Return to Transcripts main page

CNN News Central

Interview With Rep. Suhas Subramanyam (D-VA); ICE Crackdown in Chicago?; Putin and Xi Meet in China. Aired 1-1:30p ET

Aired September 02, 2025 - 13:00   ET

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

[13:00:00]

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[13:00:48]

BORIS SANCHEZ, CNN HOST: Taking aim at Illinois. ICE officials tell state leaders they're preparing to start operations there later this week, as a judge says the president's move to deploy troops to Los Angeles earlier this summer was illegal. The president is scheduled to speak in the Oval Office just about an hour from now. We're going to bring you his remarks live.

BRIANNA KEILAR, CNN HOST: And China flexes, Beijing showing off its military might with a huge parade and with an audience that includes the leaders of several countries at odds with the U.S., including Russia, Iran and North Korea.

And speaking out. Victims of Jeffrey Epstein head to Capitol Hill to meet with lawmakers and tell their stories, as members of Congress push the Trump administration to release the Epstein files.

We're following these major developing stories and many more all coming in right here to CNN NEWS CENTRAL.

SANCHEZ: We begin this afternoon with President Donald Trump set to speak just an hour from now as he faces a fresh legal setback,a judge just ruling that when he and Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth deployed the military in Los Angeles, they broke federal law.

CNN crime and justice correspondent Katelyn Polantz leads us off.

So, Katelyn, what exactly is this judge saying and what does it mean for the administration?

KATELYN POLANTZ, CNN SENIOR CRIME AND JUSTICE REPORTER: Well, the judge is saying that it's not lawful for the president or the defense secretary to create a national police force with the military where Donald Trump would be the head.

That's pretty much the language plainly in this opinion out of the Northern District of California. But what this does is, it stops the federal government from doing a couple things going forward. One, this ruling is only going to apply to California. So there aren't going to be -- there's not going to be the ability of Trump or Hegseth to send in military troops to cities in California like San Francisco, Oakland

Los Angeles is where this issue arose out of that created the lawsuit. They're also not going to be able to do the sorts of things, even if there are National Guard troops on the ground, say, like there are still in Southern California, that a local police force would do,things like making arrests, doing searches, traffic control, crowd control, riot control, interrogation.

That's because what the judge found here is, it's not just sending in National Guard that's the problem, say, to protect federal buildings or other federal interests. It's sending in the National Guard or Marines or the military to essentially do the duties of local law enforcement. That's what's illegal.

This opinion, it is only applying to California at this time. It's very likely going to be appealed by the administration, especially with all of the political discussion about other cities. But it is one that is going to come into play very likely as this issue plays out through the country. How far can Donald Trump go with using the military to essentially tackle any and all law enforcement in cities across the country?

SANCHEZ: Katelyn Polantz, thank you very much for that update.

Let's go live to the White House now with CNN's Kristen Holmes.

And, Kristen, are we getting reaction just before the president's announcement at 2:00?

KRISTEN HOLMES, CNN SENIOR WHITE HOUSE CORRESPONDENT: Yes, Boris, we haven't had any actual reaction to this lawsuit, to this ruling yet, but we do expect for it to come up when he speaks at 2:00.

Now, this meeting itself, or this announcement itself, is just President Trump, we are told by sources, is going to announce that he's moving the head of U.S. Space Command, the headquarters that are in Colorado, all the way to Alabama. This has been a point of controversy now for several years.

During the first Trump administration, Trump wanted to move it to Alabama. Then Biden reversed this decision, now another reversal, moving back from Colorado down to Alabama. But this is the first time we're going to see the president in six days. And he is expected to answer questions. The pool will be in there.

And we know that he likes to take questions, particularly in this Oval Office setting. And I can't stress enough how important this ruling is for the White House and for them to be watching, despite the fact that it's just in California, because we're looking at Chicago. We're looking at what exactly he's going to do in Chicago.

And one of the things we had heard from White House officials was that they wanted this to be more like what happened in L.A. or they're painting this more like what happened in L.A. than what had happened in Washington, D.C., and there is a very legal reason for that. It's not just because of crime or just because of immigration. [13:05:11]

It's because Donald Trump has more power in Washington, D.C., because it's not a state, because of home rule. So he can do more. He can use more forces than he can in a state. So we're seeing what he was talking about in Chicago in Illinois. He was saying that this was an expansion, or the White House was saying this was an expansion of an immigration enforcement, a major immigration enforcement.

They were going to add troops to what they already had on the ground. That is legal. That is -- the reason for that is legal, because they believe they can get around the system when it comes to fighting crime versus fighting immigration with already existing avenues.

So how this lawsuit impacts them is going to be something that we're watching very closely. We believe reporters will ask about it. But also it's going to impact how they spend the next couple of days when they're crafting how exactly they're going to go into Chicago.

SANCHEZ: Kristen Holmes live for us at the White House, thank you -- Brianna.

KEILAR: A major military show of force in China. Just hours from now, President Xi Jinping will host more than two dozen world leaders as China celebrates the end of World War II with a huge military parade.

Earlier in the day, Xi continued his security summit in Beijing, meeting one-on-one with Russian President Vladimir Putin,the two leaders exchanging warm praise while touting their growing partnerships. North Korea's Kim Jong-un also making a rare appearance outside of his country, arriving by armored train today in China's capital.

We're joined now by Josh Rogin. He is the lead global security analyst for Washington Post Intelligence.

Josh, what is Xi's message here with this huge parade?

JOSH ROGIN, "THE WASHINGTON POST": Well, Brianna, I think the message is twofold.

One, he's celebrating the 80th anniversary of World War II by putting forth a narrative that China and Russia and even the United States were all on the same side fighting against the fascists, and he would call them the Japanese and the Germans, and that this is a sign that Russia and China and even the United States are natural allies. That's what he wants the world to believe.

Now, it happens to be a fact that the Chinese army that fought mostly with the United States in World War II or partnered with the United States was the nationalist army and the Chinese communists were against them, but that doesn't really matter right now.

The second thing that he's showing is, he's going to roll out some new advanced military hardware, some that maybe we haven't seen before, to show that China's military is in many ways catching up to the United States and in some ways may even be surpassing the United States.

So, you can be sure a lot of people in the Pentagon are going to be watching that parade very, very closely to see what it is that they can really show and what it means for our security.

KEILAR: Yes, no doubt.

And there are going to be more than two dozen foreign leaders in attendance. I mentioned Putin, Kim Jong-un. There's also leaders we're expecting to see from Iran, from Pakistan, from Belarus. How does that alignment impact U.S. national security?

ROGIN: I mean, it is the axis of upheaval, and they are getting closer and closer. All the dictators are there and they are celebrating the fact that their alliance is growing and America's partnerships and alliances are weakening, mostly due to the trade wars that President Trump has waged against allies and adversaries alike.

What's really interesting, Brianna, is that Indian Prime Minister Modi is in China for this conference celebrating his relationship with Russia, his relationship with China, and a clear signal to the Trump administration that India won't be bullied on the trade matters, but he's not attending the parade.

So you can see that you have this group of dictators who are increasingly working together against us. And then you have got other countries like India who are gradually, but surely closening their relationships with these dictators because they are upset with the fact that America is treating them this way during trade.

So, overall, it's a reshaping of the global order in China's vision, not America's.

KEILAR: Yes. And maybe Modi is walking a line on optics when it comes to not going to the parade, but as the Trump administration has, of course, been trying to dissuade countries from buying Russian oil with the end goal of hurting their ability to fund their war in Ukraine, we have seen those tariffs imposed on India.

And it's been, Josh, to almost no effect. But, today, Russia's state- run energy company has announced this new pipeline deal with China, which includes a 30-year supply agreement. How should the U.S. be viewing this and what are their options for response?

ROGIN: Right.

Well, I think you can call Trump's tariff policy regarding Russia oil inconsistent, at best, because we have tariffed India heavily for taking Russia oil, but there have been no punishments for China, which actually buys more Russian oil than India already. And, as you pointed out, it's set to buy more. So what are these countries supposed to think?

Of course, they think it's personal. And, with Trump, in a way, it is personal. So I think the message that these countries are sending is clear, is that, if we won't do business with them, then they will do business with each other. And we're facing a world where the supply chains and the global energy flow is going to reorient itself around Trump's tariff policy, whether we like it or not.

[13:10:15]

And I think what you're seeing in terms of the deals being struck this week in China is a very stark illustration of that fact.

KEILAR: So Putin has said that Russia's relationship with China is unprecedentedly high, right, at the same time that you see Trump pushing traditional American allies away as well.

When you're looking at non-allies, has the president pushed, for instance, those two U.S. adversaries closer together into this relationship? And what does that say all around when taken with how Trump is treating allies, with the effect on his America first policies?

ROGIN: You know, that's a really good question, Brianna. I think of it in two ways.

When it comes to Russia, actually, the Trump administration is trying to engage Russia. Trump invited Putin to Alaska. They're trying to solve the Ukraine war. They're not succeeding, but at least they're trying. And what they're trying to do there, if you ask them, is, they're saying they're trying to pull Russia away from China. It's not working. It's clear that it's not working.

In Putin's calculus and Xi's calculus, Russia and China are much more natural allies than either of them are with us. Now, when it comes to China, it's a little bit of a different story, because our strategy is about joining with our allies to contain China, more or less, and that's also not working.

So if we're at war with our allies on trade, then we can't really coordinate with them to deal with China's economic and military aggression. So the Trump administration has a theory for the case of both Russia and China. But what this meeting shows is that with Russia their plan is not working out the way they want and with China the plan is not working out the way they want.

Will that cause them to change their plan? I don't know. We will have to wait and see.

KEILAR: Yes.

Josh Rogin, great to get your insights on this. Thank you.

ROGIN: Any time.

KEILAR: Still to come this hour: Congress is back in town, and the House Oversight Committee is back to digging into convicted sex offender Jeffrey Epstein's files and just that topic in general by speaking to his victims.

Plus: scientists pushing back, launching a coordinated response to the Trump administration's report that questioned climate change, calling it a -- quote -- "mockery of science."

And then, later, hear from this West Point cadet who pulled a man from a car, along with his father, just moments before it exploded into flames.

You're watching CNN NEWS CENTRAL. We will be right back.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[13:17:08]

KEILAR: Happening now: Lawmakers are back on Capitol Hill after the summer recess, and they're already facing high-stakes battles on multiple fronts.

They have just four weeks to pass legislation to fund the government and avoid a shutdown. But it won't be easy. Democrats want more checks on President Trump's power and changes to his new domestic policy law. The White House is signaling those demands are nonstarters.

Another big political fight in the days ahead will be around a push to force the Trump administration to release more of the Jeffrey Epstein files.

Let's go right to CNN chief congressional correspondent Manu Raju.

Quite a busy time up there on the Hill. What is happening when it comes to all things Jeffrey Epstein in the House there, Manu?

MANU RAJU, CNN CHIEF CONGRESSIONAL CORRESPONDENT: Yes, there's two fronts. There's the investigative front and the legislative front.

And it's that legislative front that has put some Republicans at odds with the speaker of the House, Mike Johnson, and the White House. That is being led by two members, one Republican, Thomas Massie, one Democrat, Ro Khanna, which they plan today to try to begin this effort to get enough support in the United States House to essentially force a vote in the House to call for the -- demand the release, binding legislation calling for the release of all the Epstein files.

They need to have a majority of the full house to do so, meaning enough Republicans need to sign with Democrats to go ahead and do that. Now, that is not what the speaker wants. He is opposed to this plan. The White House is opposed to this effort as well.

The speaker instead is moving on a different front. They have scheduled a vote for later this week to essentially direct the House Oversight Committee to continue its ongoing investigation into the Epstein matter. That is something that is being sharply criticized by Congressman Thomas Massie himself, who put out a tweet earlier today saying: "Speaker Johnson just scheduled this meaningless vote to provide political cover for those members who don't support our bipartisan legislation to force the release of the Epstein files."

Now, there doesn't need to be a vote to continue this investigation in the House Oversight Committee. It is still moving ahead. In fact, members of that committee are meeting with victims of Epstein's sex trafficking ring. That is expected to happen this afternoon, the speaker himself also expected to meet with those victims.

This comes as the same committee has issued subpoenas to the Justice Department, to Epstein's estate, has had depositions with the likes of Bill Barr and others who may know about what happened during this Epstein saga, as well as a potential interview coming up later this month with Alex Acosta, who was the U.S. attorney back in 2007 and cut that what was now considered a sweetheart deal with Jeffrey Epstein.

That will -- he will be coming before the committee as well. So you're seeing this play out, Brianna, on multiple fronts, but that legislative fight is coming to a head, could come to head this week, into next week as well. And we will see if the speaker has the votes to stop it -- Brianna.

[13:20:04]

KEILAR: All right, we will be watching for that.

Manu Raju live for us on the Hill, thank you -- Boris.

SANCHEZ: Let's dig deeper on this with Democratic Congressman Suhas Subramanyam of Virginia. He sits on the House Oversight Committee, which has been investigating the Epstein case.

Congressman, thanks so much for being with us.

I understand that you're going to go meet with some of these victims in about 40 minutes or so. What are you going to ask them?

REP. SUHAS SUBRAMANYAM (D-VA): Well, first, I want to hear their stories, because, in the end, they should have a voice in this entire process.

I mean, the things that were done to them were absolutely horrific. Their families are going to be there. I mean, they went through hell and beyond. And so we want to hear from them directly on how they feel about this whole thing happening and what we can do to be helpful and give them a voice.

SANCHEZ: So, when you hear Chairman Comer say that some of these conversations might get complicated, what does that mean? What do you think that means?

SUBRAMANYAM: I don't know what he means either. It's very simple.

All the president has to do is release all the files, like he promised the American people, and this all ends, and we all get to see what the president has been hiding and what his involvement was in this and what Epstein and Maxwell did all these years.

I think that's what the American people want, and so that's what we're pushing for. It's very simple. SANCHEZ: What are you anticipating is going to come from the press

conference with these victims, some of whom have never come before publicly? That's happening, I believe, tomorrow with Congressman Massie and Congressman Khanna.

Are you anticipating new allegations?

SUBRAMANYAM: I'd love to hear. I actually don't know.

What I -- I'm going to keep an open mind, but what I'd really like to see is what they want us to do. What is their wishes? If they want us to stop pushing this investigation, we should take that into consideration. But what I have kept hearing from victims is they want the files released.

I want to hear what they know about the president's involvement as well and the president's relationship with Epstein, whether they met the president themselves. These are some of the things I'd like to hear, but, most of all, they went through a lot.

And while the president and his administration meets with Maxwell and potentially cuts deals with her, we're going to meet with the victims and we're going to give them a voice. That's the difference.

SANCHEZ: Will you be signing on to this discharge petition that Massie and Khanna are pushing forward?

SUBRAMANYAM: Absolutely.

And every single member of Congress who wants to admonish what Epstein and Maxwell did and wants to see the truth and the release of the files should sign on to this petition. We should get every single member of Congress on it. But I don't expect that. I think we will get all the Democrats. I think we will get at least one Republican, Massie.

SANCHEZ: Right.

SUBRAMANYAM: I hope we get enough to actually put a vote on this, because the vote that the speaker is putting on the table is a completely worthless vote. All it's doing is asking the Oversight Committee to continue its investigation.

We're going to do that regardless of that vote. And so what we don't need is political theatrics or political cover. What we need is real answers and real truth instead.

SANCHEZ: You have described what the administration is doing as a cover-up.

Now, DOJ did hand over a first batch of documents to the Oversight Committee. Can you just describe for us what was in them? And, in general terms, just was there anything that surprised you?

SUBRAMANYAM: Ninety-seven percent of the documents were already public. And the other 3 percent were basically designed to try to make the president look good or to try to basically put out a messaging that the president wants.

SANCHEZ: How so?

SUBRAMANYAM: In the end -- there was nothing useful in that file, right, what we were given.

And what would be really nice is if they could release the list that they supposedly had on the desks of people in this administration and everything else that they promised over the past few years. I don't know why they're holding things back. This is just making them look worse.

I have people coming to my office every day now asking about the Epstein files. This is on voters' minds. And so we want answers. It's my job to get real accountability from this administration, and that's what I'm going to continue to do.

SANCHEZ: So the administration -- and the date on this is important. During the campaign, we heard repeatedly from folks in Trump's orbit that there was a client list, that the previous administration had been holding back all of this information.

Then, once they got an office, now they're saying there is no client list. Have you seen any evidence that would indicate to you that there is substance to the allegation that Jeffrey Epstein was the head of this conspiracy that involved powerful and prominent famous men who are still out there that haven't been held accountable for horrible things that they'd done to young girls?

SUBRAMANYAM: I haven't seen anything myself, but I would like to see everything that the president has and this administration has and make that determination.

But that's the problem, is that we don't even get all the information that the president has. All we know is that the president was told that he was in the files, and then the president's buddy Elon Musk tweeted that the president's in the files, that's why it hasn't been released.

So, as soon as that happened, I asked for the files, very simple, and never got an answer. Now we're all asking for the files. We're still not getting them. So I really want to know who's in these files, because no one should be above the law. That's why the Epstein case is so terrible, is because people like Alex Acosta let him off the hook all these years.

He was above the law because of his money. And the president shouldn't be above the law either. No one should be above the law. We should hold everyone accountable for these crimes.

SANCHEZ: We're anticipating that a second batch of documents are going to be passed along in the coming days, I believe on September 8, in a week or so.

[13:25:04]

Do you believe that those documents are going to hold additional information?

SUBRAMANYAM: I'm not optimistic at this point, given the first release of the documents.

They're selectively releasing files, most of which are public and some of which are just meant to make the administration look good, basically. And so I'm not optimistic that these are going to be helpful. I think that what Massie and Khanna are doing, that resolution to actually force the president to release the files, I think that is the best way to actually put pressure on the administration, because that's what should happen.

SANCHEZ: Zooming out, I'm curious about the politics of this, because you mentioned that Elon Musk was tweeting his allegations, which he has sort of since walked back. Musk, to be fair, tweets a lot of things, right?

I wonder if you think there might be a cost to this for Democrats, because polling has indicated that the Epstein files, this whole saga is most important to folks that are aligned with President Trump. And it's not clear that this would be the kind of issue that would peel them off from backing him. Do you think that there might be an opportunity cost for Democrats here?

SUBRAMANYAM: I don't know and I don't care.

I think, in the end, my job on the Oversight Committee is to hold this administration accountable and make it transparent, especially when they're supposed to be transparent. And so I'm going to continue to push. I know other oversight Dems are going to continue to push as well. We wouldn't even be this far if we hadn't forced some of these votes and forced Republicans to act.

And so I'd like to continue to push that, because, in the end, this was a campaign promise for many years, right? He ran on this. And so he should be releasing the files, even if he's in the files, even if it implicates him, right? Let's see the evidence. Let's see him defend himself and let's see him make sure that we're getting real answers from people like Maxwell. But we're not getting any of that right now.

SANCHEZ: Congressman Suhas Subramanyam, thank you so much for the time.

SUBRAMANYAM: Thank you.

SANCHEZ: When we come back: power in numbers, how scientists are pushing back on the Trump administration's report that cast doubt on climate change.

Also ahead, we're following legendary coach Bill Belichick and his rough return to the sidelines, some not-so-high highlights when we come back.

Stay with us.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)