Return to Transcripts main page
Anderson Cooper 360 Degrees
Primaries In New York, Maryland, Utah, Runoffs In South Carolina; Mamdani Is Backing Three Candidates In New York Tonight, Two Are DEM Socialists; Maggie Haberman And Jonathan Swan On New Book On Trump; New Book Reveals How Trump Compared Himself To Hitler, Napoleon, Stalin; Senate Votes To Limit Trump's Iran War Powers; Murphy: Trump Has Turned White House Into "24/7 Corruption Operation". Aired 8-9p ET
Aired June 23, 2026 - 20:00 ET
THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.
JOHN MILLER, CNN CHIEF LAW ENFORCEMENT AND INTELLIGENCE ANALYST: Videos that are being drawn over, A.I. that's been applied to look for certain things through thousands of hours, people that they looked at before, that they're looking at again. But the case is not active. They're just hoping that, because this is now back in the news, there is that one person out there who does know something.
ERIN BURNETT, CNN HOST: That maybe will say --
MILLER: You know, the reward is over 100,000.00.
ERIN BURNETT, CNN HOST: And maybe someone will hear, you know, the pain, the anguish in Savannah's life and do the right thing. Thank you all very much. AC360 begins now.
[20:00:40]
ANDERSON COOPER, CNN HOST: It is primary night in America once again, races or runoffs in four states this time. Polls have closed in two of them South Carolina and just now, Maryland, then there's New York, where a number of well-known political names shared the stage tonight. And at least one is fighting to stay on it. That one man is two-term Democratic Congressman Dan Goldman, who represents Lower Manhattan and parts of Brooklyn. He is facing former city official Brad Lander, who is one of three Democratic House candidates running tonight with the endorsement of New York Mayor Zohran Mamdani.
Two of them are challenging incumbents from the left. Something the President, was campaigning himself in Pennsylvania made sure to mention and mischaracterized just a little.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
DONALD TRUMP, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: So now, if you look at New York, we have all communists running. They're all excited, they're going to win their primaries, but I can't imagine they can beat a normal Republican. So, I think it's a good thing, Mueller. So, what do you think? I think it's a good thing. Wouldn't you like to run against somebody like that?
(END VIDEO CLIP)
COOPER: For the record, the candidate he's talking about are either on the progressive wing of their party or, in the case of two of them, are also Democratic socialists. None is technically a communist. Mayor Mamdani did not endorse anyone running to succeed. 18-term Congressman Jared Nadler.
But it's a crowded field and includes conservative lawyer turned Trump critic George Conway and Jack Schlossberg, who has a slim political resume but a storied pedigree. He's the only grandson of the late President John F. Kennedy, and has the endorsement of no less a political figure, that's former House Speaker Nancy Pelosi.
And in Maryland tonight, where polls have just closed, a crowded field of Democrats is running for the chance to succeed. Steny Hoyer, who has been a member of Congress since 1981, back when Ronald Reagan was new on the job.
Finally, there's South Carolina Republican governor's runoff. What's notable there is not that the projected winner, State Attorney General Alan Wilson, had the President's endorsement. He did, but so did the woman he defeated, Lieutenant Governor Pamela Evette. Mr. Trump endorsed her, then Wilson, when polling shifted his way. We start, though, with CNN's Jeff Zeleny in New York, where polls are open for about another hour. Obviously, Jeff, a big test tonight for how much sway the Kennedy name still has. And separately, whether the Mayor Mamdani's endorsement will help oust an incumbent. What are you hearing from voters?
JEFF ZELENY, CNN, CHIEF NATIONAL AFFAIRS CORRESPONDENT: Anderson, that is the central question hanging over this primary election here, as voters are still coming in at a fairly steady pace for the next hour. But the question of the mayor's endorsements, I mean, he is doing something fairly extraordinary going against two incumbent members of Congress, Israel and the U.S. support for Israel has been a through line for many of these campaigns. But talking to voters here, that doesn't come out quite as much. Affordability is a central concern. Democrats standing up to the President also a central concern. But the question is how to do that?
So what tonight is going to reveal is a bit of an identity test, if you will, for this Democratic Party. Not necessarily if these democrats will win in November. They almost certainly will, because these, of course, are very blue seats. But what kind of Democrats could make up the majority should they win control of Congress? And that is still very much an open question here but it's playing out here in real time. But the mayor is inserting himself only six months after taking office here. So, for all the talk of the President's endorsement and if he's able to win over Republicans, we're watching that in reverse here in New York tonight. Is he able to persuade Democrats?
But you mentioned the Kennedy family name, Jack Schlossberg, of course, the grandson of President John F. Kennedy. He is running in this district. He was out here right outside this polling place where I am earlier today, talking to voters. There was not a long line at his volunteer stand, a much more energy, at least at this polling place, for some of his other rivals. So, we will see how this ends for him. But there is no doubt that democrats are really choosing between the middle of the road or the left, and the mayor clearly wants to have some of the left-wing ideology, the Democratic socialists here.
So, does that create a headache for Hakeem Jeffries, should he become Speaker? We'll find out about that in November. But for tonight, at least, this will offer at least one sense of. In deep blue New York, what types of Democrats voters are looking for -- Anderson.
COOPER: Jeff Zeleny, Thanks very much, appreciate it.
John King is tracking the numbers for us. So, John, polls close a little less than an hour in New York. What are you looking for when the numbers start coming in?
[20:05:04]
JOHN KING, CNN CHIEF NATIONAL CORRESPONDENT: So, number one, to Jeff's point, can Mamdani make a national statement? It's in New York City, Anderson. The races he's endorsed in are in this little strip. You know it better than I do. It is home to you. But there's, you know, there's the 10th District, the 13th District, the Seventh District, as Jeff said, the mayor making a play against the Democratic establishment by endorsing Democratic socialist candidates against two incumbents. And progressive candidates against those incumbents, and then going against the retiring incumbent in the other district who had her own candidate and he endorsed there.
So, Mayor Mamdani is trying to make both a New York City statement, but also a national statement for the Democratic Socialists and for the left of the Democratic Party at a time when it's current leader, Bernie Sanders, is 80 years old. So, we talk a lot about another New Yorker, Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, the Congresswoman as the heir apparent. Mayor Mamdani is saying, I'm going to be part of that conversation, too.
It's about New York City tonight. It's about reliably blue House districts tonight, districts that are not going to change the math in November. But, Anderson, there are a lot of Democrats who think, let's not have family feuds in a year where we have the wind at our back, let's not have the left fighting the middle, if you will, in the party. But we'll see how it plays out for the mayor tonight. He's clearly trying to flex and make a big statement.
COOPER: And what are we seeing in South Carolina so far?
KING: So, you made the interesting point and the point that matters at the top of the show, in the sense that the President of the United States was about to lose. So, he endorsed the other candidate, too. So, he can't lose. If you endorse both candidates, you can't lose, I guess, right? This one's a blowout. The State Attorney General, Alan Wilson, is 65 percent right now. We have projected him to be the winner about 25 percent of the vote in perhaps the Lieutenant Governor, Pam Evette, will close the gap a little bit. But this is a clear blowout by two people who have been elected statewide. But he obviously runs at the top of the ticket himself as the attorney general. He's a favorite of the conservative base. He's a favorite of the Trump voters in South Carolina.
The President will say he got it right in the end by also endorsing Mr. Wilson. But, Anderson, it's just a simple fact. He got it wrong at the beginning because he endorsed the candidate who was at the moment getting shellacked.
COOPER: All right, John King, we'll check in with you shortly, again.
Joining me now, CNN senior political commentator Scott Jennings, former Trump White House communications director Alyssa Farah Griffin, journalist and co-founder of "Lift Our Voices," Gretchen Carlson and Executive Committee Chair of the New York State Democratic Committee, Christine Quinn.
Christine, let me start with you. You know, New York politics very well. What are you sort of expect for Mayor Mamdani's allies tonight as well as the Kennedy?
CHRISTINE QUINN, EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE CHAIR OF THE NEW YORK STATE DEMOCRATIC COMMITTEE: Well, I think some of the races are going to be closer than people think. I think the race to succeed Nydia Velazquez, where it's between Antonio Reynoso and Claire Valdez. Claire being the one Mamdani has endorsed. Nydia endorsed Antonio. That is going to be a fight until the very, very end. And in that race, whoever wins, Mamdani has made an enemy of Nydia Velazquez and she's not going anywhere and she is a fighter herself.
So, I don't really understand the strategy there because Antonio Reynoso is about as progressive who lines up exactly the same in Claire Valdez. So, some of what the mayor is doing, I think is a big risk as it relates to governing, because we're talking about the Congressional races tonight. But he has endorsed in State Assembly and State Senate seats all throughout the city.
And just a month ago or so, he endorsed in a City Council race in my old City Council District, he endorsed the loser. Why, he didn't need to get involved at all. And now you start off with a Council member who, you know, may have a resentment or two about that. I think the Goldman-Lander race is going to be a blowout. I think Brad Lander, who's run in the Brooklyn part of that district, you know, for basically his whole life, is just better known by the voters than Goldman is.
Goldman has done a great job in Washington. He's done a good job as a prosecutor against Trump. But he didn't really do the district work that was necessary to kind of be seen by the bloc associations and the ten groups and the stuff like that.
The uptown race with Adriano Espaillat, that's going to be whatever happens, very tricky for the mayor, because Adriano would tell you that the mayor promised to endorse him when Adriano endorsed him right after he won the primary. And most people believe that is true. And in this business, if your word doesn't mean anything, that is a problem. So, there's potentially a lot for Mamdani to gain, particularly after Councilwoman George is now the Democratic nominee as a DSA person for mayor in D.C., you can definitely say there's the potential for a D.C. role. But what I'm really looking at is how is it going to play out for governing? Because that's what ultimately, he and the Democratic Socialists will be judged on.
ALYSSA FARAH GRIFFIN, CNN POLITICAL COMMENTATOR: But also, for the midterms and for 2020. So, this is a huge test for Mamdani, somebody who's really flexing his political muscle. He is highly popular right now within the Democratic Party base, but he's also going up against Hakeem Jeffries. And I would argue it's a test of Hakeem Jeffries' power. You really do not wade into a primary in a midterm season, when Democrats are expected to be taking back the House, very likely.
This opens up so many difficulties that are just unnecessary. And if you get some of these Democratic Socialists into the House, you're going to have Hakeem Jeffries dealing with what Nancy Pelosi did before her. You've got the squad that every single person running in 2028 has to answer for what they've said, what they have done. Every candidate who's going to try to moderate learning some lessons from the loss in 2024 and 2028 is going to be answering for what these characters say. So, while it may be a flex of his muscle, it does not help the Democratic Party.
[20:10:25]
SCOTT JENNINGS, CNN SENIOR POLITICAL COMMENTATOR: I'm most fascinated by the Goldman-Lander primary. I agree with you. I think Dan's going to lose. I don't agree with much of anything he's done in Congress, but I'm surprised you sort of glossed over the main issue in this race, which is Israel.
I mean, Dan Goldman is a congressman and he's Jewish, and he went into a coffee shop this weekend in Brooklyn, and they said, you're not welcome here anymore. Brad Lander is out speaking in mosques, telling, those people that he like to go align himself with Ilhan Omar and the rest of the squad. Dan Goldman's only sin, I guess, is that he thinks Israel has a right to exist. And for that, that has been the principal issue in this. And you've got the mayor of New York City Mamdani out saying about AIPAC and Jewish Americans who have participated in our politics, that they are, "monsters."
What is happening right now in New York City, the Democrat Socialists takeover of the Democratic Party should frighten not just Jewish Americans, but all Americans everywhere, because this is the direction the Democrats are headed nationally. Look what's happening in Michigan. And it is frightening throwing Democrat Jewish Congressmen out of coffee shops in Brooklyn, New York. it's not 1930's Germany. This is the United States of America.
GRIFFIN: And by the way, Jack Schlossberg also ran into this. He has been disproportionately asked, despite repeatedly stating his position on Israel, that he only supports defensive weapons. He can barely show up to an event without being grilled. Why? He's Jewish as opposed to other candidates. GRETCHEN CARLSON, JOURNALIST AND FOUNDER OF "LIFT OUR VOICES": And I would just say that from a bigger picture here, there's a lot of talk about the fracturing of the Republican Party with more moderate, you know, Institutional Republicans versus MAGA over the last ten years. But there's also that same fracturing going on the Democratic side. And this is proof positive tonight.
I mean, I understand why Mamdani would try to take advantage of the wind behind his sails, because he did win in a landslide election as mayor. But I've talked to a lot of New Yorkers who would rather have him be fixing the problems in New York City, instead of muddying the waters in a well-known seat that's going to go Democratic no matter what.
So, to your point, too, I think you were talking about governing later on. Like it's very high risk for him to be involved in these situations. And I think his own constituents would rather have him fixing up the subway.
QUINN: And look, I think what happened in that coffee shop, there's no question it's unacceptable, unacceptable. And I also should have mentioned that Goldman didn't endorse Mamdani. So, you know, I do understand politics, how Mamdani would then not be supportive of him and support Lander.
I think we need to be careful, though, because what happened in the coffee shop was unacceptable. We don't want to then, you know, assail other people, in a way implying that they are somehow acting in an antisemitic way. There is no, I don't think, to say, look, I did not endorse Brad Lander, but one cannot say he is anti-Semitic. He is Jewish himself. He has never acted in an anti-Semitic way. He does stand for, stands with the Muslim community and against attacks against the Muslim community. But I want to be very careful. We should not assail what happened in that coffee shop against Brad Lander.
JENNINGS: Not just the coffee shop. The mayor himself has, you know, as you said, I agree they want him fixing up potholes and making sure the garbage gets picked up. He can't stop talking about Israel. He can't stop calling Jewish Americans who participate in politics monsters. That has nothing to do with governing New York City.
QUINN: Let's be clear, he's calling AIPAC and I don't believe it should have been called monsters. But he's not calling every Jewish person who gets involved in politics a monster. It was directed at AIPAC. I think it was --
JENNINGS: Are they not Americans?
QUINN: But you're saying it as if he is calling every American who is involved in politics a monster. He's calling one group. I don't think he should have made that statement. But let's not over exaggerate what he has said.
GRIFFIN: I do think it's a significant sign of the times, and you and I talked about this off air, that Dan Goldman, somebody who's a huge rising star for Democrats. He prosecuted Trump. He was somebody, you know, a fixture of cable news is now somebody who's going to absolutely get wiped out. He's going to lose this in a massive way, in the most significant issue has been Israel in this race. Something that, by the way, is not even the biggest focus by any means of the House, of House Representatives right now. But I think that speaks to the moment that the country is in, but that this city is --
CARLSON: And I would add, again, from a bigger landscape that so few people vote in these primaries. And it's determinative of what's going to happen potentially on the national scene, because we're going to be saying, if Mamdani picks win tonight, oh, look, you know, Socialist Democrats are taking over. And yet were talking about thousands of people who cast a ballot and that's --
COOPER: The President will certainly be saying that.
CARLSON: Well, yes, yes, but the reality is--
JENNINGS: The Democratic Party will be saying that, if the Socialists win, I agree with you. They're going to feel like they have the wind at their back. You're going to see a Mamdani inspired candidacies across the country. They already are, Michigan is a great example.
Theres a Senate Primary going on there, and I think Abdul El-Sayed is ahead in that, he has a great chance to win. He's exactly like these socialist candidates in New York City. It's not just confined to a few districts here. It is spreading already and if they win, you're going to see this inspiration for these kinds of candidacies across the country. The implications for the Democratic Party out there for 2028 are vast.
[20:15:32]
QUINN: Well, but and there are other implications, though, that what we Democrats should take from this and take from Mamdani's win is also the focus on affordability, right. That was what won the race, that and his amazing use of social media, I think, were the two critical things that brought Mamdani into office.
And if we as a party can, whoever wins or doesn't win really drill down on not yes, be opposed to Trump. People in our party want there to be fighting against Trump in an effective way, but they also want us to be for something, not just against something. And we've seen in many of these candidates being the best example. I think the councilwoman in D.C. being another example, a clear a affordability agenda.
COOPER: What resources outside of New York are you watching?
JENNINGS: Well, South Carolina, the governor's race there is fascinating. It's been a Republican Primary, and it had a bunch of characters in it. Nancy Mace was in it; Ralph Norman was in it. They whittled it down to two, Evette the lieutenant governor who had Trump, and Alan Wilson, who's the longest serving attorney general in the country. And, you know, as was noted by the report, Trump was with Evette, I think, largely as a favor to Henry McMaster, the governor of South Carolina, who's Trump's friend. But as the race was closing, it was obvious Alan Wilson had the momentum. And there was a lot of polling showing him winning and then President Trump said he came in and endorsed them both. But this is not going to be a close race. Alan Wilson is going to win the race. So, that one, a lot of Republicans everywhere have been watching South Carolina because, you know, obviously, you know, it's a big Republican State and all those characters and personalities that have been involved in this race, it's going to culminate in Alan Wilson winning. And of course, his father is in Congress, a guy named Joe Wilson, who is known to many viewers.
CARLSON: Gives loyalty, new meaning when your candidate is losing jumping ship at the very end.
QUINN: Well, but you have to factor in that Trump will say that he won no matter what in this case, but also --
CARLSON: That's how it works, though, I'm not saying it is, I'm just saying that's what he will do. And also, he's had some losses over the last few weeks. You know, remember when we were starting in this election cycle, his candidates were creaming everyone else. He's had some losses, so, I think strategically he needed to be back on the victorious side. And that's why he endorsed both of them.
JENNINGS: And coming up later this week, there's another one of these things out there, the Senate race down in Louisiana. That runoff is coming up on Saturday and he's behind Letlow, who's in Congress. But this other guy, Fleming, who's a state treasurer, he's been a Trump ally as well. And so, we'll see what happens down there. So, there's tonight, South Carolina Saturday, you know is coming up for him as well. So, it's interesting. He he's got a really good record in primaries but the South Carolina situation did raise a few eyebrows.
CARLSON: The old double endorsement.
JENNINGS: Well but the truth is they've both been allies of President Trump. It's not like one was running one way and one was running the other.
COOPER: We're going to continue to follow the primary results throughout the hour.
Coming up next, two reporters whose access inside the Trump White House from situation room meetings to the President and First-Lady's living arrangements, has now gone into a remarkable and incredibly revealing book, which just came out today. The title is "Regime Change". The authors Maggie Haberman and Jonathan Swan, will join us next.
And later, new reporting on the green water and peeling blue lining of the reflecting pool, which the President now says is the work of vandals. What government documents reportedly say instead about what's going wrong and when workers knew about it.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[20:22:56]
COOPER: As we continue to monitor votes being counted on this primary night, I want to turn to the revelations in a fascinating new book out today about President Trump, from co-authors, Maggie Haberman and Jonathan Swan, both White House reporters for "The New York Times".
The book is called "Regime Change: Inside the Imperial Presidency of Donald Trump". Jonathan, Maggie, joins me now. It is such an incredibly fascinating read. Congratulations to both of you. I want to start with a paragraph from this, which to me was kind of just an amazing paragraph. it's a page 167. You write, "By midway through the year, a picture was emerging of how the Oval Office operated in Trump's second term. It was of a President spending his days at the Resolute Desk in a series of rolling bull sessions, accompanied by a core group of intimates."
"These were supplemented by a rotating cast of extras, and on any given day, they could be Republican lawmakers, titans of industry, former pro wrestlers, country musicians, golf royals, crypto bros or friends of felons seeking pardons. They would enter and exit the frame, with some invited to stay for meetings they had no business attending. The conversations ran fast, often straying far from the point or from anything visitors imagined when they arrived at the White House. The President's sentences often began on one topic and ended far away."
It's like the opening scene of an opera. I mean, it's like it would be an incredible stage play, just that visual.
MAGGIE HABERMAN, CO-AUTHOR "REGIME CHANGE: INSIDE THE IMPERIAL PRESIDENCY OF DONALD TRUMP": One of the moments that that we describe, and we spoke to somebody who laid out the scene for us is, you know, Trump having a highly classified briefing in the Oval Office. And then in comes the guy with the stone samples for the Rose Garden. This was last year, and --
COOPER: He's always talking about, like there's specific stones.
HABERMAN: Yes, and these --
COOPER: Terrazzo.
HABERMAN: Right, and so these are, these are moments that all sort of collide into each other. There is just this sort of sweeping meeting that takes place all day long. And it means that people are pulled into something, as we say, that probably they shouldn't be listening to. I mean, the, the stone guy, the paver guy, had had essentially walk in privileges to the Oval and that's just the way this White House works.
[20:25:06]
JONATHAN SWAN, CO-AUTHOR "REGIME CHANGE: INSIDE THE IMPERIAL PRESIDENCY OF DONALD TRUMP": But there's an interesting contrast, that's all true, of course. And there's sort of this no delineation, no structure. But what's also true is it's actually a very secretive White House.
COOPER: Much more so than the first administration.
SWAN: But much more so in some ways than even the Biden and Obama administration. I'll give you an example, this Memorandum of Understanding that has just been published to end the war in Iran. The number of people who had seen that document in the White House and the U.S. government, microscopic, tiny number of people before it was published.
You know, you have people in the Intelligence Community that we talk to who are essentially trying to monitor this White House, almost like it's a foreign government. They have no idea what's going on and there are conversations that are happening within such a small group that's running the government.
When you have people like Steve Witkoff and Jared Kushner, you know, doing business, they don't they're really unstaffed. They don't rely on staff much. They basically are these sorts of free agents --
COOPER: Which is, I mean, is really unheard of from other administrations. Normally, if you're a negotiator, you would have a team of experts in the field traveling with you, going over documents behind the scenes.
SWAN: But that's how you get these, I mean, we have a scene in the book where Steve, so, Witkoff goes to meet Putin alone, which is stunning, right? He's sitting in the room with Vladimir Putin. Steve Witkoff has no experience in diplomacy, right.
He's a real estate friend of Trump's and he's suddenly the Russia Envoy, spends three hours with Putin alone. And then we have this scene in the book where he's sitting with Putin in Moscow, and Putin is drawing this doodle of, you know, a three plus two, which is the territorial arrangement, giving territory to Russia, freezing certain territory. And Witkoff says, can you sign that for me? And Putin signs his signature and Witkoff takes it home and gets it framed.
But again, it's this, there is a contempt for expertise. There is a contempt for -- it's deeper than contempt for the Deep State. It's basically anyone who's been doing this for a long time. You're probably, you know, not up to it.
COOPER: Well, it gets to the next paragraph, which I want to just read to people. You say to the extent he still cares; this is the difference of this term versus the last, "To the extent he still cared about polling at all, he was seeing far fewer polls than during his first term. His advisors knew he was not receptive to being briefed on harsh realities in his second term. Unlike his first, he was willing to take breathtaking risks, risks that could throw not only his Presidency, but the Republican Party in the entire world into chaos and carnage more than ever before as President. He was operating on pure gut instinct".
Which makes what happened with Iran, it makes sense.
HABERMAN: Yes, and we really describe that in great detail in the book, just about the lead up to the Iran.
COOPER: Talk about what you've learned, because it's not as if, you know, there are all the -- we played endless montages of him saying, oh, nobody briefed me on that. You know, nobody suggested that. He was briefed.
HABERMAN: It's not true. I mean, a couple of things are the case. Number one, he was always more hawkish than about Iran than members of his own team. Now, we do not see a world where he would have gone to war against Iran in term one. But he has always been different about Iran. That's why there was the Soleimani strike in 2020, which, you know, many people around him did not agree with, not think was a good idea, thought it was too big a risk.
Now, he was much more aligned with Benjamin Netanyahu than members of his own team wanted to see. And yet the evidence was there. Throughout 2024 and then afterwards.
He was informed of the options. There was really no one on his team who thought this was a great idea. The person who really was very vocal about it with the President, with J.D. Vance, and it cost J.D. Vance with the President. But the President was informed of various scenarios of what could happen and downsides by Dan Caine, the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, one of which was munitions depletion, one of which was the possibility that the Strait of Hormuz would have been closed.
The President's own secretary of state and CIA director examined these scenarios about regime change that Benjamin Netanyahu had portrayed in this remarkable meeting in the situation room. Two, President Trump on February 11th, and one of them said it was farcical. The other said, I think we can say this on air as bullshit with Marco Rubio's quote, the President knew all of this and he still wanted to go ahead and try this. This was his decision.
COOPER: And the idea and this was all based on idea that this would be quick, correct. The number of munitions expended is extraordinary.
HABERMAN: Correct.
SWAN: That's right. So, you ask yourself the question, how do we get into this situation where we have dangerously low supplies of critical long-range munitions? This is a national crisis, a national emergency, actually, in terms of our supplies of interceptors, missile interceptors, long-range weapons. Well, if you're Donald Trump and you have a gut instinct that this war is going to be over like that, those questions become, who cares? It's going to be over quick.
COOPER: We're going to take a quick break.
More ahead. Also, ahead tonight, new reporting from Jonathan and Maggie's colleague David Fahrenthold on what government documents reveal about the President's claims of vandalism at the reflecting pool.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK) [20:35:02]
COOPER: We're back with Maggie Haberman and Jonathan Swan, co-authors of the really extraordinary new book out today titled, "Regime Change: Inside the Imperial Presidency of Donald Trump." I got to read this part. You asked the President if there had ever been an American president as powerful as him. You're kind of setting a nice layup right there. He brought out a list of historical figures.
This is from the book, "Alexander the Great, the Caesars, William the Conqueror -- they didn't have airplanes, right? You couldn't travel around." This is the President talking. "Genghis Khan, Attila the Hun, Tamerlane, Napoleon," he said with relish. "Hitler, Mao, Stalin. These leaders maintained power through fear, he said. Who would ever do a thing like that? Right?
Trump lingered on the document's central argument that each leader, however fearsome in his day, had no global reach. Their power was local, but his was not." It's remarkable.
HABERMAN: So we asked the question because, number one, the war against Iran had started just a few weeks earlier, and number two, you know, he had been boasting publicly about how no other president would do the things that he had done. And he had said to Tucker Carlson, you know, at some point, I'm the most powerful President, you know, that ever lived. I'm paraphrasing.
So we put the question to him about how he sees it. And I'm going to let Jonathan tell the story because he tells it, frankly, much better than I do, so you should.
SWAN: Well, it was -- I mean, I think both of us found it one of the most astonishing moments we've ever had with Trump because he hands us this document, and he says it was written by a historian, and the opening line says, you know, Donald Trump is the most powerful man who's ever existed on the planet, and it goes on to compare him to all those people you named, some of the great monsters of history.
You know, the most ruthless dictators and conquerors of history. And there was no moral dimension to it. The only point was power. And the point was he has power, but it was something he wanted us to understand a slightly more subtle point, which was in the document, which was, it's not just that I control the U.S. military and the most powerful economy in the world, the most powerful technology in world, it's that I'm willing to use the power. And that was the assessment.
And it was very interesting because he was relishing that company. And one thing that we've been toying with in our reporting and sort of trying to understand as we go through this book is just to try to understand why is this term so different from the last term, and there are many reasons for that. But one of them is Trump himself is far less reactive to domestic politics. Like his aides are trying to get him interested in the midterm elections.
COOPER: He's not looking at polls in the way he used to.
HABERMAN: He has -- not the way he used to.
SWAN: It's not just -- it's not totally binary, it's not black and white, but he really doesn't care that much. It's small stuff. He -- again, it was so -- he essentially told this, I mean, it was handed to us.
COOPER: By the way, the historian --
SWAN: Yes --
COOPER: -- he's talking about is the golf caddy.
SWAN: Former golf caddy, yes.
HABERMAN: Right.
COOPER: For --
SWAN: For Gary Player. Right.
COOPER: Just -- a couple other details I just want to get in.
SWAN: Yes.
COOPER: He show -- you go in to talk to him on the 13th day of the Iran war. What's on his desk? What is he pouring over?
HABERMAN: Yes, so I think it was --
SWAN: 17th day.
HABERMAN: -- the 17th day. Yes. But so when we walk in, he's got these -- he's holding these pictures of maple trees, and he starts talking about how he's installing maple trees around the White House complex.
SWAN: I'm good at buying trees.
HABERMAN: I'm good at buying trees. Then he wants us to look at his ballroom designs, which he shows lots of people, and he starts talking about the columns, and, you know, one side is an honor of Athens, another is Rome. This is what he's focused on.
COOPER: In one scene in October, he's showing a visitor a model of the ginormous arch he wants to build, and he's asking -- he asks, should it be -- for what should be on top of it, he said, "Should it be, he mused, a large replica of his fight, fight, fight fist?"
SWAN: Right.
COOPER: So he was seriously thinking of having a giant replica of his fist.
SWAN: He asked someone whether they thought it was a good idea. He also was asking whether it should be bigger than the Lincoln Memorial. We have a scene in the book where he calls the French President Emmanuel Macron to ask him about the Arc de Triomphe. Tell me about your arch, Emmanuel. Do people jump off it? Et cetera.
The point is, he wants to put his physical imprint not just on America, but on the world.
COOPER: So how much does he think about legacy? I mean, is that --
SWAN: Enormous.
HABERMAN: Yes.
SWAN: You have a pie chart of his brain. It's a huge slice. It's a huge slice of it.
HABERMAN: But it is legacy in a different way than other presidents have looked at it. They -- he had one signature accomplishment legislatively last year. It was the One Big Beautiful Bill. They used all of their political capital to get this through.
And what they found themselves then stymied by and having to deal with a few days later, and we get into this in detail in the book, is dealing with this Jeffrey Epstein files crisis that was a really self- inflicted wound by the administration. But it was really because the President just didn't want to deal with any of this. And so if people want to understand how decisions are being made at the highest level of this government, this is it.
[20:40:04]
COOPER: And the scene is in the Situation Room. They have convened, not the President, but everybody else around him, to talk about Jeffrey Epstein, which is this remarkable scene in the book.
Jonathan Swan, Maggie Haberman, it's extraordinary work. Congratulations. Thank you.
HABERMAN: Thank you.
COOPER: The book is "Regime Change."
Coming up next, new reporting on actual evidence, not presidential allegations about what was really going wrong with the reflecting pool. Also for the first time, both chambers of Congress agree in a war powers resolution to rein in the President on military action against Iran. We'll be right back.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
COOPER: There's new reporting tonight casting doubt on the President's repeated claims lately that the blue chunks and green water in the reflecting pool are the work of vandals. It also reveals that at the same time that Park Service workers were scrambling to address both those problems, the President was still declaring his more than $16 million renovation a success.
[20:45:02] The New York Times is -- the story is basing it on newly obtained government documents, quoting from the piece they show, quote, "That while National Park Service workers found two cuts in sections of foam between the pool's expansion joints, those were not directly related to the American flag blue coating that is now peeling or to the algae that has turned the pool a bright shade of green."
According to the Times, the documents they reviewed describe a pair of 171 foot long blade cuts in the pool, but do not address how they were made. The President maintains it was vandalism.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
DONALD TRUMP (R), PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: And who would think that somebody would go into a pool and take a knife and start cutting it?
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: But do you have proof of that?
TRUMP: Yes, yes, yes, yes, proof --
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: The knife? The approvals of everything (ph)?
TRUMP: Well, let's put it this way. When you have a 350 -- I think it's 350, not 250, a 350 foot slit from one end to the other, you think that's proof? You think that's proof?
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: But the reporters have been down there today looking for that slit that you mentioned and there was no evidence.
TRUMP: Well, what you'd have to do is see the parks department. They'll show it to you. See the secretary. But I saw it. They cut it. They cut it very violently. The same thing with the floor, they cut it. And then they lifted it. They pulled it. And that's what it is.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
COOPER: He's offered no evidence so far. But just last month, he did say that this exact kind of vandalism that he's now alleging was physically impossible.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
TRUMP: This will last for at least 50 years. You'll never have a leak. It's very strong. You couldn't -- if you had a knife, I don't want to give anybody ideas. If you had a knife, you can't even cut it. So strong, so powerful, it's like, powerful rubber.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
COOPER: The New York Times' David Fahrenthold shares a byline on tonight's new reporting, joins us now with more. So what does your reporting suggest about the President's claims of vandalism? What actual cuts are there?
DAVID FAHRENTHOLD, INVESTIGATIVE REPORTER, THE NEW YORK TIMES: Well, we've seen a couple different government documents talking about cuts in a part of the reflecting pool, a piece of foam that sort of helps cushion the joints between the big pieces of concrete that make up the pool. One government document we saw describes it as 20 feet long. Others describe it as much longer, two 171-foot-long pieces.
And those government documents don't really point to any particular person. Some of them don't even describe this as vandalism. But the really important thing to know is, like, the thing that's being described as being cut here is not the thing that President Trump has said has been cut. You know, the pieces of floor, the blue paint that we see floating up to the pool, that's not what was cut at all. It was another piece of foam that, as far as I could tell, is still in place.
COOPER: And how -- I mean, wherever this cut was, how accessible is that to -- I mean, could somebody -- is it something on the side of the reflecting pool that someone could easily cut or would they have to wade into the pool to cut it?
FAHRENTHOLD: That's the thing about this, is you would have to get into the pool, as far as I understand, and use a knife and find this little narrow piece of foam right under the lip of the pool and cut it. You know, cut it for 20 feet or 171 feet. It makes it a little implausible to think that somebody would have gotten into the pool and waded through the pool twice, 171 feet long. That is the case the President's making. With the police report we've seen, the one thing that they've reported to the police was only about a 20-foot cut.
COOPER: So if it wasn't vandalism, what is the reason for the peeling blue coating and the algae?
FAHRENTHOLD: The algae is easier to explain. The reason is, this is water from the D.C. municipal water supply. Drinking water often has something called phosphate in it. It's something that doesn't harm you and me, but it's there to prevent corrosion on the pipes.
But if you pour it into a giant pool, put it out in the sun, it turns into algae fuel, algae food. So that could supercharge an algae bloom. That seems to be the one reason. Also, the no-bid contract that they had given to a company to provide filtration, at least two of the four filters they gave were not working at most times. So that's why the algae was blooming.
Why the paint is peeling off is a little harder to explain, but what we can tell is that it was peeling off fairly early on, within the first two weeks after the pool was refilled. So long before there were public reports of this, before President Trump started blaming it on vandals, you can see the Park Service is going, uh-oh, the paint we just paid millions of dollars for is starting to peel up.
COOPER: What did you learn about the devices installed in the pool to help kill the algae?
FAHRENTHOLD: These are these things called nanobubblers. They're basically water purification devices that use ozone gas to try to kill things like algae and bacteria. The company -- we talked about this earlier in the week, the company that the government gave a no-bid contract to, to provide those things, is owned by somebody who's a friend of President Trump's, a donor to President Trump, a neighbor of Mar-a-Lago.
That company, they provided four temporary units before they were going to install a permanent unit. And at most times, between one and two of those four temporary units, the main thing keeping the pool clean, those weren't working. So that's a big reason why the pools turned green and stayed green. We'll see now if it continues to be green once the permanent system is put in.
COOPER: David Fahrenthold, as always, appreciate it. Thanks.
[20:50:02]
Coming up, President Trump gets a significant rebuke from Congress over the war with Iran. Details of the resolution passed. I'll speak with Senator Chris Murphy, who backed the measure next.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
COOPER: More breaking news tonight. For the first time, the Senate has approved a House-passed plan to limit the President's war powers, directing him to remove U.S. military forces from the conflict in Iran. Four Republicans joined Democrats in support of it, Rand Paul, Susan Collins, Lisa Murkowski, and Bill Cassidy. Democrat John Fetterman voted no.
A White House official dismissed today's vote, saying the resolution, quote, "has no significance." Though the measure doesn't carry the force of law, it does reflect a measure of discontent among some Republican senators over the war and the memorandum of understanding, which put it on hold.
Joining us now is Connecticut Democratic Senator Chris Murphy, who backed the resolution. Senator, it's obviously not the first time the Senate held a vote on this measure. Why do you think it succeeded today?
[20:55:04]
SEN. CHRIS MURPHY (D), CONNECTICUT: Well, this war is the most unpopular war in modern history. People know that it's a disaster for our security, but they also are feeling the impact of it. Gas prices are above $6 in a lot of places. Grocery prices are going up.
And even though you have hostilities suspended for a period of time, those prices aren't coming down anytime soon. It's going to take a long time to get oil production back up to its previous levels. Transportation costs are going to remain high, which means grocery prices are going to remain high.
People didn't want this war, and the effects of it are going to stick around for a long time. So I just think as time goes on, you're going to have more Republicans, especially as we get closer to the election, joining us in these resolutions to put an end to the war. COOPER: Well, critics of the measure, including those in the White House, say that -- because the conflict in Iran has essentially paused during these negotiations, a vote like the one that passed tonight is unnecessary. What do you say to that?
MURPHY: Well, I don't think anybody's sure that this war is over. This seems like a very fragile ceasefire. For instance, it relies upon Israel and Lebanon remaining in ceasefire. And at any moment, that conflict could restart, which would probably cause Iran to close the strait again.
So we want to just make it absolutely clear that this war was illegal, and it was. The President can't launch a war like he did in Iran without congressional approval, and that he is restrained from restarting it again without the consent of Congress. So I just don't think anybody can bet that this really fragile, really badly negotiated ceasefire is going to hang around for much longer. I hope it does, but I'm not sure we can count on it.
COOPER: Do you think the U.S. is going to be able to or wants to pressure Israel to end their military operations in Lebanon?
MURPHY: Well, I do think that we know that it is a precondition to ending the war in Iran. And I guess I do give credit to the President that he finally realized that he had lost. I mean, that's really what happened here. We didn't achieve any of our objectives.
Iran was getting stronger by the day. They had the global economy in a stranglehold, and they basically told the United States, we will reopen the strait, but only if you release all of our oil sanctions, you give us all of our frozen assets, you commit to spend $300 billion on our reconstruction, and you get Israel to stop the war with Lebanon. That was a very, very, very high price to pay. And Trump was willing to pay it because the war was just a disaster.
Now, the Lebanon-Israel war needed to stop no matter what. And so I guess I'm glad that that was included in Iran's price.
COOPER: Separately, you gave a speech on the floor of the Senate outlying allegations of corruption over the past 500 days of the second Trump administration. You gave a similar speech after the first six weeks, the first hundred days. Have you been able to get your colleagues on the other side of the aisle interested in investigating any of these issues?
MURPHY: No, not really. I mean, I just keep going down to the Senate floor to try to make sure that we don't normalize this. These aren't dozens of individual instances of corruption. This is a system, right?
This is what the White House wakes up every day focused on, not your cost of living, not the war in Iran. They are focused every day on enriching the Trump family and their friends. Every two or three days, there's a new story of how they are making themselves rich, and it is just the entire method of operation inside the White House.
Yes, we got a little pushback finally from Republicans a couple of weeks ago on this $1.8 billion slush fund for police beaters, but that's been about it. On everything else Trump has done, Republicans have been unwilling to stop it or investigate. Maybe that changes as we get closer to the election. This becomes a bigger issue for them in the polls, but I'm not sure.
COOPER: I want to read you actually a paragraph from Maggie Haberman and Jonathan Swan's new book, "Regime Change," because it goes -- it's about this. They say, quote, "Soon there were so many favors and so much money coursing through the Trump orbit that an unusually large number of administration staff were eyeing exits before the first year had even ended. Many officials looking at how much others were making outside the government were asking themselves, why not me?"
What do you think the effect of this is?
MURPHY: Well, first of all, it makes those that are inside the White House decide to get rich, and they are. What we know is that people close to the President have been placing bets in the futures markets and the predictions markets to make money off of the war and other announcements that they have inside information about.
So, first, it just causes people who work for the President to not wait until they get to the private sector.
COOPER: Yes.
MURPHY: But it is true that anybody that's close to Trump is making millions of dollars right now. For instance, you know, pardons are being handed out based upon whether you are willing to pay hundreds of thousands of dollars to Trump-affiliated lobbyists. And so sure, there are probably a lot of aides to Trump who want to get to the outside so that they can get paid as part of this pardon racket.
It's just corrupt from top to bottom. It's no longer just Trump and his family getting rich, it's literally hundreds of people who work at the White House and are close to people at the White House. And that should just be unacceptable to Democrats and Republicans in this country.
COOPER: Senator Chris Murphy, I appreciate it. Thank you.
Our primary night coverage continues. The Source with Kaitlan Collins starts now.
