Return to Transcripts main page

CNN Newsroom

President Trump Sues Wall Street Journal Over Epstein Report; Trump To Sign $9 Billion Cut To Public Broadcasting, International Aid; Americans React To Epstein Files Fallout; Interview With Representative Madeleine Dean (D-PA); NYT: DNC Audit Of Election Loss Won't Focus On Biden/Harris; Astronomer CEO Resigns After Coldplay Concert Video; WSJ: Treasury Secy Made The Case To Trump Against Firing Fed Chief. Aired 4-5p ET

Aired July 19, 2025 - 16:00   ET

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

[16:00:00]

MARIA GABRIELA DE FARIA, PLAYS ENGINEER IN "SUPERMAN": So she teams up with Lex to sacrifice her life, her own humanity, to protect the world and humans. And although, you know, I don't believe that she will have the greatest ending in this particular movie.

FREDRICKA WHITFIELD, CNN HOST: In this particular movie.

DE FARIA: In this particular movie, we'll see what happens. Like she has -- she has the right intentions.

WHITFIELD: OK.

DE FARIA: You know?

WHITFIELD: I'm reading between the lines, so I'm seeing, as I saw you also, you know, getting ready for the, you know, the role and the workouts and the training. And you talked a little bit about that and not in this movie, it tells me that the engineer is going to transform into another flick. And, Gabby, you are going to be there.

DE FARIA: That's the hope.

WHITFIELD: OK.

DE FARIA: You know, like I feel like all of us, I can't really say much because there isn't really much to say other than that is the plan.

WHITFIELD: Yes.

DE FARIA: For all of the characters in this movie.

WHITFIELD: OK.

DE FARIA: To have big life in the DCU.

WHITFIELD: Well, Gabby, I can't wait to talk to you again because for now, that's the end of this show. This was fun. Great meeting you. Congratulations.

DE FARIA: Thank you, Fred.

WHITFIELD: I'm heading to the movies tonight to see "Superman."

DE FARIA: Go watch it. And text me if you do.

WHITFIELD: All right. See you, everybody. Thanks for being with us.

JESSICA DEAN, CNN HOST: You're in the CNN NEWSROOM. I'm Jessica Dean in New York.

And tonight, President Donald Trump taking legal action against another media organization. And this time, it's the "Wall Street Journal's" publisher, Dow Jones. Trump is suing the company, its owner, Rupert Murdoch, and two reporters for libel after its story on a collection of letters reportedly gifted to Jeffrey Epstein for his 50th birthday. One of the letters the newspaper says included a doodle of a naked woman shaped with Trump's name on it and an imagined conversation on how Trump and Epstein share a secret.

The president denies he wrote the note. The suit comes amid a firestorm of criticism over the Justice Department's handling of the Epstein case, with much of it coming from Trump's own MAGA base. But many MAGA supporters now rallying around the president and CNN's senior reporter Betsy Klein is joining us now.

Betsy, the Justice Department now asking a judge to release years old grand jury testimony related to Epstein to release that out to the public. All of this as we're seeing kind of Trump's full base, including MAGA world, start to rally behind him once again.

What is the Trump administration hoping to accomplish with this? What are they likely to accomplish?

BETSY KLEIN, CNN SENIOR WHITE HOUSE CORRESPONDENT: Well, the president's preference in all of this is for this to go away. And one of the reasons he just hasn't been able to change the narrative is that the president himself and other top officials, Vice President JD Vance, Attorney General Pam Bondi, FBI director Kash Patel and his deputy Dan Bongino were among those propagating for years conspiracy theories around Jeffrey Epstein.

And it's been nearly two weeks now since the Department of Justice and the FBI released that memo that concluded that Epstein died by suicide and that there was no so-called client list. Since then, MAGA world has been in full revolt, demanding transparency, documents and more information about all of this, setting up really a loyalty test between President Trump and this movement that he created.

The president announced that he was asking his Attorney General Pam Bondi to unseal all pertinent testimony related to Jeffrey Epstein. The government filed that request in a federal court on Friday, but this could be a lengthy process. Now, if that request is indeed granted, it really represents a small fraction of the overall testimony against Epstein, but it really shouldn't be a surprise that the president's most ardent and vocal supporters are upset and in revolt about all of this.

The president appearing to acknowledge that in a post to social media earlier this morning. He said, quote, "I've asked the Justice Department to release all grand jury testimony with respect to Jeffrey Epstein, subject only to court approval. With that being said, and even if the court gave its full and unwavering approval, nothing will be good enough for the troublemakers and radical left lunatics making the request. It will always be more, more, more."

Now the pressure continued to mount when the "Wall Street Journal" published that story with a letter that appeared to be signed by President Trump to Jeffrey Epstein on the occasion of his 50th birthday back in 2003. It included that picture drawing of a naked woman. The president calling that fake and now making good on his threat to sue the "Wall Street Journal," its publishers and reporters for libel, assault and slander.

A spokesperson for Dow Jones, the newspaper's publisher, defending the paper in a statement to CNN, saying, quote, "We have full confidence in the rigor and accuracy of our reporting and will vigorously defend against any lawsuit." But the president, of course, reverting to a familiar playbook going after the media and Democrats and really hoping that all of this can be enough to turn the tide and bring his supporters back into the fold.

[16:05:05]

DEAN: All right, Betsy Klein at the White House, thank you so much for your reporting.

Former deputy FBI director and CNN senior law enforcement analyst Andrew McCabe is joining us now on this.

Andy, thanks for being here with us. The Trump administration has asked for what it calls pertinent grand jury testimony to be released. From your experience with investigations, what might this include? When they're saying grand jury testimony, what can people actually expect from this?

ANDREW MCCABE, CNN SENIOR LAW ENFORCEMENT ANALYST: Sure. So I think probably it's good to rule out the things they should not expect. So grand jury testimony is a very, very small subset of the information that's in the investigative files. So everything else would not be included. And because the president's directive specifically requested grand jury testimony, that means all the other information that investigators gather with the help of the grand jury through subpoenas like phone records, e-mail records, things like that, none of that would be included either.

So you're simply talking about live witnesses who came into the grand jury and testified. So if we focus on that just for a minute, let's remember that the only two people that they sought to indict in those cases were Jeffrey Epstein and Ghislaine Maxwell. That means the people who came in and testified were likely asked questions primarily or only about Epstein and Maxwell, which means the testimony might not include any of the information that most of the conspiracy theorists are really anxious to get their hands on, which is the identities of other people that we haven't heard about, confirming that maybe rich and powerful people were engaged in this activity with Epstein. I think it's unlikely any of that will be in there.

And then finally, if anything is released, and that's a big if, because there are all kinds of other factors that the judge is going to consider here, all of the identities of people who are referred to in the testimony are going to be redacted out. So I think people who think that this is going to happen quickly, and it's going to be like a lot of interesting information, really need to reset their expectations.

DEAN: And a couple things there. You have to underline that the judge will rule on this. So even if he wanted to, President Trump, could he direct DOJ or the FBI to release much more than what he's already directed them to do? And will that also be subject to a judge?

MCCABE: Well, he could, so he can't direct them to release the materials that are -- that have been sealed by the court. That has to go through the court. That's like what they're doing with the testimony -- grand jury testimony. But all of the other information, things like the write-ups of FBI interviews of witnesses and victims and other people, the internal FBI documents that detail what sort of investigative steps they've taken, what surveillance they've conducted, informants that they talked to, all kinds of things like that.

None of that is covered by the court sealing. And so technically, that's within the province of DOJ and the president to decide to release. But there's a lot of reasons why you shouldn't release things like that. The biggest being there are many people identified in all that activity who were never charged with a crime. And so there's not enough evidence to make a case that they did anything wrong. So if we now release their information, you're going to really destroy a lot of reputations probably unfairly.

DEAN: And you mentioned, this could take some time. How long could this take?

MCCABE: It's a great question. So we know that the government has already submitted their motion. So it's officially on the court's calendar. The court is going to have to have hearings about this. They're going to -- want to hear from the government in person, but they're also going to make an opportunity for other people, i.e., people who would be impacted by the release of this testimony to come in and state their preference.

And it's certainly possible that a lot of those people will come in and say, no, we don't want these things released. So you can imagine victims who may have testified in front of the grand jury don't want to be identified. They don't want to have, you know, they don't want their -- the things they said or their identity to be released. So the judge is likely to give those people a lot of consideration in this balancing test. And it's possible that at the end of this long process, the judge doesn't release anything. So it's really up in the air right now. DEAN: And I think so many people out there have been promised some

sort of resolution in all of this, either by supporters of the president or just online conspiracy theories by others who are now in this administration that there would be some sort of, again, resolution. Do you think that even exists at this point?

MCCABE: Not a chance. Not a chance. I think that this issue has been so mythologized primarily by people like Kash Patel and Dan Bongino and Pam Bondi and the things they've said publicly to like fan the flames of this interest.

[16:10:08]

I don't think that there's any way that that community will ever be satisfied. And, you know, honestly, I understand people's desire to want to help the victims and protect children. That is absolutely admirable. But we don't do that by unleashing a flood of essentially do-it-yourself investigators and vigilante justice out on the people whose names might appear in some of these files.

That's a very toxic mixture that could lead to people taking matters into their own hands, which is never a good idea. So it's anything less than 100 percent transparency is not going to satisfy those people. And the chances of you getting 100 percent transparency here are almost zero.

DEAN: Another question involving this lawsuit with President Trump having now sued Dow Jones and Rupert Murdoch, the reporters involved in that "Wall Street Journal" story, does that lawsuit potentially open up discovery on both sides? And what I'm getting at here is, would the president have to be subject to discovery as well? Could more information come out?

MCCABE: Absolutely. This is a really interesting aspect to this choice to sue the Dow Jones and the "Wall Street Journal." So here the president is the plaintiff in this suit. And as the plaintiff, he will not enjoy the same sort of protections and privileges that he would enjoy if he were the defendant in a civil suit that was brought by some private citizen. He has a lot of those, as in his -- in his position as president.

He can say, you know, things are subject to presidential privilege or that he essentially doesn't have the time to comply with the process, things like that. You don't get any of those excuses when you initiate the court process. So he's going to have to go through discovery just like the Dow Jones will. Ironically, the thing that he claims is fake, which really I don't think anyone has even seen yet. We've all heard reporting on it, but I don't know that anyone has actually published the letter.

We're all going to get to see that a thousand times because these things are going to come out in discovery. They likely will not be protected. And so he's had -- the suit will have the effect of making this an issue for people to talk about and think about and learn more about for a long time. And, you know, I'm not sure that that's the greatest way to defend against something that you claim is fake and is damaging your reputation.

DEAN: All right. It'll be interesting to see how this develops.

Andrew McCabe, thanks so much. Really appreciate it.

MCCABE: Thank you, Jess.

DEAN: So how are Americans reacting to this story? Despite the president's efforts this is simply not fading away right now.

Harry Enten is joining us now to run the numbers on that -- Harry.

HARRY ENTEN, CNN CHIEF DATA ANALYST: Jessica, last weekend we spoke about it, interest in the Epstein files and the Epstein case is sky high. And the American public does not trust what the government is selling them.

What are we talking about here? Is the government hiding Epstein's alleged client list? Get this, 69 percent of Americans agree that the federal government is, in fact, hiding Epstein's alleged client list versus just six, 6 percent who say that they are not. And get this, a majority of Republicans and Democrats do in fact agree on this issue that the government is hiding Epstein's alleged client list.

You can never get a majority of Republicans and Democrats to agree on anything, but they do agree on this particular issue, and perhaps not so surprisingly, you get a plurality of Democrats and Republicans agreeing that they are dissatisfied, dissatisfied with the amount of information that the government has released so far.

What are we talking about this? Well, we're talking about if we look at Republicans and independents who lean Republican, 43 percent are dissatisfied with the amount of information released so far compared to, get this, just four, one, two, three, 4 percent of Republicans who are in fact satisfied with the amount of information released so far by the federal government when it comes to the Epstein case.

And we look over here on this side of the screen among Democrats, get this, 60 percent of Democrats and independent leaning Democrats are in fact dissatisfied with the amount of information released so far. And get this, just one, two, 3 percent of Democrats are satisfied so far with the amount of information released.

Now you see this. You see that the plurality of Republicans are dissatisfied. So how is it impacting President Trump's overall approval rating? Well, get this, because this one was a bit of a surprise to me, Jessica. Look at this. Republicans who approve of the job that Donald Trump is doing, get this, in our CNN-SSRS poll, it was 86 percent prior to this whole Epstein saga. Now it's 88 percent.

In fact, the percentage of Republicans who approve of the job that Donald Trump is doing has actually if anything climbed a little bit according to our CNN polling. How about Quinnipiac? 87 percent before this whole Epstein saga started approved of the job that Donald Trump was doing among Republicans.

[16:15:05]

Now it's 90 percent. So we see agreement between the CNN polling and the Quinnipiac polling. Yes, Republicans are not thrilled with how the government is responding to the Epstein case, but so far they are, in fact, not taking it out on Donald Trump, at least when it comes to his overall approval rating.

Now, you might be asking yourself why? Well, I think this nugget gives it all away. Republicans who said the nation's top issue was the Epstein case. get this, zero, one, one respondent, not 1 percent. One respondent of Republicans said that the nation's top issue was in fact the Epstein case.

So at this particular point, Jessica Dean, what we're dealing with is a public that is very much dissatisfied with how the government is responding so far to the Epstein case, a lot of folks both on the right and the left do, in fact, believe that the government is hiding Epstein's alleged client list. But yet, when it comes to his approval rating, Donald Trump's approval rating with the Republican base so far they're sticking with him because at this point, even if they believe the government is potentially hiding something, they don't think it's all that important.

Back to you.

DEAN: All right, Harry Enten, thanks so much for that.

A bill that guts federal funding for public broadcasting in America sits on President Trump's desk, waiting for his signature. Plus, a viral moment at a Coldplay concert is getting reenacted kind of by everybody everywhere.

You're in the CNN NEWSROOM.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[16:21:03]

DEAN: With the stroke of a pen, Donald Trump is soon expected to sign the bill, which will remove $9 billion of funding which had previously been approved by Congress. The vote happened in the wee hours of Friday morning with only two Republicans breaking rank. The House giving final approval to the measure already approved by the Senate. And it will eliminate $8 billion from foreign aid and all $1.1 billion of federal funding for the Corporation for Public Broadcasting.

Julia Benbrook is joining us now.

Julia, the vote is over and just to remind everyone, this was about clawing back money that had already been approved to be spent, which is something we don't often see happen there on the hill. What happens next?

JULIA BENBROOK, CNN CORRESPONDENT: That's right, Jessica. It's $9 billion in spending cuts or clawbacks and it received the final stamp of approval that it needed in Congress and is now ready for President Donald Trump's signature. It passed primarily along party lines with just a couple of Republican members in each chamber voting against it.

The package codifies some of the Department of Government Efficiency or DOGE, it codifies some of the cuts that they've made into law and with the stated goal of rooting out waste, fraud and abuse within the federal government.

So what exactly is in this package? It's roughly $8 billion taken from congressionally approved foreign aid programs, as well as $1.1 billion taken from the Corporation for Public Broadcasting, which helps fund NPR and PBS, as well as local affiliates across the country, and it could have a big impact, particularly on those in rural areas.

Now, Trump is touting this legislative action, and he says that he hopes that this rescissions package is the first of many like it.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

DONALD TRUMP, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: This week, we passed the Rescissions Act of 2025 slashing nearly $10 billion of waste and I guess I could say some fraud and some abuse, but at least we can say waste, almost $10 billion and we have numerous other rescissions coming up adding more -- many more $10 billion to it. So we're saving a lot of money.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

BENBROOK: Democratic leadership detailed some of their concerns in a statement. They said, quote, "This legislation undermines the public health and national security of the American people while launching an assault on public radio and television. At the same time that we are witnessing tremendous death and destruction wrought by extreme weather in this country, House Republicans are taking a chainsaw to the public airwaves that Americans rely on for information in an emergency."

They went on to say, "While extreme MAGA Republicans will claim this is about eliminating so-called waste, fraud and abuse, they just jammed through a massive tax giveaway to billionaires that balloons our nation's debt by trillions of dollars."

Now, this is, of course, another legislative win for Trump. It comes just weeks after Congress passed his massive domestic spending bill, the so-called one big beautiful bill. And they got that to his desk by July 4th, which was a lofty, self-imposed goal. All of this highlighting the power that the president has right now when it comes to Capitol Hill.

DEAN: Yes. And Julia, critics on both sides say that the way this bill was passed gives too much power to the White House. Can we expect to see more of these going forward? I know we heard from the president saying he hopes there is more, but practically is that expected?

BENBROOK: Well, Congress passed this using an obscure presidential budget law that avoids the filibuster. And Trump is the first president in roughly 30 years to successfully use this maneuver, again, further highlighting that power that he has and that power that he plans to use going forward. Some lawmakers on the hill on both sides have expressed concerns about the type of precedent that this sets, saying that it could set a harmful precedent when it comes to congressional authority -- Jessica.

[16:25:08]

DEAN: Julia Benbrook, in Washington, thanks for that.

Joining us now is Democratic Congresswoman Madeleine Dean from Pennsylvania.

Congresswoman, thank you so much for being here with us this afternoon. We really appreciate it. I want to stay on this topic that we were just talking to Julia about. Republicans who support this legislation, and it was all but two in the House, argue that they're making these cuts because they're worried about the deficit, that that's what this is about. I'm curious what you say to that.

REP. MADELEINE DEAN (D-PA): Oh, my goodness. This is a rescissions package. This is lawfully passed appropriated money. Congress has the role under Article One, Section Nine, Clause Seven. We're the only ones who get to appropriate money.

What a false argument. After all, these very people are the people who voted for the big ugly bill just a couple of weeks ago that added $5 trillion to our deficit. Cutting $9 billion from public broadcasting, USAID, other global security, migration, refugee resources, all of which will harm public health, national security, $9 billion versus their $5 trillion add to the deficit.

It's such a shallow false argument and everybody sees through it.

DEAN: And this was this, the first time that they had used a rescissions -- the rule, the law, and they were able to do this in decades. We heard the president there saying he hopes it's not going to be the last. I know you sit on the House Appropriations Committee. As a Democrat, and you all are in the minority, what, if anything, can be done from your perspective to stop them from continuing to use this?

M. DEAN: Well, and you're right, the president has threatened to do more rescissions package --packages. I want to remind people, and I've seen some confusion in my own constituents understandably. They think this might be something about future funding. This might be about reconciliation. It is not. It is about funding that was passed into law through the process of either appropriations or continuing resolutions.

This is unlawful what the president has done in this rescissions package. And I say to my Republican colleagues, why would you give over our constitutional authority? We are the ones who have the power of the purse. It is so strange to watch my Republican colleagues vote like lemmings to make these cuts to previous funding. So it's unconstitutional. We'll keep fighting it. And sadly, we just have to take it to the people.

I'll tell you what my constituents care about. They are gravely concerned. My phones are ringing off the hook about rescissions, but much more about the cut to Medicaid through the big ugly bill. They're calling. I've had the chance to answer the phones. The phones have been so busy. So while this administration likes to just be so incompetent and chaotic, and now trying to cut previous funding, claiming it's all about being fiscally responsible. No, it's all about getting tax breaks to the very, very wealthy.

And I do not understand my Republican colleagues ceding their power. What are they here in Congress for? Are they just a rubber stamp to a tyrant?

DEAN: And I am curious, because there are the two Republicans that broke ranks there and voted with the Democrats. Are there any kind of conversations that you would possibly have with some of your Republican colleagues who you think might be persuaded with that argument you just -- you just laid out?

M. DEAN: They know that argument very, very well. The two that voted with us, the Democrats, I think they voted with us for two very different reasons. But they also knew that if they just had brought two more Republicans with them, they could have defeated this illegal, unconstitutional cut of funding. So I don't find any kind of profiles in courage in those two votes.

DEAN: I also want to ask you about a different topic. "The New York Times" has this reporting that the Democratic National Committee is preparing an autopsy on what went wrong in 2024. And I know that you and the Democrats are -- want to focus on what comes next, not what happened in the past. But it can be indicative and instructive on how to run going into the future.

The report says that it's not going to focus on the presidential campaigns, those of Joe Biden or Kamala Harris. And the reporters say this is, in their words, something like eating at a steak house and then reviewing the salad.

What do you feel like you need to know about 2024? What are your lingering questions?

M. DEAN: Well, I have to tell you, that was some brilliant writing. I did read that article, very well put, and I have to tell you, I know nothing more than what has been just reported in "The New York Times" about the DNC's so-called autopsy. And I have to admit to you, I'm no coroner. I want them to do a study. I want them to understand what went right and what went wrong. It's always worthy of doing. But what I'm focused on is the right now.

[16:30:09]

I was just with Jamie Raskin and Speaker Pelosi. and a group of folks who are saving our health care. They're working to save our health care. They've made 300,000 phone calls into Republican districts about the big, ugly bill and the extraordinary threat to public health and to people's personal health care.

So, I'll let them do their autopsy. I'll focus on the here and now, the unconstitutional nature of what's going on with this administration, the corruption of this administration, the cover-ups of this administration, the cruelty of it. And then will really focus on 2026, when we will take back the majority in the House, and we will rewrite this ship. It is on all of us.

DEAN: And so, as we look to 2026, obviously, I hear what you're saying in terms of the message you want to get out to constituents -- to supporters about what you think this legislation has done, what your concerns are about that legislation that Republicans passed, the big beautiful bill. But as all of that is happening, we also have this Epstein scandal and conspiracy theories that are just sucking up so much oxygen right now. The White House obviously grappling with this, trying to figure out which way they want to move forward with it, asking for more things to be released.

In terms of the politics of that story, Democrats -- some Democrats have been jumping onto that as well. Do you see a political opening there for Democrats with that issue?

M. DEAN: I have no interest in the politics of it. I am so sickened by this story and Mr. Trump and his administration and his courtiers, who for years fed their base an appetite buffet of conspiracy theories. And then guess what? There's nothing to see here. They don't want you to see anything.

Well, either there was something grotesquely wrong, known by an awful lot of people back then, and we know there was or there was nothing to see. And we know that's not true. I don't care about the political at all.

You know what I care the most about? And I don't hear any of these Republicans, the president himself, talking about this. I care about the victims. Think of the girls -- the 14-year-old girls.

There are dozens, if not hundreds, of victims of Epstein and whoever was around him. So, there were the abusers. There were the enablers. There were the cover-ups. I care desperately about that.

And not just children who are trafficked and abused by the rich and well-connected, who cover it up. The children that are being trafficked every single day. So, I don't care at all about the politics of this, but it's so hypocritical and it's so transparent that even Donald Trump's base has turned on him.

J. DEAN: All right. Congresswoman Madeleine Dean, thank you so much for your time. We appreciate it.

M. DEAN: Thanks, Jessica.

J. DEAN: Just days after he was caught on camera at a Coldplay concert, the CEO of an AI company is now leaving that company. You're in the CNN NEWSROOM.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[16:37:34] (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

CHRIS MARTIN, MUSICIAN: Look at these two. All right, come on. You're OK? What? Either they're having an affair or they're just very shy.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

DEAN: The Phillie Phanatic that caught on the kiss cam at last night's game, playing off the viral Coldplay concert kiss cam, where Andy Byron, the tech company Astronomer CEO, was caught embracing a fellow executive. But as soon as they realized they were on camera, you saw them quickly jump apart. That led Coldplay's frontman Chris Martin to comment that, in his words, they were shy, or maybe they were having an affair.

But there are real serious consequences to that original viral moment. Astronomer announcing just a little bit ago the CEO has now resigned following that incident. The New York-based company releasing a statement today saying the board of directors has accepted Andy Byron's resignation and will begin its search for a new chief executive. CNN's Polo Sandoval takes us through the viral story.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

POLO SANDOVAL, CNN CORRESPONDENT (voiceover): What was caught on a Coldplay kiss cam?

MARTIN: Look at these two.

SANDOVAL (voiceover): Is playing on repeat around the world. You've no doubt seen that moment captured on a Jumbotron during Coldplay's concert near Boston earlier this week. A man and a woman embrace, but quickly and awkwardly separate once they realize they're on camera at a sold-out 60,000-seat stadium. The band's frontman, Chris Martin, offered a theory that's fueled speculation and scandal online.

MARTIN: Look at these two. All right, come on. You're OK? Either they're having an affair or they're just very shy.

SANDOVAL (voiceover): He is Andy Byron, CEO of New York-based tech company, Astronomer. She is Kristin Cabot, head of human resources, according to Astronomer's website.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: What would HR say? Oh, hang on. She is HR.

SANDOVAL (voiceover): Neither Byron nor Cabot have publicly addressed their surprise concert cameo. The company's Friday statement reads in part. Astronomer is committed to the values and culture that have guided us since our founding. Our leaders are expected to set the standard in both conduct and accountability. The board of directors has initiated a formal investigation into this matter, and we will have additional details to share very shortly.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: I've been watching it. It's on like every feed of my Instagram, of my Facebook. It's crazy.

[16:40:01]

SANDOVAL (voiceover): The viral moment continues to give way to parodies and comical reenactments.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: It's embarrassing, you know. It's like nobody's got a private life anymore.

SANDOVAL (voiceover): And of its merger after, Rolling Stone already offering a lampooning list of what to wear to totally blend in at a Coldplay concert with products including novelty disguise glasses and a camo tee.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: The thing is like that he shouldn't be on it, and that's it.

SANDOVAL: What about you? What did you think of the video?

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: If you're going to do something bad, do it well.

SANDOVAL (voiceover): Polo Sandoval, CNN, New York.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

DEAN: All right. Polo, thanks for that. President Trump has turned against the man he handpicked to lead the Federal Reserve. Trump says Jay Powell is costing the country, in his words, a fortune by refusing to cut interest rates. We'll talk about the pressure Powell is facing right now when CNN NEWSROOM returns.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[16:45:30]

DEAN: New tonight, a reporting from the Wall Street Journal revealing a split among President Trump's advisors over his pressure campaign on Fed Chief Jay Powell. The report -- the report's saying Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent has privately made the case to Trump for not firing Powell. President Trump this week appeared to leave that door open.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

DONALD TRUMP, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: I don't rule out anything, but I think it's highly unlikely, unless he has to leave for fraud. I mean, it's possible there's fraud involved with the 2.5 -- $2.7 billion renovation.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

DEAN: We are joined now by Justin Wolfers. He's a professor of economics and public policy at the University of Michigan. Justin, thank you so much for being here with us.

Listen, the business community -- Wall Street guys have really clung to Scott Bessent almost like a life raft in all of this economic tumult, hoping that he's going to be kind of "The adult in the room here." What do you think about this reporting that he's making, laying out this case? And in that Wall Street Journal reporting, they talk about why that Trump essentially would face all -- get all of the backlash and all the negative of firing him. But because he could sue and it could -- it could, you know, go on for a while, that he may even be out when he's going to be out anyway. So, what do you make of Bessent making this case to Trump?

JUSTIN WOLFERS, ECONOMIST: Look, any economist with a pulse thinks it's a bad idea to fire a Fed chair for no reason. Let me explain why. The Fed is really important. It sets interest rates, and that has a big effect on the state of the economy.

And the question for us is would we rather a Fed that made decisions in the president's political interests? So, it did what the president wanted. Or would you rather it be an independent, technocratic organization, which sounds terribly dull, but doesn't have political interests? And so, therefore, is free to make decisions in the American people's best interests.

And what we have is a lot of evidence from countries all around the world that when they adopt -- we call this central bank independence, which is let's let the guys at the Fed alone. Let's let them make the best decision. We generally tend to get lower inflation and less business cycle volatility. Basically, if you leave the guys at the fed alone, they'll do the right job for the rest of us. And so, having someone in the White House who wants to fiddle with the ups and downs of monetary policy and who has very strong and extraordinarily unconventional views is extremely dangerous.

DEAN: And look, just reminding everyone, Trump appointed Jay Powell in his -- in his first term, that he is a Trump appointee. How long can markets sustain -- Trump kind of flirting with this, much less actually firing him, which is just not done. It's --you know, it's just not something we've seen exactly how that would play out.

WOLFERS: Yes. So, we actually have a really nice experiment in how this could play out, which is last Wednesday around about 11:30, a rumor came out that Trump was going to fire Powell, and some number of people on Wall Street believed it. Half an hour later, Wall Street -- Trump came out and denied that.

So, what we have is this half-hour period where the chances that Trump would fire Powell were perceived on Wall Street to be much higher. And so, you can take that little window of time as an example to ask, what would Wall Street think? And what we saw was that stock absolutely plummeted during that little half-hour period where Trump looked like he was going to do this.

The stakes here are really high. The average viewer of this show, the average American, actually lost a thousand dollars last Wednesday between 11:30 and noon. And then Trump backed down and he got that thousand dollars back. And the thing I want you to realize is, so that doesn't just tell you that it affects you and your portfolio, but that was only Trump flirting with a little bit of undoing some of the Central Bank independence. So, if he went a whole lot more, in fact, your stakes for someone at home are much, much larger. DEAN: Yes. I mean, there's -- yes, there's the stakes are quite high

as you lay out. Justin Wolfers, thank you so much. We really appreciate it. And we'll be right back.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[16:54:19]

DEAN: Some of music's biggest names show CNN's Bill Weir how they want to harness their star power to make a difference when it comes to the climate. The whole story with Anderson Cooper airs Sunday night at 8:00 Eastern and Pacific here on CNN. Here's a preview.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

BILL WEIR, CNN CORRESPONDENT: That's cool. That's a little crayfish.

WEIR (voiceover): The tunes we love come from both person and place. And without this place, without the sun and soil, waves and wonder of Oahu's North Shore, Jack wouldn't be Jack.

JACK JOHNSON, SINGER/SONGWRITER: I think, growing up here, there's this really slow rhythm that you don't realize you're taking in, which is the sound of waves hitting the shore. And usually, that's about 12 seconds, 14 seconds apart.

[16:55:04]

WEIR (voiceover): But while plenty of places have an ocean rhythm, Jack was also raised on Aloha, the humble respect for nature and neighbor passed down from the very first Hawaiians. Right around the time Flake started drawing bigger crowds, that Hawaiian sense of responsibility would gnaw at his soul.

JOHNSON: Going back to those early shows, when you have these sort of awakenings, you know. It's like everything's great. And it's like, wow, what a night.

And then you walk out on the stage after everybody's gone, and you just see a sea of plastic water bottles. And all of a sudden, you're at an amphitheater and you look out back and you realize, whoa, there's multiple trucks here, there's multiple busses. This is a footprint, you know, an environmental footprint that's kind of bigger than I realize. This, all of a sudden, it gets here. And it's a little wake-up call of, OK, well, how can we do better? What can we do?

(END VIDEOTAPE)

DEAN: Be sure to tune in the all-new episode of "THE WHOLE STORY WITH ANDERSON COOPER." It's one whole hour, one whole story. It airs tomorrow at 8:00 p.m. Eastern and Pacific. Only here on CNN.

This week, a bombshell in the late-night world as CBS announced it will end one of its best-known shows, "The Late Show with Stephen Colbert." We'll talk about the fallout over that decision ahead. You're on CNN NEWSROOM. (COMMERCIAL BREAK)