Return to Transcripts main page

The Situation Room

DOJ Recommends Light Sentence For Officer Involved in Breonna Taylor Death; Psychedelic Drugs to Treat Depression?; Interview With Rep. Jason Crow (D-CO); Will Trump Fire Jerome Powell?. Aired 11:30a- 12p ET

Aired July 17, 2025 - 11:30   ET

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

[11:30:00]

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[11:31:59]

WOLF BLITZER, CNN HOST: All right, moments ago, President Trump fired off this TRUTH Social post -- and I'm quoting now -- "Too late. great numbers just out. Lower the rate," Donald J. Trump. He signed it "DJT."

This comes after a day, a day, just a day after the president pushed back on reports that he was looking to fire the Federal Reserve Chairman Jerome Powell. But a senior White House official told CNN the president said earlier this week in a private meeting with lawmakers that he would indeed fire Powell.

PAMELA BROWN, CNN HOST: If the president did remove Powell, which is still questionable under law, it could have major consequences for global markets. The U.S. dollar index dropped as much as 0.8 percent yesterday after what he told lawmakers publicly surfaced.

Joining us now are CNN's Vanessa Yurkevich and Phil Mattingly.

All right, Vanessa, to follow up with you first on this, if Trump fires and replaces Powell, rates would likely go down the way Trump wants. What would that mean?

VANESSA YURKEVICH, CNN BUSINESS AND POLITICS CORRESPONDENT: Well, this will have significant institutional and financial impacts if President Trump were to fire Jerome Powell.

First, this would really shake the independence of the Federal Reserve. The Federal Reserve was set up in 1913 at a time when bank runs were running rampant. It was set up for stability, to provide liquidity, but also to be independent from politics.

It would also impact the value of the U.S. dollar, which is critical to the U.S. economy. The dollar, as you mentioned, in the 30 minutes when reports were swirling that President Trump would likely fire Jerome Powell, the dollar fell. And that was just in 30 minutes of these reports. That is just a microcosm of what could happen if President Trump were

to fire Jerome Powell. Also, as you mentioned, if he did fire Powell, the person he would appoint would likely be someone who would be advocating for lower interest rates. That person would have to convince all of the other board members, 11 board members, to lower rates.

And if the Federal Reserve decided to lower rates prematurely, it would, one, cause bond market yields to rise, which would signal that investors want more interest to take on U.S. debt. And if the government has to pay more interest on bonds, that would signal that they would have less money to spend for other social services, Medicare, for example.

And if the Federal Reserve lowered rates too quickly, it could actually have the opposite effect. It could fuel inflation, as consumers started spending and prices started rising. It is a very delicate dance, and it is something that has been critical to the Federal Reserve's position in the U.S. economy, being able to make those decisions independently outside of politics, outside of any political party, Pamela.

[11:35:02]

BLITZER: You know, it's interesting, Phil.

The economy was certainly one of the issues that got Trump into the White House to begin with. What kind of impact would such a drastic move, firing the Federal Reserve chairman have on his base?

PHIL MATTINGLY, CNN CHIEF DOMESTIC CORRESPONDENT: I think what's fascinating about kind of the internal debate in the White House and the fact that the president continues to push this, particularly as far as it seemed to go over the course of the last 48 hours, is the risks are palpable and they are quite acute to the very people that elected him on the very issue that voter after voter after voter in polling said was the most important issue of the campaign.

And I think it comes at a moment where the U.S. economy has been resilient. The U.S. economy is -- the worst-case scenario as laid out by economists, laid out by those who oppose the president's agenda, none of them have come to pass fruition when it comes to his tariffs.

He just enacted the cornerstone legislative proposal of his entire economic agenda. Everything is moving in the direction the administration would want. And what this would do would essentially hit the brakes and hit them hard. I think from a kind of day-to-day household-to-household basis, in the near term, you have the possibility of credit starting to seize up, making it more difficult for access to credit.

If long-term borrowing costs jump, if bond yields start to spike, those are what credit card rates are tied to, what your mortgage rates are tied to. So people would feel that as well. The instability I think would be the biggest problem and the uncertainty in what that would pose not just for the broader marketplace, but for households. BROWN: All right, Phil, thanks for helping us understand all of that.

More news when we come back.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[11:40:47]

BROWN: Breaking news just in to CNN.

One day in jail, that's what the Justice Department is asking for. A former Louisville police officer involved in the shooting death of Breonna Taylor. Brett Hankison was found guilty of violating Taylor's civil rights in 2020 when she was shot and killed by police in her home during a botched raid.

CNN senior justice correspondent Evan Perez joins us now.

So, Evan, what is the Justice Department's argument for such a short sentence?

EVAN PEREZ, CNN SENIOR JUSTICE CORRESPONDENT: Well, one of the things they're saying, Pamela, is that Evan Perez here is not one of the officers that was charged with actually shooting or striking her with the shots that he fired.

He was charged only with -- he was convicted, rather, of only one count of abusing Breonna Taylor's civil rights last year in that trial. And what he did, according to the evidence that was presented in the trial, is that he fired blindly into this room, which was obviously occupied, and bullets went through the wall into another apartment.

And the Justice Department initially had said -- this is previously to the current Trump administration, had said that essentially he was firing willfully into a room that he knew could have posed a danger to someone. And so he was convicted.

But the Justice Department is saying that they're recommending only a one-day sentence, and that would essentially be time served, because he was held in jail while he was processed when he was arrested. I should note that he is being sentenced on Monday, and the judge obviously can do what he wants.

And this is a charge that carries potentially, potentially a life sentence, if the judge would seek to do that.

BROWN: All right, Evan Perez with the latest, thank you so much -- Wolf.

BLITZER: Also overnight, at least six people are dead after Russia launched a new wave of attacks across Ukraine, blowing out several civilian buildings.

This comes as President Trump has given Vladimir Putin 50 days to accept a peace deal or face very tough punishing sanctions. Let's discuss with Democratic Congressman Jason Crow of Colorado. He's

a key member of the House Armed Services and Intelligence committees.

Congressman, thanks so much for joining us.

How big of a gift is this window of time 50 days to Russia?

REP. JASON CROW (D-CO): Wolf, I served in war. I did three combat tours in Iraq and Afghanistan as a paratrooper and a Ranger.

And what I can tell you is that time matters a lot when you're on the battlefield. Every day seems like a week. Every week seems like a month. And the fact that there continues to be just unbelievable delays -- let's not forget that Donald Trump claimed during the campaign that he would solve this on day one.

Well, here we are more than seven months in, and he keeps on giving extension after extension, which works in Putin's favor. This is exactly what Vladimir Putin wants. Time is on his side. He knows that. And the more delay, the better for Russia and Vladimir Putin. So this just needs to be wrapped up. We need to impose sanctions, secondary sanctions.

We need to be very clear about our weapons support for Ukraine. And we need to show resolve that this administration so far has not shown.

BLITZER: The Russian foreign minister, Sergey Lavrov, is brushing off this ultimatum from the Trump administration saying, and I'm quoting now, "We have been through all this before."

Do you think Russia takes the U.S. seriously?

CROW: Of course they don't. And, of course, they're going to be laughing at Donald Trump. And, of course, they're going to be laughing at the lack of a coherent strategy and policy, because there actually isn't one.

Will the real administration's policy, if it exists, please stand up? You know, it changes by the week. It changes by the month. And when we're dealing with people as dangerous as Vladimir Putin, who's always playing 4-D chess, you can't walk into that without a plan, without a strategy.

So we need to be tough. We need to show resolve. We need to do what's in Americans' best interest for our national security. And certainly a lack of plan and strategy with regard to Vladimir Putin is not going to get that done.

[11:45:02]

BLITZER: The senior U.S. military commander in Europe, Congressman, says that the U.S. and NATO are now working with Germany to send more Patriot air defense missile systems to Ukraine as quickly as possible.

How important is it to get those systems to Ukraine? And could they change what's actually happening on the ground? CROW: Yes, it's really important. This goes to my earlier point about

the importance of time.

As Vladimir Putin is basically playing Donald Trump and stringing him along, he is launching hundreds and hundreds of drone attacks at civilians, at hospitals, at power plants across Ukraine, violating international law in the process.

So he's doing that. Time is critical. Patriots are just one piece of the puzzle, though. No one weapon system is going to change fundamentally the battlefield.

What we need is a cohesive strategy that involves diplomacy, that involves sanctions, that involves our allies and partners, that involves multiple weapon systems in support to Ukraine, that allow them to control the skies, that allows them to control the ground, that allows them to train and recruit effective soldiers for their military to combat the hordes of Russians and North Koreans that continue to come across the border and attack Ukraine.

All of those things need to happen, and they need to happen yesterday. And, unfortunately, this administration continues to be late to the game.

BLITZER: Congressman, before I let you go, I want to ask you about a U.S. Army veteran who was actually arrested during an immigration raid last week in Southern California.

The veteran says, after he arrived at work, he identified himself as a U.S. citizen before federal agents broke his car window, pepper- sprayed him and dragged him out. We have seen ICE going after some veterans and their families. I know you served honorably in the U.S. Army. What's your reaction to this?

CROW: Yes, this is absolutely abhorrent. And this isn't the only case. There are countless cases of veterans, veterans' parents and fathers being arrested and deported, Afghan partners, people who literally served with us in Afghanistan, who we rescued and pulled out of Afghanistan during the collapse in 2021 who are being arrested and deported, children, U.S. children, people being snatched off the streets without due process.

This is what mass deportation looks like. I have no problem, nobody that I talk to has a problem with going after violent criminals. If people are a danger to our community, if they are violent criminals, yes, find those people, arrest them, deport them. But that's not what this administration is doing.

This mass deportation, by definition, means you're sweeping everybody up regardless of your military service, regardless of whether or not you're a veteran, regardless of whether or not you're a U.S. citizen. When you don't give people due process, this is what happens.

BLITZER: Congressman Jason Crow of Colorado, the great state of Colorado, I should say, thanks very much for joining us.

CROW: Thank you.

BLITZER: And we will be right back.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[11:52:24]

BLITZER: Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. is voicing support for psychedelic drugs to treat certain conditions like depression.

Some doctors say these kinds of drugs can help people work through trauma.

BROWN: So let's bring in Johns Hopkins psychiatric professor Albert Garcia-Romeu.

Thank you so much for coming on, Doctor.

So, what more do we know about how these drugs work for people who might be struggling with things like PTSD or depression?

ALBERT GARCIA-ROMEU, JOHNS HOPKINS UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF MEDICINE: Well, over the last decade, there's been a number of studies that have shown what I would call convincing evidence that we can use safely and effectively substances like MDMA to treat post-traumatic stress disorder and similarly that we can use psilocybin, which is found in magic mushrooms, to treat a number of conditions such as major depression, anxiety, for palliative care and even for treating addictions.

BLITZER: What's your reaction, Doctor, to RFK Jr. saying he wants to get these kinds of drugs approved, approved in the next 12 months? Is that realistic?

GARCIA-ROMEU: Well, the normal pathway typically involves a number of phase three studies that need to be completed in order to reach an FDA approval of a new medication.

MDMA was actually under consideration for that type of approval at the end of last year, but ultimately was not approved. So it's possible that FDA may make a different determination now a under new administration. There's certainly a number of entities and scientists that are working to gather the data necessary to get to that level of approval, though, typically, it would probably take more than 12 months under normal circumstances, I would say.

BROWN: You mentioned that the MDMA wasn't approved for therapy. And I'm wondering what you thought about that, because I remember when that first came out that it wasn't approved, it was controversial among those in the space right, who saw that it had helped a lot of people from their own practice.

I wonder what you thought about that and just how the overall reception of these kinds of therapies shifted since you started studying the effects. GARCIA-ROMEU: Well, I have been in the field for 13 years.

And I would say that having seen the evolution of people's attitudes and perceptions towards these substances has been really remarkable, because there was a lot of skepticism both in science and the general public back in the early 2010s, I would say.

And that's really skewed much more positive in many respects over the last five or so years. And so we're seeing a lot of enthusiasm and interest in moving these forward as new medications. But it's a very long and slow process, and so it takes a lot of time.

[11:55:14]

And with regards to the decision not to approve MDMA, I understand what some of the concerns that FDA brought forward. But I also felt that it may not have been the best decision, because I thought that the evidence that was presented in the two phase three clinical trials looked both quite promising and also seemed to show good safety, as well as effectiveness.

So that was my take on that situation.

BROWN: What do you think has contributed to this shift that you talk about?

GARCIA-ROMEU: It's hard to say. I would say, generationally, there's different views on these types of substances. Probably people born since the '80s and '90s have seen a lot more of these types of medications being used in, for instance, psychiatric conditions.

Like, antidepressants have become much more commonly prescribed medications. And so as we see more and more of these, I think it's become normalized for people to be taking medicines for these types of conditions. And at the same time, we have also seen growing acceptance of cannabis, for instance, as both recreational and medical substance.

And so as we have seen people using that more so, and perhaps that the sky has not fallen, has given people some consideration that maybe these psychedelics also may be in a similar boat, that they may not be all bad, that they may have some medical potential, that they may be valuable as treatments.

And so we're seeing, I think, these changes in attitudes over time that are really encouraging in terms of whether or not people accept these as new treatments.

BLITZER: Dr. Albert Garcia-Romeu, thank you so much for joining us.

GARCIA-ROMEU: Yes, thank you.

BLITZER: And, to our viewers, thanks very much 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, every weekday morning 10:00 a.m. Eastern.

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