Return to Transcripts main page

The Situation Room

Fired CDC Director Testifies Before Congress; President Trump Visits United Kingdom. Aired 11:30a-12p ET

Aired September 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]

(MUSIC)

WOLF BLITZER, CNN HOST: Clearly, the British know how to welcome a visiting United States president. This is the second time -- and this is only the second time that the British have had a welcoming ceremony along these lines for a state visit by an American president, second time President Trump has received this truly impressive welcome with these three marching bands performing on the east lawn of Windsor Castle.

We're watching all of this unfold.

So is Christiane Amanpour. She's on the scene for us.

Christiane, pretty extraordinary, and this is certainly, as some of us who have covered President Trump for a long time know, he really, really likes it.

CHRISTIANE AMANPOUR, CNN CHIEF INTERNATIONAL ANCHOR: Absolutely.

Now, we're standing inside the walls of Windsor Castle. We haven't gotten anywhere near the president and this pageantry because it's happening across these 1,000-year-old walls from us. Nonetheless, it is unfolding as you see on your screens.

And this is all about really the personal, as well as the pageantry, because everybody knows that for President Trump -- and there you can see him sitting with King Charles III -- for President Trump, policy is personal. And he really does love all of this, as he's made very clear. He really enjoyed his state visit when he was invited in 1.0 by Queen Elizabeth II.

He loves the military parades that he's had in France. You know, he likes this kind of stuff and he likes the marshal stuff as well. So this is something that the Brits are hoping everything they're throwing at this -- and it's a bigger and better and whatever -- they keep giving us all the descriptions -- is designed to help smooth their way and keep their way tight with the United States and to get something back from the United States or at least not to get worse punished by the United States.

Because this is a president who talks about tariffs and all of that kind of stuff, as you know, has pushed quite a lot of allies away. But Britain is hoping to stand very close still. They believe in this special relationship and they want it not just to be this incredible performance at Windsor Castle, but for that to translate into real meat-and-potato politics, agreements on trade, on the economy, on investment and also on foreign policy.

Britain is standing very, very clearly along with the rest of the NATO allies for Ukraine. And they want to get a permanently definitive commitment from President Trump to defend Ukraine, but not only that, to do what he says he's going to do, to not keep extending deadlines in terms of not punishing Putin.

He keeps saying, I will, I will, I will, if, if, if, but it doesn't happen. Spoke to a senator before this trip, and they say that there's a whole raft of bipartisan, agreed sanctions in Congress that should be imposed, because, here in Europe, Putin is escalating against Europe, not just against Ukraine, having infiltrated Polish airspace, as we know, in the last couple of weeks and also Romanian airspace.

So now NATO is faced with, what do you do? You have got to make good on your threats. If Putin keeps escalating, they have got to stop him doing it. And the best way without going into a war is financial and economic pressure. So far, that hasn't come from the United States, and they're hoping that they can convince him to do that.

Then there's the other list of international challenges, whether it's the climate, whether it's the ongoing horrendous war on Gaza. And one of the things some analysts have been saying is, the president of the United States wields a unique and powerful leverage.

He is the president of the most powerful country in the whole wide world. So things that happen in NATO can't fully happen without the full participation of the United States president. Things in the Middle East can't fully get resolved without the full participation and engagement of the president of the United States.

That's just a historical fact. And President Trump has -- he speaks certain things, he says certain things, but he seems to be quite a bystander when it comes to actually imposing America's will and beliefs in trying to get peace.

So they're hoping they can talk to him about that as well and engage him on those issues -- Wolf.

BLITZER: Today, Christiane, as you know, it's all about ceremony, a welcoming ceremony for the president of the United States and the first lady of the United States.

Tomorrow, the substance begins on these international issues, whether Ukraine, Russia, whether it involves Israel and Gaza, all these other substantive issues and the nature of the U.S.-British relationship. That's when President Trump will be meeting with the prime minister, Keir Starmer, in London.

[11:35:01] So, these are really significant moments right now. The ceremony, he will welcome, but, tomorrow, the substance begins. Talk a little bit more about that, Christiane.

AMANPOUR: Well, I will.

And key -- I'm not trying to correct anything, because it should be in London, but actually it's not going to be in London, and that's because the president is being shielded from protesters. And, of course, the security is very, very heavy for his visit.

So they're going to go to the British equivalent of Camp David. That is the prime minister's country residence called Chequers. And you're right. These are the major things that they're going to be talking about tomorrow.

Now, unfortunately for both the president and the prime minister, the shadow of Jeffrey Epstein has followed the president over here. You can imagine the one thing he wanted to get away from was Epstein, but here it has landed with this whole hullabaloo around the Lord Mandelson, the U.K. ambassador to the United States who was fired.

And the key thing here is that Prime Minister Starmer has not addressed what the British press are baying for and many of his own M.P.s, and that is to address how they didn't know all of these details of these e-mails that have been released now regarding the relationship between Mandelson and Epstein.

So what I'm saying is that all of this important policy, all of these important deals, negotiations are things that need to be discussed really seriously between the president of the United States and the prime minister here, given the chaos that our world is in right now, the seriousness of it cannot be overstated, may very well be overshadowed in a press conference by at least a raft of questions about Epstein.

And that's not going to make Trump happy and it's not going to make Starmer happy. And we're going to see whether that has any impact. But, again, you cannot overestimate and overstate the importance of this visit, not just because of the historic nature of the state visit and what you can see, what Britain does the best, which is this pageantry, but because of what they want it to achieve.

What will they get out of having given Trump this? He's transactional. What can they expect out of this piece of their transactional engagement with him?

BLITZER: And very quickly, Christiane, before I let you go, this is pretty much a closed event that we're watching right now with these marching bands unfolding, this very beautiful reception for the president and the first lady of the United States.

But people in Britain are watching this on television. They can't even get close to what's going on here at Windsor Castle. Is that right?

AMANPOUR: That is true because he's been basically shielded from the population, as I said, partly because of protests, partly because of the security, and it's a very different atmosphere to his first state visit in 1.0.

But what's happened here is that there are people in the streets, in the village just really a stone's throw from where we are, and they seem to be pro-Trump and I think we heard some USA chants, but they're not the ones lining the route of the carriage procession and all the rest of it.

In fact, they did this whole majestic literally carriage procession, four or five carriages, the king and the president, the queen and the first lady, and then you had the president's close Cabinet members and his chief of staff and his key advisers in another carriage, and they went through Windsor Great Park, which is attached to Windsor Castle and it's the huge -- I mean, they got hundreds of acres, if not more.

And it was all lined by the members of the British military and honor guards and the cavalry and all the rest of it, not by the people, as one generally sees. So the short answer is, yes, it's a closed event, very, very elegant and beautiful, as the British do it.

And we're soon going to have the flypast. The latest news on that is, another first was going to be that American fighter jets would accompany the British historic fighters, the Red Arrows, in the flyover. However, we have been told that the weather here, which is -- it's not raining, but the cloud is pretty low, prevents the American jets from taking part.

So that's a shame. That would have been a first, but I don't think anything will take away from certainly the pageantry and the pomp and the circumstance of it. Very few people get to experience this, very few people. And anybody who's gone through this kind of visit always comes out of it saying how deeply it affects them.

And you can see the president cheering, applauding there. And he also laid a wreath on the tomb of the late Queen Elizabeth II, who also hosted him at Windsor, as well as at Buckingham Palace and who he's very fond of and he really likes the royal family.

BLITZER: He certainly does. And I love the marching bands, as I mentioned earlier to Pamela, in part because, when I was in high school, I played at the marching band myself.

PAMELA BROWN, CNN HOST: I didn't know that.

[11:40:00]

BLITZER: You didn't know that?

BROWN: No, I didn't.

BLITZER: Yes, saxophone.

BROWN: Oh, wow.

BLITZER: I was not very good, but I enjoyed marching. AMANPOUR: I told you, Wolf, politics are personal.

(LAUGHTER)

BLITZER: That's right. Good point, Christiane.

BROWN: Exactly.

BLITZER: All right, chief international anchor Christiane Amanpour, thank you very, very much -- Pamela.

BROWN: Learn something new every day about Wolf.

BLITZER: There's other news you're following as well.

BROWN: Yes, there is.

There is this ongoing testimony from the ousted CDC leader Susan Monarez. Let's dip into that.

DR. SUSAN MONAREZ, FORMER CDC DIRECTOR: Some of the things that he was talking about were clearly not aligned with the scientific evidence that I knew related to safety and efficacy and placebo- controlled trials.

And the conversation seemed to change points very quickly. It was hard sometimes to follow the logic that he was putting forward. And, again, it was -- he was very, very upset and very animated.

SEN. MAGGIE HASSAN (D-NH): Thank you.

And, Mr. Chair, if I could, I have a yes-or-no question, and then we will be done.

You said that the secretary spoke at length about the CDC. During that time, did he ever express condolences for the police officer who was killed during the recent shooting at the CDC or the two children who died of measles this year?

MONAREZ: During that meeting, no.

HASSAN: Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

SEN. TOMMY TUBERVILLE (R-AL), GUBERNATORIAL CANDIDATE: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Dr. Monarez, you and I spoke, I guess, a little over a month ago in my office. And we talked about trust. And that was really my number one concern, because President Trump was elected by the American people to make change. And our health care system during COVID, there was a lot of things that were exposed.

CDC was one of them. We were looking for somebody that could run the CDC for change and get the trust back of the American people. Do you agree or disagree that the CDC director reports to the HHS secretary?

MONAREZ: The CDC director does report to the HHS secretary.

TUBERVILLE: Do you believe the President Trump has a right and the authority to pick his Cabinet?

MONAREZ: He does.

TUBERVILLE: OK. After you were nominated, did you -- what kind of conversations did you have with Secretary Kennedy before your confirmation, or was there any?

MONAREZ: Between the nomination and the confirmation, I don't believe -- I don't recall any engagement.

TUBERVILLE: What about before your nomination period?

MONAREZ: We did have some conversations, yes.

TUBERVILLE: Yes, very positive, I hope?

MONAREZ: He was excited about my priorities, restoring trust, transforming public health infrastructure, modernizing the agency, preparing for the next pandemic. We had some productive engagements about the technological innovations that I wanted to bring the CDC.

I was enthusiastic and I believe he was as well.

TUBERVILLE: So the problem I have here is probably this conversation should have been maybe a little bit more private of after all this. That's how I handle all mine if people were let go back when I had some kind of control over a situation.

But, that being said, it's hard to explain here to find out who's telling the truth, because there's a lot of discrepancies on both sides after Secretary Kennedy and now you here today.

The American people won't bureaucrats to understand you're not elected. We didn't elect you. We want you to do your job, OK? And I think you agree with that America needs better than this at the end of the day. And so I'm going to ask some questions here.

And did you tell the secretary you were untrustworthy?

MONAREZ: He asked me. He didn't ask me. He told me he could not trust me. He told me he could not trust me because I had shared information related to our conversation beyond his staff.

I told him, if you cannot trust me, then you can fire me.

TUBERVILLE: OK. Did you remove or work to actively undermine political leadership appointed by President Trump?

MONAREZ: I don't believe so.

TUBERVILLE: Anybody in the CDC? Nobody did you remove? Once you got into office, was anybody removed...

MONAREZ: No one was removed.

TUBERVILLE: ... fired? Were they changed positions?

MONAREZ: There were no political appointees that I changed positions.

TUBERVILLE: OK.

Did you refuse to update the CDC Web site, despite being instructed to do so, including things from the CDC Web site like birthing people, health equity, a policy that came down from the president of the United States? Did you refuse to do that?

[11:45:02]

MONAREZ: No.

TUBERVILLE: Not whatsoever?

MONAREZ: I did not refuse to do that.

TUBERVILLE: OK.

That's all I got, Mr. Chairman.

SEN. BILL CASSIDY (R-LA): Thank you. And I ask unanimous consent to enter the following, which has come out while we have been in this meeting from "The Washington Post."

In an August 19 e-mail to Monarez, Matthew Buckham, chief of staff at the Department of Health and Human Services, wrote -- quote -- "I want to elevate the absolute need for political review of major policy decisions at CDC." By the way, this e-mail was to Dr. Monarez.

He added that Kennedy's office in CDC political leadership should -- quote -- "have eyes on the decisions for approval changes before they go into effect." And I will enter that into the record without objection.

Senator Murphy.

SEN. CHRIS MURPHY (D-CT): Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.

First, I just want to understand how unprecedented this moment is and how unprecedented these changes are that are compromising our families and our kids' safety.

Just some simple yes-and-no questions. I think they're yes-and-no questions. Dr. Monarez, is there any precedent for a new administration dismissing the entirety of the vaccine advisory board and appointing a totally new board?

MONAREZ: I have not had any awareness of that happening previously.

MURPHY: Is there any precedent for the CDC director being required to clear personnel and policy decisions with political staff in the way that you were requested?

MONAREZ: That has never been my experience.

MURPHY: And is there any precedent for a CDC director to be asked to preapprove vaccine recommendations without ever having actually seen the recommendations themselves or the medical and scientific evidence backing them up?

MONAREZ: I have never experienced that.

MURPHY: You stated in a previous answer to a question that, during your August 25 meeting, the secretary referenced that he had spoken to President Trump about his feelings about the childhood vaccine schedule.

You testified that he had previewed for you that there were going to be some significant changes coming. Did he give you the impression that the president supported the changes that he was going to be pushing on the child vaccine schedule?

MONAREZ: That was the impression that I got. I have no way to substantiate whether -- the veracity of that.

MURPHY: Your op-ed opens with a harrowing account of the August 8 shooting. And, clearly, both you, the entire leadership and the entire building is still reeling from that moment, 180 rounds being fired into the CDC. What a traumatizing event.

I want to ask you about your fears. And Dr. Houry, I would be glad to hear your thoughts as well for the safety of our personnel at the CDC and the medical profession writ large if more and more people believe that those that are recommending vaccines for our children and our families are hurting people.

Clearly, you have to be unhinged to take a gun and fire it into a medical building. But these conspiracy theories about vaccines and about the people who are recommending vaccines, I fear they come with consequences.

Do you fear for the safety of the CDC and the medical personnel if these beliefs about the CDC actually recommending things that hurt people continue to become mainstream?

MONAREZ: I do worry about that. I myself was subject to threats. And I am very concerned that the further promulgation of misleading information will undermine not just the safety and health of our children, but it will also exacerbate some of these tensions, the willingness to commit harm if someone is affronted by a belief that the people like us that are trying to help them are actually not trying to help them.

DR. DEBRA HOURY, FORMER CDC CHIEF MEDICAL OFFICER: And I would just say it was 500 rounds. It was 180 that hit the building.

(CROSSTALK)

MURPHY: ... hit the building.

HOURY: Those were -- each bullet was meant for a person. And each of my staff were very traumatized afterwards.

I had staff that were covering their kids in the day care parking lot. There were people that were out at the rideshare as bullets were passing over their head. I have many that won't speak about vaccines now and removed their names off of papers. They don't wish to present publicly anymore because they feel they were personally targeted because of misinformation.

[11:50:10]

MURPHY: So you know of personnel who now will not put their name behind good science...

HOURY: Correct.

MURPHY: ... that they know would protect the health and safety of families and children because of their fear of violence?

HOURY: Correct. And even at the ACIP meeting, you will notice we don't have our subject matter experts presenting anymore. It's taken up to a leadership level because we did that to protect our staff and scientists so that they would be disconnected and their names not associated so that they won't be targeted.

MURPHY: Thank you both for your candor today and your service to the country.

CASSIDY: Senator Banks.

SEN. JIM BANKS (R-IN): Dr. Monarez, I understand...

BROWN: All right, let's get back to Dr. Sanjay Gupta, who's been following this at times contentious hearing on Capitol Hill involving the former head of the CDC who was recently ousted from her job.

So what stands out to you so far, Sanjay?

DR. SANJAY GUPTA, CNN CHIEF MEDICAL CORRESPONDENT: Well, there's been a few things, obviously very contentious, very political, not a lot of the science or data or evidence here.

Obviously, there was some discussion about why exactly she was fired and there was back-and-forth on that. But I think one of the things that really jumped out at me, again, was a little bit more clarity on what exactly happened with the -- with Dr. Monarez being asked to preapprove these recommendations before actually seeing them.

So these were recommendations she had not seen from a committee that had not yet been assembled based on really no science or evidence. So imagine basically going to the CDC director and saying, in a couple of weeks, you're going to get these recommendations from this committee. Just go ahead and approve those ahead of time. That was quite jarring. I mean, obviously, that's not how science

works. I thought it was interesting that she said, look, I would have been open to the idea of changing the childhood vaccine schedule based on new science or data if that is presented. But, again, that wasn't presented to her.

So that was something that really jumped out. I also think, again, something we talked about before, this idea that, at least according to what Dr. Monarez said, Secretary Kennedy has been talking to President Trump regularly about changing the childhood vaccine schedule.

So this is something that seems like it's not just at the level of HHS, but going all the way to the White House as well. So these are some of the things. Obviously, there was a lot of back-and-forth on what the science shows, what scientific studies have been proven around pediatric vaccines.

But so many times she was asked about that, she really never got a chance to answer.

BROWN: All right, I think we are going to be dipping back into this hearing with Dr. Susan Monarez, who's speaking right now.

Sanjay, thank you so much. Let's listen in.

BANKS: You don't seem naive at all. You have to know that Mark Zaid is a leading opponent of President Trump, notorious for his online activity that is very anti-Trump.

He was heavily involved in President Trump's first impeachment. Why did you hire a guy like that of all the thousands of attorneys? And, furthermore, he advised his clients to leave the country after President Trump won the 2024 election. Why would you hire a guy like that?

MONAREZ: So I actually was not aware of any of those details associated with Mark Zaid.

BANKS: He's right behind you. You brought him with you today, notorious for his anti-Trump activity and involvement. And you hired that guy.

MONAREZ: Yes, so I was seeking some critical counsel to be able to help me make sure that I was understanding and aware of everything that had transpired and preparing for what might be next, including this committee hearing.

Mark Zaid and I have never spoken about politics. I never asked him about his politics. He has never asked me about my politics. He is a well-credentialed counsel.

BANKS: So you're claiming to be naive about Mark Zaid's political activity as he sits behind you advising you for this hearing helping you through this process?

(CROSSTALK)

MONAREZ: I have not had any discussions with Mr. Zaid associated with his politics.

BANKS: That's astonishing.

Doctor, during your confirmation hearing, you testified about your priorities to -- quote -- "support" President Trump and Secretary Kennedy's vision of a healthier America. Those were your words. Did your priorities change along the way?

MONAREZ: My priorities have not changed.

BANKS: And when you were serving as acting CDC director and then nominated and confirmed, you obviously understood President Trump and Secretary Kennedy's priorities, the MAHA priorities.

You obviously understood those. What changed along the way?

MONAREZ: The only thing that changed was my -- the demands that I compromised my integrity.

[11:55:05]

I still support that we need to make our children healthier. I still support that we need to do all of the things I have...

BANKS: You determined along the way that you weren't aligned with President Trump and Secretary Kennedy.

MONAREZ: I did not.

BANKS: OK.

MONAREZ: I did not. The only thing...

BANKS: Tell us more about the conversation that you have with Secretary Kennedy about your trustworthiness.

MONAREZ: Yes, he had become -- so three things had happened.

BANKS: And you denied to Senator Tuberville that you yourself told Secretary Kennedy that you are untrustworthy.

MONAREZ: I did not say...

BANKS: How did you say that?

MONAREZ: He asked me -- so, look, that morning, I had been clear that I was not going to fire scientists, that I was not going to commit to preapproving vaccine recommendations without data and science.

I had been very alarmed at the demands, and I had reached out as part of what I understood my obligations, to communicate that to this committee. The secretary became aware of that. And in the context of those activities, he told me he could not trust me. I told him that, if he could not trust me, he could fire me.

BANKS: That's all I got. I yield back.

CASSIDY: Next is Senator Hickenlooper.

SEN. JOHN HICKENLOOPER (D-CO): Thank you, Mr. Chair. Thank both of you for being here today and for your service. Time was really valuable.

Let me ask a rhetorical question. Secretary Kennedy told our colleagues on the Finance Committee about vaccine access. He said, most Americans are going to be able to get it from their pharmacy for free. Everybody can get it.

But that's not true, is it?

HOURY: My mom lives in Virginia, and she was unable to get it.

HICKENLOOPER: Great. I mean, I realize, with you out of office, you don't have access to those informations, but about half of all American kids get free vaccines through the Vaccines for Children Program. This is now at a standstill waiting for guidance from the CDC.

States like Colorado are trying to lead by issuing separate guidance for their states about vaccine access. Obviously, that's a lot of friction and confusion. Many insurance plans defer to federal recommendations to determine coverage of vaccines, leaving many families with bills that can range into the hundreds of dollars just for vaccines.

And pharmacies across the country, from the confusion, they're not sure if they can administer the vaccine or even if they have it in stock. So I think we have got a real problem to navigate, that we have got to be able to look at it.

Dr. Monarez, during your tenure as CDC director, your short-lived tenure, you tried to implement guardrails to reinforce the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices, or ACIP.

Given the secretary's actions, do you still agree that we need those guide rails -- or guardrails?

MONAREZ: Yes, what I was trying to implement was what I had testified here on June 25 is transparency, accountability and integrity to the processes.

And what I had proposed was transparency measures such that any information that was going to be used by the ACIP in a deliberative manner be made available to the public six weeks in advance of the ACIP meeting, a sufficient time that scientists, public health practitioners and others would be able to see the information, see the data...

HICKENLOOPER: Of course. MONAREZ: ... and then watch the ACIP meeting, understand how that evidence was used to support the decisions, the recommendations that were coming forward.

And then I had proposed that perhaps we would have a back -- a back- end transparency period of time where, if there was new information that had been introduced or the way that the information was contextualized at the ACIP meeting, that we would have a second public comment period, so that if there was additional...

HICKENLOOPER: I understand why you would have that.

MONAREZ: Yes.

HICKENLOOPER: And, obviously, I -- those guardrails would still be needed should -- is this something Congress should work on, if I can ask both of you that?

MONAREZ: I would highly encourage all of us, whether it's congressional action or others, to make sure that we do have the appropriate transparency and accountability measures. The ACIP deliberations are critically important.