Return to Transcripts main page

The Lead with Jake Tapper

Trump Delays Auto Tariffs on Mexico and Canada for One Month; Supreme Court Rejects Trump's Foreign Aid Freeze; Top Democrats Chide Their Colleagues' Antics at Trump Speech. Trump's NIH Pick Says He Wants To Study Measles Vaccine And Autism Despite Extensive Research Showing No Link. Aired 6-7p ET

Aired March 05, 2025 - 18:00   ET

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

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[18:00:00]

PHIL MATTINGLY, CNN ANCHOR: Welcome to The Lead, I'm Phil Mattingly in for Jake Tapper.

This hour, a flurry of new announcements about tariffs from the White House just hours after President Trump admitted you can feel a, quote, disturbance because of his economic plans.

Plus, we're live in the Motor City talking with the autoworkers who help power the U.S. economy. What they want you to know about the impact those tariffs could have on crucial American jobs.

And why the man nominated for one of the United States top health roles says he wants to investigate links between the measles vaccine and autism, despite research showing which links don't actually exist.

Our Lead tonight, whiplash from President Trump's back and forth on tariff policy. I want to go straight to CNN's Jeff Zeleny at the White House. Jeff, what is the latest, because it has been a wild 36 hours?

JEFF ZELENY, CNN CHIEF NATIONAL AFFAIRS CORRESPONDENT: Phil, it has. I mean, President Trump often talks about tariffs, but he's often talked out of imposing them, and that is exactly what happened again today, at least for a sliver of the industry.

The big three automakers have been reaching out to the White House in a series of phone calls, both with staff and the president himself. Yesterday, again this morning, and they convinced the president to give them a one month reprieve on these tariffs that the president has imposed on Canada and Mexico and China as well. They argue that it was an unfair competitive advantage to them because their European competitors did not have those tariffs. The Asian ones did not either.

But, of course, the stock market also played a key part in this. It's a metric the president watches very carefully. As we know, we've seen it fall all week. And when he made his announcement today, it went up. The White House had this to say about that. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

KAROLINE LEAVITT, WHITE HOUSE PRESS SECRETARY: For folks on Wall Street who may be concerned, look at what this president did for you in his first term. Wall Street boomed, stock market boomed. The president expects that to happen again, but most importantly, Main Street is going to boom. And that's why the president has this whole of government economic approach, which includes tax cuts, tariffs, regulation cuts, and an energy industry that will bring down costs for American consumers.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

ZELENY: So, this economy right now is not the economy from eight years ago, the first Trump administration. There is no question about that. However, the White House press secretary, Karoline Leavitt, also leaving open the door to other exemptions that the president might carve out.

So, Phil, that really is the central question here. How much of these tariffs will be imposed? How much of them will sort of be paused on? But in a conversation, a different phone call with the Canadian prime minister, Justin Trudeau, it was friendlier than their previous conversations, but the president did not offer any exemptions for the broader tariffs there. He has a call scheduled tomorrow with the president of Mexico. Phil?

MATTINGLY: Friendlier, but not good enough. We'll see what about that next call. Jeff Zeleny, thanks so much.

I want to go straight to CNN's Manu Raju on Capitol Hill. Manu, Republicans traditionally, ideologically, not huge fans of tariffs. What are you hearing from lawmakers, House and Senate on the Republican side?

MANU RAJU, CNN ANCHOR AND CHIEF CONGRESSIONAL CORRESPONDENT: Yes, a lot of unease, Phil. You're absolutely right. This is a party that has large -- in large matter, supported free trade agreements for so many years, but then came Donald Trump, and that has scrambled the entire calculus.

A lot of Republicans are concerned about this lasting for some time, are pushing for exemptions on their own, and are hoping Donald Trump will at least move forward with these on a temporary basis. Because some, including in states like South Dakota, believe that this could have a significant and disruptive impact on their economy.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

RAJU: What kind of impact would that have on South Dakota?

REP. DUSTY JOHNSON (R-SD): Well, in the short term it could be really disruptive. But keep in mind, there are a lot of these markets that have been enclosed to American goods. Right now, South Dakota, the old South Dakota, we sell $7 billion a year of manufactured and agricultural goods. That's $7,700 per year per South Dakotan. That is pretty powerful. That number could be a lot higher, but it's not going to be a lot higher if we don't get market access.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

RAJU: And Dusty Johnson hails from the state, the Senate majority leader, John Thune also hails from, South Dakota. And Thune himself has told me yesterday that he is in a different place than the Trump administration is on this issue.

But, Phil, he is willing to give the Trump administration some space to move ahead. The question is how much space, especially if these drag on.

MATTINGLY: Yes. And, Manu, Elon Musk about to meet with House Republicans on Capitol Hill. Musk met with GOP senators earlier. A lot of senators and I think House members saying quietly, we'd really like to know more about what you're doing. Could you please tell us? Was that the message today?

RAJU: Essentially, yes. In the Senate meeting, in fact, that Elon Musk gave out his personal cell phone number to the Republican senators saying, call me with any issues, and that was part of the issue here. They wanted to increase communication, but there's also a push among the Republican senators to have actually votes on those cuts that are coming by DOGE. And we're told that Elon Musk was open to that idea of actually having a vote in the Senate.

[18:05:01]

Now, he's also having this meeting in the next hour with House Republicans, and some Republicans who have been facing some heat, like Congressman Rich McCormick of Georgia, about these cuts said he has some advice for Elon Musk.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

REP. RICH MCCORMICK (R-GA): If he just takes a half step back, we'll do something that I think can be compassionate, at the same time something that's impactful when it comes to saving America's money. It's a hard earned and hard spent.

RAJU: What do you mean half step back?

MCCORMICK: We -- he's admitted to things. He said look, we've done some things wrong, but we're learning.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

RAJU: And we'll see how Musk ultimately takes that message when he meets with Republican members here.

But, Phil, I can tell you that House and Senate Republicans, there's an increasing sentiment that there should be at least some level of vote in their chambers so they can have some buy in the process, and perhaps it can withstand court scrutiny, especially in the aftermath of the Supreme Court's decision today to essentially halt the effort to gut funding that's been good as being pushed through USAID. MATTINGLY: Yes, it's just like an Article I, Article II thing, I think, as well.

Manu Raju, as always, I appreciate the great reporting.

Well, joining us now, Montana Republican Congressman Ryan Zinke. He's on the Foreign Affairs Committee. Congressman, I really appreciate you coming in.

I want to start on tariffs because, you know, Manu makes a great point about the Republican Party's changed on tariffs when it comes to -- Donald Trump has reshaped trade in the Republican Party, not necessarily entirely. You still see some reticence to going all the way where he is. But for someone like you who comes from Montana, a place with obviously on the ag side, but also I think Montana in 2024 exported $869 million in goods to Canada. It's 37 percent of the state's total goods exports. It's according to the U.S. trade representative. These are serious and sweeping tariffs.

REP. RYAN ZINKE (R-MT): And I would say it's higher than that. You know, we get a lot of our fuel accrued from Canada, and it hurts Montana probably more than anyone else. But what were the tariffs objectives? One is joint patrols.

And I was with Tom Homan. He said, look, Canada, ten times more people on the tariffs watch list come from our northern border than our southern border. And we want to patrol our northern border jointly. And Tom gave a list to the Canadians. They went through it and they didn't agree to everything. I think they're a lot closer.

But on certain things with Montana on energy, you know, we have refineries in the north. All that crude stock is coming one way from Canada down to Montana, and that's where refineries, and there's no other options.

So, you know, one thing about tariffs with President Trump, now views it as a personal negotiation tool. And he puts a wide umbrella out first, and then you see him begin to narrow it as they get closer.

So, I think the hope is that tariffs are short lived and produce an objective.

MATTINGLY: The president has made clear that on April 2nd, he'll be imposing reciprocal tariffs, which, as far as we know at this point, aren't going to have carve outs, and obviously those will differ by country based on what their barriers are, both on the tariff side, but also potentially on tax and other nontariff barriers that they have in place.

The question I had, I was in Montana during the first Trump term reporting on farmers who were watching markets get closed off. And people who are purchasing their products traditionally were just going elsewhere if they didn't have access or if they were dealing with tariff issues. Are you hearing that concern from farmers in your state right now? ZINKE: Well, the farmers on tariffs let's say with China, you know, we send a lot of our grains, a lot of our pulse crops to China, India, and we don't have access to markets. Then, look, this is unfair. We want free trade, but we also want fair trade.

But over the course of time, you have timber, and we saw Trump relax it on the big three, the big autos, right? So we've seen him do a broad stroke at first, and then he narrows it down to a point until that negotiation is done. I'm pretty confident that both sides, long- term, would agree that tariffs are not good for the economy. But let's get back to fair and free trade, and we also have to make sure our borders, both south and north, are secure.

MATTINGLY: And do you think Montanans are willing to take maybe a short-term disruption or a brief pain?

ZINKE: Yes, but Montana's also, you know, on immigration and illegal immigration. You know, Montana's a big state. It's about the same size as Washington, D.C. to Chicago, plus two miles. Big state, you know, not a lot of border wall up there. But when you have ten times the amount of people on the terrorist watch list coming from the north down, and some of the issue is on our side, our agents are armed, as they should be. On the Canadian side, not always. But if we're in hot pursuit of an individual that we want to apprehend and he goes into Canada on hot pursuit, we want to make sure we have protections of our officers too, even on joint patrols.

There are some details that we're working back and forth.

[18:10:00]

I'm hopeful that both sides consider this. This is serious, and President Trump is serious.

MATTINGLY: You heard Manu's reporting about Elon. I'm sure you're happy to be here instead of having Manu chase you through the hallway.

ZINKE: I'll be there shortly.

MATTINGLY: I know you're heading back. You are a retired Navy SEAL. You are a veteran. There is -- we've got reporting today that there have been proposals of cutting the V.A. by 70, 000 workers, there's been significant cuts proposed to the V.A., there's been significant cuts implemented at the V.A. Given the scale of veterans care, the need for veterans care in places that aren't necessarily in D.C., aren't in big cities, are you concerned about how aggressive things have been up to this point?

ZINKE: Well, what I like about it is, look, you know, I've been a secretary, I've been in Congress, I knew there were problems, I just didn't have the tools to look and get line items. When you see things like we're funding transgender clinics in India, and the list goes on and on --

MATTINGLY: What does that have to do with the V.A. then? ZINKE: Well, I say is when you're funding in V.A. and you look at the scale, so the cuts. So, the cuts on -- what cuts they were, or were they prudent? You know, I went through reorganization interior and how I did it is the art is you look at it and you reorganize.

Everyone will say that there are people in the V.A. that are not providing the service that's intended to provide. And V.A. went from $80 billion to $500 billion as amount. And we do need to reorganize a little. Reorganization means structure. But the cut blindly, you know, causes disruption.

MATTINGLY: Right.

ZINKE: And what we're seeing, you know, in the forest service and other areas is initially a big, broad, you know, net, right? And we see relaxation of seasonal workers. We see relaxation of key workers. What I always advocate is before you cut, it's like -- you know, you mentioned I'm a naval officer. Well, on a nuclear power plant or a nuclear submarine, you don't want to be flipping switches or turning valves unless you know what they are and you want to know what they do. So, when you turn a valve or flip a switch, you don't notice, it may have unintended consequences.

And that's what we're seeing here. We have some unintended consequences of real people. These are real people, real families. They just kind of want to go to work every day. And they get caught up in the politics a little. And I think we have to be careful to make sure we're doing the right thing.

MATTINGLY: Will you deliver that message to Mr. Musk tonight?

ZINKE: Oh, absolutely. But I really appreciate his ability with him and his team to expose. There's three parts. There's exposing it. And the second part is you got to confirm it. And then if you confirm that there is that amount of fraud, waste, and abuse.

And, look, we can debate, you know, whether, you know, projects are worthy or not of taxpayer dollars.

MATTINGLY: That's your job, technically.

ZINKE: Right, but there should be no debate about whether they're fraudulent, whether they're wasteful, whether they're abusive. That we all should share in making sure we identify it. But, again, three steps. You got to identify it, which he's identified a lot. Let's confirm it. And the last step, and most importantly, let's make sure we take action to make sure it doesn't happen again. In some cases, reorganize.

MATTINGLY: Yes. And I think the fulsomeness of step two right now would help clear the way for step three. And I think that's where --

ZINKE: And that would be a discussion because, you know, the budget's coming up and you say, oh, we have all these savings.

MATTINGLY: Yes. ZINKE: Well, we want to make sure that savings are monetized and confirmed before you make an action.

MATTINGLY: Keep us posted.

ZINKE: Absolutely.

MATTINGLY: All right Congressman, I appreciate your time, as I say, thank you very much.

Well, up next we're going to go be live in Detroit, Michigan, the center of the U.S. car industry. Hear what workers they're saying about how the tariffs could affect us jobs and price you pay for cars.

Plus, Democrats made it clear they didn't like President Trump's speech last night, but as the minority in both the House and the Senate, can they actually do anything about it? I'm going to ask Democratic Congressman Jim Clyburn. That's ahead.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[18:15:00]

MATTINGLY: In our Money Lead, the fallout from President Trump's tariff union (ph). Today, the President said he'll delay auto tariffs for one month. But regardless of when they come, some auto workers tell CNN they could cost American jobs and bring higher prices for consumers.

CNN's Jason Carroll is in Detroit, Michigan, with more.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

JASON CARROLL, CNN NATIONAL CORRESPONDENT (voice over): When it comes to the auto industry, Sterling Heights just might be the economic engine driving the Motor City. There are three major automakers in this Detroit suburb alone. And city officials say some 40 percent of residents here have jobs in or related to the auto industry. So, no surprise the topic on the minds of many here are the what ifs when it comes to tariffs.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: I think the tariffs will hurt.

CARROLL: Oh, you think they're going to hurt?

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Yes, I do. I personally do. Because if it's too high, they're not going to want to deal with us, right?

NIKKI JONES, AUTO WORKER: We might not see it maybe right away, but it's going to hurt down the line.

CARROLL: Nikki Jones has been an autoworker for more than a decade. She worries about what tariffs on imports from Canada and Mexico would mean for consumers and jobs.

Are there any concerns that eventually those in your industry could lose jobs?

JONES: Possibly. Because if no one is buying cars, we're going to get laid off. It's a trickle effect.

JORDAN WLADISCHKIN, AUTO PARTS SELLER: It might get worse at first.

CARROLL: But that's where the agreement ends for Jordan Wladischkin. He says tariffs might trigger what he called short-term economic struggles for consumers. In the long run, he's betting it will help U.S. auto workers and the economy.

WLADISCHKIN: It's definitely going to help. I feel like, you know, it's just didn't bring jobs, I feel like, to the American people.

CARROLL: Workers here divided on how potential tariffs would impact their lives, much of that division drawn on political lines. So says recently retired auto worker Chris Vitale, who also supports the tariffs.

[18:20:01]

CHRIS VITALE, AUTO WORKERS FOR TRUMP 2024: Trust me, other countries, the reason they fear tariffs is because they know what tariffs do to their competitors. They destroy them because they've been using them against us for 40 years.

Sterling Heights Mayor Michael Taylor says he hears it all, and despite his own political leanings, years before Trump became president, he called himself a Republican, though now aligns more with Democrats, he worries what would happen if tariffs are imposed and last.

MAYOR MICHAEL TAYLOR, STERLING HEIGHTS, MICHIGAN: Even when I tell folks, you know, this is what it's going to happen to the auto industry in Sterling Heights, they still say, no, it'll be fine, believe me, President Trump has our best interests at heart, he's going to get -- he's going to make it work. So, it's frustrating because the facts and the reality are different than what they're saying.

CARROLL: Politics aside, an advocacy group representing the auto industry warned this on again, off again with tariffs could be damaging.

GLENN STEVENS JR., EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, MICHIGAN AUTO: The industry thrives on stability and instability or disruption or short-term, you know, problems like this is not something that the industry does well.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

CARROLL (on camera): And, Phil, just to expand on that a little bit, the organization that you just heard from, Mich Auto, released a statement late this afternoon saying the following, saying, well, another postponement of the White House's proposed tariffs is somewhat of a repeat reprieve for the industry. Damage has already been done for an industry that operates in three to five-year product cycles. This level of uncertainty is debilitating. Phil?

MATTINGLY: Jason Carroll live for us in Detroit, thanks so much.

Let's go ahead and discuss this. We just heard, guys, from Jason Carroll about the unease President Trump's tariffs have created in the auto industry three to five cycle, a year cycle, a little bit different than the 30 days the press secretary was talking about today in terms of moving production back to the United States. I want you to take a listen to I think was one of the critical moments in his speech last night.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

DONALD TRUMP, U.S. PRESIDENT: Tariffs are about making America rich again and making America great again, and it's happening and it will happen rather quickly. There'll be a little disturbance but we're okay with that.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

MATTINGLY: Mike, the little disturbance points for honesty at some level when it comes to how terrorists would work, I guess, at least in terms of there being a disturbance. You talk to Republicans on Capitol Hill and they're like, let's not do much of a disturbance.

MIKE DUBKE, FORMER TRUMP WHITE HOUSE COMMUNICATIONS DIRECTOR: Well, you've got an economy that -- I mean, part of -- you know, there were three things that the president ran on immigration, shrinking the size and scope of government, improving the economy. And I think when we're on immigration and shrinking the size and scope of government, we can talk for days about that. And I think people have said, yes, victory.

On the economy, we do have inflation. We do have all of these other ancillary items. And I think tariffs are throwing a bit of a wedge into the market. You saw the market go down for two straight days. It's up today. Actually, it's up today. So, tariffs are a bit of a wild card. They're a bit of a curveball for business. You know, if the president really was pushing and say he's keeping American business on their toes, he thinks, long-term, this is going to be helpful for them.

And I think as we see these particular pullbacks the month for the auto industry and other things, we're going to see some other areas in which he's fine-tuning it. But at the end of the day, he thinks this is the best way forward for American jobs.

MATTINGLY: Ashley, over to you.

ASHLEY ETIENNE, FORMER DEPUTY PRESS SECRETARY, V.P. HARRIS: Mike, you could tell, is a spinmeister over here.

DUBKE: I'm not a spinmeister.

ETIENNE: Here's the real reality, is the president needs to make this make sense for the American people. And I think that was a missed opportunity last night. Mike and I are communication strategists. What you typically happen after you write a State of the Union speech is you make it three dimensional. You actually take the speech on the road and you demonstrate to the American people your vision so that they can see it. Why isn't the president on the border on some -- you know, the border of Canada at some town that's been ravaged by fentanyl, making the case for his strategy?

Well, the reason why he can't is because the reason for these tariffs have been switching. To your point, there's been nothing but constant whiplash. And to get to this point of honesty, you know, Trump may lie, but the facts actually don't. The economic metrics actually don't. The market is consistently tanking. Ford and G.M.'s stocks are down. American confidence, consumer confidence is at its lowest rate in four years.

So, this uncertainty is really having a widespread effect not just on the economy but on the psyche of the American people. And the president owes the American people more of a robust explanation as to what this is going to do and how it's going to help their lives.

MATTINGLY: I mean, to be clear, it was a joint address to Congress, not a State of the Union, so maybe that's why he wasn't traveling. It's like a D.C. nerd comment.

I want to ask you about Senator Slotkin, the response last night. Obviously, prices were a huge issue on the campaign, kind of going at that with this moment.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

SEN. ELISSA SLOTKIN (D-MI): So, do his plans actually help Americans get ahead?

[18:25:00]

Not even close. President Trump is trying to deliver an unprecedented giveaway to his billionaire friends.

And to do that, he's going to make you pay in every part of your life.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

MATTINGLY: On the policy side last night, I mentioned earlier that I heard from Democrats saying like, look, on taxes, on tariffs, on a lot of issues, like we can win on these issues if we can focus on these issues. Was that the focus?

ETIENNE: I absolutely agree. But I think there's a lot of the tape that you left out. She also talked about how the president is a threat in terms of our foreign policy approach. So, she didn't just talk about domestic policy, but she broadened it to talk about how he's making America less safe, how the world's even more dangerous and we're more vulnerable even in terms of our national security as well as the domestic policy. So, I think it was an incredibly robust statement.

The other things that I noticed about her statements, one, she was a full-throated Democrat. She didn't lean out. She leaned into it. And people were incredibly receptive to what she had to say. People felt like she was approachable, not the typical Democrat. They really appreciated her, her national security credentials, all of that. She was a different voice for the Democratic Party. And I think it landed very well.

DUBKE: I think all of that aside, what Americans are going to remember is pink outfits, auction paddles and a gold cane from last night. That is that. Unfortunately, they were off message and they didn't listen to any of their leaders saying, tone it down.

ETIENNE: And so you worked on the Hill. You covered the Hill. I used to work for Speaker Pelosi. I think this is a problem for Mr. Jeffries. You know, I love him. I think he's great, but he asked for no protest and there were so many protests. I couldn't keep up with which one was leading the day.

MATTINGLY: I mean, you know the House then. We love the House.

ETIENNE: No, but Nancy was -- had everybody disciplined. We didn't play those games when she was the speaker.

MATTINGLY: Yes. No, that's an important point, as they try to figure out that. Class '18 who the SACA (ph) was a part of, that House Class '18 --

ETIENNE: Oh yes, that was --

MATTINGLY: Like that's an asset class, bunch of senators coming in. That's a group to watch. I appreciate you guys. Thank you both of you, very much.

Well, a big loss today for President Trump at the Supreme Court. I'll ask the lawyer who successfully challenged the White House. What today's ruling means for billions of dollars of U.S. aid.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[18:30:00]

MATTINGLY: In our Law and Justice Lead, you know those billions of dollars in foreign aid that President Trump froze back in January trying to reduce government spending? Well, the U.S. Supreme Court just rejected Trump's request to keep some of that money frozen.

Let's bring in CNN Chief Legal Affairs Correspondent Paul Reid. Paula, what stands out to you with this ruling?

PAULA REID, CNN CHIEF LEGAL AFFAIRS CORRESPONDENT: Well, Phil, this is a technical decision, but this 5-4 split gives us some insight into what is happening behind closed doors and partisan divides that could shape future opinions. Because here, as you said, we're talking about billions of dollars in foreign aid approved by Congress, and the Trump administration decided to freeze that aid. But groups that rely on that money to do their work sued, saying, hey, the Trump administration cannot override the will of Congress. Now, this arrived at a lower court that said the money needed to continue to flow while it considers this larger separation of powers issue. But here the Supreme Court declined to help the Trump administration that had gone to the high court and said, look, let's keep this money frozen while this issue plays out. This is the second time the Trump administration has gone to the Supreme Court for relief in these many challenges to its efforts to really reshape the federal government.

Now, the Supreme Court did not say when this money needs to go out. That will be a decision for the lower court now, but I just want to take a slightly closer look at this 5-4 split. Here, the chief justice, John Roberts, and Justice Barrett joined the Democrats in this decision, but four conservative justices so strongly objected to this decision that they wrote this lengthy dissent expressing outrage that a lower court judge could compel an administration to send out this money.

Justice Alito writing, does a single district court judge, who likely lacks jurisdiction, have the unchecked power to compel the government of the United States to pay out, and probably lose forever, $2 billion taxpayer dollars? The answer to that question should be emphatic no, but a majority of this court apparently thinks otherwise. I am stunned.

The reason this is significant is because clearly these four justices felt so strongly about this relatively minor question. And this is important to note as we await these larger constitutional questions to arrive at the Supreme Court. So, we'll be watching, Phil.

MATTINGLY: Plenty to keep Paula Reid busy. Paula, thanks so much.

Joining us now is Lauren Bateman. She was the lead attorney on this case challenging the Trump administration.

Look, we were talking about. I'm a little bit stunned, $2 billion of taxpayer money that was appropriated and authorized by Congress, which I think has something to do with this. But just to start, do you have any sense right now of timing for when these funds could be released, paid out?

LAUREN BATEMAN, ATTORNEY, PUBLIC CITIZEN LITIGATION GROUP: We'll be in court tomorrow to discuss that precise issue. But in the meantime, I think it might be helpful to sort of frame the stakes of this case. The reason why Public Citizen got involved in this matter in the first place is because foreign assistance accounts for less than 1 percent of the United States' federal budget, and we get outsized benefits from that.

The United States has saved millions of lives with that outlay including 1 million children per year who would die of starvation without U.S. assistance. We combat diseases abroad, like Ebola, so that they'd never reach American shores, and foreign assistance has enjoyed broad bipartisan support until January 20th, including by Secretary Rubio himself, who acknowledges that foreign assistance plays an important role in our national security. MATTINGLY: Yes, you can pull up a lot of statements of him talking about USAID and the value that it brings in terms of soft power.

[18:35:01]

To that point though, this administration has a different perspective on things, which is they were elected, they won, they're coming in. Why is that problematic in terms of how you're framing it?

BATEMAN: Well, this case at its bottom is extremely simple. Congress passed laws, it appropriated money for these programs, and the executive can't pick and choose which laws it wants to follow and which laws it doesn't. We don't live underneath a king. The executive has to comply.

MATTINGLY: One of the big questions I have that I feel like, in my opinion, hasn't necessarily gotten as much attention, we all know people -- you live in D.C. You know people who work in this space. Most of those people are furloughed, don't have jobs anymore. Their companies or their contractors have completely collapsed or are in the process of collapsing. Who does this money get paid out to? Like, I'm not totally sure that any of these entities will exist by the time this gets unfrozen.

BATEMAN: I think you've identified a big issue in this case, which is that the government needs to comply immediately. And the court has repeatedly, as we've gone back to enforce the initial temporary restraining order, clarified that it meant what it said initially, the government has to lift the freeze and not enforce the stop terminations that it's issued. And time is of the essence, as you rightfully acknowledge.

MATTINGLY: Tomorrow. We'll keep an eye on it.

BATEMAN: Thank you.

MATTINGLY: Thank you very much for your time. I really appreciate it, Lauren Bateman.

Well, the man nominated for one of the United States' top health role says he wants to investigate the link between the measles vaccine and autism. Research shows those links don't actually exist. So, why investigate? That's next.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[18:40:00]

MATTINGLY: Back with the Politics Lead, and a question pinging around Washington right now. Whither the Democrats? During President Trump's speech last night, Texas Representative Al Green shouted at the president. Green eventually was forced to leave and Republicans are now moving to censure him. Some Democrats walked out with messages on the backs of their shirts. Others held up signs with slogans. Others stayed and watched. Joining us now, South Carolina Democratic Congressman Jim Clyburn, used to be a part of Democratic leadership and its team under Speaker Nancy Pelosi. Congressman, Speaker Pelosi's former staffers was on with us about 20 minutes ago and made the point there would have been a little bit more of a unified approach in the Pelosi regime. Do you agree with that?

REP. JAMES CLYBURN (D-SC): Well, no, I don't. You know, we talk all the time about people being left to represent their congressional districts. And that's what this is all about. We have different ways of expressing ourselves. And, of course, I went to the speech. I sat there the entire time. Yes, I saw the pictures this morning of people showing a little bit of my expression. Well, that's just the way that I conduct myself. Al Green has a way of doing his. And I just think that we ought not bother people when they come to represent in their congressional district.

And that's got nothing to do with us developing a unified approach to how we respond to this agenda laid out by the president. Hopefully, we can have a unified approach to that. That's something totally different than what took place last night.

MATTINGLY: You know, to that point, when would that happen? I understand everybody wants everything immediately in this day and age. Do you have a sense right now about the kind of process of coalescing behind that unified approach you're hopeful to have?

CLYBURN: Well, I think it's developing. You can't have a unified response to a speech before you get the speech. The speech came last night and I think you saw a lot of reactions taking place today. But even before the speech last night, it was a pretty well-coordinated, what I call prebuttal rather than a rebuttal. We took that yesterday, started around 11:59 last night, and -- or night before last and went all the way through midnight last night. And so that was pretty unified.

So, everything you do, people got to be left up to do their own thing sometimes. So, I think that the entire caucus worked together on that prebuttal, and all the reports I got said it went great. In fact, one that I participated in until we had 200,000 people on, so that's pretty good to me.

MATTINGLY: One of the things I've been wondering over the course of the last couple weeks, look, it's all fun and games until the legislative process starts for a new administration, which they're very much in the process of right now, but very early stages. Do you think you can stop Republicans as they move through a process that will only take the majority in the House and 51 votes in the Senate?

CLYBURN: Well, we don't have the majority in the House.

MATTINGLY: No, I know that.

CLYBURN: So, we can't stop them.

MATTINGLY: That's what I'm saying. CLYBURN: So, we can't stop them. No, we can't. You know, you got to have 218 votes. Everybody's present and voting. We don't have a 215- vote, well, 214 now, after last night. We can vote solidly against what they're doing, and, see, it won't stop them. That requires getting more votes than we currently have.

And I do believe, though that it's possible that some of the Republicans on their side will see that what they're doing is not meeting with much favor with the American people.

[18:45:07]

And maybe, they'll move to stop themselves. Now, I just saw a headline a few minutes ago saying that the president has reversed himself on these firing. Well, we didn't have a vote last night to do that.

So he reversed himself for some reason and maybe what he's doing requires some of the members of his own party to say to him, you are acting outside of the Constitution of the United States, acting beyond your authority. And you should rein yourself in. And maybe that's what he's doing.

PHIL MATTINGLY, CNN HOST: Yeah. Well, the message from your side and your ability to kind of, uh, drive support or opposition certainly can play a role in that as well. As you know very well, sir, you were there in 2005 on Social Security.

South Carolina Democratic Congressman Jim Clyburn, always appreciate your time, sir. Thank you.

CLYBURN: Thank you.

MATTINGLY: Well, up ahead, the call that could be coming from a new Trump administration official to investigate links between the measles vaccine and autism despite research showing no such links.

Stay with us.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[18:50:26]

MATTINGLY: In our health lead, fresh off a mention in President Trump's address to Congress last night, the man nominated to be a top U.S. health official says he supports funding research into links between autism and vaccines, specifically the measles vaccine.

Here's Dr. Jay Bhattacharya today.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

DR. JAY BHATTACHARYA, NIH DIRECTOR NOMINEE: We do have, as you know, Senator, a sharp rise in autism rates in this country. And I don't know, and I don't think any scientist really knows the cause of it. So I would support an agenda of -- a broad agenda, a broad scientific agenda based on data to get an answer to that. (END VIDEO CLIP)

MATTINGLY: Joining me now is Dr. Paul Offit. He is the director of the Vaccine Education Center at the Children's Hospital of Philadelphia.

Dr. Offit, as an expert in the field, I just want to start with this. Is there any link you know of between the measles vaccine and autism rates in children?

DR. PAUL OFFIT, DIRECTOR OF THE VACCINE EDUCATION CENTER, CHILDREN'S HOSPITAL OF PHILADELPHIA: No. This issue was raised in the late 1990s, and it has been answered in a series of about 12 studies looking at children who did or didn't get measles containing vaccine. This study has been done in seven countries on three continents, involving thousands of children and costing tens of millions of dollars.

There is no greater risk of autism in a child who receives the MMR or measles, mumps, rubella vaccine, as compared to a child who didn't receive it. And what's upsetting about this, when you listen to that comment by Dr. Bhattacharya, is that there are many promising leads about what are cause or causes of autism. For example, the -- there's a genetics to autism, usually developmental genes expressed early in pregnancy. There are drugs that women take during pregnancy that can increase the risk of autism. The infant microbiome, which is sort of the bacteria that initially colonize the intestine, has been associated with autism.

So there's all these promising leads that that people like Dr. Bhattacharya or Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. don't talk about because they've taken this story hostage for -- for anti-vaccine activists. I think it's -- it's just awful. I think the people who really suffer here are children with autism because we don't pursue these promising leads. And children with autism are often less likely to be vaccinated, as are their healthy younger siblings.

MATTINGLY: You know, what you're saying right now is echoed by Senator Bill Cassidy, a Republican who is a physician pushing back, saying this topic of the measles vaccine, as you point out, has and autism has been exhaustively studied and pointing out that there are limited resources for a new agenda if the money is used for on further studying vaccines and autism, what kind of projects wouldn't get funded do you think?

OFFIT: Well, so the sort of things that we had just discussed, there are -- there's probably 80 percent of autism is genetic, and it's not a single gene, as would be true, say, for cystic fibrosis or sickle cell disease. It's multigenic.

But they're generally developmental genes. That's interesting. So it would be interesting to pursue that. The infant microbiome is interesting because that's something that arguably one could control medicines that one takes like valproic acid during pregnancy, has been associated with an increased risk of autism. But the vaccine story has been asked and answered, and it is hard to

watch anti-vaccine activists like Robert F. Kennedy, Jr., frankly, Jay Bhattacharya take this story hostage for their own interests.

MATTINGLY: Yeah, with a very simple, hey, we're just asking questions. Just asking questions.

To that point -- you know, you mentioned the HHS Secretary Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. He said this to say in an interview about the danger of measles. Take a listen.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

ROBERT F. KENNEDY, JR., HHS SECRETARY: It's very, very difficult -- it's for measles to kill a healthy person.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

MATTINGLY: Is that true?

OFFIT: No, it's not difficult at all for measles to kill a healthy person. I was in Philadelphia in 1991 and 1992, and we had 1,400 cases and nine deaths. And virtually every one of those children was perfectly healthy, as was true, frankly, for the school age child who died in west Texas recently, was, was -- was healthy.

There was -- there were no risk factors that put this child at increased risk of severe measles.

So I don't know what he's talking about. He is of the belief that if you're healthy that -- that viruses or bacteria won't kill you, that you're well-nourished, bacteria or viruses won't kill you.

That's just not true. He's obviously hasn't spent much time in a hospital.

MATTINGLY: Important fact-checking suspect. We'll be doing it often in the months and years ahead.

Dr. Paul Offit, appreciate your time, sir. Thank you.

OFFIT: Thank you.

MATTINGLY: Well, the island nation that's now giving you the chance to buy citizenship, that's next.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[18:59:22]

MATTINGLY: Our last leads start in our pop lead.

New Mexico officials say the deaths of Oscar winning actor Gene Hackman and his wife were not due to a gas leak. They both also tested negative for carbon monoxide. The couple was found dead inside their home last month in circumstances officials earlier said were, quote, suspicious enough to warrant an investigation.

In our world lead, for $105,000, you can become a citizen of the tiny island nation of Nauru, the worlds third smallest country has launched a golden passport initiative. The island in the Southwest Pacific Ocean faces threats from rising sea levels and coastal erosion. The government plans to use the money it raises to move most of its roughly 12,000 person population to higher ground.

And in our national lead, this rodeo cow got to move -- see I did there -- on yesterday when it managed, they laughed -- to get loose on the streets of Houston. A man got close enough to reach the rope only to trip and fall at the last moment. Houston police say after a brief chase, the cow was corralled. Love that.

"ERIN BURNETT OUTFRONT" starts right now.