Return to Transcripts main page

The Situation Room

Judge Orders Release of 600 Arrested in Immigration Crackdown; Interview With U.S. Secretary of Agriculture Brooke Rollins; Epstein E-Mail Fallout. Aired 11-11:30a ET

Aired November 13, 2025 - 11:00   ET

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

[11:00:02]

WOLF BLITZER, CNN HOST: All right, Priscilla Alvarez reporting, excellent reporting, as usual. Thank you very, very much -- Pamela.

PAMELA BROWN, CNN HOST: And the next hour of THE SITUATION ROOM starts right now.

Happening now: growing fallout. President Trump and the White House are denying any wrongdoing after a trove of Jeffrey Epstein's e-mails were released. And now the administration is pressuring Republicans not to vote for that release.

BLITZER: We want to welcome 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 this hour with a fallout over the latest Epstein files release.

BROWN: This morning, the White House is on defense after thousands of e-mails from the disgraced financier were made public, inside that release, several e-mails from Epstein mentioning Donald Trump by name raising more questions about their relationship.

BLITZER: Let's go live right now to CNN's Alayna Treene. She's over at the White House for us.

Alayna, how is the Trump administration responding to this release?

ALAYNA TREENE, CNN WHITE HOUSE REPORTER: Well, look, I think there's just a level, Wolf and Pamela, of frustration here. You kind of heard some of that from the president yesterday. He was posting on TRUTH Social about it. You heard it from the White House press secretary, Karoline Leavitt.

And part of that is because it was a dizzying day of political intrigue, and it also kind of cast a dark cloud over what many Republicans, and I know very much that the people in that building behind me, were hoping would be a day that they could focus on declaring victory for ending the government shutdown.

Instead, they spent the day doing damage control over this trove of e- mails from Jeffrey Epstein's private estate going back 15 years, many of them mentioning Donald Trump by name.

But I want you to take a listen to what we heard the White House say about this, and then I'm going to give you some insight into what they were trying to do about it.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

KAROLINE LEAVITT, WHITE HOUSE PRESS SECRETARY: These e-mails prove absolutely nothing, other than the fact that President Trump did nothing wrong. This administration has done more with respect to transparency when it comes to Jeffrey Epstein than any administration ever.

In fact, this administration, the Department of Justice, has turned over tens of thousands of documents to the American people. So this administration has done more than any, and it just shows how this is truly a manufactured hoax by the Democrat Party.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

TREENE: So, a few things to point out here.

One is that, to her point, the president has never been charged with any crime in connection to Epstein. They have repeatedly denied wrongdoing, and it doesn't appear that these new e-mails implicate the president legally in a way that we haven't seen.

But they are embarrassing in some of the things that you hear Epstein and some of his conversations with Ghislaine Maxwell, his accomplice, or Michael Wolff, the author, all of them kind of shedding light on the relationship that the president had.

But I think the biggest problem that this White House is confronting today, really the most serious question is, did the president know more and kept that from the public? And, of course, it brings this new urgency to an issue that he has tried repeatedly to shrug off, to dismiss, and essentially he just can't do that.

It keeps coming back to haunt them. And so there's a lot to look forward to, particularly when we see some of that effort where they were trying to have -- meeting with a Republican congresswoman in the Situation Room, of all places, to try and get them not to sign a petition that would force a vote on the House floor to release all of the files that the Department of Justice has.

As that effort was unsuccessful, we see that vote next week. This is going to be an issue that is talked about at least for the next couple of weeks, if not for the next couple of months.

BLITZER: Alayna Treene at the White House for us.

Alayna, thank you very, very much -- Pamela.

BROWN: All right, Wolf, happening now: Americans who rely on critical food assistance are still waiting to receive their full benefits for the month, even though the government shutdown has now ended.

The 42 million Americans, including 14 million children who depend on those food stamps known as SNAP, have been caught in the crosshairs amid legal whiplash over the program's funding.

Joining us now to discuss is the secretary of agriculture, Brooke Rollins, who oversees SNAP.

Thank you so much for coming on, Secretary. I know how busy you are right now.

First of all, when can all SNAP recipients across every state expect to receive their full benefits?

BROOKE ROLLINS, U.S. SECRETARY OF AGRICULTURE: Well, I just left USDA to come join you. It's great to be here.

We are -- immediately last night began moving out, making sure that the program continues unabated, starting once the government reopened. And, hopefully, by the end of this week, most will receive it, at the very latest on Monday.

But, keep in mind, the SNAP program is funded by the federal government, but it is the 50 states and 50 different infrastructures that move that money out, which is what made it so complicated, the patchwork.

But it's moving. It's coming. And for those who really depend on it, good news is on the way.

BROWN: Yes.

And, as you know, the courts -- this all worked its way through the courts as well. And they said part of the confusion was how USDA handled it, with first saying that it wasn't going to give funds -- I believe we have a full-screen -- use the contingency funds, and then use up to 50 percent, and then 65 percent, and that the partial funding made it confusing.

[11:05:08]

I want to play a little bit of what we heard from Najee Kinard. She was a -- a SNAP recipient. She received her partial benefits. And she was on the show yesterday. Let's listen to her.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

NAJEE KINARD, SNAP BENEFITS RECIPIENT: It's been very difficult.

The uncertainty can really put you in a mental anguish. I know I'm not going through this by myself. It's unacceptable. Food should not be up for a bargain. Everyone should have the right to eat.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

BROWN: Do you take any accountability for the chaos that real people like her experienced during this?

ROLLINS: Well, listen, I hear Najee. And we heard so many cases like that.

Fifteen different times, the Democrats voted not to fund SNAP, 15. And this effort to put the blame on President Trump or on USDA is, from my perspective, comical. It is irrational. It is unreasonable. Again, it was a clean resolution.

I know we have all talked about this ad nauseam for 40-plus days now, but the idea that those Democrats over and over and over again, minus two in the Senate, voted no on fully funding and opening the government, this is completely, 100 percent the -- basically the results of the radical left and AOC running the party.

I give great kudos to the seven senators in the House, I think eight or nine -- I'm sorry -- seven in the Senate, eight or nine in the House that eventually opened the government up.

But here's the other thing, Pamela, I think is really important. And I have talked quite a bit about this. SNAP is a broken program. SNAP is full of corruption. We found 186,000 dead people. We asked for the SNAP data earlier this year. It has never been turned over to the federal government before.

We had 29 states turn it over, mostly red states; 21 states said, no thank you. We're in litigation. From just those 29 states we have found, again, almost 200,000 dead people. It's just -- it's remarkable.

BROWN: And I understand.

ROLLINS: So, making sure that Najee...

BROWN: And the Big Beautiful Bill that passed by Republicans, part of that addressed what Republicans saw as issues with SNAP. And now some people have been taken off the program as a result.

(CROSSTALK)

ROLLINS: That's right.

BROWN: But I just want to get back on track here, because I understand you're putting the blame on Republicans, but...

ROLLINS: On Democrats.

BROWN: I mean, sorry, on Democrats, to be clear, on Democrats, to be clear.

(LAUGHTER)

ROLLINS: There's no doubt.

BROWN: But during the 2019 shutdown, for example, that's the second largest shutdown. Obviously, the Trump administration said in multiple USDA documents that contingency funds could be used to fund SNAP in the event of a funding lapse. What changed?

ROLLINS: Well, I was with the president in -- during that shutdown, but I was in the West Wing. I was obviously not at USDA. I was with the Domestic Policy Council.

I was not part of those discussions. I will just tell you what I know this time, that the president 100 percent believed that the government would reopen, that these Democrats were playing games with people's lives and the food that they needed to survive, that, at the end of this, surely these Democrats wouldn't go 25 days, 30 days, 45 days, and that we would get this fully funded once the government reopened.

Now, obviously, you all tracked this. When it went to the court, the court said contingency funds can be used. It's not unconstitutional. The president said, Brooke, we're not going to fight that. We need to keep this moving, get these partial benefits to the people that are truly hungry. And so that was the back-and-forth over the last couple of weeks.

BROWN: Right.

But also -- I mean, and just reading through the court filings, the judge also said -- and this was the judge in Rhode Island -- that there was money available in under -- in other funding pots, like the one that was used for WIC; $750 million was transferred to WIC out of this other funding pot.

This judge said, you didn't do that. You didn't use that. You could have to fully fund SNAP. And you fought it all the way to the Supreme Court. For those...

ROLLINS: Let's talk about that.

BROWN: OK, let's talk about it.

ROLLINS: That judge in Rhode Island is the largest Democrat donor.

BROWN: OK, but besides that...

ROLLINS: No, no, it's important, though.

BROWN: But let's look at the facts. This is Section 32, which is a child nutrition program.

ROLLINS: There is a radical left judge who decided that we could take money.

BROWN: But...

ROLLINS: Listen, there was a No Kings rally, a No Kings parade, but then all of a sudden a radical left judge in Rhode Island, of all places, says, oh, no, please make yourself king...

BROWN: But let's look at the facts.

ROLLINS: ... and find that money out of the clear blue sky and redirect it into the SNAP program.

BROWN: But there was $23 billion in Section 32, the child nutrition program. And so he -- this judge -- is this not factual? The judge says that $4 billion could have been moved from that Section 32 fund to fully fund SNAP? Is that an -- OK.

ROLLINS: This radical -- this radical left judge...

BROWN: But, politics aside, is that an accurate set of facts?

ROLLINS: No, that is not facts. That money is congressionally appropriated and authorized for a different set of facts.

(CROSSTALK)

BROWN: ... that that money could be used.

(CROSSTALK)

ROLLINS: If we had used that money, it would have taken food out of the mouths of schoolchildren. That came from an entirely different pot of money, non-congressionally authorized.

Listen, it's unbelievable to me...

BROWN: It was used for WIC, though. But it was used for WIC.

ROLLINS: Well, that's a different, congressional authorized program.

It is entirely separate from SNAP. And so for you guys and the left and the Democrats and your radical people who say, oh, just move money around, this one judge in Rhode Island is going to completely upend the whole entire Constitution and how we fund these programs in America, is truly insane.

[11:10:10]

And we would lose our country in a second if we allowed one judge in Rhode Island without question to say move that money there, move that money here, you guys decide where the money goes, we're going to tell you how to do it.

That's not our system of government, and we would be in absolute chaos if we ended up abiding by, again, that specific judge. Even Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson, no big friend of the right and what we believe constitutionally is appropriate in this country, even she said, wait a minute, this is not appropriate, this is not constitutional, I'm going to stay this case until we know whether the government's going to reopen.

BROWN: She wanted the government to reopen, and then she dissented in the latest one, saying she would have funded SNAP.

So I just want to go back on this, because, in reading through the court cases, the government did admit to the judge -- and this was, I believe, the judge in Boston -- that, yes, it could have dipped into this child nutrition fund, that that was an available option, this fund, again, had $23 billion in it, right, and that, even if you took out $4 billion to fully fund SNAP, that pot of money would still feed children through next year, through next summer.

ROLLINS: Well, let's talk about that.

I mean, are we serious right now? Are we really talking about moving billions of dollars from one pot to another to feed children through next year, when the Democrats 15 different times voted not to fund this program?

BROWN: I understand -- I understand you want to keep it on Democrats, but what about the children that were hungry now because they didn't get the full SNAP benefits?

ROLLINS: Well, then they should understand that the Democrats are the ones that are keeping it -- and they even admitted it. This is our greatest leverage point. If planes fall out of the sky, that may be what it takes. It was one thing after another, Pamela.

BROWN: But can we play this sound?

ROLLINS: So, for you to -- for you to try to put this back on this court said that, and this left-leaning judge said that, and you guys should move this, it's completely a false narrative.

BROWN: No, I'm just looking at the facts. I'm not trying to -- that's why I'm asking you. These are just the facts. These are in court cases. This is what the USDA has previously said from the 2019 shutdown.

And I also want to play sound from you, what you recently said with Speaker Johnson. Let's play that sound, please.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

ROLLINS: My message to America is, first, the fact that your government is failing you right now. Doesn't matter who you voted for or even if you voted, that if you are in a position where you can't feed your family and you're relying on that $187 a month for an average family in the SNAP program, that we have failed you.

REP. MIKE JOHNSON (R-LA): And it's -- clarifying, when she says we have failed you, she means, we the Democrats, OK?

(END VIDEO CLIP)

BROWN: I just wanted to get your response to that.

ROLLINS: Yes. Yes. I appreciate -- I actually appreciate the opportunity to clarify that.

BROWN: Yes, go for it.

ROLLINS: My point was this, that most Americans have no idea what a continuing, clean resolution is. Most Americans have no idea that there's a constitutionally,

congressionally appropriated funding for all of this. Most Americans, they voted or they didn't vote, but especially those who are the most vulnerable who rely on these programs, they are not paying that close of attention to who's fault it is.

So what I was talking about is the system that has allowed the Democrats 15 different times to stop this important program for at least a section, probably not all 42 million, but at least a section of that 42 million that's relying on those programs, is not OK under any circumstances.

And for the Democrats to do that over and over and over again, it was just inexcusable. So that was the point there. But, again, back to the 42 million, back to Najee, I thought that was a really great clip, back to those who really depend on this program, that is who we need to be focusing on. That is the realignment that is necessary.

Now, if this happens again -- hopefully, it doesn't. USDA was funded all the way through the fiscal year.

BROWN: Yes, that's true.

ROLLINS: So, even if there is a shutdown, we're not going to have to do this again, at least on the SNAP program and our farm service programs and all of the USDA programs.

BROWN: Right.

ROLLINS: It's a massive government agency. So I feel like we're in a little bit better position.

But if it does happen again after next September, we are now better prepared. We fully understand how to navigate through this. I think the president was so clear, and we have got to make sure that these vulnerable people have at least some benefit until we get the government reopened.

And I feel like we are -- we're prepared next time when -- hopefully, it doesn't happen again, but if it were to.

BROWN: Well, yes, I mean, hopefully not.

ROLLINS: Yes, this was -- 40-something days is crazy.

BROWN: Right.

And just as we wrap up, I mean, I understand, again, you're putting the responsibility on the Democrats who weren't voting for the C.R. That would have funded SNAP.

ROLLINS: But you have to agree that's fair.

BROWN: I understand -- I understand -- as a journalist...

ROLLINS: Right. BROWN: ... I'm not taking a position on that.

ROLLINS: Well...

BROWN: I'm just saying, that is the argument. I understand...

ROLLINS: Yes.

BROWN: I understand that argument that Republicans like yourself are making, administration officials, right?

But, at the same time, when you look at the facts, in 2019, SNAP was able to be funded. When you look at the court cases -- I understand, in principle, you say, who is a judge to say what we need to do and moving money around?

[11:15:10]

ROLLINS: A judge from Rhode Island that's a big Democrat donor.

BROWN: But if there is money that is available that could be moved around, like was done for WIC, like was done to pay military members, and, according to the information we have, that could be done in the immediate future, what do you say to someone who would ask, well, where is the sense of humanity?

Why are you fighting this? Why are you going to the Supreme Court on this and fighting it?

ROLLINS: Oh, Pamela.

BROWN: Where is a sense of humanity?

ROLLINS: I mean, really? Where is a sense of humanity when 15 different times, over 45 days, they themselves admitted they were holding Americans hostage to a -- $200 million for health care for illegal aliens, $50 million for NPR and left-leaning media centers, millions for LGBTQ programs in the Balkans and other countries around the world?

Are you serious right now? Is this why you're not going to open the government, to support these programs that the majority of Americans, perhaps even the supermajority of Americans, do not support? And that is really the crux of the situation.

Again, the president was so clear, and we were Band-Aiding and we were duct taping and we were bubble gumming all the way through October to get those funds out. And from the very beginning of October, we said, guys, November 1, there is nothing left. There is nothing that we believe statutorily, constitutionally that we are able to do.

We have got to get the government open so that Najee and all of these families can get their benefits.

BROWN: Right, but, in the court records, they said -- they argue that the USDA did not prepare for this inevitability and, as a result, there was a patchwork. There was first saying we can't use contingency funds. Then we can use contingency funds up to 50 percent. Then it went up to 65 percent with different calculations. And so they argue that that preparation wasn't there.

I do want to get your thoughts as...

ROLLINS: Well, let me respond.

BROWN: OK, please. Please.

ROLLINS: That's not fair.

We have an incredible team of careers at USDA. These are not Trump people. They are careers that have been there through other shutdowns, have worked at USDA for a really long time, that were working 24 hours a day seven days a week to try to figure out how to get the SNAP funds out.

So to say that team was not prepared or that we were not prepared...

BROWN: I'm just saying that's what was in the court records, so I'm letting you -- yes.

ROLLINS: We were in uncharted -- we were in uncharted territory.

Never before has a government shutdown gone this long. Never before has there been this much at stake. Never before have we had a list of 15 radical left, basically, policy requirements of the Democrats in order to reopen the government. So this was a different set of circumstances.

Having said that, we moved out all of the October funding all the way through the shutdown. We eventually, based on what the president decided to do, moved out or actually had authorization to move out another 65 percent of the $9.2 billion for November.

But, at the end of the day, the Democrats had to open the government so that these families could get what they needed.

BROWN: What do you say to the Democrats who argue that USA was withholding the SNAP funding in order to use it as a pressure point to get them to reopen the government? Was there any proof of that?

ROLLINS: For them to say that is astounding to me, after they are the ones who openly admitted that they were holding Najee hostage in order to get their $200 million for...

BROWN: Well, they didn't openly admit that they were holding Najee...

ROLLINS: No, no, they -- Chuck Schumer said that. Several of the congresswomen said that. It was one person after another.

Now, maybe they didn't say, we're holding Najee hostage in order to get $200 million in illegal health care, illegal alien health care. But there was no doubt, leverage point, leverage point, this is our leverage point. Hey, guys, we have a leverage point.

Meanwhile, we're working 20 -- literally 20 to 22 hours a day to try to figure out how to move this out under these very unusual and unprecedented circumstances.

BROWN: And, just to be clear, illegal immigrants are not eligible to enroll in health care programs in the U.S. I just want to point that out.

But I know we have done a ton of reporting on this. If you guys want to go look at it, go look at it. It's very nuanced. I just quickly...

ROLLINS: I will come back and we will talk about it.

BROWN: OK. You're welcome back.

(LAUGHTER)

BROWN: I have one more question for you on affordability. I know you have been working hard as the agriculture secretary at lowering prices...

ROLLINS: Yes.

BROWN: ... when it comes to eggs, when it comes to beef.

But when you look at the numbers, average grocery prices in September were 1.4 percent higher than they were in January, when Trump returned to office, 2.7 percent higher than in September 2024 under former President Biden. We should note, however, that dairy products, including the price of eggs, have gone down.

What is your sense of what Americans are experiencing right now when it comes to affordability?

ROLLINS: Yes, I think it's a great question.

And the president's focus on making America affordable again is the very top of the list. And when he was running -- and I have been with him -- next to him in different capacities for a long time. It was securing the border number one, but making America affordable again, making sure the American dream was alive for all of our families.

[11:20:07]

For the most part, most groceries actually have come down. I'm doing a big announcement next week on turkeys as we move into Thanksgiving. There are certain outliers like beef. I'm sure you guys have covered beef, coffee and a few others. We have specific plans as to all of those.

But here's the underlying foundation of all of it. Under the last administration, the cost of fuel was up 36 percent. The cost of labor for our farmers was up 47 percent, the cost of interest rates for our farmers up 73 percent, the cost of equipment up 28 percent. And that was just in those four years. So the cost to produce all of

this is so significantly higher than when we left in 2020. And it's just going to take more than 10 months to unwind all of it. You have already seen huge improvements, though.

BROWN: What about tariffs, though? Because they have impacted some prices, though.

ROLLINS: Well, I think you could argue certainly tariffs on coffee. Of course, we don't produce a lot of coffee in America. So we rely on other countries for that.

But, really, what we have seen, again, in most categories of food, it has come down in the last 10 months. So tariffs really haven't been that much of a driver specific to a lot of those foodstuffs.

BROWN: But beef, could that...

ROLLINS: Beef -- well, so what I would say about beef, beef is up about -- depending whether you're talking about a real fancy cut of Wagyu beef, that's going to be up significantly. But those who are the most vulnerable among us probably aren't buying a $65 filet mignon.

What we're very focused on is the cost of ground beef as an important protein in everyone's diet and what that looks like. And this is not a result of tariffs. This is actually a result of us having to close the ports to importing Mexican live cattle. We have got about a million head of cattle south of Texas, New Mexico and Arizona because of the screwworm.

So as we are moving back into a positive territory in terms of making sure that's contained and under control and not going to devastate our livestock industry, like it did in the 1960s and 1950s, the ports will eventually open back up. We will see a lot of those prices come down. We're also rebuilding the beef herd.

We're opening up five million acres of forestland to allow more ranchers. We're at our lowest level of our cattle herd in 75 years. And, of course, the market is going to react to that, last administration openly, frankly, hostile to ranchers because of climate change they believed that the cattle's caused.

So there's a lot of nuances to this.

BROWN: And -- but the tariffs on Brazil have added some pressure, right, on this?

ROLLINS: You know, to be determined.

The tariffs on Brazil on beef didn't kick in until about four to five to six weeks ago, so we don't see that necessarily at USDA. We really see the main driver is the Mexico live cattle cross -- across the border...

BROWN: OK. ROLLINS: ... and, frankly, the cattle herd being at its lowest, based on the last administration's policies that we have got to work on and fix.

BROWN: Agriculture Secretary Brooke Rollins, thank you so much for coming on the show and for all of your time.

ROLLINS: Thank you, Pamela.

Thank you, Wolf.

BROWN: Appreciate it.

ROLLINS: Congratulations, 35 years.

BLITZER: Thank you very much.

BROWN: Thirty-five years, 20 years on THE SITUATION ROOM here.

(CROSSTALK)

ROLLINS: Yes, that's incredible. Congratulations.

(CROSSTALK)

BLITZER: Thanks very much. Thank you.

BROWN: Thank you very much.

All right, up next: A federal judge is ordering the release of more than 600 people taken into custody during the Trump administration's immigration crackdown in and around Chicago.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[11:27:45]

BLITZER: Happening now: A source tells CNN top Border Patrol official Gregory Bovino has left Chicago with his agents and is headed to Charlotte, North Carolina.

Meanwhile, CNN affiliate WLS is reporting a judge ordered the release of hundreds of people arrested as part of the immigration crackdown in Illinois. More than 600 people who were arrested must be granted bond by noon on November 21.

It's the latest blow to the Trump administration and its hard-line immigration tactics.

CNN's Whitney Wild is in Chicago for us.

Whitney, what happens next for these individuals currently detained?

WHITNEY WILD, CNN LAW ENFORCEMENT CORRESPONDENT: Wolf, the work begins; 13 people are supposed to be released by tomorrow. As you said, another more than 600 are spread all across the country. Now the work begins to try to find these people, make sure that they do understand their rights and make sure that they actually are released. The plaintiffs attorneys believe that there are up to more than 3,000 people or more who would fall under this order, but they believe at least a third of those people who had been taken into custody simply left voluntarily because, as they put it, they just gave up in their immigration fight.

Now attorneys who have led this case say that this could be a framework for other states around the country. Here's more from one of the lead attorneys, Mark Fleming, who describes the challenge in actually getting these people out of custody.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

MARK FLEMING, ATTORNEY, NATIONAL IMMIGRANT JUSTICE CENTER: They are held all over the country. And that's where the logistics of when we -- at the end, my colleague was asking, like, how is this bond -- how are they going to be notified? The logistics of where these people are is going to be a piece we really need to work through with the government, because we want this to be realized.

At this point, they are being held across the country, correct.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

WILD: DHS does not agree with this order at all. They put out a pretty terse statement saying that this was a radical judge, that this is putting the safety of Americans at risk, Wolf.

Meanwhile, as we look across the country, the question is, how is this going to work? Because this case is actually from a 2018 case. That case was, again, first filed in 2018. It resulted in a consent decree in 2022. So the legal basis for this order came because plaintiffs' attorneys had argued that DHS' broad sweep of people who had no criminal warrant, no deportation orders, but were still taken into custody, it was a direct violation of that 2022 case.