Return to Transcripts main page

CNN News Central

Trump Orders Marines, More National Guard Troops to L.A.; NIH Scientists Appeal to Dr. Bhattacharya to Protect Research; Tesla Stock Rises After Trump Sounds Softer Tone on Elon Musk. Aired 7:30-8 am ET

Aired June 10, 2025 - 07:30   ET

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

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[07:30:40]

JOHN BERMAN, CNN ANCHOR: Overnight, there were fewer clashes between protesters and police in Los Angeles, but several demonstrators were detained, led onto buses with their hands in zip ties. Not seen there. The president ordered 700 Marines to Los Angeles. They are now on their way. He also called in another 2,000 National Guard troops. That's in addition to the 2,000 in the initial call-up. CNN's Kevin Liptak is at the White House.

Kevin, talk to us about the Marines.

KEVIN LIPTAK, CNN WHITE HOUSE REPORTER: Yeah, the White House has said that these will have a limited mission of protecting federal property and protecting federal personnel. But the question that I don't think has been answered either by the Pentagon or by the White House is why these additional reinforcements were needed. It brings the total number of federal troops to about 4,700.

It's a question that was only deepened when President Trump yesterday, in the moments before this Marine deployment was announced, said that the situation there in Los Angeles was very well under control and heading in the right direction, which kind of leaves open the question of why these additional troops were needed.

Gavin Newsom, the governor of California, also said that the previously deployed National Guard troops had not all yet been put to work. So, a lot of questions there. Of course, this whole situation has pitted Newsom and Trump on almost an hourly basis against each other. Clearly, President Trump sees Newsom as a political foil. Newsom has called all of this a provocation and has challenged it in court.

President Trump seemed to ratchet up that rhetoric yesterday when he backed up an assertion by his Border Czar, Tom Homan, that the federal agents could potentially arrest Newsom and other California officials if they interfere in some of these immigration enforcement efforts. Listen to what the president said.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) REPORTER: Gavin Newsom is -- he's daring Tom Homan to come and arrest him. Should he do it?

DONALD TRUMP (R), U.S. PRESIDENT: I would do it, if I were Tom, I think it's great. Gavin likes the publicity, but I think it would be a great thing.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

LIPTAK: Now, last night, Homan told Kaitlan Collins that there had been nothing that Newsom has done yet that would warrant arrest.

I think the real concern that you hear among Democrats, particularly Democratic governors, is that the precedent that this is all setting, the president sending in federal troops to localities against a governor's wishes, there's concern that he could potentially expand this to other cities around the country. It's something he mused about when he was in office during his first term.

During that term, he was eventually talked out of it by his aides. But he has said that he regretted following their advice, and he talked on the campaign trail about doing just this, sending in federal troops to tamp down on protests and riots. The question now, I think, is whether the president plans to evoke the Insurrection Act. That's that law from 1807 that would greatly expand the president's ability to use these troops on domestic soil.

You've heard the president and top advisers like Stephen Miller use the word insurrection and insurrectionists. So far, he's stopped short of using that law, but it is something of an active discussion inside the White House. Nothing at this point seems to have been ruled out, John.

BERMAN: All right, more discussions, no doubt, taking place there today. Kevin Liptak at the White House. Kevin, thank you very much.

Let's go to Sara on the ground in Los Angeles.

SARA SIDNER, CNN ANCHOR: All right, we are now going to bring in Sabrina Singh, commentator and former Pentagon Deputy Press Secretary.

Sabrina, thank you so much for joining us this morning. I guess the big question this morning is, does President Trump have to invoke the 1807 Insurrection Act in order for Marines to come here on U.S. soil to Los Angeles, or any city for that matter?

SABRINA SINGH, CNN POLITICAL COMMENTATOR: So, Sarah, thanks for having me on. The president is using his legal authority to send National Guard troops and Marines into Los Angeles. That doesn't mean that it's the right thing to do, and that doesn't necessarily justify his actions.

The Insurrection Act would need to be used for Marines to be used in a law enforcement capacity. Right now, they're helping back up law enforcement with protecting of federal buildings, such as those ICE facilities, protecting of, you know, law enforcement on the ground, but they're not acting in a law enforcement manner.

[07:35:12]

The Insurrection Act and invoking that would change things significantly, and that's why you always see presidents work with governors, and especially, you know, under the Biden administration, our administration worked with, you know, the governors of Hawaii and North Carolina, when you remember those devastating hurricanes and floods happened, to coordinate a federal response to bolster what law enforcement needed on the ground.

SIDNER: I'm just curious how unprecedented, though, it is for this to happen the way it is happening, considering the size and the scope of these protests, which the ones that turn violent tend to be a much smaller number of people, and city, state, and local authorities have been saying, we have this under control.

SINGH: Well, it's completely unprecedented for the president to send troops in without coordinating with the governor. I mean, that's something that we haven't seen since the 1960s. And at the scale that we're seeing, the number of National Guard and Marines immobilized, I think, Kevin, your reporter at the White House said 4,700 troops could be moving into California. That is more troops than we have in Syria right now fighting the threat of ISIS, a terrorist group. You have a small number of protest -- protesters who are inciting violence in California. Those people should absolutely be held accountable.

It is absolutely wrong to be looting stores, breaking into police cars, vandalizing property. But it is a small number that the LAPD can frankly handle, as they are a very sophisticated law enforcement force that has dealt with these type of protests. Augmenting that by 4,700 -- potentially 4,700 troops, is not only unprecedented, it is going to set a very dangerous precedent for governors in their states moving forward.

What happens in other states when there are peaceful protests that the government wants to quell? That is not the type of society and foundation that this country was frankly founded on, you know, with the idea of freedom of speech.

SIDNER: I just want to reiterate what you said. That actually is frankly shocking that there are less of a number of military in Syria than is being sent to Los Angeles for protests here, that have at times turned violent.

I do want to ask you this. Look, the president did not invoke the Insurrection Act during the January 6th Capitol attack, but he has called this an insurrection and then kind of pulled back away from it. And you said, look, he can deploy the military and he can deploy the National Guard without the consent of the governor to do things like protect federal buildings, like the one we're standing in front of, which is where ICE has held its detainees. So, does what is happening, though, on the streets of Los Angeles even fit the description of an insurrection?

SINGH: No, and I think a very stark contrast to what you're seeing on the streets of Los Angeles. It's my hometown. You know, people have assembled and peacefully protested there in downtown, you know, pretty regularly, to what you saw on January 6th, where you saw thousands of people overrunning the Capitol.

Two very stark -- stark images. And I think the president invoking the word insurrectionism is, of course, dangerous because that really doesn't apply here. Yes, there are people that are committing acts of violence and, you know, pushing our police officers. Those people should be held accountable. That is wrong. But peacefully protesting, gathering outside a federal building because you don't agree with the policies of this administration, that is expression of freedom of speech.

That is what our country is founded on. And those are the rights and ideals that ultimately need to be protected. And so that's why you're seeing people continue to speak out on this, because you don't want to see this, what's happening in Los Angeles happen in other cities around the country.

SIDNER: Sabrina Singh, it is a pleasure. Thank you so much for going through that with me. I'm live here from Los Angeles. Back to you in the studio, Kate.

KATE BOLDUAN, CNN ANCHOR: All right, we'll get back to Sara on the ground in Los Angeles shortly. We're also watching this this morning. The Director of the National Institutes of Health is set to face some tough questions on Capitol Hill today over the proposed budget cuts that they want to implement at NIH, slashing the budget potentially by 43%, which means programs and research.

Just a day before this testimony, more than 300 NIH employees published a letter addressed to the director, Dr. Jay Bhattacharya, called the Bethesda Declaration, speaking out against what they say are these new policies undermining the NIH mission and harming public health. CNN's Meg Tirrell has more.

[07:40:10]

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

MEG TIRRELL, CNN MEDICAL CORRESPONDENT: The NIH employees are calling this the Bethesda Declaration, after the location of the headquarters of the National Institutes of Health in Maryland. And they're modeling it after something called the Great Barrington Declaration, which was a piece of writing that really sort of brought the current director of the NIH, Dr. Jay Bhattacharya, to national prominence.

This was a piece of writing he put out with colleagues in October of 2020 during the COVID-19 pandemic that espoused a sort of contrarian approach to protecting the most vulnerable while loosening up restrictions on those who were less vulnerable to COVID-19.

Now, that was seen as a dangerous approach at the time by many before we had a vaccine. But at any rate, this is what they're modeling their dissent on, saying essentially that they appreciate the director's openness to not suppressing different scientific ideas. Now, what they're taking issue with here is the termination of a number of grants in different areas from health equity to the effect of climate change on health, COVID-19 and other areas, as well as a number of other policies they say are damaging the NIH and keeping it from fulfilling its mission of improving health both in the United States and around the world.

In the letter, they say that the administration, quote, "has forged NIH under Bhattacharya's watch to politicize research by halting high- quality, peer-reviewed grants and contracts. Academic freedom, they say, should not be applied selectively based on political ideology.

Now, the NIH, responding to this, telling us in a statement from Bhattacharya, quote, "The Bethesda Declaration has some fundamental misconceptions about the policy directions the NIH has taken in recent months, including the continuing support of the NIH for international collaboration. Nevertheless,' he says, 'respectful dissent in science is productive. We all want the NIH to succeed."

(END VIDEOTAPE)

BOLDUAN: All right. Meg Tirrell, thank you so much for that. Let's talk more about this dissent and what it means today. Joining us right now are two of the NIH employees who signed onto and helped organize this letter, Dr. Jenna Norton and Dr. Ian Morgan. Thank you both for joining me this morning.

Dr. Norton, why did you decide to step forward so publicly? What was the last straw for you, if you will?

DR. JENNA NORTON, NIH EMPLOYEE: You know, I don't know that there was a last straw per se. There was just so much going on that was really against everything that I got into public health for. I mean, I came here to help people and I was being asked to implement policies that were directly harming people, directly harming research participants and directly harming broader public health in America and across the globe. And it was just completely counter to everything I stand for. And that's why I decided to speak up.

Also, we weren't being heard when we voiced these concerns internally and so this seemed like the only option to get these really harmful policies to come to an end.

BOLDUAN: And one thing that I notice in what you all lay out in this letter, Dr. Morgan, is something different than what we have heard from prior to now. I would say we often hear from those in public health of the concerns for what could happen with the changes that are being made at HHS and what you all are describing or what is currently happening, harm that is currently being done by the cuts that are being made and the changes that are coming from the NIH Director and the Secretary of Health and Human Services. What harm are you seeing, Dr. Morgan?

DR. IAN MORGAN, NIH EMPLOYEE: Yeah, thanks, Kate. And I just want to emphasize that both Jenna and I are here under our personal capacities and not representing the NIH. But to answer your question, due to the current administration and Director Bhattacharya's politicization and disruption of life-saving biomedical research, I've talked to researchers across the country and at the NIH, and right now, cancer patients are not receiving novel cancer treatments and are being cut off when their only other option is hospice care. And that is the harm that is ongoing right now, and that is the cost of what is going on due to this politicization of biomedical research.

BOLDUAN: How about you, Dr. Norton? What are you seeing? What is the harm that you are seeing that you think is going to continue with this?

NORTON: Yeah, absolutely. And as Ian said, I am here in my personal capacity. And the harms that I'm seeing, though, in my role at NIH, are trials where people have implanted devices inside their bodies being terminated with no safety protocol, no shutdown procedures.

So, participants are being left in the lurch, right? These research participants volunteered their time and their literal bodies, not for themselves, because when you participate in a research study, you don't necessarily benefit. You could be in the placebo arm.

[07:45:02]

So, these folks are making a huge -- hugely generous gift so that other people in the future can be healthier. And we are leaving them in the lurch. We are leaving them in a hugely risky position with no follow-up, no safety monitoring, and it's just completely counter to everything I got into public health for.

BOLDUAN: And Dr. Morgan, we read, my colleague Meg Tirrell read some of the response from the director, from Dr. Bhattacharya about the Bethesda Declaration, and we also have a statement from a spokesperson for HHS which also said, the agency is, quote, "actively working to remove ideological influence from the science process, and when projects have failed to meet these standards, they have been discontinued, so we can redirect resources to rigorous, impactful science." What they are saying is that your dissent is misguided, that you are wrong. And you say what?

MORGAN: I mean, they're wrong. They're the ones politicizing and disrupting research. What is political about novel cancer treatments for cancer patients that they're cutting right now?

NORTON: And if I may add --

MORGAN: So --

BOLDUAN: Go ahead. Go ahead, Jenna.

NORTON: Apologies, sorry. I just want to add that I think, you know, Bhattacharya said we had a fundamental misunderstanding of NIH policies, but I think he's got it backwards. Dr. Bhattacharya has a fundamental misconception of what is happening on the ground at NIH, and I think that is because he continues to not listen to the people who are operating NIH every single day. He is postponing meetings repeatedly with our leadership who have tried to raise these concerns, and he has not really given any outlet to hear from those of us. And what we see on the ground is not thoughtful review of research. It is keywords and phrases that this administration doesn't like that is causing studies to be terminated, right?

So, they are looking for specific words they find offensive, terminating research based on that, not based on the rigor or quality of the research.

BOLDUAN: Before you go, Dr. Morgan, I do want to also ask, when you hear someone say if you don't like how they're running things, if you don't like the direction things are going, then leave NIH. This is what the president campaigned on. This is what he won on, and this is now what he says, how this agency is going to be run under the direction of RFK Jr. Dr. Morgan, respond to that.

MORGAN: I've been at the NIH on and off as a researcher for the last 15 years or so, and the NIH mission is just too important to let that die. Right now, if you know someone out there who is suffering from cancer or Alzheimer's, right, and you have a hope for a cure, right now they're stealing your hope away from you, and our job at the NIH is to provide that hope. I think the key here is that it's not too late. It's not too late at the NIH. It's not too late across the country to try to get that hope back. We can right this shit, and that's why we're staying at the NIH to be able to do that.

BOLDUAN: Dr. Morgan, Dr. Norton, thank you both for coming in this morning and speaking up. We often hear the administration criticize those who speak out anonymously, and you are absolutely not speaking out anonymously, putting your faces, names, and careers on the line here. Thank you both very much.

John?

BERMAN: All right, making nice happening now. Is there a new thaw in the heated standoff between Elon Musk and President Trump? What Wall Street thinks about all this this morning?

And a wild police chase. This one had everything from speeding the wrong way down a highway to tossing wood off the back of the truck to a just bonkers ending.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[07:53:48]

BERMAN: All right, new this morning. Tensions seem to have thawed a bit between President Trump and Elon Musk, at least for now. Investors welcomed softer comments by the president about Musk, but Tesla's stock is still well below where it started before their very public breakup.

Let's get to CNN's Matt Egan for the latest on this. They're friends again, maybe, sort of. At least a little bit on social media.

MATT EGAN, CNN BUSINESS REPORTER: Yeah, maybe a little bit. But John, look, this is a trillion-dollar company, right? And that's why it's so incredible to see the value of Tesla swinging wildly based on the drama between Elon Musk and President Trump.

And look, as you mentioned, the stock is still down. It's down about 10% since this bromance ended in spectacular fashion. But it is racing back to life.

This is the performance yesterday. And there was this pop late in the day. The stock closed up about 5%, gaining around $40 billion in market value.

And that came after the president did strike this softer tone on Musk, right? He wished him well. The president said he's no longer planning to sell his red Tesla, although he may move where it goes.

Elon Musk, he also has taken a softer tone. He's been deleting some of his really, really critical posts about the president, including the one where he predicted last week that all these tariffs would cause a recession in the United States this year. And, look, make no mistake, Wall Street is monitoring this relationship very closely here.

[07:55:16]

Dan Ives, the veteran tech analyst, he said, "watching the former BFFs turn against each other has been an overhang on shares of Tesla, as investors look ahead and are fearful that Trump in revenge mode will make it more difficult for our autonomous future with Tesla front and center.

And Ives said he thinks at the end of the day, he wouldn't be surprised if the two of them mend fences, right? He said, Trump needs Elon Musk to be close to the Republican Party and Musk, of course, needs Trump to get that autonomous regulatory approval.

Also, another thing that Musk wants, I don't know if he's going to get this, is he wants a lifeline for those EV tax credits, right? Those tax credits are supposed to go away as part of the Trump policy bill, and JPMorgan estimates that if they do go away, it'll cost Tesla $1.2 billion per year. So, look, there is so much at stake between this relationship between Trump and Musk.

BERMAN: It's almost like betting on relationship futures. Buying and selling Tesla is like a relationship future bet.

EGAN: Yes.

BERMAN: Matt Egan, great to see you. Thank you.

EGAN: That's where we are right now.

BOLDUAN: And there's also this. Actor and director Justin Baldoni's $400 million lawsuit against Blake Lively and her husband Ryan Reynolds has now been dismissed. Baldoni accused the couple of trying to destroy him with false allegations, he said, of sexual harassment on the set of the film "It Ends With Us." He denies the claims that Blake Lively had originally brought beforehand.

In this ruling, the judge did not address the merits of Baldoni's claims but rather said that Blake Lively's sexual harassment claims against him were protected by law. Days after Baldoni filed his lawsuit, Lively escalated her initial claim to a lawsuit, and that now moves forward with a trial set for 2026.

Also new this morning, wild video of a police chase in Ohio. Take a look at this. State Highway Patrol chasing after this truck, you can see and it releases aerial video, and in the middle of it, you can see a man in the bed of the truck throwing lumber off the truck, seemingly as a diversionary tactic against the police that are chasing behind them.

The whole thing started when police pulled the truck over for multiple traffic violations. The truck then sped away from the stop. At one point, they were driving the wrong way down the highway, and it ended like this: in a crash, eight people, including all four people in the truck, were hospitalized. We are told, though, fortunately, with minor injuries.

John?

BERMAN: One scary ending to that.

BOLDUAN: Yeah.

BERMAN: All right, this morning the sex trafficking trial of Sean Combs set to resume with defense cross-examination of his ex- girlfriend, who has been identified as Jane. She testified this week about alleged abuse, threats, and unwanted sex she says she endured while dating Combs. She testified specifically about not wanting to participate in what she called hotel nights.

She said she told Combs, quote, "I don't want to play this role in your life anymore or feel obligated to perform these nights with you in fear of losing the roof over my head." That was in reference to Combs paying her rent.

Jane also discussed her reaction to learning about Cassie Ventura's 2023 lawsuit and told jurors it felt like she was reading her own sexual trauma.

With us now, Joey Jackson, CNN Legal Analyst and Criminal Defense Attorney. The specificity of some of the language that this witness, Jane, used in how it -- you know, compares directly with the charges of coercion and whatnot was really notable.

JOEY JACKSON, CNN LEGAL ANALYST: Without question, John, good morning. And that's why and how prosecutors could bring this together. And remember, she is critical with regard to these sex trafficking allegations, right? Because we're talking about whether or not this was consensual or whether it was engaged in with fraud, coercion or any other type of compulsion. And so that's critical.

Now, with respect to the actual things that she says, I think she certainly furthers that narrative. You talk about the specificity. You talk about not only that, but her saying, listen, I don't want to do this anymore. I don't want to be the side chick in my own relationship. I feel like I'm reliving my sexual drama as it relates to the Cassie Ventura lawsuit, the star witness who, of course, testified initially.

And this goes to the broader issue, not only, John, of proving the charges, but to the issue of pattern, the issue of physical abuse, the issue of psychological abuse, the issue from the prosecution's perspective of whether this was his M.O. And that's critical. So, the defense has a job to do in terms of cross-examination.

BERMAN: How do they do that job today?

JACKSON: I think a number of things. Number one, look to the issue of focusing on the fact of coercion. You were in a relationship with him. Is that right? That relationship was multiple years. In fact, you participated in this voluntarily. Key word.

[08:00:05]

And in addition to the voluntary participation, you helped structure and organize this --