Return to Transcripts main page

CNN News Central

Trump to Sign Order Aimed at Dismantling Education Department; Deadline Passes for DOJ to Turn Over Deportation Flight Details; Protesters, Furious Constituents Blast Lawmakers at Town Halls; Conservative Influencers Becoming Targets of Swatting. Aired 2-2:30p ET

Aired March 20, 2025 - 14:00   ET

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

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[14:01:45]

BRIANNA KEILAR, CNN CO-ANCHOR OF "CNN NEWS CENTRAL": On the chopping block, President Trump planning to set in motion the possible dismantling of the Department of Education. It's a long-time goal for conservatives, but what will it mean for everything from school lunches to college loans?

BORIS SANCHEZ, CNN CO-ANCHOR OF "CNN NEWS CENTRAL": Plus, tempers flaring up, Americans erupting in anger at town halls for lawmakers from both parties, voters seemingly unhappy with what one party is doing and how the other is responding. And reportedly, the happiest place in the world, believe it or not, it's not Disney World or "CNN News Central." A new report suggests it might be Finland. We'll take a look at where the U.S. ranks on this list as we follow these major developing stories and many more, all coming in right here to "CNN News Central."

KEILAR: A monumental shift, this afternoon, President Donald Trump expected to sign an executive order aimed at dismantling the Department of Education. It's a move that is set to severely squeeze the agency's authority and transfer much of its control of education to the states. President Trump has already slashed the department's workforce by more than half, but to completely abolish it, Congress would likely have to act. CNN's Jeff Zeleny is live for us now from the White House. So Jeff, what's the administration saying as the president is getting ready to sign this order?

JEFF ZELENY, CNN CHIEF NATIONAL AFFAIRS CORRESPONDENT: Well, Brianna, the order will be signed in just a couple hours and we're told that President Trump will be surrounded by school children who will be sitting at desks. Republican governors also will be on hand here at the White House to really make good on what the president campaigned on for not only this last time, but in his first time running for president as well, like many Republicans have.

However, even though the stranglehold of a financing is already underway, as you said, that there have been significant layoffs at the department, the question is what is going to happen with those other everyday things that so many Americans use in terms of student loans, Pell Grants. We are told by the White House that they are going to stay in this downsized department as well as special ed funding. The White House press secretary responded like this.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

KAROLINE LEAVITT, WHITE HOUSE PRESS SECRETARY: The Department of Education will be much smaller than it is today. As you know, the president's executive order directed Linda McMahon to greatly minimize the agency. So when it comes to student loans and Pell Grants, those will still be run out of the Department of Education. But we don't need to be spending more than $3 trillion over the course of a few decades on a department that's clearly failing in its initial intention to educate our students.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

ZELENY: But the open question here is, even without the department, should that go forward and should Congress dismantle it in its entirety? Which is very much an open question. That would take a bipartisan majority in the Senate. Well, what will happen at the local level? How much funding will go to the states? Will it actually improve reading scores or math scores? That is not a guarantee, but there is no doubt this administration is intent on doing this. And we'll see that order signed here this afternoon, Brianna.

KEILAR: All right, Jeff Zeleny at the White House, thank you. Boris?

[14:05:00]

SANCHEZ: Let's get some perspective now from Alberto Carvalho, the Superintendent of the Los Angeles Unified School District. Superintendent, thank you so much for being with us. I just want to let you know, we, moments ago, got a statement from the White House defending this executive order, suggesting that per-pupil spending has increased more than 245 percent since 1979 when the Department of Education was founded, but there has been no measurable improvement in student achievement. They ask, why would we keep doing the same thing over and over again and expect a different result? I wonder what your thoughts are.

ALBERTO CARVALHO, SUPERINTENDENT, LOS ANGELES UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT: Thank you very much for the opportunity, Boris. Let's begin by putting things into context. Number one, educational spending by the Department of Education, federally speaking, accounts for no more than 4 percent of the federal budget, about $270 billion annually. Secondly, we actually have seen improvement over time over the past two-and-a-half decades, specifically looking at large cities, narrowing the gap in reading and math compared to the rest of the nation.

However, during that time period, we have seen a growing level of poverty, a growing number of students with disabilities that draw additional need for resources in schools, particularly in high-poverty areas. Just imagine the setting in education in our country if those dollars were not there to protect these students. SANCHEZ: A senior administration official is saying that funding for low-income students and schools and students with disabilities will not be affected. I do wonder if you trust that that is going to be the case, or you think eventually, there are going to be cuts to those programs?

CARVALHO: We certainly hope that there will be no cuts, but even a no- cut scenario without it being adjusted for inflation represents an operational reduction at the local level. Look, everyone across the country is for efficiency. However, federal efficiency should not cause local deficiency. In Los Angeles Unified, 85 percent of our students live at or below the poverty level. The $470 million the district receives annually to provide tutorial programs, additional assistance and support for poor kids, or the $170 million that we receive annually for students with disabilities, those funds are indispensable to the wellbeing of these kids.

Let's speak about Medicaid reimbursements for the medically needy in our schools. Any reduction whatsoever could prove to be catastrophic to kids in our country, dramatically impacting the most fragile amongst us. So do I trust? I certainly hope that overall funding levels will not be touched. What I'm concerned about is a dilution of impact. If these funds are now sent to states as block grants, depending on the state that you may be in, there may be a manipulation of those dollars resulting in the state getting the same base funding, but the impact at local districts actually being manipulated by states.

I trust that will not be the case in California. But I don't necessarily know that other states would not divert federal dollars to non-public schools, additional charter support or vouchers.

SANCHEZ: So put that in the context of what it means for kids in a classroom. How is their education going to change as a result of this?

CARVALHO: Look, if there were to be any reduction in funding, a child with disabilities, a child who may be on the spectrum could lose their paraprofessional, their teacher aid. There could be reductions for afterschool tutorial programs in math and reading for struggling kids in poverty. Kids who may be experiencing homelessness could be deprived of direct assistance. Programs that feed kids beyond the school day, such as supper or snacks could be eliminated or reduced, or physical and mental health support in the schoolhouse that currently is provided through Medicaid could be undermined.

And that's not even talking about college access through the possibility of reduction of such programs. So, we certainly hope that the promises that are being made specific to level funding are kept. We're still worried, however, about policy implications beyond the funding. The undermining of the Office of Civil Rights could put at risk the viability and equitability -- the equitable treatment of kids of color in our country, LGBTQ+ kids. So, there is a lot of risk here beyond just funding levels.

SANCHEZ: What do you say to parents who make the case that they would prefer to see their child's education handled locally, so they could have more oversight over a number of things that parents in recent years have determined that leaders at the federal level shouldn't be overseeing?

[14:10:00]

CARVALHO: Sure. Well, Boris, look, I think you went to school in Miami where I was superintendent for 15 years. Quite frankly, the reality across the country right now is one where public education is largely driven, controlled by standards, funding, the type of curriculum, textbook adoptions, not by the federal government, but actually by states and local school districts. Only about four to seven percent of the funding in most districts comes from the federal government.

And certainly, there are no textbook or curricular decisions made at the federal level. Those are determined by the states. Anything from assessments to textbook adoption to curricular guidelines and benchmarks are decided by the states and then adopted by local school districts. So, for those who are clamoring for greater local control, they got it. It's already been in place for decades, actually since the creation of the Department of Education back in 1979 under President Carter.

SANCHEZ: Superintendent Alberto Carvalho, you certainly studied. I'm a graduate of Miami-Dade County Public Schools. Appreciate your time, sir.

CARVALHO: Thank you very much. Appreciate it.

SANCHEZ: Brianna?

KEILAR: Proud graduate, indeed. The Trump administration gearing up for a major fight with the supreme court, as several legal battles are playing out in the judiciary over parts of the president's agenda. And we're learning that even though some lower courts have ruled against Trump, the White House is really unfazed by the losses. It's playing the long game, waiting to get those cases before the conservative majority on the supreme court. We're joined now by Supreme Court Analyst and Georgetown University Law Professor, Steve Vladeck.

OK, Steve, so let's just look at this, right? If this were to get to this supreme court, how do you think it would go? What do you think of the strategy?

STEVE VLADECK, CNN SUPREME COURT ANALYST: I mean, I think, you know, the Trump administration's view, Brianna, is even if it ultimately loses these cases in the supreme court, you know, maybe it can play for time. Maybe it can continue to dismantle agencies like USAID or you know, the Department of Education and that maybe there's a lot they can accomplish even if they lose, also to try to push the window. I mean, maybe they can put pressure on someone like a Chief Justice Roberts or a Justice Brett Kavanaugh that, you know, you can't rule against us in every case, so which ones are you going to give to us?

So, you know, I think the strategy here is not to ignore the courts. It's not to defy the courts, rather it's, you know, like what my six- year-old might do. It's testing the boundaries of just how much the courts are going to push back and how much they can get away with before they finally lose, you know, in the supreme court at the end of the day.

KEILAR: Yeah, I too have a six-year-old. I know exactly what you're talking about there. OK. So, there was also this noon deadline for the Trump response in the Alien Enemies Act case, which was using that wartime power to deport alleged Venezuelan gang members to El Salvador. We're not seeing it right now that it's up, it's possible it is just not on the public docket. But what are you looking for here?

VLADECK: I mean, I think, you know, part of what's really gotten lost in the sniping back and forth between the Justice Department and the courts in this case, is the underlying legal question, which is what is the actual basis on which the government is saying each of the folks who have been removed and who have been sent to El Salvador actually meet the definition of not just alien enemies, Brianna, but members of Tren de Aragua. We have lawyers for the ACLU saying that some of these folks were picked up because they had tattoos for Real Madrid that looked kind of like tattoos for Tren de Aragua. That's a pretty flimsy factual basis.

So, you know, I think what I'm looking for is not just the back and forth about what role the courts can play, but also if and when the government is actually held to producing some evidence in support of why it is removing these folks. Is it more than just untested statements by the press secretary and other administration officials that these are bad guys, is they're actual they're (ph) there and that's I think what's really at the bottom of this case. And that's getting a little bit lost in all of the discussion about the relationship between Chief Judge Boasberg and the Justice Department.

So, I mean, what ultimately could happen then? I mean if, let's just say, you have a case, is they're alleging there's someone with like a soccer team tattoo, it's not really a Tren de Aragua tattoo, and we have to be clear, we don't know this and there's no individual oversight of each of these cases, right? So it's hard to know it. But what would then happen, like how would the court go about instructing or if they can, the federal government on how they have to verify that?

[14:15:00]

VLADECK: So, I mean, you know, this is not new. This is actually what federal courts spends a lot of time doing in the Guantanamo habeas cases where the courts agreed that the United States had the power to detain for a very long time, those who were part of Al-Qaeda. But Brianna, we had case law, we had procedural rules, we had evidentiary rules for how the government was supposed to prove membership. You know, for the Trump administration to turn around now and say, that's not something the government has ever had to do before just isn't true.

We go back to World War II, the last time that this particular statute, the Alien Enemy Act was enacted, the government had to establish that the folks who they were holding and trying to remove were German citizens as opposed to say Swiss citizens. So the key here, Brianna, is judicial review, due process is how we can have any confidence that the folks who are being affected by these actions really are who the government says they are. We should all be invested in that being something available to everybody.

KEILAR: Yeah. Co-equal branch of government, judicial review, let's familiarize ourselves with these -- re-familiarize ourselves with these terms. Steve, great to have you. Thank you.

VLADECK: Thank you.

KEILAR: Still to come. Fiery town halls, voters and lawmakers clashing over President Trump's actions. Some Democrats facing complaints that they're not fighting back hard enough. Plus, a Georgetown academic fighting deportation after he was detained and his visa revoked. Why the government says he was supporting Hamas propaganda and promoting anti-Semitism? And then later, a CNN Investigation into the battle over death benefits between the Veterans Affairs Department and the families of vets who die by suicide. Well, that and much more coming up on "CNN News Central."

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[14:21:30]

SANCHEZ: Today, we are tracking town halls that lawmakers are hosting across the country. With Congress on recess, both Democrats and Republicans who've headed home have been facing some fiery crowds. The scene got so contentious last night at an event for Democratic Congressman Sean Casten of Illinois that police had to intervene and end it prematurely. One of the heated moments involved a pro- Palestinian protester taking the stage.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

REP. SEAN CASTEN, (D-IL): I am telling you, sir --

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: What you're saying is, I'm not going to get my way when my people are being slaughtered --

CASTEN: If you would like --

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: -- and I want you to stop funding that.

CASTEN: If you would like to run for office, run for office, sir.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: That is the stupidest thing I've ever heard. You are the most soulless piece of crap I've ever seen.

CASTEN: That's your opinion.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Soulless. Soulless.

CASTEN: Sir, get off the -- Sir, sir, --

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: You are soulless.

CASTEN: Sir, get off the stage right now.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: You are --

(END VIDEO CLIP)

SANCHEZ: Let's discuss with Democratic Congressman Jake Auchincloss of Massachusetts. Congressman, thank you so much for sharing part of your afternoon with us. I do want to point out that was obviously a pro- Palestinian protester. That's an issue that's been animating a lot of the Democratic base now since October 7th, since the war in Gaza began. But there have been other town halls where Democrats have gotten very animated crowds who are angry and upset over the response to Trump's agenda. I wonder if you're surprised by those responses?

REP. JAKE AUCHINCLOSS, (D-MA) ENERGY AND COMMERCE COMMITTEE: I share the frustration and the outrage at the chaos and corruption coming out of the Trump administration. And Democrats do need to fight back through litigation, through legislation, through appropriations, through communications. But it's not enough to be mad. We have to be better. And so, Democrats need to think deeply about what are our big ideas for governance? How are we going to offer the American people better ways to lower costs, particularly for housing, better ways to end corruption in Washington, D.C., better ways to build trust in this country, particularly by taking on the social media corporations that have polarized our society. We need big, bold ideas as a party and no, it's not going to be just Diet Coke populism to try to counter MAGA populism.

SANCHEZ: So, it sounds Congressman like that strategy is still being formulated and it speaks to something we heard from Michigan Senator Elissa Slotkin. At a town hall last night, she said that one of the big questions facing Democrats is about strategy, saying it's not there yet. How big of an issue is that when it comes to leadership? Do you think it is leadership, whether Leader Jeffries or Senator Schumer that need to articulate that, and get a consensus for your members?

AUCHINCLOSS: It's a one-two punch. The first is the midterms in 2026 because the best way to fight back against Donald Trump is to lame duck him by taking back the House of Representatives. And the way we do that is a clear and sharp contrast on his agenda to raise costs on Americans, to give tax cuts to the wealthy, and to cut healthcare versus Democrats' dedication to defending healthcare, to defending social security, and to trying to lower costs for the middle class. We are going to draw a sharp and clear contrast going into the midterm elections.

But then there's the 2028 presidential primary, and that's the first time in 20 years when the Democratic Party has had a totally open field for who is going to be the standard bearer. And that's exciting. And yes, there's going to be debate within the party. You know, I recently saw a New York Times headline that says the debate within the Democratic Party isn't over ideology, it's over how hard to fight Trump.

[14:25:00]

I strongly disagree with that. It a hundred percent should be over ideology. We should be arguing over ideas.

I think we need to build 10 million more units of housing in this country to lower cost. I think we need to tax digital advertising revenue for social media corporations and use those funds to help kids with one-on-one tutoring and to fund local journalism to build back trust. I think we need non-partisan primaries in this country to orient politicians toward median voters. I think we got a boxed-in Article II and its abusive emergency powers. We have to put forward big ideas here as a party, so that Americans actually know what we're going to do with power. I don't think Americans know what Democrats want to do with power.

SANCHEZ: Congressman, that sounds like a campaign pitch. I imagine you have some aspirations to run for higher office.

AUCHINCLOSS: My aspirations right now are about serving the Massachusetts fourth and putting forward big ideas for the Democratic Party. It's not fine pottery to be admired. This is clay to be molded by many hands.

SANCHEZ: I hear you on efforts toward 2026 on behalf of Democrats and toward 2028. But most urgently, you sit on the Energy and Commerce Committee, which was tasked in this Republican budget with eliminating $880 billion in spending over the next decade. Democrats have argued that that is a target Republicans are putting on Medicaid. Republicans from the White House on down have said they are not going to touch entitlement programs, Medicaid, Medicare, social security.

If it is the case that cuts are coming and you're weighing your party's strategy and considering big ideas, what are going to be your options come later this year when this has the potential to be something that's brokered as part of law?

AUCHINCLOSS: Boris, there's a decades-long tension in Washington, D.C. between politicians' BS and arithmetic, and arithmetic is undefeated. $880 billion out of the jurisdiction of energy and commerce absolutely requires cuts to Medicaid. I don't care what Trump says. I don't care what Congressional Republicans say. They are trying to cut Medicaid, which covers 40 percent of kids in this country for primary preventative care, which covers at-home care for a third of seniors in this country, in order to fund tax cuts for people who don't need tax cuts.

And I have repeatedly offered to my Republican colleagues, get rid of these tax cuts for the top 1 percent, focus them purely on the middle- class, and I will work with you on how to pay for them, particularly by raising the inheritance tax. But you do not need to touch Medicaid and Democrats are not going to help you cut Medicaid. We are going to defend Medicaid. We are going to defend social security. We're going to defend Medicare.

SANCHEZ: Congressman, I do want to ask you one more thing. There's been a wave of vandalism and swatting and threats not only to Tesla dealerships, but also supporters of DOGE and Elon Musk. What is your response to the Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt calling on Democrats to condemn it? AUCHINCLOSS: I do condemn vandalism of private property, condemned it when it was pro-Hamas students vandalizing public property and university property. I condemn it if it's anti-Musk protesters vandalizing private property in that respect. It's never acceptable in the United States to vandalize private property, to deface private property. And we can make our voices heard. We can kick Elon Musk out of the seat of power without resorting to these petty tactics.

SANCHEZ: Congressman Jake Auchincloss, we have to leave the conversation there. Thanks so much for sharing your point of view.

AUCHINCLOSS: Take care.

SANCHEZ: Coming up, a CNN Investigation finds the Veterans Department denied crucial benefits to hundreds of families of veterans who died by suicide. We have details after a quick break.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)