Return to Transcripts main page

CNN Newsroom

USAID Employees Thrown Into Turmoil; Trump Administration Targets Department of Education; Interview With Illinois Attorney General Kwame Raoul. Aired 11:30a-12p ET

Aired February 10, 2025 - 11:30   ET

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

[11:30:02]

PAMELA BROWN, CNN HOST: What are you seeing in Illinois, though?

KWAME RAOUL (D), ILLINOIS ATTORNEY GENERAL: Well, we're seeing in certain areas with regards to both the Inflation Reduction Act, as well as the Infrastructure and Jobs Act, that there are funds that are still being paused and that the recipients don't have access to.

And, again, this is an effort to usurp what is supposed to be a separation of power, what is supposed to have Congress having the power of the purse by way of trying to find things that weren't specifically mentioned in the initial White House memo.

The same principle stands, that Congress has the power of the purse, and the executive branch cannot just unilaterally do this.

BROWN: Can you be a little more specific on how people are being impacted right now that you say should be receiving the funds, but aren't?

RAOUL: Oh, yes.

It's infrastructure funds. It's funds for climate reduction, solar panels and things like this, things that were explicitly appropriated that impact individuals in our respective states. And, again, there are various mechanisms being used by the administration to try to put in place these pauses in a way that they try to argue is not covered by the initial TRO that covered the initial memo.

BROWN: OK. So, I mean, do you think the Trump administration is bucking this order from the court in terms of freezing some of these funds that are supposed to be frozen? Or do you think that this is just natural confusion, given all of the back-and-forth that's happened?

RAOUL: I don't think it's natural confusion.

The administration has made it clear their disregard for our Constitution. They're -- in multiple ways over the last three weeks. And so that disregard is being carried out by way of these pauses, when a judge previously entered a temporary restraining order. It's a disregard for the rule of law. And it is within their right to

examine how we spend our money and to communicate to Congress as to how that may be addressed. We have a balance of power in this country that gives to Congress the power of purse.

But the executive branch cannot unilaterally do these things.

BROWN: Kwame Raoul, thank you so much. Appreciate you coming on.

And still ahead: What happens if President Trump gets his wish and the Department of Education goes away? I will speak with two school board officials with two different viewpoints.

Stay with us.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[11:37:32]

BROWN: The Department of Education's days could be numbered. President Trump has repeatedly vowed to abolish it, and he has indicated it could be DOGE's next target.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

DONALD TRUMP, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: I'm going to tell him very soon, like maybe in 24 hours, to go check the Department of Education. He's going to find the same thing. Then I'm going to go to the military. Let's check the military. We're going to find billions, hundreds of billions of dollars.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

BROWN: So, what could this mean for educators across the country?

Joining us now are Tim Merrick from the New Hanover County Board of Education in Wilmington, North Carolina, and Andrew Hayes of the Lakeside Union School District just outside San Diego.

And just for our viewers, you gentlemen have different views on this idea of abolishing the Department of Education.

Andrew, I want to go to you first. You're in favor of this move. Why is that?

ANDREW HAYES, TRUSTEE, LAKESIDE UNION, CALIFORNIA, SCHOOL DISTRICT: Well, thank you for having me.

The first thing for me is local control. And I see this conversation really opening up an ability for my school district here in my community to be able to engage in a conversation where we can increase our test scores without focusing on divisive social issues that have been really the crux of education in California and debates here in California.

And I really just want to see our kids do better. And I think that President Trump's thrust on this is, listen, let's find where there can be reform. Let's find where there can be ways that we can change the system, so that our kids do better in school and focus on the basics.

So, that's why I'm very supportive of this.

BROWN: Just to be clear, though, how does the Department of Education and the abolishing of that help your cause exactly?

HAYES: Well, it has to do with the power of the purse. So a lot of this we know it'll have to go to the Congress. We know that. But, for me, it creates the discussion. It allows for us to say, well, if we lose X funding, perhaps the state will then say, hey, we need to help you more with local control on some of your curricula issues, which, by the way, is a huge thing for me.

I mean, I have passed the parents' bill of rights here to give parents more access so that we can represent our communities better. I just feel like our community, my community, we know better than Sacramento and certainly with Title I funding and other things this allows for us to talk about this.

It's a way to leverage a position to help our kids succeed and do better. So that's where I'm coming from.

BROWN: And the Department of Education on its Web site says it does not set a curriculum for students. I want to point that out.

[11:40:00]

Tim, to bring you into this conversation, the Department of Education administers billions in funding for Title I programs and students with disabilities. How would this impact your district? And what do you say to what you just heard?

TIM MERRICK, MEMBER, NEW HANOVER, NORTH CAROLINA, COUNTY BOARD OF EDUCATION: Well, what I say to what I just heard, Pam -- and thanks for having me on -- is, we have private schools and religious schools that are not regulated by the federal government the same way that our public schools are, and they are not showing better performance here in New Hanover County.

In fact, some of our private schools have poorer performance than many of our public schools. So I can't agree with that.

What I can agree with is that, without our federal money, we will not be taking care of our most disadvantaged students. And that is just a crisis that we cannot have. We have fairly segregated schools here in North Carolina, more segregated than what they were in 1968.

And our richest, wealthy white schools have -- at the end of fifth grade, they have a 91 percent proficiency in reading. And our poorest black schools have a 9.5 percent proficiency in reading in fifth grade. This is a sort of segregation that will be even worse without the federal guidelines that require us to take care of our most disadvantaged students. BROWN: So, just to follow up with you, what would you say then to the

idea that, look -- and look at those test scores you just laid out. The Department of Education has been giving your district funding, and yet look at the test scores.

You say it would be worse if the Department of Education went away, but how do you know that?

MERRICK: Well, I understand what's been pointed out that says, well, you're not doing well now. Why would you do better in the future?

The truth is, the state of North Carolina has been defunding public schools now for 20 years. We are the 49th state in the union in terms of per-pupil spending. So, what we have is a fairly equal amount of money going to all our schools. And some of our schools need more. We need to have universal pre-K.

We need to have more opportunities for some of the children to be ready to be in school. We need to help them, feed them so that they can pay attention. We need to have trauma-informed curricula so that they can regulate themselves so they can learn. All of that will come through and be lost if we lose our federal funding.

We don't trust that our state will want to take care of those kids.

BROWN: So, then, what do you say to that Andrew, that, look, as you put it, Tim, you don't trust that local officials will use the money in the way that you believe it should, as it is now under the Department of Education, and that this could further hurt vulnerable populations?

What do you say to that, Tim? How can you trust the local officials with this money?

MERRICK: So let me point out what the...

(CROSSTALK)

BROWN: I'm sorry. Andrew. I meant to go to Andrew on that. My bad.

Andrew, if I could just bring you on that question, right.

MERRICK: Oh. I apologize.

BROWN: Because I wanted you to respond to what Tim noted.

HAYES: Sure.

You know what? I believe that you can trust your local officials. Listen, I'm elected locally. I know Tim is elected locally. And we hear from our constituents. If I'm walking through Albertsons, I'm going to hear from people about what we're spending our resources on.

And so, to me, I'm accountable to the people where I was born and raised here in Lakeside. And, ultimately, I want to see people do better. And so I really think local control is the key here, that money coming to our local community.

We know, better than top down, it's grassroots up. We know what's going on here, what our needs are. And they may not be the same everywhere. And that's kind of been my whole point, is that some of these big debates that happen across the country, California, of course, has been at the forefront many of these divisive issues, as we know.

But, for me, when we're talking about K-8 kids who -- in California, 70 percent of our kids are not meeting standards in science. And I really think that the state and the federal government can help have a conversation by saying, let's focus in on giving our locals the tools that they need and let them make the decisions.

BROWN: Tim, what do you think about that? And do you think that getting rid of the Department of Education could have an impact on recruiting teachers, of which many districts are dealing with shortages already?

MERRICK: I'm not sure how losing money from the federal government is going to help us hold on to teachers.

What I will say about states' rights and the push that we're seeing right now, look to where it starts. It all dates back to Jim Crow. Now, my grandfather testified at Brown v. Board of Education. If it wasn't for the federal guidelines, what -- would our schools have ever integrated, right?

So, states' rights is just a very nice way of saying, we're going to let however you want to do it in your state fly. And our state is spending $4 billion in the next 10 years on school vouchers that the wealthiest people can get.

[11:45:02]

So what -- those schools that money goes to, that $4 billion, is going to schools that do not have to admit students with disabilities, do not have to admit LGBTQ students, do not have to admit anyone who cannot supply their own transportation to schools.

We're ending up with a two-tier education system, where we have the haves and the have-nots. And I'm telling you what now. That's not going to produce a better work force locally. That is not going to produce -- it's going to produce more drain on our social services. This is not what America stands for, in my mind.

BROWN: Andrew, to you on what he just argued, that it would create a two-tier system.

HAYES: Well, I would argue that, in my community, where I'm here, where I'm from, we have such a two-tier system in a way already.

There are people who are not being supported by the state in their career education work force programs that we have. The state continually cuts those here in California. And so I think, from my perspective, this is why local control is so important. My community knows better than Sacramento, certainly. And then, of

course, with D.C., this funding conversation, in my mind, allows for us to say, listen, we know better, we need a seat at the table, help us sit here so that we can focus on getting our kids a great education.

Public education -- I was public school-educated. I want to see good kids get a great public school education. But it's a matter of having local control.

BROWN: Andrew Hayes, Tim Merrick, thank you for coming on to share your viewpoints on this issue. We appreciate it.

And still ahead this hour: Aid workers in war zones and discovery -- disaster recovery areas, their jobs are still in limbo. I'm going to speak to a 30-year veteran of USAID up next.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[11:51:38]

BROWN: Well, this will no doubt be a week of agonizing uncertainty and rattled nerves for 2,200 employees of USAID alone.

A federal judge has paused until Friday President Trump's plan to place them on paid leave. This move is part of the president's effort to gut the global humanitarian agency and retain only several hundred employees.

Chris Milligan served as a Foreign Service officer at USAID for 31 years under six presidential administrations. He retired a few years ago.

Thank you for coming on.

You're still in touch with your colleagues, but it's interesting because you were just telling me that, under the first Trump administration, you were the highest-level career employee under the Trump administration, and it was so different than compared to now.

Tell us about that.

CHRIS MILLIGAN, RETIRED USAID COUNSELOR: Yes. We had a very positive experience under the first Trump administration.

The administration came in and they said, how can we help you at USAID do your job better? So they enacted reforms, listened to employees that strengthened the ability of USAID to do serve as a national security agency, and they strengthened the work force.

The employees felt valued and they felt listened to. We also received a lot of support from the White House. We were very appreciative of the adviser to the president Ivanka Trump's efforts to launch a USAID initiative that strengthened women's entrepreneurship.

And we were very grateful for the first lady Melania's visit to the USAID project sites in Africa, highlighting the good work of American people overseas.

BROWN: And now it's completely different. All of these employees are in limbo. What are they telling you about their ability to do their jobs right now?

MILLIGAN: Well, first, they're confused, because the very same types of programs that were put in place under the Trump administration are now on hold, and they don't understand why.

And the same employees that serve honorably and supported President Trump's initiatives are now being denigrated. It's really hitting the employees overseas a lot harder. It's hitting everyone hard, but those overseas are in a particularly vulnerable situation.

They're not getting clear guidance. Some are told, be ready to pack your bags and others are saying, sit and wait. So a lot of them are in survival mode. They are trying to protect their families. They are being prepared to be evacuated. They have no homes to go to. They are being told to have to leave their possessions and pets behind.

They're having difficulty accessing health care. For example, I know the case of at least 20 women with high-risk pregnancies that can't get the medical care they need. They tried to be medevaced to the States. They weren't able to be medevaced. And one now is in a life- threatening situation.

I heard from one Foreign Service officer whose mother is critically ill overseas. She can't get back to the States. So they -- the other concern I hear is, many are facing potential financial ruin. And they wonder why after serving the country overseas for so many years are they be treating this way? Why are they being punished? What happened?

BROWN: What do you say to Americans who are out there and looking at the way and some of the USAID funds were being used, appropriated by Congress, we should note and say, well, gosh, I didn't even realize that, maybe my money, my taxpayer dollars shouldn't be going to that?

What do you say to those Americans?

MILLIGAN: That's a very fair question.

What I would like to tell those Americans is that every dollar that USAID spends is approved by the ambassador at post and then approved under the authority of the secretary of state back in the State Department, that, besides the fact that 98 percent of USAID spending is earmarked from Congress, directed by Congress, is all then notified back to Congress.

[11:55:16]

So the idea that there's this rogue cell of USAID officers doing mischievous things is -- doesn't make sense. Every penny is notified and accounted for. Every program is approved at the higher levels.

Now, do political priorities change between administrations? Absolutely. I have served through six political administrations. The vast majority of programs continue to be the same because national security policy remains the same. But there are things that change. That's fair.

And there's a process for changing them without gutting an entire agency.

BROWN: All right, Chris Mulligan, thank you -- Milligan, I should say. Thank you for coming on and sharing your perspective.

Thank you for joining us. I'm Pamela Brown. You can follow me on Instagram, TikTok and X @PamelaBrownCNN.

Stay with us. "INSIDE POLITICS" with my friend Dana Bash starts after a short break.