Return to Transcripts main page

Inside Politics

Judge Rules Trump's Use Of Military In Los Angeles Was Illegal; Chicago Braces For Possible Surge Of Federal Forces Into City; Gov. Newsom On New Court Ruling: " Donald Trump Loses Again"; This Week: Bipartisan Push To Demand DOJ Release Epstein Files; Longtime Democratic Rep Jerry Nadler Won't Seek Re-Election. Aired 12-12:30p ET

Aired September 02, 2025 - 12:00   ET

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

[12:00:00]

WOLF BLITZER, CNN CO-ANCHOR, THE SITUATION ROOM: We're also remembering the life of legendary CBS News White House correspondent, Mark Knoller. He died at the age of 73. Mark covered eight presidential administrations and was celebrated here in Washington as the, quote, unofficial presidential archivist for his encyclopedic knowledge of the White House.

Both Charles and Mark were truly brilliant journalists, very generous people and dear friends. Their work helped shape how we all understand Washington, and they were both instrumental in helping me when I became a CNN White House correspondent back in 1992.

Like so many of my journalistic colleagues, I will always be grateful to them. Our deepest, deepest condolences to their loved ones, may they rest in peace and may their memories be a blessing.

PAMELA BROWN, CNN ANCHOR, THE SITUATION ROOM: True legends.

BLITZER: They really helped me a lot.

BROWN: Sorry for the loss.

BLITZER: Yeah.

BROWN: It was very tough. Well, thank you so much for joining us this morning. We'll see you back here tomorrow morning and every weekday morning at 10 am Eastern.

BLITZER: Inside Politics with Dana Bash starts right now.

DANA BASH, CNN HOST, INSIDE POLITICS: Today on Inside Politics, checks and balances. We're following a major court ruling that could have big implications for President Trump's push to send U.S. troops to blue cities across the country.

Plus, Congress reconvenes, and the Epstein scandal reignites. A bipartisan group of lawmakers meets with some of Jeffrey Epstein's victims as they try to force a vote demanding the DOJ release the Epstein files. And passing the torch. A 78-year-old top Democrat says Joe Biden's campaign sparked his decision to focus on generational change instead of reelection. But will other veteran lawmakers follow his lead and make room for new blood in their wounded party?

I'm Dana Bash. Let's go behind the headlines at Inside Politics.

And we start with the breaking news. A federal judge ruled this morning that the Trump administration broke the law by using the military to help carry out law enforcement activities in Los Angeles this summer. The ruling comes as the president is preparing to send National Guard troops to other cities like Chicago to fight crime and illegal immigration.

CNN senior legal analyst Elie Honig joins me now. He is the author of the forthcoming book, When You Come at the King. So, explain this ruling and what it actually means for President Trump's plans?

ELIE HONIG, CNN SENIOR LEGAL ANALYST: Well, Dana, it's a dramatic ruling, and it's certainly a loss for Donald Trump, but it's also important to understand that it's limited in scope and duration. Now this is actually part two of an ongoing legal battle. Part one was back in June when Trump first sent the National Guard to California.

Gavin Newsom, in the state of California, sued. They said that overstepped the president's constitutional authority. And originally this same judge who ruled today, Judge Charles Breyer, ruled in favor of California and Governor Newsom. He said it was unconstitutional.

However, just days later, that ruling was actually reversed by the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. They said Donald Trump was within his constitutional authority to send the National Guard troops to California.

Now, today's ruling is part two, and that has to do with what can and cannot those troops do while they're deployed. And what Judge Breyer found today is that in some instances, those troops have crossed the line, that's supposed to separate military from law enforcement.

You'll hear people refer to that as the Posse Comitatus Act. It's the idea that military troops should not be engaged in law enforcement activity. And in today's ruling, the judge said there are times when that line was crossed, for example, when troops were used to support law enforcement, doing arrests and search warrants, when troops were used to do traffic checkpoints and to do riot control.

And so, the judge said that line has to be respected, and troops cannot be used for any type of law enforcement activity. Importantly, though, Dana, the judge did put his own ruling on hold for 10 days until September 12, to give the Trump administration a chance to appeal. So, they certainly will appeal, and we'll see this time whether the court of appeals agrees with Judge Breyer or whether they reverse him again.

BASH: Right. Because, as you said, they reversed the judge on part one, as you explained it. And what I'm curious about, and I think it's important to kind of drill down on what this does mean for other cities. We know that the president is poised to try to send troops to Chicago, maybe even New York.

How does the Supreme Court ruling earlier this year that said that when a federal judge makes a ruling, it has to be just focused on that district, and it can't be nationwide? It can't have implications nationwide. Will this particular ruling in L.A. be different when it comes to Chicago and New York because of what the Supreme Court did earlier this year?

HONIG: I think that might well be how this plays out. Now, Judge Breyer plainly wrote this decision with an eye towards the broader landscape. At one point, he wrote in today's decision that President Trump and Secretary of Defense Hegseth, have already announced their intention to deploy troops in other cities. And he said, essentially, what we want to avoid is a national police force with the president as its chief.

[12:05:00]

Now, here's what's going to happen, if and when the president tries to send National Guard troops into, let's say, Chicago. First of all, there will be a challenge as to whether he's constitutionally able to do that. And then there will be a fight like the one today about what can they do, and can they not do?

But as you said, Dana, really important to know, each of those cases is going to stand alone. Each of them is going to have different circumstances on the street, different potential emergency circumstances. And a key distinction to keep in mind, the basis that the courts have allowed Trump so far to send National Guard troops to California is the ongoing protest, which sometimes turned violent over the ICE raids and ICE enforcement.

That's the reason Trump is allowed to do this. Now you don't have that kind of protest happening in Chicago or in Baltimore or in New York. So, Trump is going to lose that legal hook when it comes to those later cases. I'm sure what he's going to argue is crime rates and overall danger.

I'm not sure that's going to get him the same winning result that he's had so far in California. I'm not sure that's going to allow him to send the National Guard troops into those other cities. Each of these cases is going to stand on their own.

BASH: Right. Unless one of them goes to the Supreme Court and the Supreme Court decides to make a national blanket decision. Thank you so much, Elie, appreciate that. I'm joined by a terrific group of reporters, on this Tuesday. CNN's Jeff Zeleny, Ayesha Rascoe of NPR, CNN's Phil Mattingly, and Marianna Sotomayor of The Washington Post. Happy fall, everyone. I know it's not technically fall, but it's -- our kids are back in school, so it's fall.

Jeff, what are your thoughts on, not only what this judge said this morning about L.A., but what it means for the tactics that President Trump and his top aides are using? JEFF ZELENY, CNN CHIEF NATIONAL AFFAIRS CORRESPONDENT: Look, one thing we've seen President Trump doing is really try and blur the lines of the nation's military with the law enforcement. We've certainly seen it here in Washington. And the judge in this ruling is shaking his finger at that, saying, it's not so easy. It's not allowed. We have zero idea if this is going to influence the Trump administration's thinking.

My guess is it may not, but there are many differences, of course. But I think one thing that is, perhaps looming large over Chicago. Chicago has been something that President Trump has talked about, really, since I can recall him running for president back in 2015 and even before that, he was a businessman.

He put the Trump Tower in Chicago. He has been going out for Chicago crime for so long. It almost stands apart from any other city that he's talked about. It's become a metaphor. It's become a punching bag. It's hard to imagine him backing away from that, or perhaps, he's just leaving it dangling out there.

But I think what some Chicago officials that I've been speaking with over the last couple days really worry about is a confrontation here. Is the mayor yesterday, Brandon Johnson, was saying, and no federal troops. He, of course, signed an executive order over the weekend, and saying, the Chicago police officers will not work in a cooperation with the national guardsmen and women, if they're there.

So, we're potentially looking at a confrontation, which could be something like we've not seen here in Washington. And we know one thing that President Trump said last week at that long cabinet meeting. He said, crime is going to be the central focus of the midterm elections, and I think Republicans will do well. So, this is something he is eager to keep shining a light on as Washington becomes very busy in September with government shutdown, potentially, he wants to keep the focus on this.

AYESHA RASCOE, NPR HOST, "WEEKEND EDITION SUNDAY" AND "UP FIRST": Yeah. I mean, you know, look, I think that this is something that, as you said, Trump has talked about so much. I mean, I remember during the first term, he kept threatening to send in, you know, troops and to try to take over in Chicago because the crime was so bad.

But now you see in the second term, he's doing everything he kind of threatened to do in the first term. But what you are left with, and the difference between going into Chicago versus going into D.C. D.C. doesn't have the rights that Chicago has at all, and Chicago is a very big city like, I've been taking -- I've been taken aback by, like, even in D.C., you walk around, you don't always see the presence, they're around.

But, like I live in D.C., I don't see them all the time, but you go to a place like Chicago, how are they really going to even be able to spread out and deal with all of this? Like, at a certain point it's like, logistically, how does this all work?

BASH: A lot of troops. I think then, that's what their plan is. Just a little sort of factcheck. This is something that was put together by Axios, based on 2024 and FBI data, the top 10 cities. Well, top 10 makes it sound like it's a good thing. The 10 cities that have the most -- the highest homicide rates.

Chicago is not even on there. Washington, D.C. is at number 27. I'm not saying that crime is not a problem and that murder is not a problem in Chicago, but there are other cities that apparently the data shows that is worse.

[12:10:00]

Let's go back, Phil, to California and just the politics of Trump versus Gavin Newsom. Of course, Newsom right away put on social media in his new form, all caps. Donald Trump loses again. The courts agree his militarization of our streets and use of military against U.S. citizens is illegal.

PHIL MATTINGLY, CNN ANCHOR & CHIEF DOMESTIC CORRESPONDENT: Each individual's favorite foil gets another round on some level today that we've seen over the course of the last several weeks. I don't think it's going to disengage anytime soon. I think what's interesting is, you know, Elie actually hit on a key point that was a little bit away from California. But I think California is instructive in this on what we saw with this judge. The same judge as Elie noted, struck it down the first time around, was overturned by the Circuit Court.

We'll see what the Circuit Court does here on appeal. The reason why the Circuit Court sided with the administration the first time around was because they saw legitimate rationale for the need based on the protests and the violence that were coming from the protest, no matter how big or small that there was -- the government had authority to do what the president had done.

I think this is why it's important when we talk about Chicago outside of the political scope, there is a sequence of events here. The president is the only one in the administration talking about sending in the troops right now. The administration is focused on the immigration enforcement action and the expansion of that that's coming in the coming days.

The idea of launching that a confrontation, protests and potentially violence starting is the pretext for being able to launch something that even California, the Circuit Court judges, said was legal in that moment. Maybe it's not anymore weeks later, but I think watch that sequencing here, because this isn't Chicago, is not D.C., and California kind of creates a road map of sorts, no matter what the judge said. He slapped it down, and he was very stern about it, but it was narrow. There's a sequence here that people should pay attention to.

BASH: Yeah. Hold your thought. I'm going to get you on the other side of the break. I just want to add to that real quick. You make -- you make -- all of you make excellent points on the question of whether or not, assuming the federal troops go in, whether or not there will be any clashes. I mean, it sounds, you know, like, maybe you shouldn't say this out loud, but we'll just say it that that's something the kind of imagery that the Trump administration is not unhappy about, if they get that because then they can go against Democrats more on crime.

All right, don't go anywhere. When we come back, Congress is back. The House left for summer recess, hoping time away would tamp down a debate over the Jeffrey Epstein files. Six weeks in, it didn't work. Stay with us.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[12:15:00]

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

BASH: Members of Congress are back from summer break today and they're picking up pretty much where they left off, with the Jeffrey Epstein saga. House Speaker Mike Johnson and members of a key committee will meet with some of Epstein's victims ahead of a public news conference that's scheduled for tomorrow. They are in town in D..C as part of a bipartisan pressure campaign led by Democrat Ro Khanna and Republican Thomas Massie to force a vote, demanding the public release of all the Epstein files.

So far, Speaker Johnson has stood in the way of that. Now moments ago, he did symbolic resolution to affirm the oversight committee's work, a move Massie called meaningless. My panel is back. What are you hearing from your sources? Is this discharge petition going to pass?

MARIANNA SOTOMAYOR, CONGRESSIONAL REPORTER, THE WASHINGTON POST: Well, it's expected for all House Democrats to sign on. So that's 212, have to get to 218. And there are Republicans who have said time and time again that they are for releasing the Epstein files. A number of members of the House Freedom Caucus, saying they're likely to join on to this discharge petition, but this competing resolution, which again, just affirms, hey, we're investigating. We're doing the work.

Leadership is hoping that compels some of these Republicans who want to vote to say that they support release of the Epstein files but not join on to that bipartisan petition. But it's going to go on all week. I mean, this is going to dominate the conversations that are happening on the Hill. I'm sure reporters are getting ready to stake out the meetings happening.

But even if that discharge petition were to pass, get enough votes, force a vote on the House floor, then has to go to the Senate. And we haven't really seen Senate Republicans engage in the same way on Epstein. And obviously, if they were to pass it in the Senate, Trump would have to sign it into law, and we have very much seen how Trump wants this issue to go away. I don't think it's going to reach us.

BASH: And yet, this is the first issue in this term, in this Trump term that we have seen where there is genuine grassroots pressure that is against the Trump grain, that is from many in the MAGA base who want these released. And clearly, what Ro Khanna and the Democrats are doing is trying to make Republicans take an uncomfortable vote.

So that, if they vote against it, every single campaign, against every Republican who is in even a moderately tough race, Democrats are going to say, they claim that they wanted the Epstein files to be released. But look, here's a no vote. They really don't do. Can you really trust them or whatever it is? I mean, the ads kind of write themselves.

[12:20:00]

Real quick before you jump in. You mentioned that there's going to be a list of things that are happening on this front. On the eighth, the goal for the Epstein estate to hand over materials to the oversight committee. On the 17, FBI Director Kash Patel is going to testify in the House. And on the 19, the former Labor Secretary Alex Acosta is going to testify in the House. Why? Because he was the prosecutor in charge of the deal that was struck back during Trump won with Jeffrey Epstein.

MATTINGLY: Before Trump won when he was --

BASH: Before Trump won.

MATTINGLY: -- the U.S. attorney's office down in Florida. And it's been kind of one of the key voices, I think a lot of people who wanting to hear from here in terms of what the deferred prosecution agreement that was actually set up. How it came to be, what the genesis of that was, which I think underscores the point, that very honest point, they're back, and it's the first thing they're doing.

Part of the reason House Republicans went home for recess a couple days early is because they're like, look, everybody just needs to cool off. And then maybe after August district work period, by the way, Dana, not recess, district work period. People will have let this go. And I think you make a great point. The durability of this issue, which, like all issues on Capitol Hill, it's driven by the people that are calling your office, members response to that.

They respond to what they're hearing when they're back home in the district, which they have been for the last several weeks. It's like, nothing I've ever seen before, given how desperately the White House has tried to put this to bed every which way but Sunday, including the release of the transcript with the deputy attorney general just a couple of weeks ago. And it's just -- it's still here, and it's going to be here for weeks to come.

BASH: Let's listen to what Ro Khanna is saying about his push with Tom Massie, one of the most liberal, one of the most conservative members of Congress together, to get this vote on the floor.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

REP. RO KHANNA (D-CA): Leadership at White House is not just talking to them, they're trying to intimidate them. There are 12 Republicans. I admire their independents. And I'm quite confident that we are going to get the vast majority of them to sign and maybe some others. This is about making sure rich and powerful men, don't have a separate system of justice in this country.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

BASH: Now I just want to say, the Democrats are doing this, maybe if all of them are going to vote for it, because it makes Republicans uncomfortable. I don't think there is a Democrat who was desperate to see these Epstein files. They had time during the Biden years to do that, and they didn't. But this is about politics.

RASCOE: This is about politics, but there is something visceral about this case that has just cut through everything else, where people just generally understand, like, Epstein was a bad guy. He took advantage of young girls, right? And there's just something about it that is so upsetting to people that he had all this money, he was able to do this.

And now you want to look the other way. You don't want to get all the details, put it all out there. And the fact that, at this point, Republicans can't be on the side of, let's put it all out there. Yeah, I mean, it's going to be, you know, kind of a millstone around their necks for a while.

BASH: And the fact that victims are coming to Washington to make sure that this doesn't just end up a political back and forth. But put the focus more on the actual women who were taken advantage of in a big way.

ZELENY: Without question, and to your point earlier. I mean, this is the single, really the only issue that I can think of where there has been a pushback among the Trump faithful on this. So, I'm not sure we know where this is going to go. I mean, they clearly were hoping it would go away in the month of August. That did not happen at all.

The White House desperately wants to move on from it. So perhaps, one of the things we talked about in the earlier segment, the Chicago issues and other things, will be more in the news because they certainly don't want the Epstein files to be.

BASH: Yes, certainly the hope of Donald Trump. Don't go anywhere, because up next, we're going to talk about passing the torch. A long serving House Democrat says, he'll retire from office and make way for a new generation.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[12:25:00]

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

BASH: He has been in Congress for more than three decades, making him one of the most senior members of the U.S. House of Representatives. But today, Democratic Congressman Jerry Nadler announced he will not seek reelection. Here's what he wrote. This decision has not been easy. But I know in my heart it is the right one and that it is the right time to pass the torch to a new generation. He told the New York Times specifically that quote, watching the Biden thing really said something about the necessity for generational change in the party, and I think I want to respect that. He added, a younger successor can maybe do better, can maybe help us more.

Our smart group of reporters are back. That's a wow, given the reluctance by a lot of people who have a lot of experience, frankly, on both sides of the aisle to give it up.

RASCOE: I mean, I think the writing is on the wall, especially for Democrats, right, because Democrats are frustrated and they want something fresh and new. And almost like, as an older person, and I'm speaking for myself. Sometimes you might be like, well, you can have it then. Go ahead and --

(Crosstalk)

RASCOE: -- we got distracted. But sometimes you like, just put up -- shut up, right? Let's get -- and the thing is, like the younger Democrats who step up will have to show what they can do, right? Like this is a point where the Democrats are trying to define themselves. Now, I don't know how many are going to really follow Nadler's lead, but there is a definite push. And at some point, the party is going to have to figure out who they are.

[12:30:00]