Return to Transcripts main page

CNN News Central

Harvard Sues Trump Admin Over Threats to Cut Funding; U.S. Markets Look to Rebound After Selloff; Nearly Half of U.S. Teens Say Social Media Hurts Their Generation. Aired 8:30-9a ET

Aired April 22, 2025 - 08:30   ET

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

KATE BOLDUAN, CNN ANCHOR: Assistance to institutions like Harvard, which enriched their grossly overpaid bureaucrats with tax dollars from struggling American families, is coming to an end.

[08:30:09]

Joining us right now to talk about this, CNN Legal Analyst Jennifer Rodgers. This -- I find this twist quite interesting and what Harvard is saying and asking for. What do you think of this lawsuit and how strong of a case Harvard has?

JENNIFER RODGERS, CNN LEGAL ANALYST: It's a really strong case. I mean, it's a smart case because they've hired these conservative superstar lawyers to bring it. So, that should kind of give everyone pause in thinking, you know, Harvard is just this ultra liberal institution going up against the White House, but also it's a very strong case. I mean, they have three main claims, a First Amendment claim, an Administrative Procedures Act claim, and a Title 6 claim.

And they're saying basically, you can't discriminate against us by holding our federal funding back based on our viewpoint. That's exactly what the White House is trying to do here. They're saying we're going to rid Harvard of the leftists and the Marxists. We want viewpoint diversity in Harvard. And they're also saying, you know, there are processes for freezing federal funding. If you think that a university is misusing the funds or discriminating in some fashion, there's a process for that. You have to, you know, negotiate with them and have a trial and so on, and none of that has happened here.

BOLDUAN: And then, yes, part of the problem is just not following any of the process that's already been laid out. How would you expect, given the quote that I just read there, how do you expect the Justice Department to respond to this?

RODGERS: Well, I think they're going to respond in the way that they've been responding to lawsuits, trying to stop the White House from what they want to do, which is, you know, in bad faith, to be honest. I mean, I think they'll go in there, they'll say, no, this is all wrong. You know, we won't have the same situation we've had in some of the deportation cases, where the judges are seeking information and they're stonewalling. But I expect them to take the line that the White House has taken and to kind of tow the party line. There's no more independence in the Justice Department now, so I don't expect them to take some nuanced legal view that's different from what the White House is saying.

BOLDUAN: Harvard's asked for an expedited process and a permanent injunction against the funding freeze. Chances that they're going to get the -- that they will be granted that, do you think?

RODGERS: I think the chances are pretty good. I mean, of course this is all just at the district court level and then there are appeals and we'll see what happens.

BOLDUAN: You can be sure that will happen?

RODGERS: Of course. But, you know, this is an overreach over broad, you know, response to what the administration says is discrimination. They're cutting off funding for all this medical research, right? They're stopping everything that's happening at Harvard. You know, people need to be fired. Cells, cultures will die, right, perishable things. Clinical trials will stop. All these things will happen, all because they say that there's some anti-Semitism going on.

So, the action is just completely disproportionate to what the administration claims is the problem here. So, I expect they will get their injunction.

BOLDUAN: What could a settlement look like in this case?

RODGERS: Well, that's a good question. This is another reason it was smart to hire these lawyers because they're kind of Trump world friendly lawyers and hopefully can negotiate a good solution here. I don't know if they'll ultimately reach a solution where, you know, they still hold back some funding in certain areas, but let most of it go through. I mean, I think Harvard has a really strong case here, so they're not going to be willing to settle for losing a lot of their money. But, you know, we'll have to see what they work out. I think they will work out something here. You know, I don't think it'll proceed to a full trial because, honestly, the administration doesn't have a legal leg to stand on.

BOLDUAN: Yes. The fact that it is now getting to this place is just a statement, also just where things are.

It's good to see. Jennifer. Thank you so much.

All right, so hundreds of passengers, they were forced to evacuate after a Delta plane catches fire on a tarmac in Orlando. We're going to tell you what they're learning about what happened there.

And a pandemic era pause on student loan payments is about to end and the impact it'll have on more than 5 million borrowers.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[08:35:00]

BOLDUAN: All right. Let's take a look at Stock Futures. We're going to show you at some point, but I can tell you right now, they are pointed up at the moment higher, as investors are looking to rebound after a brutal day yesterday, a day where President Trump showed that he is refusing to give up on his attacks against the Federal Reserve chairman, Jerome Powell.

Uncertainty around the president's trade war, what he's saying about Powell and the ripple effects, from all of it continues to weigh on Americans across the country, and that's something that CNN's Harry Enten is taking a look at. For us this morning, the stock market was down in a big, big, big way yesterday. How poorly has the stock market done since Trump took office?

HARRY ENTEN, CNN CHIEF DATA REPORTER: Yes, you know, sometimes we look at the day to day and I feel like we can get lost. So, let's take a look over the whole stretch of the Trump presidency as we approach day 100. The S&P has dropped the most under Trump for any president at this point in their presidency since the S&P 500 was in fact created back in 1957. And, indeed, it is not anywhere close, folks, it's not anywhere close. Under Trump, it's dropped, get this, 14 percent. The next closest one was George W. Bush back in 2001, a drop of just half that at 7 percent. No other elected president at this point in their presidency saw a drop of 5 percent or more. So, Donald Trump is on a planet all by himself, a planet you do not want to be on, the American people don't want to be on in terms of the drop in the S&P 500 approaching 15 percent already in his presidency, no bueno.

BOLDUAN: So, all of this and the ripple effects from the trade war have a lot of people talking, of course, about a recession coming, some even saying that we're already in a recession. Where are the numbers on that?

ENTEN: Yes, okay. So, of course, this is the whole question, right, is what happens on the New York Stock Exchange, what happens in the NASDAQ, what happens in the S&P 500, stay there or does it then cascade across the economy and at this particular point? There's a decent chance that it will cascade across the economy.

Chance of a recession, you see I have four different little metrics we can look at, JPMorgan, 60 percent, Poly-Market, 57 percent, Reuters, 45 percent, Goldman Sachs, 45 percent.

[08:40:05]

That's a bunch of numbers on your screen, but they're all basically telling these same exact story, that is on either side of 50 percent, there's basically a 50-50 chance of a recession at this point. And that is way up from where we were at the beginning of the Trump presidency when the numbers, simply put, weren't anywhere near this.

The stock market is a reflection of the economic state we're in. The chance of a recession is another reflection of the state of the economy that we are in. The bottom line is that Trump's tariff wars have taken what was a pretty gosh darn good economy and turned into a very uncertain economy, one in which the stock market has fallen, and one in which the chance of a recession has gone up considerably. Kate Bolduan?

BOLDUAN: If there is a recession, how much blame is Donald Trump likely to face?

ENTEN: Okay, so this is the whole thing. Is it, am I going to blame the last guy and I'm trying to fix the economy, or is it we're going to blame this guy, Donald Trump, and the buck actually stops there? This is what the American folks say. If Donald Trump believes that he can somehow escape blame if there is, in fact, a recession, I'm here for a reality check. He will simply put, not be able to do so. Blame Trump if there's a recession in the next 12 months, look at this a lot or quite a bit. That's the majority winner right there at 52 percent. A little or not at all, perhaps a little bit high, some might say, at 32 percent. But still here, the clear majority of Americans say that if in fact there is a recession in the next 12 months, which at this point looks about 50-50, the majority of the American public says that the buck will stop at the White House, stop at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue, and Donald Trump will not, in fact, be able to escape blame if there is in fact a recession.

BOLDUAN: Harry Enten, thank you very much.

ENTEN: Thank you.

BOLDUAN: John Berman?

JOHN BERMAN, CNN ANCHOR: All right. With us now is Canadian Businessman, CNBC Contributor Kevin O'Leary, he's also the chairman of O'Leary Ventures. Kevin, great to see you this morning.

You just saw that stat right there that that more than half of Americans would blame Trump if there is a recession. I know you're sitting in Canada this morning. Would you blame Trump if there were a recession?

KEVIN O'LEARY, CHAIRMAN, O'LEARY VENTURES: Well, let me just say that we've been talking about recession now for four years in a row, you may recall. Forecasters of recessions have been wrong for four years straight. So, probabilities of 32 to 55 percent, that's interesting, but we are not in a recession right now.

It really depends on how long these tariff wars go on for. I mean, it's widely assumed right now that the European bloc, the British, Swiss, Canadian and Mexican deals, will get resolved in relatively short order. The giant question mark, and certainly this is on Powell's mind when he refuses to drop rates, is how long will the China situation lasts, because that one looks far more complicated. It's not just trade and tariffs. It's I.P. theft and access to markets and WTO issues. There's a lot on the table at China.

And so I would argue right now that people that count out the American economy are constantly wrong all the time. It's the largest economy on Earth, represents, you know, 26 percent of the world's GDP and almost 40 percent of all consumables. So, it's a difficult, tricky situation, I agree. But I'm an investor. I have to make these decisions every day, and I'm not investing for a recession right now. I'd be pulling my horns in.

And I'd want to remind you the markets correct 20 percent all the time, almost every 18 months that happens. And so why correct is different every time. This is because of scares on tariffs, but this is nothing new for the S&P 500, and, frankly, is often and has been for over a hundred years, a buying opportunity. The American economy generates 8 to 10 percent returns over the long run, and now you're getting to buy the '17, '18 P versus '23 just four months ago. It's a value deal.

BERMAN: I would say, yes, there are corrections all the time. This is a little different, right? I mean, the Dow the worst April since the great depression, the S&P, the same thing. There's a lot of focus on the stock market.

The Wall Street Journal, which put out that headline today that got a lot of information, also notes it's not just stocks, right? The Journal writes, counterweights that usually strengthen when stocks fall, such as government bonds in the U.S. dollar, also under pressure, yields on ten-year U.S. treasuries, a key benchmark, would increased 0.16 percent in April. The ICE, U.S. dollar index, slips more than 1 percent Monday to its lowest level in three years with other defensive plays following short. Investors have piled into one of the oldest hedges there is. Gold, an all time high for gold.

So, look, the markets in general, not just stocks are saying we're not so sure about the U.S. right now.

O'LEARY: No, you're right. There's a lot of volatility and that's what you get when you take these kinds of actions. No administration has ever taken on 60 trade negotiations simultaneously, let alone China on top of that. The job owning with the Fed that Trump is doing, every administration does. There's always the Fed is in loggerhead with the executive. The executive always wants interest rates down. The Fed has to worry about inflation. And, really, what Powell is saying, I don't know how long China is going on for, and that could be inflationary if it's last months and months, so I'm not.

Executive always wants interest rates down.

[08:45:02]

The Fed has to worry about inflation. And, really, what Powell is saying, I don't know how long China is going on for, and that could be inflationary if it's last months and months, so I'm not going to drop rates. So, all of this stuff is -- you know, we've seen this movie before.

And the volatility index is very high, the VIX, but that's because of the nature of this administration. And I've always said this about Trump. You know, I'm not advocating for Trump. I advocate for policy. I don't show for politicians. I would like to see the China issue resolved once and for all after 20 years. And as an individual who invests and I want to do business in China, and I've invested there, and I've said this multiple times in the last six weeks, I'm an example of someone who's really been screwed by the Chinese in I.P. theft and I'm kind of done with it.

So, I'm very happy that some administration, this one particularly, is taking them on to resolve this problem once and for all. And Xi needs the U.S. and the U.S. needs Xi. So, let's get this thing resolved. I'm okay with the volatility.

BERMAN: The China thing is a really interesting issue. I'm not going to give you the long quote. We have an Atlantic article here, but The Atlantic wrote last week, basically, yes, take it on. China is a good idea and there might be a chance to win here, but Trump is doing it, says The Atlantic, entirely the wrong way because the one thing you want if you're going to take on China right now, literally the number one thing is friends.

So, what's happened here is the president is also going after all the rest of the world who you will need, and you've taken away the one thing that gives you the biggest advantage over China.

O'LEARY: You are making a good point, if you could get a union, which I think will happen pretty quickly. If you think about just the E.U., Britain, Switzerland, Canada, and Mexico, that's about 72 percent of all the trade with the U.S. So, if you get that resolved, it works.

The one thing I would say that I've noticed, as I do business all around the world, in the Middle East and in Europe, 50 percent of the people in the world have Trump derangement syndrome. And they still have a really hard time understanding why he's back in the White House. And I say to them, listen, it doesn't matter. He's in the White House. We have to deal with the policy, not Trump, but policy. Let's forget about the fact that he's in the White House. There's nothing you can do about it. He was elected with a majority. Let's get over the derangement syndrome. Let's focus on the policy and get stuff done. Because I've got to tell you, there's a lot of people that go out of their minds just the fact that he's back in there.

And I realize it, it is what it is, but I've got to deal with it too. I mean, I just have to deal with policy. And I think you're right. If he gets this policy right and circles the wagons with the Europeans, the Mexicans, and the Canadians, that's a more powerful charge against China. I totally agree with you there.

BERMAN: Yes, we will see. We will see what happens there and if deals that are struck are convincing.

Kevin O'Leary, great to talk to you this morning. We'll speak to you again soon. Kate?

BOLDUAN: Happening today, the White House is expected to announce new plans to remove several artificial dyes from the nation's food supply. Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. and the FDA commissioner are set to outline details of their plan this afternoon.

CNN's Dr. Sanjay Gupta following this for us, he's here with us now.

This is based on something called petroleum-based dyes. This has to do with petroleum-based dyes. First and foremost, what are they and what do they do?

DR. SANJAY GUPTA, CNN CHIEF MEDICAL CORRESPONDENT: Yes. So, petroleum-based dyes are these dyes that are made in petroleum, in part because petroleum is so stable. You don't want these colors sort of fading away over time and petroleum's really good for that. And you can also make these various colors that just don't exist in nature. So, you've seen like these cherries, can you see that? I don't know if you can see that. But that's red dye number three, which, by the way, was actually -- the FDA banned that in January of this year, last administration. These lemon candies, that's yellow dye number five, I've gotten to memorize all these dyes, Kate. And then mint mouthwash, green dye number three. There's nine of these sort of dyes out there, and, again, if it looks like something that doesn't exist in nature, probably a petroleum-based dye.

The concern has been almost since the time these dyes came out about potential links to cancers carcinogens, things like that. 30 years ago, there was concerns about these things being linked to certain cancers in animals, for example, very hard studies to do because these things are so ubiquitous, how do you link these things to specific conditions.

We knew that this ban was going to be recommended by this administration. RFK Jr. has been talking about this for some time, so this is not a surprise. We'll see what they specifically say later today, but that's what you can expect.

BOLDUAN: And what may explain the link between the dyes and negative health?

GUPTA: It's actually really hard to know. Again, when you look at these sorts of studies, when you have something that is this widespread, so if it's a cereal, if it's a sports drink, again, just about anything that has a color that you don't typically find in nature, it's going to have these dyes in it. But that also means that there's tons and tons of exposures out there.

So, I don't think that they can say for sure cause and effect. And even if you look at bags or the labels on things, it's not going to tell you the dosing of something. So, you don't know how much you're getting. You don't know if there's a cumulative effect. So, let's say a kid's been eating this stuff since, you know, they were born, is that different than somebody who was eating foods that did not have these dyes in during their childhood? We don't know. We don't know. But I think what the sort of feeling seems to be is, look, we're not sure, but there seems to be enough of a concern here.

One thing I'll point out, Kate, quickly, so this is something people are very familiar with, these types of cereals. If you look at these cereals, again, you could see the colors that don't exist in nature. If you buy the same product in Europe, for example, you'll find that --

BOLDUAN: That's what I was going to ask you about, right.

GUPTA: Yes, you'll find that product. But instead of having petroleum-based dyes, you might have you might have dyes with carrot juice, with watermelon juice, with blueberry juice. So, they're using natural sort of dyes instead of these artificial dyes. In many countries around the world, they use what is called the precautionary principle. We don't know for sure that there's a problem, that there's a cause and effect issue here between these dyes and certain health problems, but we think there might be.

And, hey, why don't we just be cautious? That is the stance that Europe, most of Europe has taken. You have to have warning labels if you are using petroleum-based dyes in Europe. In Canada, they use many of these natural dyes so that it already exists in many places in the world, Kate.

BOLDUAN: Yes. Look, the colors might not be as vibrant, but we, the food is just as delish.

GUPTA: It tastes the same.

BOLDUAN: If people want to cut dyes out of their diet already, what's the advice?

GUPTA: Look this may not be popular piece of advice, but most of these dyes are in ultra processed foods. Look, think about the foods that we're talking about here, candies and cherries that are artificial. Don't eat as many ultra processed foods and you're going to cut way back on the amount of dyes you're consuming.

We'll see again what happens at 4:00 today in terms of what the ban might look like, so it might be easier for consumers to avoid these things, but in, you know, regular foods, you're not going to find these dyes, so avoiding that as much as possible. I normally say read labels, and you should read labels. The problem is it does not give you an idea of the dose of these dyes. It just tells you whether they are present or not. Good information to have, but not enough information. If you want to avoid dyes, avoid those types of foods.

BOLDUAN: Yes. That's so interesting. It's great to see you, Sanjay. Thank you.

GUPTA: You too.

BOLDUAN: All right. And a reminder, everyone go over to cnn.com, send us your questions about this exact issue about dyes in our foods, and Dr. Gupta will be back later this week to answer your questions.

Ahead still for us today, Walgreens agrees to pay up to $350 million to the Justice Department. Details on a settlement over allegations that the pharmacy illegally filled millions of opioid prescriptions.

And this morning, cardinals are mapping out the next steps before the conclave to elect the next pope begins.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[08:55:00]

BERMAN: All right. This morning, the Department of Education announced it will resume collections on student loans in default, starting May 5th, affecting more than 5 million people. This ends a pause that has been in place since 2020. The department is urging people to set up special payment plans.

New video of flames shooting from the engine of a Delta plane that was about to take off in Orlando was headed to Atlanta with more than 200 people on board. Many of them had to use the emergency slides to get out. Delta says no one was injured. The FAA is investigating the cause of the fire.

This morning, Walgreens has agreed to pay up to $350 million in a settlement with the Justice Department that accused the pharmacy of illegally filling millions of excessive prescriptions for opioids and other controlled substances over the last decade. The lawsuit also claims the company pressured employees to fill the prescriptions quickly. The company says it disagrees with the government's accusations and admits no liability. Kate?

BOLDUAN: A new study out that finds nearly half of U.S. teenagers say that social media is having a mostly negative effect on their generation and many are cutting back on screen time in response.

CNN's Clare Duffy has much more on this. I am all ears on this, Clare, what is this report telling you?

CLARE DUFFY, CNN BUSINESS WRITER: Yes, what's interesting is that we hear a lot from adults, from parents, from educators about their concerns when it comes to young people on social media. But this report gives us a look at what teens themselves say about their social media use and what we're finding big picture is that the picture was not great and it's actually gotten worse in the last few years.

So, now about half of teens, 48 percent, say they believe social media has a mostly negative effect on people of their age. That is worse than the 32 percent who said the same in 2022. But what's interesting is that just 14 percent of teens say that they think social media has a mostly negative impact on them personally.

So, there's a bit of a disconnect between what they're saying about their peers and what they're saying about themselves. But nonetheless, 44 percent of teens say they plan to cut back, or they have cut back on both their social media and their smart phone use.

Here is what one teen boy said who was quoted in this survey. He said, the overuse of social media in our society seems to be the main cause of depression among those in my age group.

[09:00:03]

People seem to let themselves be affected by the opinions of people they don't know, and it wreaks havoc upon people's state of mind.

Now, the survey also showed that teen girls are slightly more likely than teen boys to say that social media impacts things, like their confidence and their sleep. And it's not all bad. Some teens also said social media gave them an outlet for creativity and to connect with their friends. But you have to imagine that all of this is going to add fuel to the fire to the regulatory efforts to really rein in teens' social media, the amount of time that they're spending there. BOLDUAN: Yes. But hearing the acknowledgement that they themselves agree that it's a problem, they think it's impacting them, I think, is a really important part of this conversation.

DUFFY: And that they're cutting back even as regulators sort of dropped the ball in terms of passing rules around this.

BOLDUAN: Something we're very thankful you continue to cover.

Thank you so much, Clare. I really I appreciate it.

A new hour of CNN News Central starts right now.