Return to Transcripts main page

CNN News Central

At Least One Dead, Two Missing After Pennsylvania Steel Plant Explosion; People Near Pittsburgh-area Plant Advised to Limit Exposure to Outside Air; Texas House Again Fails to Reach Quorum With Dems Absent; Trump Activates 800 D.C. National Guard, Places Police Under Fed Control; Trial Begins Over Trump's Military Deployments for California Protests. Aired 2-2:30p ET

Aired August 11, 2025 - 14:00   ET

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

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[14:00:40]

BORIS SANCHEZ, CNN CO-ANCHOR OF "CNN NEWS CENTRAL": 100 or bust, that's how many lawmakers the Texas House needs before it can vote on a new congressional district map, one that could give Republicans the edge in next year's midterm election. Democrats though remain defiant. We're seconds away from finding out if lawmakers can move forward on voting on that map or not.

DANNY FREEMAN, CNN CO-ANCHOR OF "CNN NEWS CENTRAL": Plus, security surge. President Donald Trump deploying hundreds of federal officers to the streets of Washington. He says it's all about stopping crime, but city leaders say the numbers don't back that up. And also this story here, burned out, a new movement rises up against sunscreen alarming dermatologists who say these people are making a huge mistake. We're following these major developing stories and many more, all coming in right here to "CNN News Central."

SANCHEZ: We start this hour with breaking news out of Pennsylvania. We're just learning that one person is dead, two others still missing after an explosion at a U.S. steel plant. Rescuers in Clairton, Pennsylvania are racing against time searching for survivors. Officials say that dozens are injured, though a spokesperson tells CNN Affiliate WTAE, that many of those injuries are not threatening.

Let's get right to CNN's Jason Carroll, who's been tracking this for us this afternoon. Jason, take us through what you know about the progress that rescue teams have made.

JASON CARROLL, CNN CORRESPONDENT: Well, it is very much an issue that they are dealing with out there, having to deal with all of that rubble, the high temperatures that are out there. Senator Fetterman said it best, Boris, he called what's happening out there heartbreaking when he heard about the person that lost - that was killed as a result of this explosion. As you say, two people still unaccounted for. And because of that, that's why you've got to have the emergency crews out there on the ground, digging through that rubble, doing all that they can to try to get to the bottom of where these two people may be. Again, dozens of people injured, but as you said, Boris, we're hearing from local officials there on the ground that many of those injuries may in fact be non-life threatening. Again, this is an explosion that happened at about 10:50 a.m. this morning. Residents who live within a short distance from the plant said they felt it, Boris. One woman who was out on her porch said that her house shook. Another man who lives nearby said the explosion felt like an earthquake.

We're also getting word that residents who live within a one mile sort of radius of Clairton Coke Works, out of an abundance of caution, are being advised to remain indoors, close all windows, and set their HVAC systems to sort of recirculate the air so you're not drawing in air from outside. That coming from the Allegheny Health Department, again, in an abundance of caution. This is a coking plant that's located about 20 miles or so from downtown Pittsburgh. It's one of the largest facilities of its kind in the country.

Again, Senator Fetterman down there on the ground, the local mayor there as well, the governor and Lieutenant Governor also saying that they are providing whatever support they can. But once again, just to recap very quickly, one person now confirmed dead, two unaccounted for as rescue crews are there on the ground, giving it their best effort to try to find anyone at this point still unaccounted for. Boris?

SANCHEZ: Jason Carroll, thank you so much for that update. Pivoting now to Texas, the State House Speaker gaveling in and yet again, Democratic lawmakers denying the State House a quorum, meaning that the Republican-dominated legislature can't pass a new congressional map, one that would almost certainly give Republicans the edge in next year's midterm election.

CNN's Ed Lavandera is live from the Texas State capital in Austin. Ed, another day for you at the capital without a quorum. Governor Greg Abbott, when speaking about this earlier, said that this could go on for years.

[14:05:00]

ED LAVANDERA, CNN SENIOR NATIONAL CORRESPONDENT: Yeah. I mean, nobody really believes that, to be honest, in terms of how long -- it's going to last a while, but it's definitely not going to last years. Democrats know full well that, that is not likely. But anyway, the -- we are at 96 members of the Texas House. They need a hundred to make quorum. They're 88 Republicans, which means eight Democrats we're here today. That's about the number we have seen. This was the fourth attempt to gavel in the House and reach a full quorum since Democrats left just over a week ago.

There are still about eight days left in this special legislative session. And what the governor is threatening to do is continue calling special session after special session to get this redistricting bill passed. And the Democrats are fully aware of that. Listen more to of what Governor Greg Abbott is saying today as this is now entering week two of this quorum break.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) GOV. GREG ABBOTT, (R) TEXAS: We will either find these missing Democrats over the course of this week and have votes on all these very important matters. Or at the end of this week, this current 30- day special session will be gaveled out and a nanosecond after that happens, I'm going to be calling another special session and we're going to be making sure that any Democrat who surfaces in the State of Texas in that intervening time is going to be apprehended by the Texas Department of Public Safety and taken to the Texas capital and held there to make sure that we are able to meet quorum.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

LAVANDERA: And Democrats knowing fully well that the governor is well within his rights to continue calling the special sessions and establishing the agenda for each of those sessions. They know that at some point, they're going to have to come back. And what we've heard, Boris, for several weeks now from Democrats is kind of trying to paint a picture of what they would view as a victory in all of this. And one of the things that we've heard repeatedly is trying to get other states on board with redistricting measures that would offset the Republican gains that would be achieved through the redistricting process here in Texas.

And you're starting to see that in California where Governor Gavin Newsom has gone and proposing a referendum that would be put before the voters that would redraw the maps there, creating another five seats. So, starting to see the -- all of that stuff starting to change will be interesting to watch how that affects what Texas Democrats do and how they approach the days ahead toward the end of this special legislative session. Boris?

SANCHEZ: We should also let our viewers know, you may see it on your screen right now. Governor Greg Abbott of Texas is going to be on CNN later today on "The Lead with Jake Tapper" starting at 5:00 p.m. Ed Lavandera from Austin, thanks so much for the update. Danny?

FREEMAN: We turn now to President Donald Trump's unprecedented action against crime in D.C. The president saying he will deploy hundreds of National Guard troops and do something no other president has ever done before, place the entire D.C. Police force under direct federal control.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

DONALD TRUMP, (R) PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: This is Liberation Day in D.C. and we're going to take our Capitol back. We're taking it back. Our Capitol city has been overtaken by violent gangs and blood thirsty criminals, roving mobs of wild youth, drugged out maniacs and homeless people. And we're not going to let it happen anymore. We're not going to take it.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

FREEMAN: The president also said he would bring in active duty military if they are "needed." But city officials argue none of this is necessary, pointing to the dropping rate in violent crimes, robberies and sexual assaults. Joining us now is CNN Security Correspondent Josh Campbell and CNN Law Enforcement Analyst Jonathan Wackrow. Josh formerly with the FBI, Jonathan was with the Secret Service, the perfect panel for today to break all of this down.

Jonathan, I'll start with you. Can you give us a sense from your experience what federal control of the police department might look like? And frankly, can anything really be done differently to bring down violent crime rates faster than they're already going down?

JONATHAN WACKROW, CNN LAW ENFORCEMENT ANALYST: Yeah, listen. I think that, right now, when you talk about the crime rates, I mean, it's not just Washington, D.C. that it's going down, you're also talking about a significant decline in violent crime in both Virginia and the area of Northern Virginia as well as Maryland. So, there has been a unified approach throughout the region to lower violent crime and crime in general. And we have seen the success here.

I think when you talk about like, what does taking over the department, the Metropolitan Police Department mean, actually to me, it actually means that there are consequences here and the consequences lie on the federal side. Really, what are we displacing, having these federal agents who are typically assigned to investigations such as counter-terrorism, organized crime, or complex fraud investigations. They're being pulled from those assignments to do what? Go out onto the street and engage in routine patrols that uniformed police officers typically do?

[14:10:00]

I mean, is this a show of force? Not really sure what the objective is here. Additionally, you're looking at very specialized niche, assignments that are done by the marshals, the ATF, and the DEA. They're diverting that expertise from cases that they're currently working on, again, to deploy just this optic on the street. So, I question what does the objective look like in the long term? There are success factors that can be done by integrating federal resources with local policing, but it has to be done in a measured and organized way. And unfortunately, that is not what we're seeing today.

FREEMAN: Josh, continuing off of that point right there, the other thing that President Trump said, which raised a lot of eyebrows, was that he will bring in the military if needed, really referring to beyond the National Guard. I just wanted your take. What questions do you have about that pretty stunning statement?

JOSH CAMPBELL, CNN SECURITY CORRESPONDENT: Yeah, I mean, he posed that as somewhat of a hypothetical, and so we'll have to actually wait and see whether that is something that he actually makes good on. But we've seen him in the past, kind of mull over and then actually use military forces. For example, where I am, here in Los Angeles, he had federalized the National Guard here in order to protect federal property, surrounding various immigration protests. Military members were also sent out to provide security for immigration officers as they were doing that arrest.

But, he said that Los Angeles would've burned to the ground had he not sent in the military. I think if you talk to law enforcement here in the city, and they have a very different view, because the military wasn't actually doing that much as it relates to crime in the city. So we'll have to wait and see what actually happens. I will agree a hundred percent with what Jonathan just said, and I'm continued to hear that from law enforcement sources as well. The idea being, this is a zero-sum proposition, if you're going to move these federal agents to work these other things. There are these, issues like terrorism and the like, that, that will go on unaddressed.

And then the major factor here as well is that these federal agents are not trained in policing. And in fact, federal agents like the FBI, it is very rare for them to do something like a traffic stop, for example, because they -- whenever they arrest someone, they plan that out. They want to have as much control as they can, much different than on the street as a beat cop, so to speak. And so, there are big safety questions here as well for those agents.

FREEMAN: Jonathan, the other thing that caught a lot of people's attention to that point is when President Trump suggested that other cities, this sort of strategy, he might use this same tact beyond Washington, D.C. What are your thoughts on that?

CAMPBELL: Well, listen, I think what the president is trying to do is have a show of force here, right? But there is benefits to local and federal coordination around crime fighting. I mean, you can't dispute that at all. We've seen success in the past, but it has to be done in with this balanced approach that I had said. If the federal government wants to go into other cities, how are they going to do that? What they should be doing is really taking the specialized capabilities of the federal government, such as really focusing on gang adjudication (ph), firearms trafficking, investigations of fugitives, and really taking the macro viewpoint and leaving the micro street-level patrolling to the local law enforcement.

But there is a balance here of where success can be found. However, this is just a knee-jerk reaction to the whims of the president. And unfortunately, it is going to constrain law enforcement in the short term, not have the desired benefit that everyone is seeking.

FREEMAN: Josh, when you look at this, I mean how long do you think this might go on? I know that initially, we're likely going to see this happen for 30 days or so. But I guess, do you see a mission accomplished point where the administration is satisfied that they've done the job? What's your thought on that?

CAMPBELL: Well, it's hard to say what the actual purpose is behind this. I mean, I'll be quite frank, Jonathan and I, we were both in federal law enforcement. I've talked to a lot of people in federal law enforcement who are suspicious people by nature. It wouldn't surprise you the number of people that have reached out saying that this has to be some kind of distraction, for example, from the Epstein issue which has been dominating the media coverage as of late, of course, that's unprovable.

But there is this big question like, why is this happening now when we're seeing crime fall in the city, as you can see there on your screen. And so that is a big question. What is the purpose behind all of this? And I think that will answer your question about the longevity, how long this may actually end up going. Again, this is an era where the president makes news in various different fronts multiple times a day. And so, if this is indeed some type of a distraction, we'll have to see whether that carries on in order to compete with other types of coverage. But particularly, as it relates to the military, there are constraints that the president has legally as far as the timeline when he has to go to Congress (inaudible). So I hate this answer, but we'll have to wait and see.

FREEMAN: No, but I appreciate it and I think it demonstrates a lot of the questions that a lot of us still have. Jonathan Wackrow, Josh Campbell, thank you both so much for your time today. Really do appreciate it.

CAMPBELL: You bet.

[14:15:00]

FREEMAN: And just ahead, the Trump Administration is defending its deployment of National Guard troops to Los Angeles. Details on the court battle with California are coming up. Plus, we have new outrage over Israel's attacks in Gaza after an airstrike kills several journalists. Plus later, CDC employees ask the White House for support after a deadly shooting at the agency's headquarters on Friday. Some say they felt like sitting ducks. That and much, much more coming up on "CNN News Central."

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[14:20:00]

SANCHEZ: Happening right now. Lawyers for President Trump and California Governor Gavin Newsom are clashing in court, the start of a trial with national implications. The state is suing the Trump Administration saying that they unlawfully federalized thousands of National Guard troops to quell anti-ICE protests back in June. Right now, some 300 troops are still on the ground in Los Angeles.

Let's discuss with former Deputy Secretary of Homeland Security under President Trump, Ken Cuccinelli. He's now a Senior Fellow at the Center for Renewing America. Ken, thanks so much for being with us. So, Trump's attorneys are citing Section 12406 of the U.S. code to justify federalizing the California National Guard. Section 12406 justify or allows for that in cases of rebellion or when regular forces can't execute U.S. laws exclusively. The judge in this case, Judge Breyer, is called the protest in June far short of rebellion. So in your eyes, how is that standard to cite this code as justification being met?

KEN CUCCINELLI, FORMER DEPUTY SECRETARY OF HOMELAND SECURITY UNDER PRESIDENT TRUMP: So, first of all, one of the things that's a clear difference with this judge is that the president has the authority to make this on a fairly unreviewable basis. So, the first remarkable thing about this case is that it is continuing onward at all. This judge has already attempted to issue a temporary restraining order. So it's -- which has a much higher standard than a simple trial as we're seeing today.

So we know this judge is going to rule against the administration. The real question is what's going to happen on appeal and the judge in the lower court, well, the judge who's sitting today made the very point in your question, and that is he questioned the substance of the president's decision. He questioned whether there was rebellion against the United States, which the U.S. says doesn't require trying to overthrow, it just requires resisting the efforts of the United States, going all the way back to the Whiskey Rebellion, so-called rebellion. They weren't trying to overthrow George Washington as the president. They were objecting to taxes.

And that is really at the very beginning of where this statute begins, historically, is in the 1790s. So, I think the president on appeal is going to prevail on that, and he's going to prevail on the question of whether the court has authority to review his determination at all. Both the rebellion question and whether the forces of the United States, in this case, ICE and Department of Homeland Security typically, are adequate to the task they were undertaking and are still undertaking in Los Angeles, which is even more difficult for Governor Newsom to attempt to get the court to review in terms of butting into the president's inherent authority.

SANCHEZ: I do want to ask you about the governor's role in all of this, but I sort of want to get your definition of what constitutes a rebellion in this case because I don't think that's necessarily what we saw earlier this year. There have been varying degrees of public protests throughout the country. I wonder whether if it repeats itself, the kind of public protests that we saw in California, were to happen in a red state with a future president who's a Democrat, if you would have any objection to them using the National Guard over the objections of a governor.

CUCCINELLI: If you're asking would I have any objection? No, I wouldn't have any objection. I think the president is well within the boundaries of his authority here. When I was the Deputy Secretary at DHS, we had cities burning across the country and the president didn't take this step. And lots of cities across America, frankly, paid for it. And the president has learned that lesson. He's not going to tolerate violence that's associated with federal activity, in this case, ICE operations. And I think that's one of the lessons of the first Trump Administration that we're seeing play out from the president here.

Whether it's a red state or a blue state, utterly irrelevant to me. As I said back in 2020, surely, we can all agree that violence is bad no matter why it happens. The reasons don't legitimize the violence and whether it's in a red state or a blue state, to your exact point, shouldn't make any difference at all.

SANCHEZ: And yet, to try to narrow down, what is it that constitutes the difference between public protest and what your eyes -- in your eyes, is a rebellion. Because I don't think even what we saw this year rises to the level of what we saw in 2020. And surely, there was violence and there were things that crossed the line.

[14:25:00]

But, I don't think that at any point, officials in Southern California said publicly that they thought things were completely out of their control. So, why have that federal intervention if this is just public protests that they felt they could have handled?

CUCCINELLI: So just to be clear, there was a point at which the police chief in L.A. did say that they didn't have control, publicly. So, but is that a legal bench benchmark? Not necessarily, but it does give a measure of the organization behind the violence that was going on there. And you're right, this is less severe, if for no other reason than it's only one city, than what was happening in 2020. But I don't think the president has imposed upon himself the kind of threshold -- I don't think he said to himself, well, if things get like 2020, then I'll do X.

He is doing this on a one-city basis, and he's making it very clear that he's going to support the immigration efforts and the -- when people organize, as they have in L.A., to oppose those efforts and those organizational efforts also include violence and violating the law, if the locality will not handle or cannot handle that escalation, then clearly the president is going to use his authority under Section 12406, as you mentioned, among other authorities, to bring in the National Guard in this case, the Marines if necessary.

Both of those are consistent with the Posse Comitatus Act. Both of those are consistent with the Insurrection Act. And I think on appeal, this -- the president is going to prevail on the substance of this case. I don't think he's going to win in front of this particular judge who, ironically enough, is the brother of Justice Breyer, but the temporary restraining order that he was willing to issue at the beginning of June, I think tells us that he's going to rule for Governor Newsom at this level of the case.

SANCHEZ: I want to get your thoughts on something specific within the filing. California's filing says that Guard troops joined ICE on as many as 75 percent of their missions, including during a raid at a cannabis facility. This is according to sworn deposition from an ICE field officer. That's very different from the administration's position that these troops were there to guard federal property. Is it not?

CUCCINELLI: Well, I don't think they have taken only the position that they were there to guard federal property. Property was one thing in a list in the filing that I've read from the government and their presence with ICE and -- was there as a protective measure, protecting ICE agents was one of the things the government has argued. And I would point out that the statutes allow the use of National Guard much more aggressively than that. So that's a bit of a compromise position, even from what's available to the president under the law. But they've argued more than just defending property.

SANCHEZ: Lastly, I -- so that I would ask you about Governor Newsom, the law specifically stipulates that orders have to be issued through governors. How does --

CUCCINELLI: Right.

SANCHEZ: -- this, I mean, where I'm getting at. If the governor is actually opposing this decision --

CUCCINELLI: Yes.

SANCHEZ: How does the federal government have the authority to supersede that?

CUCCINELLI: Well, sure. So there's two elements to that is the notice to the governor, which is what the United States says through means. And they let the adjutant general know, who is the person in California who performs this work for the governor. And the president talked to Governor Newsom the day before he issued his proclamation. I don't know the details of that conversation, but I know the government has argued that that is also part of the notice.

However, the governor doesn't have to give permission for the federalization of the Guard. I looked at this when I was Virginia's Attorney General very specifically, and President Obama was the president then. I had no problem suing when he was out of bounds, but there wasn't a basis for us to sue on his federalization of the Guard. And I don't think Governor Newsom is going to do any better. The law hasn't changed in the last 10 years.

And I think what's going to come out of this is really, we're going to get our first Posse Comitatus court case that's meaningful in these sorts of circumstances. And it's going to solidify the president's position to utilize not just the National Guard, but also the military, to support and supplement what is normally thought of as civilian law enforcement.

SANCHEZ: And we'll see how the higher courts rule. Ken Cuccinelli, appreciate you sharing your point of view.

CUCCINELLI: Yep.

SANCHEZ: Still to come. New calls for the end of --