Return to Transcripts main page

Inside Politics

Trump Rescinds Guidance to Hospitals on Emergency Abortions; FDA Commissioner to Review Abortion Drug Mifepristone; GOP Senators Split Over Phasing Out Clean Energy Incentives; Trump Speaks to Russian President Putin About War in Ukraine, Iran. Aired 12:30-1p ET

Aired June 04, 2025 - 12:30   ET

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

[12:33:13]

MANU RAJU, CNN CHIEF CONGRESSIONAL CORRESPONDENT AND CO-ANCHOR OF 'INSIDE POLITICS': The Trump administration is rolling back federal efforts to protect abortion access, even if the pregnant woman is facing a medical emergency. The Department of Health and Human Services rescinded a Biden-era policy that specified hospitals must provide abortion care if merited, even in states where abortions are illegal. CNN's Meg Tirrell joins us now. So, Meg, tell us what happens if abortion is deemed necessary to save a pregnant woman's life.

MEG TIRRELL, CNN MEDICAL CORRESPONDENT: Yeah, Manu, there is expected to be confusion around this. The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists put out a statement, essentially saying that doctors practicing in states, particularly with strict abortion bans, may have confusion about what to do and if their state ban is stricter essentially than what federal law says.

And just to explain what this is about, it concerns a 1986 federal law called EMTALA, or the Emergency Medical Treatment and Labor Act, which specifies that any hospital with an Emergency Department has to provide stabilizing care to patients, regardless of their ability to pay. Now, in July of 2022, after the Roe v. Wade was overturned, the Biden administration put out guidance to hospitals and healthcare providers, essentially saying this applies if a pregnant woman presents with an emergency where abortion would be the necessary care to stabilize that patient and preserve her health or her life, even in states with strict abortion bans.

And of course, there are more than a dozen states or about a dozen states with total abortion bans and more with bans up to gestational limits. And now, the Trump administration has rescinded that guidance saying that it doesn't reflect their policy of their administration, although they do say they will still commit to enforcing EMTALA. So essentially, the expectation here, Manu, is that there could be confusion for doctors, particularly in those strict abortion ban states.

[12:35:00]

RAJU: So, Meg, emergency care is just one aspect, but overall, how is the Trump administration approaching abortion access? TIRRELL: Well, another big question, of course, has been around medication abortion and the pill mifepristone. That was another subject of a different Supreme Court case that we heard last year. And essentially, we haven't seen the Trump administration do anything extreme about mifepristone yet. Folks had expected perhaps President Trump would direct the FDA to roll back approval of that drug, for example. We haven't seen that.

But what we have seen, and Senator Josh Hawley just tweeted about this or posted on X about this, this week, is that the FDA and HHS Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. have said that they will do a safety review of mifepristone. And so, there are questions about what that review will look like and what that will lead to in terms of FDA actions on that pill. Of course, this is the most common way that women access abortion in the United States now.

It is approved by the FDA up to 10 weeks of gestation. And the FDA currently says on its website that it's safe to use as indicated. Manu?

RAJU: All right. CNN's Meg Tirrell, thank you for that report. My panel is back. What do you make of the first -- this is the first big real abortion decision by Trump in the second term. There are a whole host of others that could potentially could go down this road. This is from, of course, Project 2025. Trump distanced himself from this during the campaign trail. We'll see some of these have become some of his policies in Project 2025 on other issues have become part of Trump administration policies. We'll see if any of these ultimately get in there.

But as Meg said, one of these is the revocation of the FDA approval of mifepristone, which they have not gone down the route of yet. But what do you make of them, the way that Trump has handled this issue, given how salient of an issue it is during the campaign?

JACKIE KUCINICH, WASHING BUREAU CHIEF, THE BOSTON GLOBE: So, we knew coming in that, you know, this is conservative president who is going to enact conservative policies. And this is clearly, you know, very much in line with that. Now, we will -- and it seems like we're going to go back to those first days after Roe was repealed, where there was a lot of confusion in emergency rooms and the results of that weren't great.

RAJU: Yeah, and there's, as Meg said, there could be a lot of confusion here with, especially with the guidance seemed a little bit vague, but we'll see how ultimately this plays out, a big decision by the Trump administration and the implications. We'll see what happens. All right, coming up. Why thousands of jobs at wind farms like this could disappear from ruby red Congressional Districts if the House gets its way.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[12:42:00]

RAJU: One key section of President Trump's domestic policy bill would reverse a big chunk of Biden-era efforts to fight climate change, and it's become a major flash point among Republicans. The version passed by the House phases out and/or eliminates the bulk of clean energy tax credits and incentives that are part of the Inflation Reduction Act enacted in 2022. Now, those incentives have brought tens of thousands of jobs to the U.S. as well as billions of dollars in investments.

Hardliners, though want those incentives eliminated immediately, while other Republicans are pushing to delay the phase out. CNN Chief Climate Correspondent, Bill Weir joins me now. Bill, so what is at risk of being phased out and what parts of the country would be most impacted?

BILL WEIR, CNN CHIEF CLIMATE CORRESPONDENT: Well, it's fascinating, Manu, what's happening here that Democrats thought about this a couple years ago and the strategy for the Inflation Reduction Act, a lot more carrots than sticks. That is a lot more incentives to get companies and consumers to switch to cleaner energy than say a carbon tax. And so, for example, the $7,500 new EV tax credit would be gone. That's $4,000 for a used EV. Charging equipment and network for folks who now have these and would like a dependable way to keep them filled up, that would go away.

Residential energy efficiency water pumps or, you know, clean hot -- heat -- water heaters, rooftops solar would go away for corporations. It is incentives to go green to power your data center with something other than fossil fuels, energy tax credit transferability, that market would kind of dissolve. And then any parts made in other countries, China, of course, owns the post-carbon economy right now, so that would affect a lot of solar panels.

Right now, there's about $843 billion at stake here. That's public and private commitments. About 40 percent of it has already been spent. And Manu, as you can see, where the other part of the Democrat strategy was to put it in red districts. You see all the red spots, the biggest circles, that's $14 billion or more in investment. So many districts of bright red Republican held Congressional spots, Manu, right now and that's the tension that we're watching.

RAJU: Yeah, no question about that. That's why you've seen some pushback from among some of those varying Republicans who represent those areas. So Bill, what are some examples of the results of the clean energy incentives that are at risk?

WEIR: Well, we got specific, you know, planned announcements. Stellantis EV plant, up in the top of Illinois 16th District there. The Ford EV campus in Tennessee outside of Memphis. There's a Hyundai plant, Buddy Carter's district in Georgia. In South Carolina, you can see these are key battleground states. And if you look at the top 20 IRA districts getting money, 14 of them are red districts, are people like David Kustoff in Tennessee there, Richard Hudson in North Carolina. These are both permanent operational jobs in red and then construction jobs to get them going.

Mark Amodei, up in the top of Nevada, 15,000 jobs there just in construction to get these clean energy things going. And so, if you add them all up, these are about 75,000 permanent operational jobs in red Republican districts that would evaporate if this bill goes away.

[12:45:00]

And at the same time, we got to keep in mind, while these fights are going on in the United States, over in China, by some estimates, they're installing about a million solar panels a week. Almost 50 percent of the cars in China now being sold are electric. So, that's where the world is going. Whether the United States wants to stay in that game, a lot of it'll come down to the vote on these on this bill, Manu.

RAJU: Yeah, 75,000 jobs. That's so much. And look, that is -- this is one of the biggest sticking points, no doubt about it. A lot of them, Republicans, they want to delay that phase out and some of the hardliners want it out immediately. We'll see how ultimately that plays out. We'll see if that ultimately tax bill becomes law. All right, Bill Weir, thank you for breaking that down. Really appreciate it.

And we've got breaking news now from the White House. President Trump says he just spoke to Vladimir Putin. The details are next.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[12:50:15]

RAJU: Breaking news. President Trump just wrapped up a call with Russian President Vladimir Putin. The U.S. president says they spoke on the phone for approximately one hour and 15 minutes. I want to bring back CNN's Kristen Holmes live from the White House. So Kristen, what did Trump say about this call?

KRISTEN HOLMES, CNN SENIOR WHITE HOUSE CORRESPONDENT: Yeah, Manu, he really dives into two separate things. One, what's going on with Russia and Ukraine and two, the deal with Iran. So let's start with reading this post because this is really the White House's version of a read-out of the call. He says he just finished speaking by telephone with President Vladimir Putin of Russia. The call lasted approximately one hour and 15 minutes.

We discussed the attack on Russia's docked airplanes by Ukraine and also various other attacks that have taking place on both sides. It was a good conversation, but not a conversation that will lead to immediate peace. President Putin did say and very strongly that he will have to respond to the recent attack on the airfield. We also discussed Iran and the fact that time is running out on Iran's decision pertaining to nuclear weapons, which must be made quickly.

I stated to President Putin that Iran cannot have a nuclear weapon. And on this, I believe that we were in agreement. President Putin suggested that he will participate in the discussions with Iran and that he could perhaps be helpful in getting this brought to a rapid conclusion. It is my opinion that Iran has been slow walking their decision on this very important matter and we will need a definitive answer in a very short period of time. So, let's break these into two separate camps because that's what they are. They're two separate deals that are going on here. One, this gives us absolutely no insight into what's happening between these conversations with Ukraine and Russia. In fact, it does seem from this that there is no end in sight. Vladimir Putin telling Donald Trump that he's going to retaliate for those attacks in Ukraine. One of the things that I've been talking to White House officials about was the fact that they were looking at the idea that Russia and Ukraine had come to the table and had these direct talks as a positive, but understood that there was no peace.

Clearly here, Putin is saying, I'm going to continue to fight this war. One thing that I think is very interesting here, you have to keep in mind, the White House has said over and over again that Ukraine did not give the White House a heads up about their attacks on Russia and on their airfields, those drone attacks. Obviously here, Putin learning from that lesson and telling Donald Trump in advance what he was planning to do, or at least giving him an overview.

Now the other part of this, of course, is the Iran deal. We know that the White House's Special Envoy, Steve Witkoff, presented a new deal to Iran over the weekend. Donald Trump has said over and over again that they cannot have any uranium, they cannot enrich any uranium at all. He is now seemingly enlisting Vladimir Putin in helping with the discussions with Iran, saying that he agrees with him. And one important thing to note here is that we've really seen over the past year or so, since the Russia-Ukraine war, a form of a partnership between Russia and Iran, their partnership growing stronger.

So now, it seems as though Donald Trump is kind of enlisting Vladimir Putin to help with those discussions. How this is going to play out, it's a very interesting twist here on how these deals are both separately now kind of coming together and Donald Trump seems to be relying on Putin more in Iran, but not really facing anything that's going on with Ukraine.

RAJU: All right, Kristen Holmes with the breaking news from the White House. Thank you so much. And back here in the room. Yeah, just to break down this post, I mean no immediate peace. That seems pretty significant, means this war is going to go on despite these talks that have been trying to materialize over the last several weeks, and then saying that President Putin did say in very strongly -- that's Trump's words -- that he will have to, Putin will have to respond to the recent attack on the airfields.

SEUNG MIN KIM, CNN POLITICAL ANALYST: I find the -- I found the tone of this, as it relates to the Russian leader, really interesting because it was about a week and a half ago where Trump posted on Truth Social that Vladimir Putin has gone "absolutely crazy." We also remember the other social media posts where he said, "Vladimir, stop" basically with all the violence and especially as Putin has shown no signs that he's going to relieve or let up on this aggression towards Ukraine. You're really seeing a growing impatience from Capitol Hill.

You have this sanctions package that's supposed to be the toughest set of sanctions against Russia. It has 81 co-sponsors in the Senate. And obviously, the continued aggression from Putin is going to add momentum to that. But what I find really interesting is President Trump does not seem to be on board quite yet with that package.

RAJU: Yeah.

MIN KIM: There was a quote from White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt with our friends at Semafor, as she said, the decision to impose sanctions will come from the Commander in Chief, i.e., not Congress.

RAJU: Yeah. And he didn't say here, he didn't say --

MIN KIM: Right.

RAJU: -- sanctions may be coming, Vladimir, or nothing like that.

[12:55:00]

PHIL MATTINGLY, CNN CHIEF DOMESTIC CORRESPONDENT AND ANCHOR: There was an omission of threats. There's also an omission of him saying when he was told by Putin, that Putin was going to respond "very strongly". I urged him not to.

(CROSSTALK)

MATTINGLY: I condemned the idea of it. I said that would be destructive to the efforts to fight -- there's none of that. And obviously, we don't know what exactly he said. I think the -- it is a very Trumpian play, although it has also been something utilized by other U.S. leaders of both parties. Right? How do you leverage Russia in other foreign issues that you're dealing with? Particularly, if it's a proliferation related issue. It's not exclusive to Trump, but his decision here, or very clear effort to try and thread a couple of things together, to try and reach an outcome, it's something that apparently might lead to an imminent strike.

RAJU: Yeah.

MATTINGLY: -- as he seems to be implying there.

DAVID CHALIAN, CNN SENIOR VICE PRESIDENT, WASHINGTON BUREAU CHIEF AND POLITICAL DIRECTOR: Those two things I think are very connected. The reason he is just a reporter on what Putin was saying about Ukraine, value judgment and not wanting to be actively engaged. He wants to wash his hands a bit. That is directly tied to, look what I'm doing here. I'm not weighing in on that, Vladimir. I need your help here. But it's also interesting, he says things like perhaps he could be helpful. I think we're in agreement that they shouldn't have nuclear. It doesn't seem like he has Putin's total buy-in --

RAJU: Yeah.

CHALIAN: -- to what he wants him to do on Iran.

RAJU: He said Trump -- he said Putin responded, he said very strongly that he'll have to respond to the recent attacks. All right. A lot more to discuss. Stay with CNN. Thanks for joining "Inside Politics." "CNN News Central" starts after a quick break.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[13:00:00]