Return to Transcripts main page

CNN News Central

Trump Administration to Use Banks in Immigration Crackdown?; Trump DOJ Withholding Epstein Documents?; Congress Grills Surgeon General Nominee. Aired 1-1:30p ET

Aired February 25, 2026 - 13:00   ET

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

[13:00:00]

DANA BASH, CNN HOST: Tends to go with the women on issues like this, and then three Republican women.

TAMARA KEITH, NATIONAL PUBLIC RADIO: Yes, the calculation these days in politics is that shamelessness continues to be a superpower.

If members of your own party are calling for you to step aside, it doesn't matter. If you're willing to stick it out and willing to have that sort of shamelessness and just plow forward, then the voters will decide. But the speaker isn't forcing him out.

BASH: Yes.

That's our show. Thank you so much for all of your insights and your reporting.

Thank you for joining INSIDE POLITICS.

"CNN NEWS CENTRAL" starts right now.

ERICA HILL, CNN HOST: The MAHA movement gets a megaphone. President Trump's pick for the nation's top doctor facing lawmakers for her confirmation hearing -- her stance on vaccines, contraception, and her credentials coming under heavy scrutiny.

OMAR JIMENEZ, CNN HOST: Plus, the president says the U.S. is back, but what about all the Americans feeling left behind? We're going to dig into Trump's economic message.

And a CNN review reveals dozens of FBI witness interviews from the investigation of Jeffrey Epstein appear to be missing from the latest trove of files.

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

HILL: President Trump's pick to become the next surgeon general is making her case today to the Senate. Dr. Casey Means as a wellness influencer and an early supporter of the MAHA movement.

She's been facing a range of questions from abortion to her stance on vaccines.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

SEN. BILL CASSIDY (R-LA): Do you believe that vaccines, whether individually or collectively, contribute to autism?

DR. CASEY MEANS, U.S. SURGEON GENERAL NOMINEE: Senator Cassidy, you're a physician. I'm a physician. The reality is, is that we have an autism crisis that's increasing. And this is devastating to many families.

And we do not know as a medical community what causes autism. We should not leave any stones unturned.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

HILL: CNN medical correspondent Meg Tirrell has been monitoring the confirmation hearing all morning.

So, Meg, what more have we heard from Dr. Means in terms of these answers or in some cases nonanswers?

MEG TIRRELL, CNN MEDICAL CORRESPONDENT: Yes, Erica, there were a lot of sort of uncomfortable moments like that where it seemed clear that Dr. Means didn't want to stray from what Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. has said about vaccines.

And she was asked a number of times by senators on both sides of the aisle about things that RFK Jr. has said about vaccines. And she really tried to stick close to his language or say she hadn't heard exactly what he said.

But when it comes to things like saying that there is no link between vaccines and autism, the mountains of evidence suggest there is no link. And she would say she didn't want to take that off the table. Now, our Lauren Fox caught up with Senator Cassidy in the halls in the midst of this hearing and asked him his reaction to what he heard from Dr. Means. Take a listen.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

LAUREN FOX, CNN CONGRESSIONAL CORRESPONDENT: Can you just answer, were you satisfied with her answer on vaccines?

CASSIDY: The committee's not over, so let's -- but I would like to discuss with my staff these -- the hearing.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

TIRRELL: So, Cassidy, of course, is himself a doctor. He has focused on liver disease. Hepatitis B has been something he's talked a lot about.

He came back to the issue of vaccines later in the hearing, asking Dr. Means more about her position on them. She said that overall she personally believes that vaccines save lives, but she wouldn't say that as surgeon general, she would use her office to tell parents to vaccinate their children.

She said instead that should be left to conversations individually between patients and doctors. She took a similar attack when it came to birth control.

There were a lot of questions about that because of past statements she's made about birth control, which she said she believes should be widely accessible, but she emphasized that she believes it has significant risks, which senators pointed out and people in the medical community would point out is not necessarily accurate when you talk about wide population-based risks.

There could be individual risks, but was that overstated? That will be something that people focus on. Finally, ultra-processed foods were an area that she really wanted to focus on. She said this was really a key part of her message. Where she emphasized vaccines are not a key part of her message, she called ultra-processed foods Frankenfoods made in factories and said she would use the surgeon general's office to try to bring more attention to them.

Of course, Erica, also questions about her credentials, as she has an inactive medical license in the state of Oregon and she didn't finish her surgical residency. She pushed back and said she is qualified for this role.

There were also questions about conflicts of interest in her previous work as a blogger and as somebody who online would endorse different products. Take a listen to this one exchange on that.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

SEN. CHRIS MURPHY (D-CT): There's a prenatal vitamin called WeNatal.

[13:05:02]

Your filings before this committee show that you started receiving compensation in the spring of 2024. And yet in September of 2024, you posted a video saying that you had no financial relationship to the company, just a big fan. And then, in October, you said, not sponsored, just love these.

So you weren't telling the truth when you said you were just a fan. You were actually receiving money, correct?

MEANS: In any post where I said I am not receiving money, I had not been receiving money at that time.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

TIRRELL: A lot of questions from different senators about products she had endorsed. They questioned her trustworthiness, her judgment about some of those products. She pushed back and said, of course, as surgeon general, she's been through ethics review and would not have conflicts of interest, but quite a number of heated moments this morning, guys.

HILL: Yes, absolutely. All right, Meg, really appreciate it. Thank you -- Omar.

JIMENEZ: Well, Erica, let's go to President Trump's State of the Union and his economic sales pitch to Americans.

The president touted his policies, slammed the Supreme Court's tariff ruling, and declared the economy is roaring like never before.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

DONALD TRUMP, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: Twelve months ago, I had just inherited a nation in crisis with a stagnant economy, inflation at record levels. In 12 months, I secured commitments for more than $18 trillion, pouring in from all over the globe. I believe the tariffs paid for by foreign countries will, like in the past, substantially replace the modern-day system of income tax.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

JIMENEZ: So let's talk about this.

With us now is Robert Armstrong, U.S. financial commentator for "The Financial Times."

Thank you for being here.

Look, I want to start with President Trump blaming the Biden administration and its allies in Congress for -- quote -- "the worst inflation in the history of our country," quoting him, though that wasn't all time, still for decades, though. But he's also said his administration has driven core inflation down to its lowest level more than five years.

As you know, inflation peaked in 2022 and was falling when Biden left office. And last month's inflation was only an eight-month low. But, still, my question to you is, are Trump's policies actually driving down inflation here?

ROBERT ARMSTRONG, U.S. FINANCIAL COMMENTATOR, "FINANCIAL TIMES": I would say that the striking thing about the economy now versus the economy under the Biden administration, the last two years of the Biden administration, say, is how similar it is, so, on inflation, but also on things like real wage growth, GDP growth, employment.

What we have is a very consistent economy. And Trump's claim that there's been big changes in 2025-'6 versus 2023-'24, frankly, struck me as bizarre. And on inflation in particular, inflation is a little lower than it in 20 -- was a little lower in 2025 than in 2024. But it's still above target.

And it's not much lower. At best, it is inching its way down.

JIMENEZ: And, you know...

ARMSTRONG: And you asked another question...

JIMENEZ: Yes. ARMSTRONG: ... which is whether he's responsible for that. And I would say that's extremely difficult to see, is how his policy package would be responsible for that decline in inflation.

JIMENEZ: Well, along those lines, when one president leaves office and another starts, there is sort of this transition period, especially in an economic picture. Well, all right, how much of what we're seeing is because of policies of a previous administration versus how much is what's happening in a new administration actually affecting things?

At this point, I mean, we're more than a year in. Would you safely consider what we are seeing now to be President Trump's economy here?

ARMSTRONG: I think that's probably true and becoming more true as time goes on.

I think one important thing that the Trump administration has done is they have put together a big tax cut, most of which is just coming into effect now. And I think it's reasonable to expect that that will stimulate the economy. And that's lucky because some of his other policies, namely tariffs, are a drag on the economy.

So it's good that he has -- that his policies have created a positive effect to offset the negative effects of some of his other policies.

JIMENEZ: And you mentioned tariffs. There was this interesting moment before the speech where President Trump was shaking hands of the Supreme Court justices, some of which he had just recently insulted over their ruling against, in some cases, his -- obviously his tariff policy in the form that it existed prior.

He talked about tariffs at one point during the speech as well, saying that everything was working well before the Supreme Court ruling. I wonder how you assess the tariff aspect of the economy and the impact, either the policy itself or the uncertainty around it has had on the economy.

[13:10:15]

ARMSTRONG: Well, I think the actual monetary impact has happily been not extreme.

I think it's pretty clear now that we know who's paying for the tariffs, mostly American companies, a little bit American consumers, very little foreign companies. That's in contradiction to what Trump claimed last night. But I think every study of who's doing the paying agrees on this point.

That hasn't been -- but the weight of those tariffs hasn't been overwhelmingly great, as we can see in the continued growth in the economy. What I think is a bigger worry is, as you mentioned, the uncertainty. The fact that these policies change all the time leaves companies guessing about what to plan for.

And I think we're going to find, as we look back on this period, that that might have had a bigger impact than the tariffs themselves.

JIMENEZ: Robert Armstrong, appreciate the time and perspective on the economy this day after the State of the Union. Good to see you.

All right, still to come for us: A CNN review finds dozens of documents apparently missing from the Epstein files, including FBI interviews related to a woman who accused President Trump of sexually assaulting her.

Plus, financial industry experts are expressing alarm over a Trump administration plan to use banks in the immigration crackdown. We will tell you what's being considered.

And, later, maximum pressure campaign. The U.S. slaps new sanctions on Iran. We will have the latest on nuclear talks and much more coming up on CNN NEWS CENTRAL.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[13:15:55]

HILL: There are growing questions this hour about dozens of records that appear to be missing from the Epstein files. According to a CNN review, those records in question are FBI witness interviews.

And three of the missing interviews are related to a woman who accused both Jeffrey Epstein and President Trump of sexually assaulting her decades ago. The top Democrat on the Oversight Committee is among those expressing concern.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

REP. ROBERT GARCIA (D-CA): I went to the DOJ file search room yesterday to look for these documents that are in the manifest document, and they should be in there and they're not there.

These documents relate to a survivor that has made serious allegations about the president. What's important now is that the DOJ explain to us, why were those documents removed?

(END VIDEO CLIP)

HILL: CNN's Kara Scannell joins us now.

So, Kara, what more do we know about the specifics of these documents?

KARA SCANNELL, CNN CORRESPONDENT: Well, Erica, the CNN investigative team have taken a look into these records, and they found there are dozens of files that are missing.

And the way they were able to do this is, they looked at the serial numbers that were on an evidence lab provided to Epstein's accomplice, Ghislaine Maxwell, and, looking at those serial numbers, discovered there were dozens of them missing. And there were -- these all relate to 302s. That's the FBI form for witness interviews. And there are 325 included

on that list, but there are 90 of them missing. And within those 90 that are missing includes three from a woman who said that she was sexually assaulted by Jeffrey Epstein going back to when she was as young as 13 years old. And she also made an allegation that she was sexually assaulted by Donald Trump in the 1980s.

Now, we went to the White House with this. They said that these are false allegations and it's just sensationalist. The Justice Department said that they have not deleted any documents and that they said that, if there are documents that are not on the public Web site, that's either because they were duplicates, privileged, or part of an ongoing investigation.

We have seen with the release of these records on the public Web site that sometimes documents are there, they're taken down, then they're put back up. It's unclear if there is any process that is under way related to these specific documents and these allegations against Donald Trump.

Donald Trump, though, has not been accused of any wrongdoing. He's not been investigated for any wrongdoing. And it's unclear what happened to these specific allegations by this woman who spoke with investigators in 2019. There was another record in the files, a summary from the FBI about a number of these salacious allegations.

And it said that one person claimed abuse by Trump, but refused to cooperate. So, if that is that same person, it could be that they just reached a dead end. But, of course, Democrats are calling foul, as they have repeatedly about the Justice Department's process of publicizing the records that are required under the law and redactions that they have taken -- Erica.

HILL: Yes. So, watch this space for more, I think.

I did also want to ask you about, Kara, so, tomorrow, Hillary Clinton is set to testify. This is before the House Oversight Committee, of course. Bill Clinton is set to testify on Friday. What are we expecting out of these moments?

SCANNELL: So the Clintons have said that they want their testimony to be public, but that is not going to be the case. They're going to be deposed privately in Chappaqua, New York, where they live.

And, remember, this was an instance where the Clintons, they're testifying under subpoena. And, initially, they were fighting this subpoena. But then when they were threatened by being held in contempt of Congress, they capitulated and agreed to these interviews.

The secretary -- former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton is tomorrow. She is not someone who has had known associations with Epstein, but her husband, former President Bill Clinton, will be testifying on Friday. He is someone that has flown, according to CNN's analysis, on Epstein's private jet 16 times.

A lot of that had to do when he was launching the Clinton Global Initiative. Bill Clinton has not been accused of any criminal wrongdoing. He said that he had no knowledge of Epstein's criminal activity and that he cut ties with him long before these allegations came to light and the criminal charges against Epstein in 2019.

[13:20:03]

The committees generally have made the video deposition public within a few days of their testimony. So we will see exactly what plays out in just a matter of days following their depositions tomorrow and Friday -- Erica.

HILL: All right, Kara, appreciate it. Thank you.

Up next here: how the Trump administration could use banks in the United States to help crack down on immigration.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

JIMENEZ: President Trump could soon force banks to take part in an immigration crackdown.

What I mean by that is, sources tell CNN the administration is considering requiring financial institutions to collect and verify their customers' citizenship status, something banks aren't currently required to do. One source says the new policy could come through an executive order.

[13:25:09]

CNN's Matt Egan is following this story for us.

So, Matt, what are you learning about how banks are responding to this possibility?

MATT EGAN, CNN SENIOR REPORTER: Yes.

Well, Omar, this does appear to be part of the Trump administration's aggressive immigration crackdown. Sources tell CNN's Priscilla Alvarez and I that the administration is considering new action that would require banks to check the citizenship status of their customers.

Now, this would be something that would actually apply not just on a go-forward basis, but also to existing customers, which is pretty stunning, when you think about just how many customers the banks already have. Now, this action could also require banks to check a different category of documents than what they normally look at, including passports.

Now, I do want to stress that nothing here has been announced or finalized. It's not clear here whether or not this would come in the form of an executive order or some other action. We reached out to the White House, and a spokesperson said that any reporting on policy that hasn't been officially announced is just speculation.

But some Republicans do support this. Republican Senator Tom Cotton, he put out a post on X yesterday where he said: "I strongly support President Trump taking action to prevent illegal migrants from accessing our banking system."

And he said he sent a letter to Treasury last fall asking for an investigation into this matter and that he plans to introduce legislation on this issue shortly.

Now, Omar, you asked about how the industry is reacting. Officially, they're not really saying much,right? Representatives from major banks, from bank trade groups, they haven't commented on this. However, sources do tell CNN that the industry is concerned here, because they're worried that this kind of action, it could almost compel them to be part of the administration's immigration crackdown.

One financial industry source told me that verifying every bank customer's citizenship status would be unworkable. This source said: "It's a bad idea. We are very alarmed."

Now, banks are required to adhere to anti-money laundering rules, know your customer rules, but they don't track the citizenship status of their customers. So if this did become official, that would certainly be a significant change. There's also some questions about whether or not this could discourage immigrants from keeping their money in the bank.

Even undocumented immigrants, they do play a significant role in this economy. In 2023 alone, undocumented immigrants, they paid $90 billion in federal, state and local taxes. And they had spending power of nearly $300 billion.

And just one other point for you here, Omar. The president does talk a lot about cutting red tape. It's something he's very proud of, something that he mentioned during the State of the Union last night, where he took credit for cutting a record number of job-killing regulations.

But this potential action related to banks and the immigration crackdown does show how in some cases the president has actually added new red tape and regulation where he sees fit -- back to you.

JIMENEZ: Something to watch for moving forward.

Matt Egan, appreciate the reporting.

Meanwhile, our next guest made headlines when he resigned in protest over the leadership of the CDC, so what does he think about President Trump's pick for surgeon general, a physician turned wellness influencer?

We will ask him right after this.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)