Return to Transcripts main page

CNN News Central

Prince Harry and Meghan to Move Back to Britain; America's National Debt Ballooning to a Mind-blowing $40 Trillion; Dem. Socialist, Angie Nixon, Wins Florida Senate Primary; Study Finds Flight Attendants and Pilots Have Highest Risk of Dying From Radiation-linked Cancers; Experts Slam Flawed Census Report of Alleged Non-citizen Voting. Aired 2-2:30p ET

Aired August 20, 2026 - 14:00   ET

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

[14:00:00]

TRISHA GODDARD, HOST OF "THE TRISHA GODDARD SHOW": -- William to soften his heart. We'll have to wait and see.

ERICA HILL, CNN CO-ANCHOR OF "CNN NEWS CENTRAL": Yeah. It'll be interesting to see, too, the reception. I know, obviously, a buzz in the U.K., but interesting to see the reception once they arrive as well. Trisha, great to see you. Thank you.

GODDARD: You too.

HILL: A new hour of "CNN News Central" starts right now.

BORIS SANCHEZ, CNN CO-ANCHOR OF "CNN NEWS CENTRAL": America's national debt ballooning to a mind-blowing $40 trillion. What does this mean for the economy and America's standing in the global market? We'll break down the numbers.

Plus, flying high in the sky could lead to a new health low. The new study that claims pilots and flight attendants are at higher risk for radiation-related cancers. And artificial intelligence hitting the big screen.

The new film starring an A.I. version of Val Kilmer. We're following these major developing stories and many more, all coming in right here to "CNN News Central."

HILL: The U.S. now in a historic debt dilemma to the tune of $40 trillion. So that's 12 zeros after the 40. And the staggering numbers don't stop there. Less than 24 hours ago, President Trump was, of course, showing off his latest White House construction projects.

Projects that The Washington Post says could cost as much as $900 million. $600 million for the ballroom alone. All of this as Americans are facing high inflation, not to mention those prices at the pump. No end in sight to the Iran War. CNN's Matt Egan is with us now.

So Matt, we're talking $40 trillion and counting because it just keeps ticking at this point. Can you just help us wrap our minds around that? Put all of that in perspective for us about what this actually means right in this moment and moving forward.

MATT EGAN, CNN SENIOR REPORTER: Well, Erica, yes, this is a mind- blowing number, $40 trillion. And this is another grim milestone reminding us how much of a mess America's finances are in right now. Let's take a look at -- live look at the national debt. You can see just above $40 trillion for the first time ever.

Trying to put this into real-world terms. If you were to spread this across the entire economy, this would equal $117,000 per person in the United States. Another way to think about it is $40 trillion, this equals the entire economy of China, Germany, Japan, the U.K. and India combined. And the Peterson Foundation, they found that $40 trillion, this is enough money to pay for a four-year college degree for every high school graduate for the next 119 years. Pretty wild.

Now, when we look at the trend for the national debt, you can see that when the century started, back in 2000, the national debt was about $6 trillion. It has just exploded higher since then because of government spending, because of tax cuts, because of war after war, because of the 2008 financial crisis, which was around here, because of the 2020 pandemic. And now, it is above $40 trillion.

Now, it's also true that the U.S. economy is a lot bigger than it was in 2000. That's why we like to look at debt to GDP. And on that metric, you can see, again, things are moving in the wrong direction, right? Debt to GDP in the 1960s was around 40 percent, 64 percent in the 1990s. Now it's above 100 percent, 123 percent. It means the national debt is bigger than the entire U.S. economy. Erica?

HILL: That is not good. As a non-economist, I feel pretty confident saying that. Matt, what are the biggest factors driving this dramatic rise in the debt?

EGAN: Well, one of the issues is America's aging demographics, right? Every day, about 10,000 baby boomers retire, so that has forced the federal government to spend more on Social Security. So far this fiscal year, $1.4 trillion spent on Social Security alone. Medicare, that's another $955 billion.

But one of the other big drivers is the debt itself, because look at this red bar. So far this fiscal year, the government has spent $931 billion just on interest. That's just financing the national debt. And that is significantly more than what the government has spent on the national defense. Now, all of this is important because investors are starting to get a little more worried about the national debt. They're selling U.S. Treasuries, and that drives up the Treasury rate.

And when that happens, that lifts the cost of borrowing across the economy. The higher Treasury rates go, the more expensive it is to get a mortgage, small business, car loan, and the more expensive it is for the government itself to borrow. And look, this is a problem that's not going to solve itself.

If you left the budget on autopilot, it's going to get worse over time, because the U.S. government, the national debt, is going up by $7 billion per day, almost $300 million per hour. And just since we started talking, we've added another $5 million to $10 million to the national debt. And look, this is a problem that's likely to get worse before it gets better.

Don't take my word for it. Listen to the market, specifically the prediction market.

[14:05:00]

Over on Kalshi, they see a 64 percent chance that the national debt exceeds $47.5 trillion during President Trump's second term. So look, the bottom line, clearly, the numbers are going in the wrong direction, and this is something that politicians in both parties are going to have to address. It's likely to get worse before it gets better, and Erica, it's easy to see how the market, market pressure may have to force politicians in Washington to take action. Back to you.

HILL: It would be interesting to see if it does finally force some action in Washington. We'll be watching for that. Matt, appreciate it. Thank you. Boris?

EGAN: Thank you.

SANCHEZ: Let's talk about the nation's debt and more with Pollster and Communications Strategist, Frank Luntz. Frank, thank you so much for being with us.

Obviously, the national debt is of enormous importance, but I wonder, does the average voter really care about the growing national debt? Is it enough to change who they might cast a ballot for?

FRANK LUNTZ, POLLSTER & COMMUNICATIONS STRATEGIST: Good question. And the challenge for the people in Washington is to make it matter. To the average individual, the national debt is a problem, but it's not a crisis because they can't answer the question, what's in it for me? They don't realize that it affects interest rates. They don't realize that it affects the housing market, the job market.

They don't realize the impact that it has on inflation and affordability. So the public is paying attention to it. They do follow it, but it's not a crisis to them. And until it becomes a crisis, I imagine the people in Washington are simply going to ignore and continue to spend.

SANCHEZ: The national debt has doubled in the last decade under both Republican and Democratic administrations. I wonder if you have a sense of where most Americans place responsibility for its rapid growth, but then also who they potentially trust more to address it.

LUNTZ: The debt issue has usually been a Republican benefactor. That is, they believe that the Republicans are better able to solve it. The American people want to see higher taxes on the rich. They want to see less spending overall. But the moment that you try to cut that spending is a moment that the public says, oh, no, don't cut that.

The greatest contributor to this is the entitlement programs, Social Security and Medicare. But God help you if you're a candidate calling for any kind of reduction. And it's been so politicized that Republicans will take you on and trash you if you call for tax increases. Democrats will take you on and trash you if you call for any adjustments to these entitlement programs. And the problem is there's no willingness among Democrats and Republicans to work together to actually fix this.

So I'm not optimistic that things will change in the near future.

SANCHEZ: This also exposes generational gaps between voting blocs and tensions, generational tensions between voting blocs, because, for example, Social Security is headed for insolvency by 2032, something that you have said is going to be a major political issue.

LUNTZ: Well, you don't know this, but the most supportive people, it's a good question, because the most supportive people of spending on Social Security and Medicare are the youngest voters because they don't want to hurt their parents.

So if you're in your 20s, you absolutely want to see investment in these programs, even though they're not going to exist for you by the time you get to your mid 60s.

SANCHEZ: Yeah.

LUNTZ: And it's that kind of weird political pressure that allows candidates and allows parties to avoid these issues. And I got to compliment you and CNN for pushing this, because in the end, we're doing such damage to my students and the next generation by spending their inheritance.

SANCHEZ: That's a good way to put it, spending their inheritance. Frank, before we let you go, we didn't get a chance to talk about some of the primary results that we saw this week, perhaps most surprising, this DSA-aligned state representative, Angie Nixon, winning in Florida. She went up against a candidate who had national name recognition and way more money by, I think, a factor of about 12 times as much money as she did. How do you see her victory, especially in the broader picture of the conversation about progressives taking on Establishment Democratic candidates?

LUNTZ: I see an election after November where Republicans and Democrats are even more divided, even more polarized. I see this as contributing to the toxic nature of American politics.

On the Republican side, you got to have Trump's support if you want to win.

[14:10:00]

On the Democratic side, there are people who never, ever could have won until this election cycle out of anger over what's going on in Washington. So you're going to have this polarization, this bitterness, and I think the next two years are going to be the worst two years for American politics since maybe the 1940s.

SANCHEZ: Wow. On that uplifting note, Frank Luntz, always great to hear from you.

(LAUGH)

LUNTZ: Thank you.

SANCHEZ: Thanks, Frank. Erica?

HILL: We have some new reporting just in to CNN. Multiple sources talking about who has emerged as an early favorite to be the next White House Press Secretary.

CNN's Alayna Treene standing by with that new reporting for us. So Alayna, what do we know? Who's on the short list?

ALAYNA TREENE, CNN WHITE HOUSE REPORTER: Yeah, one of the names that keeps popping up, and this is a new reporting from my colleague Kristen Holmes and I, is Scott Jennings. He's a former -- someone who used to work for Mitch McConnell back on Capitol Hill many years ago. He also formerly worked in the George W. Bush administration.

But most recently, he's really become an attack dog on behalf of this White House and of President Donald Trump on CNN. I should note, he is a CNN Contributor, but his name has been floated a lot in recent weeks. And he actually met over the weekend at the White House's request with the president's Chief of Staff, Susie Wiles.

They met at Mastro's Steakhouse here in Washington, D.C., and several of the sources that Kristen and I spoke with said, essentially, that they believe he has Wiles' backing. Of course, as the Chief of Staff, Wiles is probably the biggest opinion that President Trump is going to lean on to make this decision.

Now, I should also be clear, a lot of the people that Kristen and I spoke with argued that there is no decision that has been made yet. Nothing is final. There are a lot of candidates that are still being considered, that Susie Wiles still has a lot of people she wants to interview for a potential replacement for White House Press Secretary, Karoline Leavitt, and also that Trump is not quite ready to make a decision either.

He's in no rush, officials tell us, to make this decision to replace Karoline. But, Scott is a name that has continued to come up in recent weeks. Now, again, a lot of people arguing -- and this is a key prerequisite, really, for this job. The president believes that -- one source told me that he has kind of the right look to be press secretary, that he can get up behind the podium and be able to defend him and his agenda in a way that he wants him to. You know, he's ready to push the envelope.

Others are worried there's a lot more to the press secretary role than just getting up behind the podium and talking on TV. You have to work with reporters. You have to be a grown-up. So a lot of questions about where this stands, but he's definitely emerged, Erica, as a key favorite throughout this entire process.

HILL: Certainly, would be interesting to see how this plays out. Alayna, really appreciate the update. Thank you.

Still ahead this hour, experts slamming a new census report coming out of the White House, repeating false claims about the 2020 election. Plus, a sneak peek at a new movie featuring an A.I. version of the late actor, Val Kilmer, where the filmmakers say this is a great example of ethical A.I. use.

And the new study, which claims flight attendants and pilots have the highest risk of dying from radiation-linked cancers. We'll speak with a doctor about that and the risks involved in flying on "CNN News Central."

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[14:18:05]

HILL: A new study is raising questions about the health impacts of frequent flights for pilots and flight attendants. So researchers found flight attendants had about a 50 percent greater chance of dying from radiation-related cancer than the general population. When we look at pilots, that number is about 36 percent higher. It's also higher than people who work directly with radioactive materials. Why? Well, we're told it's because of cosmic radiation.

So only a small amount actually reaches people on the ground. But that exposure increases at higher altitudes. Joining us now, Dr. Elizabeth Comen. She's a Medical Oncologist at NYU Langone Health.

So doctor, when we look at this, it's important to note this isn't a warning here for the general public. Why are pilots though and flight attendance at greatest risk? And what are they at greatest risk of?

DR. ELIZABETH COMEN, MEDICAL ONCOLOGIST, NYU LANGONE HEALTH: So this was a very important study that looked at nearly 13 million death certificates and over 503 occupations between the years 2020 and 2024.

And what they found, as you stated, was a significantly increased risk of radiation-associated cancers, including breast cancer, prostate cancer, melanoma, CNS cancers, that means central nervous system cancers, and among pilots, leukemia. And what was really interesting is the flight attendants faced it over 50 percent greater risk than the general population for these cancers. And pilots faced a 36 percent increased risk.

HILL: Which -- the numbers are, I mean, they're really staggering. We were all shocked by the headline alone. And then you read the details of the study. The researchers that I thought was interesting, they also said they couldn't account for whether a consistent disruption of their internal clocks by things like jet lag, irregular schedules, whether or not that may have played a role. Do you think that could be a factor?

COMEN: Well, what we know for most cases of cancer is that it's multi-factorial. In this instance, when you're over 35,000 feet in the air, there's an increase in what we call cosmic radiation.

[14:20:00]

And this is what we believe is a major driver of the cancer in the airline crews. However, what we don't know is if disruption of circadian rhythms, decreased melatonin exposure can also be contributing because, remember, to have that kind of exposure you're doing long-haul flights, you're doing flights to other countries, jet lag can play a huge factor in your circadian rhythm and how you're sleeping at night.

HILL: The government, the U.S. government, doesn't set federal limits when it comes to radiation doses and doesn't require monitoring. Do you think this is something that should be regulated?

COMEN: So when you work in a lab or you walk around a hospital like I do almost every day, if you're working around radiation, you have to wear a special badge and that is monitored and tracked. So what I think this study really points to is that for those who are caring for airline passengers, we should have similar regulations. We should be monitoring the type of radiation exposure that our airline crews face and considering what type of cancer risk reduction strategies we can have including cancer screening for that population.

HILL: For anybody who works in these jobs, right, for pilots, for flight attendants, or even for somebody who may fly often and is watching this and a little concerned, are there ways to limit your exposure in the sky?

COMEN: So let's be careful to differentiate the frequent flyer and the business traveler from the airline crew. What this risk is talking about, because I want to be really, really clear, if you are a frequent flyer or business traveler, this is not the same level of exposure. We're talking over 700 to well over a thousand hours in the air, high altitudes, for decades.

That is very different from even the business traveler or frequent flyer. That being said, if you are in the general population and fly a lot, you could certainly talk to your doctor about your cancer risks. You should be doing that anyway.

HILL: I know you also had a specific concern about flight attendants who may be pregnant. How should they deal with this news?

COMEN: Yes. Well, we know that exposure to radiation and cosmic radiation potentially could affect fetal development, so this really speaks to potentially airline modifications and accommodations that may need to be made for those pregnant patients, particularly in the first trimester.

HILL: Dr. Comen, really appreciate your insight and your expertise. Thank you.

COMEN: Thank you for having me.

HILL: Well, experts are calling it a hijack by the White House. Why they're now slamming the latest census report, those details are next.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[14:27:16]

SANCHEZ: Experts are now sounding the alarm over what they are calling a flawed census report claiming that tens of thousands of non- citizens voted in the 2020 election. President Trump has always asserted that he defeated President Joe Biden in that race. While critics say the new census data doesn't align with reality, Trump is already using it as more ammunition for his bogus election fraud claims.

CNN's Gabe Cohen has been looking into this new report. So Gabe, what did you find?

GABE COHEN, CNN CORRESPONDENT: And Boris, a lot of those experts were really caught off guard this week when the president suddenly posted on Truth Social this new report document, whatever you want to call it, that went up on the Census Bureau website that found 24,000 non- citizens had voted in the 2020 election.

He posted it on Truth Social saying, "I won the election." There are a lot of elements in the actual report that don't pass the smell test to some of the folks who used to lead this the Census Bureau, who we talked to. But let's just take it at face value for a moment because what they essentially did in this analysis is they looked at a commercial voter database from 2020, looked at about 128 million individual voter records, names, dates of birth and they compared it against federal records, including citizenship records, and what they found was out of those 128 million records, 24,000 of them they believe matched to a non-citizen.

What that would actually be is 0.019 percent of the voters that they looked at. Now the president said, it shows he won the election. He's been claiming widespread voter fraud tied to the 2020 election for a long time. But let's actually break down what these numbers look like in the most closely contested states because there is a state-by-state breakdown in the analysis.

So in Arizona, they say -- they believe 1,100 non-citizens voted. Well, the president actually lost that state by more than 10,000 votes. In Georgia, they believe 400 non-citizens voted, the president lost by 11,000. Wisconsin, 500 non-citizen voters, he lost that state by 20,000 votes. So even if 24,000 non-citizens all voted for Joe Biden in 2020, based on this analysis, President Trump still would not have won.

Now, I do though think it's important to talk about the report itself because we talked to about a dozen former leaders of the Census Bureau who pointed out several details that they said do not match up with what you would typically see in an analysis from career statisticians that work for the Census Bureau.

One, there is no author on it. They said that is strange. No citations. No acknowledgements. They say it does not acknowledge the possibility of margin for error, that there could be errors in the voter data or the matching methods, that it could have produced some errors. And most of all that there is no acknowledgement of these limitations or of any --