we end tonight where we began, with russian president vladimir putin facing his biggest leadership crisis ever. and now more complaints from the wives of russian soldiers to link putin directly that their husbands are not getting enough ammo or equipment on the battlefield here. >> translator: help our defenders with vehicles and heavy artillery. our defenders don't mind fighting, but they need big help. they need vehicles. we're desperately asking you to help. we appeal to the ministry of defense and putin, help us, listen to us. >> this woman appealing to putin, as he desperately needs their support to continue this 16-month war here in ukraine, where so many of their husbands, sons, fathers are dying. thanks so much for joining us. thanks so much for joining us. "ac 360" starts now.

-- captions by vitac -- www.vitac.com good evening, the supreme court closes one door to debt relief for millions of student borrowers. president biden tries to open another. john berman here in for anderson. tonight that pits a chief executive against a chief justice in the string of big decisions this week, including one today on lgbtq protections and the first amendment, now pitting some of the justices against one another. also tonight, a cnn exclusive, the shocking details from a report on sexual assault at the coast guard academy that went unreleased for years. plus a week af leading a failed rebellion that sent him into exile, where is wagner leader yevgeny prigozhin? and is russian intelligence now gunning for him? first tonight, president biden is vowing to work around a supreme court decision blocking his plan to forgive some $400 billion in student debt taken on by tens of millions of americans. this is the latest from a supreme court that has now

reshaped the constitutional landscape on abortion, affirmative action, and today on how much leeway a president has to carry out legislation. and that would be less of it. in a 6-3 decision, the court holding that president biden could not interpret a provision of a post-9/11 law to cancel student loan repayments. chief justice roberts writing that something this significant required clear approval by congress. so, the president announced a detour. >> we will ground this new approach in a different law than my original plan, the so-called higher education act. that will allow secretary cardona, who is with me today, to compromise, waive, or release loans under certain circumstances. this new path is legally sound. it's going to take longer, but in my view, it's the best path that remains for providing as many borrowers as possible with debt relief. >> whether that flies legally or not remains to be seen. what is clear, though, is just

like yesterday's affirmative action decision, this one exposed tensions within the court. in her dissenting opinion, justice elena kagan kuged that the true overreach was by her conservative colleagues, pushing the court beyond its prominent legal role in our nation's jurisprudence. the same tension that a web designer on religious freedom grounds could refuse to create pages for same sex weddings. we're going to have more on this later tonight on what appear to be the growing strains within the court between the justices. first, cnn's joe pass coupic with more onts consequential day in court. what exactly did the court rule here? >> sure john. first thing of all, two things you're right about, framing this thing of the chief justice against the chief executive. john roberts had a really big term. he was a winner in many, many

cases. let's start with the one that generated most of the tensions right at the top of the court's public proceedings today. in the courtroom, when they split, as justice neil gorsuch read the opinion that ruled for a woman who is a website designer who wants to do wedding website but does not want to serve same-sex couples. she says that the message of a same-sex couple wedding conflicts with her christian values that she believes marriage should be between one man and one woman. now, this whole case comes against the backdrop of colorado's public accommodations law that says that businesses that are open to the public cannot discriminate based on race, sex, and sexual orientation. so, this woman, lori smith, brought a case trying to ensure that she would not be -- fall victim to the law if she essentially hung out a sign

saying, same sex couples need not apply. and the justices by that 6-3 division that you talked about right at the top of your opening, john, bore out in the courtroom as justice gorsuch really stressed that this was about not discrimination but about free speech. he's liking the kind of action that could be taken by colorado here to state action against children who want to fight saying the pledge of allegiance or saluting the flag. he went back to those kinds of free speech cases. and he said the first amendment envisions the united states as a rich and complex place, where all persons are free to think and speak as they wish, not as the government demands. now, dissenters, as you know, sonia sotomayor spoke for the dissenters quite passionately this morning at the supreme court. she said, this is the first time the supreme court was going to allow a business to discriminate against a set of customers based

on any kind of characteristic. here it would be sexual orientation. but she warned that that could be one day be extended to other kinds of protected classes, perhaps interracial couples. and she also, john, talked about the trend in the country right now of states trying to restrict what people -- what goes on with lgbtq activities. and she said this is the absolute wrong time for the supreme court to be sending a signal that would allow more discrimination rather than protection for gay rights, john. >> ann, the president's student loan forgiveness program. why exactly did the court say it was striking it down? >> as you know, the secretary of education had relied on a 2003 law, a law that was passed in the wake of 9/11 that would allow the secretary of education to waive certain loan repayment requirements for emergencies. but what the chief said was that

the secretary of education took this law much further than it was allowed to. he even used the phrase, slight of hand, as he denigrated the biden administration's legal arguments. and he essentially said that it's not a matter of -- it's not a question of whether something should be done. it's a question of who has the authority to do it. now, this was another one that drew a sharp rebuke right there in the courtroom. this time from justice elena kagan who said, you know, this is part of the conservative majority's effort to crack down on agency activities, protections for the environment, protections for public health and welfare, and in this case, to give some relief in another national emergency, the wake of covid, to some 40 million borrowers. and she said, you know what the real take away here is? she didn't mince any words t. real take away here is that there's one group that wants to be the decision maker on policy.

and that is this conservative supermajority. >> joan pass coupic, you were in the room. thank you for sharing the details with us. it is a big night for legal analysts, elie honig, van jones, and allen kinzinger. i want to start with the newest news. the supreme court strikes down president biden's student loan forgiveness program. so, this afternoon he comes out and says, i have another way. given that chief justice john roberts basically said, you can't do something this big without specific congressional approval, how likely is it that this inroad will work? >> i admire the persistence but i don't think it will work. the question is not whether it's good policy, bad policy, fair, unfair, something in the middle. the decision today was that the president exceeded congressional authorization. like joan said, the first

student loan plan was based on a 2003 law called the heroes act that said in time of national emergency, the secretary can issue loan modifications or waivers. chief justice said if you're going to spend that money you're going to need more specific use than that. president biden says he's going to use a different law. it gives the education of authority the authority to make different modifications. this is going to take several months to put the new plan in place. it's going to be channelled through the courts. and it's going to come back to the exact same court, barring some unforeseen development. i think it's very unlikely they reach a different result. >> and again chief justice john roberts specifically said it was the extent of the president's action. if he tries to do anything to a similar extent, you would expect some serious challenges. van, i want to shift to colorado here.

and i want to play something the plaintiff in the colorado case told laura coates last year. >> my case is not only about me and my artwork but also protecting the lgbt artist or graphic designer who should not be forced to create custom artwork that opposes same sex marriage. >> so, van, i want you to address that and also broaden it out if you want. the supreme court said this is about free speech, expressive action, the right not to do a specific expressive action. your take? >> my take is it's really sad because why do we have public accommodation laws in this country? it's because when my parents were growing up, we didn't have those laws. so, we had a book in my grandmother's house that said, okay, if we go on a road trip, here's a hotel that will let us stay there, but these won't. here's a gas station that will let us have gas. can you imagine living in a world where people could say, because religious reasons by the

way in the south, they were religiously commanded to separate the races. if you were a good christian, you believed in segregation. first amendment, their religious rights, meant we couldn't go places we wanted to go. we weren't free. the government said, that's wrong. if you're going to open up for business, you've got to open up for everybody. that's what public accommodations law means. we've had the supreme court say it is okay for businesses to say, because of my religious beliefs, i can turn you away at the door. i don't have to serve you. i can humiliate you in front of your children. i can send you away. and the supreme court says, that's fine with us. it is a horrible day in this country. it is a huge step back. i cannot imagine what people who are waiting now for a flood gate of other businesses to throw up the same signs, you're not welcome, you're not welcome, you're not welcome. and that's what it's about. you can't hide behind the first amendment. you can't use first amendment

language to conceal bigotry. that was done to my family for generations. it was religious argument. so, if you don't believe that somebody could lock me out of the store because they believe that god separated the races, you cannot accept a company turning away someone else. and by the way, she can say whatever she wants to. but if she wants to open her doors and say she's open for business in america, that means you've got to be open for business to everybody. >> congressman? >> well, look, yaerks i mean -- look, i'm sympathetic to that argument. and when it comes to the what's next, when it comes to comparing the south, you know, and believing that god said separate the races, i understand it. in this limited thing, i'm also sympathetic to the fact that this woman felt it violated her religious beliefs. by the way, there is other web designers that can do that kind of design. so, i understand both sides of this. the thing i get concerned with, the first amendment isn't there to protect the religious

arguments we agree with. it's not there to protect the speech that we agree with. it's actually there to protect the stuff we don't agree with because that's what's in danger. so, i don't have a definitive kind of opinion on this at the moment because i can really see both sides to this. i'll let the supreme court speak for that. >> i think, van, and i'll let elie weigh in here on what the chief justice is saying here, gorsuch in this case, was saying here is that this website designer would have to open its doors to a same sex couple. just the website designer would not have to expressively act, would not have to take the action of making a cake for a same-sex marriage. elie, is that what gorsuch -- sorry. >> yeah. and one of the big questions is, is the conduct here that's being vended or sold, does that include expression? does that include some artistic sentiment in it? and they batted that back and forth and concluded that, yes,

it does. and there is a distinction drawn between can you deny service to these people. no, it was stipulated that that's not what the plaintiff was asking here. but can this web designer decline to make a website with that content in it. the court said, yes, it's really a balance between first amendment rights -- >> can i say one thing. >> -- and non-discrimination. and the court came out this way. >> you know what's ridiculous about this whole thing? the reason we're saying if, if, if? because this is a hypothetical website by a hypothetical company that's concerned about a hypothetical wedding. the supreme court went so far beyond its normal mandate. this woman should not have standing in a normal situation. we're supposed to have an actual case and controversy. she has an actual website, an actual person -- none of that is even here. this is a made up case. this is completely made up. and it got in front of the supreme court because the supreme court is that desperate to weaponize first amendment

language and religious liberty. as a christian, nobody is more passionate about religious liberty than myself, but i can't use my religious convictions to run over your rights to be part of this country. in a multiracial democracy, that is the balance. and the supreme court went out of its way with a made up case with no actual website and no actual couple and no actual wedding, to take away the dignity of the lgbt community. >> congressman, on the student loan case, you agree with the court that president biden went too far. why? >> look, if you want to forget student loans, that's great. i don't know if it's good policy, but you have to go through congress with that. that is a $400 billion impact to the federal debt. it's not a decision a president can make alone. and i worry about the slippery slope of that. and people may say, well, look, congress is inept. trust me, i know that, right? they may say, congress will never forgive student loan debt.

probably not in the current make-up. but that's why we have elections. that's why we have campaign issues. the president went way too far in unilaterally declaring the this as policy. i think he knows it. he knows it particularly after the supreme court's vote. it doesn't mean i disagree with the policy of student loan forgiveness. i think there's merits to it. but you can't do it unilaterally. and i'll tell you, as much as i thought the expansion of federal government under president trump too, i have to be fair in both of these. >> i've got to give elie the last word and it's got to be 20 seconds or less. has the court laid down a marker here for how much power it intends to use? >> yes, they intend to expand their power for the reasons van said. both of these cases, the plaintiff did not have standing. the court said, we're going to hear it anyway. they're asserting their power in an unprecedented manner. >> thank you all very much. next the faultlines growing within the court as the majority rolls out seismic decisions, legendary court watcher and

reporter nina toten borrow join us. and later the cia's top guy on russian and the intrigue surrounding yevgeny prigozhin and his whereabouts and what vladimir putin might have in store for him. cutting edge innovatation... ( ♪ ) ...and thoughtful details... ...inspipired by you. ( ♪ ) from the brand that delivers amazing ownership experiences, this is the first ever, all electric, rz. this is lexus, electrified.

the first time you connected your godaddy website and your store was also the first time you realized... well, we can do anything. cheesecake cookies? the chookie! manage all your sales from one place with a partner that always puts you first. (we did it) start today at godaddy.com oh booking.com, ♪ i'm going to somewhere, anywhere. ♪ ♪ a beach house, a treehouse, ♪ ♪ honestly i don't care ♪ find the perfect vacation rental for you booking.com, booking. yeah. wherever you come down on recent supreme court decisions, there is no denying how significant they are to so many.

and they come hand in hand with biting words. this includes thinly veiled accusations, such as justice kagan's today that her colleagues are involved in the judicial activism they decry. legal affairs correspondent nina totenberg joins us now. great to have you here. it is majority decision strike down the debt relief plan. chief roberts said reasonable lives may disagree, at least three do. we do not -- it is important that the public not be misled either. any such misperception would be harmful to this institution or our country. how unusual is that kind of statement? >> i actually have never read anything like it in a supreme court opinion. i've seen plenty of opinions where they go at each other and go at each other hard. and you expect that. these are important issues, and people have strongly felt views.

and either justice kagan somehow got to him, got under his skin, or that more likely that's a message to the public. now that we're actually -- have public sessions in the supreme court where people can announce their dissents, which they didn't do since december of 2019 until this year because last year they didn't have, quote, public sessions. the building wasn't open. so, they abandoned the idea last year of announcing opinions, which incidentally insured that the dissenters who very much in the dobbs abortion case wanted to dissent orally, could not do that. so, this is -- you know, so this is, i think, much more a message that his words are a message to the public. listen, it's not -- we're not really at each others' throats. >> is he wish casting in this

case? are they at each others' throats? >> i don't think they're at each others' throats. and i do think the strong words in these opinions are not atypical. but what i do think is that the court is not a bunch of happy campers, that the conservative majority is within its own ranks divided with a lot of people vying for the position of somehow the ideological leader. and they all think that they're -- if you look in the affirmative action case, there were four opinions on the side of the majority. the chief justices, okay, that's a big deal, and then three other conservatives, if i'm remembering this right, also had concurring opinions in which they wanted to tell the world what they thought. and two of them spoke from the bench, i think. it's been a long day and a long week. >> no, no, it's been a very long day. look, this has been an historic day and an historic week with a lot going on.

you told anderson back in april that these justices, quote, don't get along very well at the moment, and that's showing. well, how exactly is it showing? and do you still feel that way? >> i still feel that way. but i think the court is very much missing two people at opposite ends of the ideological spectrum who were friends, real friends, genuine friends, and that is justice antonin scalia and justice right bader ginsburg. and justice scalia could make a joke better than anybody else. and by doing that, he was often able to diffuse situations so that even in the worst days, like when the court ruled for gay marriage, i think it was a day or two later, the people who had disagreed were having dinner

together. that doesn't -- i think that is not the situation in this court. and justice ginsburg was very much a suck it up and get it done person. and i'm not sure that there is that sense of we need to as a group get it done. i think the chief justice certainly feels that, but he can't seem to make it happen. >> that's why i was asking if he was just wish casting with his statement in that opinion today. what happens this summer? is there a supreme court barbecue? does everyone gather? >> no, they're all fleeing if they haven't fled already. most of them are leaving town to teach courses in europe, to see familiar and friends, to give speeches and be professors and teach students, as i said. but they do it in the most lovely of places. and some of them will actually have a real vacation, which they genuinely need. >> is there any effort amongst

them to get together? we do retreats, corporate retreats, people and companies do, trust falls and the like. is there any effort to sooth some of these tensions? >> look, they meet every week for a conference. they have lunch together. i don't know how often they have lunch together anymore. i just think that that's not going to happen. >> nina totenberg, great to see you tonight. thank you so much for all your hard work, especially this week. >> thank you. coming up, a secret report on a decades-long history of ignoring or covering up allegations of sexual abuse at the u.s. coast guard academy that congress never saw until cnn started making inquires. we have an exclusive report next.

on its website, the u.s. coast guard academy promises to develop officers with, quote, character. its mission, in part, to graduate young men and women with a, quote, high sense of honor. an alleged sexual abuse review decades long history of ignoring or covering up accusations of rape, assaults, and other misconduct. the coast guard kept this report secret for nearly four years and only came clean to congress this month af inquires by pamela brown. she has more. >> reporter: the multiyear investigation was called operation failed anchor and uncovered a history of sexual assaults that were ignored or covered up by high ranking officials. but coast guard officials kept the investigation secret since

2019 and never released the report. only approaching congress this month af cnn asked about it. during the the investigation, the coast guard found evidence of dozes of cases of sexual assault, even though they only looked into a specific time frame. from the late '80s to 2006, overlooking many years when other assaults had been reported. a report on the investigation found suspected attackers were not criminally investigated. punishments, if they wanted, were sometimes as minor as extra homework. victims sometimes faced punishment for fraternization or lewd acts. many suspects went on to have successful military careers, while victims were sometimes kicked out of the academy. for those who stayed, it could be just as difficult. >> i was sexually assaulted three times. it was completely toxic and devastating to my sense of self. and left life long damages to my

physical/mental health. >> reporter: this young woman is a recent cadet. she graduated in 2022 and said the coast guard culture has not changed. >> the coast guard academy employees, reinforces, and cultivates a system that thrives on the trauma and pain of women and minorities. it's designed for their failure. >> reporter: the coast guard's secret investigation revealed that female cadets describe survival tactics they had to use while at the academy. they would rig their doors to make it hard to get in and that cadets were hesitant to report for fear that as female cadets, they wouldn't be taken seriously. one woman described a fraternity of male cadets that hated women and didn't think women should be in the coast guard. >> you realize if you say something, you're blacklisted because you're the girl who cried wolf. >> even if it really happened? >> even if it really happened. >> it sounds like from what

you're described, the survivors are the ones who are punished and those who are accused of sexual assault go on to thrive. >> exactly. when cadets get in trouble, there is this intense shame, this group shaming. >> reporter: the coast guard did investigate one of this victim's assaults but told her they didn't find enough evidence. >> i was 17. i needed my mom. i needed somebody to stand up for me in those moments. and it just -- it broke me. >> reporter: democratic senators maria cantwell and tammy baldwin sent a letter friday to the head of the coast guard that called the information, quote, disturbing, and demanded answers. they committed to pursuing full accountability for perpetrators and investing in meaningful support for survivors. >> and i'm joined now by cnn anchor pamela brown. pam, what does the coast guard have to say about all this? >> reporter: after john's

report, the coast guard sent us a statement saying that the coast guard fully recognizes that by not having taken appropriate action at the time of the sexual assaults, the coast guard may have further traumatized the victims, delayed access to their care and recovery, and prevented some cases from being referred to the military justice system for appropriate accountability. the coast guard owns this failure and apologizes to each of the victims and their loved ones. and i will tell you, our colleagues on the investigative team, blake ellis, melanie ash, we're going to stay on this story as it unfolds. >> getting answers because of the questions you and your team are asking. great to have you. thank you so much. >> thank you. just ahead, according to ukrainian military intelligence, russia's secret sfb is plotting to kill yevgeny prigozhin, the founder of the mercenary wagner group, who led a short-lived rebellion in russia last week. so, where is he? phil: excuse me? hillary: that wasasn't me. narrator: said hillary, who's only takenen 347 steps today.

hillary: i cycled here. narrator: speaeaking of cycles, mary's period is due to start in three days. mary: how do they know so much about us? narrator: your all sharing health data without realizing it. that's how i know about kevin's rash. who's next? wait... what's that in your hand? no, no, stop! oh you're no fun. [lock clicks shut]

♪♪ alex! mateo, hey how's business? great. you know that loan has really worked wonders. that's what u.s. bank is for.

and you're growing in california? -yup, socal, norcal... -monterey? -all day. -a branch in ventura? that's for sure-ah. atms in fresno? fres-yes. encinitas? yes, indeed-us. anaheim? big time. more guacamole? i'm on a roll-ay. how about you? i'm just visiting. u.s. bank. ranked #1 in customer satisfaction with retail banking in california by j.d. power. even the white house says it does not know the current whereabouts of the man who led last week's short-lived rebellion in russia. and ukraine's military intelligence chief says that russia's sfb is plotting to kill yevgeny prigozhin. quoting now from an interview, quote, we are aware that the fsb was charged with the task to

assassinate them. will they be successful in doing that? we'll see with time. we're joined by steve hall, a former cia chief of russia operations. steve, how likely is it that the fsb knows exactly where prig goesen is? and if they wanted to do it, how hard would it be for them to do it? >> yeah, i would say that this analytical statement by the ukrainian military intelligence is not a huge stretch. it's not a particularly bad analytical position. if i were a betting man, i think prigozhin's in some significant trouble from the fsb to begin with. the fsb is extremely good. they'll be able to find him. they know how to kill people. we've seen that many times before. for me the question is, why now? if they were going to kill him, the time would have been before he caused the difficulties he caused. and the fsb is the organization responsible for informing the

president, putin and those close to him, that something is amiss. and either they did that and he ignored it, unlikely, or they failed to see it. yeah, it's kind of obvious now that they would want to get rid of them. why not two or three weeks ago? they would have saved themselves a lot of trouble? >> what's keeping prigozhin alive if he is still alive? >> this is another thing. we just don't know. there's so little information right now. of course this is one of the things the russians are really good at is putting questions marks above these guys. prigozhin, the rumor is, everybody is saying that he's, you know, happy and healthy -- maybe not so happy -- but he's in belarus someplace thanks to the intervention of president lukashenko. we haven't seen surovikin either, another guy who there's a lot of question marks over. in a sense, this plays into what the kremlin is trying to do. if they do the expected, if they go ahead and kill these guys, everybody is like, that's predictable.

that's over. we're past that. by keeping some questions out there, i think it keeps people that putin is still unsure about on edge. and perhaps they will make a mistake, which will put them on the list to be gotten rid of as well. >> i was just going to ask about keeping his internal house in order. who are the people that putin is most concerned about now? >> it's hard to say because of the nature of how difficult it is to predict what's going on inside the kremlin. i think we all probably remember the days we were looking at how many guys were on top of lenin's tomb and people were marching by and that gave us an idea of what was going on. it's hard to know what's going on inside the kremlin. obviously the people who have the most power and are closest to putin are ironically not only the ones who would be called upon to take care of problems, but also the ones who pose the greatest danger, the head of the fsb, the security services, even

the security guys are at risk. he's got to do something. whether putin does -- whether it's a stalin-like purge of everybody or something more modulated, we'll just have to see. >> it is fascinating how history sometimes seems to repeat itself. steve hall, great to have you here. i expect we'll be talking soon about some of this. >> i bet so. now to two story of rebellion inside russia. the short-lived insurrection we were discussing and a voice of protest, whose story we brought you earlier this year. the reporting tonight from cnn's melissa bell. >> reporter: two russians in exile. one, a student with a rebellious tattoo. the other, an insurrectionist war lord. only one of them is on the run on terrorism charges. meet 20-year-old olessia. her alleged crime? an antiwar social media post last year that led to a conviction and her escape to

europe. now in norway, as she looks for work, she was glued to the images coming out of russia over the weekend. >> translator: i watched it non-stop. i followed this justice march all day. i wondered how it would end. and i really wanted to see in person how prigozhin was take ton the pretrial detention center. >> reporter: pretrial detention centers are well op known to her, but that's not where wagner chief yevgeny prigozhin ended up, heading instead to belarus, where putin ally, alexander lukashenko offered him refuge. >> i realize there was a harsh decision made to destroy. i suggested putin not to hurry. let's talk with putin and commanders. >> reporter: no such help. prying off her own electronic bracelet on her way to the border. cnn first brought you her story earlier this year. she just arrived in lithuania

after fleeing her home in northern russia, taking very little. but a reminder of the cost of her freedom, the reason she was made an example of, she says, is there are many ordinary russians like her. >> translator: every day we see the people are put in jail for the post on the internet. but a person who is guilty of killing 20 people, 14 people, according to the official version, and they tell him, you can go to belarus. every time i think about it, i get angry. >> reporter: but there is only one prigozhin, even as vladimir putin never named him as he addressed the failed insurrection. >> translator: what we are facing now is treason, unreasonable ambitions, and personal interests led to treachery, state treason, and betrayal of one's own people. >> reporter: the man behind an

insurrection facing no charges at all. >> translator: there is no law and no justice in russia. it's just all one big act of insanity and hatred. >> reporter: melissa bell, cnn, paris. coming up, an unsettling scene in southern california. what is happening to hundreds of sea lions and other marine life there? we'll take you along on the rescue missions and reveal the likely culprit. that's next.

this fourth of july weekend, beachgoers in california are being warned about sick and dying sea lions and dolphins. for weeks now at times there have been has many as 60 reports an hour of sea animals in danger. cnn adam culver went out with a rescue team to fine out what's behind the deadly tip. >> reporter: 8:00 a.m., and they're already playing catchup, these marine wild life res cowers inundated. >> one is way up the beach and one by the tideline. >> reporter: the beach itself has been narrowing, so it's a

little dicey sometimes. we go along with wildlife rescuer adam fox. he's been saving sea lions for 15 years. what he's seen on california beaches since late may is unprecedented. >> is there anyone there to potentially assist us? >> reporter: as we get closer, we spot one of the sea lions. >> looks like he's having a seizure right now. >> what we'll do is be very gentle with her, get those flipper pits in. and i'm going to flip her to you. 3, 2, 1. obviously we were able to rescue one, but you can see behind us another one that didn't survive. it's just heartbreaking seeing this. >> reporter: it sits just off the coast in the pacific ocean. out here, scientists say a massive bloom of toxic algae is growing, stretching some 200 miles from santa barbara south

to san diego and forecasted to get worst. >> the ocean temperatures projected to be the warmest over the next five years. that's the recipe for these blooms to be more intense. >> reporter: smaller sea creatures feed on algae. they are eaten by larger mammals like dolphins and sea lions. these blooms have happened before, but this year scientists warn that the concentration of toxins in this bloom forecasted in red is leading to potentially record deaths of marine life. >> experts-liken this to wave of a tsunami washing over a seabed. >> the dolphins lifeless once they hit the shore. the sea lions, beached and suffering from seizures and paralysis. >> people have called in because they've seen animals on the beach. they've described it as the ocean coughing up death. >> i'm calling to report a sea lion that seems to be foaming at the mouth and looks like it's in

distress. >> this one is really on its way out. it's shallow breathing. it's so sad. >> all of it weighs on rescuers like adam. >> sorry. i just know from working in the colonies how incredible these animals are. so, they deserve respect. >> reporter: respect this team shows through care, unloading the seizing sea lion for dr. lauren palmer to begin treatment. dr. palmer has not had a day off in months. her desperate patients keeping her busy. >> big breath. she seems a little bit more comfortable. >> reporter: there's no guaranteed cure. the meds and fluids can help flush the toxins out, but if the toxins take hold, the brain damage is irreversible, causing erratic and aggressive behavior, including toward people who get too close. we notice this pup fighting for survival, desperate for milk and nurturing that only his mother can provide. she's sedated, as her body fights off the toxins.

>> she might deliver a healthy live pup but doesn't nurse, doesn't lactate, doesn't pay attention to it. >> reporter: they had 40 sea mammals this time last year. today they're caring for three times that number. we ordered fish for the whole year based on what we would normally see and have gone through the entire amount this month. >> reporter: so overwhelming they've had to accommodate overflow in the marking lot. >> and that's put strains on our personnel. we have one veterinarian. >> they used to call it an unusual mortality event. and unfortunately, they're frequent enough now that they no longer call them unusual because they're not. >> reporter: relentless and expected to intensify. possible devastating generations of sea lions like this pup, just seven days old. he may not make it. >> normally, john, in a story like this we would want to show you the release of the healthy rehabilitated sea lions.

the problem is, not only is that toxic algal bloom still out there, but it's also growing. so, folks who are treating those sea lions can't yet release them at a risk of them being reinfected as soon as they're back out into the ocean. so, that further complicated this situation and really overwhelms those efforts to take care of those animals, john. >> what a story. it really is so sad. thank you. next, a welcomed change of pace. our senior data reporter, harry enten on apple, now a $3 trillion company. that's trillion with a t. and the $64,000 question, how well would you have done if you had bought shares in it years ago. that and how apple's wealth stacks up against pretty good sized countries.

[bushes rustling] [door opening] ♪dramatic music♪ yes! hon! the weathertech's here. ♪ weathertech is the ultimate protection for your vehicle. laser-measured floorliners... no drill mudflaps... cargoliner... bumpstep... seat protector... and cupfone. ♪ what about my car? weathertech. [music playing]

subject 1: cancer is a long journey. it's overwhelming, but you just have to put your mind to it and fight. subject 2: it doesn't feel good because you can't play outside with other children. subject 3: as a parent, it is your job to protect your family. but here is something that i cannot do. i cannot fix this. i don't know if my daughter is going to be able to walk. i don't know if she's going to make it till tomorrow. [music playing] interviewer: you can join the battle to save lives by supporting st. jude children's research hospital. families never receive a bill from st. jude for treatment, travel, housing, or food so they can focus on helping their child live. subject 4: childhood cancer, there's no escaping it. but st. jude is doing the work, continually researching towards cures, giving more than just my child a chance at life.

interviewer: please, call or go online right now and become a st. jude partner in hope for only $19 a month. subject 5: those donations really matter because we're not going to give up. and when you see other people not giving up on your child, it makes all the difference in the world. interviewer: when you call or go online with your credit or debit card right now, we'll send you this st. jude t-shirt. you can wear to show your support to help st. jude save the lives of these children. subject 6: st. jude is hope. even today after losing a child, it's still about the hope of tomorrow, because. childhood cancer has to end. interviewer: please, call or go online right now. [music playing] ♪ did you know 80% of women are struggling with hair damage?

dryness and frizz that keeps coming back, could be damaged hair that can't retain moisture. you need pantene's miracle rescue deep conditioner. it's filled with pro-vitamins to help hair lock in moisture, visibly repairing six months of damage in just one use, with no weigh-down. guaranteed, or your money back. for hair that looks healthy and stays healthy. if you know, you know it's pantene. apple has made wall street history. apple stock ended trading today at a record market value of $3 trillion, the only company to ever reach that mark. harry enten joins us now with more. so, harry, if you were smart enough, maybe lucky enough, to invest in apple, like, 20 yearsing a, how much would you have made? >> i have some tissues that i'd

like to use right now to wipe. just so sad. if you had invested, say, $10,000, 20 years ago, do you know how much that would be worth today? $6.7 million. >> really? >> yes. yes! this is so upsetting. you know, i -- my father asked me when i was young what stock did i want to invest in the late '90s and i said microsoft. i was so close. i was so close. i should have said apple. even just a few dollars worth. oh, my god, something like 67,000%. i mean, it's just unbelievable how much it's changed and how lucky those people were who invested in it. >> i feel mostly disappointment and failure in this case. look, how many people have apple devices, asks the guy with two phones in his hands right now. >> i think this is a big reason why apple stock has gone so high. it's the creation of the iphone.

nearly 50% of u.s. adults have an iphone. it's 44% of americans who now own an iphone. it's just gone through the roof. >> harry enten, for the record, is not one of them. >> the gdp of some countries has less than $3 trillion. canada is one. france is another one. italy is another one. where the gdp for 2022 was less than $3 trillion. so, that is worth apple is worth. it's worth more than countries are. >> so, apple could be a permanent member on the national security council. harry enten, thank you for being with us so much. one quick programming note. anderson and his team are dedicating a special hour on the submersible underwater tragedy, the recovery effort, and the dangers of deep sea exploration. "the whole story" areas at 8:00

on cnn