Return to Transcripts main page

CNN News Central

DOJ Looking at Ways to Ban Transgender Americans from Owning Guns; White House Official: Trump Tells Europe to Stop Buying Russian Oil; American Eagle Stock Soars with Success of Sydney Sweeney Ads. Aired 2:30-3p ET

Aired September 04, 2025 - 14:30   ET

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

[14:30:00]

BORIS SANCHEZ, CNN HOST: We're following breaking news to CNN. Sources tell us that senior Justice Department officials are considering plans to limit transgender people's right to possess firearms.

ERICA HILL, CNN HOST: So this comes, of course, after police say that a 23-year-old transgender woman killed two children in last week's horrific mass shooting at Annunciation Catholic School in Minneapolis.

Joining us to discuss, former state attorney Dave Aronberg. Dave, I think it's also to point out in context here, we're learning about this reporting. According to the Gun Violence Archive, of the more than 5,000 mass shooting incidents in the United States over the last decade, just four were committed by trans individuals. As I understand it, the idea here seems to be to declare that transgender people are somehow mentally ill, and so that would then give the government a right to either take away their guns or say that they cannot possess them. How would that actually work from a legal standpoint?

DAVE ARONBERG, FORMER STATE ATTORNEY: Right, and you raise a good point. Studies show that transgender individuals are much more likely to be victims of crimes than to be perpetrators of crimes. So what the government here is trying to do is to diagnose essentially everyone who is transgender as having a mental defect that would prohibit them from owning firearms. See, under federal law, you are allowed to prohibit individuals from owning firearms if you've been adjudicated as a mental defective or committed to a mental institution.

And it's a weird phrase, this, adjudicated as a mental defective. But the term means that you're decided by a court or other lawful authority that because of a mental illness, you are a danger to yourself or others. So that's an individualized assessment. That is not a blanket rule, and that's where I think the government's going to have problems. I don't think they can just go ahead and do a blanket rule that covers everyone without an individualized diagnosis and an individualized hearing. There are Second Amendment ramifications, we can get to that, but there are also 14th Amendment ramifications for equal protection and due process.

SANCHEZ: Just stepping back, obviously, this would be a unique approach from this administration to try to tackle, generally, the problem of gun violence. What would the process of distinguishing a mentally defective person look like based on them being transgendered?

ARONBERG: It would essentially be the same process we have under our existing red flag laws, where if someone poses a threat to themselves or others, then they could get their weapons taken away. But that takes legislation. I don't think you can do that via executive order. And that's only temporary. That is just for two weeks under the red flag laws in many states. You then get a hearing, due process, to determine whether you are a threat to yourself or others, and the burden is on the government to prove it.

So I don't think you can issue a blanket ban. And I know the administration is going to say that gender dysphoria is a recognized mental health disorder under the DSM. That's true. But that diagnosis itself under the DSM does not automatically make a person a danger to himself or others.

HILL: And there's also, I mean, as we're trying to figure out how this would actually work, right? You, you raise the potential issues with both the 2nd and the 14th amendment.

[14:35:00]

There's also a question of does this then perhaps start to violate HIPAA and privacy laws in that there would be a push for information from medical professionals, perhaps from psychiatrists for them to then disclose whether they had patients who they had identified do have gender dysphoria, which again, a mental disorder, not a mental defect, which is also important in the legal language here.

ARONBERG: Right. It's a very good point. I don't think this could be worked through HIPAA. And also politically, think about it. You've got the NRA who doesn't like any bans on ownership of guns. They think of any ban against any group as a slippery slope. And these are some of President Trump's core supporters. So I think that this discussion we're having is meant to be a discussion. I don't think it will go beyond, perhaps, an initial proposal that could get challenged and held up in a court. So I don't think it'll ever be implemented.

But perhaps that's what this administration wants. They want to discuss this. This is on their playing field, talking about transgender issues, talking about crime issues. That's what they want to talk about, rather than Jeffrey Epstein.

SANCHEZ: Significant point. I wonder, Dave, what you think of this fitting into an approach regarding red flag laws in general. I mean, is there a way to fold that? If they can't do it federally, is it something that local governments can try to tackle that way?

ARONBERG: I am a big believer in red flag laws, Boris. I think that they should be adopted across the country. It is a good balance between the right of gun ownership and the ability to protect our society from people who should not be owning guns and ammunition. So that takes an individualized determination, and that is done at the state level. But I think Congress should pass a law federally.

And if you really want to get the problem of people who have a mental disorder, that means they should not own guns and ammunition, that's how you do it. Pass a red flag law. But they're not doing that. They're instead talking about just this one group of transgender individuals. And although that could sell perhaps in the MAGA base, That's not going to sell in a court of law.

HILL: Dave Aronberg, great to have you to walk us through the little bit that we do know and what it could mean moving forward. Thank you.

Just ahead here, President Trump speaking to European allies, as well as Ukraine's president. His latest comments on Russian aggression and what he says needs to be done now.

[14:40:00]

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

HILL: President Trump today calling into a meeting with Ukrainian President Vladimir Zelenskyy and European leaders who are part of the so-called coalition of the willing. According to a White House official, Trump said Europe must stop purchasing Russian oil that's funding the war and also urged those officials to apply economic pressure on China for its part in enriching Russia.

The call, of course, also follows a meeting of China's Xi Jinping and Russia's Vladimir Putin as momentum toward ending the war on Ukraine has stalled.

Joining me now, CNN contributor, former CNN Moscow bureau chief Jill Dougherty. She's also an adjunct professor at Georgetown University. And Jill, always good to talk to you. I hate it because in some ways I feel like a broken record sometimes, the questions that I ask you. But when we look at what we know of this conversation today, the comments from President Trump, do those comments in any way actually push Russia to a place where it would end its war in Ukraine.

JILL DOUGHERTY, CNN CONTRIBUTOR: Well, I mean, that is a question, in a sense, unknowable, because Vladimir Putin continues to do what he has been doing since he invaded Ukraine. But I think what President Trump is doing is, again, shifting the burden onto Europe and saying, this is what you ought to do. But Europe already has weaned itself off Russian energy to a great extent. Now, there's more that could be done, but I think the question is, you know, this is the week that we thought there was going to be another deadline for Putin to come to the negotiating table. And he hasn't done it.

And I think that what Zelenskyy, the Ukrainian president, wants is more direct pressure on Russia itself, and then also on the serious friends of Russia, like China, that actually would have an impact on, you know, what Russia is doing. And I would also say, note what Putin was saying just when he was in China yesterday and the day before. He said -- he almost sounded like he was channeling President Trump, who said there's light at the end of the tunnel, but if it doesn't happen, then we will have to achieve the goals we set by force. So that sounds like, you know, Putin is full steam ahead.

HILL: Yes, well, you talk about that sort of, this latest, somewhat nebulous, let's be honest, but this latest two-week deadline from President Trump, which would in theory expire tomorrow. I thought it was interesting as well, President Putin saying, oh, sure, I'm ready to -- obviously I'm bears phrasing here -- I'm ready to meet with President Zelenskyy if it happens in Moscow.

Given what you know about the current Trump Administration. What is your sense of the frustration level, if there is one within the administration, in terms of the back and forth here, and what it might actually take for President Trump to act? I mean, he has warned, right, that there will be these deadlines. There will be, quote, severe consequences. And yet, every time we are close to that line, the can is kicked down the road.

[14:45:00]

DOUGHERTY: Well, that is exactly the dilemma, that it's not clear what Putin would have to do in order to trigger Donald Trump to take stronger action, because he is already -- Putin has already attacked almost every single time that the American president has spoken out. The Russian president has attacked Ukraine even more viciously.

So I honestly do not know the answer to that, but I think people, you know, who look at this in seriousness would say what Mr. Trump could do would be to arm Ukraine to actually take the fight to Russia. That would be very serious, but it's not happening.

HILL: In terms of army Ukraine, there's also the question about protecting Ukraine. So, President Macron Wednesday night has said that European leaders are basically ready now. They're ready. They have this defense plan. He went on to say specifically that they are ready to quote, offer Ukraine security guarantees the day the peace is signed.

He added, notably, the question now is the sincerity of Russia. That is a question that has existed for some time, as you and I have discussed. When it comes to those security guarantees, are we starting to get a better idea of what they would practically look like? And Also, Jill, how long that may need to last?

DOUGHERTY: Yes, well, to answer the second question, it would probably, from what we understand from the Europeans who essentially are doing the heavy lifting on this, would have to last for a very long time. Because even if there is a ceasefire, the whole idea is Russia could do it again. So how do you prevent that? And that threat could go on for several years. You know the predictions -- I think we talked about them --predictions that Russia could reestablish its military rebuild, etc. and come back a year and a half two years from now and do the same thing, or at the very least try to undermine Ukraine, so a long time.

And then I think the -- it's the plan for security is being fleshed out. There would be like 3 layers of protection. You know, some close to the line. There would be a line. of conflict that would be frozen. Then you would have other forces kind of in the middle of the country and then another force back, let's say to the western part of Ukraine. That all of these details are coming out, but Russia continues to say

what about our security? That is actually what Vladimir Putin said yesterday that it's the West's fault and they are not taking into consideration Russia's security interest. So in other words, the security interests of the country that attacked Ukraine.

HILL: Yes, the aggressor, the country that invaded. Jill, always good to talk to you. Thank you.

Sydney Sweeney's controversial Good Jeans ad turns out to be a pretty good business decision for American Eagle. We'll explain next.

[14:50:00]

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

SANCHEZ: American Eagle stock soaring up 35 percent, and the company is thanking actress Sydney Sweeney and her, quote, great jeans.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

SYDNEY SWEENEY: But just so we're clear, this is not me telling you to buy American Eagle jeans.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Sydney Sweeney has very jeans.

SWEENEY: You see what I did there, right?

(END VIDEO CLIP)

SANCHEZ: The ads featuring a blonde, blue-eyed actress generated a storm of criticism accused of promoting eugenics. But American Eagle says that Sweeney's jean collaboration sold out within the week.

Let's discuss with Evan Nierman. He's CEO of Red Banyan PR. Evan, thanks so much for being with us. You're calling American Eagle's response to the Sweeney controversy a masterclass. Why?

EVAN NIERMAN, CEO, RED BANYAN PR: Because they've sat back and let people talk, talk, talk all the way to the bank. They're selling jeans. People are still talking about this ad a month later. So I'd say it's a masterstroke in terms of not just the ad itself, but how they have sat back and just let everybody keep this issue front and center.

SANCHEZ: We've spoken to marketing experts that make the case that American Eagle knew that some of the blowback was coming for making this ad. Are you of the opinion that this was part of a marketing campaign to generate controversy?

NIERMAN: I don't really think so. I actually think it's a bit of a stretch to watch that ad independent of all the criticism online and somehow come to the conclusion that this was eugenics and Nazism promotion. I don't think so. In my view, it was a pun on the word genes. And so In my view, American Eagle is -- has has been the beneficiary of this manufactured outrage. And I think they were smart not to apologize, not to take the ads off

the air, not to back down once the criticism came, because I think they realized there's nothing worse than running ads and having people ignore them. And so quite the the contrary has happened here, and so I think that they've done a good job of just riding this wave of publicity.

SANCHEZ: It's really fascinating that so much of corporate branding and advertising has increasingly found itself in the political crosshairs, not just American Eagle, but Bud Light, most recently, Cracker Barrel. Why do you think that the way that these corporations try to sell their products has become such a focus with a political lens to it?

NIERMAN: Well, unfortunately, that's just a byproduct of being in America today. There is such a partisan rancor that goes on and there's not a single issue that gets discussed that manages to avoid being painted with a political brush. And the Sydney Sweeney American Eagle ads is just the latest in a long string of them. And I think it's unfortunate because at the end of the day, the company is there to sell products. This is a big dispute about denim and then all of a sudden it's it's extrapolated into part of the culture wars.

That's just the reality, and I think for some companies it proves to be something that hurts them very much in the marketplace.

[14:55:00]

It damages their brand equity and and depreciates their stock price. And in other cases such as this, this controversy can actually be a boon.

SANCHEZ: So how should companies navigate these cultural choppy waters?

NIERMAN: Well, you have to go into anything with the idea that someone is not going to like what you're saying and someone is going to find fault. So I think it is important to go in with a plan. You want to know and assume that someone's going to take issue. And I think trying to avoid the most hot button issues, political issues is a good practice overall, but at the end of the day, these are companies that are trying to get their message out there. And I think one of the key things that we should learn from this Sydney Sweeney controversy is it doesn't help a brand to go kowtowing to the critics and apologizing if an apology isn't warranted. Just let the ads speak for themselves and at the end of the day they're trying to sell jeans, not Nazi ideology, and I think that's that's part of the reason why their stock price is up 30 percent and this has been a wildly successful campaign for them.

SANCHEZ: Evan Nierman, so interesting to hear your perspective. Thanks for being with us.

NIERMAN: Yes, thanks for having me.

SANCHEZ: Of course. As some of his own employees and more than a dozen health groups call

on HHS Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. to resign, there are signs he could also be losing support from Republican lawmakers as well, including a key one that helped get him confirmed. That's next.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

END