Return to Transcripts main page
CNN's The Arena with Kasie Hunt
Sources: Bomb Suspect Told FBI He Believed 2020 Election Was Stolen; New: Admiral Consulted Military Lawyer Before Double-Tap Strike; "One Of The Great Honors Of My Life": Trump On His FIFA Peace Prize. Aired 4-5p ET
Aired December 05, 2025 - 16:00 ET
THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.
CHRIS WITTYNGHAM, CBS SPORTS SOCCER COMMENTATOR: He just sets records over and over again for things that he's achieving at a young age.
[16:00:04]
They're fantastic. They're absolutely a clear favorite.
Argentina is right in there as the reigning world champions and the talent that they showed in South American World Cup qualifying as well.
And I think the English might have the best squad at the tournament. I think England are a team that are absolutely fantastic from top to bottom. The depth that they have in forward positions. This is the one factor, though, that I do think could work against the English, is that were dealing with --
BORIS SANCHEZ, CNN HOST: Chris, we got to go.
WITTYNGHAM: -- humidity, summer heat in the United States.
SANCHEZ: Good to know. Chris Whittyngham, thank you so much.
THE ARENA WITH KASIE HUNT starts right now.
Shout out to Mike Brebner (ph), who is retiring, a CNN legend.
(MUSIC)
KASIE HUNT, CNN HOST: Hi, everyone. I'm Kasie Hunt. Welcome to THE ARENA. It's wonderful to have you with us on this Friday. Happy Friday.
As we come on the air, new details on the crime and old revelations about an alleged cover up. The suspect in the D.C. pipe bomb case making his first court appearance today.
And we're learning more about just why he may have planted those explosives near the DNC and RNC headquarters the night before the January 6th insurrection. Sources now tell CNN that 30-year-old Brian Cole, Jr. has told FBI investigators that he believed the 2020 election was stolen. That admission coming during months of interviews with the FBI after his arrest Thursday.
Today, the nation's top law enforcement officials are being confronted about some of their past comments about the pipe bomb case and the election that Donald Trump lost.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
DAN BONGINO, FBI DEPUTY DIRECTOR: Folks, I'm telling you what happened there is a massive cover up because the person who planted those pipe bombs, they don't want you to know who it was because it's either a connected anti-Trump insider or this was an inside job. Those bombs were planted there. This was a setup. I have zero doubt.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
HUNT: That was Dan Bongino the week after the 2024 election. It is the same Dan Bongino that is now the deputy director of the FBI.
Here's how he's now explaining what he said and why he said it.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
BONGINO: Listen, I was paid in the past, Sean, for my opinions. That's clear. And one day, I'll be back in that space. But that's not what I'm paid for now. I'm paid to be your deputy director. And we base investigations on facts.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
HUNT: Life comes at you fast.
Let's get off the sidelines and head into THE ARENA. My panel is here, along with CNN's senior justice correspondent, Evan Perez.
Evan, I want to start with you. Take us through what we saw with the suspect's first court appearance and what we are learning about what motivated this man.
EVAN PEREZ, CNN SENIOR JUSTICE CORRESPONDENT: Yeah, Kasie, he made his first appearance. Did not enter a plea during the first appearance today in federal court here in Washington. We expect that he'll be back in court in about 10 days where it's possible that the Justice Department will have revealed additional charges that they're anticipating that they will bring.
Now, he did sit for hours and hours of interviews with the FBI, made a number of statements, and the one, obviously, that I think matters the most is one that might explain a motive for what happened. And one of the statements he made was that he was upset and believed that the 2020 election was stolen.
Of course, that's a claim that President Trump made. It was a claim that brought those tens of thousands of people, Trump supporters, to Washington on that day, January 6th. That's the day that the bombs were found. It's why they attacked the Capitol, right? And so, that's the reason why it matters that he said this. And look, we don't know what else goes into all of this. We know that
the FBI spent almost five years trying to find him, and it's just a stroke of luck, frankly, of some of the investigative work that was being done more recently that they were able to use some of the cell phone data, along with all the other investigative information that they had already on hand that was able to pinpoint this suspect.
And that's what matters, is that they've been -- they've been working on this case all these years. And what you heard from the deputy -- the deputy FBI director, that's a claim, by the way, that he was making as recently as January of this year, before he became the deputy FBI director.
He was saying that he believed the FBI was hiding who it was because they were -- they didn't they wanted to make it look like it was someone who supported the president of the United States, and it was a MAGA person. Again, complications in this entire story, as we go along.
HUNT: The truth, you know, comes at you fast.
PEREZ: Complicated.
HUNT: Evan Perez, thank you very much, sir. Really appreciate your reporting.
My panel is here in THE ARENA. CNN legal analyst, former federal prosecutor Elliot Williams; CNN contributor, "New York Times" journalist, host of "The Interview", Lulu Garcia-Navarro; former director of public affairs at the DOJ, Xochitl Hinojosa; and the Republican strategist Shermichael Singleton, both also CNN political commentators.
[16:05:08]
Welcome to all of you. Thank you so much for being here.
Elliot Williams, let's start with the legal ramifications here, especially around Dan Bongino's role. What he was out in public saying he thought was going on. Obviously, now, he's in a much different position.
ELLIOT WILLIAMS, CNN LEGAL ANALYST: Right. And what's remarkable on it is how quickly that turnaround happened. It would be one thing if this were youthful indiscretions and tweets in college about conspiracy theories, but literally months before being the FBI deputy director, he was out making those statements.
It is a reminder of what I would actually call the lack of leadership at the FBI, for lack of a better way to put it. You have two individuals who, look, the president can put his people in the jobs that he wants. Neither of them have experience with the FBI. Typically, the person who holds the role that Dan Bongino has is a career FBI agent. It's in effect, the chief operating officer of the FBI. And you want an agent who has the respect and trust of the agents throughout the country there, and they just don't have that. And I think those comments really crystallize that.
HUNT: Xochitl, you both were at the DOJ, but you went to DOJ from the DNC and you were at the DNC when this bomb was planted.
Can you talk a little bit about how this investigation unfolded from both of those perspectives?
XOCHITL HINOJOSA, CNN POLITICAL COMMENTATOR: That's right. So, I was at the DNC when the bomb was planted. And I will say these party committees there are constantly threats. I mean, it is politics are constantly threats to party committees to candidates, et cetera.
To be honest with you, a lot of people within the DNC and the RNC believed it was just another day that ends in Y. It's another threat. We, you know, people that were in the building would have to evacuate.
Remind you, during COVID. So not very many people were working from home at the time, thank goodness. But then as we continue to get information and as January 6th was unfolding right after that, it was like chaos, and especially because there was so much already happening on the hill and we did not know everybody was terrified.
On the investigation, I just want to debunk a few things, because the administration has been very forceful in saying that the Justice Department for all four years throughout Biden sat on this investigation and didn't do anything on this investigation. The entire reason that they have cell phone records that Evan just talked about, the entire reason that they have any information to look through, is because there was a very active investigation and they prosecuted 1,600 people as it related to January 6th.
And so, there were a lot of people on this case. There were a lot of people on all of the January 6th cases, and thank goodness that they were able to finally solve it and that it was a priority for this administration. And I commend them for that and to the FBI.
But this isn't about politics. This is a law enforcement investigation. And regardless of who's in office, it should be investigated.
HUNT: I'm watching Scott Jennings here saying he's in wait and see mode on all of this.
That's a rare position, Scott, if you're watching to be in the wait and see mode --
WILLIAMS: But you know --
HUNT: -- there, but there's a reason for it.
WILLIAMS: The next thing Scott said is something that I agree with, which is true, which is that we should all celebrate the fact that this is a law enforcement victory, regardless of the finger pointing and the wagging, all the business at Biden's folks are who was at fault. You caught someone -- LULU GARCIA-NAVARRO, CNN CONTRIBUTOR: Let's point a few fingers anyway
because I just want to pause for a moment and really reflect. I appreciate Scott not being here to be able to respond to me, but to be honest, you know, the fact that you have the sitting -- you know, head of the -- the deputy director of the FBI, Dan Bongino, literally acknowledging the fact that he was paid to speculate wildly and frankly, irresponsibly about something and now having to acknowledge that there are facts that he has to deal with should tell us how unserious, the position that he has taken is.
And we are now in this administration, kind of zero for zero for conspiracy theories that have been supported, that they have been asked to investigate the Epstein files. Now this. There's been wild conspiracy theories about who these different people are and what they've done. And it has turned out to be untrue, or at least there hasn't been real facts to support it. And so, you know, I would just say that this is, you know, another example I think of just really, really, really irresponsible behavior on the part of --
SHERMICHAEL SINGLETON, CNN POLITICAL COMMENTATOR: I want to -- I want to push back. How is it determinative that he made a delineation between being a podcaster, an influencer, making comments, whether you agree with him or not, and being in a very serious role, being the deputy director of the FBI, saying that there is evidence that I clearly didn't have in my previous role as a public citizen, that obviously has lead -- has led me to a different determination.
That's not silly, it's not foolish, it's not reckless. I would actually acknowledge that. I'm happy that he went on Sean Hannity show to say, hey, I'm in a different role now.
[16:10:01]
I have to lead and govern myself very differently by the evidence that I have versus bloviating about theories that I had when I was a public person. How is that a bad thing?
WILLIAMS: I guess where I differ with you a little bit is that you're not talking about the difference between larceny and robbery or some, you know, minor legal distinction. One of them was a legit conspiracy theory, Shermichael. And so the -- you know, like it's fair. People have private lives before they come into government, but literally peddling conspiracy theories before leading a major government.
SINGLETON: But he's not peddling the theories now. And he acknowledged the difference between his previous role and the current role. How do you ignore that?
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
HUNT: Let's remember -- let's remember who put him in the role, which is President Donald Trump, which is, I think, kind of the big picture question here.
And I actually want to show I want to touch on what we're learning about the motive for this person who placed these pipe bombs, which is that he believed that the election was stolen. And we can go to the hearings for Pam Bondi and Kash Patel and show what they said or didn't say when they were pressed on this question. Watch.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
SEN. DICK DURBIN (D-IL): Are you prepared to say today, under oath, without reservation, that Donald Trump lost the presidential contest to Joe Biden in 2020?
PAM BONDI, ATTORNEY GENERAL: Ranking Member Durbin, President Biden is the president of the United States.
SEN. PETER WELCH (D-VT): Can you say the words Joe Biden won the 2020 election?
KASH PATEL, FBI DIRECTOR: Joe Biden is the -- was the president of the United States.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
HUNT: I mean, Lulu, this seems to be you know, we talk a lot about what people say here, obviously, because we can show you what people say. If they say it on camera. But there are instances where what people say cause action. It causes action in the real world, right? Especially when it's our leaders who are saying it, right? It causes people to act.
And obviously, again, we are still learning the facts, but the initial set of facts suggest that this person was motivated to act because of that, because of what the president said about the 2020 election.
GARCIA-NAVARRO: This I'm going to actually say, we don't know. This is preliminary reporting that hasn't been verified. So I don't actually want to say what motivates people.
We have seen -- what is consistent here is that we have seen a lot of political violence, of which this is part where the motives are very unclear and everyone wants to jump on the train of saying, this is why they did it. This is my side. Red hat, blue hat and what we are -- what we know about this era is that a lot of different people have been radicalized for a lot of different reasons, and there have been a lot of irresponsible commentary around that.
And so -- and so, if indeed he was -- if he was motivated to do this because of Donald Trump's comments about not wanting the election, then -- and we know a lot of people were radicalized, and we saw that in January 6th. So that wouldn't be surprising to me, but I wouldn't be surprised also, if there was a different explanation.
HINOJOSA: But also -- and to that point, if this were a year ago, if this man were arrested a year ago, I -- he may have been pardoned in January. And this is, I think, what is I think, shocking about this whole situation is that will he be pardoned later on because the president -- because if this ends up being true. But if this happened in the Biden administration, he were arrested, he would have fit the description of all of those who were pardoned on January 6th, and especially with the broad language that the president has used to pardon anybody who believed exactly what he believed.
And so, I think this is going to get Pam Bondi a little bit of trouble. She's going to be in a sticky situation based on the pardon language. I would love your thoughts on that because --
WILLIAMS: No, absolutely. And it's a wrinkle depending on what happens.
One important legal point that we just need to make clear picking up on Lulu said motive doesn't matter in the law. It doesn't matter why he was motivated to do what he did. It's just -- did he build an explosive device or seek to do that? Did he cross state lines and did he hope to blow it up and kill people? Whether he was radicalized by Donald Trump or Democrats, or just being a crazy person is sort of irrelevant in the eyes of the law.
HUNT: All right. Coming up next here in THE ARENA, Donald Trump finally gets a peace prize. But it is not the one he really wants.
But first, new details on what a top admiral told lawmakers behind closed doors about that now infamous double tap strike on the drug boat. Democratic Congresswoman Maggie Goodlander, one of the six lawmakers in that now famous video reminding troops not to follow unlawful orders, is here
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
SEN. TOM COTTON (R-AR): All of these cartels in Latin America do qualify as foreign terrorists. And frankly, their activities have killed many more Americans than al Qaeda or ISIS has killed.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[16:19:07]
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
JOHN BERMAN, CNN ANCHOR: Did you see any evidence of them trying to use the radio?
COTTON: No, I didn't, John. No, John, but they were clearly not incapacitated. They were not distressed. One guy took his t-shirt off like he was sunbathing. They were trying to get the boat back up and to continue their mission of spreading these drugs all across America.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
HUNT: That was the man in charge of the Senate Intelligence Committee, Republican Senator Tom Cotton, recounting what he saw yesterday in the video of that controversial September follow up strike on an alleged drug boat, a video that only a handful of top lawmakers so far have been able to see. The debate over what exactly that video shows has fallen, perhaps predictably, along party lines. Today, sources tell CNN that Admiral Frank Bradley, the officer who
oversaw the strikes, told lawmakers yesterday he and other military officials deliberated for about 41 minutes while the two survivors clung to the overturned boat.
[16:20:05]
During that time, they also consulted with a JAG officer, a military lawyer, on the legality of a second strike before ultimately deciding to go through with it. All of this as the Pentagon released video last night showing a new strike on another suspected drug boat in the Eastern Pacific.
Joining us now in THE ARENA to discuss, Democratic Congresswoman Maggie Goodlander of New Hampshire. She sits on the House Armed Services Committee, is a former intelligence officer in the U.S. Naval Reserve.
Congresswoman, thank you very much for being here.
What is your understanding of what was on that video? Because we're getting it seems quite different perhaps political, politically different accounts from Tom Cotton and Jim Himes, for example, the ranking member on the House Intelligence Committee.
REP. MAGGIE GOODLANDER (D-NH): Well, Kasie, thanks so much for having me.
Here's what I'd say. There is bipartisan support for making this video available to the American public. I have not seen the video myself, but what I do know is that trusted lawmakers who did see it, my colleagues, including Congressman Himes and Congressman Adam Smith, who chairs the ranking member of the house armed services committee, a committee that I sit on have said that that yesterday's briefing and what they saw raised more questions than they got answers.
And, look, we should have a full public accounting of what happened here. The president said as recently as two days ago that he'd be happy to make this video public, and the American people should see it.
HUNT: Congresswoman, do you believe based on these accounts, that a war crime was committed here?
GOODLANDER: So, look, that is a judgment that depends on a very rigorous and careful review of the facts. And that is something that we are committed to getting to the bottom of. And so, that -- that is my position.
I'm deeply concerned as any, any human being who -- who hears and reads the reports of this account. But this is a judgment, Kasie, that is really dependent upon a careful and rigorous review of the facts and a deep understanding of the law, too. And I think the law here, is clear, but the facts are as important as the law.
HUNT: So, you said -- GOODLANDER: I know this from the years I spent at the Department of
Justice.
HUNT: That's exactly what I was going to ask you about, because you do have this, this deep legal background, and you say that the law is clear. Certainly, the laws of war are clear. But in this case, the United States has an OLC, an Office of Legal Counsel opinion that they have also been circulating on Capitol Hill that justifies any of these strikes. The first strike, the second strike, what have you.
Are you comfortable? Do you feel like that legal justification is solid?
GOODLANDER: Look, no, I'm not. I -- I think there are two big categories of legal questions here. The first set, the threshold questions go to the legal basis for these strikes. And you know, we've seen -- we know of 22 sets of strikes.
The administration has a lot of basic questions to answer to Congress, who under our Constitution we are entrusted with war powers that are really important. There are good reasons why the Constitution gives Congress a role to play, an important role to play. These are the most consequential questions that that we face in government, questions of life and death, and questions about what we ask our service members to do.
And the administration has a lot of -- a lot of questions that they have not yet answered about the legal basis of these -- of these strikes across the board. There are also legal questions about the strikes on September 2nd. And both -- this is what we have got to get to the bottom of and what I'm very focused on doing.
HUNT: So that's September 2nd strike. Our reporting now is that the Admiral Bradley told lawmakers that he consulted with a military lawyer, a JAG officer, as they were watching this video before the second strike was made. Is that SOP? Is that standard operating procedure or does that suggest they knew that something could go terribly wrong?
GOODLANDER: Look, one thing to say here at the outset about JAGs, we've seen from the very beginning of this administration, one of the very first things that the secretary of defense did was to fire some of the most respected and trusted senior JAGs at the Pentagon. JAGs play an incredibly important role. I asked this question of Admiral Holsey when he came before the house armed services committee earlier this year.
[16:25:03]
Lawyers play an incredibly important role in our military and in advising and ensuring that our military reflects who we are as a -- as a nation. But also, it goes to the -- to the core of military strategy. The law of war is designed with our values and our interests in mind.
And so, yes, JAGs would be involved. But the thing to say about this, there's a -- there would be -- there are a number of basic questions about what executive -- execute orders that would have been issued in this case say, and we're going to get to the bottom of that paper trail. But the fact is, Kasie, the president has tweeted publicly on and posted on his Truth Social account that he directed these attacks on September 2nd.
The secretary of defense ultimately has operational control over all of this. And so, those -- that's all a matter of public record. And in what is a total deviation from anything that would be ordinarily normal, both the president and the secretary of defense are conducting all of these are announcing orders on Truth Social and on Twitter, which is just not normal.
HUNT: Very briefly, Congresswoman, before I let you go, I did want to follow up on the fallout from the video that you made with five other lawmakers. The FBI has requested interviews with you and the other colleagues you have in this video. Are you considering talking to the FBI in this context?
GOODLANDER: Well, Kasie, what we did was to say what the law is. What we did was to encourage fellow Americans who have sworn an oath to our Constitution to follow the law. The president --
HUNT: Are you going to talk to them --
(CROSSTALK)
GOODLANDER: -- call for violence against us. And I'm deeply -- I'm deeply concerned that this is a total weaponization of the FBI, of the Department of Justice against members of Congress. And it's -- it's not right. It's not what anyone needs in this country right now. We have real problems to solve.
HUNT: But again, are you thinking about participating in this interview or is this a nonstarter for you?
GOODLANDER: I am -- I am -- we have responded to the FBI and we asked for additional information, but my core concern here is that I was doing my job, I was doing my job, and I was saying what the law says.
That is not a crime. That is what I swore an oath to do under our Constitution. And I'm going to keep doing my job. I will not be intimidated. I will not be deterred from doing what I have a sacred obligation to do under my oath to the Constitution.
HUNT: All right. Congresswoman Maggie Goodlander, thank you very much for your time today. I hope you'll come back soon.
GOODLANDER: Thank you.
HUNT: All right. Coming up next here in THE ARENA, the big news from the Supreme Court today, the justices agreeing to decide whether one of the president's most controversial orders is legal.
Plus, Donald Trump finally gets a peace prize.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
GIANNI INFANTINO, FIFA PRESIDENT: This is your prize. This is your Peace Prize.
There is also a beautiful medal for you that you can wear everywhere you want to go.
DONALD TRUMP, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: I'm going to wear it right now.
INFANTINO: Okay, let me hold up. Fantastic. Excellent
(END VIDEO CLIP)
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[16:32:47]
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
INFANTINO: Mr. President, this is your prize. This is your peace prize. There is also a beautiful medal for you that you can wear everywhere you want to go.
TRUMP: I'm going to wear it right now.
INFANTINO: Okay, let me hold up. Fantastic.
You definitely deserve the first FIFA Peace Prize for your action, for what you have obtained in your way, but you obtained it.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
HUNT: Well, President Trump may have lost out on the Nobel Peace Prize, but today he did finally take something home. The world's governing body for soccer, also known as FIFA, awarding Trump its newly created Peace Prize on a day where billions of soccer fans tuned in to watch the World Cup draw.
Here's what the president had to say
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
TRUMP: This is truly one of the great honors of my life. And beyond awards, Gianni and I were discussing this. We saved millions and millions of lives. The Congo is an example. Over 10 million people killed, and it was heading for another 10 million very quickly.
And it just, you know, the fact that we could do that -- India, Pakistan, so many different wars that we're able to end.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
HUNT: The award was presented to Trump at the Kennedy Center here in Washington. That is, of course, a landmark that the president has suggested that he wants to rename in honor of himself. My panel is back.
Lulu, the sort of Trumpian spectacle of this, what does it say about where we are?
GARCIA-NAVARRO: Why are you coming to me? I mean, first of all, slow clap.
HUNT: This is why.
GARCIA-NAVARRO: Listen, they created an award for him. I think we've learned that giving prizes to everyone that don't mean anything is bad. It sort of, you know, when you do it to little kids, it leads them to sort of not compete.
HUNT: Soccer trophies, like it didn't mean anything.
GARCIA-NAVARRO: Yeah, they don't mean anything if you invent it --
(CROSSTALK)
GARCIA-NAVARRO: And you're given to it by FIFA, he's given to it by FIFA. You're given a Peace Prize by FIFA. It doesn't -- it's not a real award. And it's pandering to his ego, which we know. And it's sad.
I think a little -- you know, there are real -- the thing is this, he's incredibly powerful, and there are real accomplishments that he has actually made. And I don't understand the constant need that he feels to have people sort of pander to him. It's -- it's just a strange impulse when you are the most powerful man in the world.
SINGLETON: But is there any harm in this? I mean -- I mean, it's a very serious question here. I mean, Congo.
GARCIA-NAVARRO: Psychologists say, yes.
SINGLETON: Congo, DRC -- I did some work with the DRC a couple of years ago. That's important. There are some factions that are still fighting there, but you have to acknowledge that. Pakistan, India, that was a very real thing.
GARCIA-NAVARRO: But why is FIFA giving him an award?
SINGLETON: My point is, there are some very serious resolutions that the president has under his belt in less than a year. I don't have a problem with it being acknowledged, whether it's FIFA, whether it's "The New York Times", whether it's CNN, what's the problem with it?
HINOJOSA: I mean, it's the insecurity of the president. And it's --
SINGLETON: So, I guess were all psychologists at the table. We're going to analyze the president's mind --
(CROSSTALK) HINOJOSA: But whenever -- but whatever -- no, but whenever you have a cabinet meeting where there are real core issues happening in our country, like increasing costs, like what is happening, you know, in Ukraine, he has not ended that conflict. A number of other --
SINGLETON: What about Joe Biden, who you worked for?
HINOJOSA: And I will tell you, I'm not the best Joe Biden supporter at this table right now. And so I'm not going to go ahead and defend him on a lot of things. But he also did not seek out there was the insecurity and seek out the praise.
But his cabinet meetings are a joke. They are sitting there to praise the president and not really to. They don't get any --
SINGLETON: How many cabinet meetings did Joe Biden have?
HINOJOSA: I have no idea how many cabinet --
SINGLETON: I mean, I can reference him because Jake Tapper wrote a whole book about it. If you really want to go there, I can reference that presidency.
HINOJOSA: And newsflash, he's not --
(CROSSTALK)
SINGLETON: I understand, but you're making a point attacking the current president, and we should compare that to the previous president.
HINOJOSA: He is the current president. And just like people should have attacked, if they had problems with Biden, they should have done that. But he's no longer our president. What I'm saying is that there's an insecurity from this president, and it's just all about feeding his ego. And there's something deeply sick about that.
WILLIAMS: So, I think I might be the biggest soccer fan at the table, I might.
GARCIA-NAVARRO: No.
WILLIAMS: No? Is this -- okay. You know --
GARCIA-NAVARRO : You got me covered.
WILLIAMS: I got you beat. You beat, I got you beat. Probably not. You got.
And I think my kids aren't watching. So I can say that I've got World Cup tickets. Very excited because they --
(CROSSTALK)
WILLIAMS: Oh, they can't know. No, they can't know. But no, here's the thing. The biggest problem on that stage was not Donald Trump. It was FIFA. And I think we're losing sight of the fact that FIFA is a historically corrupt organization, going back to --
GARCIA-NAVARRO: Yes.
WILLIAMS: -- corruption scandal.
GARCIA-NAVARRO: Infantino is among the most --
WILLIAMS: Among the most corrupt.
GARCIA-NAVARRO: -- corrupt officials in sport.
WILLIAMS: Justice Department, Justice Department. In 2015 corruption scandal, Saudi Arabia, 2034, Qatar 2022. Theres a constant like if he'd shown up not with a peace prize, but with a suitcase full of cash. I would have been less surprised, given how much rampant corruption there is in that organization now. It sort of provides a stain over the whole thing.
It's great for America, and I agree with some of the comments that Christine Brennan saying in there, too. This is good. We got the World Cup. We're, you know, it's uniting the world's largest sport, America's biggest youth sport, on a grand stage.
But this is not a good organization to be partnering with. And if anybody needs reform, it's not the United States or Donald Trump or anybody else. It's FIFA.
SINGLETON: I just -- I just wish sometimes we could all acknowledge when something is decent.
WILLIAMS: What did I just do, man?
SINGLETON: No, no. In terms of acknowledging the successes of a president.
GARCIA-NAVARRO: I did.
SINGLETON: No, no, no you did. But I get the point of critique. That's why were all here. But it just seems to me it's overbearing in the critique of the president, in matters where it's not necessary.
HUNT: So this is interesting to hear. So Kristen Holmes is saying that this relationship is already mutually beneficial. The administration has instructed U.S. embassies to prioritize visa applications from those who want to come for the World Cup. I mean, the implication that you are -- you're making here, Elliot and Lulu, is that the president can be bought. What is FIFA buying from him here?
WILLIAMS: I think access and influence. It's always great to have Washington on your side. It must be nice to have Washington on your side. And I think that's what you're seeing here. They are buying influence, just as they have all around the world.
We happen to be sort of one of the greatest superpowers in the history of humanity, whether it's here, whether it's Africa, whether it's China, it's always FIFA. GARCIA-NAVARRO: I've covered a lot of world cups, and I was in Brazil
for the one in 206 -- excuse me, in 2014. And, you know, this is an organization that knows how to grease palms, make people happy, and to get a peace prize from them is --
(CROSSTALK)
GARCIA-NAVARRO: It's very transparent what's going on.
WILLIAMS: And real quick. And the richest thing is that they have looked the other way from so much torture, literal torture around the planet in the countries that they're having these World Cups in. But, you know, take the money and go --
HUNT: Sounds like we could talk about this all afternoon.
[16:40:00]
Unfortunately, we're out of time.
Coming up, the order from President Trump, that one judge called blatantly unconstitutional is now headed to the Supreme Court.
Plus, what happened today that's prompting a doctor who has treated some of the highest ranking officials in government to say this.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Don't listen to the CDC and HHS anymore. Under this administration, they've become an unreliable source of medical information for this country.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: This next order relates to the definition of birthright citizenship under the 14th Amendment of the United States.
TRUMP: That's a good one, birthright. That's a big one.
[16:45:00]
We're the only country in the world that does this with birthright, as you know. And it's just absolutely ridiculous.
But, you know, we'll well see. We think it -- we have very good grounds.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
HUNT: That was President Trump the very first day of his second term, signing an executive order to end birthright citizenship. Now, those, quote, very good grounds that he says his executive order
stands on will once again be put to the test. The Supreme Court has just agreed to take up the president's attempt to end what had been considered a constitutional right, settled by law dating back to the 1800s. Lower courts, made up of both conservative and liberal judges, have all sided against the administration's order. The Supreme Court is expected to hear oral arguments early next year.
Elliot Williams, there already has been some discussion of this by the Supreme Court on essentially technical grounds, or at least not the actual underlying issue. But now it looks like they're going to decide it, and the circumstances seem a little unusual. Normally, this happens when two courts disagree with each other. What's going on?
WILLIAMS: Yeah, no. And it has been -- look, it's been in the news for the greater part of a year. But the point is, it's all the technicalities around how the rulings came down. This is the first time the Supreme Court is really going to take up the question of what was on that page and the executive order, which is, can the president undo birthright citizenship?
Now, courts that have looked at it the issue and actually looked at the substance of it have universally kind of found that the administration is on pretty shaky ground here. They have an argument with respect to whether one clause of the 14th Amendment might allow it, but it's pretty shaky. So, it remains to be seen what the Supreme Court will do.
HUNT: So, Lulu, what do you think is the big picture political context for this?
GARCIA-NAVARRO: I mean, what does it mean to be American? And how do we decide who gets to claim that right? And who are the people that we sort of give that to?
The president isn't correct in saying the United States is the only country in the world that does this. Brazil does, for example. There are others. It is true, though, that it is rare. But it is also one of the founding principles of the United States.
I mean, ultimately, I think the Constitution is pretty clear on this, but I also actually think that this is something worth debating. I mean, we are in a moment in this country where a lot of things about what it means to be an American are being litigated and, I think actually that's a good and healthy thing, that we come to the other side of this, maybe with a better understanding of what it means. Does it mean you are born here and you become an American? Does it mean that you are only white coming from South Africa, and you can emigrate here and become an American?
Does it mean that you come here, you work hard, you don't have any criminal record for 15 years, and you can become an American. Like our immigration system is broken. As everyone said, there has been no immigration reform for a long time. And so, what we're seeing is this very ad hoc, piecemeal kind of debate over -- over what should be allowed and what shouldn't be allowed. And it's very partisan and it's very bitter. And frankly, the people that are being caught in the middle are immigrants themselves and their children.
HINOJOSA: Well, and it's -- the president promised to deport violent criminals. And we are now seeing his polling that he's taking on immigration. I'm not talking about Republicans. I'm talking about overall, Americans do not agree with the photos of him -- of the administration tearing apart families, being outside of schools. You know, the mass deportation that is happening.
I will say this is very scary personally, because, I mean, while this would not apply to me later, but my mom was an immigrant when I was born and it -- you think about it, you're like, how is this America? How is this America that you're born in the United States? And just because your parents are there, an immigrant, whether legal or not, that that baby is not going to be a U.S. citizen?
And I think that, to your point is like they're determining who's going to be American and they're -- this -- the administration is on shaky ground. The Supreme Court should not be taking this up. This is pretty set law. And so, it's just terrifying overall for families.
HUNT: Elliot, can you talk a little bit about kind of the actual legal ramifications of this being a question mark in this period of time? Because, I mean, there are very real world like if you are a legal or an or an undocumented immigrant here and you have a baby in the United States, it is it seems like it's far from clear --
(CROSSTALK)
GARCIA-NAVARRO: Not even -- it's not even illegal. A green card holder.
WILLIAMS: And part of the mess that this that the Supreme Court created a few months ago was saying that such a ruling couldn't be nationwide. And little courts around the country could rule differently on it. So technically, you could be born in New Jersey one way across state lines, but then be deemed unlawfully present in the country because you were in a different state in Pennsylvania or whatever else.
So, it's sort of a mess. What we need as a country, this is Lulu's point, is a clear ruling from the Supreme Court as to what it means if one, your parents are unlawfully present in the country and you have a baby.
[16:50:01]
Two, if your parents are lawfully present in the country but not citizens, and you have a baby. And three, if you're a citizen of the United States and you have -- like what? Like we got to have one clear answer. And right now, it's just legally murky.
HUNT: For sure.
All right. Coming up next, a big change to decades long U.S. health policy, one step closer to becoming reality.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
DR. CODY MEISSNER, ACIP MEMBER: We've heard "do no harm" is a moral imperative.
[16:55:03]
We are doing harm by changing this wording. And I vote no.
DR. JOSEPH R. HIBBELN, ACIP MEMBER: This has a great potential to cause harm, and I simply hope that the committee will accept its responsibility when this harm is caused. And I vote no.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
HUNT: Despite those doctors voting no and warning of great harm to children, the CDC's advisory committee is moving forward with abandoning universal hepatitis B vaccination for newborns in the U.S. The hep B shot has been given to newborns since the early '90s, and a study published by the CDC just last year found that the routine shot has prevented more than 6 million hepatitis B illnesses over the last three decades.
Now, local health departments across the country are bracing for whatever the impact may be of this major change in childhood vaccinations made by Robert F. Kennedy Jr.'s hand-picked committee.
Joining us now in THE ARENA, Dr. Edith Bracho-Sanchez. She is a primary care pediatrician.
Doctor, thank you so much for joining us.
Can you help us understand what this is going to mean for new moms who want their babies to get this vaccine?
DR. EDITH BRACHO-SANCHEZ, PRIMARY CARE PHYSICIAN: Yeah, I mean, were still trying to understand the ramifications of all of this. As you mentioned, decades, decades of strong public health policy. And this will cause harm.
For new moms, it will mean now that the recommendation is not to universally vaccinate all babies within 24 hours of birth against hepatitis B, but rather to speak to their physician and engage in shared decision making if they test negative for hepatitis B infection. Now, I do want to be clear that while that is the recommendation of this committee, this deeply flawed committee that met today.
That is not what the American Academy of Pediatrics is recommending. That is not what major medical organizations are recommending. We are all still very much recommending that first dose within 24 hours of birth for all babies, the second dose within one to two months, and then the third at six months.
So, the decision now is going to be with moms on who to listen to, which is incredibly concerning, frustrating and irresponsible.
HUNT: Yeah. And what would you say to those new moms about the benefits of this? And I know you yourself are pretty far along, actually, in a pregnancy. And we'll have to make this decision. Are you able or willing to share your thoughts on what you may do in this situation?
BRACHO-SANCHEZ: Yeah, absolutely. I mean, I am seven months pregnant, and I think at this point in time in this country, we're at a moment of reflection for parents who are we going to listen to? Are we going to listen to politics?
Because let's be clear, what happened today was politics. There was no new science. There was no safety concerns that were brought up. We're talking about billions of hepatitis B vaccine doses that have been given over the past three decades. We're talking about a reduction in hepatitis b infections in infants of 99 percent over the past three decades. No new science, no safety concerns. And yet, politics guided some of the discussion. And at the end of the day, votes and conclusion. So, are we going to listen to the politics or are we going to listen to our doctors and trusted medical organizations?
I am listening to my own doctor. I am listening to trusted medical organizations. I see this both ways, and I will be vaccinating my newborn when he is born against hepatitis B within 24 hours of birth, Kasie.
HUNT: Well, thank you very much for that.
Doctor, from a big picture perspective here, can Americans trust the CDC and the Health and Human Services Department?
BRACHO-SANCHEZ: The short answer is no, Kasie, unfortunately, which I know is a big deal thing to say. And I just want to be clear, I have so much respect for the career scientists that work at the CDC. And, you know, it used to be a robust organization where we could trust the guidance. Unfortunately, right now, it has been hijacked, for lack of a better word, by HHS Secretary Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. And his hand- picked appointees.
And whoever doesn't agree with him, we've already seen what happens is out. Right? So right now, unfortunately, no, we cannot trust the CDC. I hope that changes in the future. And I have great, great respect for the career scientists that are still there.
HUNT: So, who should Americans be listening to, their local health authorities?
BRACHO-SANCHEZ: I would say their doctors, right. And I just printed, you know, we just got guidance from the New York state health departments here. I'm at the end of a busy clinic day, but we just got this guidance.
And we as physicians are looking for the guidance. We're looking to the AAP, the American Academy of Pediatrics. We're looking at local health departments. We're trying to see what changed in the -- in the science. Of course, we want to bring parents along on the journey.
I do think it's a lot for parents to digest, to read, to follow themselves. So, I would say, go to your doctor, right? Go to your doctor. Ask your doctor because it is our job. It is our job to keep up and guide parents through all of this.
HUNT: Dr. Edith Bracho-Sanchez, I'm so sorry. We're out of time. Thank you so much for joining us today.
And thanks to my panel as well.
Jake Tapper is standing by for "THE LEAD".
Hi, Jake. Happy Friday.
