Return to Transcripts main page

CNN News Central

Federal Reserve Leaves Interest Rates Unchanged; Tsunami Hits U.S. Shores After 8.8-magnitude Quake Off Russia; Tsunami Warnings in South America After U.S. Eases Alerts; Senate Dems Invoke 1920s-era Law to Try to Access Epstein Files; House Oversight Committee Says No Clemency for Maxwell's Testimony; Trump Says Epstein Took Young Women Who Worked at Mar-a-Lago Spa. Aired 2-2:30p ET

Aired July 30, 2025 - 14:00   ET

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

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[14:00:58]

BRIANNA KEILAR, CNN CO-ANCHOR OF "CNN NEWS CENTRAL": And we begin with breaking news. The Fed just announcing its latest decision on interest rates, coming as president Trump has repeatedly pressured the Fed to cut interest rates. Let's go to CNN's Matt Egan, who is at the Federal Reserve. Matt, tell us what you're learning.

MATT EGAN, CNN SENIOR REPORTER: No change in interest rates. The Federal Reserve deciding today to keep interest rates steady for the fifth meeting in a row, despite immense pressure from the White House to slash borrowing costs. Now, this decision was no surprise. It was widely expected. It was well telegraphed in advance by officials. Now, that's because the Fed is in wait-and-see mode. They're looking for more clarity. One, clarity on just how high tariffs are going to go, and two, how much tariffs are going to boost prices.

Now, this new statement put out by the Fed, it stayed largely the same except there was a slight downgrade in how Fed officials are looking at the U.S. economy. Previously, Fed officials said in the statement that the economy continued to expand at a "solid pace." This new statement says that recent indicators suggests that the growth of economic activity "moderate" in the first half of the year. And that does appear to be a nod to today's report that showed that while headline GDP rebounded in the second quarter, underlying growth in the U.S. economy does appear to have slowed.

Now this decision, of course, is not what the White House was looking for. It's not what borrowers were looking for either. President Trump, he has been very vocal about how he wants massive interest rate cuts. Of course, that was never going to happen. But, what is notable is there was a change in this -- in the voting in this decision. Previously, in June, this was a unanimous decision to keep interest rates steady. However, in this decision today, not one but two members of the Fed's powerful Board of Governors, they voted in favor of an interest rate cut.

Sometimes we do see one governor dissent, but this is the first time we're seeing two governors dissent since 1993. And it does show how Fed Chair Powell, he's not just facing pressure from the White House to cut interest rates, he's also facing pressure from some of his colleagues inside this building. Now, Powell is going to take questions later this hour. Everyone's going to be listening to whether or not he drops any hints about if he's open to interest rate cuts later this year, possibly as soon as the next meeting in September.

KEILAR: All right, we'll be looking for that. Matt, thank you for the news. Boris?

BORIS SANCHEZ, CNN CO-ANCHOR OF "CNN NEWS CENTRAL": Let's get some point of view from Douglas Holtz-Eakin. He was the Chief Economist of the White House Council of Economic Advisors under President George W. Bush. He's also now the President of the American Action Forum. Doug, your reaction to the Fed keeping rates unchanged?

DOUGLAS HOLTZ-EAKIN, CHIEF ECONOMIST, WHITE HOUSE COUNCIL OF ECONOMIC ADVISERS UNDER PRESIDENT GEORGE W. BUSH: Well, I think there were two important pieces to that. Matt hit them both. Number one were the dissents by the governors. In his entire tenure as Chairman, Jerome Powell has had one dissent before. That was in September, Michelle Bowman. So this is a really unusual amount of disharmony on the FOMC, about the future path of interest rates.

And that means that it's substantively a very hard call and I think the extra pressure that comes from the politics, put that aside for a second, the Fed is in a very tough position trying to decide which of its two mandates, price stability, the 2 percent inflation target, or employment growth, keeping the economy growing, is more important right now. So, they're struggling with that.

The second thing is on the substance of the economy, the Fed did downgrade. It sounded like the growth rate of the economy, that's correct. It was averaging about 2.5 percent in the first half of last year. And it's averaging about 1 percent in the first half of this year. So, things are growing much more slowly. One thing I'd look for in the statement is the Fed usually talks something about the degree of uncertainty. Last statement, it said uncertainty had diminished but remained elevated.

[14:05:00]

I'd be interested in seeing if they're placing less weight on the uncertainty, especially regarding the future tariffs. We've seen a lot of announcements on tariffs. We now know roughly what they're going to be. The Fed may take that into account and saying, look, we know what the deal is now, and we can set rates accordingly.

SANCHEZ: I actually have the statement here, uncertainty about the economic outlook remains elevated. So I guess, that's an answer to that question. Before we get into the broader economy --

HOLTZ-EAKIN: Right. It's the same as last statement.

SANCHEZ: Yeah. Going to those dissenting votes from Michelle Bowman and Christopher Waller, they were calling for the Fed to cut rates by a quarter of a percentage point. I mean, what impact would that have had at this moment, given some of the uncertainty, again, over tariffs and the broader trade war by the president?

HOLTZ-EAKIN: I think it would've had essentially zero impact on the immediate path of the economy. As everyone knows, monetary policy takes a long time to work its way through. You cut short rates and then longer rates come down and people change their borrowing habits and their investment habits. And it works through over the course of quarters, not hours and days. So, not much would've happened right now, but it would've been a statement that says we expect that we need to have lower rates because the economy will be weaker in the future. And the inflation's not as bad as we worried about.

So not cutting says the reverse. We're hanging there well enough on the growth front. We're still concerned about inflation. We can wait to cut later.

SANCHEZ: On the latest GDP report, it shows the economy expanding sharply --

HOLTZ-EAKIN: Right.

SANCHEZ: -- in Q2 at a rate of 3 percent. The president calling that growth way better than expected. Are there any caveats to that? Do you see any sort of --

(LAUGH)

SANCHEZ: You're laughing. I wonder why.

HOLTZ-EAKIN: Well, I think that 3 percent number is essentially meaningless. It was heavily influenced by a sharp decline in imports. We know where that came from. Just as the first quarter's minus 0.5 percent is essentially meaningless, it was also driven by timing impacts of the tariffs. So if you look inside that report, there's a line that says, what is the growth of real sales to final consumers, American businesses, American households? That's at 1.1 percent. It's averaged 1.2 percent in the first half of this year. That tells you the appetite for spending and its growth in the U.S. economy.

That's the number I think that gives you the best indicator of where we are. We have downshifted a lot from last year and we are still above zero, but by no means accelerating. It's an economy that is growing sluggishly and remains essentially looking for a path either forward and up, which will be great, or slower still in the second half.

SANCHEZ: So, looking into the Doug Holtz-Eakin crystal ball, what is the likelihood that we're going to see a rate cut in the near future?

(LAUGH)

HOLTZ-EAKIN: I think the likelihood is pretty high. The Fed has said that monetary policy remains restrictive. So, it is in its current stance (inaudible) slow the labor market, fight inflation. It has seen some success on all those fronts. So, I think it will move to a less restrictive, but by no means easy monetary policy in the near future. And a lot of that's going to be driven by Friday's Employment Report and subsequent Employment Reports. The Fed keeps a close eye on those reports. Remember, it has a mandate for full employment. If we saw a sharp deterioration in the labor market, that's the one thing I can think of that would move the Fed to move more aggressively on interest rates.

SANCHEZ: Doug Holtz-Eakin, appreciate you.

HOLTZ-EAKIN: Thank you.

SANCHEZ: Brianna?

KEILAR: All tsunami warnings in the U.S. downgraded at this hour after the sixth most powerful earthquake ever recorded hit off the coast of eastern Russia. The 8.8 quake triggering the tsunami, which experts say can travel at speeds of a jumbo jet across the Pacific before slowing down and creating big waves on the coast of Hawaii, California, Alaska, and the Pacific Northwest. The highest tsunami wave recorded so far in the U.S. was 5.7 feet in Maui. The greatest danger has now moved to South America. So, let's go to CNN Meteorologist Chris Warren for the latest on this. Chris, what are you tracking?

CHRIS WARREN, CNN METEOROLOGIST: Brianna, we are still watching and expecting some water level rises across parts of South America. I want to take you back to how this all started and why it's more than just a number. As impressive and as scary as an 8.8 earthquake is, there's more going on and it's what's going on under the water that can help generate and does generate the tsunami. So the earthquake itself, 8.8 magnitude, happening just offshore from Russia off the East Coast. And for reference, there's Alaska with the Aleutian Islands. So what's happening? This is subduction zone.

[14:10:00]

So you've got one tectonic plate going underneath the other and it's the intersection where there's some uplift. That's the key, where underwater part of the earth, part of the ocean surface is thrust upward and that pushes the water up. Unlike regular waves and swells where it's wind generated, this came from down below. So that does a couple of things. First off, it's a big surge of water that goes up, but also as that water is spreading out, this is the forecast from the time -- as it's going this way, it's going is about as fast, the wave is about as fast as a jet airplane can fly, commercial jet can fly and it's got a long distance to go. So, five hours, 10 hours, 15 hours. So now, we're in this zone right here in South America is where we're watching for the potential of more water rises.

But the waves themselves going across, the wavelength of it means that the water going across the ocean, you wouldn't really notice it if you were on a -- standing on a boat. It's once it gets closer to shore is where the energy slows down. So it's not going as fast as a jet plant anymore, but the energy is transferred up. So we're starting to see, more of the rises. Now, four right here in Hawaii, also there's Kahului, that's Maui 5.7, and Crescent City four feet, three feet. So, part of why you have these rises is that how much of the earth is gone up from underneath the water. So, you never know exactly how much the rise is going to be until it starts. But what we do know is it can last a while. This is Crescent City. So, this was the forecast right here. So pretty normal, we'll give (ph) you your high tide, low tide. Then the tsunami came here and this happening over the course of hours. These are all hours. So going above the forecast here and again, with that happening for a period of time, it's not just, Brianna, one push of water. And that's why the threat does continue for parts of California and parts of the West Coast, but also for South America, because you get these undulations and you get the different kind of pushes of water throughout time.

KEILAR: Yeah. Really fascinating and a little bit scary too, Chris. Thanks for tracking that for us. Still to come on "CNN News Central," it is day one of the NTSB's public hearing about the deadly mid-air collision between a commercial jet and a Black Hawk helicopter here in Washington, D.C. Plus, while Democrats try to force the Department of Justice to release the Epstein files, a source at DOJ tells CNN they don't expect to comply. And the app known for allowing women to anonymously spill the tea on men they've dated suspends private messaging. We have the latest on the data breach. That and much more coming up on "CNN News Central."

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[14:17:22]

KEILAR: Today, Senate Democrats are trying to dust off a 1920s era law they say has the legal standing to force the Trump Administration to release the Jeffrey Epstein files. It's known as the Rule of Five and it essentially states a minority party in Congress can make a demand like this as long as, yes, five lawmakers on a certain committee sign on. You guessed it. A source tells CNN the Justice Department does not though plan to comply. Overnight, the DOJ did file a memo that further laid out its case to get some grand jury testimony unsealed in New York. Justice officials cited intense public interest as part of their reasoning.

Meantime in the House, some lawmakers on the Oversight Committee are strongly opposing the idea of a pardon or clemency for Epstein's co- conspirator, Ghislaine Maxwell, the convicted sex trafficker who wants immunity and other conditions, a number of them, before agreeing to testify before the committee. With us now is Spencer Kuvin. He's an attorney who has represented several of Epstein's victims over the years. He's now the Chief Legal Officer of GOLDLAW.

Spencer, let's first talk about the Ghislaine Maxwell issue, right? And these conditions that she's asking Congress to abide by in order to testify in front of them. She is a convicted child sex trafficker. You've represented a number of victims. Paint the picture for us of what she has done. What kind of person is requesting, in this case, clemency to speak.

SPENCER KUVIN, ATTORNEY WHO REPRESENTED EPSTEIN VICTIMS: Thank you for having me on. You know, she's an evil person at its core. There is nothing other than just evil in this woman. She is the one that was actively out, recruiting young girls to bring them to Epstein. And I've said this before, but without Ghislaine Maxwell, there would've been no Jeffrey Epstein. You have an elderly or older gentleman, white hair, he's not going to convince young 14 and 15-year-old girls to come to his home for doing what he did.

But if you have an educated, well-dressed, English-accented woman, approaching these young girls and promising them that they could be models and they're beautiful, their guard is down. So, she is more guilty, if not just as certainly guilty as Epstein. So, the idea of giving her any kind of immunity at all is just repugnant to the victims.

KEILAR: There are people demanding this information. The files, testimony from Maxwell. They want to know about the third parties, and what they did to these girls as well.

[14:20:00]

Does Maxwell have that information in a way that can answer some of those questions and in a way that the documents would not?

KUVIN: Without a doubt. Without a doubt, she has that information. Look, during the original proceeding that I handled on behalf of the victims dating back to 2007, we got during the discovery process, phone logs, message pads that were seized by police during that investigation. It showed numerous people calling the homes, trying to make appointments for massages and to have them send over girls. We know that Ghislaine Maxwell was in charge of organizing all of that. She's the one that ran the house here in Palm Beach.

We believe that she also ran his home up in Manhattan, and she was organizing all the ins and outs of these relationships. And then she would trade off those relationships and get Jeffrey invited to different parties and events based upon the compromising material that they already had developed on these individuals.

KEILAR: So if she has that information, can she be trusted to be fulsome in testifying about it?

KUVIN: I mean, that's the $6 million question, right? She is a convicted liar. We know that she lies for her own benefit. But the question really becomes what hard evidence does she have that can prove what she's saying is true? I would note that she came to her interview with the Department of Justice with a box. What's in the box? We want to know what she kept because, undoubtedly, she was concerned for her own safety and life in jail after Mr. Epstein died in jail. So, she probably kept compromising material that she could trade off of and say, look, if I'm killed or I die, this stuff is going to get released.

KEILAR: So, you're someone who deposed Epstein. And I will say briefly, it's a really interesting story about how you deposed him about something that upset him so badly that he cut off, or his attorneys cut off the deposition, and then you turned around and were able to file that transcript and that video, such that it became public. It was incredibly embarrassing for him. But you asked some questions that really got under his skin. I wonder if you were asking questions of Maxwell, what would you ask?

KUVIN: Well, that is a good question. The intent in going into the deposition of Epstein was to completely slay him, to make sure that we destroyed him enough that he got so upset that he would do what he did, and then we could publish the video of that embarrassing question to him because we knew back then that he would've hated it. I would love to be able to have the opportunity to sit down with Ms. Maxwell and the evidence that we've developed over the years and do the same ideas, have the same questions about what she was doing, and base it on the information we already have, and then get that information verified to make sure that what she's saying is true.

Yeah, I don't want to give away any potential questions, but realistically speaking, we'd want to know her travel, her whereabouts, where she was, when she was there, and then match that up with the girls that we know were abused.

KEILAR: When you look at the things that Congress is subpoenaing and you hear a lot of the rhetoric about what people are arguing should be released, do you think that they're barking up the right trees? And if not, what trees should they be barking up?

KUVIN: No, I think they absolutely are. Look, President Trump has said that he stands on the rights of victims. He stands up for victims, especially child victims. This is his opportunity to stand behind those words. Trump could sign an executive order today, demanding that the DOJ release all material that they have in the Epstein litigation, keeping out obviously and blacking out the names of minor victims, but otherwise, release the documents. Sign the executive order today, because either he is admitting that he doesn't want to do that or that he doesn't have the power to do that.

And I don't think that he's going to ever admit he doesn't have the power to sign an executive order demanding the release of this information. And most importantly, the victims want the videos released to show who was at the home when they were there and what was occurring while they were there. Because we know that there were very high-profile individuals that were in and out of the Palm Beach home, the Manhattan home, as well as the Virgin Island home, and the FBI has thousands of hours of videotape from them.

KEILAR: Spencer, I just want to play something the president said yesterday about how Epstein poached girls from the spa at Mar-a-Lago to work for him. Here's what he said.

[14:25:00]

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

DONALD TRUMP, (R) PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: He took people that worked for me and I told him, don't do it anymore. And he did it. And I said, stay the hell out of here.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Mr. President, did one of those stolen persons, that include Virginia Giuffre? TRUMP: I don't know. I think she worked at the spa. I think so. I think that was one of the people, yeah. He stole her. And by the way, she had no complaints about us, as you know, none whatsoever.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

KEILAR: She did work at the spa at Mar-a-Lago as a spa attendant. And it was Maxwell who recruited her from that spa. When you hear the president say that, Spencer, what questions does that bring up for you?

KUVIN: Well, I can tell you one thing. First of all, in cross- examining people for 30 years, OK? I can tell you that he didn't want to answer that question. Notice that when he is first asked about it, he says, I don't know. And then he realizes, his brain starts working and thinking through it, thinking they're going to be able to figure this out and I don't want to look stupid, so I better tell them. And then he amends his answer later. That happens when someone's trying to hide the truth. That happens when I cross-examine people.

And you just have to keep pushing like that reporter did. We know that Virginia worked at the spa and she was one of the ones that Epstein used in his sex trafficking scheme. That he traded her to various different high-profile individuals around the world. That has never been publicly admitted before. And she had to fight during her litigation because they were claiming that she was lying about all of that. We now know from the words of the president himself that Virginia was right all along and that she was trafficked out of Mar-a- Lago.

KEILAR: Yeah, the late Virginia Giuffre who died by suicide, we should mention, as a number of victims of Jeffrey Epstein have. Spencer Kuvin, thank you so much for speaking with us. We really appreciate it.

KUVIN: Thank you for having me on as usual.

KEILAR: Coming up, the first public hearing into the deadly midair collision between a commercial jet and a Black Hawk helicopter here in Washington. What we're learning about discrepancies in altitude readings, stay with us for that.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)