Return to Transcripts main page

CNN News Central

Source: Today: Justice Department Deadline to Release Epstein Files; Rep. Suhas Subramanyam (D-VA) Discusses About the Release of Jeffrey Epstein Files; Search Turns to Motive After Brown University, MIT Suspect Found Dead; Police: Brown and MIT Shooting Suspect "Very Strategic" in His Plans; Pres. Trump Declines to Take Questions at White House Event; Source: HHS Plans to Recommend Fewer Shots in Child Vaccine Schedule. Aired 3-3:30p ET

Aired December 19, 2025 - 15:00   ET

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

ALLISON CHINCHAR, CNN METEOROLOGIST: Even the extreme southwestern part of Oregon are looking at the potential for excessive rainfall and the concern here is not only flooding, but also the potential with that ground being saturated and the wind component of this system to perhaps bring down some trees and cause some power outages even to some bigger cities like San Francisco as well as Sacramento.

ISABEL ROSALES, CNN HOST: Allison Chinchar, thank you.

A new hour of CNN NEWS CENTRAL starts right now.

BRIANNA KEILAR, CNN HOST: The investigation is far from over in the Brown University and MIT shootings. What police say, they were covered inside the storage facility where they found the body of the suspect.

Plus, we're watching the Department of Justice and the imminent release of documents related to convicted sex offender Jeffrey Epstein. What to expect just ahead.

ROSALES: And later, is artificial intelligence an investment bubble about to burst? Why some are worried the investments may never pay off.

We are following these major developing stories and many more, all coming in right now to CNN NEWS CENTRAL.

We are standing by for the Department of Justice to release the Jeffrey Epstein files at any moment. Deputy Attorney General Todd Blanche promising to hand over hundreds of thousands of documents today from the convicted sex traffickers' case. But notably, the DOJ is not releasing all of the files today, despite a law that Congress passed mandating they do so. Blanche says more documents will be released in the coming weeks.

I want to bring in Congressman Suhas Subramanyam, a Democrat from Virginia who sits on the House Oversight Committee.

We are expecting to see these documents really any moment. Do you see DOJ being in violation of this law for not releasing everything today? REP. SUHAS SUBRAMANYAM (D-VA): I mean, they are absolutely in

violation of the law. They just admitted they were in violation of the law. The law says they needed to release everything by today, not starting today, not part of it today, all of it by today. And let's be clear, there's no excuse for this. I mean, they've been redacting files since back in March when they claimed they were going to release the Epstein files. And then again, four months ago, we issued a subpoena from the Oversight Committee in Congress asking them to release the files. They're in violation of that. And they released a tranche of documents back then and then stopped releasing documents. So, there's no excuse for this. They're in violation of the law. And we will pursue every possible legal avenue.

KEILAR: There are different ways to be forthcoming here. And one might be in the kind of documents that are being released, even if they aren't releasing everything today. What specifically should be in these documents today to show that DOJ is being forthcoming with the kind of information that they're releasing, even if they're not putting all of it out?

SUBRAMANYAM: Yes, absolutely. Well, first of all, the -- the law says that we want everything related to the prosecution of this case, the investigation of this case. All of the people who were involved or who are named in flight logs and different visits to Epstein's estate or are involved in his businesses. There's a lot that the law demands of this DOJ to release.

And I will say that if what we see is just a lot of documents that are already public, like what they released before three or four months ago, that's a sign that they are continuing to hide things. Even the stuff that they're released now, even the quantity of it means nothing to me because I want to see the quality of it. I want to see the documents that they've been holding on that no one else has.

KEILAR: Congressman, the wishes of Epstein survivors, they're so important here, they should be. And CNN is reporting that a number of these Epstein survivors voiced their concern in a private meeting with female Democratic lawmakers earlier this week about what's been the intermittent disclosure of Epstein-related documents and photos by your party, by Democrats on the Oversight Committee. Four sources familiar with that call say victims said the selected publication of materials was distressing. These photos shared with just about no context. We spoke last hour to a victim who discussed the triggering nature of some of these releases. Are you guys, Democrats, doing right by the victims here in your releases?

SUBRAMANYAM: Well, we're absolutely doing everything we can to do right by the victims. We've made sure the victims were consulted all along the way. I think what we could do is make sure that when we're consulting with some of the lawyers of the victims, that that information is getting to all the victims they represent and to warn them and make sure that they are okay with certain releases. So, certainly there's more that we can do to -- to make sure the victims are comfortable with everything we're doing. But we have been talking nonstop with the victims since the very beginning of this, and we're going to continue to make sure that they feel comfortable with this process.

KEILAR: So, it sounds like perhaps some of your female Democratic colleagues let you all know what they were hearing here?

[15:05:00]

SUBRAMANYAM: I haven't talked to them specifically about this, but I will say I've heard the reports and then we've talked to others in the committee. I do think that we can do more to address sort of the wishes of the victims if this is what they're saying. In the end, they never got the justice that they deserved from the system and a big part of this investigation is making sure we do right by them. And it's also making sure that this never happens again and that the justice system doesn't fail anyone else like it failed them.

KEILAR: Republican Congressman Thomas Massie, who has really spearheaded this on the GOP side, says he's been in contact with victims' lawyers who say they know that there are at least 20 names of men accused of sex crimes in possession of the FBI, that it's been documented. FBI Director Kash Patel has testified to Congress that there is, quote, "No credible information that Epstein trafficked women to other individuals."

Are you aware of those 20 names that Massie is talking about?

SUBRAMANYAM: No, I'm not aware of those 20 names. And I also don't find Kash Patel credible either. I think it's very telling that his deputy, Dan Bongino, left the administration before the release of these files. He was someone who said repeatedly that he wanted the release of the full Epstein files. He helped campaign for the president under that message and then now he has jumped ship. I think that's very telling.

And today, it looks like, you know, he was right to leave the administration because they probably failed a lot of people who they promised they would release the files to. And so, you know, I find Kash Patel very -- he has very little credibility at this point. Find this DOJ having very little credibility. And this release of the files violating the law again and again covering up for what has been one of the most heinous crimes in the past 20 years.

KEILAR: Yes, Bongino's out in January as we understand it, but I take your point. He did say two days before this release that he is getting out. Does this all hinge on DOJ assessing what is credible? Is there any way to truly get to the bottom of that? What is credible or not?

SUBRAMANYAM: Credible as far as the files, what's in the files?

KEILAR: Do they have some discretion here, right? So, if they have the discretion to determine what is credible to release, what kind of concerns does that create for you about what they may choose not to release?

SUBRAMANYAM: Well, they have discretion, but very little discretion. Certainly, we want to protect health information. We want to protect victims. We want to protect identifying information in certain cases. But in general, the law was written very clearly to make sure that they're not protecting people, especially people who are engaged in these acts or people who are helping the trafficking or close with Jeffrey Epstein. We're not protecting names. We're not protecting certain interests. We are being as transparent as possible. That's what the law says.

And so, there shouldn't be a lot of discretion in the end. They should really be just doing what they can to protect the victim's names and information and then releasing, especially the information about the investigations that the DOJ and FBI did and didn't do, really, and what was covered up, what was said, what investigations were halted and who halted them. There's a lot of questions we have about this, not just looking for the names of people who perpetrated the crimes. That's a big part of it, but also why this was covered up and how we can prevent that from happening again.

KEILAR: And what about during the Biden administration? Because this is information that they had during Biden's years in the White House.

SUBRAMANYAM: Yes, I mean, we have questions about that, too. I'll say that there have been people calling for the release of the files since 2019. It was mostly Democrats then. But in any case, I know the Biden administration would say that there was an active investigation and the prosecution of Ghislaine Maxwell at the time, but there was some time after she was, you know, put in jail and there was some time where they could have released it, especially on Biden's way out, and they didn't. So, we have questions about that as well.

But in the end, we are where you are right now. The President, Trump, campaigned on releasing these files and he's been stringing everyone along all year. And so this is their chance to release all the files and make sure that they do right by everyone, by the victims, by the public, and -- and make sure that this never happens again.

KEILAR: You certainly know who was calling for the release of these files here in recent years, and it was people in the Republican base. We should just be very clear about that, a highly animating issue for those folks. But Congressman Suhas Subramanyam, we appreciate your time today. Thank you.

SUBRAMANYAM: Thank you.

We're also following some breaking news on the man suspected of gunning down students at Brown University and an MIT professor just days later.

[15:10:00]

Police say the body of the suspected killer was found inside a storage facility in New Hampshire last night, a source telling CNN two guns, a bulletproof vest, and that jacket that was seen in multiple videos that the suspect was wearing near Brown University also recovered there.

ROSALES: Officials say that the 48-year-old suspect was a grad student at Brown more than 20 years ago. He came to the U.S. from Portugal on a student visa back in 2000 and then became a permanent resident in 2017. He also attended the same university in Lisbon as the MIT professor who was killed on Monday.

With us now is CNN Law Enforcement Analyst and former Secret Service agent, Jonathan Wackrow.

Thank you so much for joining us, sir. Really appreciate it.

JONATHAN WACKROW, CNN LAW ENFORCEMENT ANALYST: Oh, my pleasure. Good afternoon.

ROSALES: We have a dead suspect here and no known motive. How do investigators piece all of this together? And what was originally said by the FBI had no connection.

WACKROW: Well, listen, I think that when you actually pull back to get to that answer, you actually have to, you know, understand what led them to this suspect. And all of this is a really good example that law enforcement does not operate in isolation. Rather, it's tips from the public, even those that are shared online and via social media actually can provide those critical clues to any type of investigation.

So, when we start thinking about this suspect, now that we know, you know, he was found dead of suicide in New Hampshire, we -- what was found in that storage facility, the weapons, the bulletproof vest, we now know what his intent was, right? His intent and capabilities.

So, from his actions, his intent was to cause harm. It was to hurt and harm people at Brown University and, you know, hurt this -- this MIT professor. The capabilities there are the fact that he was able to get those weapons. He, you know, had some, you know, premeditated thought and planning that went into, you know, the -- the killings in both locations. And -- and that's furthered by the fact that he had this bulletproof vest. Was he trying to come up with an escape plan? And we -- we see that from not only the bulletproof vest, maybe potentially his encounter with law enforcement, but also the fact that he went through all this detail to cover up his tracks and obfuscate, you know, who he was and where he was going by changing out license plates and, you know, concealing his identity.

The real factor right now for investigators is the motive. It is the why. Why did all of this happen? And that is what they're going to look for. The challenge is they can't interview the suspect because he is deceased. So they're going to have to go through the investigative process of looking through all of, you know, his digital history, any items of evidentiary value that he has in terms of search warrants on residences and his vehicle, anything that can indicate what was his motive here and how long did he, you know, have, you know, some sort of grievance or animus towards this professor and Brown University.

And as it was stated in the last hour, I think, you know, Andy had brought this up, we may never know the answer to this. Again, oftentimes when you see these attackers, you know, that are involved in targeted violence towards individuals, while we may, you know, think that there's a grievance that's motivating this -- this action, we -- we may never actually get to the proof that -- that gives us that direct answer.

KEILAR: There are 1,200 cameras across Brown's campus, but only two on the exterior of the building where the shooting happened. How might that have inhibited the investigation?

WACKROW: Well, listen, I think when you start looking at these investigations, there becomes this inherent dependency that law enforcement has, and that's out of necessity. It's this rising dependency on this digital ecosystem, the -- the ability to quickly look at video capture, the ability to track individuals now across entire cities or regions of the country via this digital ecosystem.

So to not have that from the very beginning, to have that video evidence that then you can match up against direct witness statements in the moment actually was a hindrance for law enforcement very early on. And I bet that Brown University and other universities who have most likely put privacy over, you know, surveillance are now rethinking those decisions to provide a greater safety net for their students in terms of, you know, not only the video surveillance, but other types of protective measures that they need to put in place quickly.

ROSALES: Yes, and on that note, years ago, there was an op-ed in the student paper criticizing the growing number of cameras. Now we know that it's 1,200 of them, citing privacy concerns, academic freedom. But having this happened, is this a sign that these institutions should consider revamping their security, or do you think this should be viewed as a one-off situation?

[15:15:03]

WACKROW: Well, no, definitely not a one-off, right, because I think that we've seen these critical events are occurring with, you know, the significant amount of volume, right? So, this is about preparedness. This is about, you know, creating a, you know, culture of safety awareness around these colleges and universities predicated upon emerging technology. We want to make sure that, you know, we are protecting these students. Yes, you are giving up some privacy, but if you're applying the -- the technology in the right way, it's a value- add, it's not detracted to, you know, any type of, you know, personal privacy or personal liberties.

KEILAR: Jonathan Wackrow, thank you so much.

And still to come, sources tell CNN the Trump administration is planning changes to the childhood vaccine schedule. We'll tell you what they are in an exclusive report.

ROSALES: Plus, new economic data shows some Americans feel more optimistic about the economy, but others are not, hear why.

And later, tech companies have invested billions of dollars in artificial intelligence. But now some of the same big companies seem to be rethinking their A.I. spending. That and much more coming up on CNN NEWS CENTRAL.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[15:20:38]

KEILAR: Just moments ago at the White House, President Trump, speaking at a drug pricing event, had an opportunity to take questions from reporters on a big day of the Epstein files, but he passed on it. Usually an unusual move, but he decided not to take questions.

ROSALES: How often do you see that? Never.

Of course, people are going to be buzzing about this because today is a big day. It is the deadline for the release of the Epstein files. We wait to see if they are actually released and how much of it is released. Important to know that Trump has not been accused of any wrongdoing in the Epstein case. Here was the president just a few moments ago.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

DONALD TRUMP, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: The reason that this is such a big announcement, meaning what these people have said and what the other four companies are going to say, which is exactly the same thing, that I really don't want to soil it up by asking questions, even questions that are very fair questions that I'd love to answer. So, I think we have to just stop right here. I really appreciate the fact that these companies came here. These, again, you know, a lot of the media is not aware of -- not really cognizant of the people standing behind me.

But these are the biggest executives in the world. And what they're doing today is monumental. And I want to stand it on that. And I'll see you later if you'd like, but I don't want to be asking questions having to do with anything else.

I do want you to remember what I said about the 4.5 percent. We took 100 percent of the new workers was in the private sector, and we've cut tremendous numbers of government jobs. And that's why, if you look at our numbers, they're so good. Also, more than, I don't know if you've read, this came out a week ago, more than 50 percent of our trade deficit was cut. We cut it more than 50 percent in a period of a few months. Nobody thought -- nobody thought any of these things were possible. Thank you very much, everybody.

(CROSSTALK)

TRUMP: Invite them to the Oval Office. Invite them to the Oval Office. Come to the Oval Office. They haven't seen the Oval Office, come on in.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Can we ask you about your name going on at the Kennedy Center?

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Thank you, Press. Thank you, Press. Thank you, Press.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Thank you, Press. (CROSSTALK)

(END VIDEO CLIP)

KEILAR: President Trump, on a day when there are many questions for him, we are expecting several hundred thousand documents released from the Epstein files, something that he fought for months until ultimately Congress passed a law after so much pressure that he ended up changing his mind on that, signed that almost unanimously passed law, or bill, I should say, into law. He's not been accused of wrongdoing in this.

ROSALES: Yes.

KEILAR: But the appearance of how his administration has handled the Epstein files has been terrible, even to hear Republicans describe it, even to hear his own chief of staff describe how his DOJ has described it. So ...

ROSALES: Yes.

KEILAR: ... it's a really interesting moment.

ROSALES: Three-hundred ]gigabytes of data, 95,000 plus pictures, hundreds of thousands of documents. Today should be the day of delivering to America on something he so prominently campaigned on, and to have no questions like this. People are going to be buzzing about this.

KEILAR: Yes, so -- so right. They certainly will be, Isabel.

And we do have some exclusive new reporting that involves a major overhaul to the childhood vaccine schedule, a source telling us the Department of Health and Human Services is planning to recommend fewer shots, and doing so could bring the U.S. closer to the recommendations in other developed countries. CNN's Meg Tirrell has more.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

MEG TIRRELL, CNN MEDICAL CORRESPONDENT: Well, in the Trump administration's latest move to pare back the number of recommended childhood vaccines in the United States, CNN has learned that the Department of Health and Human Services is considering overhauling the childhood vaccination schedule. And in fact, a person familiar with the plan suggests that this proposed new schedule could look something like Denmark's, if not totally identical to Denmark's.

[15:24:59]

Now, this is not finalized and could still change, but it comes after the President sent a memo to the Department of Health and Human Services secretary, Robert F. Kennedy Jr., and the acting director of the CDC, directing them to evaluate the U.S. childhood vaccine schedule, that's the list of vaccines that are routinely recommended for kids in the United States, and to compare that with the recommended vaccines in peer countries. The President called the U.S. a, quote, "high outlier" in terms of the

number of diseases that we vaccinate against in childhood here, and said that they should compare and come up with a new strategy for vaccination. So, this came about two weeks after the CDC advisory committee meeting on vaccines, where RFK Jr.'s handpicked group of vaccine advisors voted to pare back a recommendation for the hepatitis B vaccine birth dose in the United States.

And we heard a lot of discussions at that meeting about comparisons with other countries' vaccine schedules, and in particular, Denmark, where an FDA staff member who was put in place by the Trump administration had lived for several years. So, she made comparisons between that country and the United States. Now, if we were to adopt Denmark's vaccination schedule, we in the United States right now vaccinated against about 17 to 18 diseases in childhood, compared with 11 in Denmark.

So, if we were to change the recommendations, that would be removing potentially universal vaccination recommendations for diseases like RSV, rotavirus, flu, chickenpox, and other diseases.

Now, RSV is the most common cause of hospitalization among infants in the United States, and a new immunization for babies has reduced hospitalizations by 80- to 90 percent with RSV. So experts are really scratching their heads about why the U.S. would change its vaccination schedules to match a country that really is unlike the United States in many ways. It has free universal healthcare in Denmark, and a population of about 6 million people, which is smaller than the state of Missouri.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

ROSALES: Meg Tirrell, thank you.

And just ahead, new data paints a mixed picture when it comes to affordability and whether Americans are in a buying mood. We decipher what it all means up next. You're watching CNN NEWS CENTRAL.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)