Return to Transcripts main page

The Situation Room

White House Rescinds Memo On Federal Aid Freeze After Confusion; RFK Jr. Faces Heated Questioning At Confirmation Hearing; Sources Say, New York City Mayor Eric Adams Attorneys In Talks About Dropping Case; White House Denies Buyout Offers Are Attempt To Purge Federal Workforce; Israel: Three Israelis & Five Thai Hostages To Be Freed Tomorrow. Aired 6-7p ET

Aired January 29, 2025 - 18:00   ET

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


[18:00:00]

JIM SCIUTTO, CNN HOST: Happening now, breaking news, the White House rescinds a memo freezing trillions of dollars in federal funds. It marks a major reversal for the Trump administration after the rules sparked nationwide outrage and confusion.

Plus, after a heated Senate hearing, it is still unclear if Robert F. Kennedy Jr. has the votes to win confirmation as the nation's top health official. I'll get reaction from a key Democrat who had a chance to grill Kennedy today. Senator Maggie Hassan is standing by.

Also breaking tonight, a source tells CNN, attorneys for New York City Mayor Eric Adams have been in talks with federal prosecutors about possibly dropping the case against him.

Welcome to our viewers here in the U.S. and around the world. Wolf Blitzer. He's off today. I'm Jim Sciutto. And you're in The Situation Room.

The breaking news here in The Situation Room, trillions of dollars in federal cash now unfrozen after the Trump White House withdraws a memo that stirred up bipartisan backlash.

Our Chief National Affairs Correspondent Jeff Zeleny is standing by at the White House with details. So, Jeff, less than 48 hours after issuing the freeze, the White House reversing course but saying or claiming it's not reversing course?

JEFF ZELENY, CNN CHIEF NATIONAL AFFAIRS CORRESPONDENT: Well, Jim, it is one of the quickest and perhaps the biggest reversals that we have seen certainly in this early days of the Trump White House and perhaps even as his time as president. But the White House did say that they are rescinding that order that was issued a Monday evening that really sparked confusion and controversy throughout the federal government about freezing those $3 trillion in federal spending. The Office of Management and Budget this afternoon just released a very short statement saying they're rescinding it, and if any agencies have questions, they can ask their general counsel and they left it at that.

However, the president addressed this slightly this afternoon as he signed an immigration bill.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

DONALD TRUMP, U.S. PRESIDENT: In addition, there was a short-term pause or funding freeze on certain discretionary spending payments, such as government grants, only for us to quickly look at the scams, dishonesty, waste, and abuse that's taken place in our government for too long. As was explicitly stated, this in no way affected social security, Medicare, Medicaid or other entitlements that Americans depend on. We are merely looking at parts of the big bureaucracy.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

ZELENY: But what it did was not touch Social Security or Medicare, but it did impact so many other programs, from housing assistance programs to Head Start programs, to food assistance programs and really things across the federal government.

The confusion was sparked by the fact that the president was trying to exert executive authority that many do not believe he has, and that is to redirect or pause money that Congress has already earmarked for other things. But when a judge put a temporary halt on this last evening, it certainly changed everything. And the White House clearly did not want to go forward with a legal case on this.

Now, they do say that they still plan to review all federal programs and that he still has many issues with what he believes is a woke ideology in some of these programs. However, they made it clear they were not going to go to the mat on this one, Jim. And it was certainly interesting because a major reversal and a quick one.

SCIUTTO: And that temporary restraining order by that judge still stands.

Jeff Zeleny at the White House, thanks so much.

SCIUTTO: So, let's bring in our political and legal experts. Laura, let me begin with you because the White House is claiming the federal funding freeze is actually still in full force and effect, saying they only rescinded the memo, not the executive order. What's the actual legal difference and where does this stand legally, because you have the judge that issued the TRO against this?

LAURA COATES, CNN ANCHOR AND CHIEF LEGAL ANALYST: I'm sure the judge is leaning in to figure out why that would be the case. A TRO, a temporary restraining order, is called injunctive relief. The whole premise of it is to put a pin in something, preserve the status quo before any action was taken, to give the judge the opportunity to hear all of the briefing on the merits. In order to even get that though, Jim, you have to suggest and show its irreparable harm that's inevitable to the parties that but for this pause in the status quo, you would not be able to be satisfied in the long run and that there is not some legitimate reason for having done so, and you are likely to prevail on the merits eventually.

[18:05:13] All these things added up for this judge to say, put a pin in it. And so if there is a continuous effort to try to flout that order, that's a problem.

But in the long run here, this caused a great deal of concern and anxiety to the courts. They want to know, did it violate the First Amendment? Because some of the articulated reasons are associated with what your beliefs may have been or what the premise of the actual funding may have been about, and also whether it was outside of your authority to do even this. And so the judge is probably leaning in and thinking, well, I thought I was clear. Put a pin in it. Is it different in the White House?

SCIUTTO: Listen, I want to get back to the constitutional issue later, Article 1 and so on, power of the purse. But, Alyssa, you, of course, worked in the previous Trump White House. Do you see this reversal as an admission here that they went too far, because, of course, we've watched this administration move forward very aggressively on so many fronts? On this one, they pulled a 180.

ALYSSA FARAH GRIFFIN, CNN POLITICAL COMMENTATOR: Listen, I think that they're moving at such a pace, over 100 executive orders, that this one was sloppy, how it was executed, plain and simple. But the reason you're not hearing a lot of backlash from Republicans on Capitol Hill is it's been a longstanding conservative priority to try to get our arms around what's seen as potential waste, fraud, abuse, or just excessive spending in the federal bureaucracy. It's kind of why there's actually some degree of bipartisan curiosity around DOGE and these Department of Government Efficiency efforts that are underway.

However, what I'm kind of stunned by, and Bryan and I were both on the Hill around the same time working for conservatives, is how quickly a lot of Republican lawmakers seem to be okay with sort of ceding the power of the purse. This is congressionally appropriated funding. You give up that power, and, I mean, Congress can very quickly look neutered in a very powerful presidency, which is what Donald Trump is setting up.

He's really looking to expand the powers of the presidency to probably their legal limits. He has the right to do it. He has the right to test those powers. And I'm surprised that Congress is really just kind of taking a backseat here.

SCIUTTO: Yes. I mean, listen, there are of course constitutional issues that will be argued in court. But Bryan Lanza, why would Republican lawmakers who fought very hard to get to the top of those key appropriations committees and negotiate spending bills be willing to say, you know, what we say, they're just suggestions. It's up to you, Mr. President, for how that money actually gets spent?

BRYAN LANZA, FORMER SENIOR ADVISER, TRUMP 2024 CAMPAIGN: Well, first of all, thank you for having me, Jim. Yes, I would say that both parties do this. We shouldn't be surprised. I mean, remember, you have both parties who've been sort of spending for the last 20 years without any reservation about thinking of the future. And you've had so-called fiscal conservatives who've been president during those years who've increased spending at record paces. I think, you know, it's always doublespeak in Washington, D.C. when it comes to money.

And so we shouldn't be surprised that there's double speak in this particular moment, but it's hard to see any political party go against their president when they're talking about economics and when they're talking about, you know, you know, monetary policy. I've never seen an example of it and I don't think we'll see an example of in the future, so we shouldn't be surprised. I don't think it's ceding power. It's lining up and working as a party.

SCIUTTO: Ameshia Cross, let me ask you this, because, clearly, there's not a bipartisan consensus supporting killing Meals on Wheels, right, or Medicare, Social Security payments, et cetera, and the President made quite clear he doesn't intend to do that. But, to Bryan's point, there is fair bipartisan support for reining in what's seen as wasteful spending. Of course, the trouble is parties tend to like their own wasteful spending, not the other party's wasteful spending. I just wonder, from a Democrat's perspective, has Trump hit on something here? And then I guess the question becomes how aggressively he goes after this.

AMESHIA CROSS, DEMOCRATIC STRATEGIST: The problem is also what Trump considers wasteful spending when we hear it from Trump. He's talking about things that are against his agenda. He's saying anti-woke, which means anti, in many cases, public schools, because he doesn't like public schools that actually teach the true history of America up to and including the civil war and the things that happened during reconstruction.

He's talking about eliminating different types of programs that serve particular interest groups, whether we're talking about veterans and V.A. services, whether we're talking about those that help individuals who may be disabled. We're watching time and again, these programs be subject to his funding decreases, the WIC program, which benefits and supports new mothers and people going through postpartum post-partum health issues who are at or below the poverty line.

All of these things fell under the weight of a very misinformed policy area that he decided to issue yesterday, which was very broad-based and didn't really allow for a lot of nuance. And I think that for the average American, be it whether they're in red states, blue states, purple states, or anywhere in between, they're looking back and saying, what the heck is this?

[18:10:00]

These things I was able to access just a few days ago, I'm not able to access anymore. And he was lying to the public where we saw governors pushing back and saying, hey, Medicaid is having issues. We're not able to access the website. There are issues related to things like early childhood education, when we talk about programs, like Head Start. These are things that were really affecting everyday Americans, regardless of their partisan strife. And I think that's why we saw such quick movement. It's also one of the reasons why we've seen a lot of states push towards suing this administration.

SCIUTTO: Laura, back to a big picture legal question here, because the judge, Judge McConnell, who issued this TRO, it's interesting because the White House statement today did not help the White House in court. In fact, the judge said the order is only a distinction without a difference based on comments by the president's press secretary. So, that statement didn't help the legal case. But I wonder, does the administration want a court challenge here? Do they want to run this all the way up to the Supreme Court? Do they think they could win?

COATES: You know, I'm of the opinion that it's not baseball that's America's favorite pastime. It really is litigation. And I think Trump has seen that he believes the Supreme Court of the United States, he thinks, is going to be somehow in favor of him across the board, as if it was a mandate that he had people who were nominated.

But there are very clear cut distinctions when you're talking about what the Supreme Court would ultimately look at. Remember, if you're talking about anything associated with one's First Amendment rights or beliefs or the basis for a program, then they have to pass what's called strict scrutiny, that you have a compelling state interest and what you've done is so narrowly tailored to actually not offend that particular interest.

If it's arbitrary, if it's capricious, if it goes far beyond what's needed to actually achieve a government interest, the Supreme Court, regardless of who's been appointed or nominated or confirmed, is going to give the side eye.

But, ultimately, I think that he is trying to test the executive authority and the weight and figure out whether we're in the Wild, Wild West or this is deja vu, or a novel time when, in fact, he can, in some ways, circumvent the natural process to get what he wants done.

SCIUTTO: And now I'm kind of picturing the Supreme Court giving the side eye, but I love the image.

COATES: All nine of them.

SCIUTTO: Bryan, Alyssa, Ameshia, Laura, thanks so much to all of you.

Just ahead this hour, there's new uncertainty tonight over the future of the nomination of RFK Jr. after a fiery first day of his confirmation to be the health secretary.

Plus, the breaking news tonight around New York, Mayor Eric Adams and the federal corruption case against him, will it survive?

You're in The Situation Room.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[18:15:00]

SCIUTTO: One of President Trump's most controversial cabinet nominees just wrapped up a heated first day of confirmation hearings, Robert F. Kennedy Jr. defending his views on vaccines and shifting stance on major issues, such as abortion, as he vies to become the nation's top health official. But tonight, it's still not clear if Kennedy has enough support, including among Republicans, to win the job.

CNN's Manu Raju has more.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

MANU RAJU, CNN ANCHOR AND CHIEF CONGRESSIONAL CORRESPONDENT (voice over): Robert F. Kennedy Jr. and Senate Democrats in a contentious back and forth during his high-stakes confirmation hearing today.

SEN. ELIZABETH WARREN (D-MA): Kids might die, but Robert Kennedy can keep cashing in.

ROBERT F. KENNEDY JR., HHS SECRETARY NOMINEE: The only thing I want is good science, and that's it.

RAJU: With his nomination to lead the nation's health agencies on the line, Democrats time and again took Kennedy to task over his past statements on vaccines.

KENNEDY: There's no vaccine that is, you know, safe and effective.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Are you lying to Congress today when you say you are pro vaccine, or did you lie on all those podcasts?

KENNEDY: I said, there are no vaccines that are safe and effective, and I was going to continue for every person. Every medicine has people who are sensitive to them.

And so bringing this up right now is dishonest.

RAJU: And his unfounded claim that COVID targets people by their ethnicity.

KENNEDY: The people who are most immune are Ashkenazi Jews.

SEN. MICHAEL BENNET (D-CO): Did you say that it targets black and white people, but spared Ashkenazi Jews?

KENNEDY: I quoted a study, your honor. I quoted an NIH study that showed --

BENNET: I'll take that as a yes.

RAJU: But Kennedy, from the start, argued he was not anti-vax.

KENNEDY: News reports have claimed that I'm anti-vaccine or anti- industry. I am neither. I am pro-safety.

RAJU: Republicans defended Kennedy, a former Democrat who now has vowed to stay in line with Trump's position, even on issues like abortion.

KENNEDY: I serve at the pleasure of the president. I'm going to implement his policies.

RAJU: And on Kennedy's pledge to find answers on causes of chronic illness.

SEN. RON JOHNSON (R-WI): I thought, wow, here's somebody from the left, somebody I don't agree with on many issues politically, coming together with President Trump and focusing on an area of agreement.

KENNEDY: All these Democrats are opposed to me for partisan issues. They used to be my friends.

RAJU: But as Kennedy sought to ease GOP concerns over abortion, he opened himself up to Democratic attacks.

SEN. MAGGIE HASSAN (D-NH): My question is exactly when did you decide to sell out your life's work and values to get this position?

KENNEDY: Senator, I agree with President Trump that every abortion is a tragedy.

RAJU: Kennedy's fate could hinge on Senator Bill Cassidy, the GOP's swing vote on the committee who refused to comment after the hearing, after this exchange.

SEN. BILL CASSIDY (R-LA): What reforms are you proposing with these ideas vis-a-vis Medicaid?

KENNEDY: Well, I don't have a proposal for dismantling the program.

CASSIDY: I'm not saying -- of course, I'm not saying that.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

RAJU (on camera): And tomorrow will be a key day for Robert F. Kennedy as well when he goes for his second hearing, this before the Senate HELP Committee, which is actually also chaired by Senator Bill Cassidy.

[18:20:02]

But there are also a couple other senators to watch in that hearing, Senators Lisa Murkowski as well as Senator Susan Collins, both of whom have not said how they would vote, and Murkowski, for one, has raised concerns about his issue, position on vaccines.

But, ultimately, though, the key vote in the committee will come in the Senate Finance Committee, the committee that heard the testimony today. Cassidy, if he votes no on that nomination, Jim, in committee, could be enough to block that nomination from going forward.

SCIUTTO: We'll watch closely. We know you will. Manu Raju on the Hill, thanks so much.

SCIUTTO: Joining me now is one of the lawmakers who questioned RFK Jr. during today's hearing. She is Democratic Senator Maggie Hassan. Thanks so much, Senator, for taking the time this evening.

HASSAN: Jim, thanks for having me on. SCIUTTO: So, I want to begin on his position on vaccines, because he said there in his testimony, news reports claim, but the fact is the public record is quite clear his many years of questioning the effectiveness of vaccines in public on a number of fronts. Did you hear anything today from him in that hearing that convinced you that he is not anti-vaccine, as he claimed, inside the chamber today?

HASSAN: No. Robert F. Kennedy has a long record of misinformation and half truths about vaccines in order to feed this narrative and gain this following among people who are rightly skeptical about whether new medications or vaccines are safe and effective. But instead of following science, Robert F. Kennedy engages in these kind of half truths and conspiracy theories, and he did so again today, the suggestion that we would be better off without vaccinating children for measles, a disease that used to kill 500 American children a year, or that we would be better off without the polio vaccine, which saved thousands, millions of lives.

We should be proud as Americans that we have eradicated measles. We have eradicated polio because of our science and our commitment to public health and each other. And Mr. Kennedy did nothing to dispel our concerns that he will exploit the normal worries and fears of parents for his own personal gain, including wanting this very powerful position.

SCIUTTO: Yes. Listen, a lot of us, a lot of Americans have folks in their families who suffered through polio.

I want to play part of your interaction with Kennedy, specifically about the reproductive health drug, Mifepristone, commonly used in medicated abortions. Have a listen. I want to get your thoughts on the other side.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

KENNEDY: President Trump has asked me to study the safety of Mifepristone.

HASSAN: Here are the safety studies that tell us Mifepristone is safe and effective.

The safety is proved, the science is there. But what you're telling us is if President Trump orders you to take action to make it harder for women to get direly needed healthcare, you'll follow his order.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

SCIUTTO: As you say, and you know this better than me, years of studies showing safety, 20 years in use. How do you interpret RFK Jr. saying he wants to study the safety? What is he promising there?

HASSAN: Well, this is part of his pattern, right? He pretends that any science that doesn't agree with a narrative that promotes a cause that, frankly, among other things, is highly financially lucrative for him, isn't good science somehow and he pretends that, of course, he has scientific qualifications that he doesn't. What is really important for people to understand is that Robert F. Kennedy was pro-choice, believed in women's reproductive bodily autonomy until President Trump kind of made an offer to him to join his campaign.

And now what he is telling us is that his personal values, his lifelong belief in bodily autonomy, is something he will just abandon to do Donald Trump's bidding. Donald Trump has undermined women's healthcare in this country. He brags about appointing the justices who overturned Roe v. Wade. Healthcare is much less safe for women today than it was before Donald Trump did that.

And what Robert F. Kennedy is telling Americans is that if Donald Trump tells him to abandon a belief or a position that will support health, he will abandon it. If Donald Trump yesterday, as we all know, he ordered a halt to Medicaid funds into states, if Donald Trump takes away health care for nursing home residents by halting the payments to the nursing homes, Robert F. Kennedy is going to go along with that too.

This is somebody who is flipping his views in order to have a seat of power. And, by the way, the other thing that today's hearing really showed was that he doesn't understand our basic health care system and his suggestion that he wants to improve it, and we all want to improve it, is really pretty ridiculous given how little he understands it.

[18:25:03]

SCIUTTO: And we should note, as you know, that there are Republican lawmakers, many at the state level who are taking aim at Mifepristone and finding ways to -- so that study is connected to the politics.

Before we go, Kennedy had an exchange with Senator Bill Cassidy, as we noted, a potential key swing Republican vote here, during which he appeared, Kennedy, to confuse Medicare and Medicaid and got several just quite simple facts wrong. What was your reaction to that?

HASSAN: Look, he confused Medicaid with Medicare. He confused Medicaid with private insurance on the ACA exchanges. He doesn't understand some basics here. Medicaid is a lifeline to our rural hospitals. You heard a number of my Republican colleagues say they were really worried about making sure that rural healthcare was available to their constituents, yet Mr. Kennedy doesn't seem to understand that Medicaid is essential to that effort, nor did Mr. Kennedy say that he would support Medicaid and protect it from the budget cuts that Donald Trump and congressional Republicans have been suggesting that they will undertake.

I mean, this is really serious. He doesn't understand how our healthcare system works. Pretty hard to understand how he'll improve it when he is so unknowledgeable. And the answers he gave were not only uninformed, they were word salad, and hard to know whether that was intentional or not.

SCIUTTO: Well, Senator Maggie Hassan, thanks so much for taking the time to walk us all through it tonight. HASSAN: Thank you so much. Take care.

SCIUTTO: Coming up, new reporting tonight about New York Mayor Eric Adams and why he might not even need a pardon on his federal corruption charges.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[18:30:00]

SCIUTTO: Breaking news, an official at the U.S. Justice Department tells CNN that attorneys for New York City Mayor Eric Adams are in communications with prosecutors about potentially dropping his federal corruption case.

Our Chief Legal Analyst Laura Coates and CNN Political Analyst Alex Thompson are joining me now.

Laura, first to you. Based on the evidence, as you know it, and we know it, and we should also note that there are multiple members of the administration under investigation, or at least in conversation perhaps about being under investigation, is there any legal reason for this case to be dropped at this point?

COATES: I'm unaware of any legal reason. In fact, this is pretty unprecedented to think about the effort to put forth a federal indictment from this particular office. It's public. It was before the court, only to have it now perhaps being rescinded. They have multiple counts. They have laid out in a speaking indictment. They did not try to pull punches. He has a presumption of innocence. They have to actually still prove their case. But they have fleshed out straw man contributions, the idea of violations of the public trust and the idea of soliciting and foreign contributions in a way to circumvent his public integrity and responsibility.

These are very serious allegations as they were launched. To have the talks now be such that they might be dismissed is pretty stunning.

SCIUTTO: Alex, Mayor Adams, as you know, has openly tried to curry favor with Donald Trump in recent weeks. Is it unfair to draw a connection between those efforts and this second look at a federal case now that Trump's team is running the Justice Department?

ALEX THOMPSON, CNN POLITICAL ANALYST: No it's not. I mean, Eric Adams has been very explicit about this and saying that he felt the prosecution of him was because of his criticism of the Biden administration. He not only met personally with Trump's incoming border czar in order to try to create, you know, some cooperation on that score while other Democratic mayors have taken a more oppositional stance. He also sat down with Tucker Carlson, a close Trump ally, just the other week as well. This is very much part of a coordinated effort by Eric Adams to try to get this case either dropped or pardoned or anything else.

SCIUTTO: Laura, so let's take a step back. Let's look at legal developments today in Trump's DOJ. It dropped a case against former GOP Congressman Jeff Fortenberry. It dropped cases against Trump's co defendants in the classified documents case. We should note that we saw former Democratic Senator Bob Menendez sentenced to 11 years in prison today, a case that was pursued under Biden's Department of Justice, as you're well aware, Trump has long claimed that the DOJ was weaponized by Democrats.

When you connect these cases, is it fair to see that Trump is using his Justice Department to help his friends?

COATES: The connective tissue certainly is the theme of weaponization. Now, it was accused from Menendez as almost an outlier to suggest that that was a coincidence, that it happened to go against a Democrat, but the overwhelming theme was weaponization against Republicans. You know, an 11-year sentence certainly belies that very notion.

But taking a step back, the SDNY and any U.S. attorney's office that's under the purview of the executive branch of government whose job it is to enforce the laws, they will serve at the pleasure of the president of the United States as political appointees. The career prosecutors we've already seen this week do not curry favor if they are going against things that Trump perceives to be against himself.

And remember, Eric Adams and his speech when he was alerted to the indictment, gave very similar language about a weaponized government that he was being targeted because of his beliefs, that he wasn't in lockstep with Democrats and therefore being punished. So, I think he probably anticipated that it might prove fruitful in the long run that language that mirrored Trump's own claims might one day benefit him.

[18:35:00]

SCIUTTO: And we should note, Senator Menendez made a similar claim today after he was sentenced to 11 years.

Alex, tell us about what this reveals about how the Justice Department will operate going forward.

THOMPSON: Well, first of all, we just are not sure. Once Pam Bondi gets in there, I mean, all bets are off. I mean, Trump in his first term often would talk about where's my Roy Cohn? Where's my Roy Cohn? And he very much wanted a -- you know, you'd see this on his tweets, if you go back in the archive, wanted the Justice Department to prosecute people.

I will say, though, but also this is part of the reason why Democrats are a bit frustrated with some of the pardons Joe Biden did on his way out. Not necessarily that he did the pardons, but like particularly when he did the Hunter pardon. He also claimed that the Justice Department had been politicized, that the case against his own son was politicized. And that has basically given the Trump team a talking point to justify what they are doing now. And Democrats just feel -- even Biden's very close aides, feel deep sense of frustration.

SCIUTTO: Indeed. Laura, Alex, thanks so much. Laura, I should note, of course, will be back 11:00 P.M. Eastern time for her show, Laura Coates Live. Just ahead this hour, more on today's confirmation hearing for RFK Jr. Our Dr. Sanjay Gupta is standing by live.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[18:40:00]

SCIUTTO: More now on RFK Junior Senate confirmation hearing today. If confirmed, Kennedy would head up the sprawling Department of Health and Human Services, and that, of course, putting a spotlight on some of his quite controversial views on issues such as vaccines.

Our Chief Medical Correspondent Dr. Sanjay Gupta, joining me now. Many of the questions from Democrats focused on his past criticism, quite public criticism, of a number of vaccines. Listening to him today, did he change your view of his positions?

DR. SANJAY GUPTA, CNN CHIEF MEDICAL CORRESPONDENT: He's all over the map, Jim. I mean, if you listen to the opening remarks, he was quite conciliatory toward vaccines. I got my kids vaccinated. I am pro- vaccine. I think they're an important tool, he said. But we also know that when he has said that in the past, He subsequently said he regretted getting his kids vaccinated. So, it's just very hard to pin down.

I think what is striking to me is that this has an impact, this sort of broad skepticism and even cynicism towards vaccines. If you go back three years and just ask parents how likely you to vaccinate your kids, about 90 percent of parents would say, yes. That was the beginning of the pandemic. Now it's closer to 82 percent. And to give you some context around those numbers, for measles, which is highly contagious, unless you're around 95 percent, you're not getting herd immunity, which means that communities can be at risk, not just individuals. So, it has an impact.

One thing I'll just tell you quick, the hearing started talking about trust vaccines, but trust in general and ended talking about trust. If you look at trust overall, when it comes to doctors, when it comes to NIH scientists, when it comes to RFK, when it comes to President Trump, trust with regard to would you let them make health care decisions for you? I think these numbers are really important. There is skepticism and even cynicism around vaccines. But people still do trust their own doctors more than anyone else and scientists in the NIH, which I think is why there's still as much uptake around vaccines as there is.

SCIUTTO: That gives you some hope, right, that they follow the guidance. He was also questioned extensively about his stance on abortion, which has changed, we should note, but specifically Mifepristone, the drug used most commonly in medication abortions. Tell us what we know about the safety of the drug.

GUPTA: Look, and you just had Senator Hassan on as well, and she said, I watched her during the hearings, there's a lot of data around this. I think this is metaphorical, because this idea, hey, we just want to study this. SCIUTTO: We're just asking questions.

GUPTA: There's been a lot of questions asked and a lot of studies performed, 40 that Senator Hassan brought to the hearings today. It is safe, that there's 20 years worth of data on this. It's effective. We know how well it works.

But, again, let me give you some context because I think it's important. If you just look at death rates, the worst case scenario with these medications, Mifepristone, five in a million. Penicillin, something a lot of people have no problem with, 20 in a million. Viagra --

SCIUTTO: Ten times for Viagra.

GUPTA: -- 49 in a million, almost ten times. So, I put those numbers up not to demonize penicillin or Viagra, but just to say when people say things are safe, could there be an adverse event? Sure. But five in a million, it's pretty rare.

SCIUTTO: I want to play a moment from the hearing because this gets to a broader issue specific to allergies. Have a listen and I want to get your thoughts on the other side.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

KENNEDY: I know what a healthy kid looks like, because I had so many of them in my family. I didn't know anybody with a food allergy growing up, peanut allergy. Why do five of my kids have allergies? Why are we seeing these explosions in diabetes, rheumatoid arthritis, neurological diseases, depression? All these things that are related to toxics in the environment.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

SCIUTTO: I mean, there's a lot there because he's basically attributing rises in allergies, diabetes, rheumatoid arthritis, neurological diseases, depression, all to toxins, right? And I wonder, is there any truth to that?

GUPTA: I think what we can say is, the truth is that there have been an increase in many of these diseases, these chronic diseases. We see them in kids. We see them in adults as well. Pinpointing exactly what's driving that is a much more challenging thing.

Going back to autism, neurodevelopmental things, for example, huge studies done now, hundreds of thousands of kids followed for years, some who've got vaccinated, some who didn't. Was there a difference in terms of autism rates? What they find that there wasn't. Could it be that parents are just older when they're having kids? Could it be another environmental insult of some sort? We don't know. But you study these things to say, hey, look, here's what we can say it's not at this point.

[18:45:02]

And you keep searching.

SCIUTTO: And you follow the data, right? I mean, that's what -- that's what science and medicine are supposed to do. Like Dr. Sanjay Gupta.

Thanks so much for joining and walking us through.

Coming up, a new threat from President Trump today to millions of federal employees as his allies race to reshape Washington.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

SCIUTTO: Tonight, President Trump is making an aggressive new push to force federal employees back to the office, even as the White House denies the administration is trying to purge the federal workforce.

CNN's Brian Todd has been on the story for us.

So, Brian, how exactly is the president using buyouts as enticement to workers to quit?

BRIAN TODD, CNN CORRESPONDENT: Well, Jim, he's offering many of them a chance to not have to work for about eight months while still getting paid, but unions for government employees are telling their members not to trust this deal.

[18:50:01]

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

TODD (voice-over): A jarring email from the Trump administration to all 2 million U.S. government employees, a memo shaking those workers just with its title: Fork in the road.

It amounts to an ultimatum commit to returning to the office, among other things, or resign.

DONALD TRUMP, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: We think a very substantial number of people will not show up to work, and therefore our government will get smaller and more efficient. And that's what we've been looking to do for many, many decades, frankly.

TODD: The memo tells employees they have until February 6th to decide whether to resign or not. If they take it, most would not have to work for eight months while getting paid. There is an option to make the resignation effective immediately.

The president of a top federal employees union is telling federal workers not to take it.

RANDY ERWIN, PRESIDENT, NATIONAL FEDERATION OF FEDERAL EMPLOYEES: This is not a good deal for federal workers. It's not really even an offer to, um, to not have to work until September 30th. You would resign, but you would still have to work.

TODD: The memo says the federal workforce should be comprised of people who are, quote, loyal, trustworthy. NORM EISEN, SENIOR FELLOW IN GOVERNMENT STUDIES, THE BROOKINGS

INSTITUTION: The question is loyalty to whom? Is this a demand for loyalty to Donald Trump?

TODD: One federal employee who got the email told CNN, quote, folks are stunned,, baffled, scared. The top union of government employees calls the move a purge. Another union president told CNN he doesn't trust the deal.

ERWIN: Another reason that we are advising our members not to accept this deal is because there's a good chance they're going to get stiffed.

TODD: To which President Trump's press secretary replies --

KAROLINE LEAVITT, WHITE HOUSE PRESS SECRETARY: That's absolutely false. This is a suggestion to federal workers that they have to return to work. And if they don't, then they have the option to resign and this administration is very generously offering to pay them for eight months.

TODD: But will this fly in the courts? One analyst says the promise of eight months pay calls into question the legality of the whole plan.

EISEN: For example, there's a federal statute that says administrative leave for any individual employee can be -- no longer than ten days in a single year. The employees who take this purported buyout offer may not be able to actually collect what Donald Trump is dangling.

TODD: The memo's title, a startling mirror of a memo that Elon Musk sent to Twitter employees when he bought that platform in 2022. In his note, titled "A fork in the road", Musk told them, quote, we will need to be extremely hardcore that their jobs would now involve longer, more intense days.

Musk offered them a yes or no answer to that proposition and, quote, anyone who has not done so by 5:00 p.m. Eastern Time tomorrow will receive three months of severance.

CLARE DUFFY, CNN TECH WRITER: When he did this with Twitter, it really caused chaos. He came in and started slashing staff, slashing costs. We saw, you know, there were days when he would lay off employees and then days later, he had to ask some of those employees to come back to the company because things weren't working the way they expected.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

TODD (on camera): One official tells CNN. Elon Musk did, in fact, play an integral part in the rollout of this Trump plan to ease out federal workers through Musk's position leading the new Department of Government Efficiency.

It does have his fingerprints all over it, Jim, and there is just so much resistance to this right now.

SCIUTTO: Right down to the language of the memo. Brian Todd, thanks so much.

Coming up, a top Trump official makes his first trip to the Middle East in an effort to keep the fragile ceasefire together.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

SCIUTTO: An update now from the Middle East as a key Trump administration official made his first trip to the region amid a still fragile ceasefire between Israel and Hamas.

CNN Jerusalem correspondent Jeremy Diamond has more -- Jeremy.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

JEREMY DIAMOND, CNN JERUSALEM CORRESPONDENT: Well, Jake, this was Steve Witkoff's first visit to the region since becoming President Trump's special envoy for the Middle East. And he not only visited Israel today, but he was also in Gaza, becoming the first U.S. official in more than a dozen years to visit the strip.

A source familiar with the matter telling me that he did so alongside the minister for strategic affairs in Israel, Ron Dermer, who is also one of Prime Minister Netanyahu's top advisers.

I'm told that they visited the Netzarim corridor, which is where Israeli forces have been stationed for much of the war, separating the northern part of the strip from the rest of Gaza. But now Israeli forces have withdrawn from the area, and instead it's where we've seen these scenes of Palestinians returning to northern Gaza.

It's also where there is now a U.S. checkpoint manned by U.S. private security contractors, checking vehicles on their way to northern Gaza.

Now, Witkoff also sat down with the Israeli prime minister today ahead of Netanyahu's meeting with President Trump next week at the White House. Netanyahu will become the first foreign leader to sit down with President Trump at the White House since he came into office for this second term, and that meeting will come at a critical moment, as Israel and Hamas are set to resume negotiations next week over the next phases of the ceasefire agreement, whether or not it can be extended beyond the six weeks.

It also comes Israeli military is ramping up military operations in the occupied West Bank, and as the Israeli Defense Minister Israel Katz says, that Israeli military operations in Jenin aren't just going to be limited to rooting out militants, but rather that the Israeli military plans to keep an extended presence in the Jenin refugee camp.

We are now also on the cusp of three more hostages being released, and we've now learned the names of those three set to be released tomorrow.

Arbel Yehoud, a 29-year-old who was taken captive from Kibbutz Nir Oz, Gadi Mozes, also from Kibbutz Nir Oz. He is 80 years old, one of the oldest hostages still being held in Gaza. And then Agam Berger, a 20- year-old Israeli soldier who was held alongside those other field observers who were released this past weekend.

Five Thai hostages, we are told, are also set to be released, though their identities are unknown at this point. That is, in addition to the framework of those 33 hostages set to be released throughout these six weeks.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

SCIUTTO: Our thanks to Jeremy Diamond, and thanks so much to all of you. I'm Jim Sciutto in THE SITUATION ROOM. Thank you for watching.

"ERIN BURNETT OUTFRONT" starts right now.