Return to Transcripts main page

CNN News Central

Trump Prepares For UNGA As World Faces Multiple Crises; White House: Putin Offer To Extend Arms Treaty "Sounds Pretty Good"; Trump Hails Kirk, Rails Against Enemies At Memorial Service; Trump Admin Expected to Link Autism To Common Pain Reliever; Senator Cruz Pushes For Older Retirement Age for Pilots. Aired 3-3:30p ET

Aired September 22, 2025 - 15:00   ET

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

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

BRIANNA KEILAR, CNN HOST: The diplomatic fight over a future Palestinian state, several U.S. allies back that state, but the White House certainly does not. The debate could make for an uncomfortable week at the United Nations.

And the White House asks for people having an open mind, as it is revealing what the President calls answers about autism one hour from now. But experts say there is no clear link between the disorder and a common pain reliever blamed by the White House for autism.

And we knew that Harry Styles could sing. Well, apparently, he can also sprint or at least run pretty fast and far. The musician's stunning with a marathon time that is fast not just for celebrities, but really for anyone.

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

BORIS SANCHEZ, CNN HOST: World leaders, including President Trump, are preparing to gather in New York for the start of tomorrow's high-level general debate at the United Nations. The meeting convenes amid heightened tensions around the world and during a time considered to be one of the most volatile moments in the U.N.'s 80-year history.

Escalating military conflicts in Ukraine and Gaza are expected to be a major focus at this week's General Assembly. And top of mind is the formal recognition of a Palestinian state by multiple member nations. The U.S. remains vehemently opposed to the recognition of statehood, and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has vowed there will be no Palestinian state. CNN Anchor and Chief National Security Analyst Jim Sciutto is at the U.N.

Jim, we know that President Donald Trump is set to give his address tomorrow. What are we watching for out of that speech?

JIM SCIUTTO, CNN ANCHOR AND CHIEF NATIONAL SECURITY ANALYST: Well, the recognition of a Palestinian state is really becoming a chorus around the world, certainly at the UNGA this week, but also over the previous weeks and months and years. We now have more than 150 countries around the world formally recognizing a Palestinian state. And the 10 who have now added their names to that list here this week include countries that are some of America's closest allies: Canada, France, the U.K., Australia, putting the U.S. and, of course, Israel very much at loggerheads with that large number around the world.

The U.S. has called the recognition here at the UNGA of the Palestinian state performative, but the Israeli prime minister goes further. He says, in quite simple terms, no uncertain terms that there will be no Palestinian state.

And that, we should note, is a break with previous bipartisan U.S. policy, right? Because, for decades, it has been the policy of the United States for there be -- to be a two-state solution. Even President Trump himself in the past has at times endorsed that idea.

But that rift, as the war in Gaza rages on, is going to be on very public display here, here in New York during this gathering.

SANCHEZ: Jim, there's also the fact that the White House is responding to Vladimir Putin's offer to extend a key arms treaty. The White House saying that it sounds pretty good. What do you think the President's response is going to be?

SCIUTTO: Listen, I think welcoming this, right, this is basically the last big arms treaty that exists. The new start, as it's known, this put cap -- puts caps on U.S. and Russian intercontinental ballistic missiles, nuclear ICBMs, right? And over the last several years, we've seen other treaties between the U.S. and Russia go away, the Intermediate Nuclear Forces Treaty for shorter-range weapons, the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty during the Bush administration.

This is really the last man standing in that category. And it's happening at a time when other nations, China rapidly expanding its nuclear arsenal, North Korea, of course, concerns over Iran's own nuclear weapons program. So, to extend this, at least for a year, it's not long. It's not a renegotiation, but it's something, because there had been great concern that that last stopgap, right, against further nuclearization would go away at a time of, you know, quite difficult relations between the U.S. and Russia.

So, those words from Trump, I think, might reflect the administration's relief at seeing this at least extended. But one year is one year. It means you're set up for another negotiation just a year down the line.

SANCHEZ: Yes. Jim Sciutto, live for us at the United Nations General Assembly. Jim, thanks so much. Brianna?

KEILAR: The Charlie Kirk memorial presenting a conflicting path forward for politics, the MAGA movement and discourse in the U.S., many speakers praising Kirk's desire to engage and respect his political opponents. Kirk's wife, Erika, even forgave her husband's killer in an emotional call for an end to the cycle of hate.

[15:05:03]

But President Trump took a different approach. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

ERIKA KIRK, CHARLIE KIRK'S WIDOW: On the cross, our savior said, "Father, forgive them, for they not know what they do." That man, that young man, I forgive him.

DONALD TRUMP, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: He did not hate his opponents. He wanted the best for them. That's where I disagreed with Charlie. I hate my opponent. And I don't want the best for them.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

KEILAR: I'm joined now by Marc Short. He served as the former chief of staff to Vice President Mike Pence and as the White House legislative affairs director during the first Trump administration. He's currently the board chair of Advancing American Freedom. It's still a raw moment. I mean, this just happened with Charlie Kirk. But watching that memorial service -- and that was hard for Erika Kirk. That was -- it was clearly so difficult, understandably, right?

MARC SHORT, FORMER CHIEF OF STAFF TO VP MIKE PENCE: (INAUDIBLE) ...

KEILAR: But just a lot of conflicting emotions on this idea of kind of not just forgiveness, but how you see an enemy or someone working at crossways with you.

SHORT: Well, look, I think it's a testament to her. She gave an amazing testimonial. And I think that can only be filled with the Holy Spirit in a way that she could actually forgive a man who murdered her husband only a matter of days ago. I think it is a draw to show a sharp contrast to the President's remarks. But I mean, what she did was just amazing.

KEILAR: How did you see elected officials making an effort or not to bring down the temperature? Well, I think that there's a mix of that, right? I think that on both sides, some are asking to bring down the temperature and others are looking to elevate it. And I think we live, you know, in an era right now where there's a lot of social media that highlights and champions those who are looking for the conflict.

And I think that, you know, that has been, I think, one of the President's greatest virtues and vices is that, you know, when he propelled him in 2016, I think a lot of Republicans were angry at the direction of government and they wanted somebody who would go and fight for them. And I think that's the emotion that he's brought to the table.

KEILAR: This idea right now of his enemies and seeking retribution, it's clearly on his mind. We saw it at the memorial service. We saw it in his social media posts over the weekends. It's coming up against free speech in a way that is revealing a schism in the Republican Party. It's really interesting to see this develop.

SHORT: I think it is. I think that for many Republicans, for years, we looked to try to limit the power of the FCC. In fact, going back to the 1980s, it was during the Reagan administration that actually we were able to eliminate the fairness doctrine, which many people gave tribute to what rose -- gave rise to Rush Limbaugh's radio broadcast.

But in many cases, Democrats are the ones actually looking to empower the FCC further. So it's another example of where we are in Trump 2.0, where it's kind of upside down and looking for a Republican administration to broaden its power. And I think really, for many conservatives today, it's time to actually eliminate the FCC. It was created in the 1930s in a whole different era. And if we're really sincere about trying to limit the size and scope of government, it's not needed today.

KEILAR: So, when you see, you know, Ted Cruz basically saying, listen, no love lost with Jimmy Kimmel, he's not a fan, he made that very clear. But he's afraid that, you know, you get it -- it can come and it can go, right? So what does that look like? What do conservatives who share a concern that you share here feel that this could look like when the glove is on the other hand?

SHORT: Well, again, I think we saw it a long time ago. But before we eliminated the fairness doctrine, it was used to try to determine what voices could be heard in the media. And I think we believe in many cases, it was conservative voices that were silenced. I think Ted's exactly right.

Disney has every right to fire Jimmy Kimmel, and I applaud them for doing so. But the FCC should not be part of that conversation.

KEILAR: So, I mean, part of free speech in this country is that it protects a lot of speech that many of us ...

SHORT: Yes.

KEILAR: ... I mean, abhor, right? So, let's talk about that. Because there's a question right now, the press briefing today, you had the Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt, announcing that Trump intends to designate Antifa as a terrorist organization as soon as today via an executive order. Antifa doesn't have this kind of clear structure. And so there are some folks out there asking, how can this be done without somehow maybe coming up against free speech? And I wonder what -- how are you seeing that in light of this discussion we're having?

[15:10:04]

SHORT: I think there's a difference. I think Antifa has attacked police. Antifa did have massive, you know, unrest in Portland, Oregon just a few years ago. Antifa has attacked ICE agents. I think there's a difference between your actions and your speech. Again, it ...

KEILAR: Well, yes, that's not speech, to be clear.

SHORT: It ready -- exactly.

KEILAR: So then, how did they -- how is there sort of that -- making that distinction, but also the designation of it as a terrorist organization when it's not that well-organized?

SHORT: It's not well-organized. That's a very fair complaint. But at the same time, it is, I think, a terrorist organization when they're conducting violence against police, violence against law enforcement. That's because you said it's not speech. And so, I think he's right to designate them as a terrorist organization.

KEILAR: And right now, as you're seeing, I think it's a good time to sort of just -- as an overview, as we see this tension, including in the Republican Party, being an opponent of the President, what does that mean at this moment in time? And even -- it sort of feels a little different even than a couple of months ago. What does it mean right now?

SHORT: I don't know. I mean, honestly, I think that there are some people who are political opponents of the President. But what is -- as you said, what does it mean? Does it mean if you take a different position on, let's say, support for Ukraine, or you take a different position on the FCC and free speech, or, you know, even if you take a different position, you're uncomfortable with him weaponizing the DOJ.

I think in many cases, a lot of Republicans supported Donald Trump because they felt the Biden administration weaponized the DOJ against him. I think a lot of Americans don't like seeing it used that way. And so, while there's some who feel like, you know, retribution is fair play, I think a lot of Americans will grow uncomfortable with the notion that we're using the power and levers of government to go after your political opponents. I think it's one of the reasons many Republicans rallied back to Donald Trump in 2024.

KEILAR: Certainly a lot to contemplate there, Marc. It's great to speak with you, Marc Short.

SHORT: Thanks for having me.

KEILAR: Thank you so much.

And still to come, President Trump is set to make an announcement on what his administration thinks is causing autism, but it's already raising skepticism.

And new details on the future of TikTok. What we now know about who will control the all-important algorithm and the questions that it's raising. And then later, guess who? A pop star goes incognito for the Berlin Marathon. We'll have that and much more coming up on CNN NEWS CENTRAL.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[15:16:48]

SANCHEZ: Less than an hour from now, President Trump is expected to reveal what he claims is a, quote, "answer to autism." He and Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. are reportedly going to link the condition to the use of Tylenol during pregnancy and to low levels of folate, an essential vitamin. CNN's Meg Tirrell is tracking developments on this story.

And Meg, you're finding that medical experts say the data that is backing up this conclusion is actually inconclusive.

MEG TIRRELL, CNN MEDICAL CORRESPONDENT: Yes, Boris. This is an issue that has been studied for more than a decade. And the available data now, and there have been some very large studies on this, are inconclusive, really. Some studies have suggested an association. Other studies have suggested there's no association or even that Tylenol could be protective.

The president of the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists or ACOG, was on with our Sara Sidner this morning explaining why an association doesn't necessarily think -- mean one thing causes another. Take a listen.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

DR. STEVEN FLEISCHMAN, PRESIDENT, AMERICAN COLLEGE OF OBSTETRICIANS & GYNECOLOGY: Why does someone take acetaminophen in pregnancy? Most of the time, they take it because they had a fever, they have a headache, maybe they have some pain from an autoimmune disorder.

So, when you are looking at someone who's taking acetaminophen, the question is, is the acetaminophen the reason for the development of autism, or is it the underlying condition that need -- that person needed to take acetaminophen for?

(END VIDEO CLIP)

TIRRELL: Now, based on the data we have now is saying we don't have an answer for that. And it's important to note that acetaminophen is a tremendously widely used medicine. About more than half of pregnant women worldwide have reported using this drug, often because other drugs are not indicated for treating fever and pain during pregnancy, and it can be dangerous not to treat those, Boris.

We should also note that the Department of Health and Human Services has said any of the information about what they may be about to announce is speculative until they announce it.

SANCHEZ: With that in mind, we are anticipating that they're going to speak to some form of a treatment for autism as well. Tell us about that.

TIRRELL: Yes, the reporting suggests that an old approved drug called leucovorin may be brought up by the administration as a potential therapy for kids with autism. Now, this is a drug that's approved to help with side effects caused by chemotherapies. And there have been some small studies in children with autism that have showed some potential that it could be helpful.

But oftentimes, this is in a subset of patients. And experts say we need larger, longer studies to really know if this is safe and beneficial to use, particularly over the long term. And so, there is concern about what kind of recommendation we may see there as well.

SANCHEZ: Meg Tirrell, thank you so much for the update. We will be watching that announcement closely, so stay tuned for that. Meantime, Senator Ted Cruz is urging President Trump to support

raising the mandatory retirement age for pilots. The Air Line Pilots Association said that could increase travel risks. We'll discuss this debate when we come back.

[15:19:51]

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[15:24:27]

KEILAR: Senator Ted Cruz is urging President Trump to support raising the mandatory retirement age for pilots. Cruz is the Republican chair of the Commerce Committee and he's backing efforts to move that age to 67. It is currently 65.

In a letter to the White House, Senator Cruz says America should lead on the international stage in support of raising or even abolishing the pilot retirement age. The rules should not be based on arbitrary opinions, unfounded studies, or fictitious narratives. It should be based on truth.

[15:25:00]

But the Air Line Pilots Association opposes the idea, saying that it could increase travel risks.

Former Inspector General for the Department of Transportation, Mary Schiavo, is with us now on this.

This is a very interesting debate here and I wonder, Mary, what you think of what Senator Cruz is saying and what it could change for the airline industry?

MARY SCHIAVO, CNN AVIATION ANALYST: Well, you know, what's interesting here is this issue has been around for decades and so both Senator Cruz and the pilots union are partially right and partially wrong. The FAA, as per decade, said, well, we don't have the data to change the pilot cutoff age, but it's the FAA that has the raw data where they could do the studies and answer this question.

So instead, in 2007, it took an act of Congress to increase the age from 60 to 65. And thereafter, the General Accountability Office of the United States government could find no real safety effect. Accidents did not increase. Some university studies show that it's fine to increase the age and that accidents don't increase with age. But by the same token, the FAA is right when they say, but we don't have the studies to prove that.

Well, they need to get off the stick as, you know, they've been saying this for decades and get those studies done. If it's a safety risk, no one wants this, but no study so far has shown that accident rates increase over age 60, over age 65. And in some cases, pilots, not airline pilots, are flying well into their 70s and there's no documented study.

So, until there is, you can't say that it increases safety or increases accident rates because there's no evidence to say that.

KEILAR: Okay, if there is no study, then why is there a mandatory retirement age? And what are the safety considerations? Is this just based on assumptions people have?

SCHIAVO: Oh, you're -- this is going to drive you crazy. This always drove me crazy.

So, in the federal government, if you're going to change a regulation, and I had to face this all the time as Inspector General, and this issue came up when I was, if you're going to change a regulation, you have to have data and evidence to change it. While your data and evidence might be lousy to put the rule in effect in the first place, you can't change it unless you have data and evidence.

So, as long as the FAA doesn't collect the data and evidence, they simply say, hey, we don't have the data and evidence. So in some ways, it's sort of a circuitous argument. Other countries, not Europe, Europe follows the age 65 rule, but Australia, New Zealand, Canada, Brazil, under certain circumstances do allow pilots much older than 67 to fly. And what studies do show is increased experience, always flying under air traffic control guidance, IFR, and having two pilots in the cockpit. That is what increases safety. And we can't say that age decreases safety until we do the studies.

KEILAR: Until we do the study. Very important things to think about for us and for Congress.

Mary, thank you so much. Really appreciate it.

SCHIAVO: Thank you.

KEILAR: And ahead, the White House clarifying some outstanding questions about its pending TikTok deal. Who will control the app's algorithm? We'll have details ahead.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)