Return to Transcripts main page

CNN News Central

Trump Prepares for UNGA as World Faces Multiple Crises; Countries Unite to Recognize Palestinian State Ahead of U.N. Meeting; Man Charged in Deadly Shooting at New Hampshire Country Club; Tiger Kills Handler Linked to Tiger King Joe Exotic; Fireworks Show in Himalayan Mountains Sparks Backlash; Ryan Routh Representing Himself in Trump Assassination Attempt Trial, Decides Not to Testify. Aired 1:30-2p ET

Aired September 22, 2025 - 13:30   ET

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

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[13:31:24]

BORIS SANCHEZ, CNN CO-ANCHOR OF "CNN NEWS CENTRAL": In just a few hours, President Donald Trump will depart for New York where he will address the United Nations General Assembly tomorrow as world leaders confront several global crises. They include Israel's ongoing offensive in Gaza and now, a growing number of member nations are ready to formally recognize a Palestinian state. France is the latest country expected to announce its support later today. It's set to join the U.K., Canada, Portugal, and Australia, which all made their declarations over the weekend.

Let's discuss with CNN Military Analyst and retired U.S. Air Force Colonel Cedric Leighton. Colonel Leighton, great to have you as always. So, Emmanuel Macron, the leader of France, has said that this is going to be a rejection of Hamas that will empower Palestinians who reject terrorism. Conversely, Benjamin Netanyahu says that this is a reward for Hamas. How do you see it?

COL. CEDRIC LEIGHTON (RET.), CNN MILITARY ANALYST: So, yeah, this is very interesting because Israelis, not only a Netanyahu's party, but in the opposition, have the same basic sentiment. What they're saying is, this is a dangerous precedent because it gives Hamas the recognition that it has sought and it is -- it basically allows Hamas to be rewarded for what they did back in October of 2023. But, the reality of the situation is, is that Israel is paying the diplomatic price for its actions in Gaza and other actions as well.

But Gaza has basically been this crucible of events as far as the rest of the world is concerned. So because of Israel's heavy-handed actions, countries in Europe, like France, the U.K., Portugal, and others have basically said, look, this is -- we are not recognizing Hamas, but what we are doing is we're saying Israel, you need to change the way in which you conduct military operations. You still have the right to defend yourself, most countries are saying this, but on the other hand, you do not have the right to cause a humanitarian catastrophe. And that's how the world sees this, for the most part. And I think it also means that the U.S. is basically becoming an outlier in this particular case.

SANCHEZ: And if the U.S. doesn't follow suit with France and these other nations, ultimately, is it just a symbolic move?

LEIGHTON: Well, it could be -- the recognition of the pa of a Palestinian state could be just a symbolic movement. There's a lot of symbolism, obviously, in diplomacy.

SANCHEZ: Yeah.

LEIGHTON: But the situation, right now, I think actually does mean something for the Palestinians on the ground. It -- if the Europeans are clear about not recognizing Hamas, then they can kind of circumvent Hamas and perhaps serve as a diplomatic bridge for a solution in the future that could result in a ceasefire. That I think is the European hope, whether or not that actually comes to fruition is of course another story.

SANCHEZ: Yeah, it's an open question. I wonder if the scenario that you're describing is that Israel's actions in Gaza have made it more isolated on the world stage. Does it really hinge on the United States to essentially draw a red line for Israel as to what direction this thing should head?

LEIGHTON: Well, in many ways, the United States, at least in the past, has been really helpful to kind of limit Israel's actions. There have been many times in the decades past where Israel wanted to attack Iranian targets, for example, and only recently were they given the green light to do so when the U.S. actually helped them attack the Iranian nuclear facilities in places like Natanz and Fordow. The way in which the Israelis are pursuing this is, I think, going to create a real problem for them and I think if the United States doesn't draw red lines for them, it could actually not only serve to isolate Israel diplomatically, but it could also serve to isolate the United States.

[13:35:00]

So there is a real diplomatic area that could potentially be a series of pitfalls for the United States and could result, yes, less U.S. influence in the Middle East because of that.

SANCHEZ: That is a significant point. So notably, after the speech at the U.N., Netanyahu is expected to come to Washington, D.C. It's actually the fourth time that he's visiting the nation's capitol since just January when President Trump took office. What are you anticipating from their meeting?

LEIGHTON: Well, I think there perhaps are going to be some discussions in private that we're not seeing in public, so that could be where those red lines that we spoke about --

SANCHEZ: Yeah.

LEIGHTON: -- could potentially be drawn. But, if you take the public statements at face value from President Trump and others in the Trump administration, they might be the opposite. These meetings might result in the opposite, where more green lights are given to Israel for several actions. And if that's the case, then there's a real possibility that although we're aligned very closely with Israel under this administration, that could still result in a lot of diplomatic pitfalls and could weaken our efforts to try to achieve a broader piece in the Middle East.

SANCHEZ: Yeah, a lot to watch for this week at the U.N. Colonel Cedric Leighton, appreciate you.

LEIGHTON: You bet. Thank you, Boris.

SANCHEZ: Thanks so much. Brianna?

BRIANNA KEILAR, CNN CO-ANCHOR OF "CNN NEWS CENTRAL": Now to some of the other headlines that we are watching this hour, a New Hampshire man is being arraigned for second degree murder after police say he shot and killed one man and injured two other Saturday night at a country club where he used to work. Authorities say wedding guests were on the dance floor when the sound of gunfire erupted next door in the club's restaurant. The victim was dining inside with his family when the shooting happened. He reportedly lunged at the gunman in an attempt to stop him when he was killed. Police say a motive for the attack isn't yet clear.

And a tiger handler linked to Tiger King Joe Exotic was killed by one of the big cats that he was performing with. Authorities say Ryan Easley was attacked on Saturday during an act at the Oklahoma Preserve where he worked. Details about this attack are still unclear with the facility simply calling it an accident. Animal rights groups reacted to news with calls to end the use of wild animals in performances.

And a promotional campaign at the northern foot of the Himalayan Mountains is sparking backlash, after outdoor equipment retailer Arc'teryx partnered with a Chinese pyrotechnic artist to set off this colorful fireworks display intended to resemble a dragon. The potential environmental impact of the stunt on Tibet's high-altitude plateau and fragile ecosystem drew a lot of debate across Chinese social media. The company and the artist later apologized. The local government is now investigating.

And coming up, gearing up for a fight, news outlets preparing to push back against a new Pentagon policy that would restrict reporting. Stay with CNN.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[13:42:44]

SANCHEZ: We have breaking news just into CNN. The man accused of attempting to kill Donald Trump at a Florida golf course last year has rested his case and will not testify in his own defense. CNN's Randi Kaye has been following this case closely. Randy, what are you learning?

RANDI KAYE, CNN CORRESPONDENT: Hey there, Boris. Well, Ryan Routh is representing himself, as you said, and there was some question until just a short time ago as to whether or not he would testify in his own defense. And after presenting three witnesses, including a former Marine sniper and two character witnesses, Ryan Routh told Judge Aileen Cannon that he does not plan to testify in his own defense. And she said to him, did you have enough time to decide? And his response to her was, a year, given that it has been one year since he was taken into custody after allegedly looking to assassinate then candidate Donald Trump at his golf course, Trump International Golf Club.

But he did call three witnesses, as I said, and he was really seemed to try and prove that he was incompetent to the jury or possibly lacking intent. With that former Marine sniper, he said, would you see -- would you use a scope for 40 yards? And the Marine Sniper answered, most scopes are intended for longer distances. Again, about the scope, would you mount a scope with clamps, glue, and tape? Which was evidence that was found at the scene, and the Marine sniper said no.

But there were these two character witnesses, who spoke really to Routh's character, at least what he wanted them to say. They said that, one of them described him as a good parent and kind and caring, but he eventually was cut off by the judge in his questioning of all three of these witnesses. In fact, when he was talking to the Marine sniper, he said does it take a special kind of person to be willing to take another person's life? And the judge quickly cut him off and said, you can't ask that. This is a firearms expert, not an expert in psychology.

We did talk to Routh's daughter, Sarah, Boris, who has been in court every day, and she said that her father is the best man I've ever known. She said he would help anybody and everybody in this community. So what happens next now is the judge is working on the jury instructions and the jury is -- the closing arguments are expected to take place starting tomorrow morning, then the case will go to the jury. And if convicted, he is facing the possibility of life in prison. Boris?

SANCHEZ: Randi Kaye, live for us in Fort Pierce. Thank you so much for the update. Brianna?

[13:45:00]

KEILAR: News outlets are gearing up for a legal battle against the Pentagon. A new policy is demanding that reporters with a Pentagon credential sign a pledge not to obtain or use unauthorized material in their reporting. But when asked about the policy, President Trump seemed to be on a different page.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Will the Pentagon be in charge of deciding what reporters can report on?

DONALD TRUMP, (R) PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: No, I don't think so. Are you --

(CROSSTALK)

TRUMP: Nothing -- nothing -- listen, nothing stops reporters, you know about that.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

KEILAR: Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth's office has already banned some news outlets, including CNN, from media workspaces and made some areas of the Pentagon restricted to journalists without an official escort. CNN Chief Media Analyst Brian Stelter is with us now. Brian, tell us about this new policy and how extraordinary this is.

BRIAN STELTER, CNN CHIEF MEDIA ANALYST: Well, the Wall Street Journal is calling it deeply disturbing. Other publications are vowing to push back on this, and there could be a legal battle in the days ahead. But first, newsroom leaders and media lawyers are evaluating this new memo from the Pentagon and trying to figure out the smartest pathway forward. It does seem that Hegseth and his press office want journalists to be reduced simply to parrots, simply repeating Pentagon talking points that are approved by the U.S. military to make Hegseth and his team look good.

But of course, journalists work for the public. We're trying to serve the public interest to find out what the military is doing in the name of all Americans. So, this policy leverages the fact that a many reporters who cover the military have press credentials that allow them access to the Pentagon complex. According to this memo, the Pentagon beat (ph) reporters are being told they have to sign a pledge that they will not obtain or use unauthorized material even though some of the most important, most vital stories about the U.S. military do start with leaks of unauthorized material.

This new policy will use that act of having some of that information into cause for evoking press credentials. One outcome of this could be an additional amount of reporting from the outside. In other words, more reporters working from outside the Pentagon walls to break news about the military. And that in itself may not be a bad thing. Like you mentioned, Brianna, we've already seen some news outlets kicked out of their usual Pentagon workspaces. A bunch of partisan pro-Trump outlets were brought back in, although in some cases, they haven't even shown up for work in those office spaces.

So anyway, this current situation, this new memo, it is being evaluated by news outlets and lawyers and I do suspect we will hear of some challenges in the not too distant future.

KEILAR: Yeah. And what are some of the legal options that news agencies have to fight this?

STELTER: Well, we're hearing from Press Freedom Group saying that what the Pentagon's proposing sounds like a form of prior restraint, which is the most serious, most flagrant example of a First Amendment violation. Prior restraint is when a news outlet is stopped from publishing ahead of time, when there's restraint happening in advance. And these are -- cases are oftentimes pretty easily defeated by news outlets. There's lots of case law about this.

We've also heard from Democratic lawmakers, but also I want to point out one Republican lawmaker who's calling out these new restrictions, that's GOP Representative Don Bacon, who is leaving Congress next year. Here's what he wrote on X over the weekend, very bluntly. He said, "This is so dumb that I have a hard time believing it is true. He said, we don't want a bunch of Pravda newspapers only touting the government's official position. A free press makes our country better. This sounds more like amateur hour." So, a notable statement there from a GOP lawmaker.

And as you pointed out at the very beginning of this conversation, President Trump doesn't seem to be aware of this policy or agree with Hegseth's policy. So, I do wonder if we're going to hear more about what's going to happen between the White House and the Pentagon when it comes to these new rules, Brianna.

KEILAR: Yeah, to your point though, this could actually really backfire and I wonder if the Pentagon has considered that.

STELTER: Yes.

KEILAR: Brian Stelter, thank you so much. Boris?

STELTER: Thanks.

SANCHEZ: American Dream or pipe dream, a new analysis shows just how much it costs to achieve the American Dream and it sounds like you better have some deep pockets. CNN's Vanessa Yurkevich has the breakdown for us. Vanessa, what is this report showing?

VANESSA YURKEVICH, CNN BUSINESS AND POLITICS CORRESPONDENT: Yeah, this report from Investopedia shows that in order to achieve the American Dream nowadays in 2025, it costs about $5 million over the course of a lifetime for one U.S. household. And at a baseline, this report says that you have to have a college education and you have to be a part of a dual-income household. Investopedia surveyed Americans and they ranked categories that they thought really established that they had achieved the American Dream.

So these eight categories are over the lifespan of age 22 to 82, and this is how much you have to save in order to achieve the American Dream.

[13:50:00]

According to Investopedia, the most important thing for Americans was actually retirement. You have to save about $1.6 million in order to feel like you can retire comfortably. Owning a home, that is a big part of the American Dream, but look at that price tag, almost $1 million over the course of a lifetime. The average home price is about $400,000, so where does that other money come from? Well, mortgage rates, that nearly doubles what you're going to be spending over the course of your lifetime because mortgage rates right now are sitting at about 6.2 percent.

Also, if you want to raise kids and send them to college, $876,000 and healthcare was actually a high category on this ranking. People felt like they wanted to have really good healthcare. Well, that'll cost over the course of your lifetime, $414,000. Some other categories that were really important to Americans in order to achieve that American Dream, cars. So this is -- this was an eye popper for me, about $1 million in order to have two cars every 10 years. And that is because of the price tag of the vehicle, but because of insurance and because of maintenance for these two cars.

Also discretionary, yes, but annual vacations will cost you $181,000 over the course of your lifetime. Owning a pet, really popular for people, $40,000 over your lifetime. And weddings, this was also really high on the rankings for Americans in terms of achieving the American Dream. One bright spot there, Boris, is that actually in 2025, the cost of a wedding fell to $38,000 from $44,000. So I guess, you pick up a couple thousand dollars worth of savings there. But really, I think this goes to show that the American Dream really does feel out of reach for many Americans right now.

You still have inflation running close to 3 percent. I mentioned the mortgage rates there. But, this survey indicates that you have to have saved $5 million in order to reach that American dream. Many families simply won't be able to reach that. But of course, the American Dream, Boris, can mean different things to different people.

SANCHEZ: That is a good point. Vanessa Yurkevich, thank you so much for that reporting.

Coming up, California becomes the first state to ban most law enforcement officers from covering their faces. But, how can the state enforce the new rules on federal immigration agents? We'll discuss next.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[13:57:25]

KEILAR: California Governor Gavin Newsom is pushing back against the practice of agents wearing masks while detaining people on the streets of his state. Newsom signed a new bill that bans most law enforcement officers, including federal agents, from obscuring their identities. But it's unclear how or whether the state can enforce the ban on federal agents. CNN's Julia Vargas Jones is live for us in Los Angeles. Julia, what's the reaction been to this new ban?

JULIA VARGAS JONES, CNN CORRESPONDENT: Well, the Trump administration has been bashing this legislation since Newsom signed it on Saturday. It's yet another chapter, Brianna, on this ongoing political chess match between Governor Gavin Newsom and the Trump administration. We heard from the Assistant Secretary for Public Affairs, Tricia McLaughlin. She said that she was concerned for the safety of those ICE officers. She said, "They're wearing masks to protect themselves from being doxed and targeted by terrorist sympathizers.

Now, Newsom had addressed that saying that there was no data shared by the DHS on a rise of those attacks or threats on those officers. But, what this ban is actually saying is that any kind of face covering would be prohibited for federal law enforcement except for medical masks or for those agents who are undercover, as wear -- as tactical gear. Those are all exceptions. Now, those agents would also need to show identification to local law enforcement, and they will now need warrants to go into schools and hospitals. And if they do get into school campuses, the governor said they would need to notify the parents. Take a listen.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

GOV. GAVIN NEWSOM, (D) CALIFORNIA: You're going to go out and you're going to do enforcement, provide an ID. Tell us which agency you represent. Provide us basic information that all local law enforcement is required to provide.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

VARGAS JONES: And Brianna, a reminder, this is just two weeks after the Supreme Court sided with the Trump administration in allowing those roving immigration enforcement operations to continue here in California.

KEILAR: And what about this question of whether the state, Julia, can enforce this when it comes to federal law enforcement? What are officials in California saying about that?

VARGAS JONES: Well, that's the key question about this, right, Brianna, is whether or not they even have jurisdiction for this law. We heard from Acting U.S. Attorney for California, Bill Essayli. He said that it would not have any effect on those federal agents here in California and that they will continue to mask up. It begs the question of whether or not this is just political theater and posturing from the governor on a national state, or if there is any chance of this being --