Return to Transcripts main page

CNN News Central

Senators Grill RFK Jr. Amid CDC Chaos, Vaccine Policy Turmoil; Court Defeats Pile Up Against Trump's High-Profile Policies; Judge: Trump Admin Unlawfully Blocked $2B from Harvard; House GOP Forming New Panel to Reinvestigate Jan. 6; Trump Says He Will Send National Guard Troops into Chicago But Does Not Provide Timeline. Aired 3-3:30p ET

Aired September 04, 2025 - 15:00   ET

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

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[15:00:53]

BORIS SANCHEZ, CNN HOST: The Health and Human Services Secretary today on Capitol Hill called ignorant and a charlatan. Robert F. Kennedy Jr. trading accusations with senators at a contentious hearing. The chaos at the CDC, access to vaccines, his comments on antidepressants, all of it brought up during his day in the hot seat.

And another major legal setback for President Donald Trump, a federal judge says the White House must spend billions of dollars in foreign aid that Congress has already earmarked and that he has blocked.

ERICA HILL, CNN HOST: Plus, Europe now banning a key chemical used in a number of very popular nail polishes because of serious health concerns. Why experts say you should hold your breath for a similar move here in the United States.

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

SANCHEZ: We are getting brand new reaction from Republicans this hour after Capitol Hill's meltdown over MAHA. HHS Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. and his Make America Healthy Again agenda in the hottest of all hot seats on Capitol Hill. Watch this.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

ROBERT F. KENNEDY JR., HHS SECRETARY: We are the sickest country in the world. That's why we have to fire people at the CDC.

SEN. MARK WARNER (D-VA): You're the Secretary of Health and Human Services. You don't have any idea how many Americans died from covid.

KENNEDY: I don't think anybody knows.

SEN. BILL CASSIDY (R-LA): I would say effectively we're denying people vaccine. I ...

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Senator Cantwell.

KENNEDY: I think you're wrong.

SEN. RAPHAEL WARNOCK (D-GA): You are a hazard to the health of the American people. I think that you ought to resign.

KENNEDY: (INAUDIBLE) your facts.

SEN. MARIA CANTWELL (D-WA): You're interrupting me. And sir, you're a charlatan. That's what you are. You're the ones who conflate chronic disease with the need for vaccines.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

SANCHEZ: CNN's Arlette Saenz has been tracking this on Capitol Hill for us.

Arlette, some significant new reaction.

ARLETTE SAENZ, CNN CORRESPONDENT: Yes, Boris, you know, senators grilled Secretary Kennedy for nearly three hours as he defended his decision to fire the CDC director, as well as decisions relating to vaccine policy. But coming out of that hearing, the Democrats that we spoke to really were in a united front about their feelings about this hearing, believing that Secretary Kennedy has lied that he continues to undermine the public health in this country. And they believe that he should be fired.

But perhaps the most interesting reaction has come from the Republicans. There were three Republican senators in that hearing who pressed Kennedy specifically on vaccine policy. That's Senator Bill Cassidy, Thom Tillis, as well as Senator John Barrasso, the number two Republican in the Senate who hasn't been as outspoken about Kennedy in recent months. But he did say that he has concerns about the trajectory of vaccine policy in this country.

And notably, there are several Republican senators who have not said if they still have confidence in Kennedy, including the Senate Majority Leader John Thune, who was pressed on that by our colleague Manu Raju a bit earlier today. But coming out of that hearing, I did ask Senator Tillis how he feels about the issue. And he does have concerns that there could be an undermining of the CDC and efforts to keep children safe underway. Take a listen.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

SAENZ: Do you still have confidence in his ability to lead the nation on public health?

SEN. THOM TILLIS (R-NC): Well, I think a lot of that I'm concerned with some of the actions over the last four weeks. You know, I'm a I'm a management consultant. I've never - it never would occur to me that an executive who put so much time into sending somebody forth for a Senate confirmation would not have done the basics beforehand. I don't know how you turn around in four weeks on any one issue. That's a concern to me. So, I want to know if it's being managed properly. Are we really relying on science?

(END VIDEO CLIP)

SAENZ: So, Tillis also said he still wants to get some further answers from Secretary Kennedy going forward, but it's very clear that there is some frustration from not just Democrats, but also some Republicans about Kennedy's approach at the HHS.

[15:05:06]

SANCHEZ: Arlette Saenz, thanks so much for the update from Capitol Hill. Erica.

HILL: Also joining us now, Dr. Paul Offit, he's director of the Vaccine Education Center and attending physician in the Division of Infectious Diseases at Children's Hospital of Philadelphia.

Hi, Dr. Offit. Always good to talk to you.

I just want to pick up on one of those final comments there that Arlette just shared with us from Sen. Thom Tillis. He said he wants to know, are we really relying on science. If the CDC is not relying on science, what does that mean for the health of Americans moving forward?

DR. PAUL OFFIT, DIRECTOR, VACCINE EDUCATION CENTER, CHILDREN'S HOSPITAL OF PHILADELPHIA: Well, the CDC certainly has relied on science. Unfortunately, now they have a director of Health and Human Services who doesn't, who has for two decades has these fixed, immutable, science resistant beliefs that vaccines cause autism, which is why he is currently waging war against vaccines and which is why you can't trust the advisory committee for immunization practice, which he's basically fired and restocked with his own people. And you really can't trust the CDC right now.

HILL: In terms of that committee, which you had served on, Secretary Kennedy, as you noted, dismissed all 17 members earlier this summer. Senator Wyden asked him about a warning from the American Academy of Pediatrics, that the committee itself was being politicized at the expense of children's health. Here's the response from Secretary Kennedy.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

KENNEDY: I think the American Academy of Pediatrics is gravely conflicted. They get - their biggest contributors are the four largest vaccine makers. They run a journal pediatrics, which they make a lot of money on that is completely dependent on pharmaceutical companies. So, I don't think I wouldn't put a big stake in what they say that benefits pharmaceutical interests.

Senator, I didn't politicize ACIP, I depoliticize it.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

HILL: You heard from him there, he claims he is depoliticizing ACIP. What do you see? OFFIT: So on ACIP, he has two people who claim to be anti-vaccine

activists. Here's another one who certainly testified on his behalf against vaccine makers. But he says that the American Academy of Pediatrics is in the pocket of industry. He is a one trick pony. That's what he always does. When any scientist or clinician or public health agency says that vaccines are safe or effective or valuable, he always says the same thing, which is you're in the pocket of industry.

So, for example, when data were presented to the CDC in April showing that thousands of children are still being hospitalized with COVID, that one in five are going to the intensive care unit, that 150 children died this past year from COVID and that half were previously healthy. And then, he stands up and says in May that, you know, healthy children don't need a COVID vaccine.

So, the American Academy of Pediatrics stands up and says, of course they do. And they issue a black letter recommendation to vaccinate children. Well, if he has data to show that his statement was right, then present those data. But he doesn't have those data. So that's what he always does. He says, well, they're just in the pocket of industry. It's facile, it's easy and it's wrong.

HILL: There - we have heard from him repeatedly and this came up again today. He is calling for so-called placebo-controlled trials. He said these would be the gold standard for new products. You noted in May that this has really been the standard for the past 80 years. So, do you have a sense of whether anything is actually changing or is this just muddying the waters as people try to figure out what they're hearing from the secretary of health and what has actually been established already?

OFFIT: Right, the Secretary of Health is a disinformation engine. I mean, he's - almost everything he says about vaccines isn't true. So, for example, if a new vaccine comes onto the market and there is no existing vaccine or similar vaccine, of course, it says the placebo control trial, it's a modification of vaccine.

So, for example, when the pneumococcal vaccine came into the market, it had seven different serotypes in the vaccine. Then there was a presumably better vaccine, a pneumococcal vaccine that had six more serotypes. So, you test it against that. You don't test it against placebo because that original pneumococcal vaccine was beneficial in preventing pneumonia, preventing sepsis, preventing meningitis.

So, you can't ethically do a placebo-controlled trial there. So, you test it against an existing vaccine. Maybe that's what he means, but he should be clear if that's what it means.

HILL: There has been in just the last couple of days, some interesting developments. We look at individual states, right? You look at states in the West, California, Oregon, Washington, saying they're going to work together now because they need to issue guidance for the residents of their states because they're afraid of what they will or will not get out of the CDC. And then you have Florida and frankly, Senator Rick Scott of Florida pushing back on this idea that Florida could potentially do away with vaccine mandates. This is a state that also already has a number of opt outs available for parents.

How do you make sense of it all? If someone comes to you and says, who can I trust? What do I do? Where do you send them?

[15:10:04]

OFFIT: It's hard right now. It's confusing. I mean, I worry on two fronts. One is that the - you know, this Western - there's been now this Western state alliance and now Northeastern state alliance, which we will form our own essentially vaccine advisers and make our own advice.

What worries me there is that there may be different advice. We went through this a little bit at the end of 2020, when there were 10 states that had their own vaccine advisory committees because they didn't trust Donald Trump to actually make sure the vaccine was tested well before it was released.

So, we've experienced this before. That worries me. It certainly worries me that Dr. Joseph Ladapo of Florida, their Surgeon General, has said that we're just not going to have school mandates. We're not going to have quarantine. I mean, there was something called the Great Barrington Declaration. I don't know if you remember this early in COVID when there were people like Jay Bhattacharya and Marty Makary and Martin Kulldorff and others who said, let's just let this virus go up. Let's let it affect everybody. Then we'll have herd immunity and then we're good.

Well, this is sort of like a Great Barrington Declaration for all infectious diseases. It's not a very good idea. I'm a child of the '50s. I had measles like everybody my age had measles. This virus can make you sick. And it's always the first one to come back whenever there's a fraying of immunization rates. And I fear for the education of children in Florida now who may miss a lot of time for school because they're not going to be protected by their public health officers.

HILL: Dr. Paul Offit, appreciate your time and your expertise as always. Thank you. Boris.

SANCHEZ: Today, a new legal setback for President Trump, a federal judge ruling the Trump administration must allocate billions of dollars in foreign aid earmarked by Congress. This follows a string of rulings limiting the President's power to alter appropriations on a whim. Trump has faced daunting legal defeats in recent weeks aimed at some of his most high profile and controversial policies beyond the foreign aid dispute.

Judges recently struck down his use of the Alien Enemies Act for his sweeping deportation plans. They also ruled that the administration unlawfully leaned on emergency powers to impose import tariffs and also that he unlawfully sent federal troops into Los Angeles. Trump's attempt to end birthright citizenship was also struck down. His lawsuit against Maryland's entire federal branch of judges was outright rejected in court. And just yesterday, a judge said the administration unlawfully blocked $2 billion meant to go to Harvard. Joining us now to discuss former Deputy Assistant Attorney General Tom

Dupree.

Tom, thanks so much for being with us.

Let's start with Harvard, because the judge in that case said that there was, quote, "little connection between the research affected by the grant terminations and antisemitism." Antisemitism, of course, being what the Trump administration was attempting to address. At least that was their public justification for this.

How could that specific decision affect their broader efforts to pull funding from institutions of higher learning?

TOM DUPREE, FORMER DEPUTY ASSISTANT ATTORNEY GENERAL: Well, it potentially has a broad effect. What the judge in the Harvard case was really focused on is the connection or, as she saw it, a lack thereof between means and ends, that she said, look, we understand it's important to eliminate antisemitism from campus. But she pointed out that what the administration has done, just yank billions of dollars in funding from Harvard, didn't have any sort of direct connection with the laudable goal of eliminating antisemitism. She basically said the administration had gone too far and didn't have the power to do that.

Now, of course, this case just concerns the funding for Harvard. But I do think it reflects a broader legal principle that has been coming up again and again in many of the cases that you just mentioned, which is that the administration is exercising what it believes to be its authority very aggressively, but getting a lot of pushback from judges who don't see a rational connection between means and ends and they don't see a legitimate basis under the law for the administration exercising this grant elimination powers that it's claiming to have.

SANCHEZ: There's also sort of in the way that some of these laws about executive power are written, vague language and specifically when it comes to emergency power. A lot of it is just based on what the executive determines is an emergency, right? So, on the issue of IEPPA tariffs, the lower court found that the President - the presidency has limits in terms of declaring an emergency. Walk us through those limits.

DUPREE: Absolutely. There are a lot of laws, both in the tariff area and otherwise, which do give the President special authority, powers that he normally doesn't possess, but that he can yield in cases where there is an emergency. The administration has been invoking those emergency powers with great frequency these days. And in all of these cases, the questions that the courts have been grappling with are number one, do judges have the power to second guess the President's declaration of an emergency. And number two, if they do have that power, is there a genuine emergency here.

[15:15:03]

And what we've been seeing, and the courts have been saying, look, we are not going to necessarily take the President's word for it that there's an emergency. But we're really going to hold him to what we understand to be the terms of the law and make sure that he's not exercising powers that Congress hasn't given him.

SANCHEZ: To that point, if there are supposed to be three co-equal branches of government, do you think Congress at some point would need to address some of these texts to sort of delineate further what exactly can be classified as a national emergency?

DUPREE: I think Congress has a hugely important role to play here. Take the tariff power, for example. Our Constitution gives the power to impose tariffs to the Congress, not to the President. But if you have a world where Congress, for whatever reason, is not exercising its constitutional power to make these laws, that does create a gap that the President has very, very happily stepped into and basically said, look, if Congress isn't going to make these laws, by God, I'm going to do it.

So, I do think at some point Congress will step forward, I hope, and exercise the power that our founders gave to it to make these laws and then leave it to the President to execute the laws that Congress enacted.

SANCHEZ: Tom Dupree, appreciate the expertise. Thanks for being with us.

DUPREE: Thank you.

SANCHEZ: At President Trump's insistence, House Republicans are voting to form a new subcommittee to investigate January 6th again. So, what is behind the pressure to reopen that investigation into the insurrection?

Plus, is your power bill through the roof? Why electricity prices are now rising even faster than inflation?

And later, President Trump set to host tech leaders for dinner and what will be the first event in the newly renovated Rose Garden. That and much more coming your way next.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[15:21:23]

SANCHEZ: Following a major push from President Donald Trump, Congress will take yet another look at January 6th, this time with a panel led by Republicans. President Trump has long criticized the findings of the initial probe, which concluded that his efforts to overturn the 2020 election led to violence at the Capitol.

Joining us now is one of two Republican members on the original January 6th Committee, former Illinois Congressman Adam Kinzinger joins us now. He's also the honorary chairman of Country First.

Congressman, thanks so much for being with us. Why do you think Republicans, many of whom have long pushed for us to move on from January 6th, are now launching this new investigation? ADAM KINZINGER, CNN SENIOR POLITICAL COMMENTATOR: Well, it is funny

because, yes, when we were actually investigating January 6th, that's what they all said, it's time to move on. Oh, my gosh. You guys are still obsessing about January 6th. And by the way, this is their second investigation of the investigation. Last Congress, they already did one.

Look, there's a reason it's September, and they're just forming this, because there was - from what I understand - significant resistance in the GOP to doing this, because look, every one of them, Boris, if you put them on CIA truth juice, they will tell you the truth. They know what January 6th was, but they can't resist the pressure from Donald Trump.

So, evidently Speaker Johnson wanted to not do this, but he's a weak speaker, had no option. They're forming this and, you know, it'll just prove what we already showed, what everybody knows, which is January 6th was an attempted coup and insurrection led by a guy that lost the Presidential election. And they just can't take a victory. I mean, he won a reelection for goodness sakes. You think he'd actually move on with governing the country, but he's just stuck with this obsession.

SANCHEZ: What about this claim from Congressman Barry Loudermilk, who said to chair the investigation that there are still questions to be answered about that day, that the work is not yet complete. Was there any work that you felt that your panel left undone?

KINZINGER: No, I didn't feel so at all, but here's what they're implying, because they've been implying this from the beginning that they're concerned with the security of the Capitol. Oh, gosh. What, you know, what's the security issue and they they'll try to put it on Nancy Pelosi as the speaker or the mayor of D.C. and say, well, they just didn't have enough resources or Donald Trump wanted to deploy 10,000 National Guard soldiers, but he wasn't allowed to.

Well, this is in context with right now. We're talking about Donald Trump's deployed National Guard in D.C. because the person in charge of the National Guard in Washington, D.C. is not the mayor. It's not the speaker. It's the President of the United States.

So, they've been leaning on this crutch of like, well, it was overrun because actually Nancy Pelosi didn't do enough to secure the Capitol when in reality they're doing this now at the moment that they're proving this is actually all on Donald Trump.

So, they can - I mean, I'm sure they're going to try to find something, but they've done this already last Congress and it came out with a big whimper. So yes, we'll see how this one goes.

SANCHEZ: Yes. I do want to ask you about a National Guard, given that you were former air National Guard and it being deployed to different places around the country. But last question on, on this new committee, do you anticipate that you'll find yourself wrapped up in this investigation?

KINZINGER: You know, honestly I hope so, I mean, because I would love to come in and make a mockery first off of what this is to tell the truth to the American people again, to remind them and also to remind people that the Republicans, including those so-called moderates that like to come on TV or tweet and act like they're really just this, like, you know, the last of the moderates left that all voted for this investigation again, because they couldn't resist the pressure.

[15:25:02]

So honestly, I hope they do call me in because I look forward to having that conversation. And I certainly would demand that it be on TV, so people like you guys can cover it.

SANCHEZ: We'll see if that actually happens. Congressman, I want to pivot to the question of the deployment of National Guard forces around the country. President Trump says that he plans to deploy the Guard specifically to your home state of Illinois and Chicago. I wonder what you make of his remarks that he has every right to do this, that it's just a matter of when and not if he's going to do it and how you think local leaders from the governor to the mayor of Chicago should respond.

KINZINGER: Well, look, I mean, I think first off, does he have the right to do it? I think the courts need to speed up and answer that question. He is relying on the fact that he can, you know, basically nationalize or federalize the National Guard, the militia, the state, by the way, that he can federalize them for domestic law enforcement against their own state. That to me really violates the question of the Constitution on this.

It's one thing to federalize the National Guard and send them to war. I don't think anybody's against his ability to do that, but to then turn that National Guard on its own state is again, something that has to be answered by the Supreme court, destroying the trust of the National Guard. And by the way, Boris this is an important point, if Donald Trump federalizes the National Guard, they become Title 10 soldiers. They're not, and I know I get too in the weeds, but they are not able to do law enforcement if the President activates them without the mayor. So, they become no different than the 82nd Airborne, so this is all for show.

And so, I think the leaders have got to continue to make that point, to stand up to this and frankly, even activate some of their own assets to make sure that the guard not abusing the people in their rights.

SANCHEZ: Former Congressman Adam Kinzinger, we have to leave the conversation there. Great to see you.

KINZINGER: Yes. You too.

SANCHEZ: So, President Trump, if you recall, vowed to cut your electricity bill in half, but prices are rising twice as fast as inflation. The reason why your power bill may be surging right now when we come back.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)