Return to Transcripts main page

The Situation Room

RFK Targets Fluoride; Republicans Targeting Food Assistance?; Education Secretary Testifies on Capitol Hill; Interview With Rep. Josh Gottheimer (D-NJ). Aired 11:30a-12p ET

Aired June 03, 2025 - 11:30   ET

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

[11:30:03]

REP. JOSH GOTTHEIMER (D-NJ): We have seen it, unfortunately, in all corners of America, this extremist rhetoric.

And we know that this attacker, who was -- just despicable act of terrorism, he screamed out, are you a Zionist? We need to end Zionists. Free Palestine, right? That's what he screamed out, which he's basically saying, Wolf, are you a Jew, right? We need to end Judaism, right?

That was the attack before he literally threw two Molotov cocktails, which injured those who were just marching to release the hostages, a peaceful protest, just like, by the way, what happened in Washington, D.C. That was inside a meeting, where it was just a peaceful meeting for looking to find ways of solutions, a way forward.

And this Molotov -- one of the Molotov cocktails injured an 88-year- old Holocaust survivor, right, Wolf? This is totally despicable and unacceptable. It's why I have called for an increase in the nonprofit security grants, which are critical to protecting not only our synagogues, but our mosques and our churches, right, so that people feel safe being able to pray, which it shouldn't be necessary, but it is.

It's just the reality. We need to pass the Antisemitism Awareness Act to make it very clear what the definition of antisemitism is, because it seems to me that a lot of communities and colleges are confused about that, to make it clear to people.

So there's actions we need to take, Wolf, to obviously make our country safer. And, for me, it's all about making sure people in their communities, when they go pray, wherever they pray, that they should feel safe.

WOLF BLITZER, CNN HOST: What's especially concerning is that 88-year- old woman, a Holocaust survivor, has been in the United States now for many years, but has now worried about her own safety and her security here in the United States of America. And it's so disturbing to even get that thought.

I want to get your reaction to what President Trump is doing. He's condemned the attack in Boulder, Colorado, on his TRUTH Social site, but he also appeared to blame President Biden's border policies for the attack. What's your reaction to that post?

GOTTHEIMER: I mean, my reaction was, I couldn't believe that the president talked -- didn't talk about the antisemitic attack, the fact that he left -- I believe he left that out completely in his post, that he did not talk about the fact that -- the Holocaust survivor you just mentioned or the terrorist who attacked this peaceful protest or this peaceful demonstration because people were Jewish, because they were Zionists, right?

I mean, that, to me, of what's going on, the hate, the level of hate in this country is what we should be talking about, and not bearing the antisemitism and trying to change the subject. Of course, no one should be here in this country who's an attacker like that or a terrorist.

But the bottom line is, why aren't we talking about the big issue, which is, as, Wolf, you're bringing up here, the hate in our country, antisemitism on the rise, and hate against many communities on the rise, which are unacceptable.

BLITZER: Congressman Josh Gottheimer of New Jersey, thanks so much for joining us. Good luck, and stay safe over there.

GOTTHEIMER: Thanks for having me. Thanks, Wolf.

BLITZER: All right, Pamela.

PAMELA BROWN, CNN HOST: All right, Wolf, happening now, Education Secretary Linda McMahon testifying on Capitol Hill.

The Senate Appropriations Committee is examining her department's budget for 2026 and exploring where major cuts can be made. And, of course, this comes amid President Trump's executive order to dismantle it. A federal judge has blocked that order.

So let's go to CNN chief congressional correspondent Manu Raju on Capitol Hill.

Manu, what more can you tell us?

MANU RAJU, CNN CHIEF CONGRESSIONAL CORRESPONDENT: Yes, this is all part of the effort by the president to abolish the Department of Education. Remember, Congress has to have the final say.

So these hearings are critical to understanding how senators think about moving ahead on the issue of getting rid of the Department of Education. The president's budget proposal calls for a significant cut in funding, roughly 15 percent of the budget. That's about a $12 billion cut.

They say that they want to wind this down, this department, provide these programs to the states, programs like Pell Grants, grants that go to teacher training, to school safety and the like. And what we're hearing at this hearing is significant concern, particularly from Democrats, who are going after Linda McMahon and this proposal.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

SEN. JACK REED (D-RI): Your responsibility amounts to just surrendering.

LINDA MCMAHON, U.S. EDUCATION SECRETARY: Sorry, sir?

REED: Surrendering. We have this crisis in education, in literacy, all these actors. What we're going to do is pull back, let the states do it.

MCMAHON: No, we will spend it more responsibly.

REED: I doubt it very seriously.

MCMAHON: Let's hope we do.

REED: Well, hope, as someone said, is not a plan.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

RAJU: And there's been some concern from some Republican senators, including Senator Susan Collins of Maine, who is, of course, the chairwoman of the very important Senate Appropriations Committee, which makes those decisions on providing federal funding.

But, ultimately, this is going to be a big decision for the Senate on how to proceed with funding and whether to go along with any level of cuts that Donald Trump is proposing here, because, ultimately, Democrats do have a say in the United States Senate when it comes to federal funding. They will need 60 votes in the United States Senate to fund the federal government, to fund federal agencies like the Education Department, which means Democratic say will go a long way.

[11:35:11]

The ultimate question is, can they agree with the White House on how to proceed?

BROWN: All right, that is the ultimate question, for sure.

Manu Raju, thank you so much.

And just ahead: President Trump calls it the big, beautiful bill, but critics say it could take food off the table for millions of Americans. The head of one food bank joins us next with his concerns.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[11:40:08]

BROWN: Well, President Trump's massive spending bill faces a tough test in the Senate, with many lawmakers worried how some of the proposed cuts could impact their constituents.

According to the Congressional Budget Office, the bill could strip about 3.2 million people of their food stamp benefits in an average month over the next decade. That includes 800,000 people who live with kids age 7 and older. Now, I want to note this is a preliminary estimate and it's subject to change. CBO has yet to release its final score of the bill that actually passed the House.

But, of course, this is something that lawmakers are talking about, and also those in different states, like Brian (sic) McKee, who is the CEO of the Blue Ridge Area Food Bank in Virginia.

So, Michael, tell us more about how your food bank provides for the community and what your biggest concern is right now.

MICHAEL MCKEE, CEO, BLUE RIDGE AREA FOOD BANK: Thank you.

So, the Blue Ridge Area Food Bank serves 25 counties in Central and Western Virginia, largely a rural area. And we do so through a network of community partners, largely church pantries staffed almost entirely by volunteers.

Now, we depend on food from the USDA, so that our partners can get that food out to people who would otherwise go hungry. And what we're seeing right now is unprecedented need locally, but also nationally. And to give you an idea of what that looks like, before the pandemic, we were serving about 103,000 people per month.

In March 2020, the very worst, it was 141,000 people per month. Now, that came down closer to pre-pandemic levels, but then inflation kicked in. Now, we're serving more than 172,000 people every month. That's 20 percent more than at the height of an unprecedented public health and economic crisis.

So, that's the context. And in any natural disaster or economic crisis, the government's response is to provide food banks and food pantries with more food, so that people won't get hungry. But, right now, they're threatening to take food away. And we have never seen anything like that.

And, arguably, food insecurity is worse now than at any time since the 1960s.

BROWN: So I want to delve a little bit deeper into that, because the White House would say, well, we're just wanting to take away federal funding, and now the states will be the ones to really provide that funding to the food banks. We don't want to take food away from the most vulnerable.

What do you say to that? And have you been talking to the state about whether you can get the same levels of funding?

MCKEE: Well, there are a number of ways the federal government provides food assistance. One, of course, is through the USDA, and they supply food banks and food pantries, nationally 60,000 of them, with highly nutritious food, right?

And the backbone of our charitable food assistance network for our area, but also for the country, is the faith community, largely churches. And in rural areas like ours, churches are largely getting smaller. They're losing volunteers. They're losing congregants.

And without the free food that comes from the USDA, they might not be able to stay open. So we're really talking about a critically important source of food from the federal government to support what churches and other faith-based organizations are largely doing to help rural residents.

But it doesn't stop there. SNAP really faces very drastic cuts. And SNAP provides 10 times as much food as food banks and food pantries provide. So even a small cut to SNAP could absolutely overwhelm charitable assistance providers across the country.

In our area, small church food pantries would be most at risk. And we worry that, without a strong farm bill, without SNAP being protected at current levels, we could actually see our pantry network begin to collapse.

BROWN: Why couldn't the state fill in that gap?

MCKEE: Well, the state is being asked to take on more and more and more of the federal government's responsibility. The reality is, for decades, the federal government, nonprofits, churches, and farmers have had this pact of really ensuring the food security for residents across the country.

And we all have to do our part. And the state can't just step in and suddenly replace all that the federal government has been doing, not just in food security, but in health care and in social services and in education. It's completely unrealistic.

[11:45:08]

And we need a national policy with respect to food security, because it's ultimately a national concern.

BROWN: What is the biggest need that your food pantry has right now?

MCKEE: Well, the Blue Ridge Area Food Bank supplies about 400 community partners, mostly food pantries. What they need is access to highly nutritious food.

And the food coming from the USDA is among the best that we get. It's protein, meat, frozen and canned vegetables, fresh produce. We need that supply through a program called the Emergency Food Assistance Program to actually increase over the last year's levels.

But we also need the government to protect SNAP, because, without it, we won't be able to meet the need for food assistance that will result.

BROWN: All right, Michael McKee, thank you so much for coming on.

MCKEE: My pleasure.

BROWN: Wolf. BLITZER: All right, coming up: You have been drinking it for

decades. Now Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. wants it gone. What's fueling the call to stop adding fluoride to water and how it could affect your family's health?

Dr. Sanjay Gupta is standing by. We will discuss with him right after the break.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[11:50:56]

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

ROBERT F. KENNEDY JR., U.S. HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES SECRETARY: It makes no sense to have fluoride in our water. The evidence against fluoride is overwhelming. I'm very, very proud of this state for being the first state to ban it, and I hope many more will come.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

BLITZER: That was Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. just after Utah became the first state to ban fluoride in public drinking water. Florida did the same just a few weeks later, with Governor Ron DeSantis calling fluoride in water forced medication.

BROWN: We are paging CNN chief medical correspondent Dr. Sanjay Gupta for a closer look here.

Hi, Sanjay.

DR. SANJAY GUPTA, CNN CHIEF MEDICAL CORRESPONDENT: Good morning.

(CROSSTALK)

BROWN: So, there you heard the secretary saying he hopes many more states will ban fluoride in public drinking water. Why is it added in the first place and what is the concern about removing it?

GUPTA: Well, one of the reasons that it's added in the first place is because of how it protects teeth.

I mean, when people are consuming sugar, those sugars feed these microorganisms in your mouth. And I think we have some animation of this, but feeds these microorganisms in your mouth that subsequently lead to demineralization of your teeth. I mean, you're looking at what a cavity looks like and that's from demineralizing your teeth.

Fluoride essentially can remineralize it. So it's fighting that process. That's why fluoride has been added to water. That's why people brush their teeth with fluoridated toothpaste. But the concern is -- and as I say this, I want you to keep in mind this phrase the dose makes the poison.

So it's all about dosing of this. In higher doses, it could potentially lead to problems. This is fluoride that's ingested, by the way. So it's in your water. It could lead to something known as skeletal fluorosis, where your bone actually becomes brittle, more likely to break as a result. Dental fluorosis.

I don't know if you have ever seen people who might have white streaks in their teeth. That's an indication of potential dental fluorosis. And then I think what's gotten the most attention lately is the potential concerns about neurotoxicity. There was these studies again saying the higher the level of fluoride that people were ingesting, the more it was associated with lower I.Q.s later in life.

There was these studies that looked at pregnant women specifically, measured how much fluoride they were taking in and then figured out the kids' I.Q. levels years later and found this correlation. These are hard studies to do. But those are the major concerns.

In the United States the levels of fluoride in the water are about half the level at which you start to get to some of these concerns, though.

BLITZER: So what are the risks, Sanjay, of removing fluoride from tap water?

GUPTA: Well, I think it's a little bit difficult to know right now.

So there's these modeling studies that basically say hey, look, all other things being equal. If you just start to remove fluoride, what happens specifically with regard to dental health? That's the big thing. And they say, look, at five years or so from now, if you did this, you would have 25 million more cavities, for example. At 10 years, it would be closer to 54 million more cavities.

And these are defined basically as teeth that at least need a filling. So those are modeling studies. And, again, models are -- they're only as good as the numbers you put into it. It's a little bit hard to know.

But I will say this, Wolf, that there are countries around the world that have gotten rid of fluoride, but they have done other things. Like Iceland, for example, they don't fluoridate their water, but kids get twice-a-month rinses with fluoride. In England, they don't fluoridate water, but they have milk that is fortified with fluoride.

So they do different things to try and get fluoride still into the system to basically address dental health.

BROWN: What do you think? Do the risks outweigh the rewards here?

GUPTA: It's interesting, Pamela.

I will say this. I have looked into this a lot. And if you Google this, you will see on the CDC's Web site, for example, fluoridated water one of the greatest public health achievements of the last century. Pretty significant statement, right?

But at the same time, when you look at the data, which we did very carefully, you find that most of the benefit from fluoridation of water occurred before 1975. Why 1975? Because that was a marker in time when dental care really started to become more widely available in the United States and when people started using fluoridated toothpaste a lot more.

[11:55:14]

So, benefit, yes, but incrementally lower and lower, as there have been other options. And, again, I think it is worth looking at other places around the world. You may not need to ingest as much fluoride to get the benefit like they do in Iceland, for example.

BROWN: All right, Sanjay, thank you so much. As Wolf says, we always learn so much when you're on the show.

Don't forget to scan the Q.R. code on your screen and head to CNN.com to send us your questions about fluoride. Dr. Gupta will be back tomorrow with some answers for you.

BLITZER: We will be anxious for that.

And thanks to all of our viewers for joining us this morning. You can always keep up with us on social media @WolfBlitzer and @PamelaBrownCNN. We will see you back here tomorrow morning 10:00 a.m. Eastern.

"INSIDE POLITICS WITH DANA BASH" is up next right after a short break.