Return to Transcripts main page

CNN This Morning

Emily M. Dickens is Interviewed about Jobs Data; Trump Administration Conflict with Drug Cartels; Alyse Adamson is Interviewed about Combs Sentencing; FEMA Halts Grant Money. Aired 6:30-7a ET

Aired October 03, 2025 - 06:30   ET

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

[06:30:00]

ERICA HILL, CNN ANCHOR: Plus, the warning from WIC. When food assistance could run out for low-income mothers and children if the government isn't reopened.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Formula is like crazy expensive. So, literally, the only way we were able to afford it was with WIC. They could literally only have formula. So, if they can't afford it, I mean, there's no other option.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[06:35:08]

HILL: Thirty-four minutes past the hour on this Friday morning. I'm Erica Hill. Good to have you with us on CNN THIS MORNING.

Let's get you caught up on what's happening right now.

It is, of course, day three of the government shutdown. Federal firings, we're told, could start in just a matter of hours. The White House has a list. The administration is expected to announce the agencies it is targeting for cuts.

Federal funding. meantime, for WIC, we're learning, could run out in one to two weeks. The Department of Agriculture says the food assistance program will not receive its quarterly funding because of the shutdown. The department is planning to allocate some $150 million in contingency funds to states, which, of course, helps nearly 7 million low-income women, infants and children across the U.S.

The national parks will remain partially open during the shutdown. According to the Interior Department, roads, trails and open-air memorials will remain accessible. Areas with sensitive resources, however, may close. Critics are calling this plan irresponsible. They say it is dangerous to allow public access without adequate staffing. So, normally, this being the first Friday of the month, the Labor

Department would release its jobs report. But, of course, these are not normal times and so there will be no jobs report today thanks to the government shutdown. The data, though, is likely in. And that's prompted Democratic Senator Elizabeth Warren to call on the president to release it, noting that "without it, the Federal Reserve," she says, "will not have the full picture it needs to make decisions this month about interest rates that will impact every family across the country."

It's also important to note, it's not just the Fed here that relies on that monthly snapshot of the economy. Investors, businesses, they also look to that data. According to payroll company ADP, which is releasing its regular information, it says that private sector businesses lost 32,000 jobs in September. President Trump, though, is offering this view of the job market.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

DONALD TRUMP, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES (September 19, 2025): The jobs are being created right now.

TRUMP (September 9, 2025): A lot of jobs are coming in, like I think we've never seen before.

TRUMP (August 20, 2025): Private jobs are way up.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

HILL: He says private jobs are way up. Not what ADP sees in its data.

Joining me to discuss is Emily Dickens, chief of staff and head of government affairs with SHRM.

It's good to have you with us, Emily.

So, just remind us, I mean, separate from, of course, the showdown, the administration has actually floated the idea of just getting rid of or sort of reworking these monthly jobs reports, perhaps even not releasing them on such a regular basis. What's the impact, the broad impact, of not having this information today?

EMILY M. DICKENS, CHIEF OF STAFF AND HEAD OF GOVERNMENT AFFAIRS, SHRM: Well, I think today people are thinking about so many other things. And I understand they're used to being able to depend on this. And so, these are uncertain times. And it adds to the uncertainty. But again, as you mentioned earlier, there are other resources that, you know, may not be as well-known as the BLS, but these resources are things you can point to, to see where there are some key issues.

And then, you know, for organizations like SHRM, we have our own internal data, and many organizations do where they're tapping into number information, talking directly with people. And then, of course, you have payroll information that people have access to and academic access to.

So, but for right now, it's -- everyone seems very uncertain because they are so dependent on the BLS.

HILL: So -- but I'm hearing two things there, that there is this uncertainty, but you have private resources. So then is it not a big deal if the information is not being released?

DICKENS: Well, we are used to it. And there are many groups who depend upon it. And so, it is different. We're not used to it being released. And so, for many, it is a big deal. But again, we're in uncertain times and we're just trying to figure out, you know, where do we go now?

HILL: Yes.

DICKENS: And so, for others who all -- use alternative sources, for them, they're now going to lean more on those sources and share them more broadly.

HILL: Right. So, we have (INAUDIBLE) the information like ADP, the internal resources, which you have as well. Based on that information, which is available at this point, what is the state of the jobs market right now? How healthy is the economy?

DICKENS: So, I -- you know, that depends on who interprets. This is what I'll say is, we know that there has been a slowing in the economy in the number of hiring -- in hiring there's been a slowing. We've seen that over the last few months. And we don't see a change right now.

We're coming towards the fourth quarter. And so, there's been this wait and see form (ph) from employers in terms of whether they're going to hire. We've seen a number of employers for other reasons decide that they are going to contract their workforces. And so we're seeing those announcements as well.

So, it is still, again, I know I'm using that term again, but it's very uncertain.

HILL: Yes.

DICKENS: And -- but we do know that it's not the once thriving work -- job market that it was before. I know you've seen the data about the number of young people coming out of college, coming out of high school who are having a difficulty finding jobs. So, that's one part. And then now the uncertainty where typically people may hire up now for the beginning of Q1 you're seeing -- you're not seeing as much.

[06:40:07]

HILL: Right. And we are -- and we are hearing from the White House that as soon as this weekend we could hear about more layoffs coming within the federal government.

DICKENS: Yes.

HILL: So, we'll be watching for that as well.

Emily, appreciate it. Thank you.

DICKENS: Thank you.

HILL: So, the U.S. is now in an armed conflict with drug cartels according to the president. That designation was in part of a letter to Congress this week, obtained by CNN, in which the White House deemed its recent attacks on suspected drug boats as legal uses of force. The notice to Congress going on to say that cartels are designated now as terrorist organizations engaged in a, quote, "armed attack against the United States."

Former Deputy Assistant Attorney General John Yoo telling CNN he's not sure this notice to Congress is really enough to justify the strikes.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

JOHN YOO, FORMER U.S. DEPUTY ASSISTANT ATTORNEY GENERAL: I'm sorry to say, the memo doesn't really answer the questions that would allow us to decide whether this is an appropriate use of force. The United States can't wage war constitutionally, I think, or legally, against criminal groups. The foreign drug cartels are not really using armed force against the United States.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

HILL: John Yoo, of course, authored what later became to be known as "the torture memos" in the Bush Justice Department, which was during the war on terror, of course, about enhanced interrogation techniques.

Lulu, when you hear him talk about the fact that he's not sure about this memo, that it may fall short of answering the questions needed to justify the strikes, what does that tell you?

LULU GARCIA-NAVARRO, CNN CONTRIBUTOR: Yes, I mean, it tells me that there's really thin legal justification for this. If you think about drug dealers, normally drug dealers are arrested by police, right? You don't just gun them down on the streets. And basically what President Trump is doing at this point is -- is sort of claiming these extraordinary wartime powers, and that allows them to target people and kill them essentially without having to justify why. Because under the rules of war and international conflict, those kinds of attacks are allowed.

You know, when you add to that, the administration also hasn't named them. If you think about the first, you know, after the al Qaeda issue and what happened after 9/11, we knew who the United States was at war with. They were a designated terrorist group. In this case, you have not seen the administration make the case and name who these groups really are.

Add to all of this, they targeted boats in Venezuela, which a lot of the drugs we know, especially fentanyl, come in from China through Mexico. So again, a lot of questions here as to what exactly this is about.

HILL: And they're also -- you know, it's interestingly raise the point about al Qaeda. Kash Patel was actually asked about this on The Hill last month. I want to play some of what he said.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

KASH PATEL, FBI DIRECTOR: I'm thankful that the Trump administration has designated these cartels and narco traffickers as foreign terrorist organizations is because we must treat them like the foreign terrorist organizations post 9/11. We must treat them like the al Qaeda's of the world, because that's how they're operating. And just treating them with law enforcement capabilities alone was wholly insufficient to wipe out the targets in their entirety.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

HILL: So, there's the issue of the actual naming, right, as Lulu brought up. But also, Noel, looking at this, treating them like al Qaeda, that would require a sign off from Congress.

NOEL KING, CO-HOST AND EDITORIAL DIRECTOR, "TODAY, EXPLAINED" PODCAST: As so much else --

HILL: The president --

KING: Right, during this administration --

HILL: Yes, sorry, go ahead. Yes.

KING: This is the constant theme. It's this should require approval from Congress. And then the administration says, we are going to do it anyway. And then the pushback is lukewarm.

Look, we know from some very good reporting from CNN, "The New York Times" and others that inside the Trump administration there is a fight over what should be done about Venezuela. We know that there's a camp that wants President Maduro ousted. They want him out. And the targeting of these, you know, drug cartels, I don't know what's on the boat, so let me not use scare quotes, but the targeting of these boats is -- is -- is a way to push into Venezuela and make Venezuela react.

We also know that there's a camp within the Trump administration that says, we need to keep doing diplomacy with Nicolas Maduro. We need to make sure this does not turn into a war.

The thing that I think a lot of this keeps coming back to is, what did President Trump promise on the campaign trail? To keep us out of foreign entanglements. To keep us out of foreign conflicts. The United States has a very long history of misadventures, and that's, to put it gently, in South America, in Latin America. And I think a lot of Americans don't want to go back there.

HILL: There are also questions about, you know, to Lulu's point, about where the drugs are coming from and what that could mean in terms of cooperation for the United States to try to stop those drugs. So, specifically, if they are, you know, coming in through Mexico, for example, not on a boat from Venezuela so much. And that came up. I spoke last night with John Bolton, of course, Trump's former national security advisor. He's concerned about those unintended consequences. Take a listen.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

JOHN BOLTON, FROMER TRUMP NATIONAL SECURITY ADVISER: This actually reinforces why you don't move to the use of military simply by declaring something to be a war against the United States.

[06:45:07]

We're not going to get invited into countries like Colombia, possibly like Mexico if the governments think that we'll move at our -- at our discretion from conventional law enforcement toward the indiscriminate use of military force.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

HILL: Chet, do you share those concerns of Ambassador Bolton's?

CHET LOVE, CEO AND FOUNDER, CORNERSTONE GROUP: No, I think it's -- President Trump, at the end of the day, said he was going to protect the American people. And that's exactly what he's doing. As a lawyer, I've looked into this. It's legal for the president of the United States to be able to designate certain individual groups as terrorist organizations. The secretary of state, Marco Rubio, has already done that.

And when you look at the data over the last ten years, you've had less than 200 Americans that have been killed as a result of international terrorist activity in the United States. But over this same period, 200 fentanyl deaths a day, we are at war. And we know that the drugs initially are originating in China, and they're coming through Mexico and other locations in the United States. And so, the idea that President Trump is doing something wrong and illegal to stop 200 Americans from dying every single day, I just don't know what -- how to respond to that.

HILL: Well --

GARCIA-NAVARRO: I guess I just don't understand why there are boats targeted coming from Venezuela if the problem is Mexico and China. I mean, I think that's the question that everyone has, right, to Noel's point, which is, if this is really about regime change in Venezuela, that's one thing. If this is about protecting Americans from fentanyl, then really you need to look at China and you need to look at Mexico.

LOVE: Again, I think --

HILL: We are going to have to leave this one there -- this one here, because we do have a lot more to get to. But, stay with us. I'm pretty sure it's not the last time we'll talk about that one.

Still ahead here on CNN THIS MORNING, it is decision day for Diddy. His letter to the judge asking for mercy as his victims express their concerns about their personal safety should he be released.

Plus, FEMA now demanding a recount and halting emergency grants for preparedness for states.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[06:51:24]

HILL: Sentencing day for Sean "Diddy" Combs. He is facing up to ten years in prison for each count. Remember, he was convicted on two counts of transportation to engage in prostitution, but acquitted of the more serious charges. Combs submitting a four-page letter to the judge asking for mercy ahead of the sentencing and writing, "my downfall was rooted in my selfishness. I have been humbled and broken to my core."

Joining me now, Alyse Adamson, a former federal prosecutor. She's also the host of the "At-lyse You Heard it Here" podcast.

It's great to have you with us. How much -- how much sway, this letter -- so, he submitted this letter to the judge. Not unheard of, obviously. We know that he will have a large amount of family support in the courtroom today, his mother, his sister, his adult children. How much influence could all of this have on the judge in that sentencing decision?

ALYSE ADAMSON, HOST, "AT-LYSE YOU HEARD IT HERE" PODCAST: Well, thanks so much for having me, Erica.

I think the -- the answer is, it depends. It's the lawyerly answer, right? I can say it certainly is helpful. And that's because what we see in this letter is Combs really accepting some part of his role here, remorse, sincerity. These are things that the judge is looking for because when a defendant shows awareness for their crime and remorse, it makes them, you know, less likely to re-offend. And that is something that the government has been arguing all the time, that Combs has taken no responsibility and that he's likely to do this again when he leaves.

But I think it's important to note, Erica, that how the judge is going to sentence Combs is really dependent on something called his sentencing guideline range. This is a voluntary guidelines that judges follow, and it's based on points that are assigned to things like the actual criminal offense, the more serious offense, the more points, a defendant's criminal history and the facts and circumstances of this case. And so here we have the defense asking for 14 months, which is essentially time served, because Combs has been in jail for a year. We have the government asking for 11 years. And the reason there's that disparity is because the government is asking for several enhancements related to the conduct in this case. If they get those enhancements, it doesn't really matter, you know, how sincere Combs is because the range that the judge can sentence him is going to be very high.

HILL: It's also -- it's also important to note, because we will often hear, right, from -- from victims before sentencing. Cassie Ventura sent her own letter into the judge. She said she won't be there. She is fearing for her safety, for the safety of her family, but did ask the judge to consider the victims in this moment. And then there was a former employee who also testified at this trial, who does plan to speak at the sentencing. Those are often very powerful moments. Are they impactful, though, especially as you lay out the way the decision will have to be made?

ADAMSON: That's right, Erica. These are known as victim impact statements. And Cassie and Jane actually had the absolute right to make a statement. Mia was allowed to make a statement based upon a judge's ruling. Mia being the employee that you just mentioned.

I can tell you from personal experience, Erica, that these are very persuasive. When victims have their opportunity to speak and tell the court how the crime has impacted their life, that is incredibly powerful. And so, we do have that guideline range I told you about, but it's a range. It goes from the low end to the high end. And sometimes the power of those statements can ultimately persuade a judge to go a little bit higher and hear what the victims are saying is they're fearful their lives will never be the same and that Combs really should be punished for his -- his conduct.

[06:55:07]

So, I think Cassie's letter was powerful, and I think Mia's statement has the potential to also be very persuasive to the judge.

HILL: Alyse Adamson, great to have you this morning. Thank you.

ADAMSON: Thanks for having me.

HILL: In an unusual move, FEMA is now halting the release of hundreds of millions of dollars in emergency preparedness grants, demanding that states first prove their population counts, excluding deported migrants. So, in a notice that was sent to the states and obtained by CNN, it says, as you see here, "FEMA will rescind the funding hold upon its review and approval of the state's methodology and population certification." So, those funds, which are known as Emergency Management Performance Grants, they total more than $300 million last year. What are they for? Well, they're actually designed to help local communities prepare for disasters. Those notices were also sent to the states just hours after a federal judge temporarily blocked the administration from diverting FEMA grants away from about a dozen Democratic states.

The group chat is back.

What's interesting is that FEMA has traditionally relied on U.S. census data to measure the state population. That would then determine these grant allocations. They now want states, Noel, to redo their population, essentially, take out whoever's been deported, report back. It's a remarkable added layer and -- and change in the way things are done. The timing, Noel, also interesting.

KING: It is interesting. I mean we've heard a drumbeat from this administration. It started low. It's getting louder. You can't trust what the census says. And I think, over the coming months and years, while President Trump is in office, this conversation will get louder and louder. I mean, what's -- what's kind of awful here is, if you think back

about -- if you think back over recent American history, it's not that we're not having emergencies. It's not that we're not having natural disasters, floods, fires, those awful floods in Texas over the -- over the summer, my God, with all of those children. Adding an additional layer of bureaucracy, forcing states to prove, you know, to prove what their population is, I -- I don't know. It's playing politics. And it's playing politics with something that is so important and seems like a dumb move to me, frankly.

HILL: Chet, we know the storms are getting more frequent. They are getting more severe. That is the data. That is the science that tells us that. The fact that, Chet, these are emergency preparedness grants, this would go to what the administration has said is one of its aims. It wants states to be more prepared on their own so that there is not as much of a reliance on FEMA. Why get rid of that?

LOVE: I don't think it's about getting rid. I think it's about streamlining the process. What the American people need to understand, at the end of the day, is that the government, the federal government, has a lot of bureaucracy. There's a lot of red tape and a lot of inefficiencies. And being able to empower the states to do more on their own, I think, is the important thing. We're not abandoning protecting people. We're not abandoning the helpless in these communities. But it is about rightsizing it. It's not getting rid of FEMA, but it's definitely streamlining and improving the overall process.

HILL: Oh, in terms of states doing things on their own, it also apparently now includes doing their own population recounts. I mean how long do you think -- just practically speaking, adding this bureaucratic layer, how long do you think that could take?

GARCIA-NAVARRO: Yes, I mean, just to the point this is actually very costly, very time consuming, and it doesn't streamline the process. It actually does something that the Trump administration has long wanted, which is to exclude unauthorized migrants from population counts. If you remember, the first Trump administration, when the census happened, there was a big fight about this. And the Trump administration then made it very clear that they want to see those populations excluded.

Why this is important with FEMA, we know that disasters don't look for paperwork, right? They don't say, hey, are you documented? Are you undocumented? They affect everyone equally. And this will eventually hamstring states who are now tasked with even more work in the face of these natural disasters with getting prepared for them by sort of making this money contingent on who and who has not been deported from this country, which, again, we don't really have a lot of data on and is very unclear.

HILL: We only have about a minute left and you're all going to have to share it, but I believe that you can do that. Just give me your thoughts on -- on -- on how long this shutdown may potentially last.

Chet, I'll start with you.

LOVE: Let's talk about the fact that the federal government has not had a budget in the last 30 years. I think the American people, across the board, should be furious about the fact that we keep having these shutdowns again and again.

HILL: That's not an answer, though, to the question. How long does it last?

LOVE: The next week.

HILL: You think in a week.

Lulu, how about you?

GARCIA-NAVARRO: I think it might go on a little bit longer. You know, I -- more than two.

HILL: More than two.

Noel, where -- where -- what is your thinking this morning?

KING: I am wise enough to know that I do not know. I'm going to defer -- defer to the rest of you.

GARCIA-NAVARRO: I don't know either.

[07:00:00]

To be clear, I don't know either. You forced me into it.

HILL: Don't worry, I am not holding any of you to this number, I promise.

GARCIA-NAVARRO: Oh, but the internet will.

HILL: I would be getting out my magic eight ball if I had one here in studio.

GARCIA-NAVARRO: The internet will. The internet will.

HILL: But I never will. It is -- it is something. We will be watching to see whether there could be -- there were some rumblings -- maybe there could be some discussions this weekend. It will be interesting to see.

Thank you all for starting a Friday with me this morning. It's great to have you. Always great to have your perspective.

Thanks to all of you at home who joined us here on CNN THIS MORNING. Stay tuned. "CNN NEWS CENTRAL" starts right now. Have a great weekend.