Return to Transcripts main page

CNN News Central

Rep. Katherine Clark (D-MA) is Interviewed about a Government Shutdown; Areva Martin is Interviewed about the Combs Trial; Approval of RFK Jr.; Chris Wright is Interviewed about Comments on Climate Change; United States Versus Harvard. Aired 8:30-9a ET

Aired September 25, 2025 - 08:30   ET

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

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[08:30:31]

SARA SIDNER, CNN ANCHOR: This morning, the White House is turning up the pressure with just five days until the federal government runs out of money. The White House Budget Office is now threatening large scale firings, permanent ones, if the government shuts down. Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer says this is an attempt at intimidation by the Trump administration.

Joining us now is Democratic House Minority Whip Katherine Clark of Massachusetts.

Thank you so much for being here.

Let's start with this. You see the threat there. And I'm curious what you think, that if, you know, you stand and if Democrats are seen as standing in the way of passing this continuing resolution and making sure that the government is funded and there's a government shutdown, that the Trump administration is preparing to fire -- mass firings, permanent mass firings of federal employees. What do you do with this?

REP. KATHERINE CLARK (D-MA): Yes. Let's look at the situation that we have here and how outrageous it is. The president of the United States is saying, I'm going to take away your health care. And if you stand up for that, well, then I'll turn around and -- and lay off people, fire workers. It is definitely -- the beatings will continue on working people in this country until morale improves. It is outrageous.

And what we are saying to the Republicans in Congress and to the president is that, you have made life harder and more expensive for American people. And it starts with fundamentally taking away health care from millions and increasing the price of health insurance for everyone.

And we are already seeing hospitals close, nursing homes, halting medical research. We're seeing premium notices coming out on October 1st that are going to be jaw-dropping and devastating for American families. And we're saying, come to the table. Let's talk about a budget that protects health care for Americans. And their answer is, if you don't let us cut their health care, we'll fire more people. That is an outrageous statement against hard working families in this country.

SIDNER: Let me ask you about health care and in particular Obamacare. What will people lose if this resolution goes forward when it comes to Obamacare and tax credits? As we understand it, that perhaps people will see their bills double? And how many people might this affect?

CLARK: Yes, this is going to affect millions of people because the situation we have is that the Republicans decided to repeal tax credits that help people afford health insurance. These are proposals and that Democrats put in to help people find care, be able to afford care when and where they need it. And what the Republicans have said is, we're taking that away from them. And the insurance companies have responded by saying, we are going to raise premiums because we know that healthy people will opt out of the ACA because they can't afford these insurance.

So, people are about to get those notices on new premiums that could be double and upwards, depending on what demographic you're in. This could be, you know, a 93 percent increase on average. This is -- this an outrageous thing to do to people. And we are just going into open enrollment for the ACA.

So, we are very worried about the real time implications of this, never mind what they have done to Medicaid and Medicare, to, you know, all the implications of that, that we are already seeing across the country hurting rural hospitals first and hardest, that are already teetering on the brink. So, all of this is what this fight is about. We're saying to the president, to our colleagues, you have to come work with us. And when you are saying, we're not meeting with Dems, this is --

SIDNER: The president said he would not meet with Dems, calling --

CLARK: This is --

SIDNER: Calling you guys all sorts of names.

CLARK: Who -- who he's really shutting the door on is the American people who already know they have a health care system that doesn't work for them.

[08:35:05]

They are already seeing dramatic increases in prices due to tariffs. They are so worried that their small businesses, that also are heavily reliant on the ACA to provide health insurance, are going to not be able to keep their doors open. These are the very real things. And that is the response from the president? We're not going to work with you. We are only going to talk to the very wealthiest Americans. We are only going to work to give them tax breaks at the expense of everybody else.

SIDNER: Are you willing to say, this one issue, when it comes to Obamacare, when it comes to health care, we are going to stand on this issue and we are going to not make any concessions on this with Republicans, and so, the government may shut down? Are you willing to sort of -- is this that one issue that you say, we're not moving on this?

CLARK: Our issue --

SIDNER: So, shut it down.

CLARK: Our issue is -- is this, come to the table. Put the American peoples' voices, put their health care back into these deliberations. We have a president who claims he loves to make deals, but he will never fight for the American people of this country who are the ones who keep our economy moving, who are the ones that we need to support in this time. So, when he is closing the door on us, he's closing the door on them. And we are here to say, these cuts to health care are unsustainable for American families who are already struggling to provide the basics for their family.

Let's come and have a conversation about that. We have laid out that we -- how dangerous these cuts are, the damage they will do to families, to our overall economy. And so, let's come and have that negotiation. And this closed door on the American people, and doubling down by saying, if you're fighting for health care, not only am I not going to have that conversation, I am going to turn around and fire massive layoffs of hardworking people. It is -- it is an outrageous way to run a government.

SIDNER: Can you give me a yes or no? Are you willing to let the government shut down over this issue when it comes to Obamacare and funding health care for people?

CLARK: I will tell you, we are not going to support a budget. But when you control the White House, the Senate and the House, whether or not we shut down is solely a Republican decision. Come to the table. Work with us. Negotiate. Put the American people and their health care first.

SIDNER: All right. Congresswoman Katherine Clark, it is a pleasure. Thank you so much for coming in this morning. Appreciate it.

CLARK: Thank you, Sara.

SIDNER: John.

JOHN BERMAN, CNN ANCHOR: All right, happening today, for the first time since his high-profile trial, Sean Combs due back in a New York courtroom. Pre-sentencing motions are set to get underway soon. A jury convicted Combs earlier this year on two prostitution related charges.

Ahead of the sentencing next week, the attorneys for Combs have argued that he should receive a sentence of no more than 14 months. More than 70 letters from family, friends and colleagues have been written to the judge voicing their support.

With us now, attorney Areva Martin.

Counselor, thanks so much for being with us.

What exactly are you looking for at today's hearing and what really is it about today?

AREVA MARTIN, ATTORNEY: Yes, today, John, this is, as you appropriately said, pre-sentencing motions that have been filed by Sean Combs' legal team. They're really fighting over what conduct legally qualifies as a violation of the Mann Act. You know, that was the charge -- one of the two convictions that are pending, or I guess two of the charges that he was convicted of in his trial. And now his attorneys are saying that there wasn't sufficient evidence to find a violation of the Mann Act and that the conviction should be set aside, or in the alternative, that Combs should be given a new trial.

Now, as you said, all of this comes a week before they are also going to be asking the judge to sentence him to 14 months, which would essentially allow him to walk free if the judge allows, you know, the sentencing being requested by Combs' legal team.

BERMAN: Yes, basically that would be time served.

On the idea of getting the conviction thrown out, what would the defense basically have to prove here? How unusual would that be for the judge to do that at this point?

MARTIN: Very unusual because the bar is so high. When asking a judge to basically set aside a jury determination of guilt, a very high bar for the defense, they're arguing that the statute, the Mann Act, was misapplied. That Combs was engaged in consensual sexual act, that there was no coercion, and that there was no commercial sex, and that the evidence was insufficient for the finding of a violation.

Now, of course, the prosecution is arguing that the jurors had an opportunity to weigh all the evidence, and that the evidence did prove that there was facilitated commercial sex acts involving at least two of Combs' former girlfriends.

[08:40:13]

And it's important to note that the courts have held that the Mann Act can apply even when an individual like Combs doesn't directly participate in the sex acts, and when there is no financial benefit from the prostitution. So, a lot of wrangling today over the definition of prostitution and over the application of the Mann Act.

BERMAN: What factors do you think will weigh the most heavily in determining whether the sentence is either on the longer side or the shorter side here, mitigating or exacerbating factors?

MARTIN: I think it's the violence. It's the violence that we saw during the trial. The violence that was testified to by the two former girlfriends, mainly Cassie Ventura. It was that horrific videotape that we saw. And it's important to note, John, that Sean Combs' lawyers have been asking for him to be released pending the sentencing. That was -- that request was made to the court on the day that he was convicted. They have since filed motions requesting that he be released, and the judge has denied all of those motions, in fact, citing some of the really horrific evidence that was produced regarding the violence that Combs used against his two girlfriends, former girlfriends.

BERMAN: Councilor Areva Martin, always great to see you. Thank you so much.

Kate.

KATE BOLDUAN, CNN ANCHOR: And breaking news in this morning. Health and Human Services Secretary Robert Kennedy Jr. is now launching a review of the abortion pill mifepristone. That is according to ABC News. This is the medicine that is used in about two-thirds of abortions in the United States right now, and that studies have repeatedly found is safe and effective. That is not stopping the Health and Human Services secretary, Robert Kennedy Jr. And this very clearly isn't the first overhaul to establish science that he has taken on since taking over the agency.

And that may be why new data shows that he is one of the more polarizing members of the president's cabinet right now.

CNN's Harry Enten is running the numbers and the new numbers coming in. How has RFK Jr,'s approval changed recently?

HARRY ENTEN, CNN CHIEF DATA ANALYST: Yes, down it goes. What are we talking about here? Well, let's take a look. RFK's net approval rating. In March, according to Quinnipiac, it was minus 11. You go to June, down we go to minus 15. And now data that's just out this week, minus 21 points. We've seen a drop of ten points since March. The more RFK Jr. is implementing or trying to implicate his policies, the further down his net approval rating goes. And at this particular point, 21 points underwater is not a place you want to be.

BOLDUAN: What is the data showing is driving this?

ENTEN: OK, what is going on here? Well, I think, you know, RFK is sort of a two-faced guy when it comes to the American public. What do they like about RFK Jr.? Well, Americans who support restricting artificial food dyes. Look at this, its 60 percent. That, of course, is something that RFK Jr. has been trying to implement, right? They like RFK Jr. when it comes to food dyes and stuff in food and trying to remove artificial food dyes.

But look at this, trust RFK Jr. on vaccine information, he's significantly lower. He's down at 37 percent. And, obviously, RFK Jr.'s been trying to change some of the advice that's going on from the federal government when it comes to vaccines. Americans do not trust RFK Jr. They do not like him on vaccines. They liked him when it comes to food dyes. They don't like him on vaccines. And this has been the number that has been far more in the news recently.

If I were advising RFK in terms of if he wanted to be more popular, I'd be focusing on this, not on this. But this seems to be where he's going at this particular point.

BOLDUAN: And as Health and Human services secretary, he oversees 13 agencies.

ENTEN: Yes.

BOLDUAN: All the public health of the United States. Is this impacting the trust level in those agencies?

ENTEN: Yes, I think that this is the real worry, right, because they don't trust RFK Jr., right, on vaccine information. And take a look here. Gives trustworthy info on public health. The CDC, it was 72 percent last year. Look at this, it's 64 percent now.

How about the FDA? It was 73 percent last year. It's 63 percent now. Most of this decline is coming from Democrats who all of a sudden are wondering, can I actually trust the information that is coming out of the federal government, whether or not it is coming out of RFK Jr's mouth? Because, obviously, as you said, all those agencies that he's overlooking, those are very important. If the public doesn't trust them, we've got major problems. And at this particular point, when you look at these numbers, the flip side is now more than a third of Americans are not confident in the information that they are getting at either the CDC or the FDA, which I think a lot of public health officials are quite worried about.

BOLDUAN: They have definitely stated that.

Harry, thank you so much for that.

ENTEN: Thank you.

BOLDUAN: Sara.

SIDNER: All right, thank you to you both.

More mysterious drones end up shutting down an airport in Europe. What we're learning about who may be behind these.

And a massive A.I. accomplishment. A.I. can now pass the hardest level of a financial analyst exam in just a matter of minutes. What that might mean for all of us.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[08:48:18]

BOLDUAN: Green energy is a scam. Climate change is a con. That was the message from President Trump during his speech to the United Nations General Assembly this week. The president spent nearly a quarter of his speaking time on climate change issues in trying to sell American oil and gas in the room, directly taking his message dismissing climate change directly to and directing it at the leaders in that room. Listen to this.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

DONALD TRUMP, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: It's the greatest con job ever perpetrated on the world, in my opinion. Climate change, no matter what happens, you're involved in that. No more global warming. No more global cooling. All of these predictions made by the United Nations and many others, often for bad reasons, were wrong. They were made by stupid people that have cost their country's fortunes and given those same countries no chance for success. If you don't get away from this green scam, your country is going to fail.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

BOLDUAN: What does that message mean for U.S. energy policy going forward and from here out?

Joining us right now is the U.S. secretary of energy, Chris Wright.

Secretary, thank you very much for being here. I appreciate the time.

In a new interview with CNN, the E.U. commission president was asked about the president's message there about the -- climate change being a con job, in his words, and she responded to it.

Let me play this for you. Listen to this.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

CHRISTIANE AMANPOUR, CNN CHIEF INTERNATIONAL ANCHOR: So you don't agree that the renewables are a gigantic con job?

URSULA VON DER LEYEN, PRESIDENT, EUROPEAN COMMISSION: We will stay the course with the renewables because, as we think it is good for the climate, it is bringing good jobs at home in Europe. It is cheaper than the fossil fuels for us in Europe because we do not have to import them.

[08:50:03]

And it gives us independence and energy security.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

BOLDUAN: Secretary, do you think Europe is wrong?

CHRIS WRIGHT, ENERGY SECRETARY: Look, the greatest action that came from this increasingly strident calls for action on climate change, about $5 trillion has been spent over the last 20 years, mostly on wind, solar, batteries, transmission to enable that. It's 2.6 percent of global energy today. The main impacts of the pursuit towards net zero have been more expensive energy for all the early movers that have spent money on these forms of energy, deindustrialization, which means industries leaving Germany, leaving the United Kingdom, leaving Belgium, going to Asia, producing things out of coal instead of natural gas, loading them on diesel powered ships and bringing them back, like, that's not -- that's not a serious climate policy.

And the worst part has been reduced progress in energy access. Two billion people cook their daily meals today burning wood and dung inside their houses. Two million needless deaths from that. But yet the climate change movement stridently stands against getting clean cooking fuels and hydrocarbon access to the rest of the world. That's a scam.

BOLDUAN: The thing when it comes to renewables is, if you're looking at investing, it's expensive on the front end and then it's a lot cheaper than fossil fuels on the back end. I mean, and the fact is, if you're just focusing on the American consumer and the cost that it -- that it -- and the cost of energy for them, the world does believe, and you can see it in the numbers, wind and solar. They are the cheapest forms of energy on earth. I mean Lazard (ph) just put out a report that says, "renewables remain the most cost competitive form of generating and distributing energy." And even just anecdotally, oil producing giant Saudi Arabia is investing big in solar, which sends a message. So, how is it a con or a scam?

WRIGHT: So, the Lazard report, of course, is crazy because they use a thing called levelized cost of energy, as if they're delivering the same thing. A natural gas power plant gives energy 24/7. Wind and solar, it's when the wind blows and when the sun shines. There's no customer for that energy. Do you want your kid in an incubator and if the sun goes behind a cloud the incubators --

BOLDUAN: Well, you've got to have back -- you've got -- yes, you have to have backup, for sure.

WRIGHT: When you -- that's right. When --

BOLDUAN: But the whole concept of renewable energies as a scam, really?

WRIGHT: When you include the backup costs, it's a huge driver of increased cost. California and Florida had similar cost of electricity 20 years ago. California went down this renewable energy road. Florida built more natural gas. Today, California's electricity prices are twice as high as Florida's, and Florida produces more electricity than California.

BOLDUAN: But --

WRIGHT: You make energy expensive, people consume less of it, and your industries will leave and your voters will be angry.

BOLDUAN: The president also said that European electricity bills are four or five times more expensive than those in China, and more expensive -- and higher than those in the United States. Regardless of that comparison, electricity prices are on the rise in the U.S., in part due to the push and the needs of A.I. End of July, electricity prices surge to 5.5 percent. That's over twice the pace of overall inflation. What do you say to the American consumer? The direction is not the right direction.

WRIGHT: I agree entirely because everything that's coming on the grid today was permitted during the Biden administration.

BOLDUAN: How is --

WRIGHT: They permitted wind, solar and batteries. BOLDUAN: But again, then, when you look at how is drill -- the idea of

drill, baby, drill, I don't understand as being the actual answer, because if that's what you've got, you also have the oil and gas companies telling the Dallas Fed, just recently, they told the Dallas Fed this year, "Trump's push to lower fuel prices, which lessens the economic incentive for producers to drill, was incompatible with his stated desire to increase production. The president's decision to impose tariffs on foreign products has driven up drilling costs at a time when producers are struggling in an oversupplied market." Drill, baby, drill does not sound like a good investment under the conditions that have been set.

WRIGHT: Yes, President Trump's focus is consumers. He wants low oil, gas, oil prices, gas prices, heating prices, electricity prices. He wants all of those.

BOLDUAN: Doesn't sound like you can have both in this -- in this scenario.

WRIGHT: We have both today. We have both today. He -- yes, his -- his special interest is not the oil and gas companies. Biden was fantastic for the oil and gas companies. He made it harder to produce oil and gas. He didn't reduce our dependance on oil and gas, he just made the prices higher. Who won from that?

BOLDUAN: But -- again, but if drill, baby, drill, and just -- I know I'm using just the moniker --

WRIGHT: Yes.

BOLDUAN: Is the answer and it's not moving towards renewables, these two things -- these two things don't happen at the same time. You've got electricity going up. It's becoming more expensive for people in the United States. And you have oil and gas producers saying, and -- and we're not going to produce more.

WRIGHT: We're ta record high oil production, record high natural gas production. Anyone in the business wants higher prices. But look what we're going to do is we're going to stop producing --

BOLDUAN: OK.

WRIGHT: Closing coal plants and we're going to build new natural gas plants. We're going to build electricity that works 24/7, stop the Biden price rises and eventually bring the price of electricity down.

BOLDUAN: This is something that I -- I've been really confused about, and I would like to get your take on. The president has made very clear that Europe needs to cut ties, energy ties, with Russia in order to end the war and force Russia to a negotiating table to end that war.

[08:55:09]

Why is the United States still buying enriched uranium from Russia today? WRIGHT: Oh, the whole world is because, unfortunately --

BOLDUAN: But why is the United States?

WRIGHT: Because we need it. We don't have an ability to enrich enough uranium for our reactors.

BOLDUAN: Correct.

WRIGHT: We are building it right now. My department is part of that effort.

BOLDUAN: Why are -- what are the plans to cut those ties with Russia? Is it the same timeline as you're expecting Europe to? Why does the president think Europe needs to act to cut their ties when I have not heard anyone talking about the move to cut U.S. ties in buying uranium.

WRIGHT: Because Europe, Japan, the United States, everyone buys Russian -- Russian enriched uranium. You're absolutely right, we want to get off of it. That's about $700 million versus $20 billion of oil and gas going to Europe.

BOLDUAN: Right, but it's still -- it's more -- it's more already this year than was bought last year in the United States.

WRIGHT: Yes, because -- because we're stopped closing nuclear power plants. You're right, we want to get off that dependance. We are all in, in my department, in getting --

BOLDUAN: How do you do it?

WRIGHT: We need to get more uranium enrichment done in the United States. We'll be announcing awards on that in the next few weeks.

BOLDUAN: So, I've heard that actually suggested to me, that that is -- dig it up from -- dig it up in the United States. The biggest issue with uranium is the -- is the enrichment -- is the refining process. And with that suggestion of digging it up, how can -- even if you dig it up, how are you going to refine it?

WRIGHT: We -- we need to build, and we are today building new enrichment capacity in the United States.

BOLDUAN: Wasn't the last one built 20 years ago?

WRIGHT: It was. It was.

BOLDUAN: Yes, how fast are you going to build that?

WRIGHT: It will take two or three years.

BOLDUAN: In time to end a war?

WRIGHT: What?

BOLDUAN: In time to end a war?

WRIGHT: No, unfortunately, it won't be in time to end the war. Fortunately, there's much more money going into oil and natural gas to -- to Russia than there is to uranium. I wish we could get rid of the uranium problem tomorrow. Fortunately, it's a much smaller funder of the war than oil and gas. But we want to get rid of all of them as fast as possible. I agree entirely.

BOLDUAN: Leading (ph) by example is definitely one thing.

Secretary, I've got like 75 more questions. Let's continue this conversation another time.

WRIGHT: Thanks, Kate. Look forward to it.

BOLDUAN: I appreciate it. Thank you very much. Thanks for coming in.

WRIGHT: Take care. Thanks for having me.

BOLDUAN: John.

BERMAN: That was a great discussion.

Overnight, several pro-Palestinian protesters interrupted former Vice President Kamala Harris on the first night of her book tour. Harris said, what is happening in Gaza, quote, "breaks my heart." And she blamed President Trump for giving the Israeli government, quote, "a blank check."

Russia's embassy in Denmark is denying any involvement in the recent drone sightings near an airport that shut down airspace twice this week, Denmark's national police commissioner told CNN they do not yet know who was behind the incidents, but are investigating several theories. The main airport in Norway was also temporarily closed due to drones this week.

This morning, a driver and his passenger in custody after leading authorities on a wild chase in a truck that was reported stolen. At one point, a SWAT vehicle rammed into the side of the truck to stop it. The suspect drove through several cities during the hour-long pursuit, with California Highway Patrol officers joining the chase on the freeways. Oh, there's that collision again.

All right, Sara.

SIDNER: Video.

All right, thank you so much, John.

Harvard, as you well know, has become ground zero in America's culture wars. In his upcoming documentary for "The Whole Story with Anderson Cooper," CNN's Omar Jimenez taking us inside the clash between the Trump administration and the country's oldest, richest and most prestigious university.

Here's a look. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

VIOLET BARRON, JEWISH STUDENT: A lot of people will film opening their letter.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Oh, my God!

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Yeah!

BARRON: I didn't want to do that. I thought it might jinx it. I remember just like running out of my room kind of screaming.

AMELIA HELLER, UNDERGRADUATE PRESIDENT, HARVARD HILLEL: And I was talking to my parents the night I got in, and I was like, should I commit? And they're like, are you kidding? You just don't say no to Harvard.

STEVEN LEVITSKY, PROFESSOR OF GOVERNMENT, HARVARD UNIVERSITY: Harvard is simply the most influential of U.S. private universities. It is also able to send a message. If, in fact, the Trump administration is able to beat Harvard, every other university and college in the United States is going to know that it cannot afford to take on the Trump administration.

CHRISTOPHER RUFO, CONSERVATIVE POLITICAL ACTIVIST: You want to always try to go as high on the chain as possible. And you work your way up, you experiment, you learn, but then eventually you're going to have to say, we're going to have to go into the ring with the biggest, meanest, baddest, strongest opponent.

OMAR JIMENEZ, CNN CORRESPONDENT: And this is that title fight?

RUFO: And this is that title fight.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

SIDNER: All right. Our Omar Jimenez joining us now.

There is this battle happening, and most of it is over funding. But there are a lot of other things here.

OMAR JIMENEZ, CNN ANCHOR AND CORRESPONDENT: Yes.

SIDNER: Where does that particular fight stand at this -- at the moment?

JIMENEZ: Yes, so there's a few different fights playing out. There is the culture aspect of this. Who gets to determine, I guess, what the culture is on a university, a private university, like Harvard. Is it Harvard or is it the Trump administration in this case?

But then also the big aspect of this is that the sort of piece that the administration has been holding over the university's head is freezing funds for research, federal funds. Recently, a judge ruled that that's not allowed and that -- some of that funding needs to be restored. So, in the last week millions of dollars in research funding have

started to flow back in.

[08:59:56]

And one of the things the judge wrote is that, "a review of the administrative record makes it difficult to conclude anything other than (ph) defendants use anti-Semitism as a smokescreen for a targeted, ideologically motivated assault on the country's premier universities."