Return to Transcripts main page
The Source with Kaitlan Collins
White House Escalates Fight With Fed Chair, Suggests Jerome Powell May Have Broken Law; Docs Back Up DOJ Whistleblower's Claim That Top Official Intended To Ignore Court Orders, Top Judiciary Dem Says; Judge Puts New Block On Trump's Birthright Citizenship Order. Aired 9-10p ET
Aired July 10, 2025 - 21:00 ET
THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.
[21:00:00]
JEAN CASAREZ, CNN CORRESPONDENT: --and during the procedure, he was going to use some of the chemical. And if it was a success, everything would be published in the National Institutes of Health.
ANDERSON COOPER, CNN HOST, ANDERSON COOPER 360: Wow. Jean Casarez, it's such a bizarre story. Appreciate your time. Thank you very much.
CASAREZ: Thank you. And someone lost their life.
COOPER: Yes.
CASAREZ: Yes.
COOPER: Jean, thank you.
The news continues. "THE SOURCE WITH KAITLAN COLLINS" starts now.
KAITLAN COLLINS, CNN CHIEF WHITE HOUSE CORRESPONDENT, CNN HOST, THE SOURCE WITH KAITLAN COLLINS: Tonight, President Trump's personal vendettas could be on a collision course with the U.S. economy. Our latest reporting.
I'm Kaitlan Collins. And this is THE SOURCE.
Tonight, President Trump is flexing his presidential power, once again. This time, it appears, in efforts to get the Fed chair, and a foreign country, to do what he wants. Both of his new escalations, tonight, could have major impacts on the American economy.
The President has made no secret, for months now, that he wants Jerome Powell, out as the Chairman of the Federal Reserve. He's been attacking him for months, and just this week, called him a, quote, Stupid person that is making a big mistake by not lowering interest rates, and also not shying away from publicly calling on Powell to resign.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
DONALD TRUMP, PRESIDENT, UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: He should resign immediately. We should get somebody in there that's going to lower interest rates.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Do you want congressional Republicans--
TRUMP: Why don't you call for his resignation?
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Do you want congressional Republicans to investigate and proceed--
TRUMP: OK with me. I think he's terrible.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
COLLINS: But tonight, what we are hearing and seeing has veered beyond outbursts, like the one we saw there, and calls for him to resign, and into legal threats.
The President's Budget Director is now accusing the Fed chair, Jay Powell, of potentially breaking the law, writing in a new letter to Powell, that he went, quote, "Way over budget" in a planned renovation of the Fed's headquarters.
And the letter suggests that he misled Congress, last month, when he testified this.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
JEROME POWELL, FEDERAL RESERVE CHAIRMAN: There's no VIP (ph) dining room. There's no new marble. We took down the old marble, we're putting it back up.
There are no new water features. There's no beehives, and there's no -- and there's no roof terrace gardens. Other than that, you know. So all of the -- all of the sort of inflammatory things that the media carried are either not in the current plan or just inaccurate.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
COLLINS: So, we've reached out to the Federal Reserve, as this is becoming something of a focal point for the administration. They declined to comment, tonight.
And earlier, at the White House, we caught up with the President's Economic adviser, Kevin Hassett, who could potentially replace Jay Powell, when he leaves his role. He declined to answer our questions about it as well.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
COLLINS: Is the President having aides lay the groundwork to fire the Fed chair, Jay Powell, with the questions about the building renovations?
KEVIN HASSETT, NATIONAL ECONOMIC COUNCIL DIRECTOR: I'm sorry. I don't have comments to that (ph).
COLLINS: Have you been interviewed for the Fed chair job? UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Kevin, you have a second to chat with us?
(END VIDEO CLIP)
COLLINS: One thing is clear tonight. The administration is taking steps to make Powell's life, as Fed chair, basically as uncomfortable as possible. This, of course, as tariffs are at the center of the feud between the President and Jay Powell. Powell not lowering interest rates until they say they want to see how the dust settles, and how the President's tariffs impact the U.S. economy.
And on that front tonight, the President is picking a fight with a foreign country that even some Republican lawmakers say might not be on the up and up. Trump has plunged the United States into a new trade war, this time, with Brazil, threatening a 50 percent tariff on Brazilian goods, if Brazil's government doesn't drop its prosecution of Jair Bolsonaro, the country's firebrand former President, who is a close ally of President Trump's.
Prosecutors have charged Bolsonaro with trying to stage a coup, after he lost reelection. He refused to concede that election loss in 2022, and his supporters ultimately stormed Congress, and other government buildings.
If that sounds familiar, President Trump seems to think so. He has drawn comparisons to his own criminal charges writing, quote, "It happened to me, times 10."
If it wasn't clear that this fight is about much more than just trade, consider this, as the arguments that the President has been making about trade deficits that countries have with the U.S. The United States had a trade surplus with Brazil, last year.
My lead source tonight is The New York Times White House correspondent, Maggie Haberman, who is the Author of "Confidence Man: The Making of Donald Trump and the Breaking of America." And Maggie joins me now.
Maggie, I think, on the Jay Powell front, I want to know if your reporting, in your sense, from inside the administration, is that this new focus that we are seeing, not just from the Budget chief, but also other top aides inside the White House, is that they're searching, basically, for a legal avenue to try to oust Jay Powell from his job.
MAGGIE HABERMAN, WHITE HOUSE CORRESPONDENT, THE NEW YORK TIMES, CNN POLITICAL ANALYST: I think there's no question that they are searching as to whether there is a legal out. I don't know that they want to pull that lever yet, Kaitlan. But this has been a slow roll toward this point.
A lot of the President's advisers, as you know, months -- not that many months ago, three, two, were assuring people that he was not serious about getting rid of Jay Powell.
[21:05:00] The President himself then said he wasn't going to do it. But he was sort of reading the stage directions out loud, in June, when he said, I've tried everything. I've tried being nice. I call him names. I call him every name in the book. I can't get him to do what I want, which is lowering rates.
And so this is, at minimum, an extension of a pressure campaign, and it's a big one. But whether it ultimately leads to something that could have a pretty deleterious effect on the markets, i.e. firing him? We'll see.
COLLINS: Well, and what's interesting is Kevin Hassett, who we showed, that we were questioning at the White House after he did an interview earlier. He is someone who, before, has stressed the independence of the Fed, and kind of said, once, you know--
HABERMAN: Right.
COLLINS: --during Trump round one, that there was no question the President could not oust the Fed chair, from that role. That seems to have changed, in terms of how the President has been making that argument.
And also, Kevin Hassett has emerged as someone who is potentially a contender to fill that role, when it becomes available next year, we know for sure, but potentially sooner than that.
HABERMAN: He is a contender. I don't think he is a top contender at this point, Kaitlan. Obviously, everything in Trump world could change. There are a couple of names who the President has been talking about, privately, for a while.
Always worth reminding people, and you may have said it before, but my audio was cutting out for a second. The President appointed Jay Powell. This was not somebody who was imposed upon him. This was an appointee of his, previously.
There are other people who President Trump has been thinking of as possible replacements. But, I think, his idea is that if he can't badger -- I'm skeptical, he will fire Powell. He might. Obviously, anything is possible. But in the meantime, he is going to make his life as miserable as possible, or at least as miserable as the President perceives it could be, behaving this way.
COLLINS: Well, and then with the -- what's happening with Brazil. Obviously, there's a massive surplus that the United States has with Brazil, when it comes to trading. There's already questions about, if this 50 percent tariff actually goes into place, what that's going to mean.
But I think what we're seeing here is different, in terms of the tariff battles he's having with other countries, and that he is drawing a very straight through line between the investigation and trial of an ally of his, that was a former leader of Brazil, into whether or not the current leader is going to have to deal with 50 percent tariffs from the United States. HABERMAN: What you're seeing, Kaitlan, is the fact that the President, who has talked about tariffs on and off, for many years, mostly in earnest, over the last decade and slightly plus, does not view tariffs the way economists view tariffs. He views tariffs, and he would talk about this privately with people during the 2024 campaign, as a source of immense power.
He discovered just how much power he might be able to have, when he was president in the first term. And now, he has advisers who are letting him do that in a way that he felt like he was stymied before. There are a lot of advisers who also worry he is taking an approach that is raising legal questions, and that is maximalist in a way that is creating confusion.
But it's not an economic tool, or solely an economic tool. It's just a tool. It's an instrument to try to get what he wants.
COLLINS: That's interesting that you've heard from advisers who have questions about the process here, because that is the biggest difference that we're seeing.
And it's worth stepping back and looking at it, from how he operated in the office, in round one, to operating, this time around, finding potentially a legal justification or a bone to pick with Jay Powell. Then also, using this kind of rationale for threatening tariffs against a country like Brazil.
HABERMAN: Yes, look, in term one, he -- the way that the President always looks at things, and you hear him say this out loud, is, The experts warned that XYZ bad consequence was going to happen, the sky would fall if, I did a certain thing. That didn't happen. Things ended up going along. Fine. And nothing terrible happened. So I wasn't wrong.
And it is true, he was warned over and over again that there was going to be a disaster if he went ahead with tariffs, especially as he was pursuing his tax cuts bill, in his first term. The markets came back. There was not a huge crash. But it was a different this -- the tariffs were much more surgically applied than what we're seeing now. This is very different.
And the lesson he has learned is he is going to try to do as much as -- as much as he can, and frankly, I don't think he even has done as much as he wants, which is why you're now seeing a renewed effort.
COLLINS: Yes, that's a good point.
Maggie Haberman, as always, thank you for your excellent reporting.
Joining me now, two other deeply-sourced White House insiders.
Dasha Burns is White House Bureau Chief for Politico.
Shelby Talcott is White House correspondent for Semafor.
And I think when it comes to what this looks like with Jay Powell, I mean, the White House has made clear, they're not even shying away from the attacks on Jay Powell anymore.
The other aides are kind of doing his duty, in terms of, now we saw Will Scharf and James Blair, two of his top aides, joining this committee, also raising questions about what Powell said to Congress, focusing on the renovations happening at the Fed's chair headquarters--
DASHA BURNS, WHITE HOUSE BUREAU CHIEF, POLITICO: Yes.
COLLINS: --which I don't think was a concern that I had heard from any of them, even just a few weeks ago.
[21:10:00]
BURNS: No, look, I mean to Maggie's point, there are a couple of things happening.
One is he is trying to make Powell's life miserable and turn the heat up.
Number two, he's trying to paint Powell as the boogeyman, and that serves the purpose of also being able to deflect blame. Well, if the economy is having trouble, the Fed chair is not doing his job, he's not doing what he's supposed to. And Trump is very good at punting the blame and at creating the kind of the boogeyman that his base, certainly his supporters and, sometimes, some folks in the middle can buy.
COLLINS: Yes. And Shelby, is that what you've heard from officials, that that is a clear plan here, which is either try to make him so miserable that he leaves, which Jay Powell said he's not going to do, or to just make his life suck, basically?
SHELBY TALCOTT, WHITE HOUSE CORRESPONDENT, SEMAFOR: Well, I think it's no secret that's Donald Trump's strategy with anybody, not just Jerome Powell.
We've seen in Congress, any time a lawmaker goes against him, he makes a -- he has a concerted effort to publicly shame them, and to publicly go after them, to turn his base against them, and in turn, that makes their life more difficult. And what Donald Trump has found, particularly with Republican lawmakers, is oftentimes, that public pressure results in Donald Trump getting what he wants.
And so, he's clearly applying this sort of strategy that he has used, for years, to Jerome Powell, thinking, OK, Jerome Powell is not necessarily doing what I want, I'm going to apply this public pressure, I'm going to make his life miserable. It's worked in the past for him.
COLLINS: The question is, does it work now? I mean, Jay Powell is someone, for people who haven't watched, when he does his press conferences, he inevitably gets asked about this, and he says that if they fired him, he'd fight it. He's not someone who's saying, I'll just let this be, and I'll go. He's saying he would fight it. BURNS: He's saying he would fight it, but he also doesn't lean into it, and he doesn't play the victim. And that's kind of the -- the people that have had success with Trump's attacks is, is exactly that strategy is, is deflect, don't take the bait.
COLLINS: What are you hearing from the White House when it comes to Brazil and how serious they are? Because, I mean, this is something that I was hearing from people, outside of politics, who are deeply alarmed by this because of what it could do to the U.S. economy. If we are having to pay more for coffee, and oranges, and all of these things, that the United States imports from Brazil.
TALCOTT: Yes, Donald Trump is not necessarily concerned about that, in this moment.
And I think the thing to remember, in this particular case, is you have to remember Donald Trump on the campaign trail. You hear the term, Witch hunt, that he used in, with regards to Brazil. That is a term we heard often, every single day, out on the campaign trail with his--
BURNS: Many times a day.
TALCOTT: Exactly. Many times a day. With his own legal issues. And so, it is clear, when I talk to White House officials, that this goes just beyond the tariffs and the trade issue. This is almost personal for Donald Trump, because he is connecting it to his own issues, over the past two years.
BURNS: Well, and he's always seen himself in Bolsonaro, and he's seen Bolsonaro as a huge ally. His son has been at campaign events. He's been at multiple events that I've been to, at and around the White House.
And he feels invincible right now. He feels a wind at his back, after having that big, beautiful bill passed, after some of his Supreme Court wins. And he feels like he can wield this tariff tool in an even bigger and more dramatic fashion than before.
COLLINS: Yes, but it is interesting in terms of, it's the through line of someone who's been investigated in the way that he has been. Whether that's Eric Adams here in the United States, or with Bolsonaro, or Prime Minister Netanyahu, who's been in Washington all week long.
And the President has been publicly saying that they should drop that investigation and trial into him as well, from -- to push him to where he doesn't have to testify, basically, coming to his defense in a real way that doesn't always speak to what's at the root of the investigation. Just saying, They're a world leader, they're under investigation. This happened to me. And so, here's my stance on those right.
TALCOTT: Right, this is a trend now. This is not just Brazil. It is also Netanyahu. It is also Eric Adams. There's a trend here, in which Donald Trump sees these kind of top leaders, world leaders, or leaders in their state, and he sees that they're going through legal issues, and he immediately connects it back to his own issues. And it doesn't matter necessarily, what the crux of those individual investigations are. It's personal for him.
COLLINS: Yes, but the leader of Brazil now is saying, This is not how this works. I'm in charge of the judiciary here. When it comes to what this looks like.
I do want to listen to what the former Vice President, Mike Pence, he was on earlier with Kate Bolduan, about what these tariffs mean, and how they could actually impact American lives, that they go beyond essentially just retribution and revenge.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
MIKE PENCE, FORMER VICE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: I saw Secretary Bessent, speaking very glowingly about, the projection is $300 billion in tariff revenue this year.
Well, tariffs are a tax, and American importers and businesses and, ultimately, consumers pay almost all of that.
[21:15:00]
The administration is right now boasting of the fact that, that the average American household is going to see about $3,000 increase in the cost of goods. Because we are paying that.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
COLLINS: He's basically saying all this money that Scott Bessent is bragging that they're bringing into the Treasury is being paid for by Americans, paying more in tariffs.
BURNS: And he may not be wrong.
But frankly, Mike Pence making that argument is only helping President Trump. He's going to be able to point and say, This is somebody who I have very successfully made into the sort of anti-American, anti- Republican Party, at the very least. And this old-school establishment guy, he's the one saying it. He's not seeing the vision.
I think Trump has successfully done to Mike Pence what he's trying to do to someone like Jerome Powell.
COLLINS: Dasha Burns. Shelby Talcott. Great to have you both.
Coming up here, on THE SOURCE. What the Senate Judiciary Committee's top Democrat says backs up allegations that a top Justice Department official, who is now for a lifetime appointment on the courts, Emil Bove, told the department when it came To saying F you, over court orders. Reaction, next.
[21:20:00] (COMMERCIAL BREAK)
COLLINS: Tonight, new documents that were released by the top Democrat, on the Senate Judiciary Committee, appear to back up some revelations that were made, stunning revelations, I should say, by a whistleblower at the Justice Department.
That whistleblower says a top DOJ official, former Trump personal attorney, Emil Bove, told the Department to say F you, and ignore court orders, to stop the fast deportations of migrants, one day before the Trump administration sent planes, with migrants, to El Salvador.
This is what Emil Bove, who is up now for a major judicial appointment, which is why all of this is coming to light, and is at a focal point, this is what he testified to the Senate Judiciary Committee, back in June.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
SEN. ADAM SCHIFF (D-CA): Did you suggest telling the courts (bleep) you in any manner?
EMIL BOVE, PRINCIPAL ASSOCIATE DEPUTY ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE UNITED STATES: I don't recall.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
COLLINS: So, here's what the newly-released text messages and emails show. It's basically chatter among lower-level prosecutors, about Bove, and references to that alleged comment that he was asked about by Senator Schiff there.
One text between these government lawyers, on March 15th, reads, Guess we are going to say F you to the court.
In another, a government lawyer says, This doesn't end with anything but a nationwide injunction. And a decision point on F you.
I should note, Bove is not actually personally part of the communications that were released by Senator Durbin today. But it raises major questions about what they mean, going forward.
My sources tonight are two former Justice Department officials.
CNN Legal Analyst, Elliot Williams.
And Liz Oyer, a former pardon attorney who was fired by the Trump administration, earlier this year.
Elliot, I'm going to guess you've never said that attorneys should say, F you to the court?
ELLIOT WILLIAMS, CNN LEGAL ANALYST, FORMER FEDERAL PROSECUTOR: I--
COLLINS: Maybe you thought it? WILLIAMS: Oh, I think -- I think it all the time, and did at the time when I was there. However, no, I did not.
COLLINS: And what do you do -- does this back up the allegations that were being made here, do you think?
WILLIAMS: I think so. And most importantly, the fact that they were -- the text messages were written in real-time, like, as -- you know, in court, like, let's pretend this were litigation.
A court would rely on the fact that if somebody sent a text message, at the time of something that they were counting, that supports the fact that this thing happened. And this text message seems to suggest the things, sort of the statements about Bove's conduct. It's certainly concerning.
And people can think whatever they want. But it is certainly concerning that someone at the highest levels of the Justice Department is possibly advocating to justify court orders.
COLLINS: Well, and they've denied that and said that this doesn't prove what the whistleblower is saying that it proves.
And Pam Bondi, the Attorney General, responded to the release of this and said, We support legitimate whistleblowers, but this disgruntled employee is not a whistleblower. He's a leaker, asserting false claims, seeking five minutes of aim. She says, No one was ever asked to defy a court order.
But of course, you know, all this is building on the questions about how they have handled these court cases, and what they've said publicly, but then what they've said in actual court arguments.
LIZ OYER, FIRED U.S. PARDON ATTORNEY: Yes, that's exactly right. There's a lot of secrecy around the decision-making that is happening at the Department of Justice.
And it's clear, that the expectation of the Attorney General is that the line attorneys do not need to know the reasons or the rationale for what is being decided by leadership. They just need to execute the orders.
And if you don't faithfully execute the orders, the consequence, as we saw in the case of Mr. Reuveni, is that, You will be fired. That is significant, not just because of what happened to him, but because it sends a message to all other Department of Justice employees that the costs of non-compliance are severe.
The Attorney General, on a daily basis, is putting employees in a position, where they have to decide between honoring their ethical obligations of candor to the court, and maintaining their professional employment at the Department of Justice, which is just an untenable way to run an organization that's entrusted with those responsibilities of enforcing the rule of law.
COLLINS: Well, I mean, the Justice Department does not seem to be making a lot of people happy, these days. Because this is what's happening on what's playing out with Democrats on Capitol Hill, saying, This proves our point, and proves what this whistleblower was saying.
On the MAGA side of this, the other part that's been playing out with the Attorney General, Pam Bondi, this week, that she doesn't really want to focus on, is the Jeffrey Epstein files, and what's happening with that. It has not died down from MAGA. I mean, the President was so surprised, the other day, that people were still talking about this, he said.
But I want you to listen to what Steve Bannon was saying today about how this administration, this Justice Department, needs to handle the documents related to Jeffrey Epstein.
[21:25:00]
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
STEVE BANNON, FORMER TRUMP ADVISER: They have to go to the court and demand and unseal the sealed evidence in Epstein. That starts -- it starts there. Then bundle everything together you got, sealed and unsealed, and release it all.
If DOJ can't move off the dime, and the FBI can't move off the dime, it should be a special counsel to go through everything -- to go through everything, and release it all.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
WILLIAMS: So, a few things happening there.
One, you have to be very careful about unsealing matters that involve sexual assault survivors or victims, just because there're victims involved, and you just don't want to make their names public.
Number two. There has to be a huge public interest in unsealing matters, because courts are very reluctant to seal them in the first place. You got to have a really good reason for bringing them out there.
I think, big picture, this is a problem of the Justice Department's creation, because of how ham-fisted they've been in covering -- in talking about it. Pam Bondi went back and forth, as to whether she even had the documents about Jeffrey Epstein on her desk. If she had simply been straightforward and candid, and said Yes, or No, this whole thing perhaps could have gone away.
COLLINS: But it also feels like, in MAGA, they keep blaming Pam Bondi, or they keep blaming the FBI Director, Kash Patel, all -- the three people who are the most well-known in MAGA-verse, over this.
But also, this could be -- I mean, President Trump could deal with this himself. If he wanted to declassify this, he could.
OYER: Sure, he could. But I think what we're seeing here is that there's no there, there. There's no substance to any of this. This is another conspiracy theory.
And the problem is that, at some point, when the people who are -- who are perpetuating these conspiracy theories, believe that the people in power are concealing information from them, that will substantiate them? There's just a breakdown in confidence, in the leadership, on both sides. This is not a situation where there is anything, really, to be disclosed. It's just a matter of lack of trust in the leadership of the department on both sides, at this point.
WILLIAMS: And I think if they had just been more consistent, from the beginning, they could have eliminated some of it. But they fed some of the concerns and drama by just being all over the place.
COLLINS: Not even just before they got into government. This is something that we heard from these officials after they were in government, still making the base believe, they were going to move here.
WILLIAMS: Yes.
COLLINS: Elliot Williams. Liz Oyer. Great to have you both here.
Coming up next for us. The President is set to head to Texas tomorrow. He's going to be touring the aftermath of those deadly floods. And this comes as conspiracy theories about what caused the storms are running wild. My next guest is a professional cloud seeder, who was targeted because of this. He'll share his side of the story.
[21:30:00]
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
COLLINS: Tonight, emergency crews in Central Texas are ongoing in their efforts to find more than a 160 people who are still missing tonight, as the death toll from that flood has now grown to 121 people.
The President is expected to visit the area, tomorrow, and get a briefing on the damage that was caused by those deadly floods, from first responders and officials there on the ground.
And this comes as CNN is getting new audio tonight, dispatch audio, that shows what first responders were facing, in those early morning hours of July 4th. These are calls that came in hours before a CodeRED alert was sent to people's phones in the flood zone.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Respond to 2029 Highway 39 2029 Highway 39. It's going to be for a water rescue. House caller's house flooded.
We're getting multiple calls off of 39. People are stating their houses are flooding. We're trying to advise them to get to higher area.
(END VIDEO CLIP) COLLINS: Just before 04:30 in the morning, a firefighter, who was on the ground, asked for an emergency alert to be sent out.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Is there any way we can send a CodeRED out to our Hunt residents asking them to find higher ground or stay home?
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: 10-4 stand by, we have to get that approved with our supervisor.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
COLLINS: We know the Kerrville mayor told The Texas Tribune, he didn't get that alert until an hour and a half later, at 06:00 a.m. And CNN has reported that it was nearly six hours before some residents got that alert. All the while, people were frantically calling for help.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: We've received a phone call at our fire station. We have a lady, she's frantic. She's at Casa Bonita 117 Corto Way. Or Casa Bonita Lodges. And she said her children are on top of one of the cabanas, and they're trapped.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
COLLINS: CNN's Ed Lavandera is back on the ground, in Kerr County, for us tonight.
And Ed, obviously, we're now almost a week into this search, as this has been going on. You've been seeing up close what these first responders have been dealing with, obviously, a slow, painstaking process. What did you see?
ED LAVANDERA, CNN SENIOR NATIONAL CORRESPONDENT: Well, we spent much of the day, just downriver from Kerrville, where we are now, in this -- in the Town of Center Point. And a firefighter took us out to a small little stretch of the river, where we saw heavy equipment, bulldozers and dump trucks, massive dump trucks, taking out the debris.
[21:35:00]
They've had to carve roads into the edge of the river, to be able to get down there, and pull out all of the massive cypress trees that have washed downstream. There were dozens and dozens of volunteer searchers, going through the area. There was other workers clearing out that debris.
So, it was a rather eye-opening experience, because the firefighter that took us out there kind of described that this is just one little speck, along the entire distance of the Guadalupe River, here in Kerr County. And you just saw just the massive operation on this one little, tiny spot, and just, multiply that, across the 30, 35, miles of river here in this county. COLLINS: Yes. I mean, it's just, you can't even imagine what so many of them are feeling and, every day, to go back there and do that work.
Ed Lavandera, great to have you on the ground there. Thanks for that report.
And of course, as everyone is searching for answers, amid this tragedy, and still searching for people in Texas, what we're also seeing is people latching onto a conspiracy that cloud seeding is what has caused the deadly floods that we saw play out, last Friday.
Cloud seeding, for people who don't know, is the process where a plane or a drone scatters tiny compounds into the sky to try to trigger rain or snow. The practice is sometimes used to create rain in dry areas. That generally produces minimal results, nothing like the 15 inches of that torrential rain that we saw hitting Kerr County, on Friday.
But that hasn't stopped what we've seen play out online, the spread of conspiracies, surrounding the floods, including leading some lawmakers, on the right, to call for a ban on the process altogether.
Look at what Republican congresswoman, Marjorie Taylor Greene of Georgia, said today. She said that cloud seeding should be a felony offense, and, quote, "We must end the dangerous and deadly practice of weather modification and geoengineering."
Her bill to do that is co-sponsored by Congressman Tim Burchett of Tennessee.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
REP. TIM BURCHETT (R-TN): People are saying, we're conspiracy theorists. But you know, you don't patent a conspiracy. And these things have been patented, they've been proven they do it.
I'm big on god and just letting him work his magic, not people trying to play god.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
COLLINS: My source tonight is Augustus Doricko, the Founder of Rainmaker, which is a cloud seeding startup that carried out a job, about a 100 miles southeast of Kerr County, two days before the July 4th storm.
And it's great to have you here tonight.
Because I want to give you a chance to respond to what we heard from those lawmakers. But just, first, to give people a sense of what this has meant for you, and for your employees. Can you describe what the last few days have been like for you?
AUGUSTUS DORICKO, CEO & FOUNDER, RAINMAKER TECHNOLOGY CORPORATION: Absolutely. And thank you so much for having me.
First and foremost, my heart goes out to all of the people in Texas, particularly the families that were directly affected by the natural disaster.
Even though cloud seeding had nothing to do with it, and we can get into the details of that, people online have accused both me, and Rainmaker, of having caused the floods when cloud seeding unequivocally, cannot induce precipitation even nearly on the scale of what came from the remnants of Tropical Storm Barry.
Most people that we've engaged with, in good faith, trying to transparently share information with, have been very receptive. And to them, I'm grateful.
I am praying for my family constantly. I'm praying for myself. There have been threats leveled against us, most of which, I think, are incredible. But I'm grateful to be on here tonight, just to set the record straight, and to clarify what cloud seeding can do, so that people stop accusing Rainmaker, and my family, of having contributed to the floods.
COLLINS: Yes, and I think a lot of people don't even know what cloud seeding is fully. I mean, some people certainly do. But meteorologists have said there's not a connection between these flash floods and what your company is doing.
But can you just walk us through what you did do, on July 2nd, just so people have an understanding of that?
DORICKO: Yes. So, first of all, cloud seeding is a real technology that was invented in the United States in the 40s. And the premise is that some clouds don't naturally precipitate, because the water droplets within them stay too small to ever grow heavy enough to fall.
What cloud seeding does is it flies drones or planes up into those clouds with non-precipitating water, releases a material called silver iodide, which has a crystalline structure similar to ice. The water then freezes onto those crystals, grows into big enough snowflakes, such that they fall, and either remain as snow, or melt back into rain. This is a climate adaptation tool that we can use to restore ecosystems, and preserve farms in drought-ridden areas that are suffering from decreases in precipitation over time.
In Texas, we're contracted by multiple municipalities, and also farms, to produce more water for them in times of drought. And on July 2nd, we flew 120-minute cloud seeding flight, where we dispersed about 70 grams worth of silver iodide, over tens of square miles, into two different clouds.
And it's worth saying as well, we disperse this material directly into the clouds. It's not dispersed just into the open air.
After about two hours, those clouds dissipated entirely.
COLLINS: Yes.
DORICKO: And any of the material that we would have dispersed then, would not have remained in the system, such that it could have induced any additional precipitation by the time that the remnants of the tropical storm came in.
COLLINS: And obviously, it was a huge storm, as we saw as a result of this.
[21:40:00]
But so, when you hear people and lawmakers? Congresswoman Greene says this should be banned, that it should be a felony. You saw Tim Burchett saying, it wouldn't be patented if it was a conspiracy. When they accuse, and maybe not those two specifically, but when you are accused of engineering the weather and weather modification, what would you say to that?
DORICKO: Yes. I mean, for one, I think that this is a very consequential technology, right? Not just anybody should be allowed to modify the weather. There should be oversight and transparency.
And so, the reason why I'm grateful to be talking to you today, the reason why I've tried to be very public and transparent, is because I think that people have some earnest questions that are worth answering, about what cloud seeding is, and what it's not.
That being said, when people are either trying to score points with certain portions of the electorate, by making baseless accusations, or fanning the flames of conspiracy? I think not only is that wrong, not only does that endanger people, not only does that distract from the real issues that we have at hand.
But also, it stands to deprive Americans of a technology that we could use, as a climate adaptation tool, to provide more water for farms, for ecosystems, for cities, and for industries, that stand to lose if we don't produce more water for them, via cloud seeding.
COLLINS: Augustus Doricko, it's great to have you on, I mean, because we've seen this everywhere. And so, it's good to have your perspective. Thank you for joining tonight.
DORICKO: I appreciate it. Thank you so much.
COLLINS: Up next. Back here in Washington, the President's executive order, calling for the end of birthright citizenship, has just been blocked nationwide. A question of how that happened, after that major Supreme Court decision that the White House had been touting and celebrating. We'll break it down, next.
[21:45:00]
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
COLLINS: Tonight, a federal judge has reignited a legal standoff, and agreed to issue a nationwide block on President Trump's executive order, when it comes to ending birthright citizenship.
That's notable, given, just last month, we saw the Supreme Court limit the power of the lower court judges to issue these nationwide blocks. But Judge Joseph Laplante, an appointee, I should note, of Republican President George W. Bush, got around that by certifying a challenge to President Trump's order as a class action lawsuit.
The decision applies to all children who were born in the United States after February 20th, regardless of their parents' immigration status. And the Judge says he's going to pause his order seven days to allow the Trump administration to appeal, which they almost certainly will.
My Washington sources are here tonight, including:
Democratic congressman, Ro Khanna of California.
And Republican strategist, Shermichael Singleton.
And Shermichael. When this Supreme Court decision came out, the White House came out, they said it was a huge win. President Trump came to the Briefing room, did something he doesn't normally do.
But the question is, now is, is this going to be the new workaround? Are judges just going to -- are we going to have legal groups that just say, Well, this is a class action lawsuit, and that's the way they get a nationwide stop on the executive orders and the like?
SHERMICHAEL SINGLETON, REPUBLICAN STRATEGIST, CNN POLITICAL COMMENTATOR: Yes, I think they'll try. But even, as this judge said, you still have the opportunity, for the Executive, to go through the appellate process. And ultimately, I believe they probably want to go all the way back to the Supreme Court to get a final ruling on this.
I do suspect that there's an interesting framing and argument that the Executive branch will make, if they go back to the Supreme Court to be the final arbiter on this issue.
They'll say, Look, the 14th Amendment, 1868, specifically pertained to slaves, the only group that was brought into the country via compulsory force, no choice of their own. And when you talk about born and naturalized, I think they'll argue naturalized being foreign, that was slaves who were brought here, and born being their descendants. How do you make that correlation to immigrants who came into the country in violation of our immigration laws?
Now, some on the other side may argue, Well, what about the Wong case, and Japanese or Asians who were brought here against their will? And I think what the Court would argue at that time, or will -- the Executive will argue at the time, will be, likely, Jurisdiction matters here, and does the Executive branch have the right to make a case that citizenship shouldn't just be granted carte blanche, based off of jurisprudence and the history surrounding the 14th Amendment, as it pertained to Dred Scott v. Sandford? I think it's a very interesting argument to make.
COLLINS: But I also think the vehicle here is what's new territory here, in terms of being a class action lawsuit versus a nationwide injunction.
SINGLETON: Yes. COLLINS: Because the White House had touted the Supreme Court's ruling, which left open this possibility. Today, they said, though, that the decision here by this judge, again, a Bush appointee, disregards the rule of law by abusing class action certification procedures, and that they're going to fight this vigorously.
REP. RO KHANNA (D-CA): I think we need to understand what the fundamental issue is. They're trying to reverse the Constitution that says if you're born in the United States, you're an American citizen.
I can't believe we're even having this conversation in 2025. I think 90 percent of this country, or 80 percent of this country, believes that if you were born in the United States, you should be an American citizen. And when they rule on the substance, I am a 100 percent almost, that the Supreme Court is going to find it cockamamie, that they're trying to deprive people born in America of citizenship.
SINGLETON: I don't know, Congressman, because I think the argument that the attorneys for the President will argue, If you are a legal resident of the country, meaning, you're an immigrant who came here legally through the proper process? Then, of course, your children should absolutely be given a Social Security, a U.S. passport. They should be U.S. citizens. We would all agree with that.
But I do think there is a legitimate argument to make, if you came into the country in violation of our immigration laws, should your children automatically be granted citizenship? And I'm not necessarily sure.
KHANNA: The Constitution is pretty clear. The 14th Amendment says if you're born in the United States, you have citizenship. And I think most Americans believe that.
[21:50:00]
But it goes to what JD Vance, and what they want to do is they want to change the fundamental definition of America. I mean, JD Vance gave this speech. He said, To be American is not to believe in the Constitution or Declaration of Independence. To be an American depends on how many generations you go back, and how much your -- how much your family fought for this country. That's not the America of Lincoln or Frederick Douglass.
I believe that most Americans view this country as, if you're born here, you're a citizen, and if you believe in the Constitution and Declaration, that's what makes you American.
COLLINS: Well--
SINGLETON: Well, see, I would -- I would imagine, they would say, then, What about Elk versus Wilkins, 1886, where the Supreme Court said that the 14th Amendment didn't apply to Native Americans because they were born on Sovereign Tribes, so they didn't fully belong under U.S. jurisprudence.
The administration would say, Well, we could see how that framing would apply to illegal immigrants coming into the country. So to having citizenship elsewhere, having renounced that citizenship, again, should their children therefore be given U.S. citizenship--
KHANNA: Shermichael, I don't--
SINGLETON: --for merely like being born here?
KHANNA: --I don't think we want to go to a 19th Century precedent that--
(CROSSTALK)
SINGLETON: Well, but no. But I'm just saying, Congressman, I would imagine--
KHANNA: --Americans and citizens.
SINGLETON: But my point is, I would imagine, if they're trying to make the argument that the 14th Amendment explicitly pertained to slaves, and their descendants, and not everyone else? I think there are some historical points that they could make to point to and say, There's a logical--
KHANNA: Let me ask you then, just the basic question.
SINGLETON: --framing of that.
KHANNA: Do you think someone born in the United States should be a citizen, I mean?
SINGLETON: Oh, of course, if you're here legally, of course. But--
KHANNA: What if -- but if -- what if someone's undocumented, they have a baby here, you don't think that person should be a citizen?
SINGLETON: I think there should be a recourse for people who come into the country in -- against our immigration laws, to find legality, to become a citizen, and then, sure, there should be a process for their children to be granted a citizenship.
But to just carte blanche? We used to call them anchor babies, years ago. Should that be an appropriate recourse? I don't know if I would agree with that.
COLLINS: Well, we will see what the courts decide here. Obviously, they are going to appeal this.
SINGLETON: Yes.
COLLINS: Congressman. Shermichael. It's great to have you both here.
Up next. Speaking of a billionaire going pro, hedge fund titan, Bill Ackman, has taken himself to the court. He got a bit of a frosty reception, though, from some tennis legends. We'll tell you what they said, ahead.
[21:55:00]
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
COLLINS: Two Americans are serving up some wildly different headlines in the tennis world tonight.
First, Amanda Anisimova upset the number one player in the world at Wimbledon today, sending her to the Women's Singles Final on Saturday. It's a remarkable moment that comes after she took a break from the sport, in May 2023, for 18 months, only to return to reach her first Grand Slam title match.
And then, on the other side, there is billionaire, Bill Ackman, who made his pro tennis debut yesterday, in a doubles match at the Hall of Fame Open in Rhode Island. He got in as a wild card entry. But some accomplished tennis pros were none too thrilled about it.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
ANDY RODDICK, FORMER U.S. OPEN CHAMPION: This was the biggest joke I've ever watched in professional tennis.
There was obviously some exchange of something, like, you don't give a wild card to someone who, 50 players at my club are better than.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
COLLINS: Another tennis legend weighed in, Martina Navratilova, chiming in, saying, Apparently you can buy yourself a wild card. Oh to have the confidence.
CNN Contributor, Cari Champion, is here.
Cari, I should note, in a statement to the Journal, the organizers of the tournament said, In no way did Bill Ackman buy his way into the Hall of Fame Open.
But I wonder what you make of the response that we're seeing from people like Andy Roddick here, who are clearly not pleased about this.
CARI CHAMPION, CNN CONTRIBUTOR: And Kaitlan, it's interesting. Because Andy -- I listened to his entire podcast and his thoughts. Andy was very careful. He said, I'm OK with changing my opinion if I hear differently. But he laid out a series of facts that made it so suspicious, where you couldn't say.
I agree with Martina. Perhaps that did happen. He's playing a doubles tournament, Ackman is playing a doubles tournament with Jack Sock, who hasn't played since 2023. They played this challenger event, which is like an amateur event, but it's really for players. And this is what made Andy and Martina so upset.
It's really for players, a wild card is issued to players who want to try to make a comeback, or who have been injured. Or, We understand how the tour is so expensive, and you want to try to make a name for yourself, so you get these wild cards. And while it's not a perfect -- it's not a perfect system, it's for people who really play the sport, who want to contribute to the sport. So, for it to be at the Hall of Fame, which is considered and regarded as one of the crown jewels, and then you get a wild card?
And if you watched any bit of this match? It was uncomfortable. And to have the confidence is apropos.
COLLINS: Why was it uncomfortable to watch?
CHAMPION: Ackman -- and look, and I don't consider myself a great tennis player. He could barely get his serve in. He lost the first set. I believe, they lost. I'm not going to say, he. He and Jack Sock lost the first set, I believe, six to one. And it was just really uncomfortable, because it was clear that he was not prepared for this.
Now, why he was granted a wild card, and while Jack Sock, rather was granted a wild card, we can't argue that. We can't argue what happened behind-the-scenes. But we also know that he bankrolled the PTPA, which is the Players Tennis Association, which started and Novak back in -- or helped bankroll it and raise money for it. And so, there seems to be this relationship that he has with tennis, that is that some people approve of and others don't.
And players, legends, like Martina, like Andy Roddick, are speaking out, because they know that their sport is better. And Andy was really clear in his comments. His comments were, This is beneath the Hall of Fame. It's beneath them to let this happen on such hallowed ground for so many players.
COLLINS: Well, and you know -- and it's caused so much controversy. But also, this morning, I do want to mention, or talk about Anisimova. Because watching that today and kind of proving people wrong, and also having this comeback. When some people that might think walking away from the sport, you're never going to come back and have the success that this 23-year-old did today.
I wonder just what you made of this moment that we all watched play out today.
CHAMPION: Well, there were two great moments.
We had one moment, where we were kind of uncomfortable in tennis.
[22:00:00]
And this great moment, where this player, in particular, this American upstart, when she was 17-years-old, reached the semifinals of the French Open, and they thought, Oh my gosh, here she comes.
She took a break for various reasons. Her father, who was her longtime coach, died of a heart attack during COVID. It was really sad. So, she has done something amazing for American women that hasn't been done since Serena Williams. I'm rooting for her.
COLLINS: Yes. It was a great moment to watch. Cari Champion, thank you for joining us tonight.
CHAMPION: It was. Thank you.
COLLINS: Thank you all so much for joining us, not just tonight, but every night. For now, we are marking two years, since THE SOURCE started. We appreciate you watching, as always.
And, of course, continue watching, because "CNN NEWSNIGHT WITH ABBY PHILLIP" starts now.
