Return to Transcripts main page

The Situation Room

CDC Advisers To Vote On Hepatitis B Vaccine Schedule; CDC Panel Votes To Drop Universal Recommendations For Heb B Vaccine; Supreme Court Lets Texas Use Redistricting Map; Grand Jury Declines To Re- Indict Letitia James; Inflation Hits Highest Rate Since April 2024. Aired 10:30-11a ET

Aired December 05, 2025 - 10:30   ET

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

[10:30:00]

DR. PAUL OFFIT, FORMER MEMBER, FDA VACCINE ADVISORY COMMITTEE AND DIRECTOR, VACCINE EDUCATION CENTER, CHILDREN'S HOSPITAL OF PHILADELPHIA: You have the biggest measles epidemic this year that we've had in more than three decades. You've had three people die, two healthy young children die of measles. That's the first measles death since 2003, more than 20 years ago. You have almost 300 children who've died of flu this year. That's the biggest number we've seen since the last flu pandemic. You have states experiencing whooping cough deaths that hadn't seen whooping cough deaths in years. We have a tremendous erosion in trust in vaccines and public health, and Robert F. Kennedy Jr. is in no way making us trust them more.

I mean, right now you have basically scientific and medical and professional societies that ignore the CDC and ignore the ACIP because they aren't the ACIP and CDC anymore.

PAMELA BROWN, CNN ANCHOR: Yes. And you know, I just want to note for our viewers, the vote is happening right now on this hepatitis B vaccine.

On that hepatitis B vaccine, I want to just get your reaction to what some are suggesting, and that is, look, let's get better testing for the mother. Let's see if the mother has it, and if the mother doesn't, it's unlikely the baby would, although there have been cases of false negatives. What do you say to that?

DR. OFFIT: Right. So, the test is not perfect. There's about a 5 percent false negative rate, meaning falsely reassuring rate that you don't have hepatitis B. You can also get hepatitis B in the second or third trimester. 15 percent of people (INAUDIBLE) don't get tested in the first trimester. And as I said earlier, you can get this from relatively casual contact from people who have chronic hepatitis B and don't know it.

So, you shouldn't feel reassured that the mother is hepatitis B negative, you should also reassure yourself that the father is also not a chronic carrier of hepatitis B, or that anybody else that child could come in contact with, in-laws, family members, friends aren't infected. Or instead of testing all them, what you can do is just get vaccinated, which is what we did starting from 1991, and virtually eliminated this disease in children less than 10.

By loosening the reins here, all they're doing is putting children in harm's way, and if you get hepatitis B between one and five years of age, you have a 25 percent chance of going on to develop neurosis or liver cancer, which will shorten your life.

BROWN: I want to just ask you, as we wrap up, about aluminum and vaccines. That was taken off the agenda as of last night, and that has been something that RFK Jr. has been really focused on. What do you make of that?

DR. OFFIT: Well, it's just another anti-vaccine trope brought to us by Robert F. Kennedy Jr. I mean, there was an excellent study done in Denmark looking at 23 years of children who got either no aluminum and vaccines up to about four and a half milligrams, and then looking at 50 different diseases or disorders, allergic, autoimmune, neurodevelopmental disorders, and there was no problem.

So, we've been using aluminum adjuvants and vaccines since 1926, and they're safe because as we live on this planet, aluminum is the third most abundant element on this planet. You're exposed to far more aluminum living on earth than you're ever going to get from a vaccine.

BROWN: Isn't there more aluminum in breast milk than in the vaccines? I remember learning about it when I was pregnant and breastfeeding.

DR. OFFIT: Yes, breast milk, infant formula, that's right, because you live on this planet, so you're exposed to aluminum like we all are.

BROWN: OK. Anything else you want to add as we are waiting for Meg Tirrell? She's going to come up on the vote shortly, so we're waiting on her to come, but is there anything else you want to add as we wait for the results?

DR. OFFIT: I think what I hope happens is that after they loosen the reins on this vaccine and say, you know, you can get it if you want it, share clinical decision-making, assuming the mother doesn't have hepatitis B, I just hope that groups like the American Academy of Pediatrics stand up and say, no, this birth dose is necessary because you have a high risk of getting liver cancer or cirrhosis if you're exposed to this virus in the first five years of life, and there's a lot of ways to be exposed other than from your mother.

BROWN: All right. We're still waiting for Meg, but I want to -- oh, we do have Meg. OK, I'm being told we do have her now. So, let's go to her and find out what the vote is. Stand by, Dr. Offit.

All right. What's the latest, Meg?

MEG TIRRELL, CNN MEDICAL CORRESPONDENT: Well, Pamela, the committee has voted 8 to 3 in favor of removing the universal recommendation for a newborn dose of the hepatitis B vaccine. This was obviously a contentious vote. It was delayed multiple times, and among the three people who voted no, Dr. Cody Meissner, who's among the most respected by outside experts, panelists here said, quote, "We are doing harm with this recommendation." That was seconded by another no vote, Dr. Hibbeln, who said he hoped that the committee would take responsibility for the harm that may ensue from this recommendation.

Now, specifically what this vote was is for babies born to women who have tested negative for hepatitis B, because there is that concern that hepatitis B can spread from mom to baby during childbirth. So, it's still recommended that a birth dose be given to babies whose moms test positive or whose status is unknown. So, this is for moms who test negative, and here they say they recommend individual-based decision-making, so essentially leaving that option up to the parents along with their healthcare provider.

[10:35:00]

Outside experts, though, pointed out there's no reason to make that change. This isn't a mandate for a birth dose. There already was a choice there, and there is no harm, they say, with providing this birth dose. And in fact, it protects infants against a very dangerous virus that can be passed not just from the mother but from other people around the baby as well, Pamela.

Right now, they are discussing the voting language for the second vote, which will be about essentially whether to give the subsequent doses of the vaccine based on whether babies develop immunity from their first dose. So, we'll bring you that result when we get it, but a pretty seismic move from this committee this morning. Pamela.

BROWN: Yes. CDC panel voting to drop the universal recommendations for hepatitis B vaccine. Thank you, Meg. Stand by. I know that we are waiting for the second vote.

Dr. Offit, I want to bring you back in to get your reaction to this.

DR. OFFIT: So, I think it's a sad day for American children. When you basically say, look, if you want to get -- assuming the mother's not infected, if you want to get the hepatitis B vaccine, great. If you don't, great. Shared clinical decision making. What this group should do is stand up for children in this country and say, realize that you could be exposed to hepatitis B after you're born with someone who has chronic hepatitis B and doesn't know it. 50 percent of people in this country have chronic hepatitis B and don't know it. And they may hold your child. It may be your nanny. It may be somebody at daycare. It may be a friend or family member. So -- and so, you don't know. And that's where those other 15,000 children before we had a birth dose got it from.

And when you hear people on this committee say things like, your chance of getting hepatitis B is virtually zero if your mother doesn't have it, they don't understand the epidemiology. Nor do they understand that the virology, this virus lives on surface for up to seven days. It is 50 to 100 times more contagious than AIDS. And I don't think people realize that.

BROWN: All right. Dr. Paul Offit, thank you so much for coming on and sharing your perspective. We really appreciate it.

WOLF BLITZER, CNN ANCHOR: And just ahead, Republicans in Texas get a major win. The U.S. Supreme Court clears the way for a new congressional map in the Longhorn State. What this means for next year's midterms, I should say, and the rest of the country. Stay with us.

[10:40:00]

BLITZER: Happening now, a victory for Republicans trying to maintain control of Congress in next year's midterm elections. The U.S. Supreme Court ruled that Texas can use a congressional redistricting map promoted by President Trump that will favor Republicans next November. The decision overturns a lower court ruling that the map was likely unconstitutional because it was based on race.

Let's go live now to CNN's Chief Supreme Court Justice, Joan Biskupic, who's here with me in the Situation Room. What did the Supreme Court say about this ruling about this Texas redistricting map?

JOAN BISKUPIC, CNN CHIEF SUPREME COURT ANALYST: You remember, this was all because of Donald Trump's pressure to try to shore up his majority in the U.S. House. And this Texas map could potentially flip five seats to the Republican side.

A lower court, though, said that it had been racially gerrymandered, that the Texas legislature had actually divided people up based on race. Supreme Court ruled last night that no, that that court overstepped its authority. It should have deferred to the legislative good faith of the Texas legislature. And it was controlled by the conservative majority on the court with three liberal dissenters sticking up for that lower court decision, saying that court had heard nine days of testimony, gone through thousands of pages of evidence and ruled in a very lengthy opinion that this indeed was a racial gerrymander.

So, let me just tell you what the majority said. The majority, it was an unsigned opinion that basically said the district court did not adequately regard what the Texas legislature had done. But Justice Samuel Alito, who's been at the forefront of a lot of these rulings trying to limit any challenges to racial gerrymander, said it was indisputable that the impetus for the adoption of the Texas map, like the map subsequently adopted in California, was partisan advantage, pure and simple.

And just to remind people, racial gerrymandering, dividing voters by race is unconstitutional. But you can do partisan gerrymandering. You can divide up all the Republicans and all the Democrats and shore up whatever advantage you want in the state. The Supreme Court has said they won't test it.

But let me give you a flavor of the dissenting justices. Elena Kagan wrote for herself, Sonia Sotomayor and Ketanji Brown Jackson. And she said, the majority can reach the result it does, overturning the district court's finding a racial line drawing even if it is to achieve partisan goals, only by irrigating to itself that court's rightful function. We know better. The majority today declares, and I cannot think of a reason why.

She's effectively saying the Supreme Court majority usurped this lower court that had actually done the fact finding, that had actually gone through the work to do this, just because two things. One, because it said you have to defer to the state legislature. And also, because it made a point of saying, we're getting close to the 2026 elections. In Texas, we're in the middle of a filing period.

BLITZER: So, this affects Texas, obviously. It's going to be a benefit for the Republicans and their hopes to retain the majority in the House of Representatives. But it has an impact nationally as well, right?

BISKUPIC: Right. It basically sends a signal that this -- as you know, there are reverberations everywhere in terms of the Trump pressure to draw new maps. And what it means is that at least for red state controlled red states, the Supreme Court is saying hands off. And presumably, they'd say also the blue states that have done off-cycle red state controlled red states. The Supreme Court is saying hands off. And presumably, they'd say also the blue states that have done off-cycle redistricting, as we're now seeing in California. Wolf.

[10:45:00]

BLITZER: Let's see what happens. Joan Biskupic, as usual, thank you very, very much. Pamela.

BROWN: All right. Coming up here in the Situation Room, just into CNN. The Fed's favorite inflation gauge hit the highest level in more than a year. A look at the data and what it means for your wallet just ahead.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

BLITZER: A federal grand jury has declined to indict New York Attorney General Letitia James after looking at the mortgage fraud case against her for a second time. The decision comes some 10 days after a federal judge threw out initial charges against her, ruling that the prosecutor who originally indicted Letitia James was unlawfully appointed.

BROWN: CNN Crime and Justice correspondent Katelyn Polantz joins us now. So, James has been a frequent target of President Trump, as we know. So, what happens next here?

[10:50:00]

KATELYN POLANTZ, CNN CRIME AND JUSTICE CORRESPONDENT: Well, what happens next is potentially the Justice Department, according to the sources Kaitlan Collins and I are talking to, they might try again. They really want to charge Letitia James with these crimes of alleged mortgage fraud, which she says she had already pleaded not guilty to and that in, as far as we can see in the documents, would amount to her only benefiting from a couple thousand dollars a year.

What is interesting about this now is that they charged the case against her. It got thrown out by the judge. And then they went back to the grand jury yesterday, according to our sources, asked the grand jury to approve these without the use of Lindsay Halligan, the top prosecutor, without her being in the room, a different prosecutor went in. And the grand jury said no, they didn't want to charge. And usually it's very easy, theoretically, to get a grand jury to agree to an indictment. And it's very unusual for a grand jury to say no.

So, the politics of this situation, we don't know what happened in the grand jury room, but they may be injecting in. We also have a little bit more from Letitia James' lawyer, Abbe Lowell, speaking to our own Caitlin Collins last night.

BLITZER: Because the old expression, a grand jury can indict a ham sandwich, clearly doesn't work necessarily anymore.

POLANTZ: That's right. And Abbe Lowell actually was talking about this idea last night that they believe that this is all part of a political vendetta rather than a legal decision. Here's Lowell on CNN's air.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

ABBE LOWELL, ATTORNEY FOR LETITIA JAMES: I've also heard that they're just going to wait and try it next week in a different grand jury in a different city in Virginia. That is, again, if they do that, people need to pay attention. It's not like this is normal. But what it does do is show how far they'll go to break the rule of law, to do a revenge tour that President Trump has ordered.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

POLANTZ: Now, a fascinating aspect here is that one of the groups of people paying attention are the judges in the Eastern District of Virginia, very unhappy that Lindsay Halligan continues to be on criminal court documents there.

BROWN: Yes, it was interesting.

BLITZER: Katelyn Polantz, thank you very, very much.

BROWN: Interesting what you noted, that she wasn't the one to bring it to the grand jury yesterday, but she's still listed on those court documents. All right. Thanks so much, Katelyn.

Coming up here in the Situation Room, President Trump will be on hand for a major announcement for the biggest game in all of soccer. That would be the big 2026 FIFA World Cup final draw that is just ahead.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[10:55:00]

BROWN: Well, new numbers just into the Situation Room. They give us some new insight into the U.S. economy. A report from the University of Michigan shows that consumer sentiment rose more than expected for this month. We're learning this as new data reveals consumer spending stalled in September. So, let's get right to CNN Senior Reporter Matt Egan. What's going on here, Matt?

MATT EGAN, CNN SENIOR REPORTER: Well, Pamela, all these numbers that just came out really do get at the heart of the affordability crisis that Americans are feeling right now. The cost of living is just way too high and it's impacting how people feel and what they're doing with their money.

Now, I'll start with PCE, which is the Fed's go to inflation gauge. On a monthly basis it was flat at 0.3 percent, but at an annual basis it ticked up to 2.8 percent. You can see it a little bit on the screen over here. It is obviously way better than it was during the inflation crisis of three years ago, but inflation remains above the Fed's 2 percent target.

And another interesting thing that came out of this report is that when you adjust for prices, consumer spending during the month of September was unchanged. It was at 0 percent, which I think, again, gets at the heart of this affordability crisis.

Now, the good news is we did get some new numbers out on consumer sentiment. This says November, but it was really preliminary December. And the good news is that on a monthly basis we did see an increase, OK? Sentiment did tick higher, but it remains well below the levels of a year ago. And again, that is a lot -- has a lot to do with the cost of living right now.

And there was a really telling where from this survey from the University of Michigan, where the survey director said, that the overall tenor of views is broadly somber, consumers continue to cite the burden of high prices. So, this really gets at how people are feeling right now. Yes, sentiment did tick higher, but people are feeling a lot worse about the economy than they were a year ago because of high prices, because the unemployment rate continues to tick higher. And so, this really gets at how people are feeling about affordability and the jobs market right now. Pamela.

BROWN: All right. Matt Egan in New York. Thanks so much.

EGAN: Thanks.

BLITZER: And the next hour of the Situation Room starts right now.

BROWN: Happening now. A day President Trump and soccer fans around the world have been eagerly waiting for. Why Trump is getting so involved in the pump and circumstance surrounding today's draw for next year's FIFA World Cup.

BLITZER: We want to welcome our viewers here in the United States and indeed around the world. I'm Wolf Blitzer with Pamela Brown, and you're in the Situation Room.

And we begin this hour with all eyes on the FIFA World Cup drawing.

[11:00:00]