six months when you are 91 is a bit long time. see her asking for a commitment for a large percentage of the time that you have left. and that's a different aspect. but right now, i feel healthily flexible. whether that would be my last film i cannot say. if he should turn around tomorrow with another schindler's list you'd have to fight me to keep me away from it. thank you for watching. you can check my full interviews with harrison ford and cory booker anytime you want. we will be back here on cnn after the july 4th holiday. join us then to find out who is good evening everyone. welcome to "cnn tonight." it's been a week of monumental decisions from the supreme court, decisions that will

affect millions of americans. today the conservative majority blocked president biden's student loan forgiveness program. the president fired back, saying the court, quote, misinterpreted the constitution and vowed to put forward another plan to help student borrowers. what will that look like? we're going to ask former education secretary arne duncan. also today, the justices ruled in favor of a christian web designer who refused to create websites for same-sex weddings. but there's a twist that makes many people think this might have been manufactured and no gay couple asked for a website. now supporters of lgbtq rights fear the court may go even further. plus, remember back on monday when cnn obtained the audiotape of former president trump talking about those classified secret documents he held on to? well, the week ends with members of trump's inner circle talking to investigators. we'll get the latest on where everything stands tonight. let's bring with the supreme

court decisions on lgbtq rights and president biden's student loan forgiveness program. here's what the president said today when asked if he had given students false hope. >> i didn't give any false hope. what i did, i thought was appropriate and was able to be done and would get done. i didn't give borrowers false hope, but the republicans snapped away thesnatched away t hope they were given. >> we have ron brownstein, areva martin, and douglas brinkley. great to have all of you on this beginning of a holiday weekend. ron, give us the big picture here. how will today's rulings affect all of our lives? >> well, these rulings are enormously significant in their own terms, and they are enormously significant in the broader pattern that they reveal. i think what we have seen from this six-member republican-appointed court majority consistently is that they are ruling to impose the

values, priorities, and even grievances of the coalition that nominated and confirmed them. and they were nominated by republican presidents and confirmed almost entirely by republican senators who represent the parts of the country least touched by all the changes remaking american life in the 21st century. whether it was the affirmative action ruling yesterday or the lgbtq ruling today or the student loan decision or affirmative action last year or previous and coming rulings on climate, they are imposing the priorities of that coalition, which in many cases collides not only with the preferences but the intrinsic identity of the younger generations that are much more diverse, much more secular, and much more likely to identify as lgbtq. so in all of these ways, the big picture is that in many respects, the america of 1950 is seeking to write the legal rules for the america of 2050, and that is a tourniquet that is

getting tighter and something is going to give sooner or later if gen z continues to see its values and priorities rejected by this court that reflects an earlier political majority and in many ways, an earlier america. >> let's start with the case of the christian web designer who refused to create websites for same-sex weddings because of her religious beliefs. justice sotomayor warned in the dissent that this could lead to other kinds of decision. she says the decision threatens to vulcanize the market and to allow the exclusion of other groups. is that how you see it? >> absolutely. i agree with ron. the supreme court in 24 hours has done more to unravel and undermine basic rights than any other court in our history. this is concerning to me as a civil rights lawyer, as an african american woman. i think all of the ways in which

businesses could discriminate against other individuals who have other identities, not who just identify with the lgbtq community -- african americans, latinos, and others. the decision by this court undermines those laws that prevent discrimination in public accommodations. s colorado and other states around this country says you cannot discriminate against individuals on the basis of their race, their religious beliefs or sexual identity. and this case allows this web designer to do just that. it opens the door for other businesses to exclude individuals based on their beliefs and undermines, as i said, those laws which protect individuals who are members of a protected class. >> doug, you're our historian here. has this year with all of these marquee decisions from affirmative action, roe v. wade, lgbtq, you know, expanded gun rights, the environmental protections, has this been a

year like no other? >> yeah. i mean you're saying what is the rollback of the lyndon johnson great society and even richard nixon-era politics. you know, i once got to edit ronald reagan's diaries and of all the entries, he kept them every day as president except when he was shot. the one that jumped at me is reagan said i'm not trying to destroy the new deal. i voted for fdr four times. i want to unravel and unroll the great society. starting in 1982 during the reagan years, you had the birth of the federalist society, which was created by harvard and yale lawyers wanting these kind of outcomes. they wanted to do away with the epa, wanted to do away with affirmative action. they wanted to stop the women's rights movement. they wanted to undo roe v. wade. the list is long, and it's been a long march of decades to get to this point. the people most celebrating tonight are groups like the federalist society or the cato institute or anti-government

groups. republican politicians have a tougher time because they have to get re-elected. as we pointed out, many gen z people are going to be angry. you're going to have lgbtq people angry, minorities in america for discrimination at universities and colleges. so there will probably be a backlash to this conservative act of radicalism that's really an attempt to destroy those legacies from the '60s and '70s. >> let's talk about biden's student loan plan. the president said that his authority to do that a year ago came under the 2003 heroes act. well, then today, chief justice roberts wrote in the majority opinion he disagreed. he said the secretary of education does not have that authority. so legally speaking, was it a stretch for president biden to claim that he could do that? >> well, you know what's interesting, biden used some of the same language that we saw donald trump use as donald trump was enacting the payroll

protection act during covid. so biden used that heroes act to modify and to void student loan debt up to a certain amount. what i like is biden said this fight is not over. he's looking to the higher education act to use that as a way to accomplish what he wasn't able to accomplish today. under donald trump, over $700 billion was forgiven for large corporations who used that payroll protection act. this was $400 billion for students. so somehow the supreme court allowed billionaires and major corporations to benefit from having their debt wiped out, but the hypocrisy of not allowing this student loan debt to be eliminated or to be reduced in the way that joe biden tried to, this controversial, major question doctrine act that is relied upon is questionable. and i think joe biden is right. the court got it wrong.

>> bron, where does it go from here? now what? >> well, i think on the narrow issue -- the specific issue of the student debt, the biden administration is going to try to develop this fallback plan, which some of the democratic party wanted from the beginning, from the higher education act. but really the larger question is where the conflict goes between a court that reflects an earlier political era and a changing america. i think we have been here a few times before. in the 1850s, seven of the nine justices had been appointed by pro-slavery, pro-southern democratic presidents and they in the dred scott decision essentially ruled against the agenda of the emerging majority, which was the republican party. as doug can tell you, they ruled as the central plank in the republican agenda. then we saw it again in the 1930s when we had a court. seven of the nine members had

been appointed by republicans from the early part of the 20th century. and they moved to block fdr's agenda. it's not quite as partisan necessarily now, but there's no question that the majority of americans have now been born since 1980. the millennial generation, gen z, and whatever we're calling after them. they're more diverse, more secular, more likely to be lgbtq. they are watching a court appointed by an earlier political majority basically say no to them over and over again on a broad range of issues, as we've been discussing. the question is how long -- this majority could last another ten years, and you just wonder how long you can up the pressure in this way. real quick, for example, a majority of high school graduates are now kids of color for the first time in american history. that happened last year. the court ends affirmative action precisely at that moment when whites still claim 60% of the seats, incoming seats at the

most elite institutions. how long can this majority rule in a way that reflects its coalition against the interests of the rising coalition that is numerical becoming a majority of the country? >> doug, do you have some thoughts on that? if it's going to go on another ten years as ron just said, it sounds like the minority in the supreme court is going to be very frustrated based upon the kind of biting dissents that they've been writing, that our legal experts say are quite unusual. >> absolutely. it reminds us just how important that 2016 election was when hillary clinton lost and when ruth bader ginsburg left the court, there wasn't a liberal to fill that spot. merrick garland didn't get the supreme court nomination, and donald trump got three very conservative justices into that supreme court. he was a double impeached president, one who is getting multiple indictments and may go to jail. but these three republican supreme court justices, as ron said, are here for the next

decade. and it means it's going to be an era of the supreme court really being run by the american political right. >> friends, thank you very much. really great to get all of your perspectives this evening. i want to turn now to former secretary of education arne duncan. secretary duncan, thanks so much for being here. as you just heard us talking, president biden today explained he has a new plan to help students who now feel left in the lurch. here's what he said about that. >> we're creating a temporary 12-month, what we're calling on-ramp repayment program. now, this is not the same as the student loan pause. if you miss payments, this on-ramp will temporarily remove the threat of default or having your credit harmed. >> help us understand how this will work. >> well, it's not easy, and president biden is a fighter. he'll leave no stone unturned. he'll look at his authority under the higher education act.

but i just want to be really clear, the supreme court delivered two separate gut punches to the american public this week. it is not something you easily recover from. >> which two are you referring to? >> both the affirmative action ruling and repealing or taking away his right to forgive a portion of debt for 40 million-plus americans across the country who are still trying to recover from the effects of the pandemic. >> so let's start there. let's talk about the student debt right now because president biden, when he announced that he wanted to do this student loan relief, even some high-profile democrats like nancy pelosi suggested that he did not have the power to do it. so was it a mistake doing it through the heroes act the way he did it? >> i don't think it was a mistake with the country struggling as bad as it was and continues to, you have to do everything you can. this is not a normal supreme court as you well know.

this is a very unusual supreme court. you look at things like the wealth gap in our nation with whites having six, seven, eight, nine times as much money as african americans because african americans have less money, they have to borrow more to go to college. so going to college can actually exacerbate that wealth gap. we're also facing a teacher crisis. many folks want to go into teaching but because it's not a lucrative profession, they need that loan relief. this is going to have a chilling effect on folks that want to enter that profession. so no one is winning here. our nation is losing right now, unfortunately. >> the dollar signs about the student loans stuff are pretty staggering. students in this country have more than $1.6 trillion in debt. the average cost of college increased 169% from 1980 to 2020. so i mean obviously just relieving $10,000 or $20,000 for a student is not going to fundamentally change all that. is there a different solution here to curb these soaring costs

of college? >> that's a great question. there's no one answer. again, this is so critically important to give people some relief. 90% of the 40 million-plus who would have benefited are making less than $75,000 a year. these are not wealthy folks. they're working hard. many living paycheck to paycheck. the bigger picture, we have to continue to challenge universities to keep their costs down. as you know, the cost of higher education is going up faster than the rate of inflation. and we need to continue to invest and expand opportunity. again, i worry desperately about our universities becoming less diverse, not more now. so a lot of challenges. got to move on mount fronts. president biden will do everything he can. the supreme court did our country a great disservice this week. >> let's talk about affirmative action now. you yesterday called it a terrible day for our nation. what will this decision mean for students? >> well, we obviously don't know yet.

it's so, for lack of a better word, hypocritical. if you look at the ivy league institutions, harvard, yale, brown, most of them have 6%, 7% african americans. it's not a big number. if you look at the real affirmative action at those universities, it's the wealthy. it's those related to donors and legacy students. those -- you look at some of the public universities, university of alabama, university of mississippi, university of tennessee, if you look at the black population of those states, usually 30%, 40%, you look at black enrollment in those flagship universities is 10%, 11%, 12%, 13%. so the real disparity, the real affirmative action is not for a very small percent of black students. it's for the privileged and wealthy. if they'r

if. >> arne duncan, thanks so much for being with us on this friday night. really appreciate your perspective. >> thank you. next, a colorado web designer told the supreme court that a man wanted her to use her services for his same-sex wedding. but that man says he never contacted that web designer and that he's not gay and not planning a wedding because he's been married to his wife for 15 years. so was the supreme court case concocted? that's next. e you your day back, so you can give it everything. tylenol. number one doctor recommended for arthritis pain. there is a better way to manage diabetes. the dexcom g7 continuous glucose monitoring system eliminates painful fingersticks,

helps lower a1c, and is covered by medicare. before using the dexcom g7, i was really frustrated. all of that finger-pricking and all that pain, my a1c was still stuck. before dexcom g7, i couldn't enjoy a single meal. i was always trying to outguess my glucose, and it was awful. before dexcom g7, my diabetes was out of control because i was tired. not having the energy to do the things that i wanted to do. (female announcer) dexcom g7 is a small, easy-to-use wearable that sends your glucose numbers to your phone or dexcom receiver without painful fingersticks. the arrow shows the direction your glucose is heading-- up, down, or steady. and because dexcom g7 is the most accurate cgm, you can make better decisions about food, medication, and activity in the moment. it can even alert you before you go too low or when you're high. oh, the fun is absolutely back. after dexcom g7, i can on the spot figure out what i'm gonna eat and how it's gonna affect my glucose.

when a friend calls and says, "hey, let's go to breakfast," -i can get excited again. -after using the dexcom g7, my diabetes, it doesn't slow me down at all. i lead line dancing three times a week, i exercise, and i'm just living a great life now. it's so easy to use. it has given me confidence and control that everything i need is right there on my phone. (earl) the dexcom g7 is so small, it's so easy to use, and it's very discreet. (dr. king) if you have diabetes, getting on dexcom is the single most important thing you can do. (david) within months, my a1c went down to 6.9. (donna) at my last checkup, my a1c was 5.9. (female announcer) now, millions more are covered by medicare. take advantage of the expanded coverage by calling today. (upbeat music) ♪

splash into savings with our 4th of july sale. blendjet gives you ice-crushing, big blender power on-the-go, so you can soak up the sun with a frosty beverage. enjoy 15+ blends before rapidly recharging via usb-c. and it even cleans itself with a drop of soap and water. stand out even when you're accidentally twinning with our kaleidoscope of colors. don■t miss out on our best deal of the summer. visit blendjet.com to order yours.

my most important kitchen tool? my brain. so i choose neuriva plus. unlike some others, neuriva plus is a multitasker supporting 6 key indicators of brain health. to help keep me sharp. neuriva: think bigger. the supreme court ruling in favor of a christian web designer who refused to create a website for a gay man celebration his same-sex marriage. but there's a twist in this case. when cnn reached the man, named in the court documents, he said this incident never happened. he's not gay. he's been married to his wife for 15 years. he called this case concocted. joining me now, cnn political analyst natasha alford, republican strategist jason osborn.

cnn senior political commentator scott jennings, and mayjay michaelson. i want to hear your thoughts on the significance of this decision but also the fact that the case might have been manufactured. in other words, the web designer's religious values were not challenged. does that change anything? >> unfortunately it changes nothing. this really is unprecedented. i've never seen a case of really fraud or misrepresentation be disclosed this late in the process. the opinions were surely already printed, you know, on paper by the time this revelation came to light. in a sense, all of these cases are concocted. this is the alliance defending freedom, a right-wing activist organization finding the right plaintiff. you know, they already failed with this case once before because what was asked for, there wasn't really a case or catastrophe. ostensibly the web designer said she was worried about being sued, an enforcement action coming against her.

that is not how the judiciary system is meant to work. there has to be an active case or controversy, so this was concocted. but i'm not surprised that the conservative majority on this court went to the merits right away. >> scott, what about justice sotomayor's argument, that this could lead various business owners to say they're not comfortable and should not be compelled to serve certain g groups. >> i think just gorsuch, in his comments in the case, thoroughly demolished the dissents here. this was a very narrow case here about compelled speech. can the government compel you to engage in speech that violates your personal beliefs? and all the way up through the case, i don't know if it was concocted or not, all the way up, everybody agreed this was a pure speech issue even at the

circuit level. i think it's a reach. i think it's a political statement. i understand why you would make that argument if you were on the left because you want to make hay out of it. but i think the case was narrower than that. and at its core was whether government can compel you to engage in speech that you don't want to engage in. it's a free speech issue. >> can i just correct the factual record. everybody stipulated this was expression, but not that it was only expression. that's actually a crucial difference. i think we agree about this fact. it's kind of a hybrid of a free speech case and a public accommodations case. the issue is when a same-sex couple, if i and my husband went to this web designer, we couldn't obtain the same services that a straight couple could obtain. it does implicate free speech. it's strange that i think the more conservative framing the case after favors the lgbtq side. there's a lot of people say the sky is falling. when we say that, that creates that social reality. people feel that they do have that license to discriminate.

i actually prefer justice gorsuch's framing. this isn't about compelling a private person to speak. this is a business entering a marketplace and offering services to some but not to all. >> natasha, your thoughts. >> i remember being in the field reporting in 2015 when the news broke that same-sex marriage had been legalized, and it was such a monumental moment. but i also knew that that wasn't the end of it, right? that there would be attempts to undermine that ruling. we know from watching the civil rights movement play out that even after brown versus the board of education, even after schools were ordered to desegregate, there were always efforts to find a way around the law. and so i'm not surprised that someone went out of their way. ironically, someone who's christian, representing a faith that is about love, to actively go out of their way to show how they would not serve somebody. it's just a reflection of the

time. there are 491 anti-lgbtq bills in the u.s. up right now according to the aclu. so it's a reflection of the time that we are in. >> jason, do you see sotomayor's argument of basically the slippery slope argument, that this could allow for other businesses to refuse to create something for other people? >> well, i agree with scott and his points on this, but i also see that side of it and the fact that i have a problem with how this case came about. i don't like the fact that there was not an actual injured party in this and that the case was able to go that far. but that being said, i'm not an attorney, so i can't really speak to that aspect of it. but i do feel like this is going to lead to more people trying to do the same thing again and to sotomayor's point, somebody with an interracial couple will try that, i don't think it will

work. to scott's point, it was pretty narrowly defined, and it does not mean that this website designer can discriminate against anybody in the lgbtq community or anybody else on their services. it was very singular in the sense that it dealt with wedding services and writing words on the website that she didn't mentally agree with. >> jay, jim obergefell, the plaintiff in the 2015 landmark gay marriage case, was on cnn tonight expressing his anger and disappointment and fear about what's next. >> i absolutely believe any rights the lgbtq+ community enjoy in this country are at risk. you know, we have this court now saying that one person's religious beliefs or their interpretation of their particular religious book trumps everything else. opponents of lgbtq+ equality, they are going to use this in

every way that they can to continue coming after the queer community. it's using religion as a tool of hate. so, yes, i am very worried about the lgbtq+ community and our rights and our ability to live our life in this nation. >> jay, it sounds like you're not quite at that level of panic. is he wrong to have those feelings tonight? >> no. i think he's certainly not wrong, especially when it comes to transgender populations. i do think that there's a tactical decision that many in the lgbt community have made, and this is my community. to kind of go to -- to immediately go to the slippery slope. unlike my republican colleagues on this panel, i don't want to let the court off the hook. i think this case was wrongly decided and i think it's extremely problematic. but i'm also not necessarily on the team of saying this means the sky is falling. as you know from many times when

i've been on the show, i think the sky is falling on trans populations and the war on trans existence is horrifying. when that's the case, i don't hesitate to say it. but this is a case about speech. i mean, jim obergefell is a hero of mine, so not to contradict him, this is not a religion case. this was a free speech case. i think it would behoove those of us who care about equality to acknowledge that this only extends to cases where speech is at issue. this does not allow a pizzeria or a restaurant or a hotel or something to say, no, i get to not serve gay customers. i don't think that that framing helps the cause of equality. >> let's talk about the student loan debt that was basically nullified. scott, your thoughts on that one. >> well, i mean everything i know about this, i learned from joe biden and nancy pelosi, who said on our network and other networks that they didn't think they could do it, that it was unconstitutional to do it. then biden did it anyway, and

then the court found that he was right in the first place. and so my advice to him -- by the way, i'm actually sympathetic to these loan holders because i think some of them may have been duped into bad debt, terms they didn't understand, and i understand the crushing nature of it. he needs to pass a law. that's the way this is solved is to go to congress and try to pass a law. i actually believe there could be political will to do something about it in the way that the court has prescribed here which is just pass a law. i think that's where he ran into trouble. i think the political issue is pretty clear. there are folks concerned about it and people that are hurting. but the method to cure it is in congress, not in these unconstitutional executive orders. >> natasha, your thoughts. >> speaking plainly, there are so many people who watch every day the way that our government works or it doesn't work. and this was a beacon of hope. it was an opportunity for people to feel like finally, you know,

something is here for me, and my attempt to improve my life, to change my circumstances, coming from a disadvantaged -- many of these loans were so small, right, under $10,000. but they were prohibitive for people who were, you know, trying to make a way and trying to make a living. so that hope was snatched away. i think that there are political implications for this. in the election, people will be watching to see what president biden does about this. the black community in particular, naacp president said, you know, there's a risk of us growing disillusioned, right, because of so many big promises that were made, and for minorities in particular, student loan debt is different, right? it is that difference between being able to get a home or make investments in yourself. many of these students are coming into college at a disadvantage. many don't even get to go into the field that they studied because they have to take a job

right away just to pay those bills. african americans carry $25,000 more debt on average than their white counterparts, and it just gets worse as time goes on. so this is an issue of racial justice for many, and there's a lot on the line in terms of what happens next. >> friends, thank you very much. really great to get all of your perspectives on this important night. there's also big developments this week in multiple investigations into former president trump's actions. up next, legal analyst joey jackson is going to bring us up to speed.

sleepovers just aren't what they used to be. a house full of screens? basically no hiccups? you guys have no idea how good you've got it. how old are you? like, 80? back in my day, it was scary stories and flashlights. we don't get scared. oh, really? mom can see your search history. that's what i thought. introducing the next generation 10g network. only from xfinity.

it's been a big week in the ongoing investigations into donald trump. on monday, cnn obtained that audiotape of trump discussing secret classified documents with people who do not have security clearances. we also learned the special counsel's investigators have questioned one of trump's top campaign aides about a classified map that he allegedly showed her. then there's jack smith's investigation into trump's election interference. we've learned that investigators spoke with rudy giuliani and georgia secretary of state brad raffensperger.

and now former trump campaign official mike roman is cooperating with investigators. here tonight on all of this is cnn legal analyst joey jackson. joey, thanks so much for being here tonight. of everything that's happened this week, it's hard to remember that it was just monday when we heard that audiotape that cnn obtained of president trump talking about the classified secret documents. what's the biggest problem of this week for donald trump? >> i think there are many, alisyn. it's very difficult to pinpoint one in particular. i know he certainly had a good justification, maybe not so good in many's eyes as to the issue of whether or not that tape that was released actually were classified documents or they were the ruffling of many newspapers, having nothing at all to do with any classified documents. i think that was certainly significant. what else was significant, that of course relating to the 37-count indictment in which obviously that audio was

obtained. then of course you look to the issue of mr. raffensperger on the georgia front. we know in georgia he's being -- that is mr. trump -- looked at by not only the state. we know the district attorney is assessing whether or not there was election interference or any crimes committed in his phone call to the secretary of state. as we look at the many investigations, but that of course the district attorney in georgia is expected at the state level to give some indication of whether she's pressing forward against mr. trump in september. and then we know of course, mr. smith, the special counsel, invited mr. raffensperger to speak to him with respect to the federal investigation. so there's just a whirlwind of events that are occurring. how this ultimately ends is going to be in a trial, and i think certainly that the federal trial relating to the federal indictment will go before the new york city trial, which we have not yet talked about, and that's in manhattan. that's scheduled for next year,

and that of course deals with the hush money payment. so i know it's a whirlwind of activity. very difficult to pinpoint one that has precedence over the other. all are significant, and all represent significant trouble for the former president. >> donald trump talked about this at a campaign event tonight. here he is. >> it turns out with me, i did nothing wrong. they go after people that did nothing wrong. they use disinformation and everything else. but if anybody else was standing up here or the front-runner, you know, if i was in third place, fourth place, or wasn't running, there wouldn't be anything. they would have said, he's one of the most honest presidents we've ever had. they've got me on nothing. all of the things they do have, it's like the pundits are saying, wow, that's nothing. >> joey, here's an interesting wrinkle. we have reporting that donald trump is actually using some campaign contributions, so his

supporters are contributing what they think is money to his campaign, but he's using it for his legal fees. is that okay? >> i mean, listen, you know, in the event that you have political contributions, you can use them for purposes that you think further the interest of your campaign, certainly furthering the interest of your campaign would be not ending up in jail and avoiding any type of criminality against you. so whether or not it's acceptable to his supporters, i think they'll support him nonetheless. whether he should do it ethically is a separate question of whether it's legally important to do. i think it's important to also note as we look at what you say on the campaign trail, generally attorneys like me cringe when clients have anything to say regarding a case that's out there against them. but when you're running for president, it's very difficult not to say anything about that because inquiryinging minds, th public, certainly wants to know. i think when you get into the

nitty-gritty and the details, i thought the 37-count indictment was pretty clear and specific with regard to what he did with regard to the classified documents, where they were kept, efforts by the government to get them back. there's just a lot going on that might in fact contradict notions of it being a witch hunt, nothing to see here, et cetera. but, look, the bottom line is people can be charged. they could even be indicted. it's a matter of what a jury determines at the time of trial as to guilty and innocence that really matters. he deserves like everyone else his day in court. >> joey, have a great fourth of july weekend. thanks so much for being here. >> thank you. up next, a report into sexual assault at the coast guard academy that was kept secret until cnn started asking questions.

introducing the limited edition disney collection from blendjet. nine exciting designs your whole family will adore blendjet 2 is portable, which means you can blend up nutritious smoothies, protein shakes, or frozen treats, just about anywhere! recharge quickly via usb-c. it even cleans itself. order yours now from blendjet.com and bring a little disney into your life. i'm sholeh, and i lost 75 pounds with golo. i went from a size 20 to a size 6. before golo, nothing seemed to work. i was exercising for over an hour every day. it was really discouraging. but golo's so easy, the weight just falls off.

join me in the finish 24 hour challenge. start by cooking a lasagna. skip the rinse and load your dishes. 24 hours later when your dishwasher is full, let finish quantum clean your dishes. if the stains aren't gone, your lasagna is on finish.

tonight a cnn exclusive about a damning report into sexual assault at the coast guard academy that coast guard leaders kept secret for nearly four years. the coast guard only came clean and told members of congress about it after cnn started asking questions. here's chief investigative correspondent pamela brown. >> reporter: the multi-year investigation was called "operation fouled anchor" and uncovered a history of rapes and assaults at the u.s. coast guard academy that were ignored or even covered up by high-ranking officials. but coast guard officials had kept the investigation secret since 2019 and never released the report. only approaching congress this month after cnn asked about it. during the investigation, the coast guard found evidence of dozens 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 happened, 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 sexual assaulted three times. it was completely toxic and devastating to my sense of self and left lifelong damages to my physical and mental health. >> reporter: this young woman is a recent cadet. she graduated in 2022 and says the coast guard culture has not changed. >> the coast guard academy employs, 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 described survival tactics they had to use while at the academy. they would rig their doors to make it hard to get in, prop rifles against the door, or utilize a trash can, and that cadets were hesitant to report for a fear 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 that if you say something, you are blacklisted because now you're the girl who cried wolf. >> even if it really happened. >> even if it really happened. >> it sounds like from what you've described, the survivors are the ones who are punished and those 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. >> pam brown joins me now. pam, what does the coast guard say about all this in. >> after cnn's report was first published this morning, the coast guard sent us a statement directly apologizing about all these mistakes made in the fouled anchor investigation, 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. i will tell you that my colleagues here on the investigative unit are going to stay on this story. we will, of course, stay on this as it unfolds. >> that's quite an apology there. meanwhile, pam, some members of congress are now weighing in, including senator ted cruz. what's he saying? >> yeah, that's right. this has caught the attention of senators, lawmakers on both sides of the aisle. you have democratic senators speaking out about this, and you have the ranking chairman, republican ted cruz, of the committee that was briefed by the coast guard, speaking out, tweeting our story here, our cnn story, saying that he finds these reports deeply disturbing. he says this is an issue he has been fighting about on a bipartisan level for the last decade. so clearly this is having an impact and causing quite the ripple effect on capitol hill. >> great investigative reporting. pam brown, thank you so much for sharing that. >> thank you. >> we'll be right back.

there is a better way to manage diabetes. the dexcom g7 continuous glucose monitoring system eliminates painful finger sticks, helps lower a1c, and it's covered by medicare. before using the dexcom g7, i was really frustrated. all of that finger pricking and all that pain, my a1c was still stuck.

before dexcom g7, i couldn't enjoy a single meal. i was always trying to outguess my glucose, and it was awful. before dexcom g7, my diabetes was out of control because i was tired, not having the energy to do the things that i wanted to do. (female announcer) dexcom g7 is a small, easy-to-use wearable that sends your glucose numbers to your phone or dexcom receiver without painful finger sticks. the arrow shows the direction your glucose is heading-- up, down, or steady-- and because dexcom g7 is the most accurate cgm, you can make better decisions about food, medication, and activity in the moment. it can even alert you before you go too low or when you're high. oh, the fun is absolutely back. after dexcom g7, i can on the spot figure out what i'm gonna eat and how it's going to affect my glucose! when a friend calls and says, "hey, let's go to breakfast," i can get excited again. (earl) after using the dexcom g7, my diabetes, it doesn't slow me down at all. i lead line dancing three times a week, i exercise, and i'm just living a great life now.

it's so easy to use. it has given me confidence and control, everything i need is right there on my phone. (earl) the dexcom g7 is so small, so easy to use, and it's very discreet. (dr. aaron king) if you have diabetes, getting on dexcom is the single most important thing you can do. (david) within months, my a1c went down, that's 6.9. (donna) at my last checkup, my a1c was 5.9. (female announcer) dexcom is the number one recommended cgm brand and offers 24/7 tech support, so call now to get started. you'll talk to a real person. don't wait, this one short call could change your life. (bright music)

from covid-19 to the murder of george floyd and the presidential election, 2020 was a year that changed everything. go inside those memorable 12 months on a new episode of the cnn original series "the 2010s." here's a preview. >> people came out to join a movement that had now been in place since at least 2012, black lives matter. and in cities across the country, not just big cities, smaller towns, it was one of the biggest mobilizations that we had seen in a long time, if not ever, in support of criminal justice reform. >> you had rallies that were all white in states that were almost

all white, saying black lives matter. this was a massive breakthrough. >> i want us to treat black lives as our own on a daily basis. >> this was the first time that we heard protesters, particularly white protesters, talking about system uk racism as a problem. >> be sure to check out "the 2010s" sunday at 9:00 p.m. eastern only on cnn. thanks for watching cnn tonight. our coverage continues now. cannonball! book direct at choicehotels.com. i'm jonathan lawson here to tell you about life insurance through the colonial penn program. if you're age 50 to 85, and looking to buy life insurance on a fixed budget, remember the three ps. what are the three ps? the three ps of life insurance on a fixed budget are price, price, and price. a price you can afford, a price that can't increase,

and a price that fits your budget. i'm 54, what's my price? you can get coverage for $9.95 a month. i'm 65 and take medications. what's my price? also $9.95 a month. i just turned 80, what's my price? $9.95 a month for you too. if you're age 50 to 85, call now about the #1 most popular whole life insurance plan available through the colonial penn program. it has an affordable rate starting at $9.95 a month. no medical exam, no health questions. your acceptance is guaranteed. and this plan has a guaranteed lifetime rate lock so your rate can never go up for any reason. so call now for free information and you'll also get this free beneficiary planner. and it's yours free just for calling. so call now for free information.

- [announcer] do you have an invention idea but don't know what to do next? call invent help today. they can help you get started with your idea. call now 800-710-0020. welcome to you