Return to Transcripts main page

CNN News Central

Marathon Senate Voting Session Underway on Trump's Megabill; Judge Holds Emergency Hearing on Birthright Citizenship. Aired 2-2:30p ET

Aired June 30, 2025 - 14:00   ET

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

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[14:00:55]

BRIANNA KEILAR, CNN CO-ANCHOR OF "CNN NEWS CENTRAL: Mega vote on a mega bill. Happening now, deal making and arm twisting to pass the cornerstone of President Trump's second term agenda. We'll have the latest from Capitol Hill and what this all could mean for you.

BORIS SANCHEZ, CNN CO-ANCHOR OF "CNN NEWS CENTRAL": Plus, a new warning from the U.N.'s nuclear watchdog. They say that despite the U.S. strikes in Iran, the country could again start enriching uranium within months. And now, there's new satellite images showing ongoing activity at one of those bomb sites. And an emergency hearing being scheduled to start right now over a request from challengers seeking to block President Trump's bid to end birthright citizenship. How the Supreme Court's new ruling is shaping this case and many others like it. We're following these major developing stories and many more, all coming in right here to "CNN News Central."

KEILAR: We are closely watching the Senate floor where vote-a-rama over the president's One Big, Beautiful Bill act is underway, the White House moments ago with a new message for Republicans.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

KAROLINE LEAVITT, WHITE HOUSE PRESS SECRETARY: The White House and the President are adamant that this bill is passed and that this bill makes its way to his desk. Republicans need to stay tough and unified during the home stretch, and we are counting on them to get the job done.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

KEILAR: This hour, there are a few key lawmakers hoping for 11th hour changes before a final vote is expected tonight, and there's a lot looming over all of this, including the president's July 4th deadline. Plus, political pressure with nearly 12 million Americans projected to lose health insurance and a potential $3 trillion deficit bump. Let's go to Lauren Fox, who's on the Hill for us. Lauren, what is the latest there?

LAUREN FOX, CNN CONGRESSIONAL CORRESPONDENT: Yeah, Senators are still voting. This process began hours ago and obviously, we expect that it could go late into the evening, even into the early hours of the morning as Republican leadership tries to shore up the support that they are going to need in order to pass Donald Trump's agenda here in the United States Senate. You showed the picture of those two Republican Senators who still want to see changes to this bill. Conservative Senator Rick Scott of Florida is asking for further cuts to the Medicaid program, while Senator Susan Collins, a Republican who is up for re-election in the state of Maine, is trying to push leadership to change this bill so that it does not cut as much in Medicaid.

You could see how that might be a challenge for Republican leaders who are working with two very different sets of concerns that run right up against one another in the United States Senate. Meanwhile, Democrats have put on the board several tough amendment votes for Republicans. We've seen some Republicans crossing the aisle voting with Democrats, namely among them, Senator Lisa Murkowski, one Republican Senator to watch as leadership tries to get the votes they need in this agenda. She has voted with Democrats on a couple of the Medicaid amendments as well as on amendments to ensure and strengthen the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, more informally known as food stamps. That has been a top concern for Senator Lisa Murkowski.

Again, the margins here on this bill are really thin, and so despite the fact that this is, yes, a political exercise to force Republicans and Democrats to take tough votes in the next couple of hours, there are some changes that could happen to ultimately change the trajectory of this legislation. So that is what we are watching for this afternoon. Meanwhile, you have some Democrats who are arguing maybe it would be in everyone's best interest to keep this process short. Here with Senator John Fetterman.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

SEN. JOHN FETTERMAN, (D-PA): I don't think it's really helpful. I think if you have an argument to make, do that in the next five or seven or eight amendments to make that powerful statement and that really -- I don't understand. I don't think people are going to really be paying attention if you're doing 20, 30 or more kinds of amendment. I don't really think there's a lot of dignity in it.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

[14:05:00]

FOX: Now, of course, it's not just Democrats who may want to delay this process. Like I said, Republican leadership still needs to shore up the votes that they need for this piece of legislation. So you can expect Republicans as well are going to continue to put up these amendment votes in order to give leadership time to rally everyone around this bill. Again, this is a really tight margin. John Thune can only afford to lose three votes. So, we're going to be watching to see what transpires in the hours ahead. Brianna?

KEILAR: And you know, as it looks likely to get through the Senate, assuming it does, it then goes back to the House. Lauren, do you anticipate any hiccups there?

FOX: Well, I think this is going to be a really difficult week for Speaker Mike Johnson. If you remember, he was able to muscle this bill through with just a single Republican vote. They are anticipating that there's going to be some work they have to do on both the conservative wing of their party as well as the moderate wing of the party because some of these Medicaid cuts are even steeper coming out of the Senate bill. You've already seen some Republicans warning their leadership, including Representative David Valadao, who represents one of the highest per capita Medicaid districts in the country.

He has already flagged that these Medicaid changes in the Senate bill are something he may not be able to support. That gives you a sense of the fact that leadership has a very tough job ahead in the United States House of Representatives. We'll see whether or not they have the support that they need over in that chamber in the days ahead.

KEILAR: All right. Lauren Fox, thank you so much for that. Boris?

SANCHEZ: So, how exactly are Americans feeling about all of this? Do they think this bill is just as big and beautiful as President Trump says it is? Let's go to CNN Chief Data Analyst, Harry Enten for some insight. Harry, what do the numbers say?

HARRY ENTEN, CNN CHIEF DATA ANALYST: What do the numbers say? They say they're -- you are beautiful, Boris, but when it comes to this particular -- very nice, right? They don't think of it as One Big Beautiful Bill. They think of it as one big bad bill. What are we talking about here? Well, let's take a look at the Big Beautiful Bill, net favorable ratings. I got five different polls for you on the screen and you don't have to be a mathematical genius to know that these are horrible, horrible, horrible numbers. Washington Post, minus 19 points, Pew Research Center, minus 20 points. Fox News, minus 21 points. Quinnipiac University, minus 26 points. And then KFF takes the cake at minus 29 points on the net favorable rating.

Holy Toledo, you just never see numbers this poor. I have been trying to look through the history books to find if there was another piece of legislation that was on the verge of passing, that was as unpopular on as this one, and Boris Sanchez, I cannot find one.

SANCHEZ: Yikes, that says a lot. Harry, often as folks learn more about what these bills contain and let's be frank, lawmakers actually sell what they contain. We see them become more popular. Has that been the case here?

ENTEN: I'll give you a one word answer. No. No, it hasn't become more popular. What are we talking about here? Well, Quinnipiac University, you know we mentioned that, right? Well, Quinnipiac University, the Big Beautiful Bill, the net fable rating on it, we mentioned minus 26 points. Now, they polled it back in early June. It was the same, minus 26 points. This simply put, the bill was unpopular in early June and it is just as unpopular now to quote Sir Charles Barkley, terrible, terrible, terrible.

We're talking about a minus 45 net favor rating among independents, the center of the electorate. You just can't win in politics when you have a minus 45 net favorable rating among independents. Now the key question is, Boris, why is this bill so unpopular? And I think we can see it pretty well here, which is Donald Trump was re-elected back in November because the American people thought that his policies and his agenda during the first term helped their family or more likely to help than hurt their family. It is the exact opposite when it comes to the Big Beautiful Bill.

All right, Trump's policies and your family. The Big Beautiful Bill, get this. Just 23 percent of Americans say that the policies or the Big Beautiful Bill helps their family compared to 49 percent who say that they hurt their family. Very different than Trump's first term agenda, where you saw the help at 44 percent outranking the hurt at 31 percent. The bottom line is, Boris Sanchez, when you get more than double the percentage of Americans who say a bill hurts their family than helps them, no wonder it is one of the most unpopular pieces of legislation that I have ever seen.

SANCHEZ: Harry Enten, thanks so much for breaking that down for us. With us now to talk about all of this is Tara Palmeri. She's the author of The Red Letter on Substack. We're also joined by CNN Senior Political Analyst, Ron Brownstein. Thank you both for being with us. Tara, I wonder what you're hearing from sources on Capitol Hill whether this bill's on track to pass before the self-imposed deadline of Independence Day.

TARA PALMERI, HOST OF "THE TARA PALMERI SHOW" PODCAST: It looks like it will, at least through the Senate. But there's definitely a lot of anxiety among members.

[14:10:00]

They may not openly admit it, but it does seem like they've all decided to hold hands and jump into the shark infested water. I mean, just listening to Harry, this bill is profoundly unpopular and what they're really worried about are the Medicare and Medicaid cuts and how that'll impact their constituents. But these are, you know, people like Lisa Murkowski, Senator Collins, John Curtis of Utah. These are, you know, usually the more moderate members and they seem to be moving along, being pushed by President Trump and his poison pill, either you vote against him and your primary-ed or you vote with him and you may just be pushed out by your constituents. So, they're in a very tough position right now.

I think that's what you heard from Senator Thom Tillis warning that this could be their Obamacare moment. But yeah, this is a really tough place for Republicans. They're being pushed into a wall. And I do notice, you know, from Democrats, I've asked them, why didn't you stage a harder fight before this? Right? And it seems like they almost want these Republicans to take these hard party votes, so that they can run against them in 2026.

KEILAR: Yeah, that's really interesting because it looks like it's going to be a tough summer. And Ron, some Republicans are warning that. So when you look at how --

RON BROWNSTEIN, CNN SENIOR POLITICAL ANALYST: Yeah.

KEILAR: -- unpopular these Medicaid cuts are and you expect, I'm assuming maybe an Obamacare summer, except that we will say now Obamacare is actually popular. Right? I wonder what you think.

BROWNSTEIN: Yeah.

KEILAR: -- these cut -- how is this -- how is this bill, you know, assuming it passes the Senate and the House, how do you think it is going to age politically?

BROWNSTEIN: Well, I think, Brianna, the real risk for Republicans is that they are doing two things in this bill at the same time that they haven't tried to do together since the Newt Gingrich Con Congress in 1995. You know, if you look at the previous Republican tax cuts of the 21st century, Bush in '01, Bush in '03, Trump in '17, it was all sugar, no spinach, just tax cuts, no spending cuts. Here, they're going back to their strategy of Gingrich against Clinton, where they're marrying tax cuts that mostly benefit people at the top with spending cuts that mostly hurt people at the median income or below.

And that, you know, each of those things are unpopular, together, they are even more unpopular. And it's just an enormous risk because it makes the winners and losers of this bill so explicitly obvious. I mean, the CBO has calculated the House version of the bill, on balance, families under $76,000 a year will lose more from the spending cuts than they gain in the tax cuts. And people at the top, could gain as much as $100,000 a year.

So, you have a bill that is simultaneously cutting taxes in a big way for people at the top, removing 17 million people from healthcare when you include the impact of letting the ACA subsidies expire. And that could prove a very difficult combination to defend in a single bill, not only this summer, but more importantly next fall.

SANCHEZ: But Ron, it's sort of damned if you do, damned if you don't. In some ways, this is a referendum on Trump's power over the Republican Party because I mean, you saw the announcement of Thom Tillis' retirement, a sitting Senator in a battleground state. Now that becomes a more open contest going into next year. And it really seems like a lot of Republicans don't have a choice on this.

BROWNSTEIN: Well, look, I mean, Boris, this is actually the strategy. You know, every in -- pretty much, every incoming president since Reagan in '81, has followed the same strategy of bundling, consolidating much of their core economic agenda into one big, beautiful reconciliation bill during their first year. And basically, assuming that whatever resistance there were to individual elements of it, you know, enough people in their party would vote for because they didn't be want to be the one to sink a new president's agenda.

So, I mean, that has worked. I mean, you know, it's been a tightrope often in the last, you know, several presidencies. But this bill has usually passed. I suspect it will again here. But you're right. I mean, Trump's hold on his party is almost unprecedented, how tight it is. And I think what the retirement, not only of Tillis announcement of their retirement, but also Don Bacon in the House, one of the few Republicans in the House who's shown any independence from Trump, it's basically saying there is no room, virtually no room at the national level in Congress for anyone who is not willing to go full MAGA up and down the line.

The question is whether you can win 218 house seats and 50 or 51 Senate seats with candidates all fitting that profile. They might be able to do it, but it is certainly a much closer call than if you allow for more kind of individual defection that more meets the needs of swing districts.

KEILAR: Tara, there are these policies that are hitting constituencies that Trump did well with, were certainly better, and it caught a lot of attention in the last election, whether it's working class Americans and you're looking at these Medicaid cuts, or it's immigration and you're looking at Hispanic Americans, when you talk to those in sort of Trump world, and when you talk to Republicans, are they concerned that these policies will be erasing those gains?

[14:15:25]

PALMERI: They certainly will be erasing those gains for future Republicans, but President Trump isn't running again. Right? It's pretty much assumed that after he passes this bill, he is lame duck, whether Republicans win re-election in 2026 or not. I mean, they will talk openly about the fact, or at least privately on background about the fact that if they don't win re-election, he will be impeached. And it is only three or four House seats, right, that is holding them in place right now. But yeah, they're aware that these policies are unpopular with the people who voted for him.

I mean, defunding rural hospitals that doesn't that -- that's -- those are his voters. They use Social Security, they use Medicare. They may -- they use Medicaid. That was what -- that was the defining, you know, principle of President Trump and his MAGA movement. That was what made him different than Country Club Republicans. And if they, you know, if they sap those people of the programs, the entitlement programs that they live on, I mean, this is going to have huge political ramifications.

But of course, you know, President Trump, he's not on the ballot in 2026, so they have a lot of problems there, but he's also really not on the ballot in 2028 either.

KEILAR: Yeah. We'll see, certainly his efforts are, we'll see if whoever comes next may continue them if they'll even have a shot to do that. Tara Palmeri, Ron Brownstein, great to speak with both of you. Thank you so much.

And still to come, an emergency court hearing this hour over President Trump's push to end birthright citizenship. We'll discuss what's at stake.

SANCHEZ: And an emotional rallying cry for more action to free the Israeli hostages still held in Gaza while Prime Minister Netanyahu says there are "opportunities to make it happen." We'll discuss in just moments.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[14:21:42]

SANCHEZ: Happening right now, a federal judge in Maryland is holding an emergency hearing over a request from challengers to President Trump's effort to end birthright citizenship. On Friday, the Supreme Court limited the power of lower courts to stop Trump Administration policies, but the president's birthright executive order cannot take effect for 30 days. The judge in today's hearing previously blocked the birthright citizenship order through a nationwide injunction. That was before the Supreme Court decision on Friday. Elie Honig is a CNN Senior Legal Analyst and former Assistant U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of New York and joins us now. So Elie, what happens to this Maryland case and others like it during this 30-day window?

ELIE HONIG, CNN SENIOR LEGAL ANALYST: So, Boris, they're trying to figure it all out during these next four weeks or so. And this Maryland case is actually a perfect example of why the Supreme Court's ruling is going to have such an impact. Now, originally, this was a lawsuit brought by a group of five pregnant mothers whose children might be affected by this and by an interest group. Now, they won before, they convinced this district court judge that Donald Trump's effort to restrict birthright citizenship was illegal and unconstitutional.

What the district court judge did, this is a trial-level federal judge, who said, OK, I find this is unconstitutional, therefore it's blocked as to the entire country. Now, given the Supreme Court's ruling, we know that the judge cannot do that. It can apply to the parties, to those five pregnant women and maybe somehow the interest group. But what the plaintiffs are going to do now is look and see, is there some way we can change the lawsuit or add plaintiffs or make it so that this ruling has a broader effect. But it goes from nationwide to essentially just the parties in this case as a result of the ruling.

SANCHEZ: One avenue and Justice Kavanaugh alluded to this, would be for there to be a certified nationwide class action lawsuit. Right?

HONIG: Right.

SANCHEZ: I think, Justice Alito warned that judges might essentially go that route, make the certification of a nationwide class lawsuit too easy to access and it would wind up being an injunction under a different name. Is that an avenue that might be attempted?

HONIG: It's possible, Boris, but it's easier said than done. So one thing that the plaintiffs can try to do, we may see it today in Maryland, who say, OK, judge, we want to change this case over to a class action. Meaning we have these five pregnant women, we want them to essentially represent everyone in the country or some broader group of people who are in a similar situation, but it's not as easy as that. Judges are going to scrutinize that very carefully. They don't just rubber stamp every request for a class. There's various legal requirements that you have to meet.

But it does seem, based on the Supreme Court's ruling, that if plaintiffs want to get broader rulings, the best way to do it is either by getting a class certified or by having states bring lawsuits, which we've seen in some of the other birthright cases.

SANCHEZ: How does the fact that the Department of Justice has filed lawsuits against all 15 federal judges in Maryland potentially impact this case?

HONIG: Yeah, I think that's a frivolous lawsuit filed by DOJ. I mean, essentially, they're trying to make a statement here that federal judges, district court judges have overstepped their authority. I mean, they were sort of vindicated in that by the Supreme Court's ruling the other day.

[14:25:00]

It said district court judges do sometimes overstep when they issue nationwide injunctions. But it's important to note, that's not really a political issue or Republican, Democrat, conservative liberal issue. That's an issue that just whoever's in the White House hates it when District Court judges do that and whoever's opposing the party in the White House always loves it when presidents do that. So, I think that was a silly lawsuit. I think it was meant to make a political point, but the Supreme Court has already made that point in a much more effective way with its ruling.

SANCHEZ: A point that the Supreme Court did not make was their view of the 14th Amendment and the issue, the merits of this birthright citizenship claim. Right? It's possible that when the court takes this up in October, we won't get an answer until next June. So, what does that year of uncertainty on this issue mean?

HONIG: It is possible and honestly, it's a head shaker why the Supreme Court wouldn't have just ruled on this. They are inviting a landscape of chaos. They're inviting a situation where people don't even necessarily know who exactly is a citizen or who's not. Or you might have different citizenship status for babies born in one state and different for babies born in identical circumstances in another state. But the timeline is important here.

So if the Supreme Court decides to hear the actual birthright case on its normal, what we call, the merits calendar with full argument and briefing, then we're looking at in a year from now or so until we have a ruling. There is a chance though the Supreme Court takes this on an emergency basis. They can do that, hopefully recognizing the urgency for some nationwide uniformity on this. So, there's a chance if they're so motivated. Justice Kavanaugh said they need to be motivated to move quickly, that they can get us an answer more quickly.

SANCHEZ: You would think that, you know, on the 14th Amendment, they might feel like they should expedite that. We'll see.

HONIG: Yeah. SANCHEZ: Elie Honig, thanks so much for the analysis.

HONIG: Kind of important.

SANCHEZ: Yeah, always appreciate it.

HONIG: Thanks, Boris.

SANCHEZ: Still to come, the head of the U.N. nuclear watchdog says that Iran's nuclear program was damaged but not destroyed, not totally obliterated as the White House has said. We have new details. And we're following the voting on the Senate floor for President Trump's sweeping agenda bill, the latest on vote-a-rama when we come back.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)