Return to Transcripts main page

The Situation Room

Trump Admin Proposes $103,000 Fee for H-1B Visas; Supreme Court Allows Some Mail-In Ballot Limits; U.S. Airman Charged After Calling for Trump's Impeachment. Aired 11:30a-12p ET

Aired August 25, 2026 - 11:30   ET

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

[11:30:00]

WOLF BLITZER, CNN ANCHOR: Happening now, the Trump administration is proposing a massive new price tag for the popular H-1B worker visa. More than $103,000 per person. That's a lot of money. Last year, a federal judge blocked a similar fee. This new proposal is an even bigger number. Second attempt to get around that initial roadblock.

CNN Correspondent Priscilla Alvarez is working the story for us. She's in the Situation Room. So, what is this all about?

PRISCILLA ALVAREZ, CNN CORRESPONDENT: Well, this is yet another example of the Trump administration tightening the screws on legal immigration. So, this is the second go around with the H-1B visa, which is for highly skilled professionals and are used by multiple companies and institutions, primarily in tech, but also hospitals use them, non-profit institutions and universities.

So, what they're proposing here is the $103,000 fee that goes with this visa, which would have to be paid before the government decides to approve an application. So, you're providing that money early on in the process. It applies to most new applicants, including those who aren't applying from abroad. And it is under a proposed rule, which is to say, well, if this isn't taking effect today, in fact, it's going to go through a public comment period so that the public can weigh in and then they will see if they can move forward.

Now, a federal judge did strike down a previous attempt at this. The previous attempt, however, was done through a different process and was for one year. That fee was for one year. And so, they're trying to do this a different way. It's likely also going to face litigation. But there also are real world applications if this is finalized and takes effect.

So, one of the concerns early on, at least with the last hike, was for hospitals and universities. $100,000 is so much money for them to be able to pay this fee for these visa applicants. And so, they, this time around, are going to be exempt. But there is a burden that's going to be carried. That's going to be, for example, through the tech industry. So, when you think about this, students, for example, who come from abroad and are at universities may get hired to go work in Silicon Valley. And that is a time at which they may be placed on these H-1B visas that they would have to apply and go through. So, that means that very early on in their career, they would be facing these price hikes. And that may dissuade them from staying in the United States. So, it is those types of concerns that come up in the lawsuits about this, but also ones that the industries have about moving forward.

Now, the administration says that they don't like these visas, that they take away from American jobs. And if these companies want to have foreign professionals do these jobs, they need to pay up. But the reality is, and this is what I find in many of the conversations I have across industries, is that they don't have enough workers for some of these jobs. They need foreign nationals, including in these highly skilled jobs. And so, fees like this make it incredibly difficult for them to obtain those workers.

But again, will this face litigation the first time? It's likely going to face litigation again. And we'll see some of these concerns come to bear in those lawsuits.

BLITZER: So, if these companies really need these highly skilled workers, will they pay the $100,000?

ALVAREZ: Well, they would have to if this is finalized. But that is exactly where they are likely to try to fight the administration on this. Because again, if one worker is $100,000 and you're hiring many workers, you can see how that would really build over time. That number adds up. Where they are likely to try to fight the administration on this. Because again, if one worker is $100,000 and you're hiring many workers, you can see how that would really build over time.

[11:35:00]

BLITZER: That number adds up.

ALVAREZ: Yes.

BLITZER: All right. Excellent work as usual, Priscilla. Thank you very much. Also happening now, just 70 days before the upcoming midterm elections on November 3rd, the Trump administration is celebrating something of a win as a U.S. Supreme Court ruling clears the way for new restrictions on mail-in ballots, at least for now. That could change. And this lets President Trump temporarily push ahead with an order giving the U.S. Postal Service and Homeland Security Department unprecedented control over the running of elections.

President Trump has railed against mail-in ballots for years, even though he has repeatedly voted by mail himself in his home State of Florida. Listen.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

DONALD TRUMP, U.S. PRESIDENT: Mail-in voting, which is so crooked. Mail-in ballots are inherently corrupt. Mail-in voting means mail-in cheating. I call it mail-in cheating. And we got to do something about it. Mail-in ballots are a big fraud. You will never have an honest election if you have mail-in.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

BLITZER: Right now, it's unclear exactly how this new Supreme Court ruling will impact the upcoming November elections. I want to bring in our chief Supreme Court analyst, Joan Biskupic. Joan, what exactly does this ruling mean? And how did the justices vote?

JOAN BISKUPIC, CNN CHIEF SUPREME COURT ANALYST: OK. First of all, this is obviously something that Donald Trump is letting go of. The action by the Supreme Court yesterday was limited, but it could show some openness to what Donald Trump wants here, and that is to curtail mail-in ballots. And, you know, 23 states had sued the federal government, sued Donald Trump to try to get this changed before we get too close to November.

What the Supreme Court said yesterday was, your suit isn't timely. It's not ready yet because we don't know exactly what the Trump order is going to say. The DHS and the Postal Service had not finalized their rules by the time this case first came up. The Postal Service now has finalized something as of Friday. So, I think that these complaints will be amended and they'll go forward.

But what the court said was it was a matter of timing. It was still a divided vote at the court. The six conservatives who control this court were in the majority. Three liberal dissenters said, no, already the states have a good claim that they are being interfered with because, as you know, Wolf, the Constitution gives states the authority to regulate the time, manner, and place of elections. So, this is a state duty. And President Trump has so emphasized that he wants the federal government in there, even though there has never been any kind of evidence of widespread fraud through mail-in voting.

So, what happens next? The Supreme Court said, look, time will tell what happens. We'll wait to see whether we can look at exactly what the Trump administration will do in terms of the Department of Homeland Security rules and actually the Postal Service rules that were, as I said, finalized on Friday. This case and one that's been also filed in Massachusetts by the League of Women Voters, also taking the same kind of position that this is interfering with state authority as dictated by the Constitution. Those cases will move forward now with more finalized orders and actual action by the Trump administration.

And I expect this whole ordeal to return to the Supreme Court. The question will be, though, is there time to have the legal status resolved at the court and the practicalities actually resolved? Look at -- what did you say? We're 70 days from it. We're, you know, two months and change from the November 3rd election. First of all, does the administration even have the ability to put some of these rules in place? And when the 23 states and the legal League of Women Voters and other voting rights groups, after they've made their challenges, will they have been able to run their course in time for the election to get these things in place?

One last thing I want to mention, as I said, the three liberals had dissented. Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson, one of those, wrote separately to say, you have -- the Supreme Court majority has provided sort of a dilemma for people who want to sue the administration for these rules. A 2006 ruling by the Supreme Court said that you can't have federal courts get involved too close to the election. But yet, this case essentially says you can't sue too early. So, where is that sweet spot where you can actually have a challenge and get it resolved in time?

DIAMOND: Do the Supreme Court justices pay any attention at all to Trump's behavior? Because he repeatedly votes by mail, even though he says that those are terrible, the mail-in balloting is illegal and terrible and awful. But he repeatedly votes by mail-in Florida.

[11:40:00]

BISKUPIC: He does. And that would not factor into their calculation here. What matters is what the Constitution says and what the Trump administration is trying to do here. And can they reconcile those? Can they find a way? And these conservatives might, but maybe not to say to see whether there really is authority for the federal government to put -- you know, to get so involved in what happens at the state level with mail-in ballots.

BLITZER: This case is not over with yet.

BISKUPIC: No, Far from it. Far from it.

BLITZER: Joan Biskupic, thank you very, very much. And just ahead, why a U.S. Air Force major now faces very rare charges from the U.S. military for offering a vocal critique of President Trump.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[11:45:00]

BLITZER: Happening now, an active-duty U.S. Air Force major with 17 years of service is now facing very rare criminal charges for publicly criticizing his commander in chief. Major Jason Watson was detained twice in recent weeks after speaking out against the president. He was first arrested on the steps of the U.S. Capitol wearing his uniform, calling for Trump to be impeached over the Iran war and other issues. Then he was detained a second time just one day after appearing on CNN, telling this to our Erin Burnett. Listen.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

MAJ. JASON WATSON, U.S. AIR FORCE: What is happening with President Trump is not normal. He has failed us. And not only is he a failure as president, he is flagrantly violating the constitution, breaking the law, engaged in rampant corruption and is killing Americans.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

BLITZER: CNN senior national security reporter Haley Britzky is here with me in the Situation Room. Haley, these charges are rare, but could criticism of a commander in chief actually wind up landing a military officer in jail?

HALEY BRITZKY, CNN SENIOR NATIONAL SECURITY REPORTER: Yes, Wolf, I mean, these are serious charges, as you mentioned, very rare. Only two times previously have they been brought successfully against service members. Once in 1965, an army lieutenant who spoke out about the war with Vietnam and actually recently in 2021, a Marine lieutenant colonel criticizing President Biden over the Afghanistan withdrawal. That lieutenant colonel is now actually a civilian appointee in the Pentagon. So, these are rare charges, but they are very serious.

And the contemptuous remarks charge is just one of three under the Uniform Code of Military Justice that Major Watson has been charged under. He's also been charged with allegedly disobeying orders and conduct unbecoming of an officer. So, these are certainly something you don't see very often, but his lawyer has kind of made clear that he knew what the risks were.

I mean, standing up as an active-duty officer in uniform on the steps of the Capitol, protesting against the commander in chief, there's not a military officer who would not kind of know the risks of going into that. And as we heard him tell Erin Burnett, being very clear and that he thinks Trump is flagrantly violating the Constitution, breaking the law and killing Americans. He also spoke a little bit about his motivations for protesting. Let's take a look.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

WATSON: Everything that is worthwhile is going to cost something. It's going to be hard. It's going to require sacrifice. All that I could do was ask myself, what's the highest price that I'm willing to pay? But any American can make this choice. Any American can say this government is intolerable and I want a better future for my children.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

BRITZKY: So, he's saying pretty clearly there that he understands the risks of the choice that he's making. And the Air Force previously said, you know, that his statements do not do not mirror the views and the opinions of the Air Force. But certainly, something that his lawyer has made clear that he knew sort of the risk he was taking there.

BLITZER: All right. Haley Britzky reporting for us. Haley, thank you very, very much. Coming up, a new blood test that could potentially be a watershed moment in the fight against Alzheimer's disease. What we're learning, information you need to know. That's coming up next here in The Situation Room.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[11:50:00]

BLITZER: Happening now, information you need to know, a major development in the fight against Alzheimer's disease. The FDA has now cleared a new blood test that can help identify signs in some people of Alzheimer's. It's intended only for people 55 and older with cognitive decline. One of the companies behind it says it could help doctors identify if patients are likely or unlikely, for that matter, to have Alzheimer's-related brain changes.

Let's go to CNN medical correspondent Meg Tirrell. What more do we know about this test and how reliable, Meg, is it?

MEG TIRRELL, CNN MEDICAL CORRESPONDENT: Hi, Wolf. Well, this test has been cleared by the FDA for people who are 55 or older and who have symptoms of Alzheimer's disease, including cognitive impairment. And what it does is it measures a level of a biomarker in the blood called P-tau217, which is closely correlated with levels of amyloid plaque buildups in the brain, which are associated with Alzheimer's disease.

And so, what doctors tell us is that this shouldn't be used alone as a diagnostic tool for Alzheimer's, but it could be an additional tool that could potentially make it easier for doctors to do earlier, less invasive testing before you'd get to something like a PET scan, a brain scan, or cerebral spinal fluid testing, which are more invasive tests.

And so, what this could do potentially is, if you have those signs and symptoms, you have risk factors, your doctor could potentially give you this blood test. And what some doctors have told us is it could be more helpful for ruling out Alzheimer's disease. But if it does suggest you have high levels of that biomarker in your blood, then it could lead to further tests. So, it could be helpful for getting people diagnosed earlier.

And, of course, Wolf, we know that more than 7 million people are currently estimated to be living with Alzheimer's dementia, and that's expected to grow to about 13 million by 2050. Now, we do have new medicines that have been approved over the last few years for Alzheimer's disease. They don't cure it. They don't stop it. But the hope is that they could slow its progression.

[11:55:00]

And really, Wolf, where doctors are hoping that these tests could help us go is if you could identify people who aren't yet showing signs of Alzheimer's memory loss and having trouble thinking clearly but do have that buildup of plaque in their brains. Could you administer these plaque-clearing medicines earlier to those folks, and could that lead to higher benefit? There are trials going on right now. Doctors are telling us this is where these blood tests really could potentially be helpful, but they are not there just yet. Wolf.

BLITZER: Yes, very significant indeed. All right. Meg Tirrell, appreciate it very much. Thank you. And to our viewers, thanks very much for joining us this morning. You can always keep up with us on social media, @wolfblitzer and @pamelabrowncnn. We'll see you back here tomorrow morning, every weekday morning for two hours, 10:00 a.m. Eastern. Inside Politics with our friend and colleague Dana Bash starts after a very quick break.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[12:00:00]