Return to Transcripts main page

The Situation Room

Trump Administration Autism Announcement; NYT Claims Tom Homan was Recorded Accepting 50K in FBI Sting. Aired 10:30-11a ET

Aired September 22, 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]

REP. HAKEEM JEFFRIES (D-NY), MINORITY LEADER: -- more is more environment and we have to continue to do more. But I will say is that in special election after special election after special election, we keep winning all over the country. Democrats are turning out in record numbers and we're defeating Republicans across the land.

PAMELA BROWN, CNN ANCHOR: And we'll see what happens in the midterms, that's for sure. All right. Before we go, I want to get your take on these large banners that have popped up throughout D.C. It's right here on the screen. These banners show Trump's face on them. You can see one of them on your screen right now. A new report alleges the administration is using federal funds to pay for these banners. Is that your understanding? And what is the Democrats' response to this?

JEFFRIES: Well, I haven't actually seen those banners and we'll have to look into them. I think what we have seen clearly is that the Trump administration is using taxpayer dollars to promote their extreme agenda. And they're doing that because their agenda is deeply unpopular. Donald Trump is unpopular. The one big ugly bill which rips health care away from the American people, steals food from the mouths of children, and all of this was done to reward their billionaire donors with massive tax breaks. That's deeply unpopular. And they failed to lower the high cost of living. America is too expensive. They've done nothing about it.

In fact, electricity bills are going up. Health premiums are going up. Housing costs are going up. Groceries are going up. And so, the Trump administration is engaged in a massive propaganda campaign designed to deceive and distract the American people. As Democrats, we're going to keep our eye on the prize, focus on the things that matter, and deliver for the American people.

BROWN: House Democratic Leader Hakeem Jeffries, thank you so much for your time here in the Situation Room.

WOLF BLITZER, CNN ANCHOR: Always good to have you in the Situation Room. Thank you. And coming up, President Trump teasing a major announcement about autism. We're going to speak to Dr. Ashish Jha about claims from the Trump administration about a potential link to Tylenol.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[10:35:00]

BROWN: Happening today, President Trump is expected to make an announcement linking the development of autism in children with the use of Tylenol during pregnancy. Medical experts argue there is no clear evidence that proves a direct relationship between the two.

BLITZER: For more, we're joined now by Dr. Ashish Jha, dean of the Brown University School of Public Health. Dr. Jha was also the former White House COVID-19 response coordinator for the Biden administration. Dr. Jha, good to have you back in the Situation Room. Thanks very much for joining us. How should pregnant women view this announcement?

DR. ASHISH JHA, DEAN, BROWN UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF PUBLIC HEALTH AND FORMER BIDEN WHITE HOUSE COVID-19 RESPONSE COORDINATOR: Well, first of all, Wolf, thanks for having me back. We haven't seen the announcement. We don't know what it's based on. There's been no transparency in this. My advice to pregnant women is talk to your doctor. Talk to your family practitioner. Talk to your obstetrician. Make decisions based on what your doctor is recommending, and not necessarily what you're seeing coming out of Washington.

BROWN: So, help us sift through the science here when it comes to Tylenol, pregnancy, and autism. There is that Swedish study showing that there wasn't causation. But then in August, there was sort of a roundup of several studies that showed there could be a link. How do we make sense of this?

DR. JHA: Yes, it's a great question. So, let's talk about the science here. There were some early studies suggestive that there might be a link. The Swedish study from 2024, a couple years of -- about a year ago, really the best study to date, two and a half million kids followed for 25 years, I think pretty definitively showed that there is not a link.

So, I think the science here is pretty clearly one-sided. Obviously, if there are concerns that there is a link, there is a process by which should -- we go through this. The FDA should evaluate it. The FDA could put out a warning saying that this is a reality. There has been no transparency or openness on this. The science leans very much in one way. This is why I'm really concerned about this announcement and whether it's going to confuse women when we need to be giving them clarity instead.

BROWN: Yes, because when I was pregnant, I had both the COVID and the flu. And I was told that the only safe medicine to take for the fever was Tylenol. So, how concerned are you that this type of guidance could lead to unnecessary suffering or even potential harm with fevers not being treated?

DR. JHA: Yes, this is -- to me, this is the most upsetting part of this, is it really throws pregnant women under the bus around the country. Look, we know that pregnant women cannot take ibuprofen, should not take ibuprofen in their second and third trimester. That's been established science. FDA recommends that women avoid ibuprofen later in pregnancy. The medicine they can take is Tylenol. And that has been studied extensively. And if we're now going to tell women they can't take Tylenol, there's going to be real harmful risks from that as well. So, this stuff should be done carefully and thoughtfully and transparently, none of which is happening here, Pamela.

BLITZER: So, what are the potential dangers, Dr. Jha, for instance, if a pregnant woman has a fever and now perhaps hesitates to treat that high temperature, what happens?

DR. JHA: Yes. So, two things. First of all, I'm worried that some women might end up taking ibuprofen, for which we know there are real risks. And an untreated fever can have harmful effects for the woman, can have harmful effects for the fetus. This is why we treat fevers, particularly high fevers, are really important to treat. So, I'm very worried that if we take away the one last option based on really junk science, when there is not evidence to do this, we're going to end up causing more harm than good.

[10:40:00]

BROWN: And I want to just ask you, Dr. Peter Hotez has spoken about this. He has a child with autism and he said he's concerned that the implication here is that there is one cause for autism, when in fact it's more complicated than that. Tell us what we know about that and the science when it comes to autism in general.

DR. JHA: Yes, this is absolutely a critical point. There is no one cause. If there was, we would have found it by now. The truth is autism is what we call a multifactorial condition caused by a variety of things, genes, environmental. Even if you take the most optimistic science on Tylenol and autism, it probably contributes to less than 1 percent of causes. There are probably many different things that are contributing to autism. And saying, ah, we found the cause, actually limits the science we need to be doing right now to make sure we actually discover the other -- the real things that are driving the autism problem.

BROWN: And what is your message to women who have an autistic child, who did take Tylenol in pregnancy, who might be feeling shame right now because of this announcement?

DR. JHA: Yes. So, we've talked about how this throws pregnant women under the bus. It also really is disrespectful to the millions of families who are taking care of kids with autism. Vast majority of women take Tylenol during pregnancy. So, most kids who have autism, their moms today are waking up wondering if they caused it. They didn't. And that message really needs to be brought across very clearly.

This is why we don't make pronouncements like this. There's a process by which FDA goes through all of this stuff. They haven't done that. If the FDA really thinks it's important, Kennedy's FDA could put out guidance on this. They are not doing that. And this is really, I think, shameful to the millions of families who are caring for kids with autism. BROWN: Dr. Ashish Jha, thank you so much.

DR. JHA: Thank you.

BLITZER: Always good to get his advice. He knows what he's talking about. And just ahead, President Trump is putting the pressure on the attorney general, Pam Bondi, when it comes to prosecuting his political opponents. We'll discuss that next. We'll be right back.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[10:45:00]

BROWN: A report from the New York Times claims Tom Homan, the president's voter czar, was recorded last year accepting a bag with $50,000 in cash by undercover FBI agents. The report says Homan agreed to help agents posing as businessmen secure government contracts in a second Trump term. Homan denies any wrongdoing, and the Justice Department is no longer pursuing this investigation under President Trump.

So, let's discuss with Jessica Tillipman, assistant dean and professor of law at the George Washington University, also my former professor. So, DOJ, as I mentioned, closed the case over doubts, reportedly, that it could prove that Homan had agreed to a specific act in exchange for the cash and because he was not in a government position at the time. Do those seem like valid reasons to not prosecute?

JESSICA TILLIPMAN, LECTURER IN LAW, THE GEORGE WASHINGTON UNIVERSITY AND ASSISTANT DEAN, THE GEORGE WASHINGTON UNIVERSITY: Yes. So, when you look at this particular matter -- and first of all, thank you for having me. It's nice to see you. When you look at this particular matter, there's a legal, ethical, and also a political dimension to it.

From the legal perspective, it's not as straightforward as it seems. The key issue, to me at least, is his status. The fact that at the time of the alleged payment, he was not a public official, nor was he selected to be a public official. The public bribery statute at 18 U.S.C. 201 requires that person to be one or the other, public official or selected to be a public official. Because he was neither, that was missing an essential element of the crime.

BROWN: What about if you're not a public official and you accept the cash, but then you become a public official like he is now?

TILLIPMAN: So, I think the consideration there is why they potentially were waiting, right? So, why, when you have potential video evidence of a public official or someone who's soon to be a public official accepting $50,000 in cash and promising to steer contracts to that person, do you not bring charges? The reason, I believe, they probably sat on it for a little bit is they were waiting to see what would happen.

Would he take steps in furtherance of that, maybe recommitting to make that promise, maybe actually taking some sort of official action or pressuring a subordinate or a contracting officer to award those contracts? I think they were watching to see what happened next because of that status issue.

BROWN: And the White House has said that that has not happened. But for prosecutors, tell us more about the legal definition of bribery and how it could be hard to prove.

TILLIPMAN: Well, I think when we're talking about the legal definition, it can depend on the statute. So, there are a variety of statutes that actually go after bribery, whether it's on a services fraud, sometimes they use something called the Hobbs Act. In this case, we're talking about 18 U.S.C. 201. All right. So, this is the centerpiece federal bribery statute.

And what it prohibits is a public official or someone selected to be a public official. And remember, he wasn't named at the time yet at this position, to promise to take an official act in exchange for a thing of value. And $50,000 is pretty much a clear thing of value in this instance.

BROWN: Yes. I think one of the questions would be too, did he report this on his -- for his taxes, right? Because if it happened last year, and the White House statement was right there on the screen. I'm just wondering the fact that these were federal agents that were involved in this, it wasn't like it was between Tom Homan and another private citizen or a government official, it was federal agents. Does that change the dynamic at all or the considerations?

[10:50:00]

TILLIPMAN: It does. So, from the bribery perspective of that statute, that's going to have separate elements. But here, there potentially could have been an idea of charging conspiracy to commit bribery. But you can't have a conspiracy charge if all of the other co-conspirators are federal agents, because they don't have the requisite intent to act in furtherance of this bribe. So, again, that's going to complicate things from a conspiracy standpoint, but not necessarily from a bribery standpoint, had he met the definition of a public official.

BROWN: All right. Jessica --

BLITZER: Quick question on that. Do we know what happened to the $50,000 in cash? Did he keep it? Did it go back to the FBI agents? What happened to the $50,000?

TILLIPMAN: Your guess is as good as mine at this point. Just what I know is that there was a bag of cash and it's apparently caught on video, which is pretty damning, if true.

BROWN: All right.

BLITZER: All right. We'll see what happens.

BROWN: That's why I was wondering if it was reported, and if he kept it, reported for taxes. All right. Jessica Tillipman -- BLITZER: $50,000 is real money.

BROWN: It's real money. Thank you so much.

TILLIPMAN: Thank you.

BROWN: We'll be right back.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[10:55:00]

BLITZER: Week three of the 2025 NFL season did not, did not disappoint. It was a weekend of fireworks, Patrick Mahomes, and the Chiefs finally got one in the win column over the Giants last night. Sunday was also a day of big block kicks. The Eagles, seen here securing their victory along with the Chargers, the Colts, the Bucks, the Niners, all joined my hometown, Big Buffalo Bills, in remaining undefeated. For more, we're joined now by CNN Sports Anchor Amanda Davies. Amanda, update our viewers.

AMANDA DAVIES, CNN SPORTS ANCHOR: Yes, Wolf, one of those weekends to keep you right on the edge of your seat all the way to the end, wasn't it? It was wild. It could have been dubbed the late, late show on Sunday. So, much decided in the final plays. Philadelphia saw that battle of the undefeated between the Eagles and the Rams.

Los Angeles up 26 points to seven at one point, but the Super Bowl champions produced a mega comeback. They took a one point lead with under two minutes to go, while this Jalen Hurts touchdown pass, and then three seconds left, the Rams going for the game-winning field goal, only for big Jordan Davis to block it, scoop it up, and take it all the way for a touchdown at the other end. Have a look at this. 336 pounds hitting 18 miles an hour. Very much the star of the show.

So, the Eagles took it 33 points to 26 over in New York, though. I mean, do we call this passion or a problem for the second time in two weeks? Kansas City Chiefs tight end Travis Kelce made his feelings felt. Some heated sideline moments with Coach Andy Reid. The Chiefs did go on to win. Kelce not in the locker room after the game, so he didn't comment. But Coach Reid brushed it off, saying he loves Travis' passion, adding, he's an emotional guy. It's an emotion that certainly worked with Taylor Swift, hasn't it? But as for Coach Reid, I'll let you answer that, Wolf.

BLITZER: All right. Amanda Davis, excellent report. Thank you very, very much. Pamela.

BROWN: And coming up right here in the Situation Room right after the break, we're going to speak to Amanda Knox about her new series on Hulu and how she partnered with Monica Lewinsky to bring her saga to life.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[11:00:00]

0