Return to Transcripts main page

CNN News Central

Matt Priest is Interviewed about Tariffs; Odds Trump's Picks Likely to Get Confirmed; Randi Weingarten is Interviewed about the Education Department; FDA Approves First New Pain Medication in 25 Years; Lisa Bonner is Interviewed about the Lively and Baldoni Lawsuits. Aired 8:30-9a ET

Aired February 04, 2025 - 08:30   ET

THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.


[08:30:00]

MATT PRIEST, PRESIDENT AND CEO, FOOTWEAR DISTRIBUTORS AND RETAILERS OF AMERICA: These costs are paid by American companies and employ Americans. And the bill that - the invoice, I've seen them myself, it goes to the U.S. Customs and Border Protection, Department of Homeland Security, and that - those costs have to be buried somewhere. And the consumer's going to take those on.

Not to mention the fact that this is applied to all goods. So, discretionary income for working families is going to be - is going to be, you know, even tighter as prices go up across different consumer goods and sectors of the economy.

KATE BOLDUAN, CNN ANCHOR: And, Matt, shares of Nike, Crocs, Steve Madden, Skechers and other footwear companies, they fell on Monday. What are you hearing from footwear executives today?

PRIEST: Yes, so the big question is around costing and pricing. So, what - what do we do right now when it's a 10 percent tariff? And as the president said yesterday in the Oval Office, this is the opening salvo, or could be the opening salvo.

And so, for us, a lot of our companies might even hedge their bets to where they'll bake in maybe even a higher cost increase just to cover themselves because when this was announced last week, we literally had, you know, 72 hours, four days, whatever the number is, to - when these things hit. We cost these goods six months ago. And so, when - when product is on the water, when product is being manufactured and then shipped, if there's a 10 percent tariff now, who's to say there won't be a higher one 130 days from now or April 1st when the president's trade review is due? And so, our members have to kind of start thinking about higher costs beyond the 10 percent just to hedge bets going into the spring season and beyond.

BOLDUAN: Donald Trump said yesterday from the Oval Office, he was speaking about Canada. And what he said is, we don't - basically, we don't need Canada. We want to build - we want to see - he wants to see cars built in Detroit and South Carolina, not - not in Canada. We don't need them for cars. We don't need them for lumber. We don't need them for anything, is what Donald Trump said about Canada. If or when President Trump says we don't need China to make our

footwear, what do you say to that?

PRIEST: You know, I think that we've thought about diversification since 2010, Kate. And so, this is a narrative we've picked up long before the president was elected the first time around. We want to diversify. It's a challenge to move from a capital perspective, factories and labor and the materials needed to serve the American people.

We import in 2.5 billion pairs of shoes every single year. That's an insatiable appetite for footwear. Americans love shoes, as they should. You know, John said, maybe we shouldn't buy more shoes. We should definitely be buying more shoes.

But the fact of the matter is, you know, when it comes down to producing in China, it serves a purpose. And for many of our global brands, it serves a purpose to manufacture there and to distribute in other countries, again, which supports American jobs.

So, for us, it's not a - it's not a no China and then everything else. It's a diversifying across the supply chain, allowing us to find opportunities to serve the American people, particularly working class families and market segments with product from all over, but including China, and then to continue to look for opportunities to - to diversify.

BOLDUAN: Let us see what happens in the coming hours now, especially when it comes to your industry.

It's good to see you again, Matt. Thanks for coming in.

Sara.

SARA SIDNER, CNN ANCHOR: I just want you to know that I hope my husband and yours is watching because he said that we should buy more shoes. I think we -

BOLDUAN: Yes, that's also - yes, whenever someone says buy less shoes, I clearly - I become deaf immediately.

SIDNER: All right, thanks, Kate. Great interview.

Ahead, the Trump administration could take another step toward dismantling the Department of Education. It was also a part of Project 2025's dream. What this could mean for students and schools across the United States.

And could a brand-new choice to fight pain be the solution to the opioid addiction crisis? Dr. Sanjay Gupta will be joining us to talk all about that, ahead.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[08:37:57] JOHN BERMAN, CNN ANCHOR: All right, today, two of President Trump's most controversial cabinet picks, Robert Kennedy Jr. and Tulsi Gabbard, face critical Senate committee votes to see if they move forward. What are the prospects?

CNN senior data reporter Harry Enten is here.

The betting markets seem to be pretty bullish.

HARRY ENTEN, CNN SENIOR DATA REPORTER: They seem to be pretty gosh darn bullish. Their numbers - their chances have been rising. Tulsi Gabbard specifically to be the national intel director. She's up to, get this, a 92 percent chance. A week ago she was closer to 52 percent. But as some Republican senators have come out, like Susan Collins, in support of her, her chances have gone through the roof.

Robert F. Kennedy Jr. to be the HHS secretary, he's up to 82 percent. Again, that is also higher than it was a week ago. At this particular point, the two most controversial picks remaining for Donald Trump seem to see their prospects going through the roof at this hour.

BERMAN: What about the field, as it were?

ENTEN: What about the field? So, the remaining picks, chance of Trump's - of Trump's picks being confirmed, the average besides Gabbard and RFK, you can't really get much higher than 99 percent. So, look, there's a chance, I guess, you know, a 1 in a million, basically, or a one in one hundred, in this particular case, that one of the remaining picks do not get confirmed. But the bottom line at this hour is, RFK Jr., Tulsi Gabbard, look, likely to be confirmed, and the rest of the field looks really, really, really likely to be confirmed.

BERMAN: So, in the end, although we're not there yet, but imagine for a second we were at the end here.

ENTEN: Yes.

BERMAN: Looking back on all of Donald Trump's nominations, some of which were very controversial. How did he do in terms of getting them through?

ENTEN: Yes, you know, Matt Gaetz, obviously, decided to step aside. And that's the one so far, the one cabinet pick who was withdrawn or rejected. I looked at all first or, of course, the second nonconsecutive term in the case of Trump. And compared that to the average presidential first term since 1993, where there were three picks that were either withdrawn or rejected, Donald Trump, simply put, is winning on this metric. Only one pick so far has been withdrawn or rejected, and that looks like it's going to hold through the rest of this. We'll have to wait and see.

[08:40:02]

But the bottom line is, Trump's picks have been doing better than the average in terms of getting through the United States Senate. Simply put in a word, he's winning.

BERMAN: Getting the people he wants more so than the historic norm.

Harry Enten, thank you very much.

ENTEN: Thank you.

BERMAN: Kate.

BOLDUAN: And this morning, "The Wall Street Journal" is reporting that President Trump's advisers are discussing an executive order that could shut down key functions, is how it's put, of the Department of Education, effectively moving toward dismantling the department altogether. And sources tell CNN, the department sent letters to employees putting dozens on paid administrative leave on Friday. Those employees informed their email accounts were being suspended. And that move is part of the overall Trump administration effort to eliminate DE&I initiatives throughout federal agencies.

Joining me right now is Randi Weingarten, president of the American Federation of Teachers. One of the largest teacher's unions in the country representing educators, school staff and government employees.

Randi, this reporting from "The Wall Street Journal," just to dive into it a little bit more, is they're basically weighing how to dismantle and how far they can go to dismantle the Department of Education? Here's the line, "the officials have discussed an executive order that would shut down all functions of the agency that aren't written explicitly into statute or move certain functions to other departments." That's according to people familiar with the matter.

Do you think this move is legal? Can they do it?

RANDI WEINGARTEN, PRESIDENT, AMERICAN FEDERATION OF TEACHERS: So, the move is not legal. Meaning - and even their - first off, thank you for having me on.

The move is not legal in that even they recognize that there are lots of things about the Department of Education that are in statute. Let me just talk about the most important things. The money that goes out for kids with disabilities, the money that goes out for kids who are low income, the money that goes out for the career tech ed programs, the money that goes out for work study programs, the money that goes out for kids who are learning English. You're talking about millions of kids.

And what that department really does is it actually makes sure that the money goes out and it's not stolen. It is actually used for the intended purposes. Those are the most important functions of the Department of Education. They don't - you know, they don't do curriculum. They don't do other types of things. They do financial aid for students. They do this kind of stuff. So, those kind of things are written into statute and can't be changed but for Congress.

But let me just say one more thing. Symbolically, if we need to out educate China and out compete with China, we need to have some federal policy that actually shows how to do that. So, like Linda McMahon and I both love the Swiss apprenticeship model, and we think more high schools in America should both - should be doing that. They're not doing that in the states right now. The states have control. We need federal policy that actually has, you know, kids, boys, having more options in high school to do these kinds of things, you know, become, you know, technicians and welders and things like that. That's what the Federal Department of Education should be doing, that kind of policy to actually grow American jobs.

BOLDUAN: Do you think - with what you listed out, with these big functions being written into statute, meaning that it would take an act of Congress to change things about -

WEINGARTEN: Right.

BOLDUAN: Do you think this is - are you saying you think this is more scare tactic and threat, or do you think that this effort that's being led by Elon Musk and DOGE will actually impact the Department of Education?

WEINGARTEN: It will totally impact the Department of Education. But more than the Department of Education, it will impact individuals. Think about, both in terms of Treasury and in terms of education, the amount of personal, private financial information that that department has, just like Treasury has, all the information of Social Security, all the information of taxes. In the Department of Education, it has so much personal information for people. So, the question is, why is an unelected person who is taking this information, private information, from people who have trusted the Department of Education to give them their financial information? That, to me, is the scariest thing. Nobody elected Donald Trump or Elon Musk to take their private information.

BOLDUAN: There's a lot of big questions. And you mentioned Linda McMahon. She's the - Trump's pick to be the education secretary.

WEINGARTEN: Right.

BOLDUAN: She hasn't even had a confirmation hearing even set yet, I don't think.

WEINGARTEN: Right.

BOLDUAN: So, there's a whole lot of - there's a whole lot in the mix here of just uncertainty.

[08:45:02]

But we do know that this is under discussion, and we do know people have been put on paid administrative leave. So, we need to see where these next steps go.

Randi, thank you for coming in.

Sara. SIDNER: Thank you so much, Kate.

Paging Dr. Gupta. The FDA just did something that could be a game changer for people living with pain. They have approved the first new painkiller since the late '90s, and it is without the use of the highly addictive opioids.

CNN chief medical correspondent Dr. Sanjay Gupta joining us now.

OK, so in preparation for you, because you're a brilliant human being and I can just try to do my little research, I saw that the CDC said that in 2021 20 percent of U.S. adults deal with chronic pain in this country. That's like 50 million people. It's like an astonishing number. What can you tell us about this new pain medication that is unique compared to others?

DR. SANJAY GUPTA, CNN CHIEF MEDICAL CORRESPONDENT: Yes, you're exactly right on those numbers. And they're actually increasing at a faster rate than a lot of other diseases, including heart disease and diabetes. So, we are a country, frankly a world in - in a lot of pain. So, this is very welcome news, Sara, and big news. The medication we're talking about is Suzetrigine. That's what it's called, or Journavx is going to be the trade name.

They're - you know, Celebrex was the last medication you were talking about. That was approved in 1998. We typically approve dozens of medications every year, but this is the first pain medication. It is pretty unique because in many ways it is an alternative to opioids, but it does not have the same effect, doesn't give you the same sort of euphoria as opioids. So, people don't expect that there are going to be issues with addiction.

When you have opioid medications, they typically are working on the brain. They're essentially sedating you, That - that's how they work. With these new - this new medication, it's - it's changing the way that the pain signals are processed at the site of the pain. So, if you have pain in your foot, for example, it's changing those pain signaling processes over there, not letting the signal actually get to the brain. And that's what seems to really help.

So, it's a totally new way of dealing with pain. Non-sedating. Non- euphoric. Hopefully non-addictive as well.

SIDNER: I love it when you bring props, and especially when you bring out the brain. I really lean into -

GUPTA: I try not to leave without it, yes.

SIDNER: I mean since you are a neurosurgeon, who just happens to be a correspondent and a father and a thousand other things.

How big of an impact, though, might - might this medication make?

GUPTA: Well, it's just what you were saying. I mean, there's a lot of pain out there. So, if you just look at the numbers, there's about 80 million pain prescriptions that are filled every year, 80 million in the United States. Half of those roughly have been for opioids. And we all know, I don't have to tell you what the impact of too many opioids has been on society as a whole. So, this is potentially going to help address that market of those 50 percent opioids and offering them an alternative.

I want to be clear, it's not going to be for everyone. It's not going to replace opioids for everyone, but it could be a pretty big deal for a lot of people.

SIDNER: Yes, it's really an important new discovery. And let's hope that there are no major issues like they were with opioids. Now, the drug has its backstory, I understand, that you have learned about.

GUPTA: Yes.

SIDNER: What is it?

GUPTA: It's a fascinating backstory. So, I'll tell you quickly.

There was a family in Pakistan that could walk on hot coals, OK. So, walking on really hot coals, obviously difficult to do.

SIDNER: Yes.

GUPTA: People have been able to do that because they didn't feel anything. With this family, they could feel that they were walking on coals. They could feel that the coals were hot. They just didn't have the pain. So, they had a gene that was selective for not experiencing pain, but still having sensation, still feeling the coals, still feeling that they were hot. That was really important. You can - you can create numbness in someone's foot, for example. That would take away pain. That's not a good solution. The idea that they could actually selectively just address pain is what they found in this family. They found a gene for it. And that gene was the - was the precursor, really in some ways, the inspiration for this new medication that we're talking about.

SIDNER: That is incredible.

GUPTA: Yes. Yes.

SIDNER: What an incredible backstory. I love that story.

Dr. Sanjay Gupta, I love you as well. Thank you so much for getting up early for us this morning. I do appreciate it.

GUPTA: You got it. Any time.

SIDNER: And scan the QR code on your screen and head to cnn.com and send us your questions about pain medications. Dr. Gupta, going to be back later this week to answer those questions for you.

John, why are you looking me like that?

BERMAN: How are you - because I want to find out if I have the not feeling hot coals gene. SIDNER: I have been told by - by my many doctors - I just love going

there - that I have a high pain tolerance. I wonder -

BERMAN: Well, you put up with me every day. So - so, I'd say yes.

SIDNER: This is a fact.

BERMAN: So I'd say yes.

SIDNER: Very painful.

BERMAN: All right, happening now, stock futures are pointing in a direction. OK. Some up. Some down. Pointing somewhere.

SIDNER: Paging Dr. Gupta.

[08:50:00]

BERMAN: Pain threshold high. We are standing by for the opening bell on Wall Street and its response to the new trade war with China.

And this morning, a stern new warning to Blake Lively and Justin Baldoni from a judge as both sides get ready for a heated trial.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

BERMAN: This morning, a toddler from Gaza who Palestinian doctors say had just days to live is now getting urgent medical care in Jordan. The two-year-old was evacuated by Jordan's military after negotiations with Israel and multiple delays. Doctors believe she has a rare but highly treatable condition that causes excessive blood clotting in her arms and legs. Her mother said her heart stopped twice last week.

[08:55:02]

A protest in Los Angeles over recent deportations by the Trump administration. Thousands took to the streets as part of the nationwide Day Without Immigrants protest. At night, some of the crowd refused to leave. Some went on to a nearby highway. Eventually the scene was cleared. Nearly 200 arrests were made.

A routine court hearing turned into chaos. Alexander Ortiz facing murder charges in New Mexico, was attacked by the victims uncle, who leapt over the courtroom gate and started punching Ortiz. The brawl lasted about a minute, with more people joining in. And so, there were further arrests for those who participated in the brawl.

Sara.

SIDNER: All right, to another case that is expected to go to court this morning. A new stern warning from the judge overseeing actress Blake Lively and director and actor Justin Baldoni's massive and very public legal fight. Lawyers for both parties during the case's first pretrial hearing were told to stop their war of words that is playing out in the media. The judge warning that making public statements could force the trial to be moved up from March of next year. Lively has accused her "It Ends With Us" co-star and director of sexual harassment. Baldoni has countersued for defamation.

Entertainment attorney and former litigator Lisa Bonner is with us now.

Thank you so much, Lisa, for joining us this morning.

There is quite a bit of interest in this story as people watch a very public battle. You don't always see this all the time. This - this judge, as you heard, and as you know, has warned the two of them and their attorneys not to play this out in the media. What could the judge do if they continue to come at each other by, for example, publishing or, you know, leaking talking points to - to media outlets to argue their case in the court of public opinion?

LISA BONNER, ENTERTAINMENT ATTORNEY AND FORMER LITIGATOR: Good morning, Sara.

Well, yesterday's hearing was just about the pretrial motions to basically talk about what's going to happen going forward. Now, what he did say, as you said, he admonished them, but he did stop short of issuing a gag order in the court. So what basically he said, we need to take down the temperature. We need to stop giving information that would prejudice a potential jury pool, and let's just play by the rules of the New York professional rules of conduct.

But if they keep this up, the judge will move up the trial date and he could issue a gag order and basically stop them from talking to the press at all. He stopped short of doing that yesterday, but that is still on the table.

SIDNER: Yes, you don't want to go against the gag order, because then there are lots of other potential repercussions there. So, Blake Lively has said that she, and I'm quoting here, faced, quote, repeated sexual harassment and other disturbing behavior by Mr. Baldoni and a producer on the film, and that he and his PR team set out to destroy her reputation. There were texts that she revealed to try and prove that.

For his part, Baldoni is saying there was no sexual harassment, and he claims it was actually Lively who set out to ruin his reputation and, in some ways, steal the film where he was an actor and director and his production company produced this film.

How does this go forward when they are both suing each other? Do the cases come at each other at the same time, or there's a suit and a countersuit? How does this work in court?

BONNER: Well, a couple of things. One, they had suits on both - on both coasts. So, the judge basically consolidated some of the court cases and the - the plaintiffs and the defendants on each side consolidated some of their cases because they said there was no sense in litigating these cases on both coasts.

However, it is going to be - they set the initial trial for March 26th. So this is the case that - against Blake Lively's case against Justin Baldoni that is going to move forward. So, these are cases of counter cases and countersuits. And so we will actually see, as it goes out, as it comes time for discovery, what will happen with the additional cases, the amended complaints, et cetera. But right now this case is set for March 2026.

SIDNER: Yes, it's a - it's a - it's a while out, which is sort of how the courts work, for people who aren't familiar, things don't usually just show up. And I think a lot of people have gotten used to sort of the cases that involved president - former - well, at the time, former President Trump, going very quickly through the courts. But that's not how things normally work.

I'm curious how unusual it might be for a civil case like this to actually go all the way to a jury and be heard in court and not be settled like they often are.

BONNER: Well, there's a lot of speculation in the legal - in the legal courts of opinion whether or not this case is actually going to go forward. This seems like a battle of text messages, a battle of he said, she said, a battle of the sleuths, the internet sleuths, versus the journalists.

[09:00:03]

So, it is going to be very interesting to see how much time, how much money each side is willing to spend.