Return to Transcripts main page

The Situation Room

Ukraine to Sign Minerals Deal with U.S. Today; Trump "Could" Bring Back Abrego Garcia to U.S.; Trump's Impact on Children's Health; Trump Holds Cabinet Meeting. Aired 10:30-11a ET

Aired April 30, 2025 - 10:30   ET

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

[10:30:00]

WOLF BLITZER, CNN ANCHOR: All right. More breaking news. A source now telling CNN that Ukraine is expected to sign a minerals deal with the United States today. This comes after a wave of Russian drone strikes on the city of Kharkiv overnight. At least one person was killed and dozens were injured. President Trump weighing in on whether he thinks Vladimir Putin actually wants peace. Listen to this.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

DONALD TRUMP, U.S. PRESIDENT: He could be tapping me along a little bit. I would say that he would like to stop the war. I think that if it weren't for me, I think he'd want to take over the whole country personally.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: You think Vladimir Putin wants peace?

TRUMP: I think he does, yes. I think he does.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Still?

TRUMP: I think -- because it was --

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Even with the reigning missiles on --

TRUMP: I think he really -- his dream was to take over the whole country. I think because of me, he's not going to do that.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

BLITZER: All right. Let's discuss that and much more with Democratic Congressman Jason Crow of Colorado. He sits on both the House Intelligence and Armed Services Committees. Congressman, thanks for joining us. Let me quickly get your reaction to Ukraine, apparently agreeing to sign an important minerals deal with the United States. What do you think this means for U.S. support of Ukraine going forward?

REP. JASON CROW (D-CO), ARMED SERVICES COMMITTEE AND INTELLIGENCE COMMITTEE: Wolf, there's a couple of things that I absolutely know to be true. One is that nobody wants peace more than the Ukrainians who have suffered terribly under Vladimir Putin's aggression and crimes. Two, is that this is going to have to end at a negotiating table. Like most wars, it's going to end at a negotiating table.

Number three is both the Ukrainians and the Americans want some minerals deal to help pay for going forward assistance. I think that's important. And there's a long history of deals like this are similar to this from lend-lease to a minerals deal today.

And number four is that Vladimir Putin absolutely does not want peace. If we know one thing about Putin is that he believes in this idea of perpetual struggle. He actually wants constant conflict, constant war that is his starting point for anything. So, he's only going to do what he's forced to do. And the idea that Donald Trump believes that he wants peace is just absurd to me.

BLITZER: Yesterday, the president's envoy for Ukraine, Keith Kellogg, flatly rejected a Russian proposed three-day ceasefire plan as, quote, "absurd" his word, "absurd." If the Russians aren't making serious offers during these peace talks, should the U.S. simply walk away from these negotiations?

CROW: Well, listen. We know Vladimir Putin really, really well. He's been around for 30 plus years. We understand him. We've seen this play out over and over again. He respects only strength and power. He never keeps deals and promises unless he's forced to. And we believe -- we know that his legacy and his view, the most important thing to Vladimir Putin is rebuilding the Russian empire, the historic Russian empire as he sees it. He's literally held up maps and said what he wants to do, and that includes Ukraine, that includes much of Eastern Europe. So, that is what he's trying to do.

What we have to now do is make sure that he can't do that. Put in protection. Put in mechanisms to enforce it, enforce him to the bargaining table. He's simply not going to do it and come to the table on his own.

BLITZER: I want to quickly turn to some breaking news on the U.S. economy while I have you, Congressman. The U.S. economy contracted in the first quarter for the first time since 2022. And that's a sharp slowdown, a much worse than economists have actually predicted. What do you think is responsible for this slowdown?

BLITZER: Well, the unpredictability of this administration and their lack of any cohesive economic policy, right? One day we have tariffs, the next day we don't. We're picking trade wars with the entire world, actually, including islands and countries that aren't even inhabited.

Businesses can't run like that. Businesses need predictability so they can invest, they can move capital. You know, the United States has lost trillions of dollars of its net worth. Many people, including me, have lost substantial portions of their retirement.

Donald Trump is playing fast and loose with the U.S. economy and with people's livelihoods, with their retirements, and we're seeing the results of that. And we're only a hundred days into this. This is disastrous for so many families. And, oh, by the way, they've done nothing to reduce the price of goods. Nothing to reduce the price of housing, nothing to help stabilize the everyday lives of Americans. This is not going to end well.

BLITZER: You -- I know you just voted against advancing a $150 billion spending package to fund the U.S. Defense Department. In a statement on X, formerly known as Twitter, you said you're opposed to giving the Pentagon, and I'm quoting now, "a blank check until Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth is fired."

[10:35:00]

Is withholding critical funding for the U.S. military really the right way to hold Hegseth accountable?

CROW: Well, there's an important correction here, Wolf. This is not critical funding. This is additional funding. There is actually a defense budget process that we are going through right now that will give them the important funding that will provide our service members with the annual appropriations that they need.

What the Republicans in Congress are doing at the request of Donald Trump is giving them an additional $150 billion without accountability, without any reform. This is a cash giveaway. This is a cash giveaway at the same time as they want to cut Medicaid funding, critical lifesaving healthcare for tens of millions of Americans.

And at the same time, as the Republicans are saying that the Defense Department needs reform, that it's excessive, that our procurement systems aren't working, that they're bloated. So, which one is it? Is the DOD in need a reform and bloated and need to be streamlined and need to be more efficient or are we going to give them $150 billion without any guardrails, without any protection?

There's making both arguments. I'm unwilling to do that. I'm going to be a good steward of taxpayer dollars. I'm going to protect our national security and our service members. But just giving away $150 billion and doing it by cutting critical healthcare is just wrong and I'm not going to play it.

BLITZER: And I know you speak as a veteran of both the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. Five Democrats, I did notice though, on your Armed Services Committee voted with the Republicans to move this funding forward. Why isn't your Democratic Party united in its efforts to Hegseth accountable?

BLITZER: Well, because the Democratic Party isn't a cult. The Democratic Party just doesn't run in lockstep with what their leader tells them to do, nor do I want that ever to be the case. We represent all of America. We are a vibrant, diverse party with lots of different views. We actually have debate every day about what's right, what's wrong, how to find the best solution for the American people, and that's the way it should be, right?

I never want to be a part of a party or a family or a business or any organization where everybody has to think and act alike. That's not good for America.

BLITZER: Congressman Jason Crow of the beautiful State of Colorado, thanks so much for joining us.

CROW: Thank you.

BLITZER: Pamela.

PAMELA BROWN, CNN ANCHOR: And just ahead in the Situation Room, Wolf, how a case before the Supreme Court right now could affect how much taxpayer money goes into religious education.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[10:40:00]

BLITZER: President Trump now says he "could," that's a quote, ""could" bring a mistakenly deported man back to the United States, but tells ABC News that he won't. That despite the U.S. Supreme Court ordering the government to, quote, "facilitate" Kilmar Abrego Garcia's return.

Joining us now, CNN's Senior Legal Analyst Elie Honig. Elie, did the President now publicly admit his administration is defying the U.S. Supreme Court?

ELIE HONIG, CNN SENIOR LEGAL ANALYST, FORMER STATE AND FEDERAL PROSECUTOR AND FORMER ASSISTANT U.S. ATTORNEY, SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK: Well, Wolf, I think this statement by Donald Trump shows us the fundamental dishonesty in the position the administration has taken so far. Their position has been, well, we can't get him back. Once we deport him. He's out of our hands and there's nothing we can do. That was always dubious.

El Salvador is an ally of ours. El Salvador is a less powerful country than us. We are paying multiple millions of dollars to rent prison space in El Salvador. And I want to see how this is going to impact the ongoing litigation over Kilmar Abrego Garcia.

Now, that case has been put on hold for a week now by the judge with the agreement of both parties. We don't know exactly what's going on, but that hold actually expires today. And when the parties are back in court, at whatever point, I expect the judge to ask the government about this, to say, well, the president has now acknowledged that you can bring him back, government lawyers. So, what will you do now? I think that's a very relevant statement that Donald Trump made last night.

BLITZER: On another legal issue, Eli, while I have you on to discuss, the U.S. Supreme Court, as you know, is now hearing arguments in a very high stakes dispute involving U.S. taxpayer funding and religious education. The case focuses in on the nation's first religious charter school, a Catholic school in Oklahoma. Why is this case so important and what's at stake?

HONIG: Well, Wolf, if I was just listening to the oral argument at the Supreme Court, which is ongoing now, this is a fundamental case about the First Amendment and the freedom of religion. So, this Catholic online school applied for permission in Oklahoma to become a charter school, which would enable this religious school to get some public funding. The State of Oklahoma, however, the attorney general opposed that, took it all the way up to the Oklahoma Supreme Court and won. The Supreme Court said, no, this religious charter school cannot get public funding. Now, it's up at the U.S. Supreme Court.

And the big question is if you have a religious school and they are getting some public money, does that violate the First Amendment, the freedom of religion? Does it violate the notion that the government cannot establish any official religion through payment or through other means? So, that's what they're debating right now in the U.S. Supreme Court.

BLITZER: Yes. It's a huge case and we'll see what happens on this on this case. Elie Honig, as usual, thanks very much. Pamela.

HONIG: Thanks, Wolf.

BROWN: All right. Wolf, let's get more on this important story. We're joined by Mike Moreland. He's a professor of law and religion at Villanova University. Also joining us is Rachel Laser. She is president and CEO of Americans United for Separation of Church and State.

All right. Mike, first to you, the Supreme Court could set, as we just heard Elie say, some consequential precedent here as it hears this case, but you've also warned against, quote, "catastrophizing" about the potential impacts of its decision. What do you mean by that?

MIKE MORELAND, DIRECTOR, ELEANOR H. MCMULLEN CENTER OF LAW, RELIGION AND PUBLIC POLICY AND LAW AND RELIGION PROFESSOR: I think the case turns a lot on issues in Oklahoma law about how charter schools are created and overseen in Oklahoma. And in Oklahoma, they're government contractors, they're private entities, non-profit corporations. In one instance, a for-profit corporation that partner with the state to operate the charter schools. And because of that, they're independent of the state. And the Supreme Court now, in a series of cases over a decade, has said that if you provide that kind of benefit across the board, you can't then discriminate against religion. You can't -- religion can't be the one category that is left out of participation in that program.

BROWN: So, what do you think about that argument that these charter schools are independent of the state, because that's really key here, right, whether it's public or private. That's one of the key aspects of this case, Rachel.

[10:45:00]

RACHEL LASER, PRESIDENT AND CEO, AMERICANS UNITE FOR SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE: Yes. Firstly, great to be with you all. This shouldn't be a question. The Republican attorney general of Oklahoma, Oklahoma State law, as interpreted by the Oklahoma State Supreme Court and the Charter School Associations across this country all agree that charter schools are public schools. So, what we're talking about here is the nation's first religious public school, and that would be a sea change in our democracy to have non-inclusive public schools and force taxpayers to fund a religion that isn't their own.

BROWN: What do you think about that, Mike? Do you think that this could -- this case could set a precedent that, you know, could potentially erode the separation of church and state in this country, or do you think that's not the right way to look at it?

MORELAND: I think that's not quite the right way to look at it, again, because I think that, in this instance, we're talking about a school that's privately operated by a religious entity and wants the benefit that the government is providing to lots of other kinds of entities to operate these kinds of schools. And again, a lot of this turns on particular issues of the way in which charter schools operate in Oklahoma.

But I think it's also an overstatement to say that, well, now, we'd have taxpayer money going to religious schools. That happens all the time. We have voucher programs in many states that allow taxpayer money to fund religious schools because the parents choose to use that benefit in that kind of way.

So, I do think that -- the difference between Rachel's position and mine I think boils down to how you characterize charter schools. And then, questions about whether or not you can discriminate against religion in the provision of these kinds of benefits.

BROWN: So, Rachel, to bring you back in, when you look at these recent decisions favoring religious groups and causes from the Supreme Court, what do you think, how do you think the court is going to look at this case and judge?

LASER: Well, I think it's really important to distinguish those cases because those cases are about government funds going indirectly to private schools. And what this case is about is direct and full taxpayer funding of religious public schools, and that would be a sea change.

Actually, it was just in the court briefly before being with you all here. And Justice Roberts was pointing out that distinction himself. So, it's a really important distinction. And what we're hoping is, of course today with Justice Amy Coney Barrett recusing herself, if four justices rule against St. Isidore, then the Oklahoma State Supreme Court decision would stand, right, which says that St. Isadore, as a charter school, is an abject violation of our country and Oklahoma's promise of church state separation, the guarantee of religious freedom. And that's what we're hoping for today.

BROWN: Very quickly, Mike, the former chairman of the state board that reviewed the school's applications says he felt like a pawn in a larger effort to bring this as a test case before the Supreme Court. I know you're saying, look, this is just about Oklahoma and these charter schools that you believe are independent, not public, but what do you say to that?

MORELAND: Well, there were divisions within Oklahoma State government about this. The governor is fully supportive of St. Isidore's. It's this -- the -- and the former attorney general was supportive of St. Isidore's. In fact, said that, to deny recognition to St. Isidore's would be unconstitutional. That was the former attorney general. The new attorney general had a different view.

But, again, I think it turns on this question of whether or not they're actually private entities or not. And to me, I dispute the premise that they're public schools because they aren't, they're nonprofit entities that operate in conjunction with the state. But a government contractor doesn't become a public entity just by entering into that contract.

BROWN: All right. Well, this is all sort of at the center of the case. You guys helped us better understand the different sides. Thank you so much, Mike Moreland, Rachel Laser, we appreciate it. Wolf.

BLITZER: And, Pamela, coming up, some of the Trump administration's policy moves have a direct impact on the health of our children. What the changes could mean for vaccines and other critically important health issues. That's coming up next.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[10:50:00]

BLITZER: The Trump administration has promised to reshape health policies here in the United States with a specific focus on conditions among children like autism, ADHD, obesity, and allergies. And it's also changing policies around things like food, food dyes, and fluoride. With Florida set to join Utah and banning fluoride in drinking water.

BROWN: And at the same time, the administration is facing a deadly measles outbreak as it makes massive cuts to the federal health workforce. And parents are asking how all of these changes will affect their children. Our CNN Chief Medical Correspondent Dr. Sanjay Gupta is here with some answers. I know there are a lot of questions coming into you, Sanjay. So, I want to begin with Riggan from Bentonville, Arkansas who asks, are there any studies that look at the total load of all recommended childhood vaccines?

DR. SANJAY GUPTA, CNN CHIEF MEDICAL CORRESPONDENT: Yes. So, the quick answer is yes, this has been studied quite a bit. But I think what Riggan is probably really asking is, look, we seem to give a lot of shots to kids. Is it too many shots? Could it overwhelm their immune system? And I think it's a very fair question.

Keep in mind when you give shots, vaccines, what you're really giving is something known as an antigen. An antigen is something that provokes your body to make antibodies, and that's what gives you protection. So, just to give you a little bit of context, if you go back to the '80s and '90s, for example, we used to vaccinate against eight diseases and the overall antigen load, the immune load was around 3,000. Just to give you some perspective. Now, we vaccinate against a lot more diseases, almost twice as many, and the antigen load is far lower. It's closer to 180. So, you know, despite the fact that the kids get more shots, the amount of load on the body in terms of what it does to their immune system is far lower. You know, just over 5 percent of what it used to be 40, 50 years ago.

BROWN: Interesting.

BLITZER: And, Sanjay, we have a question from Jordan from New Jersey. And Jordan asked this, I have a three-month-old baby, our first. Is it safe for us to travel nationally with regards to the measles? Why can't we vaccinate earlier?

DR. GUPTA: Well, Jordan, first of all, congratulations on your first baby. Exciting times. Yes. So, couple things you can pay attention to where measles is spreading in the country and if someone is immunocompromised or hasn't been able to be vaccinated, you know, you probably want to avoid those areas in the United States or in other places around the world.

It's interesting, three months old is sort of in that spot where if you vaccinate a child with the measles vaccine that young, they're probably not going to generate the antibodies that I was just talking about. Their bodies just aren't doing that at that point. So, that is probably too young. Six months you could start to get vaccines and then certainly, 12 to 15 months is when it's recommended that first shot.

One thing I will say though, Jordan, some potentially good news is that mom -- if mom had measles antibodies in her blood when she gave birth, some of those antibodies might be transmitted down to the baby as well. So, even though baby hasn't been vaccinated, baby still might have some protection.

BROWN: Just to follow up, because I keep hearing this from other people, should people rethink their travel plans though to certain parts of the country if they have a young baby that can't get vaccinated against measles?

[10:55:00]

DR. GUPTA: Yes. I mean, that's the concern. I think, again, six months, you know, they could get vaccinated if they were really concerned about it. Before that they should have some antibodies. If you're still not sure whether it's a child or an adult, you can have the antibody levels checked. And I did this recently because I'm working on a documentary that required it. But you can figure out, do I still have protection against measles? I'm in my mid-50. , got a measles shot when I was young, but is it still good? As it turns out, I still had enough antibodies. That's something you can check.

BROWN: All right. Keith from Minnesota asks, is it possible to reverse a child's type two diabetes or is it a lifelong management issue?

DR. GUPTA: No, it is possible to reverse this. It's kind of amazing. You know, when I started doing this work 25 years ago, Type 1 diabetes was often referred to as juvenile onset diabetes, and Type 2 was adult, right? Because you didn't develop till you were an adult. But now, we see more and more Type 2 diabetes in children as a result of lifestyle issues. Obesity primarily and the types of foods that we eat. So, that's the bad news.

The good news is that it can be reversed. So, Type 1 is typically more genetically based. Type 2 is something that's more lifestyle based. And whether you're a kid or an adult, you can usually make a big impact on that with lifestyle changes alone.

BLITZER: All right. Dr. Sanjay Gupta, we are always smarter after hearing that from you.

BROWN: That's true.

BLITZER: Thank you so much. Pamela.

BROWN: Truer words have never been spoken, Wolf.

BLITZER: It's true.

BROWN: All right. Coming up, in minutes, we expect to hear from President Trump and members of his cabinet as they grapple with the impact of Trump's trade war and Americans who are not happy exactly with the effect on their wallets.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[11:00:00]