Return to Transcripts main page

The Situation Room

Dangers of Sports Gambling; Interview With Rep. David Kustoff (R-TN); Interview With Rep. Josh Gottheimer (D-NJ); Interview With FDA Commissioner Dr. Marty Makary. Aired 11:30a-12p ET

Aired April 06, 2026 - 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)

[11:32:08]

PAMELA BROWN, CNN HOST: Happening now: A childhood respiratory virus that's called RSV is spreading later into the spring season than usual, and that's driving most states to extend the window to vaccinate infants and toddlers into April.

Now, the common seasonal virus can cause serious illness and even hospitalization in young children. Experts tell CNN they're not sure why the RSV season has shifted, but say parents must act based on real disease trends, rather than the calendar.

WOLF BLITZER, CNN HOST: Joining us now is the president -- is President Trump's FDA commissioner, Dr. Marty Makary.

Dr. Makary, thanks so much for joining us.

DR. MARTY MAKARY, FDA COMMISSIONER: Good to be with you.

BLITZER: Appreciate it very much.

What do you make of this news about the RSV virus?

MAKARY: RSV is a serious infection. Kids die from it. We do see a trend whereby, every couple years to every several years, there will be a bad season.

There's something called immune vulnerability, when kids are not exposed and the virus circulates at a low level. There can be low prevalence, and then it sort of comes back with the immune-naive population and can spread quickly.

If your kid is sick, stay home, and there's a lot of things you can do. The CDC has recommendations on it.

BROWN: What about recommending the RSV vaccine?

MAKARY: Yes, so it is one of the recommended vaccines. Of course, we have a core, essential vaccine schedule that we consider to be the consensus vaccines among OECD developed countries, and those are the ones we consider to be most essential. RSV is one of the recommended vaccines.

BLITZER: And I know you're not necessarily at all -- a real expert on COVID right now, but there's a new variant that's out there, and there's COVID booster shots.

Will those COVID booster shots, if I get one, for example, will that help prevent getting this new variant?

MAKARY: So, in my first three months at the FDA, I did oversee the agency in approving three new COVID updated annual booster shots.

We took a risk-stratified approach. So, whether or not you should get it or not depends on your risk factors. That's what the rest of the world is doing. And you're correct, Wolf. The BA.3.2 strain is a variant, but it is within the Omicron family. So, we do believe there is some cross-protection with natural immunity.

BLITZER: And is it still true that, if you get these booster shots -- and I have received them in the past -- you could still come down with COVID, but it will be a much milder case than if you had not received the booster shot? Is that your assessment?

MAKARY: Well, that is the assessment for a transient period of time, because your immune protection goes down to baseline after three to six months roughly, depending on the match at the time with the circulating virus.

So, natural immunity plays a big part. The vast majority of Americans have natural immunity. And if you're young and healthy, many people say that's sufficient. This is now a seasonal cold.

BLITZER: Yes.

BROWN: Let me just follow up with you because you have been in your role now for a year at the FDA. And I want to talk a little bit more about that and what the administration is working on.

I know that the administration, for example, has been working on expanding access to drugs like GLP-1s to help adults grappling with diabetes and obesity. What else?

MAKARY: And you're right.

[11:35:00]

So, about a week ago, the FDA approved an oral GLP-1 agonist that does not require that you have an empty stomach. That is a step forward in meeting an unmet public health need. And that is, a lot of people have obesity, a lot of people with diabetes. Some of these medications have been found to lower A1C.

But we have gotten a ton done in the last year. We have taken action on all nine artificial food dyes. They have been talking about taking action on one artificial dye for 35 years before we came into office. We rewrote a new food pyramid with the USDA. We now have A.I. for our scientific reviewers.

We're eliminating unnecessary animal testing. And we're increasing a lot of generics.

BROWN: We know about beagles. We did a whole segment on how beagles were being tested. You guys are cracking down on animal testing.

MAKARY: Our beagle...

BROWN: As an animal lover, I'm happy to hear that, I got to say.

MAKARY: Well, I'm glad to hear that, Pamela.

Our beagle facility has empty kennels in it now. And there -- and no longer do you need 144 chimpanzees to test a monoclonal antibody. We are updating our requirements and regulations. And so they came out officially a few weeks ago.

But, also, we're getting decisions out quickly. We're getting decisions out quickly, both for generic drugs that increases competition and lowers drug prices for everyday Americans, a massive priority for President Trump. And we're getting cures and meaningful treatments out in record speed, 44 days, 55 days, instead of a year.

And so that sense of urgency that we had during the HIV epidemic, when, in 1996, activists said they demand a new protease inhibitor be approved by the agency and it was approved in the fastest time in history, 42 days, we need that same level of urgency to talk about cancer cures and treatments for Alzheimer's and neurodegenerative diseases.

We're about to make a decision on a treatment that can cure congenital deafness in 1 to 3 percent of kids with congenital deafness.

BROWN: Wow.

MAKARY: So we need the same urgency we have with HIV for deafness, blindness, cancer and all these conditions. And we're getting it done. For the first time ever, we're seeing a routine decision process.

BROWN: OK.

Let me just jump in as we run out of time...

MAKARY: Yes.

BROWN: ... because I know you mentioned things that you're working on. We cover a lot of women's health issues on this show.

So I have a couple of questions for you on that. And I'm going to put them together. One is, there is no FDA-approved testosterone treatment for women, but a lot of women need testosterone, particularly menopausal women or postmenopausal, right? Is the FDA working on approving that? Right now, you have to go to a

compound pharmacy. And the second question is, what is the FDA doing about the shortage of estrogen patches, since the demand is now being driven up from the announcement?

MAKARY: Yes, so good question.

So, the evidence is still maturing on the role of testosterone supplementation in women. So, it is used off-label when it's given; 40 percent of medications are used off-label. There is FDA-approved testosterone. I would love...

BROWN: But for men.

MAKARY: For men. I'd love to see the data for women. It's different for men and women. I think that's emerging.

A lot of doctors are prescribing it for women. It's in a law that it is a controlled substance. That law, in my opinion, needs to be changed. It was based on the 1980s and 90s doping scandals. We need to modernize and no longer treat it like a controlled substance.

But, on estrogen, we told women the truth about menopausal hormone therapy and removed the black box warnings that scared away 50 million women over the last 23 years with a dogma that it was dangerous. And so that has created a ton of demand, especially for the estrogen patch.

BROWN: Right.

MAKARY: And so we notified the companies ahead of time. They're barely keeping up right now. Ultimately, you're going to see that supply chain increase and meet that incredible demand.

In the meantime, there are gels and oral forms of estrogen that women can use to bridge them.

BROWN: All right, thank you so much. I wish we had more time to dive into it.

MAKARY: Good to be with you guys.

MAKARY: But, Dr. Makary, nice to have you with us.

BLITZER: Dr. Marty, thanks for me as well.

MAKARY: Thank you, Wolf.

BLITZER: Appreciate it very much for coming in.

There's other breaking news we're following.

Countries working to end the war with Iran have crafted a last-ditch proposal calling for a 45-day cease-fire and reopening the Strait of Hormuz. It was sent to the U.S. and Iran late yesterday, but neither has yet signed off on it. Iran has already rejected any temporary cease-fire, even as President Trump gives it a deadline to reopen the Strait of Hormuz or face strikes on its power infrastructure.

Joining us now, Democratic Congressman Josh Gottheimer of New Jersey. He serves on the Intelligence Committee.

Congressman, thanks so much for joining us.

REP. JOSH GOTTHEIMER (D-NJ): Thanks for having me, Wolf.

BLITZER: I want to read what the president posted about Iran. Some viewers may find the language very, very offensive.

He said this: "Tuesday will be power plant day and bridge day, all wrapped up in one, in Iran. Open the effing straight" -- he didn't say effing, he said the word -- 'you crazy bastards, or you will be living in hell" -- end quote.

Is there any hope, Congressman, for a peaceful resolution, you think, to this war?

GOTTHEIMER: Well, obviously, that tweet was insane.

But the bottom line is, we need to keep focused on two goals, one, doing everything we can to crush the government of Iran, who remains a top adversary of our country under the banner "Death to America," and their terror program, their nuclear program and their ballistic missile program obviously threatening us and threatening our allies.

[11:40:13]

But to understand, obviously, what's on the other side is key. What does winning look like? What does a victory look like for the United States? And that's a question we're still getting clarification on from this administration.

The president did say some things last week, but, of course, you hear conflicting information, and he's yet to brief the Congress and come before our committees and explain what the progress is with the conflict, how we're doing, what our objectives are.

And I think it's really important, it's imperative that the administration do that.

BLITZER: Let's listen and watch what President Trump said only a few moments ago when asked about Americans who do not support the war. Listen to this.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

QUESTION: Mr. President, what do you say to Americans who are not a fan of the war?

DONALD TRUMP, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: They're foolish, because the war's about one thing. Iran cannot have a nuclear weapon.

(END VIDEO CLIP) BLITZER: How do you respond to that? He also said that, if Iran had a nuclear weapon -- and he said they would have if the Obama nuclear deal with Iran had continued. He ripped it up as soon as he took office during his first term. He said Israel would not exist today. What's your response to him?

GOTTHEIMER: The president's right to say that Iran can't have a nuclear weapon. I think that is critical for our country and for our national security, the same way I think their ballistic missile program, which, as the secretary of state outlined, was increasingly aggressive, their production threatening our country and our ability to stop them from having a nuclear weapon, and of course, their terror program, which for decades now has killed Americans, attacked our bases.

We're talking about Hamas, Hezbollah, Palestine Islamic Jihad. And that's gone on. And, of course, right now, with the strait shut down, you have got 20 percent of the world's oil under their grip. Totally unacceptable.

But the key, Wolf, I would go back to is, how do we define a victory? What are our key objectives that we need to attain? And, in the beginning, you heard a lot about regime change. I think that's something that would take much longer and could involve boots on the ground, and there's not a lot of support for that.

So we're going to hear from the president today. I think it's essential that both the public and the Congress understand exactly what the objectives are here and how do we know when we achieve those objectives?

BLITZER: He also said at the Easter egg roll event, where he was answering reporters' questions, he said the current regime, the new regime in Iran, effectively says there's been regime change -- regime change, he says, is much more reasonable, his words, than the previous regime and is not as radicalized as the previous regime.

You're a member of the Intelligence Committee. Do you accept that?

GOTTHEIMER: Well, if there's new intelligence on that in the last days, I haven't seen it. And, obviously, that's not what I have been briefed on so far.

And without getting into any specifics. I will just say, you just saw it in the last minutes. It appears that they have rejected this 45-day cease-fire offer. So that doesn't seem like a very reasonable approach. They have continued to attack our allies, our friends in the region.

Yesterday, they bombed Kuwait's infrastructure, their energy infrastructure, their desalination plant. They have attacked many of our other allies, of course, continuing to send missiles into Israel as well.

So, the key now is to understanding, again, what we're going to do next, what progress we feel like we have made. And I think that's kind of the information that I'm looking for and I think the country is looking for.

And we're just days away, the end of April here, from when the president will have to either get a war powers resolution passed or -- a declaration of war, I should say, or an authorization of use of military force, an AUMF, to be able to continue moving forward.

That means, again, coming to Congress and laying out clearly what our progress has been, what our objectives are, what a potential timetable might look like. To me, those are all very important benchmarks that we need to understand.

BLITZER: Democratic Congressman Josh Gottheimer of New Jersey, thanks so much for joining us. We really appreciate it.

GOTTHEIMER: Good to see you, Wolf. Thanks.

BLITZER: Thank you -- Pamela.

BROWN: All right, Wolf, let's go across the aisle and bring in Republican Congressman David Kustoff of Tennessee.

Congressman, thanks for joining us.

I want to read what President Trump posted about Iran yesterday -- quote -- "Tuesday will be power plant day and bridge day all wrapped in one in Iran. Open the effing" -- and he actually used the word -- "strait, you crazy bastards, or you'll be living in hell."

How hopeful are you that approach will bring Iran to the table?

REP. DAVID KUSTOFF (R-TN): Well, thank you for having me on this morning.

Obviously, when the president of the United States speaks, everybody listens. That message was completely tailored for the Iranian leadership. And I think that obviously, with Witkoff and Kushner involved in the negotiations and negotiations at a certain level, having the president communicate where he is -- and there should be no doubt that when Donald Trump speaks and threatens to do something, he's going to follow up.

[11:45:27]

So, he delivered that message. He delivered it very clearly in language that probably only Donald Trump can use. And Iran is on the clock. Now, obviously, you just played comments that the president gave at the Easter egg roll at the White House. And the president will be speaking to the nation and to the press in just a few hours.

Things may have changed. And that message may have moved the ball down the line as it relates to with Iran.

BROWN: Well, we will have to wait and see. So far, Iran has rejected that 45 day cease-fire.

But I'm just wondering, just to follow up on that tweet, do you support intentionally targeting critical civilian infrastructure like power plants? I just want to note I spoke to an Iranian who fled since the war who says Iranian citizens are very worried they could be worse off than before if that happens, their infrastructure is gone, and the IRGC is still in control.

What do you think?

KUSTOFF: Well, I think a couple of things, Pamela.

One is, could that, does that infrastructure have a dual use? And, obviously, could that infrastructure be used by the military? If the answer to those questions are yes, which I think they are, then they're within the purview of the United States attacking -- attacking there.

But again, let's see what the president has to say later this afternoon. I'm sure he will give us new information. And, hopefully, the Iranians will come to their senses and come to the table.

BROWN: But, as we put -- have on the screen here, the threats include bridges, desalination plants, which citizens rely on for clean drinking water, power plants, oil facilities and roads.

If Iran doesn't open up the Strait of Hormuz by tomorrow night, as the deadline the U.S. imposed, the president imposed, do you support those targets? Do you support the U.S. military targeting that infrastructure?

KUSTOFF: Well, again, I think, if those targets do in fact have a dual use, and if those targets are being used by the Iranian military, then they're fair game. And we will defer to the president and to our military leaders.

BROWN: But what about citizens who rely on the desalination plants for clean drinking water? I mean, of course, military would rely on that, but so would the citizens just to have clean drinking water.

KUSTOFF: Well, I think the -- look, the Iranians have to make a decision.

This is -- they have terrorized us for 47 years. They have terrorized their region. They have terrorized their own people. My guess is, if you took a poll right now of the Iranian people, not the regime, but the Iranian people, they are very supportive of the United States' actions.

I know that the Iranian people in the U.S. are supportive of the U.S.' actions. This is messy.

BROWN: Well...

KUSTOFF: But if the -- if the Iranian military is in fact using those facilities, then they're fair game.

BROWN: From my reporting, the view from the Iranian citizens is evolving. I mean, initially, they were very happy that the U.S. and Israel were

coming to help them out with this bombing campaign. But now, as this war drags on into its sixth week, there is a lot of concern that there could be this scenario where they're in a worse position, where they have the IRGC is emboldened, it's still in power, bloodthirsty, even more bloodthirsty than before, and their infrastructure gone.

How does -- does that concern you?

KUSTOFF: Well, it -- look, their situation for the last 47 years has been concerning...

BROWN: Of course, yes.

KUSTOFF: ... the type of government and the situation that they -- that they have lived in.

So, let's take a look, and let's see what it looks like on the other side. Hopefully, the Iranians will come to the table and they will come to their senses. You heard the president say that the people that we're negotiating with now have a different mentality and a different attitude than those before the Operation Epic Fury started at the end of February.

BROWN: But I guess the question is, how do you get rid of a pervasive ideology among the leadership in Iran?

We will see. We will see if they are more willing to work with the United States as we watch these negotiations unfold.

Congressman David Kustoff, thank you so much for your time.

KUSTOFF: Thank you, Pamela. Thank you for having me today.

BLITZER: And thanks from me as well, Congressman.

Coming up: Gamblers are betting a fortune on tonight's NCAA men's final sports, betting raking in billions of dollars every year. But there's a dark side as well, especially for younger men.

Up next, a college student will tell us why he's so worried about its impact on his friends.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[11:54:33]

BROWN: Happening now: College basketball fans are preparing for the men's college basketball final tonight, the big game.

But, for more and more fans, March Madness isn't just about brackets and bragging rights. One Gen Z journalist writes in "The Wall Street Journal" -- quote -- "Among my college peers, using apps to bet on sporting events has become a dangerous rite of passage. March Madness will only add fuel to the fire." I should note that CNN has a partnership with the prediction market platform Kalshi and uses its data to cover major events, but editorial employees are not allowed to take part in prediction markets.

[11:55:06]

And joining us now to further discuss is Eli Thompson, the 19-year-old college student and author of that opinion piece I mentioned.

So, Eli, tell us more about your experience with sports betting and why you're so concerned about your fellow Gen Z'ers as we head into the championship game.

ELI THOMPSON, COLLEGE STUDENT: Yes, thank you very much for having me.

I think I started -- I first started seeing this in high school. And the problem was smaller in high school. I'd see friends lose $50, $75. I had a couple of friends that lost more, but it was kind of a smaller trend. And when I went to college, though, it became an epidemic. I'd see friends lose a lot more money and withdraw socially, move away from their friends, not be as involved in school, sports.

And I think it's a lot bigger problem than just a couple of kids losing a couple of dollars.

BROWN: And how have you seen -- just expand on that, if you would, how that problem has played out. You said some of your friends have just kind of retreated and isolated themselves. Tell us a little bit more about that, what you have seen.

THOMPSON: Yes, I have seen them withdraw a lot socially. They're upset. They're kind of ashamed that they lost this amount of money. Sometimes, it's their parents' money they lost.

And they're not with their friends as much. They're not focused on school or classes in college. And it's a lot bigger problem than just the money -- than just the money aspect of it.

BROWN: What do they say about why they're doing it?

THOMPSON: Yes, they think they know everything about it: I'm bound to make money. I know about college football, about college basketball, about NFL, NBA, whatever the sport may be. And I will definitely win. It's no big deal. I can put my money on it.

BROWN: Many sports betting apps and sites do have warnings about possible gambling addictions and restrictions, like ensuring users are 18 or older, and in some cases 21 or older. Do you believe that age requirement should be raised? What other limits should there be, in your view? I imagine you have seen your friends kind of get around even those requirements.

THOMPSON: Yes, I have had a lot of my friends be able to use an older sibling, an older friend to get onto the 21-plus apps. But I have also seen the 18-plus apps really take off among my friends. The two apps that are 18-plus that are I think most problematic are Fliff and PrizePicks.

I think those need to be raised to 21. And I think -- but, still -- they're still able to find a way to get on those apps.

BROWN: Right.

And, again, these apps say that they're -- they're putting warnings, they're doing everything they can to prevent gambling addiction. But we have seen this rise in A.I.-generated commercials to promote sports gambling and even more celebrities getting involved in these ads.

Is this something that you have noticed? And how do you think that sort of marketing could be influencing young people when it comes to gambling?

THOMPSON: Yes, I think they're obviously marketing to kids our age. They might say they're not, but it's obvious what the ads, the stuff they run, the stuff they promote.

On social media, you're flooded with these type of ads. And you're flooded with these ads on accounts and channels that we watch. So I think it's obviously being marketed towards us. And the people they're using to market like Pat McAfee, Kevin Hart are obviously trying to appeal to younger people.

BROWN: And have you found it to be appealing, I mean, to your friends who are -- those who are Gen Z'ers seeing celebrities in these kinds of ads?

THOMPSON: Yes, I think you're really -- I think these ads started to take off about a year or two ago.

And when these ads took off, I start -- I saw my friends really take off with this betting. So I think it has played a major impact on my friends.

(CROSSTALK)

BROWN: The championship game for March Madness is tonight. What is your message to those who want to use the apps to gamble or who are considering doing it for the first time?

THOMPSON: I'd say be very careful. Don't bet money that you can't lose. And just don't do it.

I think lots of my friends, they start out betting small, and it becomes very problematic. So just stay away, if possible.

BROWN: And what is your message to parents who may not fully understand the scope of this problem that you have laid out?

THOMPSON: I'd say watch out for their kids. Watch out to make sure they don't bet too much, but I also think to put pressure on high schools especially. In high school, we're taught about the dangers of alcohol, drugs, things like that. I think we need to be taught about the dangers of sports betting as well, because it can be very problematic, especially when we graduate college, if we have a bunch of money that we lost betting on sports.

BROWN: Have you ever done it, and did you find that it just wasn't a good thing to continue, and so you stopped? Or tell us about your personal experience.

THOMPSON: Yes, I -- yes, I have done it a little bit.

But I thought -- I saw a lot of my friends go through it, and I didn't think it was a good thing to continue with.

BROWN: So you stopped. But not everyone is stopping, but continuing on.

THOMPSON: Yes.

BROWN: Even if they lose, they're trying to recoup the money they lost, and it can be a really vicious cycle.

Well, Eli Thompson, thank you so much for coming on and talking about your experience with your friends and sports betting, particularly ahead of the championship game tonight. We really appreciate it. It is something to continue to keep an eye on, for sure.

[12:00:01]

THOMPSON: Yes, thank you very much for having me.

BROWN: All right.

BLITZER: A very impressive young man, indeed. And we thank him for everything he's saying.

BROWN: Yes.

BLITZER: Very important, indeed.

BROWN: It is.

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.

BROWN: We will see you back here tomorrow morning and every weekday morning at 10:00 Eastern.

"INSIDE POLITICS" with our friend and colleague Dana Bash starts right after a short break, or actually, right now. You don't even have to wait.

(LAUGHTER)