Return to Transcripts main page

CNN's The Arena with Kasie Hunt

Disney: Kimmel Will Return To TV Tomorrow Night; Trump & RFK Jr. Make Announcement On Autism. Aired 4-5p ET

Aired September 22, 2025 - 16:00   ET

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

[16:00:11]

ANNOUNCER: This is CNN breaking news.

PAMELA BROWN, CNN HOST: Breaking news, Jimmy Kimmel will return to air. Disney announcing just moments ago that "Jimmy Kimmel Live!" will air tomorrow night on ABC.

Hi, everyone. Welcome to THE ARENA. Kasie Hunt is off. I'm Pamela Brown.

And as that breaking news happens, we are also standing by for an announcement from President Trump and Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. That announcement is expected to center around autism and their efforts to identify possible causes.

All right. Let's go back to that. Jimmy Kimmel news and get right to CNN entertainment correspondent Elizabeth Wagmeister. She is on the phone as this news is breaking for us.

So, Elizabeth, what exactly is Disney saying and what more are you learning?

ELIZABETH WAGMEISTER, CNN ENTERTAINMENT CORRESPONDENT (via telephone): Hey there, Pam. So, Disney, I just received a statement in the past 30 minutes, and I want to read you this statement. They say, quote, last Wednesday, we made the decision to suspend production on the show to avoid further inflaming a tense situation at an emotional moment for our country. It is a decision we made because we felt some of the comments were ill-timed and insensitive. We have spent the last days having thoughtful conversations with Jimmy, and after those conversations, we reached the decision to return the show on Tuesday.

Now, Pam, what is really interesting about this statement from Disney is they are addressing the backlash that Jimmy Kimmel received from certain audience members and also from the president of the United States and from the FCC. His commentary about Charlie Kirk's killer. That is very unique and rare for a company like Disney, a family friendly company, to be addressing that they understand that those comments could have further inflame the situation in the country.

And as you said, the show will be back tomorrow night. And I have to tell you that based on what I have been hearing from my sources and based on what we know about Jimmy Kimmel, we should not expect Jimmy Kimmel to tone down his comments here. That is not something that he is interested in doing. That is not his brand as a comedian.

If you have watched his show, you know exactly his thoughts on the state of the country. And remember, I have sources who told me last week on Wednesday that part of the reason why Disney decided to take a beat and say, let's preempt the show tonight is because they felt that Jimmy Kimmel's monologue was too hot. That is the word that a source told me.

I was told that his monologue last Wednesday was going to take aim at MAGA, was going to take aim at Fox News, and on Wednesday, at least of last week, Jimmy Kimmel did not want to tone that down. And you have to keep in mind that many of his fans who agree with him don't want him to tone that down as well.

So, it will be very interesting to see what he has to say when he returns to air tomorrow.

BROWN: And we have to note that after this decision was made by Disney originally to suspend Jimmy Kimmel's show, the trends show that people were boycotting Disney. They were googling it how to do that. They were pulling their Disney subscription. Is there any indication that played a played a role in this decision?

WAGMEISTER: You know, there was mounting pressure on Disney from consumers, as you said, who said that I am going to pull my Disney+ subscription this morning. We heard Howard Stern say that he is pulling his Disney+ subscription.

There was also mounting pressure in the Hollywood community. Just this morning, the ACLU released an open letter that was signed by 400 celebrities. The biggest names in Hollywood. Everyone from Jennifer Aniston to Meryl Streep to Tom Hanks, who were standing behind Jimmy.

But in that letter, the celebrities, they were not attacking Disney in any way. In fact, Disney was not mentioned what they were attacking was silencing from the government, yet still, you have to work with the creative community in Hollywood. And no doubt was that part of their consideration.

But I have to tell you that I do not believe, based on my reporting, that it was the pressure that forced ABC and Disney in any way to do this, because what I have been hearing from day one is that Disney was hopeful that they wanted to bring back the show, that they needed to figure out a way to just tone it down and to take the temperature down in a very tense moment.

But from day one, I heard from my sources that ABC wanted to find a path forward with Jimmy. This was never intended to be a cancellation. He was never fired, despite what President Trump has said, he was not fired for ratings. He was not fired for lack of talent.

[16:05:02]

This was a temporary hiatus. While they could figure out what to do, and we didn't know at the time if that meant the show would ever come back. But at least from Disney's perspective, they were hoping to always find a path forward with Jimmy, and it appears that they were able to do so in a relatively quick amount of time.

BROWN: Right. But the criticism was that they made this decision after the FCC chair, Brendan Carr, went on a podcast with a far-right host, basically, in the view of these critics, threatening Disney ABC to do it the hard way or the easy way, the suspension happened. And I want to listen to the comments from Jimmy Kimmel that prompted all of this in the first place. Let's take a listen.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

JIMMY KIMMEL, LATE NIGHT HOST: We hit some new lows over the weekend with the MAGA gang desperately trying to characterize this kid who murdered Charlie Kirk as anything other than one of them, and doing everything they can to score political points from it. In between the finger pointing there was grieving. On Friday, the White House flew the flags at half-staff, which got some criticism. But on a human level, you can see how hard the president is taking this.

REPORTER: My condolences on the loss of your friend Charlie Kirk.

May I ask, sir, personally, how are you holding up over the last day and a half, sir?

DONALD TRUMP, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: I think very good. And by the way, right there, you see all the trucks, they just started construction of the new ballroom for the White House, which is something they've been trying to get, as you know, for about 150 years, and it's going to be a beauty.

KIMMEL: Yes. He's at the fourth stage of grief, construction.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

BROWN: All right. So that's what started all of this. And then the FCC chair went on a podcast, the Nexstar, and Sinclair decided to pull "Jimmy Kimmel Live!" and then Disney announced it was suspending the show.

I want to bring in Brian Stelter.

A lot has happened in this realm over the next -- over the last few days. Have we heard anything from Nexstar and Sinclair. For our viewers, to remind them, these are major operators of local ABC affiliates who pulled "Jimmy Kimmel Live!"

BRIAN STELTER, CNN CHIEF MEDIA ANALYST (via telephone): We have reached out to those station owners, and we have not heard back yet, but there was a moment on Friday night that might have foreshadowed this, Pam. That's when Sinclair decided not to air a Charlie Kirk memorial in Kimmel's place. You'll remember Sinclair originally said they were going to air a memorial to Kirk, and instead they ended up airing a "Celebrity Family Feud" rerun just like all the other stations. That suggests to me that Sinclair was starting to get back on the same page as ABC, but we have not heard from the companies yet.

We have heard from Charlie Kirk's friend, the former executive producer of his podcast, the spokesman for TPUSA, Andrew Kolvet, saying Disney caving and allowing Kimmel back on the air is, quote, not surprising, but it's their mistake to make. He says Nexstar and Sinclair do not have to make the same choice.

That's relevant because it shows that within MAGA media circles, there's now going to be pressure on these stations.

Look, President Trump is not going to be happy about this decision. He wasn't happy with Disney to begin with. He was thrilled to see Kimmel sidelined. So even though Kimmel is now returning, this is very much going to remain alive and contentious issue. Weirdly enough -- you know, weirdly enough, it's going to matter what the president thinks of this comedian on television.

BROWN: Right. And with that in mind, I want to bring in CNN entertainment reporter Lisa France.

So, Lisa, today was the first time that we heard from the women of "The View" on this topic. They didn't address it last week. That was something a lot of us were looking for. Today, they did. Let me play the sound from today.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

WHOOPI GOLDBERG, CO-HOST OF "THE VIEW": Did you really think we weren't going to talk about Jimmy Kimmel? I mean, have you watched the show over the last 29 seasons? Yes. So, you know, no one silences us.

ANA NAVARRO, CO-HOST OF "THE VIEW": I lived through a right-wing dictatorship in Nicaragua, Somoza. I lived through a left-wing dictatorship in Nicaragua, through -- under Ortega. This is what dictators and authoritarians do.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

BROWN: So, Lisa, remind our viewers why folks like yourself were paying close attention to how "The View" responded to this controversy.

LISA RESPERS FRANCE, CNN ENTERTAINMENT REPORTER: Well, "The View", of course, has been fairly outspoken. They've had plenty to say about this current administration. And so, when they were perceived as being silent about this, it rubbed a lot of people the wrong way. People were literally going on social media saying, how can "The View" not say anything? Is ABC making you all shut up?

Now of course we now know, thanks to Disney's statement that they wanted to lower the temperature, as Elizabeth Wagmeister pointed out, and consequently, people are now saying, okay, did they just want to take a beat before they said anything? Did they just want to be more thoughtful about it?

We don't know exactly. What was the thought process that went into it, but what we do know is that this has become so much bigger than Jimmy Kimmel or late night TV, or the conversation about ratings, late night TV, which is the conversation that was had about Stephen Colbert when we learned that his show was being canceled.

[16:10:12]

This is really had turned -- has turned into a conversation about the First Amendment right. And you've even heard from people on the right saying, this is not cool. Like, we don't want to get into a situation where there is even the perception that the government can shut someone down for what many people have been saying is just, in essence, a joke that Jimmy Kimmel. Yes, he was making comments about Charlie Kirk and about Charlie Kirk's death, his murder, but that that was a lead in into a joke.

And so, you saw a lot of people, you know, come forward and say, people on the right and on the left saying, are we getting to the point where if the president of the United States doesn't like something that you say, that you can just be shut down automatically? So, because "The View" has run afoul of the administration before with some of the things that they've said, they were like some of the main people that folks were expecting to hear from when it came to this whole situation with Jimmy Kimmel and his show being pulled off the air.

BROWN: Right. And the FCC chair, Brendan Carr, also mentioned the view as a possible target, right, after Jimmy Kimmel's show was pulled.

FRANCE: Right. And so that was again, part of the speculation. Social media had a lot to say in the past couple days about this. And they were saying, oh, is "The View" just trying to keep their show? Is that why they're not saying anything?

And as you saw, Whoopi Goldberg was letting the world know and their audience know that no one shuts them up. And did you really think that they weren't going to address this? I have to tell you, if you went on social media, there were lots of people who thought that they weren't going to address it. They thought that they were just going to remain silent because they were fearful of having their show yanked off the air.

But now we know that the conversation was had. They had plenty to say about it. And now everyone is talking about it, because now everyone is going to be waiting to see Pamela what Jimmy Kimmel says when he returns on air tomorrow night.

BROWN: Yeah, I think a lot of us are going to be looking for that. And as Elizabeth you said, he's not expected to necessarily tone it down in terms of his remarks. You had, said, Elizabeth, that anyone who knows him and knows his thinking, that's going to be the case.

And I'm wondering, you know, just last Friday, Jimmy Kimmel went to the offices of the executives involved in making this decision. And the readout from that was there was no resolution.

So, tell us more. Bring us in to these talks and what has happened between Kimmel and ABC over these last several days?

WAGMEISTER: Yes. So, as you said, Pam, on Thursday of last week, I was told by sources that Jimmy Kimmel met with top ABC and Disney executives in the offices of his lawyer in Century City here in Los Angeles, and there was no resolution. But I have been told consistently that talks between Jimmy and top ABC Disney executives, whether it was that meeting in the presence of his attorney or whether it was phone calls when determining what to do with last Wednesdays show, I have been told consistently that those talks were never contentious.

Of course, it's a very tense subject, but Jimmy Kimmel has a longstanding relationship with Disney. He has been hosting a show for over two decades. They have very close relationships that are not just professional, are also personal. So, I was told that these conversations were never overly tense. And as we see now, they clearly were just looking to find a path forward.

Now, this is not like they were consistently meeting every second of every day from last Thursday until now. In fact, I was told that they took a break over the weekend, but today, clearly whatever the talks were or the meeting was, they were able to reach a resolution. And I would imagine, although I have, since this news is breaking, I have not had time to get on the phone with all my sources. I would imagine just by looking at Disney's statement and that we see that they did condemn some of the remarks that Jimmy Kimmel did make.

I would imagine that that would be part of those conversations. What can they say in this statement, and how can they get him back? And as I said, Pam, Jimmy Kimmel, he is who he is. ABC if you look at his show over the past, however many years he has consistently been insulting President Trump, this is what he does. He has not been censored in the past on his show, really, until his show was pulled off the air by Disney. This past Wednesday.

So, I don't think that we should expect him to tone it down in any way. And as Brian Stelter said, that is going to anger the president. That is going to anger many on the right. But Disney had a decision to make, and ultimately, the decision was we are going to make someone unhappy with whatever we do. If you don't bring him back, then you have the entire Hollywood community that you have to work with being upset.

[16:15:04]

You have the left upset. As Lisa France said, this has become so much bigger than Jimmy Kimmel. This is a conversation about free speech. This is a conversation about government interfering in entertainment and in free speech.

So, you either were going to have one side upset that he didn't come back, or you're going to have another side upset that he is back. So, it's a lose-lose situation. But this is ultimately what the resolution is.

BROWN: And, Brian, I want to bring you back in because for as much as Jimmy Kimmel has been the face of all of this, this is also very much a public fight between President Trump and the head of Disney, Bob Iger, who you said -- STELTER: Yeah.

BROWN: -- this was a no win situation for him.

STELTER: Yes. He even had one of his own predecessors, Michael Eisner, publicly criticizing him. You know, Eisner, the ex-Disney CEO, said on Friday, where has all the leadership gone if corporate CEOs don't stand up against bullies, then who will?

So, you have this intense pressure on Iger, one of the best known CEOs in America, 74 years old, a man who retired and then came back to try to save Disney. A man who thought about running for president against Trump in 2020.

He's not a MAGA Republican. He's a Democratic donor. So you have Iger trying to figure out how to please everybody. And that's impossible at this moment in time.

As John Oliver said last night on HBO, Iger should go and use the only phrase that can genuinely make a weak bully go away. And that phrase, paraphrasing John Oliver, is, if you make me. That's what a lot of people on the left wanted to see from Iger. And in a way, that's what they just gained. That's what just happened.

BROWN: All right, Lisa, to wrap it up with you where does all of this go from here? And what are you looking for next?

FRANCE: I'm looking, of course, to see what, as we mentioned, Jimmy Kimmel says tomorrow night. But also, I think what we're seeing here, it almost feels like the Avengers. It feels like Hollywood came together with the left and Jimmy Kimmel's audience, and they really kind of formed in what felt unstoppable.

You know, I was talking to a friend as soon as the news broke who said, oh, we had to have known this was going to happen, with everybody saying that they were going to cancel. And also, with these major celebrities like Meryl Streep and Tom Hanks and Jennifer Aniston coming out to complain.

So, it feels like we've gotten this, this whole thing in front of what people like to refer to as the normies, the people who are not chronically online, who are now having the conversation about where this country is headed. And because of Jimmy Kimmel and because of him being pulled off air. So, who would have ever thought that late night tv would be as powerful as it is in terms of having conversations about democracy? But that's exactly where we are right now.

BROWN: It certainly is. All right. Thank you so much.

All right, everyone, stand by. My panel is here. I want to bring in the folks here at the table with me. We have "New York Times" journalist and podcast host, Lulu Garcia-Navarro; CNN Washington bureau chief and political director, David Chalian; former senior policy advisor in the Obama White House, Ashley Allison; and former Michigan Republican congressman, Peter Meijer. And on the left side of your screen, you're going to see our ARENA

text chain. That's where we're going to share additional analysis from some of our key political contributors.

And also, we have Meg Tirrell joining the conversation we're going to have later when it comes to the White House announcement on Tylenol and pregnancy and autism.

A lot to get to right now. Let's start here with Jimmy Kimmel.

David Chalian, how are you seeing this?

DAVID CHALIAN, CNN WASHINGTON BUREAU CHIEF AND POLITICAL DIRECTOR: Well, I -- there's no doubt that this is going to get under the president's skin. So, the political reverberations of this are going to continue back and forth. I do think, you know, what Brian said about Bob Iger and the position he is, I mean, first and foremost, this is a business story and how Disney came to the conclusion to turn around, and whether or not that was due to political pressure, or whether or not it was a purely sort of like financial decision they saw, I think the reporting will bear that out.

Here's what is important to note. When Jimmy Kimmel was pulled off the air, for people on the left, it was like -- it was a real watershed moment. There was a real -- it felt like there were all these data points. When I was talking to sources on the left that had been building throughout Trump's term in this space, in the freedom of speech space, in the democracy, space, and that for some reason, this shook Democrats to the core, as a -- as a galvanizing moment.

And I think you see that that was received by the company clearly, and what we're seeing here. On the right, I think that you, you know, you saw what Brendan Carr was trying to accomplish. You saw backfire with his own party, right? Ted Cruz coming out and saying he should have no involvement in this.

[16:20:03]

You know, nobody was out there on the right defending Jimmy Kimmel or saying his comments were totally appropriate, but they were saying, this is not a place for government to get involved. And so, Donald Trump's coalition was starting to split on this, and the Democrats were wholly unified in real concern. So, it left sort of Disney on an odd island that I think they're trying to course correct now.

BROWN: All right. Thank you all so much. We're going to continue the conversation right after a quick break.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

BROWN: My panel is back for more on the return of Jimmy Kimmel to late night. We are also standing by to hear from the White House with an announcement on autism.

[16:25:02] The White House standing by with Attorney General Pam Bondi today, after the president publicly directed Bondi to target his perceived enemies in a social media post. Over the weekend, he, as you know, he said that he needed to do more to prosecute his political foes and then he deleted that. And then, as we know, he went on to praise Pam Bondi. So that's happening as well. All of this, of course, is going to be asked of the president today at this event.

There is a lot going on and back with my panel.

So, let's go back to "Jimmy Kimmel Live!" We were talking during the break, and you had some really interesting thoughts on this, Lulu.

LULU GARCIA-NAVARRO, CNN CONTRIBUTOR: Yeah. I have -- I have two thoughts on this, which is, first, I do think the president, and the FCC director overplayed their hand because what has happened here is that you have galvanized people who really are not that invested in media.

And the way that we talk about this is like leftists, rightists, but a lot of people are in the middle and they kind of know Jimmy Kimmel and they kind of just might see clips of him talking to celebrities, and they don't really think about him beyond that. And so, him getting yanked off the air in this moment and the reaction to that has been galvanizing to a lot of people who are very concerned about where this country is going and what the government is doing. So that's my first thought.

My other thought is that this is, I think, the death knell for mass media. I think what this shows is that you cannot anymore try and service a wide audience. Our country is simply too divided and people are going to different places to consume different media. And so Jimmy Kimmel, and the people that like Jimmy Kimmel and watched Jimmy Kimmel we know that they're majority Democrats. There might be some Republicans there, there might be some independents, but a lot of them are Democrats.

And so, they're going to be mad if you take Jimmy Kimmel off the air. Taking Jimmy Kimmel off the air isn't going to get you Republicans. They're not going to come over and suddenly say, hey, we're going to watch Jimmy Kimmel. And so, I think there's a bigger conversation to be had at this moment about what we think about when we think about mass media.

BROWN: What do you think?

PETER MEIJER (R), FORMER MICHIGAN CONGRESSMAN: No, I mean, I'm really trying to plumb the depths of my profound indifference for Jimmy Kimmel's career here. But to your point on the echo chambers, that's very real. And this was what got Jimmy Kimmel in this problem in the first place.

He was reiterating a lie, and it is a lie that the assassin of Charlie Kirk was motivated by right of center beliefs. One in three Democrats believe that.

CHALIAN: I don't know if that's actually what he was saying. No, I don't think that's what he was saying.

BROWN: That's not what he was saying, that they were trying to score political points.

MEIJER: But by saying it was anyone other than what it was. And again, if that was occurring in a vacuum, if you didn't have Democratic elected officials repeating that same lie, if you didn't have one in three Democrats believing that same lie, I do not think this would have that salience.

And that is the problem with the echo chambers is, all of a sudden, you find anything to blame? Everybody outside of your network, right? I do not remember the last time on any of the broadcast cable -- or excuse me, broadcast late night shows. There was a Republican elected representative. They go on Bill Maher.

But for the Democratic elected officials, it's a rite of passage. That's why they're wearing the baseball cap.

GARCIA-NAVARRO: Maybe they're not getting -- I mean, they might be invited, but they don't come. I mean, there's something to be said for that, too, as someone who runs a podcast, you know, you can you can extend invitations and sometimes, you know, they want to service their base.

BROWN: And I think we're getting really in the -- I want to hear what you have to say, but I also just want to take a step back and look at the bigger picture here and the timeline of events, because you had the FCC chair, Brendan Carr, come on this podcast and say, you know, you can do this the easy way or the hard way when it comes to pulling Jimmy Kimmel show. And then you saw this domino effect. Nexstar and Sinclair pulled the show. Disney announcing it.

We actually have the sound from Carr. So let's listen to that and talk on the other end of it.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

BRENDAN CARR, FCC CHAIRMAN: License granted by us at the FCC, and that comes with it. An obligation to operate in the public interest, and we can get into some ways that we've been trying to reinvigorate the public interest. And some changes that we've seen.

But frankly, when you see stuff like this, I mean, look, we can do this the easy way or the hard way. These companies can find ways to change conduct, to take action, frankly on Kimmel or, you know, there's going to be additional work for the FCC ahead.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

BROWN: So, so just on the larger issue of free speech, are you comfortable with how this played out?

MEIJER: I don't like jawboning. I don't like that the FCC has these powers. Now, my problem is I would love to see a Democrat stand up and say, yes, the government shouldn't have these powers. Let's defang the FCC. Let's do something about these broadcast monopolies.

But instead, it's okay, we hate this when the other side is doing it, but we're taking notes and we're back in charge. We'll be able to use those same levers.

ASHLEY ALLISON, CNN POLITICAL COMMENTATOR: I think that there are a couple things that happen. One, there's the public interest argument, and it's like, who gets to determine what the public's interest actually is? And I didn't really hear that discussed a lot when this was the public interest is free speech, in my opinion.

And his comments about the hard way or not -- that did not indicate that the public interest was actually at the forefront of his mind. But it was a -- it was a political win.

[16:30:03]

And I think that's actually why you did see some Republicans, whether they're Republicans, that went on. Jimmy Kimmel or not, say, well, this might be a bridge too far. I think there's also an assumption of his viewership.

I agree that, like, we might the mass media might be over, perhaps. I don't know, but there's a lot of people that are just laying in bed watching Jimmy Kimmel, whether they're really paying attention to it or not. And some of them are Republicans and some of them are Democrats, and they may be watching and disagreeing with everything he says. But that is something that actually is a part of this adrenaline dopamine hit is that in mass media right now is why we swipe so much is like, you actually need a charge of something.

But last week when this happened, all of my Republican friends on this network told me this was a business decision. This happened because Sinclair affiliates were saying that their folks did not want to watch Jimmy Kimmel. Well, I was reading reports this weekend that Disney lost $4 billion. Whether it was in shares, whether it was because there was an effort by folks on the left to get people to cancel their subscription.

And I would argue perhaps Disney also saw that as a business decision and that they might have went -- the pendulum may have swung too far. Voters get -- presidents should not determine what people are saying and what people are not saying, but voters get determine how they spend their dollars, how they select their subscriptions and what they watch. And I think that this was a win for the left. And the voters spoke.

MEIJER: Lose tens of millions and show production costs, not revenue or billions in market share. I mean, it ends up being a decision.

ALLISON: It is. And they made the decision that they would rather have Jimmy Kimmel on than not.

BROWN: All right, everyone, stand by. We're waiting for this big announcement at the White House on autism. We're going to be right back. Stay with us. (COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[16:36:10]

BROWN: We are following the breaking news. Jimmy Kimmel's return to late night tomorrow night, and we're also standing by to hear from the president at the White House with an announcement on autism.

Joining us now is Democratic congressman from Maryland, Jamie Raskin. He is the ranking member on the House Judiciary Committee.

Congressman, thank you for coming on.

So, before we get to the other topics, I just want to get your reaction to this news that Jimmy Kimmel will be returning to TV tomorrow night. What do you think?

REP. JAMIE RASKIN (D-MD): Well, it's great news. Obviously. ABC heard from millions and millions of people out there who do not want to accept government dictated censorship of their late-night talk show host.

And so, the free speech battle is not over. Obviously, Donald Trump still thinks he's got the power to anoint and appoint comedians in the country in private media broadcasts. But at least ABC is on the right side now, and he's got his employer with him, as well as so much of the public.

BROWN: I mentioned this story earlier in the show. The president's post on Truth Social over the weekend, publicly ordering his attorney general to go after his perceived political enemies. The president explicitly named Adam Schiff as a target who led Trump's first impeachment trial.

You served as the lead impeachment manager for the second Trump impeachment trial. How worried are you that the president will direct Bondi to prosecute you, prosecute you next?

RASKIN: Well, look, I'm just worried about the country moving into a posture where the president of the United States identifies people that he wants federal prosecutors to indict. That's not how our criminal justice system works. I mean, there are U.S. attorneys like the one in the eastern district of Virginia, who are being forced out of their jobs right now simply because they're saying, no, there's not enough probable cause to bring a case that the president wants them to bring. And these are Republicans who are being forced out.

So that's an outrageous violation of due process. And it's also a violation of the first amendment, because what its saying is the president will use the apparatus of criminal justice enforcement in America to attack people in a vindictive way with selective prosecutions, simply because the president doesn't like them.

BROWN: Is the president breaking any laws by directing Pam Bondi to prosecute his perceived enemies? RASKIN: Well, he's completely sabotaging any prosecution that might

actually result because it's very clear it is a vindictive prosecution. It is a selective prosecution, and its not based on probable cause, especially if he has to oust a U.S. attorney, as with Mr. Siebert in Virginia, because that person says there's not enough probable cause. Then he installs someone in their place, and then suddenly they find probable cause.

But, I mean, we've seen this, like with Mayor Adams in New York, Mayor Adams actually had a grand jury indictment against him for bribery and corruption offenses. And then the and then President Trump forced the Department of Justice to rewind the whole process to get that revoked. So, he wants to decide who will be prosecuted and who will not be prosecuted. And it's all based on his political loyalties and his political friendships.

BROWN: All right. I also want to ask you about this new reporting from MSNBC and "The New York Times" about how Tom Homan, now the president's border czar, was recorded last year accepting a bag with $50,000 in cash by undercover FBI agents. The Trump Justice Department later closed that investigation. Homan denies any wrongdoing, and a White House spokesman called the case, quote, a blatantly political investigation and that the Biden administration was using its resources to target President Trump's allies rather than investigate real criminals and the millions of illegal aliens who flooded our country.

What is your response to this report and the White House's statement there?

[16:40:00]

RASKIN: I mean, the administration cover-up of this is just pathetic. This is a situation where the Department of Justice was investigating someone else, and then someone came forward and said, you know, that this guy, Tom Homan is engaged in acts of bribery. So then they set up FBI agents to go in to pose as corrupt businessmen. And he was willing to accept a bag of cash, a Cava bag of $50,000 in order in return for promising to give them business once Trump was elected president.

So, apparently, they have videotape and audio tape covering this. And they didn't bring a prosecution then because he wasn't a government official at the time. And so, they wanted to wait until he was a government official to see if he would actually deliver on the promised contracts. And then the Department of Justice and FBI under Trump, under Bondi and Patel, decided just to quash the whole indictment, quash -- rather quash the whole investigation and not indict him for these offenses. And that, again, is an utterly political deployment of the law enforcement system of the United States.

BROWN: Well, then DOJ has made it clear it's not going to pursue this any further. But you're part of the House Judiciary Committee, which oversees the DOJ and DHS. What can Democrats on the committee do here to try to hear or see those tapes that you just mentioned? RASKIN: Well, I hope it's not just Democrats. I hope its Democrats and

Republicans together saying if we've got people who are purporting to sell government contracts before they get into office and accepting $50,000 in cold cash in a Cava bag that all of us want the truth to come out about that.

So, we want that videotape if it exists, and that audio tape if it exists. And apparently, they do. We want those released to the public if there is no crime, and they really think that the whole thing should be quashed, then they should not be afraid of showing that to the public.

But a lot of us smell a rat here and believe that this is an attempt to cover up for yet another criminal offense associated with somebody in the Trump administration.

BROWN: Very quickly. Have you talked to your talked to your Republican counterparts about issuing a subpoena for that tape?

RASKIN: Well, this came out since we left. So, I've not spoken directly to any of them about it. I've certainly spoken to Democratic colleagues about it who are absolutely outraged that that somebody could get away with taking cash bribes for government contracts and that the FBI director would think there's no problem with that. So, we would like all of the information released to the public. So, the American people can decide.

BROWN: Congressman Jamie Raskin, thank you so much.

RASKIN: You bet.

BROWN: And we have some live pictures here from the White House. We're standing by for an announcement from President Trump on autism.

Let me bring back in CNN medical correspondent Meg Tirrell.

Meg, what do we expect to hear today? And how does that line up with the science?

MEG TIRRELL, CNN MEDICAL CORRESPONDENT: Yeah, Pamela, we're expecting for multiple reports that the administration is going to talk about a link between the use of Tylenol or acetaminophen during pregnancy and autism. They also may separately talk about a drug called leucovorin, which is already approved, essentially to mitigate the side effects of chemotherapy. But they may talk about this as a potential therapy for children with autism.

Now, on the Tylenol front, this is something that has been studied for more than a decade, and scientists have told us they are sort of worried about how strong a warning may be put out there from the Trump administration on this, because they say the data don't support a causative effect between use of Tylenol and pregnancy and autism. There have been so many studies on this, and they've come to different conclusions. One that just was a collection of about 46 prior studies essentially said there was a potential link, but they couldn't prove causation. And the takeaway from the authors of this study was that Tylenol should be used in the smallest possible doses, in consultation with a physician.

And we should note that's something that is the general recommendation during pregnancy. And really using any pain relievers in general, use the smallest possible dose, use it in moderation and especially during pregnancy. Talk with your doctor.

BROWN: And we're just waiting for the president to show up any moment now. But just you mentioned the one looking at the 46 studies, but wasn't there also that study out of Sweden last year that showed there wasn't a link between autism and Tylenol in pregnancy?

TIRRELL: That's right. And that was a very big study. And it's pretty widely respected from a lot of the experts we've heard about. And one of the things people like about that study is it included an analysis looking at siblings. And the reason that that's helpful is because that can provide you a little bit more data about similarities in genetics and surroundings, potential environmental factors.

[16:45:02]

And so, when you compared siblings and you looked at the effect of Tylenol during pregnancy, the researchers said any association went away. And so, there are a lot of questions about are there associations? Are there not associations? And certainly, no scientists we've talked to have said there is a proven causative link between Tylenol and pregnancy and autism.

BROWN: All right. Thanks so much, Meg.

And again, we're waiting for President Trump.

We also have with us, Dr. Kameelah Phillips. She is a board-certified OB-GYN and the founder of Calla Women's Health.

So, first of all, what do you tell pregnant women now about Tylenol use. And do you think -- do you expect to hear anything from the White House today that might change that recommendation?

DR. KAMEELAH PHILLIPS, FOUNDER, CALLA WOMEN'S HEALTH: Thank you for having me at this time, I am advising all of my pregnant women to feel safe with the use of Tylenol as a pain reliever. It is our first option for women who are seeking pain relief or when they're managing fevers. So, despite what the president may or may not say at this time, my recommendations are going to remain the same.

BROWN: And what about how much use or when women pregnant women should use Tylenol, depending on what trimester they're in?

PHILLIPS: Uh-huh. So right now, we use Tylenol in the first, second and third trimester. But as was previously stated, with any medicine you want to use it, the lowest dose for the shortest amount of time. So those will continue to be my recommendations.

BROWN: And I'm going to interrupt. We see President Trump walking up to the podium. So let's listen in.

PHILLIPS: Thank you.

DONALD TRUMP, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: So, I've been waiting for this meeting for 20 years actually. And it's not that everything's 100 percent understood or known, but I think we've made a lot of strides. I wish it was done a long time ago.

Today, we're delighted to be joined by America's top medical and public health professionals as we announce historic steps to confront the crisis of autism. Horrible, horrible crisis. I want to thank the man who brought this issue to the forefront of American politics, along with me, and we actually met in my office -- is it like 20 years ago, Bobby? It's probably 20 years ago in New York. I was a developer, as you probably heard, and I always had very strong feelings about autism and how it happened and where it came from.

And he and I -- I don't know, the word got out and I wouldn't say that people were very understanding of where we were, but it's turning out that we understood a lot more than a lot of people who studied it. We think and I say we think because I don't think they were really letting the public know what they knew.

Thanks as well to the director of the national institute of health, Dr. J. Bhattacharya, FDA commissioner, Dr. Marty Makary. These are great people. Administrator of the centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, Dr. Mehmet Oz, and acting assistant secretary of HHSs, Dr. Dorothy Fink.

So, thank you all. Thank you, Dorothy, very much. The meteoric rise in autism is among the most alarming public health developments in history. There has never been anything like this.

Just a few decades ago, one in 10,000 children had autism. So that's not a long time. And I've always heard, you know, they say a few, but I think it's a lot less time than that. It used to be one in 20,000. Then one in 10,000. And I would say that's probably 18 years ago.

And now, it's one in 31. But in some areas, it's much worse than that, if you can believe it, one in 31 and I gave the numbers yesterday for boys, it's one in 12. I was told that's in California where they have a for some reason, a more severe problem. But whether it's one in 12 or one in 31, can you imagine that's down from one in 20,000 and one in 10,000. And now, we're at the level of one in 12 in some cases for boys, one in 31 overall.

So, since 2000, autism rates have surged by much more than 400 percent. Instead of attacking those who ask questions, everyone should be grateful for those who are trying to get the answers to this complex situation. And the first day, all of these great doctors behind me were there. I told them, this is what we got.

We have to find out, because when you go from 20,000 to 10,000 and then you go to 12, you know, there's something artificial. They're taking something. And by the way, I think I can say that there are certain groups of people that don't take vaccines and don't take any pills that have no autism, that have no autism.

Does that tell you something? That's currently -- is that a correct statement, by the way?

ROBERT F. KENNEDY, JR., HHS SECRETARY: There are some studies that suggest that, yeah, with the Amish, for example.

TRUMP: The Amish. Yeah, virtually. I hear. No, I heard none. See, Bobby wants to be very careful with what he says, and he should, but I'm not so careful with what I say.

But you have certain groups, the Amish, as an example. They have essentially no autism.

First, effective immediately, the FDA will be notifying physicians that the use of aceto -- well, let's see how we say that. Acetaminophen. Is that okay? Which is basically commonly known as Tylenol during pregnancy can be associated with a very increased risk of autism.

So, taking Tylenol is not good. I'll say it. It's not good.

For this reason, they are strongly recommending that women limit Tylenol use during pregnancy unless medically necessary. That's for instance, in cases of extremely high fever that you feel you can't tough it out, you can't do it. I guess there's that. It's a small number of cases, I think.

But if you can't tough it out, if you can't do it, that's what you're going to have to do. You'll take a Tylenol, but it will be very sparingly. Can be something that's very dangerous to the woman's health. In other words, a fever that's very, very dangerous.

And ideally, a doctor's decision, because I think you shouldn't take it and you shouldn't take it during the entire pregnancy. They may tell you that toward the end of the pregnancy, you shouldn't take it during the entire. And you shouldn't give the child a Tylenol every time he goes, he's born and he goes and has a shot. You shouldn't give a Tylenol to that child.

All pregnant women should talk to their doctors. For more information about limiting the use of this medication while pregnant. So ideally, you don't take it at all. But if you have to, if you can't tough it out, or if there's a problem, you're going to end up doing it.

The other thing that I can tell you that I'll say that they will maybe say a little bit later date. But I think when you go for the shot, you do it over a five-time period, take it over five times or four times, but you take it in smaller doses and you spread it out over a period of years. And they pumped so much stuff into those beautiful little babies. It's a disgrace.

I don't see it, I don't -- I think it has. I think it's very bad. They're pumping. It looks like they're pumping into a horse. You have a little child, little fragile child, and you get a vat of 80 different vaccines. I guess 80 different blends, and they pump it in.

So ideally a woman won't take Tylenol. And on the vaccines, it would be good. Instead of one visit where they pump the baby, load it up with stuff, you'll do it over a period of four times or five times. I was -- I mean, I've been so into this issue for so many years just because I couldn't understand how a thing like this could happen.

And, you know, it's artificially induced. It's not like something that when you when you go from all of those, you know, healthy babies to a point where I don't even know structurally if a country can afford it. And that's the least of the problems to have families destroyed over. This is just so, so terrible.

I also and we've already done this. We want no mercury in the vaccine. We want no aluminum in the vaccine. The MMR, I think, should be taken separately. This is based on what I feel the mumps, measles and all the three should be taken separately.

And it seems to be that when you mix them, there could be a problem. So, there's no downside in taking them separately. In fact, they think it's better. So let it be separate.

The chickenpox is already separate, because when that got mixed in, I guess they made it for, for a while. It really was bad. So, they make chickenpox. Individually, they're okay when you mix them something maybe happens.

So, there's no downside in doing it. It's not like, oh, if you do it, bad things.

[16:55:00]

No, it's only good side. And it may not have that much of an impact, but it may have a big impact. So let those be taken separately.

And then hepatitis B is sexually transmitted. There's no reason to give a baby that's almost just born hepatitis B. So, I would say wait until the baby is 12 years old and formed and take hepatitis B. And I think if you do those things, it's going to be a whole different. It's going to be a revolution in a positive sense in the country.

The FDA will be updating the label of an existing drug to reflect potential benefits in reducing some autism symptoms. This gives hope to the many parents with autistic children that it may be possible to improve their lives. That's one of the things that I'm very, very happy about.

I mean, this was mostly going to be on how not to have the child affected, but we've learned some pretty good things about certain elements of genius that can be given to a baby and the baby can get better. And in some cases may be substantially better.

Not going to be easy, but, be a lot easier if it didn't happen in the first place. As these great parents fully understand, right? They fully understand feel so terribly. For I have so many friends with autistic children. It's -- it's just -- it's a tough situation.

Finally, to help reach the ultimate goal of ending the autism fever, the NIH will be announcing 13 major grant awards from the autism data science initiatives. And to be honest with you, to me, that's the least important. It's not even a money thing at this point.

There's so much money, but they have to do and they have to move quickly. They when the alternative is that nothing bad can happen. Let's do it now. I was just saying to Bobby and the group, lets do it now. Nothing bad can happen. It can only good happen.

But with Tylenol, don't take it, don't take it. And if you can't live, if your fever is so bad, you have to take one because there's no alternative to that. Sadly. First question what can you take instead? It's actually there's not an alternative to that. And as you know, other -- other of the medicines are absolutely proven bad. I mean, they've been proven bad with the aspirins and the Advil and others, right? And they've been proven bad.

So , I'd like to ask Bobby to get up to the podium and say a few words, and then Dr. Bhattacharya, and Dr. Makary, Dr, Oz, Dr. Fink, followed by two incredible mothers that have experienced firsthand what this country is going through, what parts of the world are going through.

And I will say, there are parts of the world that don't take Tylenol. I mean, there's a rumor and I don't know if it's so or not that Cuba, they don't have Tylenol because they don't have the money for Tylenol. And they have virtually no autism. Okay? Tell me about that one.

And there are other parts of the world where they don't have Tylenol, where they don't have autism. That tells you a lot. And I want to say it right now. And, you know, the way I look at it, don't take it, don't take it. There's no downside in not taking it.

So, I'd like to ask Bobby to come up and say a few words. I hope I didn't ruin his day, but that's the way I feel. I've been very strong on this subject for a long time. You know, life is common sense, too. And there's a lot of common sense in this.

And I wish things like this were brought up. And this group has worked so hard on it. But I'd like to be a little bit more a little speedier in the process of a recommendation, because there's no harm in going quicker. There's absolutely no harm. At worst, there's no harm. Thank you very much.

Bobby, please?

KENNEDY: Thank you, Mr. President.

To meet the president's challenge, I ordered HHS to launch an unprecedented, all agency effort to identify all causes of autism, including toxic and pharmaceutical exposures. At President Trump's urging, NIH, FDA, CDC, and CMS are turning over every stone to identify the etiology of the autism epidemic and how patients and parents can prevent and reverse this alarming trend.

We have broken down the traditional silos that have long separated these agencies, and we have fast-tracked research and guidance.

Historically, NIH has focused almost solely on politically safe and entirely fruitless research about the genetic drivers of autism. And that would be like studying the genetic drivers of lung cancer without looking at cigarettes. And that's what NIH has been doing for 20 years.