Return to Transcripts main page

CNN News Central

Trump Administration Sues Boston; Economy Added 22,000 Jobs; Dr. Chris T. Pernell is Interviewed about the Kennedy Hearing; Football Fans and Partisanship. Aired 9:30-10a ET

Aired September 05, 2025 - 09:30   ET

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

[09:30:00]

OMAR JIMENEZ, CNN ANCHOR: Use her words. Mayor Michelle Wu called the lawsuit an "unconstitutional attack. And here's what she said last month when the Trump administration threatened to prosecute local officials whose cities did not comply.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

MAYOR MICHELLE WU (D), BOSTON: Stop attacking our cities to hide your administration's failures. Unlike the Trump administration, Boston follows the law. And Boston will not back down from who we are and what we stand for.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

JIMENEZ: CNN's senior legal analyst Elie Honig joins us now.

So, Elie, what is the Justice Department's legal argument here? And do you see them having a chance of success?

ELIE HONIG, CNN SENIOR LEGAL ANALYST: Well, Omar, I think this is a steep uphill climb for the Trump administration and DOJ legally speaking. Now, the key dividing line is this. State and local authorities can certainly decide that they are going to help and work with the feds, but they cannot be forced to do that against their will. And if we look at the Boston policies at issue here with their sanctuary city policies, I think they're a good illustration of that. So, one of the policies here says, if we are asked, if local Boston cops are asked for voluntary information about a person by ICE, if ICE calls up the Boston police department and says, hey, we need an address on this person, we're not going to voluntarily give that over.

Another policy says, basically, if we come across somebody, Boston police, let's say in a traffic stop, and that person has an immigration warrant, not a criminal warrant, only an immigration warrant, we, the Boston police, are not going to arrest that person and turn them over to ICE. They certainly could choose to do that, but I don't think they're going to be able to force them to comply.

JIMENEZ: You know, the federal government argues that -- that Boston's actions, potentially in scenarios like that, violates the supremacy clause. Can you just explain, unpack that argument and why it may or may not apply here?

HONIG: Yes, so that's the main argument that DOJ is making. The supremacy clause comes to us from Article Four of the Constitution. And it says, if federal law and state or local law directly conflict, then federal law has to win out. And I think if we look at a couple hypotheticals, which are not the case here, you can see where that might apply.

So, if a city, let's say Boston, had a policy that said, our local police officers are not going to allow federal agents, ICE agents, to drive on our streets, we will immediately tow their cars and pull them over, that would certainly be a direct conflict. Similarly, if a local police department had a policy saying, if we get a subpoena from ICE, which is mandatory, that's not voluntary, that's mandatory, we're going to ignore that subpoena, then you would have that sort of direct conflict. Again, in those instances, I think the feds would win out legally.

But again, if you go back and really look at Boston's sanctuary cities policy, it looks to me like they were carefully crafted by lawyers to not cross that line. So, there's a fair debate about whether Boston's sanctuary city policies are smart politically and are optimal in terms of public safety. But I do think they're going to pass legal muster.

JIMENEZ: And that -- you laid out the threshold here in some of these cities, the so-called sanctuary cities. It's not that there's not cooperation, but it's that that threshold to cooperate needs to come from typically a legal -- law enforcement would have to get it from a judge. ICE would have to get it from a judge, the ability to go in and get that person who may have been in contact with local police.

Just before we go. Obviously, look, Boston isn't the only city -- a so-called sanctuary city. If the Justice Department were to succeed, uphill battle, as you said, but if they were to succeed, what could that mean for -- for other cities? Would that put places like Chicago, New York, Los Angeles in a similar type of position that Boston might be if they were to lose this legal battle?

HONIG: Sure. Sure. So, there are going to be, I think, many more of these lawsuits. The Trump administration has said that they're looking at over 30 different cities that have policies like these. Important to note, every city has slightly different policies.

JIMENEZ: Yes.

HONIG: So, each one is going to stand on its own. But so far the Trump administration does not have a great record. They brought a lawsuit like this in Illinois relating to Chicago and have lost so far in the federal district court. During the first Trump administration, there was a similar lawsuit brought against California, and the Trump administration lost that one in the federal district court and the court of appeals so far. So, we have not seen the Trump administration prevail on any of these lawsuits, but I think it's a safe bet we will see more of them. And this one could provide a bit of a test case for us.

JIMENEZ: Elie Honig, appreciate the insight, as always. Good to see you.

Kate.

KATE BOLDUAN, CNN ANCHOR: So, we have the opening bell ringing on Wall Street. Moments ago, investors reacting to that jobs report we've been telling you about. Right now markets are in the green.

Let's get over -- oh the -- you know, the jobs report that dropped just last hour. The U.S. economy added just 22,000 jobs in August. The unemployment rate ticking up to 4.3 percent. And the revisions, remember that has been part of the story, June revised down to show the first negative employment month since December 2020.

[09:35:03]

Matt Egan back with us.

Not only were you digesting that jobs report, now tell me what this means.

MATT EGAN, CNN CORRESPONDENT: Yes, Kate, I don't think we should read all that much into this. This is one of those frustrating times when --

BOLDUAN: I feel like we've done this before.

EGAN: We have. We've seen this before. It's one of those frustrating times where bad news for main street is being looked at as good news over on Wall Street. Markets are up, not because this is a good jobs report.

BOLDUAN: Right.

EGAN: It wasn't. This was a weak jobs report. And we were kind of bracing for a weak report. This was maybe worse than we had expected.

BOLDUAN: This was (INAUDIBLE), yes.

EGAN: Markets are up because investors think that this basically seals the deal on a rate cut in less than two weeks.

BOLDUAN: OK.

EGAN: The odds of a rate cut were almost 100 percent. In fact. Now the market is starting to price in a chance, a small chance, but a growing chance of a larger interest rate cut from the Fed of half a percentage point instead of just the normal quarter point.

But this is not happening for a good reason, right? This would be because, not that inflation is low, but because hiring is low. And we got confirmation of that today. As you mentioned, 22,000 jobs added in August. That's much weaker than expected. The forecast was for around 77,000. The unemployment rate went up from 4.2 percent to 4.3 percent. This shows the last few months. And what really stands out is what you highlighted, which is June, right? June going --

BOLDUAN: Yes, so, July went up and June went way down.

EGAN: July was revised a little bit higher.

BOLDUAN: Yes.

EGAN: But June went from slightly positive to slightly negative.

BOLDUAN: Yes.

EGAN: And this is really notable because it's the first time since December 2020 that there's been a month of job loss in the U.S. economy. This was the longest -- second longest streak in American history of uninterrupted job growth, but that has now ended as of June.

And I was digging into some of the sectors here.

BOLDUAN: Yes.

EGAN: The good news is that we're still seeing a lot of job growth in health care, right, 47,000 jobs added in health care. Social assistance as well. If you combine them, that's 47,000.

BOLDUAN: OK. Yes.

EGAN: But the bad news is, look at this manufacturing, losing 12,000 jobs. Fourth month in a row. Remember, Kate, the manufacturing sector, that's the one that's being propped up by trade and by tariffs.

BOLDUAN: That was the whole point of tariffs.

EGAN: That's not happening though, right?

BOLDUAN: Yes.

EGAN: They're shedding jobs, which I think does bring us to one of the ironies here, right, the economy is struggling because of all the tariffs uncertainty and yet manufacturing is losing jobs.

BOLDUAN: All right, Matt, thank you so much.

EGAN: Thanks, Kate.

BOLDUAN: Looking forward to hearing the reaction from the White House at some point today.

Coming up for us, cold case crime solvers made a wild discovery in the Chicago River, nearly 100 cars.

And is Messi preparing to hang up the cleats? What the soccer legend said that has the world now wondering.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[09:42:10] JIMENEZ: This morning, the White House is sticking by Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. after his verbal battles with senators at a very heated hearing. Kennedy faced a barrage of bipartisan skepticism about the turmoil inside the CDC and changes to vaccine policy under his leadership. President Trump, on the other hand, praised his performance while acknowledging Kennedy's ideas are, quote, "a little different."

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

DONALD TRUMP, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: He's got a different take, and we want to listen to all of those takes. But I -- I heard he did very well today.

I like the fact that he's different.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

JIMENEZ: Joining me now is Dr. Chris Purnell. She's a public health and preventive medicine physician.

Good to see you.

I guess just, I want to start out with, what's -- what was your biggest takeaway from this hearing as a physician?

DR. CHRIS T. PERNELL, PUBLIC HEALTH PHYSICIAN: He was defiant. He was emboldened. And he's a bold-faced liar. And we should all be alarmed.

Look, Secretary Kennedy was known to be a vaccine skeptic. Secretary Kennedy was known to be reckless. But yesterday, in that hearing, Secretary Kennedy was as if he was putting in our faces that the facts, that science, that public health doesn't matter. That ideology is what's going to lead the United States. And that's very concerning.

JIMENEZ: You know, just days before -- just before this hearing, not days before, we got this op-ed from the former CDC director, Susan Monarez, in which she says that her firing was, quote, "one of the more public aspects of a deliberate effort to weaken America's public health system and vaccine protections." Do you see it that way?

PERNELL: Definitely.

JIMENEZ: Yes.

PERNELL: The firing of. Dr. Monarez was the latest in a wave of actions of sabotage. Look, public health is under threat. Misinformation and disinformation have supplanted the scientific process. You are not supposed to take to science a well-formed opinion. You're supposed to ask questions and allow the data to answer. But we see right now in the United States, that is not the case.

JIMENEZ: You know, Monarez, one of the things she expressed, was also concern over an influential CDC vaccine advisory panel, which she said had been, quote, "newly filled with people who have publicly expressed anti-vaccine rhetoric."

RFK Jr. reportedly preparing to appoint as many as seven additional members to that panel. What concerns does that raise for you about the future of vaccine policy in this country, and why is that aspect so significant in this whole debate or talk, I guess?

PERNELL: Yes. Look, I'm very concerned. So, ACIP, they were our last line of defense, right? Bread and butter scientists. Those who are going to pore over the data and say, what is the best recommendation to make to safeguard all Americans, especially those who are marginalized and vulnerable?

[09:45:03]

Now that we know we will have people who will put politics above facts, who would put ideology over science, we're going to be exposed. And that's not just a threat to our health and well-being, that's a threat to our national security.

I'm very concerned about other vaccines. Vaccines like HPV, which we know can prevent cancer. In the United States right now, science is not ruling the day, but we, in public health, we're going to do everything in our power, and we need everyday Americans to -- to stand up with their physicians and to say, I want to be able to be well. I want to be able to have my children and my family be well. But we're under threat.

JIMENEZ: Dr. Chris Pernell, appreciate you taking the time and appreciate your perspective. Thanks for being here.

PERNELL: Thank you.

JIMENEZ: Of course.

All right, what is in a name? Apparently a lot if you ask President Trump. He is ready to rename the Department of Defense today. But can he really do that? We'll talk about it.

Plus, the NFL is back, but how are politics impacting the league? Harry Enten runs the numbers after the break. Stick around.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[09:50:38]

BOLDUAN: Do you ever wonder what may be lurking in the depths of the river? No, we should never. I agree. But enter the chaos divers. It's a dive team that tries to solve cold cases using sonar to look -- and it's really pretty fascinating. In their work, they came across dozens and dozens of submerged cars on a visit this week to the Chicago River. Ninety-seven in all. They did not solve any cold cases this time, though the divers say over the past four years they've been able to bring home the remains of 20 people reported missing to their respective families. Pretty amazing.

And happening today, President Trump is expected to sign an executive order renaming the Department of Defense to the Department of War, according to a White House official. Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth has been hinting that the name change is coming. Trump has said in the past that he liked the sound of it, saying that it has "a stronger sound. That's a quote. The Pentagon has called the Department of War previously at one point, then officially changed to be called the Department of Defense in 1949.

Soccer superstar Lionel Messi is not sure he will play in next year's World Cup. Last night the 38-year-old hinted at his future after winning a World Cup qualifier in Argentina. It was an emotional game for Messi and possibly the last he'll ever play before a home crowd. I will read you the quotes. Here's what he said after the match. "Same as I said before about the World Cup, that I don't think I'll play another. Because of my age, the most logical thing is that I won't make it." He later added, "we'll see. I haven't made a decision." The U.S., Mexico and Canada will host the 2026 tournament.

Omar.

JIMENEZ: You don't want to do Messi's quote in Spanish? I was waiting. I was waiting, yes.

BOLDUAN: I mean, I was -- you know, that's for later. That's for later.

JIMENEZ: Next time. Next time.

Let's talk the other football. NFL season kicked off with an electric opener between two arch rivals, the Super Bowl champion Philadelphia Eagles began their title defense with a 24 to 20 victory over the Dallas Cowboys. Now, in case you haven't noticed, the NFL is more popular than ever. And President Trump might have something to do with that.

I'm going to bring in chief data analyst and Bills mafia member Harry Enten to explain.

HARRY ENTEN, CNN CHIEF DATA ANALYST: Yes.

JIMENEZ: So, I guess let's start with the obvious. How have Trump's politics impacted NFL's popularity based on what you're seeing?

ENTEN: Yes, OK. You can recall back in the 2017, 2018 time frame that Donald Trump went to war with the NFL over kneeling during the national anthem and had a tremendous impact on the league's popularity. You know, you go back to 2013 to 2016, plus 28 points net favorable rating for the NFL. Two thumbs up. But look, by 2018, in the middle of that fight, all the way down, what is that, that's a 29 point drop minus one point. Now Trump loves the NFL again. And what's happened to the NFL's net popularity rating? Look at that, back right up to plus 28 points, right where it was during the 2013 to 2016 time period, Omar.

JIMENEZ: I just want to point out, right after 2016, that is also when the Patriots beat my Atlanta Falcons.

ENTEN: Oh, yes, it's (INAUDIBLE).

JIMENEZ: So, that -- I think that has something to do a little bit with the numbers, but get back to me on that.

ENTEN: (INAUDIBLE).

JIMENEZ: Also, what about Republicans in particular? You have party specific data here?

ENTEN: Yes. So, I think this really tells the story. Omar. Look at this. In 2018, the net favorable rating from Republicans, minus 24 points for the NFL. Minus 24 points. Democrats like the league at minus -- at plus 19 points.

Jump ahead to 2024. Look at that rise through the roof among Republicans, plus 25 points. What, that's a 49-point rise in the matter of six years. Democrats went up as well to plus 34 points, but that's just a 15-point rise. It is very clear that Republicans did not like the NFL when Donald Trump did not like the NFL. And this, I think, is a big lesson for sports leagues in general, which is, keep politics out of it because you don't want to alienate half the country.

JIMENEZ: You know, these are obviously polls. Is there any sign this potential Trump effect actually showed up in viewership as well?

ENTEN: Yes. OK. Let's take a look at Super Bowl ratings, right, Super Bowl ratings. You know, Omar, you might remember this one in February of 2017. It was a 111 million right there. Look at February of 2018, after Trump started going after the NFL. It fell. It fell to 103 million. Indeed, those were the lowest ratings since 2009.

Then you look at February of 2025. Look at that, 128 million. Through the roof. Record ratings. The bottom line is this, the NFL is stronger than ever. And in order to maintain its strength, my big piece of advice is, keep politics out of it. Folks do not want politics involved in their sports. They want sports as a respite, as these ratings show, and as the polling shows.

Guys -- oh, and by the way, go Bills. (INAUDIBLE).

[09:55:00]

BOLDUAN: I was, like, where is the --

JIMENEZ: I was waiting for it. I was waiting for it.

BOLDUAN: Where is the -- I was like, that's how you -- I was totally waiting for that.

JIMENEZ: Yes.

ENTEN: You knew it was coming, right? You knew it was coming.

BOLDUAN: Yes.

JIMENEZ: We did.

ENTEN: There's no way I would not salute Bills mafia. We're going to do it this Sunday night.

JIMENEZ: Harry, good to see you.

ENTEN: Nice to see you.

BOLDUAN: Ah, before we go, this is -- well, it's Friday, which means it's a wonderful day. But it is also a bittersweet day for us here at CNN NEWS CENTRAL. Mallory Leonard (ph), my partner in crime, this shows forever Taylor Swift database, and the woman that can find the bright side of everything, including waking up at 3:00 in the morning, she is on to bigger and better things with a great new -- a great new job. And this is her last day with us. And we love you so much and we're so thankful for you, Mal.

JIMENEZ: Mallory, the best. See you.

BOLDUAN: Thank you all so much for joining us today. We're going to go eat some cupcakes.

JIMENEZ: Yes, to celebrate.

BOLDUAN: This is CNN NEWS CENTRAL. "THE SITUATION ROOM," up next.

Thanks so much, Omar.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)