Return to Transcripts main page

CNN News Central

King Charles Strips Andrew's Royal Titles, Evicts Him From Estate; Rep. Adam Smith (D-WA) On Dems Outrage Over Trump Administration's Boat Strike Secrecy; SCOTUS blog: Supreme Court To Consider Whether To Review Same-Sex Marriage Challenge. Aired 7:30-8a ET

Aired October 31, 2025 - 07:30   ET

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

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[07:31:15]

KATE BOLDUAN, CNN ANCHOR: Starting midnight tonight millions of Americans are set to lose access to SNAP benefits, long known as food stamps, because of the government shutdown. What does that look like in reality and mean for communities across the country? Let's start here.

The Department of Agriculture says it does not have the money or the authority to cover the $8 billion food stamp bill that is for the coming month of November. The legal authority here is in dispute, if you will.

Democratic lawmakers argue there's $6 billion in an emergency contingency fund that could be used to fill some of the gap. Nearly two dozen Democratic-led states have taken the administration to court over it, but the Trump administration says very clearly that they are out of it. That it cannot -- they cannot use it, and they will not use those funds to supplement benefits.

In all, about 42 million people -- as we go here -- we will get there. In all, about 42 million Americans use SNAP, which is about 12.3 percent of the population and more than 22 million households. Break that down further, that is one in every eight Americans.

And then you have to take a look at this. Look at these numbers. Thirty-nine percent of SNAP recipients are children. Twenty percent are adults with children in their household. The remaining households, as you see here -- those with elderly adults, adults with no children, and adults with disabilities.

Then there's the breakdown of SNAP benefits by states and take a look at these colors. The darker colors show places where more than 17 percent of the population use SNAP. The lighter yellow areas between -- mean between five to seven percent of the population are SNAP beneficiaries. States do not have enough money to cover the cost of monthly food stamp benefits, though several have said that they will beef up their food assistance programs now -- next month -- to try to do something. In all, each household receives about $350 per month and they all now enter unchartered territory of what's to come as this shutdown drags on -- John.

JOHN BERMAN, CNN ANCHOR: Yeah, unchartered territory that really starts now.

This morning Georgia Congresswoman Marjorie Taylor Greene fighting some backlash from her own party as she gets ready to appear on "THE VIEW" next week. In a Twitter post she wrote, "There are pathetic Republican men (mostly paid social media influencers) attacking me for going on Bill Maher's show and "THE VIEW." Greene goes on to say she is "1,000,000 percent America ONLY" and she does not "obey Republican men's demands."

With us now is Democratic strategist Chuck Rocha and Bryan Lanza, a senior adviser to the Trump 2024 campaign. Three men here talking about Marjorie Taylor Greene and what she is saying there.

But Bryan, what's going on here? I mean, Marjorie Taylor Greene speaks her mind. Lately she's been speaking about the shutdown and wanted to get health care benefits to people, but she really seems ticked off at people in her own party.

BRYAN LANZA, SENIOR ADVISER TO TRUMP 2024 CAMPAIGN: Listen, I think that goes -- that's been going on for years. It's not just now; it's always been that way. She's always been a disruptive force in the House. She's certainly a disruptive force in Georgia. She doesn't sort of play well with others. And this is -- she's just now getting her additional 15 minutes of being disruptive during a shutdown.

This is what disruptors do. They find opportunities that create media noise to engage themselves in the debate that they have very little role in.

BERMAN: Chuck, is this just getting her 15 minutes or does this have ripple effects beyond Marjorie Taylor Greene?

CHUCK ROCHA, DEMOCRATIC STRATEGIST, PRESIDENT, SOLIDARITY STRATEGIES: I think Marjorie Taylor Greene is doing something really interesting here. I think if you watch what she's done beyond this when she was looking at opposing the money that we were giving to Argentina or standing up for Medicare or Medicaid, it makes me think about, like, what is she looking for down the road in her home state? Because she is falling in line of being a purest with Donald Trump doing what he's talking about America First. And people actually like that and like that she's standing on that.

[07:35:15]

I would agree with my buddy Bryan that she does like a good media opportunity as well.

BERMAN: No question about that.

But Bryan, what about the gender line she's drawn within the party, picking on Republican men in general? And is there -- I want to get to this in a little bit. Is there, you think, that movement within the Republican Party that she is shining a light on?

LANZA: Yeah. I don't know what the movement is. I think, you know, somebody who does media -- I'm -- you know, both genders disagree with me. Both genders disagree with Marjorie Taylor Thomas (sic). I hate to put gender roles on these things because once you start having gender roles then the next natural elevation of this is having racial roles.

Listen, people just don't agree with what she's doing strategically, message-wise. I see that. Going on "THE VIEW" adds very little value other than making noise. Going on Bill Maher adds very little value to the base other than making noise and drawing attention to fundraising. So I don't know if it's Republican men or if it's the Republican Party that says why are you trying to make this noise just for a fundraising opportunity.

BERMAN: Let me just add one ingredient into this. You were talking about gender, race. Let's add religion if we can --

LANZA: (INAUDIBLE).

BERMAN: -- and talk about Vice President J.D. Vance who was speaking to a group -- I think it was Turning Point USA, Charlie Kirk's group -- and he was taking questions as Kirk used to do. You know, a back- and-forth there -- and he was asked about the fact that his wife Usha is Hindu.

And this is something that if you go online there have been people on social media asking J.D. Vance, you know, how can you marry a Hindu woman? He's talked about this for years and he talks about being in a mixed-faith marriage. I'm in a mix-faith marriage, too -- people are.

But I want you to listen to what he ultimately came to in his answer about this yesterday.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

J.D. VANCE, (R) VICE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: Do I hope eventually that she is somehow moved by the same thing that I was moved in by church? Yeah, I honestly -- I do wish that because I believe in the Christian gospel and I hope eventually my wife comes to see it the same way.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

BERMAN: Chuck, I just want to know what you thought when you first saw that. Forget that he's vice president for a second -- but a man talking about hoping that his wife converts there. They've been married for a while.

ROCHA: Look, I agree with him in this point that I, a lot of times, hope that I can move my wife to agree with me on something at all. But this is very serious, and I think that if you think about what he has said about it and what he's putting out there -- think about the audience. That's where everybody -- he is at the -- an event where there's a lot of Christian values. He taken a lot of pressure and a lot of heat. And I think he's trying to wordsmith an answer that folks in his own party -- true believers in what they're talking about -- don't really accept, and you see it online.

I'm not saying that's the base of their party. I'm just saying there's a lot of those elements.

BERMAN: Bryan, how do you see it, first of all, as a political consultant but also just as a -- as a human being when you saw this?

LANZA: What I see and what I know is a man who loves his wife and a man who loves God, right? And sure, he -- you know, he -- you know, part of the thing of loving God is you're an evangelical to the word and you want other people to join you in that experience.

And it makes sense to want his wife to join in that experience. It actually shows to the strength of their relationship that he's not forcing anything down her throat. Of her free will, maybe she gets there. But that's the way you find God. You find it through your free will.

And like I said, what I see is a man who loves his wife and who loves God, and I think we need more of that in this country.

BERMAN: Chuck, last word.

ROCHA: I think that you just watch this -- watch as it develops into the midterms and watch how people are talking about religion because faith and family are something Democrats have to get back to talking about.

BERMAN: And I do think there are probably a lot of Hindus who say they have found God in form -- one form or another.

Bryan Lanza, Chuck Rocha, great to see you both this morning. Thanks -- Sara.

SARA SIDNER, CNN ANCHOR: And congratulations to Chuck for being awake. He was up till at least 11:30 last night right by my side. We were on TV. Wow -- sorry, Chuck.

All right, moving on. King Charles announced that not only are they stripping his brother Andrew of his remaining royal titles, but he's evicting him from the Windsor royal estate. The move comes after the release of a posthumous memoir by one of Epstein's victims, Virginia Guiffre. Guiffre said she was trafficked to Andrew as a teen three times where he sexually assaulted her. Andrew denies all the allegations against him.

Giuffre's family spoke to CNN's Kaitlan Collins last night upon learning of the royal's move.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

AMANDA ROBERTS, VIRGINIA GUIFFRE'S SISTER-IN-LAW: It was about acknowledgment for her always. And I think this last stroke of the pen -- that memoir -- even though she's not here with us she left an everlasting proof and vindication. And I think she would be so proud, and I think she would turn to her children and say I did it. I got the bad guy.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

[07:40:00]

SIDNER: CNN's Nic Robertson is joining us now from London. This is a new move. They started with stripping a few titles and now they've taken it all the way and kicked him out of his residence. What more can you tell us?

NIC ROBERTSON, CNN INTERNATIONAL DIPLOMATIC EDITOR: Yeah. Look, it's been a slow roll, if you will -- 2019 when Prince Andrew, as he was then, got taken off of royal duties. In 2022, the queen takes away his military titles. Then just less than two weeks ago he voluntarily says well, I won't use the Duke of York title.

Now it's gone way behind that. This is something historic, monumental, and hasn't happened in the U.K. for over 100 years.

No longer the Duke of York. No longer the Earl of Inverness. No longer the Baron Killyleagh. No longer a prince. Quite simply, Andrew Mountbatten Windsor, forced to leave this 30-bedroom mansion -- 30- room mansion on the royal estate in Windsor.

Where he is going -- he is still sort of, if you will, under the auspices of the king but it's a private estate -- privately owned residence that he'll be moving to. Privately owned by the king. So no burden on the taxpayer there.

It is something that has been met, I think, on the -- on the streets of the U.K. with support. Certainly at the beginning of the week King Charles was actually heckled by people saying what did you know about Epstein and Andrew at an early stage.

So this is something that has been building and it is -- and it is really going to remove, it certainly seems, Andrew very much from the public eye. Sandringham Estate is about 100 miles north of London.

Monumental, historic, and I think for a lot of people in the country this was something that was a long time coming and inevitable for the king, albeit a tough decision not to push him entirely out of the royal family.

By the way, no longer a prince but Andrew does remain still eighth in line to the throne.

SIDNER: All right, Nic Robertson. Thank you so much for your reporting there for us from London -- Kate.

BOLDUAN: This morning a new study is raising new questions about COVID and autism. The research suggesting that children may be more likely to be diagnosed with autism or other neurodevelopmental disorders if the mother had COVID while pregnant.

CNN's Jacqueline Howard has the details on this new research coming out. Jacqueline, tell us more about the research and the findings.

JACQUELINE HOWARD, CNN HEALTH REPORTER: Yeah, Kate. So what researchers did -- they analyzed data on more than 18,000 births that happened between March 2020 and May 2021. And they found that the mothers who had COVID-19 while pregnant -- about 16 percent of them gave birth to a child who was diagnosed with a neurodevelopmental diagnosis disorder by age three. But in comparison, the mothers who did not have COVID-19 during pregnancy, fewer than 10 percent of the babies born to them had a neurodevelopmental diagnosis by age three.

And the findings also pointed out that this relationship between having COVID during pregnancy and then having a child who later had a neurodevelopmental diagnosis -- that relationship was most pronounced for two factors. One, if the mother had a boy and two, if the mother had COVID during her third trimester.

And we already know that when a pregnant mother's immune response is activated because she has an infection, like COVID-19, that can have impacts on the fetus' brain development. And we also know that having a high fever during pregnancy can have impacts on fetal brain development. So another possible factor here is how many of the mothers with COVID had a high fever during pregnancy. That's also something that may add to this conversation, Kate.

BOLDUAN: Jacqueline, thank you so much for that reporting -- John.

BERMAN: Could gay marriage be in jeopardy. The case the Supreme Court will consider next week.

And monkey on the lam in a Halloween store, which leads to the question of all questions.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Will animal control come out for a money on the ceiling?

(END VIDEO CLIP)

(COMMERCIAL)

[07:48:25]

BOLDUAN: This morning Democrats in Washington fuming a bit over this -- over secrecy surrounding U.S. military strikes on alleged drug trafficking boats in the Caribbean and the Eastern Pacific. The threat -- the Pentagon says 61 people now have been killed in more than a dozen strikes. Who is being targeted? What is the legal justification? Those questions have lingered throughout.

House Democrats were hoping to get answers to those questions and more in a classified briefing Thursday after Senate Democrats had actually been shut out of a briefing the day before. So what did they learn? Joining me right now is Democratic Congressman Adam Smith, the top

Democrat on the House Armed Services committee. Thank you --

REP. ADAM SMITH (D-WA): Thanks.

BOLDUAN: -- for being here.

Classified briefing with the usual caveat. I understand it's classified. How can you describe what the briefing was?

SMITH: Sure. Well, what's classified is what exactly our troops are doing down there and how many there are.

BOLDUAN: Right.

SMITH: But the overall stuff is not as classified.

BOLDUAN: Well, they're releasing it.

SMITH: Sure, yeah.

BOLDUAN: They're talking about it.

SMITH: And the briefing was disturbing both for what we were told and what we weren't told.

BOLDUAN: Right.

SMITH: First of all, the information we don't have. We have -- we invited in -- it was an Armed Services Committee briefing but we invited in the intel chair and ranking member, Congressmen Crawford and Himes.

Intel has never been brief on any of this so all of the intel that they are relying on for the strikes they are taking, nobody in Congress has seen anything about that. That's what the intelligence committee is supposed to be for.

BOLDUAN: Clarify. That is unusual.

SMITH: Well, gosh, it's --

BOLDUAN: Yes, just --

SMITH: -- completely and totally unusual. And even Armed Services -- we had not been briefed on what DOD was doing.

So what they're not telling us -- what they're not informing Congress -- and there was bipartisan outrage in that meeting at the fact that we've been kept in the dark on all of this.

[07:50:00]

But even what they did tell us -- who they're targeting -- it's 24 different groups, and this has been said publicly. We still don't have any details on who those groups are, much less who was in them. But also, they -- we don't know the names of the individuals who are

being killed. They're basically being killed because they are either part of these gangs or "affiliated" with those gangs. And really what that means if they happen to wind up on a boat -- and they're probably drug smugglers -- don't get me wrong -- but we don't know who they are or directly who they're affiliated with.

And the thing to remember here. Drugs are a major problem, but this is a huge escalation of presidential power. He is judge, jury, and executioner for, gosh, thousands -- tens of thousands of people.

BOLDUAN: What would -- what would get you comfortable? You're -- I've covered you a long time.

SMITH: Yes.

BOLDUAN: You're not saying you want drugs flooding into America.

SMITH: Certainly not.

BOLDUAN: What would get you comfortable because what they're saying is we're taking out the problem?

SMITH: Yeah. Well, a) they're not taking out the problem.

BOLDUAN: OK.

SMITH: I mean, fentanyl is the main focus. And please understand no fentanyl comes from Venezuela. That is 100 percent agreed upon. This is primarily cocaine traffickers, which is a huge problem, don't get me wrong, but it's not getting after the fentanyl, a).

B) They have other ways to get cocaine into the country. We're targeting people only in neutral waters. I forget the term off the top of my head, but not sovereign territory of other nations.

BOLDUAN: Um-hum.

SMITH: So they're going to adjust and start sending it in different places. So is this really going to have an effect?

And meanwhile, we are violating the Constitution. There is supposed to be due process. Why does that matter? So that you can make sure that you're actually dealing with the right people, number one. And number two, this country has not agreed to have the death penalty for drug smuggling. If we want to have that policy conversation, we can have that policy conversation.

But the president has unilaterally decide -- decided that lethal force is going to be applied to any drug smuggler. That's an enormous expansion of power.

BOLDUAN: Let's take a left turn to what has now been going on for 30 days, which is the government shutdown. We now have the four largest airlines in the country coming out yesterday to say it is time to move on. It is time to pass a C.R. and then -- a clean C.R. -- and then negotiate on policies after that.

That's on top of what came just earlier, which was the largest union of federal workers coming out to say exactly the same, which effectively is siding with the Republican position here.

Are you going to take their lead on this?

SMITH: Sure.

BOLDUAN: Are you going to listen to them?

SMITH: Three big points on this that I want to make sure that people are aware of.

First of all, we had a health care crisis. We have a health care crisis. The reason we were so insistent upon dealing with this is November 1 was the deadline.

BOLDUAN: Yeah.

SMITH: Well, that's tomorrow.

The Republicans have decided that they don't care about millions of people losing their health insurance and millions more seeing their health care costs go up. We were trying to force that conversation. Well, that crisis is now going to spill over us.

Second, in this case, there's no such thing as a clean C.R. because Donald Trump has shown he doesn't pay any attention to appropriations laws.

BOLDUAN: But they were basically saying you got to get -- reopen the government somehow.

SMITH: Which would bring me to my third point, but I want to make sure people understand, all right?

BOLDUAN: Um-hum.

SMITH: Well, just vote for a clean C.R. A clean C.R. meant that Donald Trump could continue to unilaterally cut programs, and he was very clear about what he was basing that on. Partisan -- you know, going after his political enemies and using the Justice Department to go after his political enemies. Voiding transportation programs, energy programs, specifically if they were benefitting Democrats. So that was a huge problem.

But this, what the Republicans have done since the shutdown is they have tried to inflict a maximum amount of pain on the American people in the hopes of blaming Democrats. That's not what we want. We want to help people. We did this to deal with health care.

So yes, as it becomes increasingly clear that the Republicans don't care we have a decision to make, and that conversation is ongoing. How do we mitigate this pain?

Lastly, if Trump wanted to --

BOLDUAN: But what do you -- what is your gut telling you you need to do? You --

SMITH: Oh --

BOLDUAN: -- have -- you are not a stranger to calling out your party and saying --

SMITH: Yeah.

BOLDUAN: -- when you need -- when things -- when you need to. What is your gut telling you you guys need to do now?

SMITH: Sure. I do want to emphasize on the SNAP benefits --

BOLDUAN: Yeah.

SMITH: -- we have the money. Billions of dollars set aside for emergencies like this. Trump is deciding not to pay SNAP benefits, again for partisan advantage.

My gut is telling me what I'm already doing. I'm having conversations with leadership in the Senate and leadership in the House, saying how do we navigate out of this?

BOLDUAN: Yeah.

SMITH: I agree with what we did. The issues were that important. But we have to face the reality of what's happening and what can we do about it if the Republicans are unwilling to do it. And we may well have to have that conversation.

But understand this was done because of the health care crisis the Republicans have dropped us in the middle of.

BOLDUAN: It seems the reality is shifting though. And your candor on this is always appreciated. Thank you for coming in.

SMITH: Thank you. Always good to see you.

BOLDUAN: It's good to see you -- Sara.

SIDNER: All right.

[07:55:00]

Next week, SCOTUS blog reports the Supreme Court will start to consider whether to review a challenge to same-sex marriage. The challenge comes from Kim Davis. She's the former Kentucky county clerk who refused to issue a marriage license to a gay couple a decade ago. Soon after, same-sex marriage became legal across the country.

Joining me now is James Obergefell. He was the plaintiff in the landmark ruling that legalized same-sex marriage nationwide. He's also the author of "Love Wins." Thank you so much for being with us this morning.

What does it say to you if the Supreme Court is starting to consider whether to review a challenge to same-sex marriage?

JAMES OBERGEFELL, PLAINTIFF, OBERGEFELL V. HODGES, AUTHOR, "LOVE WINS", CIVIL RIGHTS ACTIVIST (via Webex by Cisco): Well, thanks for having me on, Sara.

And what that says to me is that there is an entire community in this United States that the court potentially is willing to say does not belong in we the people. There's an entire community in this country -- millions of people who do not deserve the right to say I do to the person they love.

There's a court that's willing to potentially say you do not have that right. Your families don't matter. Your relationships don't matter. We don't care.

And what really upsets me is that this is all based on religion and we live in a country that is supposed exercise freedom of religion. And freedom of religion means that our civil laws cannot be used to harm other people whose religion or faith differs, and that's exactly what Kim Davis is asking for. She's asking for her interpretation of her faith to take precedence over the civil laws of Kentucky and the United States that she was tasked with enforcing, and that is simply wrong in a pluralistic society.

SIDNER: I do want to ask you about something that has happened in Texas. The Texas Supreme Court ruled that judges in the state can refuse to officiate same-sex marriages on religious grounds.

Is what we're seeing here -- is what you are seeing here and how you're interpreting this is that this is just sort of the beginning of stripping away gay rights?

OBERGEFELL: Oh, absolutely. This is all based in personal beliefs.

And again, let's remember Kim Davis was elected to serve all people in Rowan County, Kentucky -- not just some. She was elected to enforce the civil laws of the state of Kentucky and of the United States. Same thing in Texas. Those judges are in place to interpret and enforce the laws of Texas and of the United States.

Currently, the United States national policy, you know -- we have this national marriage equality decision that says all couples are able to marry and have their marriages recognized.

So this is yet one more step in people saying well, our religious beliefs, no matter what role we play in society -- whether we are an elected official, a judge tasked with enforcing the laws -- we have the right to say our personal religious beliefs are more important than our job and our duty to the Constitution. And that is just not the right thing to do.

And I'll refer to what the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals had to say in their response in denying Kim Davis' appeal. And I'm going to read this because I think it's important.

They say that "Those opposed to same-sex marriage," the Court of Appeals wrote, "do not have a right to transform their personal opposition into enacted law and public policy. The bill of rights" the court stated, "would serve little purpose if it could be freely ignored whenever an official's conscience though dictates."

And what I don't understand is how Kim Davis' personal religious beliefs were harmed in any way by issuing a marriage license to a queer couple. When she left that office that day, she went home secure in her faith -- able to belief her faith and go to her house of worship without the federal government interfering. And that's what religious freedom is all about.

SIDNER: James Obergefell, thank you so much for coming on and talking through this with us. We will be watching. And I'm sure we'll have you back as this --

OBERGEFELL: Thank you, Sara. I appreciate it.

SIDNER: -- if they take this case up. I really appreciate it -- John.

BERMAN: All right. Half an inch of rain in just five minutes. Think about that. That's what happened in New York City. At least two people are dead after flash flooding. They both died in flooded basements as these, really, just torrential storms moved through.

A Baltimore police officer is now suspended after video showed him using his SUV to chase a man who was on foot. The video shows him nearly running a person over through a glass -- grass field. Baltimore police officials call the video alarming, saying this is not how officers are expected to behave. It is unclear what led up to the chase.

All right. This morning, monkey on the lam in a Halloween store. That is a monkey right there climbing on the rafters. This was at a Spirit Halloween in Plano, Texas. This was a pet monkey because in Plano, apparently people bring their pet monkeys to Halloween stores.