A rush transcript of "This Week with George Stephanopoulos" airing on Sunday, June 29, 2025 on ABC News is below. This copy may not be in its final form, may be updated and may contain minor transcription errors. For previous show transcripts, visit the "This Week" transcript archive.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
JONATHAN KARL, ABC "THIS WEEK" CO-ANCHOR: A major ruling on presidential power from the Supreme Court. The scramble to finish President Trump's massive budget bill. Questions about Iran's enriched uranium. And the political earthquake rocking New York City. THIS WEEK starts right now.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
DONALD TRUMP, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: And I want to just thank, again, the Supreme Court for this ruling. It's a giant.
KARL: President Trump celebrates a landmark ruling limiting the power of judges to block his executive orders.
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Do you see this as a full green light for your agenda going forward?
TRUMP: We have to be able to act very quickly, and we're going to do that.
KARL: And while Trump trades jabs with the ayatollah, big questions remain about what's left of Iran’s nuclear program.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: I just do not think the president was telling the truth when he said this program was obliterated.
KARL: This morning, we're live at the White House and on Capitol Hill.
And our exclusive interview with Trump ally Senator Lindsey Graham.
Political shock wave.
ZOHRAN MAMDANI, DEMOCRATIC MAYORAL CANDIDATE FOR NEW YORK: My friends, we have done it.
KARL: Thirty-three-year-old Democratic socialist Zohran Mamdani defies the odds in New York City.
MAMDANI: We have won because New Yorkers have stood up for a city they can afford.
KARL: What does his progressive message mean for Democrats nationwide? Our exclusive this morning with House Democratic Leader Hakeem Jeffries of New York.
Vaccine upheaval.
ROBERT F. KENNEDY JR., HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES SECRETARY: We need good science. And I'm going to bring that in.
KARL: A controversial group of advisers to help Secretary RFK Jr. holds its first meeting on vaccine recommendations. We'll cover all the fallout.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
ANNOUNCER: From ABC News, it's THIS WEEK. Here now, Jonathan Karl.
KARL: Good morning. Welcome to THIS WEEK.
As we come on the air, the Senate is in the midst of a marathon session. They were going at it all night long as Republicans try to pass the president's big tax and budget bill.
Take a look at this Senate floor right now. That's your Congress at work. The clerk forced to read every word of the 1,000-page bill, a delaying tactic by Democrats who really can't do anything else to slow the president's agenda. And the bill is now under attack yet again from Elon Musk, who is calling it, quote, “utterly insane and destructive.” We'll have the latest from Capitol Hill in a moment.
And overseas, major developments on Iran. One week after the U.S. military strike, the ceasefire is still holding, and there's more evidence the U.S. strike did severely damage Iran’s nuclear program.
But this morning, there are big questions about the fallout. Where is Iran’s stockpile of highly enriched uranium? Will Iran let U.N. inspectors back in? And what about those U.S./Iran talks that President Trump said would happen this week?
We finally heard from Iran’s supreme leader, Ayatollah Khamenei, in a prerecorded video message. He claimed Iran had, quote, “emerged victorious” from the war and delivered a harsh slap to America's face.
President Trump didn't like that. Take a look at his response on social media. There's a lot there. He accused the supreme leader of lying and claimed to have saved him from, quote, “a very ugly death.”
Back in the United States, the president celebrated another victory, the Supreme Court's ruling limiting the power of federal judges to issue nationwide injunctions. Both Trump and his critics say the decision just made him a more powerful president.
But even an empowered president needs Congress to get things done. We're joined now by ABC's Jay O'Brien on Capitol Hill with the very latest.
Good morning, Jay.
We had a heck of a lot of drama overnight there on the Senate floor.
JAY O'BRIEN, ABC NEWS CORRESPONDENT: Yes, Jon, good morning.
President Trump’s signature legislation on knife's edge. In the Senate last night, three Republicans voting against advancing it. One more would have tanked the bill. Ultimately, after hours of negotiation, including with Vice President J.D. Vance, one vote flipped and they reached a deal on how to move forward.
But that's when Democrats called for that marathon reading of the bill on the Senate floor, pushing a final vote likely at least a day away at this point. And when that final vote comes, it's unclear if Republicans will have the support in their own ranks to get this bill over the goal line.
In its current form, this legislation cuts taxes by $4 trillion, making permanent Trump's 2017 tax cuts, includes campaign promises like no taxes on tips and overtime. And to pay for that, Republicans cutting programs like Medicaid, imposing new work requirements, and slashing clean energy incentives that were passed during the Biden administration.
Jon.
KARL: And, Jay, as the Senate was getting underway, we heard from Elon Musk, who we hadn't heard from in a while. He said, “The latest Senate draft bill will destroy millions of jobs in this country and cause immense strategic harm to our country.” “Utterly insane and destructive” is how he described it. Does that have an impact up there?
O’BRIEN: Not having much of an impact last night, Jon. But also, if the Senate passes this bill, it’s got to go back to the House, as you know. And Johnson’s facing a razor-thin majority there. And anything could tip the scales just by moving one or two votes.
KARL: OK, Jay, thank you very much.
And now to Mary Bruce at the White House.
Mary, the president, I know, was working the phones late last night and clearly watching and commenting on all the action in the Senate.
MARY BRUCE, ABC NEWS CHIEF WHITE HOUSE CORRESPONDENT: Yes, he certainly was, Jon. Good morning.
The president is now celebrating this vote in the Senate last night, posting after midnight, calling it a great victory, and saying he is, quote, “very proud of the Republican Party.”
It comes as he continues to celebrate that major Supreme Court decision on Friday, and as he continues to defend his strikes against Iran.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
BRUCE (voice over): A triumphant President Trump in the briefing room Friday after the Supreme Court ruled in favor of limiting the power of federal judges, handing his administration a major win.
DONALD TRUMP, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: The Supreme Court has delivered a monumental victory for the Constitution, the separation of powers, and the rule of law.
BRUCE: (voice over): While the Trump administration is seeking to end birthright citizenship, the court did not rule on the constitutionality of that effort, but its far-reaching decision did limit the ability of federal judges to stop executive orders through nationwide injunctions.
PAM BONDI, ATTORNEY GENERAL: No longer will we have rogue judges striking down President Trump's policies across the entire nation.
BRUCE (voice over): All three liberal justices dissenting from the ruling. Justice Sonia Sotomayor writing, “the rule of law is not a given in this nation, nor any other. With the stroke of a pen, the president has made a solemn mockery of our Constitution. Rather than stand firm, the court gives way.”
Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer calling it “an unprecedented and terrifying step toward authoritarianism.”
As the White House celebrates its judicial win, the administration is defending its strikes against Iran. The president adamant Iran's nuclear program was completely destroyed.
TRUMP: And they hit the target, and the target has now been proven to be obliterated.
PETE HEGSETH, DEFENSE SECRETARY: So, if you want to make an assessment of what happened at Fordow, you'd better get a big shovel and go really deep, because Iran's nuclear program is obliterated.
BRUCE (voice over): The president dispatching his defense secretary and Joint Chiefs chairman to back him up.
HEGSETH: Anyone with, you know, two ears -- two eyes, some ears and a brain can recognize that kind of firepower, with that specificity, at that location and others, is going to have a devastating effect.
BRUCE (voice over): A preliminary intelligence assessment indicated Iran moved at least some of its near weapons-grade uranium before the strike. The president insisting that didn't happen in an interview with Fox News.
MARIA BARTIROMO, FOX NEWS: I saw reports that there were 400 kilograms, 800 pounds, that they -- that they moved.
TRUMP: Yes.
BARTIROMO: But I wonder if it's traceable. I mean, if they were to have moved some --
TRUMP: They didn't move anything.
BARTIROMO: They didn’t move anything?
TRUMP: You know what they moved? Themselves. They were all trying to live. They didn't move anything.
BRUCE (voice over): Democrats emerged from their classified briefings on preliminary intelligence skeptical of the administration's take.
SEN. CHRIS MURPHY (D-CT): To me, it still appears that we have only set back the Iranian nuclear program by a handful of months.
BRUCE (voice over): But the CIA citing new intelligence says it's determined that several key Iranian nuclear facilities were destroyed and would have to be rebuilt over the course of years. And the president said Friday that the U.S. would be willing to strike again if needed.
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: If the intelligence reports conclude that Iran can't enrich uranium to a level that concerns you, would you consider bombing the country again?
TRUMP: Sure, without question. Absolutely.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
BRUCE (on camera): Now, when it comes to the future of nuclear talks, the president announced they would be resuming this coming week, but the White House says there's nothing on the schedule yet. And while the president says he's willing to talk after the U.S. strikes, he says he doesn't think a lasting nuclear deal is necessary.
Jon.
KARL: Thank you, Mary.
Now to the impact of the Supreme Court's decision on executive power. I'm joined now by ABC News senior Washington reporter Devin Dwyer, who covers the court for us, and SCOTUSblog editor and ABC News contributor, Sarah Isgur.
All right, Devin, help me understand what this decision means for birthright citizenship. Does this mean whether a baby -- a baby -- whether or not a baby’s a citizen of the United States depends on where the baby is born, what state?
DEVIN DWYER, ABC NEWS SENIOR WASHINGTON REPORTER: All right. Well, let's start with this -- executive order has a 30-day ramp up period. So, for now, it's status quo. But after that, Jon, it is a lot less clear. You're right.
The administration has given no clear guidelines. Are nurses going to be investigating the legal status of parents? Are you going to have expectant mothers to bring their passports and birth certificates when they go to the hospital? We don't know.
Then, there's the question of where this order is going to be in effect. Twenty-two states that are challenging the order still have the injunction in place. So, you could get into the scenario where birthright citizenship is still the law of the land in 22 states, but not 28 states.
And on top of all that, the legal challenges are continuing. The Supreme Court didn't weigh in at all, you know this --
KARL: Yeah.
DWYER: -- on the constitutionality of the -- of the president's order.
So, this could get back before the justices by the end of the year, and we think it's almost certain if not likely that they would strike it down. So, a lot to play out.
KARL: And the dissents here from the liberals were scathing. I mean, Ketanji Brown Jackson signed her dissent, instead of the usual "I respectfully dissent", it was something I've never heard before -- “With deep disillusionment, I dissent”.
DWYER: The language from Justice Jackson especially was just astonishing. She accused the conservatives of, in her words, an existential threat to the rule of law.
I mean, just listen to this, Jon. She said, "Courts must have the power to order everyone, including the executive, to follow the law, full stop. To conclude otherwise is to endorse the creation of a zone of lawlessness."
Justice Barrett pushed back on all that. She said, "Well, judges have to be restrained, too."
But just an astonishing disagreement on the Supreme Court about the role of courts. The conservatives say it's their job to police the president -- not that their job to police the president. The liberals say that's exactly their primary purpose.
KARL: All right. Sarah, there's one thing that both the president and his liberal critics totally agree on, and that is that this decision makes him a much more powerful president. But you think the impact might not actually be that great.
SARAH ISGUR, ABC NEWS CONTRIBUTOR: I don't think so. I think that the Supreme Court shut a door here to these nationwide injunctions, but they left open the front door, several windows. There's like a bay window in the back that's wide open and air is gushing in.
I think there are plenty of ways, as was laid out both in Justice Kavanaugh's concurrence, where he seems in favor of still having these windows and doors open, but also even Justice Thomas and Alito talk about the windows being open and they want to shut them. So --
KARL: They don't think it went far enough in limiting the power of federal judges.
ISGUR: Correct.
So, I think this will not have much of an impact. As Devin explained, birthright citizenship executive order, for instance, isn't going anywhere.
KARL: You don't think it's going anywhere?
ISGUR: No.
KARL: Okay. So, this decision is something that Trump is praising, but if it has the impact that he says it does, it's something that is also going to give more power to the next Democratic president.
ISGUR: That's right. I mean, we have seen complaints from presidents of both parties about these nationwide injunctions. We've also seen complaints from both sides of the Supreme Court. Justice Gorsuch and Justice Kagan had been out there previously saying that these weren't working.
I mean, let me tell you what Justice Kagan said in 2022. “It just can't be right that one district judge can stop a nationwide policy in its tracks and leave it stopped for the years it takes to go through the normal process.”
KARL: Almost sounds like Steven Miller there.
(LAUGHTER)
KARL: Very quickly, this decision was written by Amy Coney Barrett. That was Roberts's decision gave her. Why? And that's a very interesting decision for her.
ISGUR: Absolutely. I think if you read in the tea leaves here, you can see that the six conservatives might have had some trouble getting all of them on board. So, the fact that the chief thought that Justice Barrett was the one to pull this together is fascinating.
She's obviously one of the swing justices on the court. She was in the majority, the most of -- you know, compared to some of the other justices.
On the other hand, it certainly is a message to conservatives that had been railing against Justice Barrett as being the next Souter, shifting too far to the left.
KARL: DEI hire.
ISGUR: Right.
KARL: All right. Thank you very much.
All right. I'm joined now by Senator Lindsey Graham.
Senator, I want to get to all that, but first, you were -- had a very late night.
SEN. LINDSEY GRAHAM (R-SC), JUDICIARY COMMITTEE: Yes.
KARL: First procedural hurdle on this big budget bill.
GRAHAM: Yes.
KARL: But I want to ask you about your colleague Thom Tillis --
GRAHAM: OK.
KARL: -- who voted against it.
GRAHAM: Right.
KARL: And he said that it contains significant changes to Medicaid that would be, in his words, "devastating to North Carolina."
Do you respect his view on that? I know you disagree with his vote.
GRAHAM: I respect with -- I respect him a lot, but here's what we're doing when it comes to Medicaid: it's grown 50 percent in five years. It's about to take over Medicare.
What we've done is we limited the growth of Medicaid to 6 percent for two years. After that, 4 percent growth. We haven't cut Medicaid. We've reduced the growth.
And Ted Budd is going to vote for the bill.
KARL: The other senator from North Carolina.
GRAHAM: Yeah, I hope Thom -- he’s a wonderful man, a good senator, and we’ll get through this.
KARL: Look, I know Lisa Murkowski had the same concerns, but the bill kind of exempts Alaska from some of the big changes with Medicaid.
GRAHAM: So --
KARL: But -- but -- but let --
GRAHAM: OK. Sorry.
KARL: But let me ask you.
GRAHAM: OK.
KARL: The -- the president went on a tirade against Tillis last night.
GRAHAM: Yes.
KARL: Said he's going to meet with primary challengers. Said that he's grandstanding on all of this.
GRAHAM: Yes.
KARL: What do you make of that? Is he grandstanding?
GRAHAM: I've been on the receiving end of that.
KARL: Yes, you have.
GRAHAM: He runs hot, and he -- and he can forgive.
We're trying to do hard things that should be done and have to be done. We're $37 trillion in debt. Medicaid has grown 50 percent in five years. It's about to take over Medicare. What we've done is limited the growth to 6 percent for two years, 4 percent after that. So, Medicaid is not cut.
But what Obama did, Medicaid originally was for children and disabled people. And Obama expanded it to include able-bodied adults. And one way we’ve saved some money in we -- we say in this bill, if you're an able-bodied adult -- not disabled, not a child, and you have -- you don't have any children under 14, you have to work 20 hours a week to continue Medicaid. I think that's imminently reasonable.
KARL: I mean --
GRAHAM: And the provider tax is a scam, and we're trying to fix that.
KARL: As you know, the states say it's going to be very complicated to -- to track that. This is one of the big problems (INAUDIBLE).
GRAHAM: Not really.
KARL: So, anyway, we'll debate that as this bill moves forward.
GRAHAM: Sure.
KARL: Let's turn to the Supreme Court decision.
GRAHAM: OK.
KARL: Chuck Schumer said it is a terrifying step towards authoritarianism.
GRAHAM: Yes.
KARL: I know you don't agree with that.
GRAHAM: No, I don't.
KARL: But -- but both Schumer and Trump seem to think it made him a more powerful president.
GRAHAM: So, what happened? What are we talking about? A single federal court district judge has been able to enjoin policy for the nation, and Amy Coney Barrett said that the equitable powers of a federal judge have limits. So, we actually did this. We went to Texas and got a federal district court judge for a period of time to enjoin Obamacare. So, the ruling was, a single judge cannot stop policy for the entire country. That's beyond the mandate of a federal district court judge. You still have judicial review, but it has to go up the chain. A single judge can't stop a program for the entire country, and that's a good thing, because people are going judge shopping. The right would go to Texas --
KARL: I mean, you were going judge shopping back in the day.
GRAHAM: Everybody goes judge shopping and that --
KARL: I mean I -- I'm old enough to remember when you were --
GRAHAM: Yes.
KARL: All in favor of the injunction against DACA (ph) under Obama.
GRAHAM: Totally. I mean, and -- and -- and I'm here to say, judge shopping needs to stop. We need to have a -- a system where if you're going to enjoin policy for the nation, it's done at a higher level than a single judge, for the left or the right.
KARL: So, Republicans will be complaining about this at some point?
GRAHAM: Eventually.
KARL: Let's turn to Iran. I want to play something that President Trump had to say Friday.
Listen to this.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
DONALD TRUMP, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: The last thing they are thinking about right now is enriched uranium. They’re not thinking about -- want they want to do is they want to get back to life. And they do want to meet me. And we'll do that quickly.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
KARL: Do -- do you agree with him that -- that Iran has basically given up on its ambitions to be a nuclear power?
GRAHAM: Too early to tell.
I do agree that the three sites were obliterated. If you go to the dictionary and ask the definition of obliterated --
KARL: OK, obliterated, but what about the uranium? Where is that?
GRAHAM: So, the 900 pounds?
KARL: Yes.
GRAHAM: I don't know if it's at the bottom of Fordow or some other site, but it’s still out there.
But here’s the big point for me. Operate --
KARL: And does that concern you? Is that a (INAUDIBLE)?
GRAHAM: Oh, definitely. Operation Midnight Hammer was a tremendous military success. It set the program back, I think a couple years. But the question for the world, does the regime still desire to make a nuclear weapon? The answer is yes. Do they still desire to destroy Israel and come after us? The answer is yes. Until that changes, we've got to keep our -- we're in trouble.
KARL: But -- but the president seems to say, look, they're done with that. We’re -- we -- now we’re just going to move on.
GRAHAM: They're done with that enrichment program, but they're not done wanting to destroy Israel or trying to come after us. They're rounding up their citizens by the thousands.
KARL: Yes.
GRAHAM: They're executing people. They’re trying to regain --
KARL: Anybody who they think could have been suspicious.
GRAHAM: There's a purge going on in Iran.
KARL: Yes.
GRAHAM: So, when you're sitting down and talking to the Iranians, you got to remember, as you talk to them, they're slaughtering their own people to stay in power.
KARL: So, is it a mistake to sit down and talk to them?
GRAHAM: I think here’s the -- the requirement to sit down and talk. They have to say, for the first time, the Iranian regime, we recognize Israel's right to exist. We don't like the state. We don't like what they do, but we recognize Israel has the right to exist as a people, the state of Israel does. If they can't say that, you're never going to get a deal worth a damn. So, before you sit down with the Iranians, make them say publicly for the first time, Israel has a right to exist. And if they can't say that, that tells you all you need to know about who you're dealing with.
KARL: Because the president suggested he was ready to lift sanctions. He wants to have trade deals for Iran.
GRAHAM: He changed that.
KARL: I know he stepped back on that. But if there's negotiations that's --
GRAHAM: I do not believe it's fair 80 years after the Holocaust to put the Jewish state in a room full of religious Nazi ayatollah types. No matter what you give them, they still want to kill you. So, to start these negotiations, let's start with the proposition that the ayatollah is rejecting his past policy of killing all the Jews and destroying Israel.
If the ayatollah can't say to the world, we no longer wish to destroy Israel, even though we have differences with them, then how -- how can you get a good deal if the guy that you're dealing with wants to kill you?
KARL: Now I want to ask you about Russia because you're pushing this bill to impose severe new sanctions on Russia.
GRAHAM: Yes. Yes.
KARL: Have you gotten Trump on board with this?
GRAHAM: Big breakthrough here. So what does this bill do? If you're buying products from Russia and you're not helping Ukraine, then there's a 500 percent tariff on your products coming into the United States. India and China buy 70 percent of Putin's oil. They keep his war machine going. My bill has 84 co-sponsors. It would allow the president to put tariffs on China and India and other countries to get them -- stop them from supporting Putin's war machine, to get him to the table. For the first time yesterday, the president told me --
KARL: You were playing golf with him.
GRAHAM: Yes. I was playing with him. He says, "It's time to move -- move your bill. There's a waiver in the bill, Mr. President. You're in charge whether or not it's to be implemented." But we're going to give President Trump a tool in the toolbox he doesn't have today. After the July break, we're going to pass a bill that with allow the president --
KARL: And he's going to sign it?
GRAHAM: Yes, I think we're in good shape.
KARL: OK.
GRAHAM: But he has a waiver. It's up to him how to impose it.
KARL: So --
GRAHAM: But we're trying to get Putin to the table.
KARL: Very quickly, before you go, the administration has forced the resignation of the president of the University of Virginia. Do -- you have a problem with the idea -- again, we have different presidents, different times, but a president dictating to a university personnel decisions who the president can be?
GRAHAM: Here is what I -- I'm not really familiar, but I know the president is sort of declaring war on Harvard because there's such an antisemitic place. They're allowing people to run around and spit on Jewish kids. This DEI stuff, you know, they get federal dollars. I'm sure it's nothing personal. I'm sure it's based on his behavior, support for DEI programs that he believes, President Trump believes, is not a good use of taxpayer dollars.
And as to Harvard and these other elite Ivy League schools, I enjoy and support freedom of speech as much as you do, but freedom of speech doesn't cover some -- the ability to spit on a Jewish kid going to class.
KARL: Yes, I mean, to be clear, the president of the University of Virginia has not done that or tolerated that.
GRAHAM: No, but he's probably embracing policies that President Trump thinks --
KARL: All right.
GRAHAM: -- are not good investments by the taxpayer, and I agree with that.
KARL: OK. All right. Senator Lindsey Graham, thank you for joining us.
GRAHAM: Thank you.
KARL: Up next, the top Democrat in the House, Congressman Hakeem Jeffries, joins us.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
ZOHRAN MAMDANI, DEMOCRATIC MAYORAL CANDIDATE FOR NEW YORK: Together, New York, we have renewed our democracy. We have given our cities permission to believe again. In our New York, the power belongs to the people.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
KARL: That was 33-year-old Democratic socialist Zohan Mamdani, who shocked the political world with his victory in the New York Democratic primary for mayor.
I'm joined now by House Democratic Leader Hakeem Jeffries of New York.
Let’s start with the big news, Leader Jeffries, out of your hometown. Mamdani won a big victory. Have you endorsed him yet?
REP. HAKEEM JEFFRIES (D-NY), HOUSE MINORITY LEADER: I have not. We had a conversation on Wednesday morning where I congratulated him on the campaign that he ran, a campaign that clearly was relentlessly focused on the high cost of living in New York City and the economy. He out-worked, he out-communicated, and he out-organized the opposition. And that’s clearly why he was successful.
KARL: So, what’s holding you back from endorsing him right now?
JEFFRIES: Well, we don’t really know each other well. Our districts don’t overlap. I have never had a substantive conversation with him.
And so, that’s the next step in terms of this process, to be able to sit down, which we agreed to do, in central Brooklyn, discuss his vision for moving the city forward and addressing the issues that are important to the communities that I represent. A very diverse district that I represent in Brooklyn, including many African Americans, many Jewish Americans, many Caribbean Americans who are dealing with a lot of challenges in the city and want to make sure that the next mayor of the city of New York, whoever that may be, is prepared to tackle them.
KARL: Mamdani calls himself a Democratic socialist. He proposed, obviously, big tax increases, free mass transit, free bus fares, government-run grocery stores. Is this the kind of progressive socialism it is -- we’re going to see as the future of the Democratic Party or is this unique to New York City?
JEFFRIES: I think that one of the things we've been clear about from the very beginning as House Democrats is that we need to relentlessly focus on addressing the high cost of living in the United States of America. This country is far to expensive for working class Americans, for middle class Americans, for all those who aspire to be part of the middle class.
Imagine a country where every single, hard-working American taxpayer can afford to live the good life, work hard, play by the rules, have a good paying job, good health care, be able to afford a home, educate your children, go on vacation every now and then, and one day retire with grace and dignity. The good life. The American dream.
That is not accessible to everyone. And so, I think it will continue to be important for all of us on the Democratic side to address relentlessly the issue of the lack of affordability in this country.
Donald Trump promised to lower costs on day one. Costs haven’t gone down. They’re going up.
In fact, the guy is crashing the economy in real time and posing these reckless Trump tariffs that are going to increase costs by thousands of dollars a year. And he may even drive us toward a recession.
KARL: You mentioned the diversity of your district, including a lot of Jewish constituents. Mamdani has made comments that some have said veer towards anti-Semitism.
His initial statement after October 7th, he criticized the Israeli government but didn’t criticize Hamas. He defended the use of the word globalize -- or the phrase “globalize intifada”. And he even said that the Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu should be arrested -- or he would if he were mayor, he would arrest Netanyahu if he visited New York City.
Do these things concern you?
JEFFRIES: Globalizing the intifada by way of example is not an acceptable phrasing. He’s going to have to clarify his position on that as he moves forward.
With respect to the Jewish communities that I represent, I think our nominee is going to have to convince folks that he is prepared to aggressively address the rise in anti-Semitism in the city of New York, which has been an unacceptable development. And any mayor, whether you’re a Democratic mayor, a Republican mayor, an independent mayor, has got to commit to the safety and well-being of all of the people of the city of New York. And when there are moments of crisis and a rise in anti-Jewish hate, that’s a threshold, of course, that needs to be crossed.
With respect to the African American and Caribbean American communities that I represent, it's going to be important for our nominee to articulate the case for dramatically and decisively addressing the rise in gentrification and the housing displacement that threatens to continue to wipe out low- and moderate-income Black and Latino communities in New York City.
It's an unacceptable phenomenon. And the next mayor of the city of New York has to be able to articulate a clear plan and commitment to address these concerns for the people that I represent and folks all across the great city of New York.
KARL: All right, let's turn to developments here in Washington. The Supreme Court made a (ph) decision empowering Donald Trump by limiting the power of judges to stop his executive orders or to freeze his executive orders. How big a deal is this? This was really the one way -- the one restraint on his actions that's been effective so far.
JEFFRIES: Well, it was an unfortunate decision from a procedural standpoint, as it relates to what should have been a very clear case. If there is any instance where nationwide injunctions are appropriate, it would be in a -- in a manner, like what we've just experienced in terms of birthright citizenship, which is clearly a part of the Constitution. If you are born as a child in the United States of America, you are a citizen. So, it was a procedural setback that was quite unfortunate, and it was a reckless decision, in my view.
However, in terms of the fight judicially to protect birthright citizenship, that remains alive and well. And we're just going to have to intensify our efforts now in district court after district court or to get a class action certified on behalf of people who may be adversely impacted by this reckless Trump executive order.
KARL: And -- and you were at the briefing, the classified briefing, Friday on Iran and on the U.S. air strikes. Did you get satisfactory answers? And do you have a sense now, was the program really -- I mean, the president says obliterated, but -- but what did you learn?
JEFFRIES: Well, let's be clear, Iran is a sworn enemy of the United States of America, as well as our allies in the Middle East, like Israel and Jordan. And we can never allow Iran to be a nuclear-capable power.
That said, there are a lot of questions that remain unanswered, in my view, as it relates to the actions that the Trump Administration took relative to Iran. Why did they not seek the congressional authorization required by the Constitution for this type of preemptive strike? I still haven't seen facts presented to us as a Congress to justify that step, and I certainly haven't seen facts to justify the statement that Donald Trump made that Iran's nuclear program has been completely and totally obliterated.
We also need the case to be made by the administration to the American people as to how to best accomplish the objective of preventing Iran from becoming nuclear-capable. Why did they abandon the aggressive diplomacy that was successful under the Obama administration, and what is their plan to stop us from getting into another failed Middle Eastern war? A lot of questions that need to be answered and those answers haven't been compelling to date.
KARL: All right, a lot of questions for sure. Leader Jeffries, thank you for joining us.
JEFFRIES: Thank you.
KARL: Up next, the Roundtable's take on what the New York mayor's race could mean for Democrats nationwide, and how the Justice Department forced out the president of the University of Virginia over DEI policies.
We're back in a moment.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
KARL: Let's bring in the roundtable. “National Review” editor Ramesh Ponnuru, “Washington Post” congressional reporter, Marrianna Sotomayor, and Bernie Sanders' 2020 campaign manager, Faiz Shakir.
Faiz, let me start with you.
This remarkable election in New York City. We just heard from Hakeem Jeffries, congressman from New York City, by the way, saying he's not ready to endorse the Democratic nominee. What do you make of that? Why?
FAIZ SHAKIR, DEMOCRATIC STRATEGIST, BERNIE SANDERS 2020 CAMPAIGN MANAGER: I mean, we had a democratic process play out. People voted. He's the presumptive Democratic nominee. He'll win by a lot. He mobilized young people. He mobilized working class people with a message on the affordable -- affordability crisis that I heard Hakeem Jeffries talking about. So, what's the problem?
And apparently, I think, for what I understand, the problem is the billionaire class is still opposed to Zohran. They’ve, obviously, opposed him during the primary, Bloomberg, Bill Ackman, a whole bunch of people saying that we're going to spend money -- and I think they're saying they want to spend money against him in the general. So, why are Democratic leaders on the fence? And I think it’s because you have too much influence of big dollars. And I hope that they come around to the right way of thinking, which is the Democratic Party stands with the democratic process. And Zohran Mamdani has won the nomination.
KARL: I mean they're obviously also very much concerned with what he has said about Israel, what he has not said about Hamas. Let me play something that he said recently in this process early on in his candidacy about Bibi Netanyahu.
Take a listen.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
UNIDENTIFIED MALE (December 2024): Would a Mayor Mamdani welcome Benjamin Netanyahu to the city?
ZOHRAN MAMDANI, DEMOCRATIC MAYORAL CANDIDATE FOR NEW YORK: No. As mayor, New York City would arrest Benjamin Netanyahu. This is a city that our values are in line with international law. It's time that our actions are also.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
KARL: So, Ramesh, how -- how would that work?
RAMESH PONNURU, NATIONAL REVIEW EDITOR, ABC NEWS CONTRIBUTOR: I think that it is indicative of a deep hostility to Israel. But that's not the only problem that Mamdani's posing to the Democratic Party. There's also the hostility to capitalism. He is a charming, hard-working, left-wing political extremist, and you can understand why Democratic leaders, like Hakeem Jeffries, is worried about the national implications of tying the Democratic Party to that.
KARL: What are you hearing on The Hill about this new bright star for the Democrats?
MARIANNA SOTOMAYOR, WASHINGTON POST CONGRESSIONAL REPORTER: Yes, I mean, I can -- I think the why Jeffries and also Minority Leader Chuck Schumer have not endorsed is because they're looking at this nationally. Both of them want to become the leaders of a governing House and Senate Democratic majority. And the way to get there are through swing districts and winning in swing states. And, sure, the message of affordability does resonate, but Democrats have worked for years, since the 2020 campaign, to not be associated as socialists, to not be associated to some of these positions that Mamdani has talked about, like defunding ICE, defunding the police.
So, it's a number of those sticking points that Republicans are absolutely already using Mamdani as this bogeyman. That Democrats just need the distance or at least a further explanation, as Jeffries said, before endorsing, before getting behind him.
KARL: So, how’s it going to play out within the Democratic Party?
SHAKIR: Well, I hope that he gets a consolidation. I'm sure a lot of these issues could be resolved by just picking up the phone and talking to him. I would say that a lot of the Democratic leaders are understating and not appreciating the amount of anger out there in an anti-war movement and anti-Netanyahu movement about a person who has obliterated so much of the Palestinian livelihoods and continues to extend -- spend U.S. taxpayer dollars on getting us embroiled into all kinds of conflicts.
There's anger out there. I've seen it. You know, Bernie Sanders traveling around the country on this “Fight Oligarchy Tour”. Very few things get more applause, more appreciation than saying, "Hey, we don't need to stop -- keep funding Netanyahu”.
You think on this, the Democratic Party leadership is off base from where its own people are, and I think you know, Zohran is -- has a better sense of the pulse and can be, I think, someone reasoned with if they pick up the phone, talk to him.
KARL: So what do you think he does? Does he -- does he back off on the globalized intifada? Does he recognize Israel's right to exist as a Jewish state?
SHAKIR: He's got his like deeply felt views on this, but what I know about him is that he's somebody you can talk to, like this -- they'd make him out to some kind of a caricature who's like, "Hey, you -- this guy is a demon”.
This is what they do. The billionaire class will spend all this money just trying to tell people that you're a one-dimensional person rather than a three-dimensional human being who can -- hey, I have views on Israel, I have views on how to bring about safety for the Jewish people. They may be different from yours, but let's hear each other out.
And right now, you have instead big money interests saying, "No, no, let's not even talk to him. Let's just spend a ton of money backing Andrew Cuomo or indicted Eric Adams”.
PONNURU: It's not billionaires who made him say defund the police, right? I mean, the vulnerabilities that Mamdani has are vulnerabilities for the Democratic Party that he himself created.
SHAKIR: Where did the TV ads come from? How do they get spent?
PONNURU: What are the TV ads talking about? They're talking about things that Mamdani actually said.
SHAKIR: That the billionaire class has chosen.
PONNURU: Mamdani has taken extreme position after extreme position.
KARL: So, there's a lot more on that. But before we go, I want to ask you guys about what happened with the University of Virginia president. You heard me ask Lindsey Graham about it. This seemed to be a pretty extraordinary move, although this morning, the Justice Department is denying that they demanded he resign.
PONNURU: Right. They're saying that they just didn't have confidence in him which, of course, is a kind of statement of --
KARL: By the way, in what world does it matter whether or not the Justice Department has confidence in a university president?
PONNURU: Well, the claim is that the University of Virginia was not meeting its obligations to enforce the civil rights laws. It was violating the civil rights laws, and that Ryan was not cooperating --
KARL: President Ryan of Virginia.
PONNURU: Yes. Was not cooperating with that. That's the -- that's the context of all this. This is a -- this extremely aggressive enforcement of the administration's version of civil rights law.
KARL: So, it -- this is part of, obviously, a much larger campaign against the universities and it's -- I mean and even in this bill that just, you know, is in the process of be -- of being voted on in the Senate, huge new taxes on universities and their endowments. This is an all-out war.
SOTOMAYOR: Yeah, and this is just a part of what we've seen from the Trump administration not just targeting universities but also law firms, other businesses. I mean, when Trump came into office, this was kind of what he wanted to do, be able to come in and influence and put a lot of pressure -- and I would even extend this to Congress -- to basically be able to say, "Hey, let's challenge these norms and let's change them".
And the fact that so far, even with the Supreme Court in some ways, he is now able to credibly make the argument that he is the one who is trying to influence universities, change the norms on a different -- on multiple fronts. That is something that obviously is making many people uneasy.
SHAKIR: Trump certainly puts the bully in the term “bully pulpit”, and enjoys bullying people. I would say of this, you know, I've heard the right talk forever about, oh, free speech. We're debanked and the platforms are biased against us.
And it's -- you see in these moments that really it's not speech. This is -- this is to clamp down on speech. This is a curriculum that they just don't like. There's nothing wrong with curricula. It's a freedom of expression for the campus.
What about the campus protests? Anything wrong with that? No, there people are supposed to have freedom of speech, and here, we got a clamp down from Donald Trump.
KARL: All right. Up next, how a new panel appointed by RFK Jr. is changing recommendations on vaccines.
We'll be right back.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
ROBERT F. KENNEDY JR., (R) HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES SECRETARY: I'll tell you how to start taking vaccine safety seriously. Consider the best science available, even when the science contradicts established paradigms, until that happens, the United States won't contribute more to GAVI.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
KARL: That was RFK Jr. this week, cutting us funding to the Global Alliance for Vaccines and Immunization, which works to improve vaccine access in the poorest countries. He accused the group of neglecting vaccine safety, a charge that the organization vehemently denies. It's just the latest move by RFK Jr. to alter the federal government's approach to vaccines.
When we come back, I'll speak to a former CDC official who resigned to protest Kennedy's actions.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
KARL: In his short time as HHS secretary, Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. has taken aim at long-standing vaccine policy. He recently fired every member of the CDC's Independent Vaccine Advisory Committee, claiming they were beholden to drug makers, a charge they deny. This week, the new committee, which includes prominent vaccine skeptics, met for the first time.
ABC's Selina Wang reports on what it may mean for millions of parents wondering what vaccines their children should get.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
KENNEDY JR.: We're going to have gold standard science now and recommendations.
SELINA WANG, ABC NEWS SENIOR WHITE HOUSE CORRESPONDENT (voice-over): That's what HHS Secretary Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. testified will be the result of his decision to remove every member of the CDC's advisory committee for immunization practices. The new panel hand-picked by Kennedy is now made up of just seven members, including some vaccine skeptics.
The members meeting for the first time this week and making their first recommendations. They backed a new shot to protect infants from the respiratory virus RSV, but two members voted against recommending it. And while the committee unanimously voted to reaffirm its annual flu vaccine recommendation, it also voted to no longer recommend the rare multidose flu vaccine vials that contain Thimerosal, an ingredient to prevent contamination.
With no CDC director in place, it's up to Kennedy to sign off on the decisions.
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Next slide.
WANG: The vote came after a misleading, highly charged presentation from a Kennedy-appointed HHS staffer and anti-vaccine activist Lynn Redwood about the supposed dangers of the ingredient, which vaccine critics have claimed without evidence is linked to autism.
LYN REDWOOD, HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES DEPARTMENT: Removing a known neurotoxin from being injected into our most vulnerable population is a good place to start with making America healthy again.
WANG: Dr. Cody Meissner was the lone member to object to the change, pushing back on Redwood's misleading claims.
DR. CODY MEISSNER, ACIP MEMBER: The ACIP makes recommendations based on scientific evidence as much as possible, and there is no scientific evidence that thimerosal has caused a problem.
WANG: The American Academy of Pediatrics boycotted the panel's meeting.
DR. SEAN O'LEARY, AMERICAN ACADEMY OF PEDIATRICS ACIP LIAISON: This meeting showcased NiCIP that has drifted so far from its long-standing focus on science, evidence, public health, and so when that focus returns, we will, too.
WANG: The group says they will accomplish their own vaccine recommendations. The University of Minnesota's newly formed Vaccine Integrity Project says it will also do the same.
DR. MICHAEL OSTERHOLM, VACCINE INTEGRITY PROJECT STEERING COMMITTEE MEMBER: We want to make certain that there is a source of information that's reliable, that's scientifically sound and people can count on.
WANG: Insurers look to the CDC advisory panel when determining what to cover. If the panel upends decades of vaccine policy, the competing guidelines could create confusion for both doctors and parents.
DR. TARA NARULA, ABC NEWS CHIEF MEDICAL CORRESPONDENT: There may be distrust. There may be, really, a concern whether vaccines are safe, and that's not really what we need in this time.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
KARL: Our thanks to Selina.
I'm joined now by Dr. Fiona Havers, who recently resigned in protest from her position at the CDC, where she worked with the CDC's vaccine advisory panel.
Dr. Havers, thank you for joining us this morning. Let me get right to -- this was the first meeting of this vaccine advisory panel. This is the panel that millions of American parents rely on to decide what vaccines to give their children. Bottom line, can Americans still trust what this newly formed panel is advising?
DR. FIONA HAVERS, FORMER CDC INFECTIOUS DISEASE EXPERT: Honestly, having seen that meeting over the last few days, I think it's going to be very hard to trust recommendations coming out of this panel. The vote that they held on thimerosal and influenza vaccines completely bypass the transparent evidence-based processes that ACIP and CDC have put in place to make these recommendations science-based.
They skipped all of the evidence-based reviews. CDC scientists were muzzled in the discussion of Thimerosal, and I am very, very concerned that this new panel is going to -- this new Advisory Committee members are going to now vote to restrict access to safe and effective vaccines that have been around for decades. So, I was very concerned by what I saw at the meeting this week.
KARL: Well, let me ask you about that vote on Thimerosal, because as you heard in that report, it's only 4 percent of flu vaccines actually use this preservative. So, how big a deal is it that it's no longer recommended? It seems like it's a relatively small number of flu vaccines.
HAVERS: Well, to be honest, we don't actually know the practical impact because that was not evidence that was thoroughly reviewed or presented at the meeting. Again, CDC and ACIP have a process where a specialized work group will go through the evidence that and the science, and the impact of any policy decision. It was extraordinary to have ACIP vote on something without this process in place.
Usually, any vote for ACIP comes with months of preparation by CDC scientists, by the -- in this case, it would've been the influenza work group reviewing the evidence in a systematic way. And it would include things like what the actual impact would be of this policy change. And those were -- none of those data were presented clearly at this meeting.
So, I also think that even though a relatively small proportion of flu vaccines contained Thimerosal, the fact that this vote was even -- was added at the agenda in the last minute and then moved -- shoved through without proper review of evidence is indicative of RFK Jr.'s wholesale takeover of the vaccine recommendation process for CDC and for ACIP.
KARL: Now, Bobby Kennedy Jr. has said in his confirmation hearings that he would follow the science, and he also insisted that he's not anti-vaccine. What are we actually seeing in practice?
HAVERS: I mean, we are seeing -- they opened the meeting saying that they are going to be revisiting the childhood immunization schedule, is what the new chair said, which is extremely concerning because I think that this could mean that this committee, which controls insurance coverage and makes decisions about what is included in the Vaccine for Children's program, which covers -- provides free vaccines to more than half of American children, this committee controls that process.
And if they're now saying that they're going to go and look back at safe and effective vaccines that have settled science, have had thorough review, and potentially remove those from the recommendations, that means that it could potentially cut off access and cut off insurance coverage for these vaccines.
KARL: And a lot of confusion to parents about what to do because you can have --
HAVERS: A lot of confusion to parents.
KARL: All right. Well, Dr. Havers, thank you very much. We appreciate your time.
HAVERS: Thank you very much for having me.
KARL: We'll be right back.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
KARL: Thank you for sharing part of your Sunday with us. Have a great day.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)