Return to Transcripts main page

CNN News Central

WSJ: Birthday Note to Epstein Had Trump's Name, Drawing of Naked Woman; Trump Seeks Release of Pertinent Epstein Grand Jury Docs as Base's Anger Grows; Interview with Rep. Morgan McGarvey (D-KY): Congress Approves $9 Billion DOGE Spending Cuts to Foreign Aid, PBS and NPR. Aired 8-8:30a ET

Aired July 18, 2025 - 08:00   ET

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

[08:00:00]

BRIAN TODD, CNN CORRESPONDENT: Jerome Powell has asked the Fed's Inspector General to conduct an additional review of this renovation. Powell has only 10 months left in his term unless Trump can find cause to remove him sooner. Analyst David Wessel says he doesn't think the controversy over this renovation would stand up in court as a credible cause for removing Powell.

Back to you.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

JOHN BERMAN, CNN ANCHOR: A slew of major developments breaking overnight. President Trump telling the Attorney General to release grand jury testimony on Jeffrey Epstein. Why this might not include what you think it does, and why this move comes after a shocking Wall Street Journal report on a birthday letter allegedly sent to Epstein bearing the president's name and a drawing of a naked woman. Now the president vigorously denies this and is now vowing to sue the paper and its owner.

The major vote that Congress took overnight and how the Jeffrey Epstein saga very nearly derailed it.

And a teenager's chilling screams caught on camera as she fought off a man trying to kidnap her.

Kate is out this morning, I'm John Berman with Sara Sidner and this is CNN NEWS CENTRAL.

SARA SIDNER, CNN ANCHOR: This morning President Trump's furious over an explosive Wall Street Journal report concerning him and Jeffrey Epstein. The reporting is that back in 2003 Trump sent a letter to Jeffrey Epstein in celebration of Epstein's 50th birthday. The letter reportedly wishes Epstein well with a handwritten drawn picture of a naked woman signed happy birthday and may every day be another wonderful secret.

President Trump strongly denying this morning that the letter ever existed, furiously slamming the journal and its owner conservative media mogul Richard Murdoch -- Rupert Murdoch saying quote, I told Rupert Murdoch it was a scam that he shouldn't print this fake story but he did and now I'm going to sue his ass off and that of his third rate newspaper.

CNN's Brian Stelter is with me now. Brian, what do you make of this lashing out at Murdoch and the Journal in the wake of what is truly explosive reporting this morning?

BRIAN STELTER, CNN CHIEF MEDIA ANALYST: Well number one, no lawsuit is going to make this story disappear off the internet. It's on the front page of this morning's Wall Street Journal. It's the most read article on the journal website and this is a story that other news outlets are now ferociously chasing.

So Trump may go ahead and sue although he has a long history of threatening litigation and then not following through. I think the recent deals that he struck with Paramount and Disney, remember those settlements? I think in some ways those have emboldened Trump to threaten other lawsuits against other media companies.

But in this particular case, the Journal believes its sourcing is rock solid. And frankly Sara, I have rarely seen Journal colleagues feeling as proud of their institution as they do this morning. There's a sense inside the Wall Street Journal that this was an act of bravery to actually go ahead and publish this story given the president's very intense threats.

We know that he was on the phone with Rupert Murdoch directly as well as Emma Tucker, the editor of the Wall Street Journal. In a sense, on Wednesday and Thursday, President Trump was trying to kill this story and the journal went ahead and published it anyway.

Here's another part of what the president said on True Social that I think is really telling about his standpoint on this.

He said -- actually this is actually in third person, it's more of a statement from the Trump camp. But it says, Murdoch stated that he would take care of it but obviously did not have the power to do so. And then this statement goes on to blame Emma Tucker, the editor of the journal, saying that she didn't want to hear Trump's denials about this document.

So you have a situation here where the conservative media mogul, most famous for Fox News, a pro-Trump network spouting the president's talking points, has actually in this case stood up to President Trump and gone ahead and let the Wall Street Journal publish the story. It is in some ways a news media earthquake and now we'll see if Trump actually sues or if he's just huffing and puffing.

SIDNER: All right, so the president has totally changed course on this Epstein story over many years and now he's constantly calling it a hoax. And you wrote the book on that word and its use in conservative media. Why does the president constantly fall back to that word and how effective is it?

Because so far it looks as if those who strongly support him are going after him anyway on this Epstein story.

STELTER: Yes, well, thanks for mentioning the book. I wrote it in 2020 because President Trump, during his first term in office, came out and referred to the emerging coronavirus as a new Democratic hoax.

And when I heard that back in 2020, I thought this is a strategy. This is a plan by the president to try to tell people not to believe bad news.

[08:05:10]

If you go back and look at his rhetorical history, he has used the word hoax to deny climate change, to dispel concerns about COVID. He's used it in many cases to denounce or discourage people to pay attention to stories he doesn't like. In effect, the word hoax is a way to turn off your mind, to stop thinking about something, to turn away from it and ignore it. That's how Trump uses the word hoax.

And it is so interesting that he used that word this week. Why? Because of the timeline involving the Wall Street Journal story.

We now know that the journal called the Trump White House for comment on Tuesday, on Tuesday, more than 48 hours before the story was published. When did Trump start calling this a hoax? On Wednesday morning.

So essentially, Trump changed his strategy toward the Epstein controversy after the journal called. So Trump knew in the back of his mind that this story about this supposed letter might come out. And that's when he started blaming Democrats, calling it all a hoax, and telling his fans to stop paying attention -- Sara.

SIDNER: Yes, Brian Stelter, thank you for your reporting this morning on that -- John.

BERMAN: All right, with us now, CNN political commentator Alyssa Farah Griffin and former Biden White House director of message planning, Meghan Hays. I'm going to come back to the Journal story in just a moment, but there's so much that happened overnight. I want to talk about the president calling on the attorney general to go to court to try to get the grand jury testimony in the Epstein case released.

Now, we've talked and we'll talk more about why this is actually a very limited request, but what does the request at all, Alyssa, tell you about what's going on in the White House and the president's thinking?

ALYSSA FARAH GRIFFIN, CNN POLITICAL COMMENTATOR: Listen, I think the White House is realizing their posture has got to change on Epstein. Simply calling it a hoax and saying there's nothing more to see here, we're not talking about it further, it's not working. The media is continuing to talk about it. The new media that helped propel Donald Trump to victory is outraged over this.

So I think this is trying to kind of offer a bone and say, look, we're actually pushing for transparency. But the word that stood out to me in this statement was pertinent.

He instructs the attorney general to release pertinent information with regard to this information. So there's incredible leeway for the AG to decide what she chooses to make public, what she chooses to keep confidential.

And I would also note there's this discharge petition in the House of Representatives which will very likely reach the threshold to force a vote and force the release from DOJ.

But at the same time, I know this from many administrations while I was working in Congress, the Justice Department kind of decides what they actually think is compliant with a congressional subpoena or with a request from Congress. So I would still pour some major cold water on the notion that we're going to get all the troves of video, of lists, of grand jury testimony. It's really going to be what the attorney general and her team think should be released to the public.

BERMAN: Yes, yes, Meghan, along those lines. How complete of a request does this feel to you? How satisfying do you think this will be if anything does get released?

MEGHAN HAYS, DEMOCRATIC STRATEGIST: I mean, I think this is just death by a thousand cuts. I think they've completely mishandled this. And it's just going to be drip, drip, drip.

So the grand jury testimony will come out in a few days. Then we'll all talk about that for a week. Then the congressional, the votes.

And it's just -- I mean, it's incredible that this is just going to keep going and going and going. They have no off-ramp here. And the president continuing to tweet, saying he's going to sue people, continues to lead to the fact that they have no off-ramp. And it just keeps the news story alive. And it continues to energize his base against him.

BERMAN: Now to the Wall Street Journal report, which the White House, of course, vigorously denies. A lot of the people in the president's political orbit who've been critical of him in a way are rallying around him now based on this report. I want to read you a tweet from Laura Loomer, a conservative activist who has been very critical of the Attorney General Pam Bondi and how the White House has dealt with this in general.

And Laura Loomer wrote overnight, quote, I'm calling BS on this Trump birthday letter to Epstein. It's totally fake, she says. Everyone who actually knows the president knows he doesn't type letters.

She goes on to write other things. So, Alyssa, how much of an opportunity in a way politically might this be for the president?

GRIFFIN: Listen, this Wall Street Journal story just raises so many questions. I can say it doesn't sound like Donald Trump of today. But this is reportedly from 2003. That's more than 20 years ago if you watch old clips of Donald Trump. He sounded very different back then. He spoke differently. His vernacular was different. So I would say that is a little bit of pushback there.

But listen, I think you're going to see a lot of the steady voices who have been with him since 2016, who have maybe been critical during this Epstein debacle, kind of start to gravitate back around him. They're probably going to believe them, that this and other things are hoaxes.

But here's what I would keep my eyes on, is even if this disappears from primetime at Fox News, even if a lot of his closest allies who've been with him for years side with him, you know who I don't think is going to is this manosphere of podcasters, the Joe Rogans, the Theo Vons, the Andrew Schultz.

[08:10:00]

People who helped get him elected and helped win him the popular vote, who have also built huge audiences on saying we are going to get the truth about Jeffrey Epstein.

Those guys aren't beholden to him in the same way. They're not beholden to the RNC or to Republican politics. And I would be shocked if they would sort of sacrifice their own independence and credibility with their audience to basically take the White House's talking points on this.

So I think he's got a huge uphill battle to make this story go away with the people who are most influential with his audience.

BERMAN: Meghan, what do you see as the risk-reward for the president and the White House in these attacks on the Rupert Burdock-owned Wall Street Journal?

HAYS: I don't see very much reward here at all. I mean, he's threatening to sue. Go ahead and sue. You're just going to be deposed. You're going to have discovery. There's going to be things entered into the record that you clearly don't want there.

There's a long history of them being friends and being pals and him being associated with Jeffrey Epstein. So I just am not sure how far he really wants to push that and how far he wants to continue to call the media a hoax. But this continues to just, you know, go in his normal way of blaming people.

He first blames the media. Then he blames Democrats. Then he blames his own supporters.

So, I mean, there is -- again, there is no off-ramp for him here. They should have just released the files or not campaigned on this. I mean, there is no win here.

And I just don't want to lose sight of the fact that at the core of what this case is is there were young women who were trafficked. This is not something that we should let go. Anybody who was involved in this should be prosecuted and be held accountable for it. So I don't also want to lose sight in the political battle of the actual root of this case. BERMAN: And, Alyssa, you've been in a White House, a Trump White House for that matter, dealing with the media before. What goes on when you know a story is coming out that you're not going to like?

GRIFFIN: You know, behind the scenes, his press team would be working the phones with the most senior journalists, editors at The Wall Street Journal. I wasn't surprised to see the reporting that he reached out to Rupert Murdoch, because sometimes you go even higher than the editor and you go to the owner of the publication.

And listen, that is what he should do. That is actually absolutely within his right if he thinks this is not a story that's accurate and is something he wants to push back on. But what I think they've struggled with in this story is turning the page on it. And the problem is this.

Like, I also worked for Mike Pence in the first administration. You know who never talked about Jeffrey Epstein? Mike Pence.

He talked about Donald Trump's agenda, the things he wanted to pass in Congress, tax cuts and the JOBS Act and other things. What is different in the second administration is Donald Trump decided to hire people who have literally built their profiles by talking about Jeffrey Epstein and getting the truth of what happened to him.

So when you've got a vice president, you've got an FBI director and others around you who they have promised their millions of followers that this is something that would happen in a second term, it makes it that much harder for Donald Trump to say, nothing to see here, I'm focusing on my legislative agenda, I'm focusing on tariff deals and the like, because you've got people who made those promises.

BERMAN: Worth noting, Mike Pence, the former vice president, one of the people now calling for the release of much more information on the Jeffrey Epstein case. Meghan Hayes, Alyssa Farah Griffin, great to see you both this morning. Thanks so much -- Sara.

SIDNER: All right, ahead. Congress has sent President Trump a bill to cement into law those billions of dollars in DOGE cuts. What will the cuts mean to services citizens have gotten used to?

And after pictures of President Trump's swollen ankles and makeup- covered bruises on his hands went viral, the White House now revealing the president's medical diagnosis.

[08:15:00]

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

REP. MIKE JOHNSON (R-LA), HOUSE SPEAKER: We clawed back $9 billion in taxpayer funds and wasteful spending, fraud, waste and abuse. We've been targeting that every area. This was directed to wasteful spending in the previous State Department. Of course, Corporation for Public Broadcasting and a couple of other areas. We looked at that. We thought it was a waste of taxpayer funds, and we're taking care of business.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

SIDNER: All right, breaking overnight, House Speaker Mike Johnson exuberant over another big legislative win for President Trump, heading to the president's desk for signing DOGE spending cuts, taking back billions in funding that had been approved for foreign aid and public broadcasting. House Republicans pushed the measure through their chambers early this morning. The Senate passed it earlier.

Only two House Republicans voted against it, along with Democrats. Joining me now is Democratic Congressman Morgan McGarvey of Kentucky. He is on the House Budget Committee.

From your, you know, look at these cuts, what do these cuts actually mean to your constituents in Kentucky?

REP. MORGAN MCGARVEY (D-KY), BUDGET COMMITTEE: Yes, they make us less safe, less smart, less ready for disasters. Look at what they're doing with these cuts. First of all, they are targeting America's national security.

When they're talking about these foreign aid cuts and cuts to the State Department, I think that Navy SEAL Admiral William McRaven put it really well this week. This is going to hurt our national security. It will make our troops less safe.

Then you look at what they're doing with the cuts for public broadcasting. In Kentucky, we've had 46 tornadoes and floods already this year. And in rural America, where cell phone coverage is spotty at best, where TV stations don't reach, where anybody driving from Louisville to Frankfort can tell you the dead spots for cell phone reception on I-64, this is how we get alerts to people.

When seconds matter for your family's safety, those alerts go out from the public broadcasting radio stations.

Look, I'm a dad. They're targeting Elmo in this. And I've watched my kids watch every program from Daniel Tiger's Neighborhood to Super Why to Wild Kratts. They can come into the kitchen one day and say, I'm going to go as fast as a peregrine falcon. You're looking at them going, what?

[08:20:00]

They're targeting PBS for Kids. That is a quality program that we as parents know educates our kids where they don't get inundated with commercials, and that's what they've gone after while giving the billionaires a massive tax break that's adding trillions of dollars to our nation's debt.

SIDNER: I never thought I'd hear a congressperson talk about Wild Kratts. You have just proven me wrong this morning. I am curious, though, with all the reductions, including the cuts that

you're seeing here, and then the big mega bill of Trump's that was passed, Medicaid and funding for rural hospitals, I mean, are states going to have to try to find funding to help their residents?

I mean, can you find that funding in a state like Kentucky?

MCGARVEY: You know, in fact, I served in the state legislature. I was in the state Senate and Senate Minority Leader for 10 years in Kentucky, and in a state where you just pointed out, they've already slapped Kentucky in the face with the cuts to Medicaid. Kentucky gets more in federal Medicaid dollars every year than the entirety of the Kentucky state budget.

Thirty-five rural hospitals are expected to close. 133,000 rural Kentuckians are expected to lose their health care. Now they're making these cuts where, you know, we've had such severe weather already this year, floods, tornadoes. This is how we warn people. The state is going to have to try to come in, but they don't have the resources of the federal government.

Like I said, it's going to make us less healthy. It's going to make us less safe. It's going to take funding away from public broadcasting for our kids when they're already having an all-out assault on public education. I mean, they just announced they're freezing funds to my school district this week, millions of dollars that goes to help kids.

So, no, this is going to be really, really problematic for the states.

SIDNER: All right, in the latest CNN poll, you know, obviously Democrats want to try to do something about this, but Democrats are seeing their lowest approval ratings in history, and that includes the party's own supporters saying this, that it's unfavorable, the Democratic Party as a whole. What do you think the problem is with the Democratic Party?

MCGARVEY: Look, you can see right now we are fighting. We are clearly fighting what they are doing by cutting people's health care, by taking away money from national security, by taking away money from emergency preparedness. And I think they know how wildly unpopular these things are.

That's what we're doing. We are focusing on what our vision is, how we're hoping to actually grow an economy that works for everybody, to keep America safe, to keep America secure, to have good jobs here for people. And they're focused on everything else right now because they don't want people to focus on what they're actually doing.

SIDNER: I want to get to this, the Wall Street Journal reporting that Trump sent Epstein a 2003 birthday message that read, happy birthday and may every day be another wonderful secret, with a picture of a naked woman there. Trump flat out denying that this was his message, but a few hours later he posted that Attorney General Pam Bondi should release pertinent, as he put it, grand jury testimony. What do you make of this? MCGARVEY: Well, Trump is doing what he normally does, which is lie. You know, he's either lying about what he said about all of the Epstein conspiracy, he's lying about the fact they had the files. It's just like he lied when he said he wouldn't touch Medicaid and now they've cut Medicaid.

Release the grand jury files and then release everything else. That's what they need to do. And right now there's no evidence that they're going to do it.

SIDNER: Yes, would you be satisfied with just releasing some of the grand jury testimony, which normally is held secret? A court is having to look at this.

MCGARVEY: When Donald Trump was running, he said he would release all of the files. I was a lawyer before I was in office. You don't get everything from the grand jury testimony.

Release the entire file. If you have nothing to hide, then sunlight being the best disinfectant shouldn't bother you. Release it all.

SIDNER: All right, Congressman Morgan McGarvey, thank you for coming on this morning for us from Washington.

All right, ahead, Fed Chair Jerome Powell pushing back on claims he has mismanaged a multi-billion dollar renovation of the Federal Reserve's headquarters. Are the complaints a pretext by Donald Trump to try and fire him?

And the major legal questions now surrounding President Trump's Epstein controversy. If the grand jury testimony is released, how likely will it be that it goes public? Those stories and more ahead.

[08:25:00]

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

BERMAN: All right, breaking overnight, President Trump directing the Attorney General Pam Bondi to release pertinent -- and we'll get back to that word -- pertinent grand jury testimony from the Jeffrey Epstein case. The directive came hours after the President angrily denied a Wall Street Journal report detailing a birthday letter allegedly sent to Epstein inside of a doodle of a naked woman. Again, all of this vigorously denied by the President.

With us now, CNN Senior Legal Analyst Elie Honig. The President tells the Attorney General Pam Bondi to ask a court for the release of pertinent grand jury testimony. Why is the word pertinent important here, Elie?

ELIE HONIG, CNN SENIOR LEGAL ANALYST: Well, pertinent is doing an awful lot of work there, John. First of all, just grand jury testimony itself is only going to be a fairly small fraction of the entire file. In addition to that, we now have this word pertinent.

So that begs the question, pertinent to what? And pertinent as determined by who? So it gives the Attorney General in some respect wiggle room, but it also puts her in a very difficult position where apparently she's going to have to A, decide what's pertinent, and then B, you have to go in front of a federal judge and get permission to release grand jury materials.

So there's a lot of hurdles still in place here.

BERMAN: What is the difference between calling for the release of pertinent grand jury material and calling for the release of all.