Return to Transcripts main page

CNN News Central

Numbers on Voter I.D.; Rep. Madeleine Dean (D-PA) is Interviewed about Nationalized Voting; Grass Versus Turf in the NFL; Rob Bonta is Interviewed about Sanctuary Cities; Jeff Moon is Interviewed about the Rare Earth Mineral Reserve. Aired 8:30-9a ET

Aired February 03, 2026 - 08:30   ET

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

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[08:30:18]

JOHN BERMAN, CNN ANCHOR: All right, new big-time Donald Trump supporter getting a lot of attention for a tweet that she made on the issue of voter I.D. Nicki Minaj wrote, quote, "what sensible, forward thinking, cutting edge leading nation is having a DEBATE," all caps, "on whether or not there should be voter I.D. Like they're actually fighting not to have people present I.D. when voting for your leaders. Do you get it? Do you get it now?"

CNN chief data analyst Harry Enten is with me.

So, voter I.D., just so people understand, is the idea that someone shows a photo I.D. when they go to vote, when they go to cast their ballot.

HARRY ENTEN, CNN CHIEF DATA ANALYST: Correct.

BERMAN: Because there's a separate discussion right now about needing a passport or a birth certificate to register to vote. But the polling is all on voter I.D., showing an I.D. to vote.

ENTEN: Correct. Showing a photo I.D. to vote. And the American people are with Nicki Minaj because what are we talking about here? So, take a look here. Flavor voter I.D. to vote. Look, I got all this polling on the screen going back since 2018. You'll notice on all of it, it's all north of 75 percent, 76 percent, 76 percent, 76 percent, 81 percent, and then 83 percent in the last year of Americans. Agree with Nicki Minaj, they favor photo I.D. to be able to vote.

BERMAN: What about by party? What's the party breakdown?

ENTEN: Yes, normally you might expect, hey, there'd be a big divide by party with Republicans really for it and Democrats really against it. But not really here. I mean just take a look here, favor photo I.D. to vote. You got 95 percent of Republicans, pretty much all of them, but even 71 percent of Democrats favor photo I.D. to vote. So again, Nicki Minaj posting that on X. And what you see is, is that the American people -- actually it's not really all that controversial. The American people are with Nicki Minaj, whether they are Republican or even if they are Democrats. We're talking about seven in ten Democrats agreeing with Nicki Minaj that you, in fact, should show a voter photo I.D. to vote.

BERMAN: What's the racial breakdown?

ENTEN: OK, what's the racial breakdown on this, right, because I think a lot of people make the argument that people of color, nonwhite Americans, have a harder time procuring a photo I.D. to vote. But even here, take a look here, favor photo I.D. to vote. Eighty-five percent of white people favor it. Eighty-two percent of Latinos. Seventy-six percent of black Americans favor it.

So, the bottom line is this, voter I.D. is not controversial in this country. A photo I.D. to vote is not controversial in this country. It is not controversial by party, and it is not controversial by race. The vast majority of Americans agree with Nicki Minaj that, in fact, you should have a photo I.D. to be able to vote.

BERMAN: So, something of a non-troversy in other words.

ENTEN: That's very good. The alliteration of Mr. John Berman, that Harvard education paying off once.

BERMAN: Harold Enten, thank you very much.

ENTEN: Thank you.

BERMAN: Kate.

KATE BOLDUAN, CNN ANCHOR: Also related and wrapped up in all of this is some of the news coming out from the president right now. President Trump now calling on Republicans, the Republican Party, to nationalize voting in more than a dozen states, basically upending the system that's been in place for two centuries, laid out in the Constitution. It's all rooted in his continued disdain over the 2020 election, which he falsely claims he won.

I want to play for you what he told podcaster, and former FBI deputy director, Dan Bongino about this.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

DONALD TRUMP, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: The Republicans should say, we want to take over. We should take over the voting -- the voting in at least many -- 15 places. The Republicans ought to nationalize the voting. And we have states that are so crooked and they're counting votes. We have states that I won that show I didn't win. Now you're going to see something in Georgia where they were able to get with a court order the ballots. You're going to see some interesting things come out. But, you know, like the 2020 election, I won that election by so much.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

BOLDUAN: Signs -- some of the signs of the president taking matters into his own hands in a whole new way. FBI agents, last week, conducted an operation, an investigation in Georgia, seizing hundreds of boxes of 2020 election materials from Fulton County, Georgia. And as you see there in that video, the director of national intelligence, Tulsi Gabbard, in a highly unusual move, was there on the ground and now says that the president asked her to do so.

Joining me right now is Democratic Congresswoman Madeleine Dean from Pennsylvania.

Thank you for being here.

I mean you heard that just from President Trump. Republicans should take over and nationalize voting in 15 states. And I was thinking about that. He hasn't laid out what states. Considering how much time, attention and litigation was focused on Pennsylvania after the 2020 election, one could assume, Congresswoman, Pennsylvania is on that list. To that you say what?

REP. MADELEINE DEAN (D-PA): I say that is the voice of somebody who knows he's about to lose in a very big way. It's -- these are unhinged ideas.

[08:35:01]

And the fact that he's still trying to litigate 2020 is bizarre.

You heard in that phone call into the interview the same voice we heard a few years back where he called in to Georgia and said, I just need you to find me 11,780 votes. You could hear him doing the mental math. I got to go one more than what I lost by.

This -- these are unserious, unamerican ideas from the very, very top, from the president of the United States, who knows he's about to lose very big.

BOLDUAN: Congresswoman, though, do you see it then as bluster or a distraction, or do you see this as an actual real threat, an actual thing that the governor of Pennsylvania, or the secretary of state of Pennsylvania, who has faced so much of this around the 2020 election, that they need to take action against to prevent?

DEAN: They -- and they already are. I don't see this as a distraction. I see it as an actual threat. He has said out loud what he wants to do. Strange that he says in many places, 15 places. It's absolutely -- he's unwell. And the Republicans around him need to remind him of that.

For Pennsylvania, I have literally spoken with our governor, Josh Shapiro. He and the secretary of state and the legislature, frankly, I'm a former state representative, are working on this and will put in place a lot of safeguards and barriers. But I take this threat very, very seriously. The president does not understand the Constitution. I don't believe he ever read it.

But there are certain things reserved to the states that the Constitution does, like elections. Pennsylvania will take this seriously. And I have -- my money's on Josh Shapiro. You saw that with the stop the steal nonsense of this president that he continues today. Josh Shapiro was in court with this administration or with that campaign, frankly, and won every time, handily.

BOLDUAN: Yes. And your -- and the secretary of state, who navigated -- a lifelong Republican who navigated that through 2020 in an artful way is someone who is -- knows what it's like in Pennsylvania to go through all of this and face this down.

DEAN: Absolutely.

BOLDUAN: I want to ask you also about the shutdown, Congresswoman. Some Republican holdouts seem to now be not holding out, and it does appear, CNN's reporting is, that Congress appears to be on the path to avoid a prolonged shutdown. You've got this House vote coming up. After that comes a -- I'll argue the harder part, which is, reaching a deal on how to rein in federal immigration officers if the left and right were going to come to an agreement. What is your -- I'll call it a red line. What must be changed for you to sign on to future DHS and ICE funding?

DEAN: There has to be massive reform. I don't have a single red line. Just absolute, massive reform. I don't think another dollar should go to DHS or to ICE, frankly. We should freeze that funding.

What I have seen, what this country has witnessed with the killing of two American citizens who were simply exercising their First Amendment rights, First Amendment, within the Bill of Rights. That was drafted by the first congress of the United States back in 1789 to make sure our rights, our individual rights to assemble, to petition our government for grievances, freedom of the press, freedom of speech.

This administration, in a reckless way, using thuggish behavior and literally killing American citizens in broad daylight with multiple shots as they exercise their First Amendment rights. And combine that with the arrest of Don Lemon and the other African American woman journalist, freedom of the press, our First Amendment rights are at risk. And it's by this administration.

So, we would need massive reform. The behavior where they're coming in unmasked, untrained, guns a blazing, and shooting first and not even asking questions later, condemning the dead person, blaming the dead person, an American citizen, for their own death. We need massive reform.

One thing that troubles me is the big, beautiful bill, I hope people understand, took DHS funding, ICE funding, from ten -- actually $6 billion to $10 billion, and then added another $75 billion for the department. It's an agency out of control. I want that money clawed back.

BOLDUAN: Congresswoman, thank you so much for your time. A big vote today.

[08:40:02]

Appreciate your time. John.

BERMAN: All right, you might have heard -- oops. As I was saying, you might have heard there is a football game on Sunday. The Patriots play the Seahawks in Santa Clara, California, outdoors, on a grass field, not turf. So, how big of a difference does the surface make? Which is actually safer?

CNN chief medical correspondent Dr. Sanjay Gupta reports.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

DR. SANJAY GUPTA, CNN CHIEF MEDICAL CORRESPONDENT: There are 32 NFL teams and 30 stadiums around the country. Half of those stadiums play on grass and half play on turf. And this has become one of the most provocative issues in sports.

Ninety-two percent of these players say they prefer grass.

DR. ALLEN SILLS, CHIEF MEDICAL OFFICER, NFL: Yes.

GUPTA: So as chief medical officer of the NFL, what do you do with that?

SILLS: I think we have to understand why is that. Number one, it's performance. They want to be able to perform. So I've got to be able to execute the movements that I need to do, to do my job and do it well. But secondly, how does my body feel after playing on that? One of the things we're learning from the testing is, turf returns energy back to your body differently than actual grass does.

GUPTA (voice over): The data is a bit mixed on this topic. Data from the 2021-2022 seasons did find grass to result in a lower number of lower extremity injuries. However, the NFL says data from every season since then does not show a significant difference in injuries on grass versus turf.

But due to different factors like different climates, different stadium designs, and even different operational needs, alternative surfaces have become increasingly necessary.

GUPTA: It all started back in 1966, where you had the Astrodome and then astroturf, which at that point was basically just like carpet on top of concrete. It's changed a lot over the last several decades, but there's still a lot of concerns about injuries, about toxicity, and about whether you can ever make this turf really behave like grass.

NICK PAPPAS, FIELD DIRECTOR, NFL: It gives us that bounce back, that energy return to the body. So, what they're feeling when they step underfoot.

GUPTA (voice over): Nick Pappas is the NFL's field director. And his job is to quantify that grass feel that players want and then try to level the playing field. So, how to do that. First step is to develop a series of standards that all fields will need to meet by 2028. And part of that testing is for things like surface hardness, player impact and overall traction.

PAPPAS: And we've added two studs, like a cleat, on the bottom. It's about twice the weight. Falls from the same height, but ultimately gives us a representation that is much like the athlete. We can test all of our stadiums with these devices and actually quantify the amount of traction available at any given time. Rotational traction, so twisting of the cleat, and translational traction, so a sliding of the cleat.

GUPTA: Essentially putting a cleat into the ground and then testing rotation and movement.

PAPPAS: Correct. Correct.

GUPTA (voice over): And these tests are applied at 60 individual points all over the field. While no two fields will ever be exactly the same, the hope is they might at least start to feel that way to the players.

GUPTA: Do you think that we're going to get to that point where you look at 30 NFL stadiums and they basically all have a uniform surface?

SILLS: I do. In the last ten years we've seen helmets change dramatically, and that's really improved their safety. I think you're about to see the same thing happen in the surface industry.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

GUPTA (on camera): This is a big deal, John, in the sports world. You know, I started reporting on concussions years ago, talking to the medical officers at the NFL. This surface playing field is as big an issue for them as we talked about helmet design in the past. Levis Stadium, Santa Clara, California, as you mentioned, it's going to be grass. Nick Pappas, who you just met in the piece there, he helped pick out the grass. It's a Bermuda style grass. They've been growing it for 18 months and they're going to be sodding the stadium in anticipation of the Super Bowl.

One thing I should point out, about 16 percent more injuries on turf versus grass, according to a 2018 study. Some of those significant injuries, a season ending or career ending injuries even. As the NFL said, since then those numbers have come more in line. Similar injury rates between turf and grass.

John.

BERMAN: Outdoors on grass, it should be a constitutional amendment some people say, me.

All right, Sanjay, thank you very much for that.

GUPTA: You got it.

BERMAN: Obviously surfaces don't just affect pro athletes as well, but also an issue in youth sports. You can head to cnn.com and scan the QR code on your screen to send us your questions about playing on grass versus turf.

Sara.

SARA SIDNER, CNN ANCHOR: Do you think it will still help your Pats to win or do you think --

BERMAN: We -- it turns out that of the many Super Bowls we've won, it's been all kinds of surfaces. Just -- just saying.

SIDNER: I'm so over it already.

BERMAN: Just saying.

SIDNER: I am over it. Thank you, John.

This morning we are expecting to hear whether Lindsey Vonn will be able to continue her Olympic dreams after getting hurt just a week before the Olympic opening ceremony.

And we're going to take you to this incredible rescue.

[08:45:02]

A little baby saved from a burning home. Who helped her and how they managed to do this. Oh.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

SIDNER: This morning there are unanswered questions about President Trump's threat to pull federal funding from sanctuary cities. Monday marked the deadline Trump set to stop making payments to cities that, as the Justice Department puts it, obstruct or limit cooperation with immigration enforcement authorities. Judges so far have stopped the Trump administration's efforts. But this is a high stakes battle for local governments who say their ability to respond to emergencies, improve infrastructure and protect children from abuse are among the programs that are at risk. It's unclear what cities could be affected, but the Justice Department lists 18 sanctuary cities on its website. Two of those are in California.

[08:50:01]

Joining me now is California Attorney General Rob Bonta.

Thank you so much for being here.

I want to start -- I will get to that in a second, but I want to start with this because President Trump is still telling the lie that there was major fraud in the 2020 election, and that is why he lost. And now he is asking Republicans to federalize elections in certain states. Does that worry you?

ROB BONTA, CALIFORNIA ATTORNEY GENERAL: It certainly is worrisome that the president of the United States would have such a lack of grasp of the law and would say something so reckless and wild and dangerous. The U.S. Constitution, which he swore to uphold and defend, makes it very clear that states primarily have the authority and power to determine the time, place, and manner of elections. Elections are primarily a state concern, not a federal, concern to be nationalized.

And I will say, he also said that Republicans, not just a nationalization, but the Republicans should take over elections. Very partisan, very party based. I'm pretty sure it's not a good idea to have one party be in charge of the elections. Independent election officers in counties and in states around the country should be in charge.

So, it is on brand for him to be so out of touch with the law, the Constitution, and to say wild and reckless things. So, not surprising but it is shocking that the president of the United States of America would say such a thing. That is so in error and unlawful.

SIDNER: I do want to now ask you about this federal funding, that there is this threat to pull it from sanctuary cities. Have you seen a movement towards that in your state? And if so, what are you going to do about it?

BONTA: You know, when I saw this additional threat from Mr. Trump saying that he intends to pull funding from sanctuary jurisdictions, I always imagined there was some attorney that pulled him aside and said, hey, boss, we've been here before. We've lost many times on this issue. This is a losing issue for us. You shouldn't do this again.

We beat Trump on this exact issue four times in the last year. One time in Trump 1.0, where he continues to try to go after what he calls sanctuary jurisdictions. Pro-public safety. Pro-community trust jurisdictions that decide to use their limited law enforcement resources and focus on crime. And he just can't.

There's something called the Tenth Amendment. It says that all powers not given to the federal government are given to the states and the people. It used to be the Republicans favorite amendment. And I'm not sure where they went on this issue or where Trump is on this issue. But states have rights. We cannot be commandeered, conscripted, drafted into service to do the job of the federal government. The federal government can engage in immigration enforcement if they do it lawfully. We can't, and we will not obstruct or interfere with that lawful immigration enforcement duty.

But we don't have to do their job for them. And they can't force us to. And that's just the bottom line. Courts have decided that time and time again. And, you know, there's a lot of open questions about this threat, as there are with many things that he says. But we remain on high alert and we remain vigilant, and we are ready to go to court within minutes to block him once again. He will lose on this issue if he tries.

SIDNER: I want to ask you about what has happened in your state. I was there in Los Angeles when there was a large contingent of federal agents there, immigration enforcement agents at many different places, and then the resistance there that ensued. After federal agents ended up killing two U.S. citizens in Minneapolis, Alex Pretti and Renee Good, you sent out a bulletin to all state and local law enforcement in your state. What are you telling law enforcement to do?

BONTA: I did send out a set of legal guidance just to make very clear that if a federal agent commits a crime against a Californian on California soil, California local and state law enforcement can investigate and can prosecute it. It's fully within our authority to do so. Open and shut. Period. Full stop. End of story.

And it was important to say that because the vice president of the United States has wrongly and dangerously and recklessly said that federal agents have absolute immunity. The deputy attorney general for the United States of America, Todd Blanche, said that -- he sent a letter to me and my office saying it is futile and illegal to investigate or prosecute federal agents who commit crimes against Californians. It's just wrong and not true. And it was important for me to clear the record, provide the guidance, and reaffirm and reassert our rights as local law enforcement and state law enforcement in California to protect the health, safety, and welfare of our people and make sure that if a crime is committed, there is accountability and that federal agents cannot act with impunity.

SIDNER: Do you worry at all that this could set up potentially a dangerous battle between local and federal law enforcement in your state?

BONTA: I don't think so. You know, this is all about the appropriate jurisdiction of state and local law enforcement.

[08:55:05]

I wanted to make clear that if there is a crime scene that's held by state or local law enforcement, we don't need to defer to the federal government when it's a federal agent that we believe has committed a crime against a Californian. Of course, there's often shared jurisdiction, overlapping jurisdiction, concurrent jurisdiction when it comes to the federal government, states, locals. We've worked it out in the past, adults communicating with one another, making sure that everyone's authority is honored and respected is something that we do on a daily, and we can do it again here.

SIDNER: California Attorney General Rob Bonta, thank you so much for being here. I appreciate your time this morning.

Kate.

BOLDUAN: A major announcement coming from the White House. The president now promising to begin stockpiling rare earth minerals. The goal? Well, to break China's near total dominance when it comes to these critical materials. Trump's calling it "Project Vault." He is launching it with $12 billion in seed money. Why is this all so important? Rare earths are critical components to every aspect of life, from smartphones, to wind turbines, flat screen TVs to the batteries that power EVs, MRIs, to cancer treatments. Also, F-35 fighter jets need them. Submarines. Tomahawk missiles need them. These minerals are used everywhere.

Listen. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

DONALD TRUMP, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: Today we're announcing the creation of the U.S. Strategic Critical Minerals Reserve. The first ever stockpile of critical minerals that you've been hearing so much about. We have the greatest experts on earth behind me.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

BOLDUAN: Right now, China literally dominates the global supply, controlling about 70 percent of mined rare earth production and about 90 percent of the global output in the processing stage. No other country really even comes close.

Joining me right now is Jeff Moon, former assistant U.S. trade representative to China, the founder of China Moon Strategies.

It's good to see you. Thanks for coming in.

You think this vault, this stockpile, is a good idea. Tell me why.

JEFF MOON, FORMER ASSISTANT U.S. TRADE REPRESENTATIVE TO CHINA: I do, because China's weaponization of its critical minerals resources is a top national security priority. We need to break that. And this effort is a useful way to try to push back.

However, it's important to remember what "Project Vault" does and does not do. It does -- it does not purport to solve the critical minerals problem. By stockpiling we're trying to prevent future long-term supply problems and limit price fluctuations. But it doesn't solve the short-term supply shortages that we now have due to Chinese export controls. In fact, there aren't enough supplies right now even to stockpile. And it doesn't solve the long-term problem of creating a critical minerals ecosystem that will boost supplies to meet U.S. demands. So, it's useful, but it's not a solution to the critical minerals problem in total.

BOLDUAN: And, Jeff, what you're laying out and what you know probably better than most is that this is a complicated -- it's a complicated thing and a complicated thing to fix just because of how to scale up, how to do it effectively, how to do it in a short -- a -- as short of a timeline as possible. These are very hard questions to answer and fix as you can see by no other country being able to pull it off other than China. But even on the seed money, you've got $12 billion, right? Considering how expensive it is to build up this industry here to -- even with the stockpile and beyond that, to scale up, to try to cut the dependance that the U.S. must have on China for these minerals, 12 billion seems small. Is that a massive understatement, even me calling it small?

MOON: Well, the U.S. critical minerals sector involves hundreds of millions (ph) of dollars a year. So, $12 billion does not match that. However, I think that in the statements, at least so far, that the effort here is to bridge short-term shortages in supplies. So, $12 billion will be useful. But you're right, it will not solve the entire problem. And it doesn't purport to either. BOLDUAN: Yes. How's China likely to respond, do you think, Jeff? I

mean can Xi Jinping get in the way of these plans?

MOON: Well, there is a broader international context here. China is not going to voluntarily relinquish its minerals monopoly. It's very pleased that its ability basically to checkmate Trump during the trade war and to, you know, where we are now is a stalemate. So, China has, in the past, last year threatened foreign companies against stockpiling, threatening consequences. In just December of last year, China established a critical minerals alliance at the G-20 meeting in South Africa that the U.S. boycotted. And I'm sure that alliance is going to create policies and procedures that will help Chinese interests and probably not help American interests too much.

[09:00:04]

BOLDUAN: Look at --

MOON: So, but that also, probably not coincidentally -- go ahead.