Return to Transcripts main page

The Situation Room

New Space Policy?; Immigration Enforcement Tactics Face Scrutiny; HHS Plans to Recommends Fewer Childhood Vaccinations. Aired 11:30a-12p ET

Aired December 19, 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)

[11:31:00]

PAMELA BROWN, CNN HOST: Well, new this morning, a CNN exclusive.

A source familiar with the plans tells CNN the Trump administration is planning to overhaul the childhood vaccine schedule to recommend that kids get fewer shots, protecting them against fewer infectious diseases.

Let's go live now to CNN medical correspondent Meg Tirrell.

What more do we know about this, Meg?

MEG TIRRELL, CNN MEDICAL CORRESPONDENT: Well, Pamela, this is something that we could hear about over the next couple weeks. We heard from a person familiar with the plans that they'd actually been gearing up to announce this proposal today, but have moved back those plans because of a planned announcement about drug prices coming from the White House later today.

Now, what this would entail, though, is potentially a proposal to align our childhood vaccine schedule with peer countries and specifically possibly Denmark's. Now, we know that these plans are not yet final. They could potentially change.

But it comes after a memo from President Trump just two weeks ago following the last CDC advisory committee meeting on vaccines, where they paired back the hepatitis B vaccine recommendation for newborns. And in that memo, the president called the U.S. a -- quote -- "high outlier" in terms of the number of vaccinations recommended for children in this country compared with peer countries and directed HHS Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr., as well as the CDC director, to essentially compare our schedule with what other countries do.

And our source suggests that they could be looking at Denmark specifically. We heard about that during that vaccine advisory meeting. And if they tried to model what the U.S. does after what they do in Denmark, we vaccinate against 17 to 18 diseases in childhood up to the age of 18 here in the United States. And that compares with about 11 in Denmark. And so if we changed our

recommendations to match Denmark's, we would stop recommending routinely that kids get vaccinated against diseases like RSV, which is the biggest cause of infant hospitalizations in the U.S., rotavirus, flu and other diseases -- Pamela.

BROWN: All right, Meg Tirrell, thanks for helping us better understand what's to come potentially.

And let's discuss how this will change and impact American children and public health overall. Joining us now is Paul Offit, director of the Vaccine Education Center at Children's Hospital of Philadelphia. And we should note he also helped develop the rotavirus vaccine recommended for universal use in infants.

Doctor, what is your reaction to the idea of reducing the number of shots on the childhood vaccine schedule in the U.S. to make it more comparable to what Denmark is doing?

DR. PAUL OFFIT, CHILDREN'S HOSPITAL OF PHILADELPHIA: What problem are we trying to solve?

I mean, we consider diseases like rotavirus or respiratory syncytial virus or influenza virus important enough to prevent. Denmark doesn't. So, why should we ever emulate them? All we would be doing by emulating them is putting children at unnecessary risk of diseases for which we have vaccines to prevent them.

So it doesn't make a bit of sense. But the bigger question is, what problem are we trying to solve? Are we preventing too many diseases in this country?

BROWN: Right. And, of course, as you know, this administration has made unfounded claims about links to -- between vaccines and autism, which the data, a large set of data show that that there is no link there, right?

But is there any concern in terms of the safety of these vaccines used for children? What kind of studies have been done? What justification could there possibly be here?

OFFIT: I don't think there is justification.

I mean, whenever a vaccine is introduced onto the childhood immunization schedule, there's so called concomitant use studies. You have to prove that that vaccine doesn't interfere with the safety profile, doesn't interfere with the immunogenicity profile of existing vaccines and vice versa.

It's a very well -tested schedule. And it has done much to prevent hospitalizations and deaths in children in this country. So that we would try and emulate a country like Denmark that appears to care less about its children, because they're willing to let them suffer these diseases -- I mean, in Denmark, 1,200 children every year are admitted with rotavirus infection.

[11:35:04]

And Denmark is 50 times smaller than this country. Every year, 1,300 children are admitted with respiratory syncytial virus. And, again, that equals roughly the 80,000 hospitalizations we had for RSV every year, until we tried to do -- to prevent it.

So I don't understand why this adoration of a country that apparently is willing to expose its children to preventable infections.

BROWN: Yes, and we're just checking what the data says in terms of Denmark and those infections.

But I just want to follow up with you, because -- and hearing all sides of this issue, right, when it comes to vaccines, those who are skeptics or those who want changes to the vaccine schedule will say, well, look, many years ago, it was eight to nine in childhood. And now it's jumped up to, what is it, 14, 15 around that.

What do you make to those who point to that and say, well, there's just too many vaccines now for kids?

OFFIT: Well, so, when I was a child in the 1950s, early 1950s, I got two vaccines. I got the smallpox vaccine, and I got the diphtheria, tetanus, and pertussis vaccine. That's it. But I had measles. I had mumps. I had German measles. I had chicken pox. I was lucky that I didn't get meningitis from haemophilus influenzae type B or pneumococcus or meningococcus.

I was lucky that I never got infected with rotavirus as a baby or that I wasn't infected with human papillomavirus. I was lucky, but a lot of people weren't lucky. And there were many hospitalizations and many deaths from those viruses.

Now we don't have to suffer those. That's a good thing. And I think that the notion that we get too many too soon, and that's somehow altering or perturbing our immune system is just wrong. It's fair to ask the question, but data have never supported that notion that we can't handle that, and nor would it make sense.

I mean, when you're born, when you enter -- leave the birth canal and enter the world, you very quickly are colonized on your body with trillions of bacteria, to which you make an immune response. The immune challenge from vaccines is really literally a drop in the ocean of what you encounter and manage every day.

BROWN: And that's an important point. Even with aluminum, you get -- a baby will get more aluminum through breast milk than in the vaccines, though I know it goes into the body in different ways.

But just to follow up with you, what would the changes to the children's vaccine schedule potentially mean for adults in this country and just overall public health?

OFFIT: Sure.

So, take respiratory syncytial virus, which, as Meg Tirrell noted, is the most common reason for a child less than 3 months old to be admitted to the hospital. Every year, there will be 800,000 -- 80 -- sorry -- 80,000 hospitalizations and 100 to 300 deaths.

But in adults, especially older adults, it's thousands and thousands of deaths. So -- and where do they come in contact with that virus? Generally from young children. So, sure, what happens to children does affect adults.

BROWN: OK, Dr. Paul Offit, thank you so much. We appreciate it. Happy holidays.

OFFIT: Thank you. You too.

BROWN: Well, just ahead, we are taking a look at some of the tactics federal immigration agents have used during focused operations across the country.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[11:42:29]

BROWN: Happening now: A judge has denied a motion to release body camera video of the shooting of Marimar Martinez. She is the American citizen who was shot five times by a Border Patrol agent in Chicago back in October.

Here she is showing her injuries to our Omar Jimenez. The shooting happened after an alleged ramming incident. But prosecutors ended up dropping charges against her after an agent testified she did not ram his vehicle, as had DHS has said. Several media outlets filed a motion to get that bodycam footage released, but the judge denied the request because the case is not moving forward.

Well, Customs and Border Protection tactics have come under increasingly intense scrutiny in several cities where they have conducted operations, including this one in Charlotte last month. You see agents there smash that window, then drag him out of the vehicle and arrest him.

That man turned out to be a Honduran immigrant with a REAL ID who says he became a U.S. citizen back in 2019.

CNN correspondent Priscilla Alvarez joins us now in THE SITUATION ROOM.

You have been closely tracking all of this, Priscilla, and have done a lot of reporting on the Trump administration's immigration enforcement efforts and tactics.

PRISCILLA ALVAREZ, CNN CORRESPONDENT: Yes, that's right Pamela. Look, this is a situation in which they have fanned out across the entire country. And by they, I also mean us Border Patrol, who we have typically seen along the U.S.-Mexico border.

That means that the tactics they're using, they are deploying in the interior, and that has raised alarm among many. Now you just played the video here of the incident that happened in Charlotte. I do want to point out here we're seeing men in green uniforms. These are Border Patrol agents, typically people -- here we have their uniform -- typically agents who would be, again, along the U.S.-Mexico border.

I note this because, when I talk to sources about the various incidents that have happened, they say, look, they are used to a certain landscape. They're used to a certain set of circumstances where they do not know who they're dealing with. They're not typically in a U.S. parking lot the way we're seeing here.

So they are trained to smash car windows if they need to if they're dealing with someone who they have questions about. In this case, they did exactly that. Now, the Department of Homeland Security said the reason for this was because the passenger in the car was being erratic. And that is -- and not complying, which is why it led to this encounter.

But it is a reminder that, while they may be trained to smash a car window, what has been called into question is, does it make sense in this particular scenario? You ask Customs and Border Protection, who released a statement on this, they said yes.

[11:45:08]

Sources I have talked to said, look, U.S. Border Patrol doesn't usually use these tactics, but, in this case, given the circumstances that we know of, because this was just a slice of the situation, they say it would have made sense if there was that erratic behavior that they couldn't pin down.

BROWN: And we have seen multiple instances of U.S. citizens getting caught up on these operations by Border Patrol, right?

ALVAREZ: Yes. Yes, and, again, here, we have ICE. So you can see how this starts to get quite confusing.

Immigration and Customs Enforcement is also out there carrying arrests, as they have typically done. In this case, we have a Somali- U.S. citizen. So they are brought down to the ground there, then lifted up, and then detained. He was later released.

Here's the thing. In addition to that, there were reports and there is a part of this video where he appears to be in a choke hold. Now, I have also talked to sources about this. They say, OK, there's two agents on him. He was brought down. He was quickly raised up. And this is a scenario in which it shows us not only the tactics that they're using for immigrants, but for U.S. citizens.

And that has been such a concern for lawyers who have been working with people and also the general public, because it doesn't just mean that we're only focused on undocumented immigrants. So this was another arrest that got national headlines, not only because of the way ICE conducted itself here, but also because of who they were conducting it against.

Again, he was later released from custody. BROWN: Well, and also DHS Secretary Kristi Noem had said to Congress

during her recent testimony that no U.S. citizens have been detained or deported.

And, I mean, we have video proof evidence...

ALVAREZ: Right.

BROWN: ... of that just not being the case.

Several cities and states have turned to halt these court deportations.

ALVAREZ: Yes.

BROWN: Tell us about these lawsuits.

ALVAREZ: So I think the lawsuit we need to pay the closest attention to is the one that played out in Chicago. Now, in Chicago, that is where Gregory Bovino, the top border official, was. And he was carrying out operations. He was confronting protesters.

And in that -- and I'm actually going to show you one of those cases here. Here, he was throwing a tear gas canister at protesters. That's Gregory Bovino. He's been the top Border Patrol official who has been conducting this immigration crackdown in interior cities.

OK, what happens here? The Department of Homeland Security said he was knocked in the head with objects, at one point with a rock. But this whole incident was part of a court case. And in that court case, what was called into question was the way that Border Patrol was interacting with, engaging with protesters.

What is striking about this is, this was a moment in which there were multiple videos of the incident. But a federal judge got to review all of the evidence. And what she found is that actually, no, there wasn't an object that was thrown at him, that he threw the tear gas canister, and then objects were thrown.

So this gets us to what her conclusion was in her ruling. And this is striking and something to remember going into the new year as this continues. This is what she said.

She said: "Overall, after reviewing all the evidence, the court finds that defendants'," that being the government, "widespread misinterpretations call into question everything that defendants say they are doing in their characterization of what is happening at the Broadview facility" -- that was the ICE facility near the Chicago area -- "or out in the streets of the Chicagoland area during law enforcement activities."

I note this quote, pull this quote from the ruling, because again, the questions around these slices of videos have been, how is -- how are border agents conducting themselves? This gives us a preview into not everything that we hear and learn is always accurate. In this case, she was able to review all of the evidence in Chicago to come to this conclusion.

BROWN: Really important reporting.

Priscilla Alvarez, thank you so much for helping us better understand these immigration operations.

Coming up here in THE SITUATION ROOM: President Trump's big new bid to reassert the country's dominance in space and send the U.S. back to the moon.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[11:52:22]

BROWN: Well, new this morning, President Trump reaffirmed the country's goal of sending Americans back to the moon within three years.

And it comes in a new executive order on space policy. The order also sets a goal of starting work on a permanent outpost on the moon by 2030. And it confirms NASA's plans to use nuclear power for launches.

Joining us live to discuss this is retired NASA astronaut Leroy Chiao.

So let's talk about this new executive order. What is the Trump administration's overall goal with the space program?

LEROY CHIAO, FORMER NASA ASTRONAUT: So, the NASA of today is certainly not the NASA that it was during the Apollo program or even -- even the shuttle program or the ISS program.

And to put that into context, we went from zero, no NASA, to landing humans on the moon in just under 11 years. And the current exploration program in one form or another has been going on since 2004, and we have still not launched a single astronaut into space on it in 21 years. So something needs to be done.

You see this new NASA administrator, Jared Isaacman. I personally think he's the right choice. I signed a letter in support of him. He's vowed to slash bureaucracy and get things under control. So, hopefully, we can get humans back to the moon sooner, rather than later.

Having said that, 2028 is an extremely ambitious goal. It was already very aggressive to try to get there by 2030. But if Jared Isaacman can get things done quickly, then there's a shot at it. But the unknown, of course, Jared Isaacman has never worked in politics in Washington, D.C.

Is he going to get eaten alive or does he have a chance to actually get something done?

(LAUGHTER)

CHIAO: A lot of enemies that don't want things to change, and it's not just NASA. It's any big bureaucracy. BROWN: Yes, D.C. can be a tough place. That's for sure.

So let's talk a little bit more about that, this ambitious goal of establishing a permanent lunar outpost by 2030. How would that be done? And what exactly would it look like, in your view?

CHIAO: Sure.

So technology exists to do all these things. We could have been doing those after much -- not long after the original moon landings in the '60s and '70s. So the technology exists. It's the matter of money and political commitment, right, and having a reason, political reason, to do it.

So, yes, we have always said we wanted to establish lunar bases, at least in the current exploration program. But the timeline has always been a little bit vague for all those reasons we just we just discussed. As far as nuclear power goes, that absolutely makes sense to have nuclear reactors on the moon, and especially on a place like Mars, where solar arrays are going to be much less effective because it's farther from the sun.

[11:55:08]

Even on the moon, you have got -- most of the moon, you have a day- night cycle of 28 days. And so during the nighttime, temperatures plummet, you don't have sunlight for solar arrays to work. So you have got to rely on batteries just to have enough power to keep things warm enough to survive.

And so nuclear power really is the way to go. And so modern small modular fission reactor technology, we're going to try to rely on that, and it makes a lot of sense.

BROWN: All right. And the order also talks about countering security threats to U.S. space interests. What kind of threats could emerge?

CHIAO: Well, of course, there's a very big military side to space, bigger than the civil side that we see through NASA, much bigger. And so we don't know everything that's going on. Of course, we know that several countries, including the U.S., have been operating spy satellites for a number of years.

We have got other capabilities that the public may not know about, I certainly don't know about. We have the X-37B, which has been intriguing. It's been flying missions, winged vehicle with no astronauts on board, but it's been flying missions in space in durations well over a year, changing orbits. And there's a lot of speculation as to what vehicles like that might be doing.

So it's important to keep our edge in space, I think. It's the so- called high ground, the ultimate high ground, if you will. And we do need to keep the lead in that to keep our country secure.

BROWN: That's really important context.

Leroy Chiao, thank you so much for coming on the show and laying it out for us. We appreciate it.

CHIAO: My pleasure. Thank you.

BROWN: And thank you all for joining us this morning.

"INSIDE POLITICS" with our friend and colleague Dana Bash starts after this.