Return to Transcripts main page

The Situation Room

Now: Marathon Senate Voting Session Underway On Trump's Megabill; Trump Says Cuts In Bill Will Not Impact Medicaid; Trump Admin: Harvard In "Violent Violation" Of Civil Rights Act. Aired 11- 11:30a ET

Aired June 30, 2025 - 11:00   ET

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

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[11:01:44]

PAMELA BROWN, CNN ANCHOR: Happening now, breaking news, quote, this may take a little while. That blunt assessment from the Senate Majority Leader on getting President Trump's mega bill over the finish line.

WOLF BLITZER, CNN ANCHOR: Right now, the U.S. Senate is in a marathon voting session just four days from Trump's self-imposed deadline.

Welcome to our viewers here in the United States and around the world. I'm Wolf Blitzer with Pamela Brown, and you're in The Situation Room.

And we begin with the breaking news. Congress is on the clock right now. Senators have begun debate on President Trump's spending and tax cut bill, the cornerstone of his second-term agenda.

BROWN: Right now, senators are in what's called a vote-a-rama. This is a marathon series of votes on possible changes, and it's all part of the deal-making and the arm-twisting to win passage later today. And with two Republicans expected to vote no, the President will be leaning on his slim majority.

We are, of course, following all of the developments with CNN senior White House correspondent, Kristen Holmes and Arlette Saenz on Capitol Hill. Arlette, voting is now underway. Where do things stand right now?

ARLETTE SAENZ, CNN WHITE HOUSE CORRESPONDENT: Well, Pamela, senators have been voting for about 90 minutes in this marathon voting session. It's known as vote-a-rama and allows senators to introduce amendments to President Trump's agenda bill up here on Capitol Hill.

Now, Democrats are expected to introduce quite a few amendments that could be potentially on politically tough issues for Republicans, but there are also expected to be a number of Republican amendments in order to try to win over some Republicans who might be wavering on this bill.

Now, one of those amendments is going to come from Senator Rick Scott of Florida. He has proposed reducing the federal payments to states that had expanded Medicaid under President Obama. There's also Senator Susan Collins, who's expected to introduce an amendment relating to a rural hospital fund.

A lot of people will also be paying attention to Senator Lisa Murkowski of Alaska. Senate leadership had initially included two provisions that would have benefited Alaska and Hawaii in the bill over the weekend, but then the Senate parliamentarian ruled that those provisions could not be included.

So it's a big question of whether without those provisions, if she would be a yes on this bill. Now, Senate Republicans can only afford to lose three GOP votes on this bill. Over the weekend, two Republican senators voted against a procedural hurdle.

That was Senator Rand Paul and Senator Thom Tillis, who very quickly then announced that he would not be seeking reelection. Now, earlier today, Senate Majority Leader John Thune was asked whether he is going to have the votes to get this bill across the finish line, and he said we'll know soon enough.

Now, we're just 90 minutes into this vote-a-rama. It's expected to extend for many more hours. No one has predicted quite yet if it would end today or possibly the wee hours of the morning. But there's a lot more work for the Senate to do than any changes that were made to the bill here in the Senate would still need to make its way over to the House, where it could also face a complicated future if they're hoping to reach that potential July 4th deadline that the President had talked about.

BLITZER: All right, stand by. I want to go to CNN senior White House correspondent, Kristen Holmes, right now. Kristen, how involved is the Trump administration in this morning's debate that's ongoing in the Senate?

[11:05:08]

KRISTEN HOLMES, CNN NATIONAL CORRESPONDENT: Wolf, if they couldn't be more involved. We know in the walk-up to leading up to this moment that there was really a full-court press here at the White House.

You had aides, advisers, allies of President Trump's meeting with senators one-on-one. You had President Trump himself calling various senators. As you were mentioning, this is the cornerstone of his second term, but it's also his legacy.

He believes, and his team believes, that his entire legacy is wrapped up in this bill, and they must get it to pass. And if you're wondering how closely Donald Trump is watching this, this is what he posted on social media. He said, for all cost-cutting Republicans, of which I am one, remember you still have to get re-elected. Don't go too crazy. We will make it all up, times 10, with growth more than ever before.

Clearly here signaling two things. One, which we already know because we've heard from President Trump, that if you are willing to go against this bill in too extreme of a way, that he is willing to talk about your re-election and potentially primarying you. But also, the thing about President Trump is that he is always thinking about what plays well with voters. And remember, we've seen this now for several cycles. So he's trying to say if you go too far, you won't be re-elected. But there's two-fold of that, because he's obviously willing to come out against any Republicans that come out against his bill.

And one thing to keep in mind is because he is so invested in this passing, he is willing to strong-arm. He is willing to talk about primaries, and so is his team. They have been, as I said, full court press on this. They want to get it done. They don't think it's moving fast enough. But they understand that there is a process.

BROWN: All right, Kristen Holmes, Arlette Saenz, thank you both. Wolf?

BLITZER: We're also following breaking news this hour. The U.S. Supreme Court has ordered a handful of lower court judges to revisit cases that had been -- that had been decided in favor of transgender Americans. This follows a ruling earlier this month that upheld a ban on gender-affirming care for trans youth.

CNN's chief legal affairs correspondent, Paula Reid, is joining us right now.

BROWN: Yes, this is a big development from the -- the high court. Walk us through the decision.

PAULA REID, CNN CHIEF LEGAL AFFAIRS CORRESPONDENT: It is. So they released their final opinions on Friday, the Supreme Court. And now what happens is courts across the country will have to take those opinions and see if they apply to cases pending before that court.

Because remember, usually a question arrives before the justices because there's a larger controversy percolating in courts across the country. And as we know, the rights of transgender individuals, that is something that is being litigated in various ways, again, across the country, in federal courts all over the place.

So here, where the Supreme Court was asked to decide was specifically whether the state of Tennessee was discriminating based on sex by denying minors who wanted to transition access to certain medications, certain medications that they needed to transition, that other kids, if they were not using it for that purpose, did have access to.

Folks that brought this lawsuit said that was discrimination based on sex. The Supreme Court disagreed and upheld this law. So they really gave Tennessee a lot more power to regulate. And now that is going to have an impact on other cases.

So we're looking at cases from other states. Like, for example, there's a ruling that blocks state policies from excluding coverage for gender-affirming care in state-sponsored health insurance plans. That could potentially be impacted by what we got from the Supreme Court on Friday. There's also a challenge to people who -- for people who want to change their sex designation on their birth certificate. So now all of these rulings are going to be reviewed in light of the Supreme Court precedent, which is now the law of the land on this, that says what they did in Tennessee was not discrimination based on sex. So these states are going to argue that what they're doing is also not discriminating based on sex and try to keep their laws, you know, in -- in place and on the books.

So this continues to be litigated. The Supreme Court really steered clear of other laws that impact transgender Americans. So it'll be interesting to see how this plays out. But it's a reminder that the Supreme Court decision is the final word. It's the law of the land. But it sparks a whole other wave of litigation, because now these cases need to be reviewed in light of our new law.

BLITZER: The Supreme Court's session ended on Friday, and then they're now in -- in a break. So what's going to happen?

REID: So this morning, actually, they released orders. They gave us a preview of some of the cases that they're going to take up next term. No blockbuster ones yet. But this is an example. They are sending these back down to the lower courts.

This is the kind of work that they'll do over the summer, even though they won't be hearing arguments or making decisions again until court reopens in October, barring some sort of exigent circumstance.

BLITZER: Paula Reid, as usual, thank you very, very much.

BROWN: Thank you, Paula.

BLITZER: And still ahead, the Trump administration is once again going after Harvard University while it's claiming the university is in, quote, violent violation of the Civil Rights Act.

[11:09:56]

BROWN: Plus, how the CDC's new vaccine advisers, handpicked by RFK Jr., are reshaping the way some vaccines are approved and used.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

BROWN: Right now on Capitol Hill, Senators are in the so-called vote- a-rama. They're voting on amendments to President Trump's key policy bill of his second term. A final vote is expected later tonight.

At least two Republicans have indicated that they will oppose the bill. But where do things stack up on what's in the bill versus what we've heard from the Trump administration? Also, there is the House version. There's a lot to sift through, so we want to bring in our senior reporter, Daniel Dale, who joins us now for a fact check. Hi, Daniel.

[11:15:13]

So, let's start with what the President has said on Medicaid. How does that compare to what's actually in this bill? DANIEL DALE, CNN SENIOR REPORTER: Some of the President's recent comments, Pamela, have been wildly categorically inaccurate. Listen, for example, to something he said last week.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

DONALD TRUMP, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: We're cutting $1.7 trillion in this bill, and you're not going to feel any of it. And your Medicaid is left alone. It's left the same. Your Medicare and your Social Security are -- are strengthened. We're not cutting.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

DALE: Whatever the merits of this legislation and you -- whatever the merits and you can certainly defend this legislation, as Republicans have been doing, it objectively does not leave Medicaid the same. It is objective fact that this legislation makes major changes and, indeed, major cuts to Medicaid.

So, what kinds of changes are we talking about? Well, one of them that has received a lot of discussion is a work requirement. Specifically, a requirement that many recipients considered able-bodied, who do not have young children, prove that they are working or in school or in job training or volunteering 80-plus hours a month.

That's not the only big change. The legislation would require, for the first time, certain Medicaid enrollees to pay out-of-pocket for certain health services. There would be significant changes to the so- called provider tax that rural hospitals warned could force the closure of some of them or require significant cuts in care.

It imposes additional administrative burdens on people and states. So, again, good or bad, defend it or not defend it, this is big stuff. And how big, well, the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office says we're talking $930 billion cut in federal support for Medicaid over 10 years.

That is the biggest Medicaid cut in history, according to many experts. And that would, of course, impact real people. This nonpartisan CBO estimates that we're talking about 11.8 million additional uninsured people in 2034 as a result of this legislation.

Not all of it as a result of people losing Medicaid, but many of that 11.8 million would be people now on Medicaid who wouldn't be.

BLITZER: And, Daniel, what about the President's promise of no tax on Social Security benefits?

DALE: Yes, so, Wolf, the President keeps talking and posting on social media as if this legislation would fulfill his major campaign promise to completely eliminate tax on Social Security. It simply would not. It does not eliminate tax on Social Security. Many seniors would still be paying it.

Now, what the legislation does do is provide an additional tax deduction for seniors. It would be a $4,000 additional deduction in the House version, $6,000 additional deduction in the Senate version. That is, of course, something. It is certainly a step toward the President's campaign promise, but, no, it does not completely satisfy that no tax on Social Security pledge.

BROWN: What about the, you know, what the President said during the campaign, the no taxes on tips, no taxes on overtime? And the President has said that passing this bill could also result in a historic tax hike for some. What do we know there?

DALE: Yes, so he keeps using this 68 percent figure. I want you to listen to something else he said last week.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

TRUMP: Well, look, it's a great bill. It's a massive tax cut. If it's not approved, your taxes will go up by 68 percent. Think of that, 68, a record, the highest in the history. The Democrats won't approve it only because politically it's so good for the Republicans. The Democrats aren't approving it. But think of what they're not approving. They're not approving border security. We've done a great job at the border, but we have to add some wall. We have to do, you know, various things. We have no money for that.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

DALE: This 68 percent figure is fiction, and it is such fiction that the White House wouldn't even defend it on condition of anonymity when I asked for comment, no defense whatsoever.

There was no credible estimate that not passing this legislation would produce a 68 percent tax hike. Now, the nonpartisan think tank, the Tax Policy Center, did say that there would be an average tax hike of about 7.5 percent if this bill didn't pass as a result of certain provisions from the 2017 Trump tax law being allowed to expire.

And they also said that about 64 percent of households would face some sort of tax increase if the bill doesn't pass. But again, 64 percent of households getting some tax increase is not synonymous, guys, with a 68 percent or even 64 percent tax hike. It's just not the same thing.

BLITZER: Our excellent fact-checker, Daniel Dale, thanks so much for joining us.

BROWN: Thank you.

BLITZER: Pamela?

BROWN: And new this morning, Wolf, a Trump administration probe of Harvard University has found the school, quote, in violent violation of the Civil Rights Act. CNN has obtained a letter sent to the president of Harvard alleging tolerance for anti-Semitic behavior. I want to go now to senior reporter Betsy Kline at the White House. Take us through what's happening here, Betsy.

BETSY KLEIN, CNN SENIOR REPORTER AND WRITER: Well, Pamela, it's really a stunning development because it was just 10 days ago that President Trump himself said that a deal with Harvard University was in sight, could happen by the end of this month. And now his administration is saying that Harvard is in violation of the Civil Rights Act.

[11:20:10]

So the Task Force to Combat Anti-Semitism, a multi-agency effort within the Trump administration, has completed its investigation into Title VI and Harvard's compliance with that. And what Title VI says is it prevent -- prohibits discrimination on the basis of race, color, nationality, from any programs or entities receiving federal funding.

And that investigation has concluded, as you mentioned, that Harvard is in violent violation, it says, of that Title VI. Now, Harvard, according to this letter from the Task Force, quote, has been in some cases deliberately indifferent and in others has been a willful participant in anti-Semitic harassment of Jewish students, faculty, and staff.

For instance, it points to Jewish students being assaulted and spit on, on campus. There is imagery on campus, it says, trafficked in anti-Semitic tropes. There's also an encampment during those initial protests of the October 7th Hamas attacks on Israel that it says instilled fear in Jewish students.

Now, the letter goes on to say that failure to make immediate changes will result in the loss of all federal financial resources. Now, this just marks the latest intensification. The Trump administration is embroiled in two different lawsuits with Harvard University.

But it also comes, as I mentioned, the President said on July 20th that Harvard had been acting extremely appropriately and they were on the verge of a historic settlement. Of course, that seems far from in place. We are now learning that negotiations have broken down over recent days, but talks with Columbia University, which is facing similar investigations, are continuing, Pamela.

BROWN: All right, Betsy Klein, from the White House for us. Thanks so much. Wolf?

BLITZER: And still ahead, just moments ago, the Justice Department announced a massive health care fraud takedown. More than 300 defendants and some $14 billion in false claims. Those details, we have more that's next in The Situation Room.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[11:26:51]

BLITZER: More doctors are now expressing their deep concerns about the CDC's new vaccine advisory committee accusing the new board of setting a very dangerous precedent and using, quote, pseudoscience to undermine trust in vaccines. The board met last week for the first time since the Health and Human Services Secretary, Robert F. Kennedy Jr., replaced all the previous members with his own appointees. BROWN: Dr. Sandra Fryhofer joins us now. She's an immunization expert and former president of the American College of Physicians. She also served as chair of the American Medical Association and, importantly here for this conversation, she was there in those meetings as a non- voting liaison.

Doctor, great to have you. I just want to get your reaction to these changes as someone who has dealt with this panel in the past and why every American should be paying attention to this.

DR. SANDRA FRYHOFER, INTERNAL MEDICINE PHYSICIAN: Well, Pamela, thanks. ACIP is the CDC's Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices and it was established in 1964. Its charge was to provide expert guidance in making vaccine recommendations for the entire country. And for years, ACIP's collaborative, transparent, and evidence-based process has been trusted by medical professionals and the public and has helped protect us from vaccine-preventable diseases.

ACIP recommendations are also directly tied to insurance coverage. If the vaccines are on the ACIP schedule, then insurance companies have to cover them. ACIP also makes recommendations for vaccines included in VFC, which is the Vaccines for Children program, and VFC ensures that every child in America has access to vaccines, even if their parents can't afford them.

And this program actually provides vaccines to 50 percent of children in this country and recent actions by HHS Secretary Kennedy are threatening the integrity of this process.

BROWN: So bottom line, though, what are those changes that you're so concerned about and why should Americans be paying close attention to this?

FRYHOFER: Well, ACIP was actually blown apart in early June when the new Secretary Kennedy removed all 17 ACIP members. Kennedy's handpicked replacements lack experience and expertise in vaccines. Some have spread misinformation about vaccines. Others have gone on record with preconceived bias against vaccines.

In fact, Senator Cassidy, who's the physician who chairs the Senate Health Committee, was so concerned about the qualifications and views of this new panel that he called for the meeting to be delayed. He thought the panel needed more people with direct relevant experience with vaccines. And he was right.

BLITZER: You know, it's interesting. Last week I had a chance to speak with vaccine expert Dr. Fiona Havers, who resigned from the CDC following Secretary Kennedy's decision to purge the previous board. She says a lot of Americans are going to die from vaccine preventable diseases and as a result of these changes. Do you agree?

[11:29:59]

FRYHOFER: I do. I'm very concerned about that. And being at the meeting last week, the questions that they asked showed a lack of knowledge of what FDA and vaccine work groups do and --