Return to Transcripts main page

CNN News Central

Judge: Kilmar Abrego Garcia Cannot Be Deported For Now; Trump Creating Special National Guard Units To Address "Public Order Issues"; Trump Signs Exec Orders Expanding D.C. Crackdown; Trump Threatens To Pull Funding From Areas Offering Cashless Bail; Lil Nas X Charged With Four Felonies. Aired 3-3:30p ET

Aired August 25, 2025 - 15:00   ET

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

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[15:01:32]

BORIS SANCHEZ, CNN HOST: President Trump looking to take his crime crackdown national, establishing specialized units in the National Guard that will be trained to deal with, quote, "public order issues." Sources tell CNN the White House has been working on a plan for weeks to send the National Guard to Chicago as well as city, the President calls a, quote, "killing field."

We're also following brand new developments in the case of Kilmar Abrego Garcia, a federal judge just issuing a new order telling officials they are, quote, "absolutely forbidden from deporting him" amid plans to send him to Uganda.

BRIANNA KEILAR, CNN HOST: Plus, we go inside an FAA lab where aviation officials are investigating an uptick in fires involving lithium batteries.

We're following these major developing stories and many more all coming in right here to CNN NEWS CENTRAL.

SANCHEZ: We have breaking news into CNN. Moments ago, a federal judge in Maryland ruled that for now, the Trump administration cannot remove Kilmar Abrego Garcia from the U.S. as he challenges a new deportation effort that would send him to Uganda. Abrego Garcia is the Maryland father of three who became the face of President Trump's immigration crackdown when he was wrongly deported to El Salvador in March. Let's go straight to CNN's Priscilla Alvarez.

And Priscilla, what happened during the hearing in Baltimore this afternoon? What did the judge rule?

PRISCILLA ALVAREZ, CNN CORRESPONDENT: Well, Boris, the federal judge was - or rather expressed concern over the Trump administration's plans to deport Kilmar Abrego Garcia, who is now in the custody of Immigration and Customs Enforcement, and so that she would soon order, or rather keep an order that keeps him in the United States until this challenge over his deportation is sorted and then discussed with both the Justice Department attorneys as well as Abrego Garcia's attorneys, a schedule moving forward for additional proceedings. Now, this stems from the Trump administration's attempt to try to

deport him to Uganda. Originally, the Trump administration had made an offer, a plea deal, that if he were to plea to federal charges that he would be deported eventually to Costa Rica. And if not, he would be sent to Uganda. Well, that is something that his attorneys immediately pushed back on, seeing it as punishment for Abrego Garcia. And that is what is starting to cause concern in the courtroom.

So, the federal judge essentially saying that the assurances that Costa Rica has provided has not been matched by Uganda, be it, for example, that he'd be able to move freely or have status and not be sent back to El Salvador. So, there are still so many questions here that the federal judge had that she is blocking for now, or planning to block for now, his removal from the continental United States.

So, to give you a sense of the timeline here, there was already an order in place blocking his removal before Wednesday. Given what the federal judge said today and what we anticipate would be additional proceedings down the line, he's not likely to be deported before the end of the week.

Now, this is still very much in motion. The federal judge asked for a schedule by tomorrow for both attorneys to set up how they want these proceedings to unfold. But what was very clear by the federal judge was that she was concerned with what the plans have been so far, which is the Trump administration repeatedly saying, even over the course of today, that they wanted to send Abrego Garcia to Uganda.

[15:05:06]

A country that he has no ties to, but something that the administration has resorted to often to deport individuals in - from - in the United States. The last newsy point here, Boris, that I'll note is that he has been moved to Virginia.

So earlier today, he was detained in Baltimore for his mandatory check-in with ICE. Well, since then, he has been moved to a facility in Virginia. His attorney's asking the judge to also request from the administration that he not be moved again and that he remain close, given that these proceedings, which are taking place in Maryland, are still ongoing.

SANCHEZ: Priscilla Alvarez, thank you so much for that important update. Brianna?

KEILAR: President Trump is sending his clearest signal yet that he intends to expand the role of the U.S. military into law enforcement across the country. Today, he signed an executive order creating what he called specialized units inside of the National Guard to deal with, quote, "public order issues." Trump himself has openly threatened to send troops to several cities that are headed by Democrats, including Chicago. And today, he left the door open for that while also suggesting that he would wait until governors in those states request his help.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) DONALD TRUMP, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: As you all know, Chicago

is a killing field right now, and they don't acknowledge it. And they say, "We don't need him. Freedom. Freedom. He's a dictator. He's a dictator." A lot of people are saying "maybe we like a dictator." I don't like a dictator. I'm not a dictator.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

KEILAR: CNN's Jeff Zeleny is at the White House for us. Jeff, what more officials they're saying about these possible activations of Guard?

JEFF ZELENY, CNN CHIEF NATIONAL AFFAIRS CORRESPONDENT: Well, Brianna, the executive orders the President signed included, as you said, an order for the Secretary of Defense to create these specialized units, essentially a reaction units to be deployed in the name of a public order. The question is, what does that mean exactly? When would they be deployed? And the larger questions of states' rights, of course, but also, is this the intention and purpose of the National Guard?

But President Trump is clearly reveling in the fact that he believes he has been successful in his federalized police takeover of Washington, D.C. Of course, there are a few thousand National Guard troops in Washington as well. Some of them are armed, some of them are not. But clearly, the President wants to use Washington as something of a template for other cities across the country.

Of course, there are many differences. Washington is a federal city, if you will, and these other cities on the President's mind are not. But the President earlier today in the Oval Office was asked about high crime rates in cities in red states as well. This is what he said.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Would you also consider sending the National Guard into red states and red cities that are also seeing high crime?

TRUMP: Sure, but there aren't that many of them. If you look at the top 25 cities that - for crime, just about every one of those cities is run by Democrats.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

ZELENY: So, the President's saying every one of those cities is run by Democrats, but many of those cities are in red states as well. So, it really begs the question if this distribution of law enforcement and National Guard, which are distinctive things, we should point out, are being deployed in equal measure or is there politics behind this? But Brianna, there's no doubt the President, as he has for most of the month of August, is trying to focus on law and order and spending much less time talking about other things like his legislative achievements, the Jeffrey Epstein files and other matters, even foreign policy. And like that still looming meeting between Vladimir Putin and Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy, not talked about by the President much today, but he is talking extensively about law and order. Brianna.

KEILAR: Because the highest violent crime cities, even though the blue cities are in these red states where the governors certainly would have to be involved or normally would be in the activation of National Guard, those are not the ones being targeted and it's very notable. Jeff Zeleny, live for us at the White House. Thank you so much for that. Boris.

SANCHEZ: Let's dig deeper on this with the former mayor of New York City, Bill de Blasio. Mayor, thanks so much for being with us. What's your reaction to

Trump's threat to deploy the National Guard in New York City?

BILL DE BLASIO, (D) FORMER NEW YORK CITY MAYOR: Yes, Boris. It's unmistakable to me that this sudden interest in using the National Guard in all sorts of unconstitutional ways directly comes from the exact same time as his concerns about the Jeffrey Epstein case starting to undermine his support base, including in the MAGA world. So, I just have to give you that frame.

But here's what I feel as a former mayor, you know, during the George Floyd protests here in New York City, which were very intense, the question was raised, should we bring in the National Guard? And I made the very strong decision not to. Because National Guard, as good as they are at protecting our nation, they're not trained for law enforcement in an urban environment. Our police forces are.

And in fact, if you bring in people who are not trained and not prepared, you run the risk of people getting hurt or people getting killed, whether they are in uniform or whether they're civilian.

[15:10:07]

We went through those George Floyd protests. Thank God, not a single human life was lost. But I got to tell you, this is reckless to force the Guard into situations they are not prepared for, nor did they sign up for. And I want to remind you, these are people with families, with lives, with jobs. They're giving up their time to be sent on a mission that doesn't fit them and actually could backfire.

SANCHEZ: What do you make of Trump framing this as a political issue that Democrats are on the wrong side of? He says that this crackdown is a 97-3 issue, meaning that it has immense public support. He says that Democrats have to get smart and they have to get tougher on crime. Is there a risk that Democrats run by not backing tougher crime laws?

DE BLASIO: I think it's always a fair question with Democrats. Are we doing everything that we can, constitutionally and appropriately, to fight crime? And I think the Democratic Party has to look at this issue much more honestly and say, hey, there are some places where we should be doing better. Our leaders should be doing better. But that's a different question, whether we should violate the Constitution, use military force in our cities, obviously with some political objectives in mind by the President as well, whether we should put our National Guard officers in harm's way for a mission they're not trained for, and actually potentially exacerbate tensions in communities.

You know, the best police leaders in America will tell you that the way to reduce crime is to build a bond between police and community and to really build relationships. You can't do that with an occupying force that isn't even from the place and doesn't have the opportunity to get to know people. So, look, I think it's very fair to say the public wants to see safe streets and Democrats and Republicans alike have to prove results. But that's very different, Boris, than going in a direction that not only creates a constitutional crisis, again, could backfire, could lead to tragedy.

And I guarantee you the first time a guard officer is killed or, God forbid, a guard officer is involved in an incident where someone else is killed, that God forbid we lose anyone. But at that moment, a lot of the people who are applauding this action are going to take the exact opposite view and say, why did we ever go down this road.

SANCHEZ: Yes, let's certainly hope that that doesn't happen. I wonder on the executive order to try to influence policy in certain municipalities, specifically on cashless bail. As you well know, New York scaled back bail for a lot of criminal charges back in 2019. But when you were mayor, you pushed the state legislature to amend that law. And over the last few years, I believe Gov. Hochul rolled back some of those 2019 reforms and made more crimes bail eligible, giving judges more discretion.

Generally, do you think that bail reform has been a problem in New York City?

DE BLASIO: The law was imperfect, there's no question. I don't think anyone should mince words about this. The law we had before made no sense. Someone with money could get out of jail, someone who didn't have money couldn't, regardless of the level of offense, even for a minor offense.

We saw a lot of tragedies. We saw a lot of people's lives very adversely affected. It hadn't done hardly anything. But on the other hand, the law that was passed did not give judges the right to exercise their discretion and say, well, you know, here's someone where we're concerned, given their history, their criminal history, they might be a threat to the community. We need to hold them in, even separate from the question of bail.

I think that law should have evolved and should have had judicial discretion. I thought it was a mistake at the time. I think there's been improvement since. Again, this is a case where I would say to all Democrats, we're right when we say we believe in law and order. We believe in not having punishments that go far beyond the crime or keeping people in jail simply because they can't come up with a thousand bucks, for example.

But on the other hand, we got to be clear. If someone presents a consistent danger to the community, judges have to be able to act on that.

SANCHEZ: I do want to go back to something you had noted earlier, and I asked Democratic Congressman Raja Krishnamoorthi about this earlier, the idea that these actions by President Trump are unconstitutional. California's challenge to his - sending in the National Guard back in June, it's making its way through the courts. Ultimately, it might wind up in the hands of a Supreme Court that leans conservative, that has shown no hesitation to buck with precedent, that has sided with President Trump before in arguably unprecedented ways. I wonder what is to stop President Trump from doing this wherever he wants, for whatever reason he wants, if the Supreme Court sides with him on that case.

DE BLASIO: Yes, it's a great question. I would say the Supreme Court, actually Justice Roberts himself, the Chief Justice, wrote the opinion in a case that said it was not the right of the federal government to withhold funding for states and localities when there's a policy difference.

[15:15:06]

We actually sued the Trump administration when I was mayor, and they tried to withhold our security funding because we did not ask documentation status for immigrant folks. The court system found in our favor consistently and used a decision that Justice Roberts wrote as the key to that. So, I don't think that's something they're going to back away from. I also think when it comes to states' rights in general, what is more essential to the United States Constitution than the notion that the states have sovereignty over a whole host of areas, including public safety?

I don't think the court lightly undoes that. The court nibbles around the edges, and sometimes there's been a few radical decisions, but by and large, I think there still has to be respect for states' rights, and you cannot say a state can't make its own decision on bail. That's about as profound a right of a state to decide as anything.

SANCHEZ: Former Mayor Bill de Blasio, we'll leave the conversation there. Thank you so much for the time.

DE BLASIO: Thank you, Boris.

SANCHEZ: Still to come, President Trump warning of very big consequences if Russia doesn't stop its invasion of Ukraine. This comes just hours after Russia launched a new wave of drone attacks toward Ukraine, and as we await word on a potential bilateral meeting between Putin and Zelenskyy.

And later, raging wildfires threatening homes and forcing evacuations in Oregon and California. These stories and much more coming your way in just moments.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[15:20:52]

KEILAR: President Trump's crackdown on crime is now going after cashless bail. Today, the President signed an executive order that threatens to pull federal funding from cities that don't eliminate such policies. Among those cities is the nation's capital.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

TRUMP: One of the executive orders has to do with cashless bail. That was when the big crime in this country started. And I can tell you who did it, when, but I don't want to do that because others followed pretty quickly. But that was when it happened. Somebody kills somebody, they go in. Don't worry about it, no cash. Come back in a couple of months, we'll give you a trial. You'll never see the person again.

And this isn't Republican, Democrat. This is, and by the way, most Democrats agree with this. But this is just - we got to bring our country back.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

KEILAR: Let's talk about this with civil rights attorney Robyn Sanders, who is a federal public defender.

Robyn, Trump says cashless bail, that was when the big crime in this country started. They'd kill someone and get out. Can you tell us how cashless bail impacts crime?

ROBYN SANDERS, CIVIL RIGHTS ATTORNEY: In Sure, so I think it's important for your viewers to understand that cashless bail, also known as no cash bail, is a system where judges will allow individuals to be released before trial and not condition that on their ability to pay a sum of money. And what typically happens is that the judge will engage in a risk assessment analysis and look at various factors like whether the person poses a flight risk or whether they are a danger to the community before determining if they should be released before trial.

And the impetus for this is rooted in civil rights concerns, Brianna. Proponents of this policy say that if you don't have it in existence, what you'd have is a two-tiered system where wealthy individuals who are charged with the same offense will be able to be released pre- trial, but indigent individuals in this country, disproportionately African-Americans and people of color would have to remain in prison or in jail before their trial.

KEILAR: So, under threat of losing federal funding, we've seen many entities and jurisdictions enacting policies that otherwise they would not enact. Do you expect this to work? And if so, what's the effect of that going to be?

SANDERS: So, I think that it's important to understand that part of the order is national in scope. So, it authorizes the U.S. Attorney General Pam Bondi to identify jurisdictions that implement this policy. And see whether or not there are federal funding streams that could be withheld or revoked. And then of course, targeting D.C. specifically. And essentially that would allow the police to preferentially charge suspects under federal law, thereby bypassing that procedure. So, I think what we will need to look at is to see whether states or

jurisdictions will comply with the order, you know, in order to prevent themselves from losing federal funding.

KEILAR: So, I know you come at this from a defender's perspective. And you have a lot of experience with a number of cases. But you also know that there are people who are incredibly worried about crime and public safety. Even as we, for instance, in D.C. have seen numbers go down recently. The administration is certainly playing to those concerns. How should those concerns be addressed?

SANDERS: So, I think it's important for people to understand that even in places where cashless bails, the system is being implemented and used, judges are still required to engage in a risk assessment analysis. So, in addition to determining whether someone is a flight risk, judges also look to see whether the individual does pose a significant threat or danger to the community before making a decision about whether they would be released pretrial.

So, it's important for people to understand that even in jurisdictions where this system is adopted, judges are still tasked with making sure that the individual who is wanting the benefit of the cashless bail policy doesn't pose a significant risk or danger to the community. And if they are determined to pose that risk, then the judge will consign them to jail, you know, as they await their trial proceedings. So, it's a factor that judges consider.

[15:25:06]

KEILAR: So, we saw a few executive orders signed today, and Trump also signed one on flag burning. The order says the administration will prosecute those who incite violence or otherwise violate our laws while desecrating this symbol of our country. The White House says the Supreme Court has never held that flag burning, quote, "conducted in a manner that is likely to incite imminent lawless action is protected."

They're trying to kind of take this away from the freedom of speech aspect that has certainly been well litigated. Do you think they may succeed trying to go about it that way?

SANDERS: I don't think so, Brianna. I think what we see the executive trying to do there is to smuggle what's known as the Brandenburg exception or the flag burning into this Brandenburg exception. And that flows from a 1969 Supreme Court case where the court held that it is not protected speech to engage in activity that would directly incite imminent violence or lawlessness. But also, there are two cases, as you just alluded to, Texas versus Johnson and United States versus Eichman, where the Supreme Court unequivocally held that flag burning is a form of expressive conduct that's fully protected under the First Amendment.

So, I think what we'll need to see is how cases that are prosecuted under this order are treated in the courts. We have settled precedent for decades that says that the government cannot criminalize flag burning because it's expressive conduct, fully protected. But I think what courts will need to look at is to determine whether the specific cases that arise are cases where it crosses that - into that narrow exception framework where an individual is directly inciting lawlessness. But otherwise, I think that the Supreme Court has clearly spoken on this issue and said that flag burning is protected and cannot be criminalized by the government.

KEILAR: Robyn Sanders, great to talk with you this afternoon. Thanks for being with us.

SANDERS: Thank you so much for having me.

KEILAR: Boris.

SANCHEZ: Well, following breaking news out of California, pop star Lil Nas X has been charged with attacking police officers as he walked nearly naked on a Los Angeles street last week. Prosecutors charged the musician, whose legal name is Montero Lamar Hill, with four felonies, including three counts of battery with injury on a police officer.

The incident is alleged to have taken place last week when officers confronted the 26-year-old for walking down Ventura Boulevard, again, nearly naked, a major thoroughfare in the Studio City's neighborhood. He's set to be arraigned later today. His representatives, though, have not responded to any requests for comment.

Coming up, President Trump expressing frustration over a new wave of Russian attacks toward Ukraine and warning of very big consequences if Russia does not stop the war. We'll take you live to Moscow in just a few minutes.