the caribbean to the bond movies where she appears alongside daniel craig. >> can you get tinyinto a bette position? >> reporter: but it's a much lower budget movie, "moonlight," which has secured her the holy trinity of award nominations, golden globe, bafta, and oscar. >> i definitely think the movie as a whole is incredibly important because ultimately the first thing is you've got to get people to see the performances to nominate them. so to really entice people, you know, you have to be part of a great movie. >> what happened? why you didn't come home like you're supposed to, huh?

and who is you? >> reporter: breaking out from a global press tour of spector, harris had a mere three days to shoot the role as the drug addicted mother of a boy discovering his true sexuality in a tough urban community. >> i think it has to be as realistic as possible so that it touches something inside people. and because i think that's why you go to the movies is to be moved. >> reporter: the actress says she's encouraged by the greater diversity among this year's nominees following last year's oscars so white controversy. >> you want to have a conversation with me? >> yes. >> so diverse this year. i think that's absolutely fantastic because i think we want, as an audience, to see diversity. you know, we want to see life is incredibly diverse. we as people are incredibly diverse. i think, you know, art is supposed to reflect life, right? that's what we want to see on

screen too. >> reporter: harris says she has an easy way to keep grounded. >> what works for me is my family. i'm really, really close to my family. i'm very lucky i live on the same street as them. they're just eight door as way. whenever i'm feeling down, i go to my family. they usually -- you know, it's a lot of insults in my family. that's how they kind of get through. that's their sense of humor. but it always gets me laughing and it puts life in perspective as well. >> reporter: with "moonlight" nominated for eight academy awards, harris says she's parou to be part of a film which has moved audiences and critics alike. >> you can probably tell we're pretty much rooting for harris at the oscars. >> the news continues here on cnn. stay with us. medicare options until you're sixty-five, but now is a good time to get the ball rolling.

keep in mind, medicare only covers about eighty percent of part b medical costs. the rest is up to you. that's where aarp medicare supplement insurance plans insured by unitedhealthcare insurance company come in. like all standardized medicare supplement insurance plans, they could help pay some of what medicare doesn't, saving you in out-of-pocket medical costs. you've learned that taking informed steps along the way really makes a difference later. that's what it means to go long™. call now and request this free decision guide. it's full of information on medicare and the range of aarp medicare supplement plans to choose from based on your needs and budget. all plans like these let you choose any doctor or hospital that accepts medicare patients, and there are no network restrictions. unitedhealthcare insurance company has over thirty years experience and the commitment to roll along with you,

keeping you on course. so call now and discover how an aarp medicare supplement plan could go long™ for you. these are the only medicare supplement insurance plans endorsed by aarp, an organization serving the needs of people 50 and over for generations. plus, nine out of ten plan members surveyed say they would recommend their plan to a friend. remember, medicare doesn't cover everything. the rest is up to you. call now, request your free decision guide and start gathering the information you need to help you keep rolling with confidence. go long™. ♪ . .

president trump ready to fight after an appeals court ruled his travel ban must remain on hold. what's the next move for the white house? and big questions for a top trump advisor after she promoted ivanka trump's clothing line on television. could kellyanne conway face legal trouble? welcome to "early start." i'm miguel marquez. >> so much news. i'm christi