Return to Transcripts main page

The Situation Room

Golden Globe Nominations Announced; Indiana Redistricting Fight; Hepatitis B Vaccination Controversy. Aired 11:30a-12p ET

Aired December 08, 2025 - 11:30   ET

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

[11:30:00]

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[11:31:59]

PAMELA BROWN, CNN HOST: Happening now: There is some confusion among parents nationwide after a powerful CDC committee handpicked by Health and Human Services Secretary RFK Jr. voted to abandon universal hepatitis B vaccination recommendations for newborns.

President Trump applauded that decision and the White House released a presidential memo directing Kennedy and the CDC to reevaluate the core childhood vaccine schedule for the U.S.

Joining us now to discuss is Dr. Joe Hibbeln. He's a member of the CDC's Advisory Committee on Immunization Policy and previously served as an acting chief with the National Institutes of Health.

Doctor, thank you so much for coming on the show.

So, you warned that this decision by your committee has -- quote -- "the potential to cause harm." Can you elaborate on that and be more specific on what you mean by that?

DR. JOSEPH HIBBELN, ADVISORY COMMITTEE ON IMMUNIZATION PRACTICES: I will.

But, first, I want to specifically say that these are my own opinions and not that of the committee, and, secondly, that the Health and Human Services has specifically encouraged all panel members to speak freely to the media and express their own opinion, and that I myself have not been coached or restricted or directed in any way. And this is fully my free opinion.

BROWN: Sure.

HIBBELN: Secondly is that, as Dr. Malone most eloquently described, it's important to have a free and vigorous scientific debate, because not everybody has the same opinions.

And that's a good thing, and that not only should we have a vigorous debate, but it's also important that, although we disagree with each other, it's critical that we respect each other, both respect our opinions and respect each other personally, because we have a great deal of work to do.

And, fundamentally, for the protection of public health, it's our moral duty to act as best as we can as a team.

BROWN: So..

HIBBELN: So -- please.

BROWN: No, I appreciate you laying that out and making that clear.

But in terms of what the recommendation was, I just want to go back to that initial question I had, that you warned that the decision by the committee has the potential to cause harm. Just help us better understand what you meant by that.

HIBBELN: Well, as Secretary Kennedy eloquently expressed, we have to evaluate not only the harms of getting a vaccine, which has been of great concern, but we also must balance this to...

BROWN: Oh, I think we just lost him.

HIBBELN: ... community.

(CROSSTALK)

BROWN: All right, well, there you go.

Oh, OK, hopefully, we can reconnect with him to continue that conversation.

Thank you to Dr. Hibbeln. And I think he's back. We will see how long the signal stays.

[11:35:00]

All right, Dr. Hibbeln, I will let you continue.

HIBBELN: So, yes, there's a great potential to cause harm, and we have a high bar, in my opinion, of changing these recommendations, because this has been recognized -- the use of hepatitis B vaccines over the last 40 years has been recognized as one of the greatest achievements in public health.

And over those 40 years, there's have been extensive examinations and evaluations of any harm of safety. And none have been found. So, restricting the access to the vaccination or increasing fear of vaccination would increase the likelihood that people don't get vaccinated.

And, in fact, 25 percent of pregnant women don't have access to health care of any kind. And it would be unlikely that they could get an antibody test prior to pregnancy or, in the case of one of our colleagues who described that she was pregnant and her water broke, and she couldn't get tested beforehand.

So, putting in testing for antibodies is a complex process occurring across many states, and it's very difficult to implement.

(CROSSTALK)

BROWN: Yes, no, I -- let me just jump in for a second just to ask you, because what we heard from other doctors as well is that they didn't have the data and the information and the research to really make an informed decision.

I'm wondering what your thoughts are on that. Do you -- did you feel comfortable with the information at hand to make an informed decision? Because you had the new chair of the vaccine committee say that the vaccine advisers felt like -- quote -- "puppets on a string."

Wondering what you say to that?

HIBBELN: Oh, I don't want to comment on his opinions.

For myself, absolutely, we have all agreed that we should make our decisions by data and not by speculations or opinions or feelings. So we shouldn't use the word may or probably.

I have a specific disagreement about the presentation of any data of harms of vaccines. The reason that this vote was delayed for three months was because, in September, I pointed out that nobody had presented any data of harms of vaccines.

And I noted also later that we took three months for the committee, the working group, to find data, and none was found and none was expressed. And right before the committee meeting, I sent out one final note to everyone asking, well, where's the data of harm?

And no one presented any data of harm. And I asked for data of harm repeatedly through the committee. And if we're going to make our decisions based on data, I want to see the data. And I repeatedly asked for it. And no data of harm was presented.

There were speculations: Oh, we need to have future studies of hundreds of thousands of people. And we have to examine the possibility of an unknown unknown.

Well, to me, that's speculation and that's not data.

(CROSSTALK)

BROWN: So do you think the decision was based on speculation then?

HIBBELN: Well, it certainly wasn't based on data, which I repeatedly asked for.

BROWN: How concerning is that to you? I mean, how concerning is that to you? And I'm just wondering if you worry at all you could lose your job speaking out against this. I mean, as you may recall, the HHS secretary clean house of every previous ACIP member back in June.

HIBBELN: Oh, nobody's ever threatened me with anything like losing my job or whatever. I'm concerned primarily because the secretary charged us with

restoring the reputation and the faith in the scientific process of this committee. That was his charge. And I heartily and fully agree with it.

Now, we have differences of opinion as to how that restoration of scientific trust should be implemented amongst members of the decision -- the committee and we have strong disagreements about this.

BROWN: But how should the American people trust the committee and its decisions if, as you say, the decisions aren't being made on data? And I know that's your own independent opinion, as you have made very clear. But how are Americans supposed to trust these recommendations?

[11:40:02]

HIBBELN: Well, my view that is the proper way forward is to explicitly embrace the use of a scientific framework to make our decisions, in contrast to opinions and speculations.

The committee has now been trained in that scientific framework, the evidence for -- evidence-to-recommendations framework. Incidentally, Denmark uses exactly the same framework, as do 120 different countries, to have a framework that we look at to make our decisions.

And explicitly in that framework is a comparison of the risks of getting a vaccine as compared to the risks of not getting a vaccine. I do not feel that balance of risks was adequately addressed in the committee.

And I think that we can restore faith in the committee by doing what we said we were going to do.

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

HIBBELN: Thank you very much.

WOLF BLITZER, CNN HOST: And coming up: President Trump's push to get the GOP more seats in Congress now setting up a political showdown with Republicans in Indiana.

We will talk with a former Democratic senator who's among those fighting the effort.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[11:46:23]

BLITZER: There's a brewing showdown between President Trump and Indiana Republicans over redistricting.

The Statehouse passed a new congressional map designed to hand Republicans all nine of Indiana's House seats here in Washington. But some Republicans in the state Senate aren't on board with the plan.

BROWN: Joining us now is former Indiana Senator and former U.S. Ambassador to the Vatican Joe Donnelly.

Thank you for coming on. So what are you hearing from people in Indiana about this plan? And what kind of support or lack of support is it getting?

FMR. SEN. JOE DONNELLY (D-IN): Sure.

Well, it's never been a Democrat-versus-Republican issue in our state. Governor -- former Governor Mitch Daniels came out against this plan. Former Republican Lieutenant Governor Sue Ellspermann came out against it.

Overwhelmingly, the people of the state are against it because they're looking, going, why are we even doing something like this? And it's perceived as -- you know, what I have heard -- I have traveled around the state on this. And the word is, Hoosiers don't cheat.

I mean, there's rules. You play by the rules, and that's how it should be handled.

BLITZER: It's interesting that one Republican state senator who has a daughter with Down syndrome said he'd vote no after President Trump used a slur for those with intellectual disabilities.

I want you to listen to this.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

STATE SEN. MIKE BOHACEK (R-IN): At points, we have to stand up. And you can't validate slurs like that and rhetoric like that, because how do we expect our children to not use terms like this, to be respectful of each other, when the most powerful person in the world is using them? It just goes to a matter of character, and somebody has to speak up.

And, at this point, I have the microphone.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

BLITZER: So how influential are his words for conservative voters on the ground? What do you think?

DONNELLY: Well, Senator Bohacek is a good friend of mine. He doesn't live too far away from me.

And he's just reflecting who we are in Indiana, which is, look, we try to do normal things in a commonsense way. And what's influential is, folks look at this and go, we have challenges with our economy. We have challenges with our jobs. Why has this become the issue?

And those senators who are looking at this, they don't want to be doing this. And so they'd rather be focused on having more jobs created in the state. And this is a really bad idea. When we talked about this, in Indiana, it's like a basketball analogy. We're in the third quarter of a game and you decide, OK, we're going to change the rules. Our baskets are worth four points and you get to play with two people.

Well, that's not how this works. And they will get the chance to do this after the census. It's actually against the Indiana state constitution, Article 4, to even try to do this now. It can only be done after the census.

And so there's a real discomfort in our state about this whole thing.

BROWN: The lawmakers, no doubt, are feeling a lot of pressure right now. I mean, you had President Trump even going after them. Just tell us what that is like, the kind of pressure they're facing.

DONNELLY: These are folks who came to the Statehouse to try to do a good job and represent their neighbors and their friends. And 12 of them have been swatted.

There was -- there have been rallies. There was a rally on Friday where a group came together and said, we're going to raise the money to throw all of you out who vote against this. And so it's taken enormous courage on the part of these state senators to say, look, we want to do this the Indiana way. We want to do this the fair way.

[11:50:08]

And the Indiana and fair way is, there are rules and we're going to follow them. And the next time you do this is after the next census.

BROWN: So do you think it will change any minds or do you think it'll strengthen the opposition, that kind of pressure?

DONNELLY: Well, I know whenever they put that kind of pressure on me when I was either the congressman of the senator, it just made me more stubborn.

And so I think that's the characteristic we have that, that folks are -- don't -- try to convince me with ideas. Don't try to convince me with threats or bullying, because that never works.

BLITZER: After the U.S. Supreme Court upheld the redrawn Texas maps do you think that emboldens the redistricting push in both red and blue states?

DONNELLY: I just think it continues in a lot of states because of that.

This was started in Texas. Then, obviously, California went next. And so we'll see where this all ends up. I just know that my state, Indiana, the people of the state overwhelmingly don't want to be part of this.

BROWN: All right, former Senator Joe Donnelly, thank you so much.

BLITZER: And thanks from me as well.

DONNELLY: Thank you. It's a privilege. BLITZER: Also coming up: the year's biggest movies and TV shows that now have a chance to snag a coveted award at the Golden Globes next month.

We'll update you.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[11:56:16]

BLITZER: New this morning, the Golden Globe nominations are out, and, in movies, "One Battle After Another" leads the way with nine nominations, including best motion picture.

In the TV categories, the "White Lotus" leads with six nominations. The Golden Globe Awards will be held next month.

BROWN: All right, let's go live now to see an entertainment correspondent Elizabeth Wagmeister in Los Angeles for us.

So, was anyone surprised that "One Battle After Another" got so many nominations?

ELIZABETH WAGMEISTER, CNN ENTERTAINMENT CORRESPONDENT: You know, I don't know if that was a huge surprise, but there were a ton of surprises this morning, Pam, with the Golden Globe nominations.

And what's interesting about "One Battle After Another," which, as Wolf said, leads the pack on the film side with nine nominations, is this is one of the only mainstream movies, so to speak, one of the box office hits, that is among the most nominated films.

The Golden Globes, it's known of the party of the year. It's really the most fun awards show to attend, I have to tell you. But if you compare it to something like the Oscars, the Globes usually recognizes mainstream films and big, huge celebrities.

And this year, they actually went a bit more art house. So "One Battle After Another," one of the few mainstream films to get a ton of nominations, also "Sinners," and, as you saw there, "Sentimental Value." I'd put that more in the art house category.

But "Sinners," which is Michael B. Jordan and Ryan Coogler's film, was a huge box office achievement this year, one of the only original ideas to do well at the box office in 2025. That had a huge morning. And also, on the TV side, you have "White Lotus" leading the pack, followed by "Severance," and "Only Murders in the Building."

BLITZER: Why did they split up the best motion picture category?

WAGMEISTER: You know, that is what the Globes does. So, opposed to the Oscars, they split up into comedy and drama, Wolf, not just for the best picture, but for some of the other categories.

But I also want to talk about some new categories this year which have been gathering quite the discussion in the entertainment industry. So, for the first time, the Golden Globes is nominating podcasts. They're recognizing podcasts.

And there was a lot of controversy around this, because people were wondering, are you going to have political podcasts that are going to be nominated? Political podcasts were snubbed, but you have people like Alex Cooper and Dax Shepard and Amy Poehler who are all now Golden Globe nominees for being podcasters.

But you also have a category, which is called the box office and cinematic achievement category. And this is something that the Oscars also recently added in. When you look there, that is where you really see your mainstream movies. You see right there you have "Avatar: Fire and Ash." You have "F1." You have "KPop Demon Hunters."

But here's the interesting thing. "Avatar" is not out yet. So it's a bit perplexing. How can you be recognized for box office achievement when you're not out? And "KPop Demon Hunters," it did have a limited release in theaters, but that was largely a Netflix release.

So I will tell you, in the industry, a lot of people this morning are a bit perplexed how they went about this.

BROWN: Understandably.

Really quick, the Golden Globes are seen as a preview to the Oscars. How often do the top Golden Globe nominees go on to win Oscars?

WAGMEISTER: I mean, often. And they're not the predictor. As you go through awards season, certainly the SAG Awards and some of the smaller awards shows that maybe aren't televised or are showcased in a big as way at the Golden Globes, those are almost better indicators.

[12:00:00]

But when it comes to the Golden Globe nominees, you certainly will see a lot of them appear a few months later at the Oscars. And I will say, the Golden Globes, again, remember, it honors both television and film, and that differentiates it certainly from the Oscars.

BLITZER: Elizabeth Wagmeister, as usual, thank you very, very much.

BROWN: Thank you.

BLITZER: And, to our viewers, thanks very much for joining us this morning.

BROWN: "INSIDE POLITICS" with our friend and colleague Dana Bash starts right now.