NTD Evening News Full Broadcast (June 27)

Welcome to NTD Evening News. Our top story tonight, a major win for President Trump. The Supreme Court rules to limit a lower court's ability to issue a nationwide injunction against one of Trump's executive orders. Jason Blair has more on the high court's decision. And the president tells NTD about the impact of his legal victory. Plus, why Trump is stopping all trade talks with Canada. Iris Tao at the White House. The Supreme Court also made several other important rulings today, including in cases relating to age verification on pornography websites and LGBTQ star books in schools. David Lamb has more on those decisions. Israeli forces strike multiple targets in Lebanon belonging to the Hezbollah terrorist group. A rocket reportedly launched after one of the strikes hit a civilian building, killing one woman. Jason Perry reports. With less than a week until the July 4th deadline, the Senate is still not ready to vote on President Trump's one big beautiful bill. But House Speaker Mike Mc Johnson says he's optimistic that Republicans will get it done in time. Luis Martinez on Capitol Hill. [Music] This is NTV Evening News live from our global headquarters in New York City. Here's Tiffany Meyer. Good evening and thank you for joining us tonight. The Supreme Court rules to limit the power of judges to issue nationwide injunctions. The case was over a lower court ruling that halted President Trump's executive order to end automatic birthright citizenship. NTD correspondent Jason Blair has more. In a six to3 ruling, the Supreme Court says nationwide injunctions quote likely exceed the equitable authority that Congress has given to federal courts. The case is based on a nationwide injunction that stopped President Trump's executive order to stop automatic birthright citizenship. The High Court didn't issue a final ruling on whether that executive order is constitutional. Attorney General Pam Bondi responded, saying, "Today, the Supreme Court instructed district courts to stop the endless barrage of nationwide injunctions against President Trump." This Department of Justice will continue to zealously defend the president's policies and his authority to implement them. JD Vance responded by saying, "A huge ruling by the Supreme Court smacking down the ridiculous process of nationwide injunctions. Under our system, everyone has to follow the law, including judges." Supreme Court Justice Amy Coney Barrett wrote on behalf of the majority that when a court concludes that the executive branch has acted unlawfully, the answer is not for the court to exceed its power. Two, Supreme Court Justice Sonia Sotomayer wrote on behalf of the dissenting judges, saying that the court has quote abdicated its vital role in fighting for the survival of the nation's democracy. Senator Ted Cruz, chairman of the federal courts and oversight subcommittee, has expressed concern that certain jurisdictions are purposefully being chosen for cases involving President Trump's actions. that the number of nationwide injunctions issued in the first four months is greater than the entire 20th century and is greater than all of the nationwide injunctions issued against Bush, Obama, and Biden combined. Senator Sheldon White House has spoken in favor of the federal courts blocking the president's orders. He's breaking the law and doing it a lot and judges are doing their job. The Supreme Court also stayed any enforcement of Trump's automatic birthright citizenship executive order from taking effect for 30 days. Reporting in Washington DC, Jason Blair, NTD News. President Trump tells NTD that his major win at the Supreme Court will empower Congress and future presidents. He also calls off trade talks with Canada and announces a new timeline for a ceasefire in Gaza. Joining us now live is in today's White House correspondent, Iris Tao. Good evening, Iris. First, what did the president tell you about the impact of his Supreme Court win as well, Tip? So, today's ruling is apparently very impactful as it means that lower court's ability to issue nationwide injunctions against President Trump's executive actions is now limited by the High Court. And at a press briefing this morning, President Trump told NTD that today's ruling will give powers back to the people, including both the Congress as well as uh future presidents. Watch Iris Ta with NTD Research Media with the Apoc Times. Thank you so much for doing this. It's very refreshing for all of us here in this room. Um so refreshing. Very refreshing. Yes, we have this and you know, I can I understand what you mean for you. So, thank you so much for coming out here other than Caroline's done a great job. She you're referring to the past administration, not to Caroline. Right. Yes. Um, back to the rulings today, if you don't mind. So, you have always talked about winning for the American people. How do you think today's ruling will enable you to further deliver for American families and workers across the country? Move forward. Well, I think taking power away from these absolutely crazy radical left judges is is a tremendous This is such a big day, but this is a very big moment and it gives uh gives power back to people that should have it, including Congress, including the presidency. And well, today's ruling was given in the case surrounding birthight citizenship. It actually goes way beyond that. It also means that Trump for example saying that administration can now proceed to file on a number of cases including for example policy beyond a just birthright citizenship and also attorney general Pam Bondi today also at the press briefing uh while touting the new ruling today also criticizes lower courts and judges accusing them of trying to act like uh emperors that are trying to seize executive branches powers. Watch. 94 districts and 35 out of the 40 opinions with nationwide injunctions came from five liberal districts in this country. No longer will we have rogue judges striking down President Trump's policies across the entire nation. And the attorney general also says that in the past injunctions have blocked President Trump's policies when it comes to not just immigration but also when it comes to tariffs as well as military readiness, immigration as well as foreign affairs. But now she says that's no longer the case. Tiff and Iris, the president today also updated Americans on a potential timeline for a ceasefire in Gaza. What did he say about that? Sure. So, President Trump, while hosting the foreign ministers of Rwanda, Rwanda, as well as Congo this afternoon at the White House, says that he's expecting progress on Gaza, uh, possibly a ceasefire within the next week. He says that, quote, "We are working on Gaza, trying to get it taken care of." And it comes as he's also touting a new peace deal between Rwanda and Congo, facilitated by his administration, as well as other recent achievements when it comes to resolving conflicts. watch a few short months, we've now achieved peace between India and Pakistan, Israel and Iran, and the DRC and Rwanda. And when it comes to trade, President Trump today also announced that he's now putting on hold all trade talks with Canada and that's in response to a new tax being collected by Canada starting next Monday. uh that's targeting for example big tech companies like Google and Amazon. Uh it's called new digital services tax and President Trump calls it an egregious tax and saying that the US will immediately hold its trade talks with Canada. Back to you. All right, Iris, thanks for those updates. Israeli forces report striking multiple targets in Lebanon belonging to the Iranbacked Hezbollah terrorist group. A civilian building was also hit, but Israel said that was the result of a rocket that launched from the area of one of their strikes. Entities Jason Perry has the update. On Friday, residents in southern Lebanon attempted to rescue people from the scene of a reported Israeli air strike. The strike hit in the city of Nabatia, and Lebanon state-run media said one woman was killed and 11 others were wounded. A local religious leader commented on the situation. This is a message to the entire world, both at home and abroad. We are steadfast no matter how much they bomb us with their war plananes and drones. We stand firm on our land like the steadfastness of the Cedars of Lebanon. On the same day, Israeli forces said they struck a site belonging to the Iranbacked Hezbollah terrorist group that was used to manage the group's attack and defense assets. Israel also said they were aware of a civilian building that was hit in the same city. But Israel released footage of the strike and said that after review, a Hezbollah rocket that was stored at the site launched from the impact area and hit the civilian building. Israel then went on to explain that Hezbollah continues to endanger the residents of southern Lebanon by refusing to hand over its weapons to the state. The president of Lebanon condemned the Israeli strikes in a post on X, saying they violate Lebanon sovereignty and the November ceasefire agreement which Israel has accused Lebanon of violating as well. And on Thursday, the leader of Hezbollah said that Israel did not achieve its objectives in the war with Iran and that Iran was victorious. Residents in Iran shouting death to America and Israel had their first Friday prayers since the ceasefire. And they also said that Iran's powerful military was what forced Israel and the US to agree to a ceasefire. The Israel Defense Forces spokesperson said that Israel had completed their objectives, including making sure Iran does not get a nuclear weapon. We targeted nuclear facilities, dozens of senior military commanders, 11 nuclear experts and knowledge hubs, and research and development sites. By doing so, we disrupted all stages of the regime's nuclear weapons production. Iran's foreign minister also agreed that serious damage was done to Iran's nuclear sites, but he said Iran had not yet made a decision whether they were going to allow the International Atomic Energy Agency to inspect the sites and get precise information on the extent of the damage. Jason Perry, NTD News. And speaking to reporters today, President Trump said he's open to further strikes on Iran if Thrron were to restart its nuclear program. While US officials appear to rule out direct involvement for a regime change in Iran, the prospect still remains in the country. Opposition figures and groups abroad continue to push for tougher international pressure on the Mulla's regime. ENTD international correspondent David Vz reports from Paris. The possibility of regime change in Iran seems increasingly absent from international discussion. While President Donald Trump posted on June 22nd, "If the current Iranian regime is unable to make Iran great again, why wouldn't there be a regime change?" He later walked back that statement and said he wants to see everything calm down. Still inside and outside Iran, the idea of regime change garners support as the country faces economic collapse and entrenched repression under the Malaz regime. Reports from officials and activists said tan has intensified mass arrests, executions, and military deployments, particularly in the rest of Kurdish region since the end of the 12-day war. According to Shahin Nazad, spokesperson for the Iran resurgence movement, Israel strikes have been welcomed by much of the Iranian population, especially since the targeted regime infrastructure and government figures linked to the violent suppression of protesters. However, he warns that while a ceasefire may serve peace in the region, it could be disastrous for the Iranian people as the regime will strengthen its position. They can claim that they have won the war. Yeah, they didn't surrender and now they can give a hell to everyone who opposed them in the past several years and now they've got the excuse you are Musad agent, you are CIA agent. So people who had been arrested before and we were worried about them same people might be executed easily because the level of suppression and dictatorship goes to another uh level. Iran's men's opposition organizations outside the country such as the Iranian Resurgence Movement, the Sha Son exile crown prince Rizapalvi and the National Council of Resistance of Iran or NCRI believe that change is possible through tougher policies against the regime and stronger support for the Iranian people. According to NCRI spokesperson Shyen Gubadi, appeasement would be the worst case scenario. The fact of the matter is that every penny, every dime, every dollar that this regime gets is either used to repress the Iranian people or to finance terrorist groups or to advance nuclear and ballistic missiles or it is plundered by the moolas regime's leaders and the commanders of the IRGC. Both NCRI and the Iran resurgence movement strongly oppose the GCPOA. The Iran nuclear deal brokered under the Obama administration and supported by the EU. Gubadi says the policy failed to curb terrorism or halt Iran's nuclear ambitions. There has been five nationwide uprisings in Iran since December 2017 and each of them getting more inclusive, stronger and uh more and more people involved. The last round in September 22 all the way to the early 2023 was in all 31 provinces of Iran in uh some 300 cities and towns. It gives a good sentiment that how the change would come. It definitely would be through an uprising by the Iranian people and as I said looking the trajectory and the trend this is inevitable. Some analysts warned that the collapse of the Mulas regime could open the door to chaos, which may not serve the interests of Israel or the United States. But opposition groups like NCRI and Iron Resurgence stress that they along with many Iranians seek democracy, a secular state, and restore the ties with Western nations. TVs, NTD News, Paris. With less than a week until the July 4th deadline, the Senate is still not ready to vote on President Trump's one big beautiful bill, our Washington correspondent, Luis Adordo Martinez, breaks down the latest developments on the president's legislative agenda. We're not The House will not be jammed by anything. I've made that commitment. So, I I have been doggedly determined to get this done by July 4th, as has the president. And the reason is, to answer your question, because we want to do it as soon as possible. This bill is going to be jet fuel to the US economy. Speaker of the House Mike Johnson remains optimistic that Republican lawmakers will meet their July 4th deadline and send the reconciliation bill to the president's desk for signing next week for that to happen. Lawmakers will have to work over the weekend with the earliest expected vote happening this Saturday. We will we'll allow at least 72 hours, which is our normal process. That's not required under the rules, but it would certainly be a a courtesy for everyone to be able to go through it. I hope that we're what we're going to receive as a product that is is substantially similar to what we see over in the House. Thursday night, the Senate parliamentarian struck out of the reconciliation bill key provisions that Republicans had already agreed on. For example, private school vouchers, restricting affordable care act subsidies for abortions, requiring proof of citizenship to receive Medicare benefits, and gun silencer and concealed carry deregulation, all have been removed from the bill. Uh, I understand the frustration, but I actually think we're going to be able to work through this. One example that is originally um the uh not allowing SNAP benefits to illegal immigrants was was bounced and now that's back in. So, I'm pretty confident we're going to work through these and get the savings that we want, make sure illegal immigrants aren't uh getting their taxpayer benefits and ultimately still delivering on all the things for American families. I'm still hopeful. The Senate will vote this Friday on Democratic Senator Tim Kaine's War Powers Act resolution that seeks to restrict the president's authority to wage war. This is despite overwhelming Republican push back and despite lawmakers having being briefed on classified intelligence regarding the strikes on Iran. I think it's safe to say that we have struck a major blow alongside our friends in Israel against Iran's nuclear program. In technical terms, um, we we knocked the living crap out of our three targets. This was a good briefing. It was one of the best I've ever attended. Uh, I'm almost sorry I went to this briefing because almost everything that was there is in the public domain. There has been no evidence presented in the public domain. Let's just talk about the public domain. That talks about obliterated. On the House side, Congressman Thomas Massie withdrew his War Powers Act resolution, citing the enduring ceasefire between Israel and Iran as proof that the resolution is unnecessary. Reporting from Washington DC, Luis Eduardo Martinez, NTD News. Coming up, NATO countries agreeing to boost defense spending to 5% of GDP. How much are countries spending now? And what would it take to reach that target? Kevin Hogan breaks down the numbers. And four suspects have been arrested in the nation's largest COVID tax fraud scheme. Investigators say the suspects stole millions and later turned on each other in a violent twist. Christina Corona reports when we come back. [Music] Welcome back. I'm Tiffany Meer. NATO countries have agreed to boost defense spending. At a recent meeting, NATO chief Mark Rut said President Trump's leadership is making this possible. Our NATO reporter Kevin Hogan has more on how much NATO members are currently spending on defense and how they got there. NATO countries have agreed to boost defense spending and in a recent meeting, NATO chief Mark Rut said President Trump's leadership is making this possible. Now, at the same time, we look at we look at what's actually happening here. President Trump is urging other countries to establish more defense spending. So now is that an attainable target? That's what we need to look at. So like I mentioned, NATO alliance expecting more out of its out of its member nations. Now that's about 5% of GDP that they're expecting for them to contribute. This is according to NATO by 2035. So what does that mean? Well, that means that that these countries are going to have to contribute quite a lot more. That's just that's two over two trillion dollars just about$ two trillion dollars more according to the Atlantic Council that they're going to have to spend every single year, right? So that's a big jump that they're trying to make at this particular moment. So now let's break down that 5% number to understand where this money is actually coming from. Okay, so you see that 3 and a half% of that defense spending from of their GDP has to go towards things like tanks. These are equipment. These are things that are, you know, hardware. This is weapons, troops, right? But there's an additional 1.5% that has to go towards things that are not that core defense but are still very important. This is infrastructure, making sure that your roads are able to handle military equipment, your ports as well, right? So also cyber defense. This is very very important given all those recent cyber attacks that we have seen. So let's look at just this core 3.5% number and understand how many countries were actually meeting the previous target. So when you talk about the actual defense spending that the all these 31 NATO countries that have militaries, Iceland is the 32nd but it's not shown here because it doesn't have a military. How many of them are actually meeting that target? Right? So this target of 2% which was the previous one before they had that meeting is right about here. Okay. To give you an idea, this is Poland, so it's clearly meeting it. And this is the United States. So, they are clearly meeting that old target and a lot of other countries did as well. Some fell short. However, this 3% target, this 3 and 12% target that they recently just settled on, that's right here. And you could see Poland's the only country hitting that. The United States maybe just about there. Again, this is 2024 estimates. They made the estimate in the middle of the year. But all these countries as a whole, they have a long way to go to make up that gap. Now that 5% that's off the charts, but again that includes that 1 and a.5% target for that noncore defense, that infrastructure, but Reuters reports that NATO doesn't even give out that information. So it's really hard to know whether those countries are actually meeting that target. So now when you look back at 2014 numbers, NATO's defense spending, you see the United States had the biggest share of GDP, I mean that's that's you know three and a half% or so. And the Poland, UK, France, they all had very big contributions. But when you look at the increase to 2024, you see that that has jumped across many of these major NATO allies. Look at this. Poland increasing its defense spending by over 2%. Remember Poland is right next to Russia and Russia invaded Ukraine. Now Germany, Hungary, you see these big increases from all these other countries. United States was just about the same, but Spain is lagging far behind and actually Spain reached a deal with NATO not to spend 5% of their budget. But Mark Rut, NATO chief, he said there will be no optouts. Back to you. A former aid to New York Governor Kathy Hokll and former Governor Andrew Cuomo is facing new federal fraud charges. Linda's son was already accused of acting as an unregistered agent for the Chinese regime. The new indictment alleges Sun and her husband steered millions in COVID era state contracts to companies tied to her family while serving as a diversity officer under Governor Cuomo. Prosecutors say she added two China Link companies to a list of recommended vendors, one run by her second cousin, the other by her husband. They say she also altered an email from a Chinese official to boost her cousin's surgical mask business. Between March and June 2020, New York wired nearly $45 million to those companies. Sun and her husband allegedly pocketed more than $2 million in kickbacks. Sun's lawyer said she will vigorously contest the allegations. For Southern California, residents are accused of running the nation's largest co tax fraud scheme. They allegedly stole nearly $100 million by filing fake tax returns over several years. And Christina Corona has the details. Four Southern California suspects have been charged with allegedly stealing $93 million in a COVID related tax fraud scheme. The suspects are Christopher Turner, 52, Torioniano Knox, 55, Kenya Jones, 46, and Joyce Johnson, 55. Investigators say they submitted fraudulent claims for at least 148 companies that many of which didn't exist. They targeted pandemic relief programs that reimbured businesses for wages paid to employees who couldn't work. Prosecutors say Turner organized the scheme and directed others to recruit people to join. Those recruits then handed over personal information used to create fake businesses and file false returns. The suspects deposited government checks into fake business accounts. Turner took 20 to 40% of each payment. Officials say the group tried to steal nearly $250 million in total tax refunds. However, in 2023, Knox and Jones allegedly tried to kill Turner to stop him from cooperating with authorities. Turner was shot multiple times in Gardina, California, and is now paralyzed. If convicted, all four could get up to 20 years in prison for each male fraud count. Knox and Jones also face life in prison and up to 30 years for attempted murder. Christina Corona, NTD News. Coming up, the Supreme Court ending its term with major decisions, including in cases related to President Trump's birthright citizenship order, age verification on pornography websites and LGBTQ staring books and schools. Attorney and law professor William Jacobson joins us to discuss the rulings and their significance after the break. Welcome back. I'm Judy Meyer. In addition to handing the president a legal victory in the birthright citizenship case, the Supreme Court issued several other major rulings today. Those decisions revolve around LGBTQ books and children's exposure to adult websites. Entities David Lamb has details on those cases and more. Several major rulings came out of the US Supreme Court on Friday. In Maryland, for religious reasons, parents can opt their young children out of school storybook lessons that promote LGBTQ lifestyles. Another great decision that came down today, the Trans Books case, which restores parents rights to decide their child's education. Seems like a a basic idea, but it took the Supreme Court to to set the record straight, and we thank them for that. It now that that ruling allows parents to opt out. It was a 6-3 decision that reversed an appeal that claimed a school board's policy didn't infringe on parents' constitutional right to religious exercise. I think it's a great ruling for parents. It's really a ruling for parents. They they lost control of the schools. They lost control of their child. And this is a tremendous victory for parents. And the Supreme Court also upheld a Texas law that requires age verification to access adult websites. It requires users to present governmentissued ID with the aim of blocking minors from explicit content. I believe it's more than 30% of its content um that is pornographic that they must make a um a process uh that the person going on their website to view their website and its content has to prove their age. In another ruling, the court upheld a provision of the Affordable Care Act that says the structure of the government's preventive services task force is constitutional, allowing it to continue working. This means that about 150 million people will continue getting free preventive services. In yet another 63 decision, the justices ruled that an FCC program that provides telephone and internet services to rural communities and lowincome Americans can continue. The Supreme Court said Congress's delegation to the FCC for the program didn't violate the Constitution. David Lamb, NTD News. Joining us now to discuss the major decisions from the Supreme Court today is William Jacobson. He's an attorney and law professor at Cornell Law School. William, thank you so much for joining us. Great to see you again. Now, the high court issued a ruling today that essentially limits federal judges ability to block executive actions nationwide. That's at least in the short term judges review their legality. First, what are the larger implications here? Which Trump related nationwide injunctions could we see rolled back as a result of this? Well, there have been a number of nationwide injunctions. I think 40 in all covering everything from immigration to how the government operates to handing out grants all these sort of things uh suspending payments. So there's been a lot of them which are now called into question. I think this is extremely important for the Trump administration because much like the first Trump administration these sort of nationwide injunctions have stymied their agenda because the opponents only need to win once. they need to win every single time. So this potentially is extremely important for Donald Trump moving his agenda forward. Now digging into that, the court said that the Judiciary Act of 1789 had not granted courts such broad authority. Writing for the majority, Justice Amy Coney Barrett said that quote, "When a court concludes that the executive branch has acted unlawfully, the answer is not for the court to exceed its power, too." Break that down for us, especially in the broader context of the separation of powers. Where do the courts and the president stand in relation to each other? Yeah. Well, that that's an important concept, which is that federal courts are limited jurisdiction. They're given jurisdiction by the Congress and they can only extend that jurisdiction to the extent they've been given it. They are not all powerful despite the way some judges act. They are actually not all powerful. They have to stay within their lane. And what the court was saying in this time that that lane does not extend to these universal injunctions. It's not a power that has been given to the federal courts by the Congress. And when I talk about limited power of the federal courts, we're talking about the lower federal courts, not the Supreme Court. Because the lower courts are a creation of the Congress. The Supreme Court is created by the Constitution. So, it has much broader power than the lower federal courts have. And William, the justices said that even without nationwide injunctions, plaintiffs can use class action lawsuits for a broader injunction. Walk us through that process. This came up during the oral argument in the case and I think what you're going to see is various federal court judges and litigants trying to make an end run around this ruling by framing the relief they're seeking not as a universal injunction but as class action relief. Class action applying to a much broader group of people. And there are standards that have to be proven to get class status and to implement class relief. So I think that's what we're going to see. So, this may have solved one problem, but like that game of whack-a-ole, they've now whacked down the universal injunctions. And I think you're going to see federal judges getting very aggressive in terms of certifying classes and issuing similar relief, but they're going to have to jump through some hoops to do that. So, even if that happens, it's still a win for the Trump administration, but it's not the end of the problem. And when it comes to birthright citizenship, the result was less clear. Some of the justices did seem skeptical, asking a lot of questions. Could we see this case go all the way up to the high court again? Well, I think it will eventually this Supreme Court's going to rule on what the 14th amendment means and what birthright citizenship means and what are the limitations on it. The very curious thing about the case that was just decided today is that it didn't really revolve around the merits of the dispute. And I remember during the oral argument, I think it was Justice Sotomayor said,"Wh are we doing it this way? Why don't we just get right to the merits of the 14th amendment?" And that will come. I heard Pam Bondi, the attorney general, say it should be decided in the fall. I'm not sure about that, but it will be decided sooner rather than later whether the executive order is lawful because today's decision simply said they can move forward with the executive order pending further court litigation. It didn't resolve the issue. I think we need it resolved. We need to know. And William, in another case, the Supreme Court upheld a Texas law that requires age verification to access adult websites. Now, the petitioners have been arguing this infringes on First Amendment rights. Has this ruling set a precedent for potential future arguments on explicit content relevant to the First Amendment? Well, of course, any Supreme Court ruling would be some form of precedent, but I don't think it's going to go a lot further than this. What this basically said is that in order to protect minors, to protect children, certain limitations are acceptable. I don't think that will generally be applied to adults surfing the internet. I don't think it will be applied outside that. I think you really need to view this decision as protection of minors uh as much as anything. So I I think that there will be other states that will implement such restrictions. And so to that extent it's settled, but I don't know that it's going to go much further. I can't see under this decision a court ruling that you can limit the content that adults watch as opposed to what children watch. Now in Mahmood vid Taylor the Supreme Court held that parents in Maryland met the legal burden to opt their young children out of school story books that promote LGBTQ lifestyles allowing for litigation to continue in the lower courts. How do you see the litigation in the lower courts going following this ruling? Well, I I think this resolves a lot of the issues. What you're going to see happen is school districts adjust their policies. One of the things that the court found very important here is that parents got no notice of this and no ability to opt their children out of it. I think that's the law of the land. I think schools are going to have to implement such policies and such procedures and as long as they do that there probably won't be a lot more litigation. This did not say that you cannot teach this material. All this said was that if you are going to teach this material, you have to give parents notice and an opportunity to opt out on religious grounds. So I think it will have a sweeping impact around the country, but it's not actually banning the teaching of this material. William Jacobson, as always, thank you so much for joining us. Thank you. Coming up in the WNBA, when will Caitlyn Clark return? The league's biggest star out again tonight against Dallas. Dave Martin joins us to discuss when we return. [Applause] [Music] [Music] And now for your sports news, we're joined by entities Dave Martin Dave. Plenty going on right now, but let's start in the WNBA as Indiana's Caitlyn Clark will miss her second straight game tonight with a grown strain. Has the team set a timetable for her return? I mean, not a new one anyway. Now, yesterday head coach Stephanie White said it was a dayto-day issue. They've not revised that at all today. Now, their next game after tonight will be Tuesday against Minnesota. But tonight's game is kind of a much anticipated battle against Dallas and Paige Beckers. Now, this would have been a match up of the last two number one overall picks with Becker going in 2020, Beckers going in 2025, Clark the year before. And it was going to be played at the and it is going to be played at the American Airlines Center in Dallas, which is not the Dallas Wings normal stadium. Obviously, they're expecting a much bigger crowd for Caitlyn Clark there tonight. Now, last night, Indiana lost to the LA Sparks without Caitlyn Clark. Now, they're now just two and four without her this season. So, I'm sure everybody would like to see Caitlyn Clark back, including her teammates as well as plenty of fans here. So, we're not sure though when that actually will be and TV ratings. So, moving to hockey news, the NHL and Players Association have announced a new collective bargaining agreement which will reportedly extend the season by two games. What would be the reason for this? Yeah, it would be going from 82 to 84 games simply because right now whether at all division opponents or division rivals you could say don't play some play four times a year, some only three just because with the number of games that the schedule uh now Seattle was the last expansion team came three years ago. Uh Vegas was a team was the last one before that in 2016. So, with the number of teams changing, the schedule has to obviously keep changing. And now they're finally going to up the number of games just so all division opponents can play each other four times a year. It was just kind of smooth that out, I guess. Now, also with this new reported uh bargaining, collective bargaining agreements, the maximum on contract lengths is going to go down from 8 years to 7 years if you were signing with your own team. It's down for 6 years if you're switching teams uh in free agency. the NHL. I I think this this agreement was hand hammered out pretty quickly because the the uh the NHL is doing very well financially this past year. 6.2 billion in revenue. That's their best year ever. So things are looking up for the league. Good TV ratings, Paul. Lots of money there, too. Shifting gears to tennis. Wimbledon starts on Monday. Who are some of the favorites here? I mean, for the men, obviously, second reigned Carlos Alcarez has got to be one of the favorites fresh off his French Open title. Plus, of course, he is a twotime defending champion at Wimbledon. Now, also, you've got Yanik Center, who he beat in that thrilling French Open final. Sinner had been dominating just before this. I mean, he won the French, he won the Australian Open in January, plus last fall's uh US Open. Really, those two have really separated themselves from the pack. Now, of course, you still have Novak Jookovic, even though he's now 38 years old, and this has been a year and a half now. It's his longest title drought in seven years, but of course, he has won Wimbledon Wimbledon seven times. He's still the sixth ranked player in the world, and he fared very well at the French Open, making it all the way to the semifinals there. Now, on the women's side, it's much more wide open. There's not a single women's player in the top 10 who has won this event. In fact, only one of the players, uh, fourth ranked Jasmine Palini, has even been the runner up here, but obviously the grass surface makes quite a difference. It's not everybody's strength here. So, definitely wide open looking on the women's side here. Is it real grass or fake? It's I believe this is real grass. After a while, you can see all like the dirt wherever they're standing. It just becomes a little stirred. Not like baseball where they use the artificial grass, unfortunately. Well, speaking of baseball, suspended Tampa Bay Race player Wander Franco was found guilty in the Dominican Republic of sexual abuse of a minor. That's after being accused of having a relationship with a 14-year-old girl. What does this mean for his baseball career, though? Well, it doesn't look good. I mean, he's got a suspended sentence, so he avoids jail time as long as he meets certain conditions. But he needs a work visa to return back to the US. That's going to be very difficult with this kind of conviction. Now on his record, though his lawyer said they will appeal this, but right now he's on baseball's restricted list for failing to report to the team. Obviously, he can't right now while he's in the Dominican Republic. So, the Rays are not paying him. That's a big deal because right now he's got a he had signed an 11-year $182 million contract with them. It's only good, obviously, if he's playing for them. But this even if he can return, this can be complicated by Major League Baseball in their own investigation. you know, the league could further discipline un him under their own domestic violence, sexual assault, and child abuse policy. And the league has commented saying they'll complete their investigation at the appropriate time. So, I'm not really sure when that will be. Now, meanwhile, the mother of the minor in this case was sentenced to 10 years after being convicted of sexually trafficking her daughter. It was quite a sad case, actually. What a case indeed. Well, on that note, uh Dave, as always, thanks for joining us. Well, thank you, Tiff. And that's all for today's news. For around the clock coverage, visit us at ntd.com/live or download our NTD app. Thanks for tuning in. I'm Chief Meyer. Good night. [Music]