Return to Transcripts main page

CNN News Central

Trump Hosts Hispanic Heritage Month Celebration; Officials Say Hegseth Will Be Announcing 20 Percent Cut to Senior Officer Ranks; Trump Announces Last U.S. Forces Are Leaving Iraq; New Study Finds Hazardous Plastics in 90 Percent of Household Items. Aired 1:30-2p ET

Aired September 30, 2026 - 13:30   ET

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

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[13:31:16]

BORIS SANCHEZ, CNN CO-ANCHOR OF "CNN NEWS CENTRAL": Right now, President Trump is about to kick off an event at the White House celebrating Hispanic Heritage Month. These are live images from what appears to be the East Room at the White House. The president is expected to tout the impact his economic policies have had on the Hispanic community, but according to recent polling, his support from that key demographic is rapidly declining.

A poll from the Texas Politics Project and University of Texas finds 51 percent of Latino voters in that state now have an unfavorable view of the president, with just 41 percent seeing him favorably. That same poll in October 2024 found Latino voters evenly split on Trump at 48 percent.

Those numbers reflect a larger national shift among Latinos against the president. Remember, back in 2024, he won non-college Latino voters by a point over Kamala Harris. Now, his net approval rating there is 42 points under water.

His support when it comes to the issue of immigration in particular is plunging. In 2024, non-college Latinos trusted Trump on immigration over Harris by nine points. Today, working-class Latinos trust on immigration with Trump is down 47 points, a stunning reversal.

Joining us now to discuss is CNN Chief Political Analyst, David Axelrod. David, thank you so much for joining us. When you see these trends among Hispanic voters, do you think it simply boils down to the immigration crackdown?

DAVID AXELROD, CNN CHIEF POLITICAL ANALYST: No, Boris. I think that's obviously been deeply disturbing to Latinos across the country because they thought that Trump would target the worst of the worst, as he said. And in fact, all Latinos feel targeted by the immigration policies of this administration and this sort of rabid nativist rhetoric of people like Stephen Miller. But I don't think that's principally what's driving the exodus of Hispanic voters.

I think the economy and cost of living issues are primary concerns of a lot of Hispanic voters in this country. The Hispanic communities, and it's not a monolith, but these Hispanic communities tend to be working-class communities, a lot of small business people, and they're being impacted dramatically by inflation and the policies of the administration. And I think, you know, they -- I think people misread the vote in 2024.

They went to Trump largely on the basis of his policies on the economy or the promise of a better economy, of dealing with this cost of living issue. And like so many other Americans, they're now dealing with higher inflation and policies of the administration that have contributed to it. And it's created a real crisis for him.

So it's a twin problem for the president and therefore, a twin problem for Republicans.

SANCHEZ: So how would you then grade Democrats' efforts in this cycle to regain those Hispanic voters they lost in '24, specifically Latino men?

AXELROD: Yeah. Well, I think the focus on these economic issues and the cost of living issues is having a major impact on these voters. That's where the emphasis of most of the campaigns that I see have been. And again, you know, I think in a recent poll, 53 percent of Hispanic voters named cost of living as their first concern. I think immigration was at 20.

But -- and remember that I think one of the misreadings of Democrats back in 2024 on this immigration issue was that Hispanic voters, particularly in South Texas, would be repulsed by some of Trump's rhetoric, but they were deeply concerned about the border and border security.

[13:35:15]

And I'm sure -- and I think his ratings even today are higher on border security than on immigration enforcement. So even that issue has its nuances.

But I think Democrats focusing on the economy is going to -- and you see it in polling, I mean Democrats have a significant lead in Hispanic support in these midterm polls.

SANCHEZ: To that point about the huge shift that we saw in those border districts, in South Texas, Gina Hinojosa, the Democrat who is running for governor there says that the party during the last cycle was hurt because President Biden didn't lead on immigration. She says that he hid. This comes as the Brookings Institute published some research indicating that more than 6.5 million immigrants entered the U.S. outside usual legal pathways during Biden's term. So I wonder if Democrats win back Congress, do you think they have a unified strategy when it comes to immigration and border security?

AXELROD: Well, they should. I, by the way, agree with her. I think that one of the both policy and political disasters of the Biden years were on the border and it took three years for him to react in a really significant way to the influx of people across the border, coming in illegally. And I think that hurt Democrats. I think that and the economy were the two issues that elected Donald Trump, so she's absolutely right about that.

My hope, Boris, is that there is an appetite for significant immigration reform that includes a continued strong border security, the notion of strong enforceable borders, but also a path to normalization legalization to citizenship perhaps for people who've been here long term, who are embedded in communities, who are taxpayers, who are the kind of people who frankly have been unfairly targeted to the disgust of and fear of Hispanics across this country.

SANCHEZ: Yeah. It seems like the recipe for comprehensive immigration reform has been there for a while for almost three decades, but the political will to get there, it's just been too --

AXELROD: Yeah.

SANCHEZ: -- profitable an issue for both parties.

AXELROD: Well that, you know, you put your you put your finger on it there and this is a problem that we have in our politics generally. It's much more profitable to weaponize problems than to solve them and it's easier to weaponize them than to solve them. And we've had two shots at immigration reform under the Bush administration first and under the Obama administration. Obama administration passed a comprehensive immigration bill with 68 votes in the Senate, never got a vote in the House.

SANCHEZ: Right.

AXELROD: So, because it was too good an issue to, you know, for both sides in the Bush administration, Obama administration. Hopefully, we'll get to a point here where people say, you know what, let's just solve the problem.

SANCHEZ: We shall see. David Axelrod, appreciate the perspective as always.

AXELROD: Good to see you.

SANCHEZ: Still ahead deep cuts for top brass. Defense Secretary, Pete Hegseth expected to announce a significant reduction in the number of positions reserved for generals and admirals. We'll get into the implications of this when we come back.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[13:43:27]

BRIANNA KEILAR, CNN CO-ANCHOR OF "CNN NEWS CENTRAL": In just over an hour, Secretary of Defense, Pete Hegseth will deliver his annual State of the Force address to service members at Quantico. He's set to outline a string of major new priorities to reshape the Pentagon.

Even as the war with Iran shows no signs of ending, officials tell CNN that Hegseth will announce plans to cut the number of positions reserved for generals and admirals by 20 percent. That is double what he ordered just last year. And it raises questions about who will stay and who will go since Hegseth's firings of top generals and holds on senior officer promotions have significantly affected women and officers of color.

We're joined now by former Defense Secretary and CIA Director under President Obama, Leon Panetta. Secretary, thanks for being with us. Two Pentagon officials tell CNN that the cuts are supposed to go into effect rather quickly here, by January 1st. What do you think that's going to do to the military?

LEON PANETTA, FORMER DEFENSE SECRETARY AND CIA DIRECTOR UNDER PRESIDENT OBAMA: I think it's a decision that's going to hurt our military readiness, particularly at a time of war. We're in a war with Iran, and the secretary is now going to get rid of 20 percent of our command structure. He's impacting on our chain of command when we are in a war, and I think that's reckless.

And it also loses the experience of a group of commanders who have been in battle, know the military, have earned their promotion, are very capable, and we're going to suddenly lose that experience while we're in a war.

[13:45:00]

It just does not make a lot of sense to me.

KEILAR: But what if that is actually the point or that is at the expense of targeting, say, officers because of ideology, which we have seen evidence of in some of these promotion holds or these firings of top generals? There seems to be an acceptability to this Department of Defense at losing that institutional knowledge for that.

PANETTA: That really disturbs me because I think, you know, we have the strongest military on the face of the earth. And the reason is because of our men and women in uniform that are part of our military. And they represent every segment of our society, women, people of color, others who are willing to serve our country.

That's what makes up the strongest military on the face of the earth. And I'm concerned that this secretary goes after women and men of color when it comes to appointments to command positions. That really, I think, sends a terrible signal, not just to the country but to the world, that what the secretary is trying to do by focusing on haircuts and grooming is basically trying to get a military that looks like the Swiss Guard in Rome.

And that's not what it's about. Our military has to be about making sure that they're well-trained, represent our country, and can protect our national security. That's what the secretary should be focusing on.

KEILAR: Is there a legitimate need for streamlining? We've heard Hegseth talk about removing redundant force structure which, you know, on its face, is something that, taken in good faith, many people would support. Military needs are certainly changing. Threat environments are evolving. What do you think about legitimate needs for streamlining? PANETTA: Look, I think that it's always important to look at areas that can be reduced effectively at the Pentagon. But what I worry about is the secretary who makes these decisions based on politics and on his view of culture wars. If you want to reduce the military, you ought to have a military advisory board.

That's what the chairman and the joint chiefs of staff are all about, is being able to make recommendations about how you can legitimately reduce the command structure and go after those that should be relieved. But to leave that in the hands of the secretary really concerns me, because I think he makes these decisions based on politics and not based on military experience.

KEILAR: I want to play something about Trump addressing the U.S. withdrawal from Iraq. Here's what he said moments ago.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

DONALD TRUMP, (R) PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: But I wanted to announce something that I'm also very proud of. Today, I'm pleased to announce that the last American forces are leaving Iraq.

(CROWD CHEERING)

(APPLAUSE)

TRUMP: It's been a long time with very bad decision-making that got us involved in this quagmire. In the first place, it was a quagmire. Many, many years it lasted. But soon that part of history will be over.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

KEILAR: Part of this mission, obviously, has been an anti-ISIS mission. There have been issues, of course, recently, with Iranian- backed militias in Iraq launching waves of strike on U.S. and allied interests. There have been problems with militias. I guess, I wonder what you think about his announcement, but also just if Iraqi leadership can keep militias under control without U.S. assistance, or presence in the region.

PANETTA: Well, again, I worry about this kind of decision when we're still in the middle of a war with Iran. And the fact is that these militias have conducted, I think, something like 600 attacks on U.S. military. They're supported by Iran. They're armed by Iran.

And what I worry about with this decision is that we are handing Iraq over to Iran at a time when we're still trying to figure out what's going to happen with this war with Iran.

[13:50:12]

I just don't see the reasoning behind withdrawing our forces at a time when we need to defend a lot of our forces throughout that region who have been under serious attack. You know, we've had almost something like $4 billion worth of damage to our bases throughout that area. And now, if you allow these militant groups supported by Iran not to have to be in any way checked by the U.S. forces that were there as they were, I think you're just going to add that much more to a forever war that we seem to be stuck in.

KEILAR: Secretary Leon Panetta, thanks so much for being with us.

PANETTA: Good to be with you, Brianna.

KEILAR: Still to come, a new investigation is highlighting just how many items in your home may contain hazardous plastic chemicals. The stunning results are next.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[13:55:50]

SANCHEZ: So there's a new study out that may make you question nearly everything you use around you. It found that most common household items contain not just hazardous plastic chemicals, but very high levels of them.

The Environmental Justice Foundation determined that 92 percent of chemicals contained in food contact plastics, like what is wrapped around store fruit, essentially the plastic that is around store fruit. It's kind of a complex term for that. But those are a high risk to human health.

Nearly 89 percent of toys separately contain hazardous substances. 93 percent of textiles, like rugs and clothing, had dangerous chemicals, too.

KEILAR: And high percentages were found in bottled water, gardening tools, medical equipment, hygiene products, and more. The American Chemistry Council said this study should be viewed with, quote, "considerable caution" because it omits key data sources such as an international database of available plastic additives.

Let's talk about this now with Joseph Allen, who is a Professor of Public Health at Harvard. He's the author of "Healthy Buildings: How Indoor Spaces Can Make You Sick or Keep You Well."

I mean, how worried should we be here? This is crazy, Joseph, to hear the numbers here. Should we be as alarmed as these numbers would lead us to believe?

JOSEPH ALLEN, PROFESSOR, HARVARD SCHOOL OF PUBLIC HEALTH: Yeah, thanks for having me on. I think this has been flying under the radar for a long time, the fact that we are exposed to many tens of thousands of chemicals that have not been sufficiently tested for health and safety.

That's going to surprise a lot of your viewers to know we think the products we're using should be safe. We deserve that, but it's actually not how it's gone on for decades and decades. This report exposes it. Many thousands of chemicals that we're in contact with all the time are in the products we use every day. And here's the key point, these chemicals migrate out of the products into air and dust and water and in our skin, and we're absorbing them in our bodies. So it's not just they're in the products and stay there. They actually leave the products and get into our bodies.

SANCHEZ: I also think about kids and toys and how often small children especially put toys in their mouths. I imagine that the risk to babies and kids is a lot greater than it is to a fully developed adult.

ALLEN: Yeah, you hit on a key point there, right? So not only are the exposure different, I also think of dust, kids down on the floor where these chemicals can accumulate, but also the health effects. So we know a lot of these chemicals can cause cancer, but we also know importantly, they can impact our hormone system, which is critical for developing child, influencing their estrogen receptors and testosterone receptors and thyroid hormone receptors, things we need for proper neurodevelopment and sexual development.

And we see these impacts in kids. We've known about this for a long time. This report is highlighting that this is an everyday products we use in all of our homes, and we need a different approach to this where we start eliminating, testing them properly first and foremost for safety before we use them in products we use every day. That is obvious. And we just need to be a lot more careful about how we regulate these going forward. We've made a mistake for many years.

KEILAR: OK, so Joseph, an official with the American Chemistry Council says the report's framing, quote, "misleads and dubiously characterizes chemicals as unregulated by excluding major regulatory frameworks from the analysis." Says without them, this report does more to generate headlines than to advance the science. What do you think about that? How regulated are these chemicals?

ALLEN: Well, I think the reality is, is that the industry's been telling us for a long time that they do test these chemicals before they put them in our products that we're in touch with.

The science tells us something very different. We have been seeing for decades that these chemicals that we were told are safe are not, and they're causing these impacts to our hormone systems, our brain health, our sexual health, our reproductive health. Over and over again, we've been told these are safe, and the science is showing it's not.

And this study is showing that these chemicals migrate out, we're exposed to them every day. And probably the most shocking thing for your viewers in this study is that most of these chemicals, the vast, vast majority, are never tested at all to a sufficient level that we can even understand what's an exposure risk.

Now think about that. If you're using a product, you want to know that a chemical in the product, for example, that your kids are using every single day has been thoroughly tested and vetted --