Return to Transcripts main page

CNN News Central

Judges Repeatedly Block Trump's Plans To Upend Government; Farmers In Limbo After Brief Federal Funding Freeze; Greenland Residents Speak Out On Trump's Pursuit. Aired 7:30-8a ET

Aired February 11, 2025 - 07:30   ET

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

[07:30:00]

KATE BOLDUAN, CNN ANCHOR: President Trump, J.D. Vance, Elon Musk are all challenging the power and authority of the federal court right now? Why? Well, the extraordinary number of executive actions and orders coming by the president have been met with an equal amount of legal challenges. Dozens of lawsuits already they face and several judges now temporarily, at least, blocking many of Donald Trump's moves, which now has Donald Trump saying this overnight.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

DONALD TRUMP, (R) PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: You get some very bad rulings and uh, it's a shame to see it frankly. They want to sort of tell everybody how to run the country. They don't talk about what you're looking at. All they just say is, 'Oh, it's unconstitutional.' Judges should be ruling. They shouldn't be dictating what you're supposed to be doing.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

BOLDUAN: And joining me right now is CNN senior legal analyst and the former assistant U.S. attorney for the Southern District, Elie Honig. Elie, thanks for jumping on.

When Donald Trump says they should be ruling and not dictating, do you think that he and the White House are actually setting up to defy some of these judge's orders?

ELIE HONIG, CNN SENIOR LEGAL ANALYST, FORMER ASSISTANT U.S. ATTORNEY, SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK: Well, they haven't actually done that so far, Kate.

BOLDUAN: Right.

HONIG: They haven't actually defied a judge yet, but he's definitely laying the groundwork here. And if you take that comment that judges shouldn't be ruling, they should be dictated -- they shouldn't be dictating, they should be ruling, in addition to J.D. Vance's statement the other day in which he basically said well, if a judge tells the executive branch what to do that's illegal, they certainly seem to be setting the foundation and hinting at defying. They haven't done that yet but if they do, Kate, then we are in unknown constitutional territory.

(Phone alarm going off).

BOLDUAN: I mean -- good morning, Elie. You can turn your alarm off now.

But continue with me on this vein. I mean, we've got so many moves that it's almost head-spinning for people to even track of. I think by some counts it was like 30 lawsuits already filed. I think I'm probably short some. Katelyn Polantz is saying more action could be coming today, so stand by for that.

What -- and all of these moves -- at least most of these moves seem like they are all judges saying let's hit the pause button so I can actually consider --

HONIG: Right.

BOLDUAN: -- the legal question here.

What does that -- and what does that mean in terms of what could be a long, drawn out fight here with some of these moves?

HONIG: Yes. So it's important to understand we are really only at the first step of what will be a long legal process. No judge has actually overturned anything that Donald Trump has done just yet. What they've done thus far -- and many judges have done this -- is put a pause. Put an injunction. Put a hold on these actions.

Because the way the law works it says if some new action gets announced and a party challenges it, what that party has to do is show some likelihood of success. Some likelihood that they'll ultimately win. But they don't ultimately have to show that they certainly will win. And so all of these holds are temporary now.

And it's really important to remember what Donald Trump and the administration have been doing and will have the ability to do is to appeal those rulings -- is to bring them, in some cases, back to the trial court and in some cases to bring them up to the next level court of appeals. And in some cases to bring them up to the U.S. Supreme Court.

So we really are very early in all of these challenges, but they are going to play out I think pretty quickly over the next several weeks and months.

BOLDUAN: Yeah. And as it plays out though you do need to listen to the judge and what the judge's order is, which is kind of the big question in some of this.

And then there is --

HONIG: Yes, true.

BOLDUAN: -- this memo coming from the judge -- from DOJ. The acting deputy attorney general to the acting U.S. attorney in the Southern District of New York -- your former shop -- directing that they drop the case against New York City's Mayor Eric Adams. And what's so amazing about this memo is it clearly states that this directive has nothing to do with the actual corruption case against Adams.

They write, "The Justice Department has reached this conclusion without assessing the strength of the evidence or the legal theories on which the case is based."

But they do suggest in this memo that it may have everything or at least something to do with Adams, I don't know, helping with Donald Trump's agenda because they claim in this thing that the case "?nduly restricted Mayor Adams' ability to devote full attention and resources to the illegal immigration and violent crime that escalated under the policies of the prior administration."

How unusual is this, Elie?

HONIG: This is a bizarre and extraordinary memo. I've really never seen anything like it in all my years of being at the Justice Department and since then.

What the memo says essentially is this is the bosses at DOJ ordering the Southern District of New York to dismiss their indictment of Eric Adams.

And as you note Kate, the memo itself said this has nothing to do with the merits of the case, with the quality of the evidence -- with anything Eric Adams is alleged to have done. Instead, they couch it -- first of all, in the sort of broad political terms. They say well, the prior U.S. attorney had bad motives when he indicted Eric Adams. They argue that it had something to do with trying to influence the election while providing zero support and zero evidence for that.

And then the second excuse that DOJ gives is also the mayor has to do his job as mayor. He has to focus on this job as mayor. He shouldn't be sort of sidetracked with such trifling matters as a federal indictment. But by that logic no public official should ever be indicted for anything because they all have jobs to do, from a member of a city council all the way up to governors and the U.S. Senate. You could make the exact same argument.

[07:35:05]

So this is a flagrantly political move. I think it's poorly disguised, and I think it's absolutely out of the ordinary. I think it's a worrisome harbinger about what's to come from DOJ. It's outright political.

BOLDUAN: Yeah, and unclear how the U.S. attorney is going to respond from the Southern District or even what the options could be at this point.

HONIG: Yeah.

BOLDUAN: Elie, thank you so much -- John.

HONIG: Yeah.

JOHN BERMAN, CNN ANCHOR: All right, with us now, Matt Gorman, Republican strategist and former senior adviser for Tim Scott's presidential campaign. And CNN political contributor Karen Finney.

So Matt, I'm old enough to remember when Republican-elected officials used to carry around pocketsize Constitutions in their jackets and whip them out and quote from it. Yet, now I'm not hearing much objection to the White House ignoring court orders from the independent federal judiciary. Why that disconnect?

MATT GORMAN, REPUBLICAN STRATEGIST, FORMER SENIOR ADVISER FOR TIM SCOTT'S PRESIDENTIAL CAMPAIGN (via Webex by Cisco): Well, I'm old enough to remember Elie just saying that they haven't ignored anything yet. And I -- don't take my word for it either, or Elie's. Even The Washington Post and Politico reported there's no strategy sign yet to outright disregard the courts.

I am old enough to remember -- and you make a good point there -- when Joe Biden tweeted out that he was flouting the Supreme Court on student loans or about a month ago when he started issuing Constitution ERAs ratifications via tweet.

So look, look, look -- I -- there's nothing -- nothing that he's done to disregard the courts. He can disagree with it. That's perfectly fine. J.D., Elon, President Trump, all of them disagree but nothing right now, to your point, has disregarded a court order.

BERMAN: So Karen, both Matt and I have established we are old and we remember.

What do you think --

GORMAN: Yes.

BERMAN: What is it that you think the Trump administration is doing here? Is there a strategy, especially when you have J.D. Vance and Elon Musk out there floating the notion that maybe it's OK to go beyond the court order?

KAREN FINNEY, CNN POLITICAL CONTRIBUTOR, FORMER SENIOR ADVISER AND SPOKESPERSON, HILLARY CLINTON 2016 PRESIDENTIAL CAMPAIGN (via Webex by Cisco): So I'm old enough to remember all the times that Donald Trump somewhat disregarded the courts over the last couple of years. I mean, we've seen -- we know how he tends to react. Remember how many times did the judges have to give him a gag order or say you can't continue to disparage people, and he would ignore it.

And we've also known for decades his M.O. has been to sue and tie things up in the courts while he continues -- you know, so that's happening over here while he continues to do what he wants to do over here.

And that's why we should be concerned, particularly given the scope of what we're talking about here. Like, let's not forget we're literally talking about people's lives, their well-being -- BERMAN: Um-hum.

FINNEY: -- our health, our economy. I mean, think about this -- the government purge.

We're talking about, for example, 30,000 employees -- government employees, public servants in Kansas City alone. That will devastate Kansas City if all of those employees are suddenly without jobs. And these are individuals who don't know what they're supposed to do, right? They're being -- on the one hand, they've gotten this fork in the road and then they're seeing what the judges are saying.

Or if you're a cancer patient who thought you were about to start a cancer trial -- you're waiting for these things to play out in the courts. So there are very real life consequences.

And part of the reason we're here is because Donald Trump basically has unchecked power. The Republican Party has laid down in the road. They're playing dead. And there's only -- Democrats have very little power to stop them. And so the courts are really the only other branch of government in our constitutional system that is able to hold them accountable and say slow down. Let's do this the right way.

BERMAN: I'm going to change subjects quickly here to J.D. Vance, the Vice President of the United States, and whether or not this is a 'call your office' moment. This is what the president said.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

BRETT BAIER, FOX NEWS HOST: Do you view Vice President J.D. Vance as your successor? The Republican nominee in 2028?

TRUMP: No, but he's very capable.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

BERMAN: I don't know. I mean, so what did you hear there, Karen?

FINNEY: Welcome to the family. I mean -- you know, I mean, again, J.D. Vance I hope has been paying attention to how many times Donald Trump has thrown people under the bus when he needed to. So yeah, that's about what I would have expected Trump to say.

BERMAN: I mean, I don't think there was any expectation for him to say yep, he's the heir apparent. I endorse him right now, Matt. But man, he leaned into that "no" a little bit more than maybe he had to.

GORMAN: Yeah. I -- you know, look, I wasn't surprised. I don't expect Trump to endorse his successor four weeks in. I mean, I think he saw what happened last July when that whole machination happened. You start endorsing people before it's time.

[07:40:07]

But, like, look, no matter what Trump said -- let's just be honest, right. Vance is, today, the odds on favorite to be the nominee. It's just political gravity. He's a sitting vice president and we all know that, right? It's not a slam-dunk. Nothing's ever guaranteed.

And if Trump is really popular among the party Vance will benefit from that. If he's not for some reason -- I don't necessarily anticipate that -- Vance could suffer. But right now if you're a betting man and pitchers and catchers report today, John, put your money down on J.D. for a nominee.

BERMAN: Look, J.D. Vance is the favorite to be the nominee the way that the Chiefs and the Eagles are the odds on favorites today to be in the Super Bowl next year. I mean it. I mean it. That's the way --

GORMAN: Yeah.

BERMAN: -- that odds and betting work. It's just does. Even though it won't be them --

GORMAN: Yeah.

BERMAN: -- in all likelihood next year. It's just that right now that's the safest bet. I get what you are saying.

FINNEY: But --

BERMAN: All right, Karen Finney, Matt Gorman. Nice to see you both. It's nice to see smiles this morning. I appreciate all of that -- Sara.

SARA SIDNER, CNN ANCHOR: It's all because it's you, John Berman.

All right. And FDA plan to ban hair products with possible links to cancer may be in limbo this morning. Under the Biden administration, the FDA proposed banning the potentially cancer-causing hair straightening products used and marketed largely to Black women. But under the Trump administration there are now questions as to whether the FDA will move ahead with the proposal to ban those products.

CNN's health reporter Jacqueline Howard has the story for us.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

JACQUELINE HOWARD, CNN HEALTH REPORTER: We know that scientists and advocacy groups have long warned about the potential cancer risks linked to the use of formaldehyde and formaldehyde-releasing chemicals in hair straightening products. Those are products like hair relaxers and certain keratin treatments. And these products have been disproportionately advertised to Black women.

A previous study from 2022 found that among women who have not used hair straightening chemical products in the past 12 months 1.6 percent developed uterine cancer by age 70. But in comparison, a much higher share -- about four percent of women who frequently use these products developed uterine cancer by that same age.

So based on data like that, the FDA, under the Biden administration, previously considered proposing a ban on these chemicals as ingredients in hair straightening products. The proposed rule at the time had a possible action date of April 2024. That was then pushed back to July 2024, then September 2024. Official action was never taken. So now the new possible action date is next month, March 2025.

If this rule is formally proposed it will be up for public comment, and then the FDA could decide whether any further action is needed before a final rule possibly could be put in place banning these ingredients in hair straightening products.

But there's a lot of uncertainty around the fate of this possible proposed rule under a Trump White House. Will it move forward? Will it be withdrawn? We really have to wait to see what may happen next.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

BERMAN: All right, our thanks to Jacqueline for that.

This morning at least one person is dead and several others injured after a private jet owned by Motley Crew Crue frontman Vince Neil collided with a parked plane.

And this morning, if you open Google maps on your phone you will now see a new body of water to the south of Mississippi and Louisiana.

(COMMERCIAL)

[07:48:22]

SIDNER: This morning some U.S. farmers say they are now on the hook to foot massive bills after President Trump ordered the Department of Agriculture to freeze spending for grants and loans promised under the Biden administration. The Trump administration though rescinded the pause less than two days later, but the farmers who need that money still feeling the impact.

Maryland flower farmer Laura Beth Resnick is joining us now.

First of all, just explain what effect this freeze and then the reversal of the freeze have on you. Are you still dealing with the consequences of this?

LAURA BETH RESNICK, FOUNDER AND OWNER, BUTTERBEE FARM: Yes, we are. We signed our contract with the government about a year ago to put solar panels on our barn and about a year later the project was complete. And we were supposed to get our funding the week that the funding freeze was announced, and we still haven't seen the money. And when we asked the government representative where it was and what we should do they informed us that our funding request had been rejected due to the funding freeze.

SIDNER: OK, so your funding had been approved and then the freeze happened, and it was rescinded. And now they're telling you it's been rejected. Do you have any understanding of why that is?

RESNICK: I don't. They haven't been in touch with us since they told us that. And they told us just to wait and that there is a lot of moving parts and that no one's really sure what's going on. So it's a very stressful time.

SIDNER: Do you think this is part of the design of all this is that they're saying look, the freeze is no longer in place but, in fact, it is still in place, just more quietly?

[07:50:00]

RESNICK: I don't know. I mean, I'm just a farmer trying to do my work. I have no idea how these things work, you know? I mean, we have relied on government grants before to build our farm. And is started farming right of college. I was 23 years old and didn't have a whole lot of money of my own. Farming -- you don't make a whole lot so, you know, the profit margins are so slim. These government programs are just so important for helping new farmers and farmers who don't have independent wealth to get going.

So in the past there's been no problem with these government grants and loans, but this is the first time I've ever had anything like this.

SIDNER: What does not getting the other half of that $73,000, which is nothing to sneeze at, mean to your business?

RESNICK: It's hard to even think about. We already have loans for building our farm. We bought our own farm after a decade of leasing land just a couple of years ago. So we already have a Farm Service Agency loan that allowed us to build heated greenhouses to grow our flowers during those winter holidays like Valentine's Day and Easter. So it's hard to imagine taking on more debt. We're sort of scraping by just paying back a loan that we already have as it is.

SIDNER: Have you thought about just sort of applying for new grants? I mean, what would that be? And do you just expect that they're going to get rejected as well?

RESNICK: It would -- it would be -- feel strange to apply for more grants given that I don't feel like I can trust that they will be issued. This grant -- this particular grant was the kind of thing where you put the money up first and then you get reimbursed. So we're waiting and we're hoping, but if a future grant opportunity from the government comes up, I'll definitely pause before accepting because I would be afraid this might happen again.

SIDNER: Is this happening to your fellow farmers? Are you hearing this from anyone else in your world?

RESNICK: Yes, absolutely. Everyone is really scared. People have reached out to me all over the country sharing similar stories. There is other -- two other farms in Maryland who were in the middle of receiving their grant contracts for their solar panels as well, so there is at least two other people who are in the exact same position as me.

And then there's also other government grants -- not even this one but ones for building high tunnels, and putting a well on your property, and putting up fencing for livestock, and all of those are frozen. So everyone is kind of in limbo and just feeling very nervous.

SIDNER: Laura Beth Resnick, thank you so much for talking us through this and giving us the real world impact of some of the things that the administration is doing. And by the way, the flowers that we saw from your -- from your farm are gorgeous, and I'll be calling you a little bit later. Those are beautiful. So appreciate you coming on this morning.

RESNICK: Oh, thank you.

SIDNER: All right -- John.

BERMAN: All right. This morning the NTSB is investigating an accident at Scottsdale Airport in Arizona. One person was killed and three others injured when a Lear jet owned by Motley Crue frontman Vince Neil -- and you can see it right there -- collided another plane -- into another plane. Airport officials say the jet's left main gear failed.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

KELLY KESTER, PUBLIC INFORMATION OFFICER, SCOTTSDALE AIRPORT: We had a midsized business jet, upon arrival, collide with another midsized business jet that was parked on private property.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

BERMAN: A representative for Vince Neil says he was not on board the jet at the time.

So, Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth has changed the name of Fort Liberty back to Fort Bragg. The base had been named Fort Bragg after Confederate Gen. Braxton Bragg, a slave owner and by all accounts a pretty lousy military commander. It was changed in 2023 in an effort to remove the names that honor Confederate leaders.

Now, Sec. Hegseth says instead of Braxton Bragg the name honors Private First Class Roland Bragg, who earned the Silver Star and Purple Heart for his bravery during the Battle of Bulge -- the Bulge in World War II.

This morning U.S. Google users who search 'Gulf of Mexico' will now see 'Gulf of America' show up instead. The company made the update after President Trump's executive order to change the name. Google says users in Mexico will still see 'Gulf of Mexico' while everyone else in the world will see both names -- Kate.

BOLDUAN: So which is it? Here we go.

This week on Capitol Hill the Senate is focusing in on Greenland. A Senate committee holding a hearing to "examine the strategic significance of Greenland to the American economy and national security. Despite Donald Trump's continued push to purchase Greenland, Greenland has made it clear it is not for sale. CNN's Donie O'Sullivan went there to find out what Greenlanders think about this whole thing. Watch this.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

QUPANUK OLSEN, GREENLAND ELECTION CANDIDATE: I really want this statue gone.

DONIE O'SULLIVAN, CNN SENIOR CORRESPONDENT: Why?

OLSEN: Because why should he be up there? Why isn't it a Greenlander up there?

Trump wants to buy my country, Greenland.

[07:55:00]

O'SULLIVAN (voiceover): This is Qupanuk Olsen.

OLSEN: Today, Miko and I are having whale skin.

O'SULLIVAN (voiceover): She's known as Greenland's biggest influencer, and she's running in the island's upcoming elections. She's a native Greenlander, and for her, this statue of an 18th century missionary is a daily reminder of Denmark's control of her country.

O'SULLIVAN: So you would like to be independent of Denmark?

OLSEN: Yes.

O'SULLIVAN: But that doesn't mean you want to be part of the USA?

OLSEN: No, I don't -- I don't want to become a part of the USA. I definitely don't.

O'SULLIVAN: You don't want to be an American?

OLSEN: No.

O'SULLIVAN: Why not?

OLSEN: Why should I? Why should we just be taken by another colonizer?

O'SULLIVAN (voiceover): Native Greenlanders or Inuits make up almost 90 percent of Greenland's population.

O'SULLIVAN: Is all this interest in Greenland because of Trump -- is it a good thing or is it a bad thing?

OLSEN: In my opinion it's a good thing because it's speeding up our independence process, so I see it as a good thing.

O'SULLIVAN (voiceover): When the Nazis took over Denmark during World War II, the United States stepped in to protect Greenland. O'SULLIVAN: Now the U.S. military has had a presence here on Greenland for decades, but in the capital, one of the very few signs of the United States is this, the U.S. consulate, which was reopened by President Trump in his first term in 2020.

TOM DANS, FORMER U.S. ARCTIC COMMISSIONER: Americans died for this country. In my own family, my grandfather watched his shipmates die.

O'SULLIVAN (voiceover): Another sign of the U.S. here is Tom Dans, who was appointed to the U.S. Arctic Research Commission during Trump's first presidency.

O'SULLIVAN: When Trump first brought up Greenland, people treated it like it was a joke. People thought that's crazy. But you're saying it's not so crazy.

DANS: It's not crazy at all. Greenland, due to its geographic position, is of kind of the front door for North America.

O'SULLIVAN (voiceover): The U.S. is jostling with Russia and others for Arctic dominance. Military bases here are prime real estate for satellite and missile detection systems.

O'SULLIVAN: So this is Danish Navy.

OLSEN: This is the Danish Navy, yes.

O'SULLIVAN (voiceover): Greenland currently relies on Denmark for security and financial support.

O'SULLIVAN: Do you think Greenland can survive without this -- without the support of Denmark?

OLSEN: We will definitely need an agreement with another country, either with -- or still continue the agreement with Denmark, with military, or go with U.S. or Canada.

O'SULLIVAN (voiceover): Climate change is opening up new shipping routes in the Arctic that the U.S. want to control.

O'SULLIVAN: Are the Greenlanders you've spoken to excited about a close relationship with the U.S.?

DANS: Absolutely. I'm -- you know, I'm talking with businessmen, investors, entrepreneurs. Tremendous things are happening.

O'SULLIVAN (voiceover): And another appeal of Greenland for Trump is its many natural resources.

DANS: Fishing, tourism, mining, security investments, logistics. The hard thing is deciding where to start first.

O'SULLIVAN (voiceover): Tom Dans does not have a role in the current administration but he did campaign for Trump in the last election, along with Greenlander Jorgen Boassen.

DANS: He's been known as Trump's son here.

JORGEN BOASSEN, GREENLANDIC TRUMP SUPPORTER: Trump's son here.

DANS: So, papa.

BOASSEN: Papa.

O'SULLIVAN: I mean, maybe you could be.

BOASSEN: Yes.

O'SULLIVAN (voiceover): Jorgen has made multiple trips to the U.S. in recent months, even campaigning for Trump in Pennsylvania.

O'SULLIVAN: Do you want Greenland to be part of the United States?

BOASSEN: Not of 51 states, but best and closest ally with everything. With defense, mining, oil exploration, and trade, and everything.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: OK, we are here in Greenland with Don. Jr.

O'SULLIVAN (voiceover): In January, another sign of the United States here. Donald Trump Jr. arriving on the plane dubbed Trump Force One. It's all a sign here for some that there's a lot more to come.

OLSEN: The feeling when I saw the plane was kind of excitement but also, like, should I be nervous now? And, like, the realizations of Trump's words are no longer just words. Now they have become the reality.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

BERMAN: One judge says the White House is blatantly defying his orders. New questions of a constitutional crisis. Is the Trump administration operating above or beyond the law?

An investigation underway this morning after a young sports reporter sent to cover the Super Bowl was found dead before kickoff.

And "it is like a tsunami." Flu cases surging into the millions as this season is on track to be the most severe we have seen in more than a decade.

I'm John Berman with Kate Bolduan and Sara Sidner. This is CNN NEW CENTRAL.