Return to Transcripts main page
CNN's The Arena with Kasie Hunt
Key GOP Senators Push For Changes To Trump Sending; Musk Blasts Trump Spending Bill As A "Disgusting Abomination"; Family Of Boulder Suspect In Federal Migration Custody; White House: FEMA Takes Hurricane Season "Seriously". Aired 4-5p ET
Aired June 03, 2025 - 16:00 ET
THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.
[16:00:04]
ERICA HILL, CNN HOST: And then the bottle went on a heck of a journey, going all the way from Hawaii to Florida's Bradenton Beach. You can see didn't cross land. So, you know, you have a sense of why it took seven years to get 700 miles away.
Hollenbeck also says she never actually imagined that didn't cross land. So, you were pretty sure it didn't cross land. So, you know, you have a sense of why it took seven years to get 100 miles away.
Hollenbeck also says she never actually imagined that it would be found. She certainly didn't anticipate all the attention. She says these days, she's more concerned about ocean pollution, and she's encouraging others to also be mindful, taking care of the land and sea. She said she's not going to toss another bottle into the ocean.
BORIS SANCHEZ, CNN HOST: Yeah. That's important. Don't pollute, even though it's kind of a neat story.
HILL: Yeah.
SANCHEZ: Thanks for joining us.
HILL: "THE ARENA WITH KASIE HUNT" starts right now.
(MUSIC)
KASIE HUNT, CNN HOST: It's President Trump versus his own allies. Can a tweet from Elon Musk kill the so-called Big, Beautiful Bill?
Let's head into THE ARENA.
The clock is ticking as Senate Republicans try to pass a bill to advance Trump's agenda. And now the former leader of DOGE says the House bill is a, quote, disgusting abomination.
Plus, new developments in the fire attack against the Jewish group in Colorado. The suspect's family now being held by federal immigration authorities.
And then, was it just a joke? The White House says it takes hurricane season very seriously after the acting head of FEMA seemed to say that he didn't even know it existed.
(MUSIC)
HUNT: Hi, everyone. I'm Kasie Hunt. Welcome to THE ARENA. It's wonderful to have you with us on this Tuesday.
Right now, on Capitol Hill, Donald Trump's agenda, the Big, Beautiful Bill, is facing a critical test. Can Republicans make enough changes to get the bill through the Senate without making so many changes that it dies when it goes back to the House?
Republican leaders have imposed a July 4th deadline on themselves, so they've given themselves just one month to get this bill to the president's desk. And considering just how big the bill is, and that it's not quite beautiful enough for all of the Republicans in the Senate, that timeline is, shall we say, ambitious.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
SEN. JAMES LANKFORD (R-OK): We're going through a lot of changes right now, but we want the House to recognize their bill when it actually comes back.
SEN. CHUCK GRASSLEY (R-IA): We certainly 53 Republican senators would like to see some changes. This bill only passed the House by one vote. And whatever changes we make, it's got to go back there for approval.
SEN. JOHN THUNE (R-SD), MAJORITY LEADER: We've got, as you know, a lot of our members who would like to see more in terms of spending cuts. But in the end, it's all about the math. And it's what gets us 51 in the Senate and what gets us 218 in the House.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
HUNT: So that, of course, was Senate Majority Leader John Thune. Let's do that math. He can only afford to lose three Republican votes already, four GOP senators have said they're not on board. Math is very -- it's so simple. I will do it on television.
A half a dozen more Republicans appear to be on the fence here. So why is that? For many of them, it is the budget analysis that says that the bill would cut billions from Medicaid, while adding trillions to the national debt. One of these holdouts, the Kentucky Senator Rand Paul, of course, finds himself at the center of Donald Trump's attention. Not always a positive thing.
The president writing this online, quote, Rand votes no on everything, but never has any practical or constructive ideas. His ideas are actually crazy, parentheses, losers, exclamation point, end quote.
Senator Paul later told reporters that he wants to vote yes on the bill. But --
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
SEN. RAND PAUL (R-KY): But conservative Republicans vote for this, there is no conservative opposition. There is no -- they will own it. The debt will be owned by the Republicans. Theres no more pointing fingers at the Democrats and saying, oh, they're the big spenders. It will be all on Republicans shoulders.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
HUNT: Okay, so all of that unfolding this morning through lunchtime. And then comes this, this afternoon, Elon Musk entered the chat.
The now former DOGE head taking to his platform formerly known as Twitter, writing this, quote: I'm sorry, but I just can't stand it anymore. This massive, outrageous, pork-filled congressional spending bill is a disgusting abomination. He said: Shame on those who voted for it. You know you did wrong. You know it.
All right. Our panel is here, and we're also joined by CNN's Manu Raju, who's live for us on Capitol Hill.
Manu, Elon Musk is not the first person to present the content in that post about a bill that adds trillions of dollars to the national debt. He sounds like a lot of Republicans that I've covered. Youve covered probably in your time on the hill. However, we are in different times, and it's a pretty remarkable statement from someone who is as close as he is to President Donald Trump.
What has been the reaction from the Hill in the hours since that tweet came out?
[16:05:02]
MANU RAJU, CNN CHIEF CONGRESSIONAL CORRESPONDENT: It's completely scrambled the politics up here. Democrats cheering this. Chuck Schumer coming out to his weekly press conference touting this post by Elon Musk. Hakeem Jeffries, a Democratic leader doing the same thing.
Republicans, on the other hand, pushing back, including the speaker of the House, Mike Johnson, who I caught up with in the immediate aftermath of that post, he told me that he has spoken at length with Musk yesterday, and he said that he had tried to explain to Musk the virtues of the bill. And he also suggested that Musk perhaps could be driven in part by his opposition because the bill would call for the elimination of certain tax incentives for electric vehicles.
And, of course, Elon Musk owns Tesla.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
REP. MIKE JOHNSON (R-LA), SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE: Elon is missing it. Okay? And it's not personal. I know that the EV mandate is very important to him. That is going away because the government should not be subsidizing these things, but for him to come out and pan the whole bill is, is, to me, just very disappointing, very surprising, in light of the conversation I had with him yesterday.
(END VIDEO CLIP) RAJU: And I asked Johnson whether or not he is, in fact, accusing Musk of attacking this bill because of his ownership of Tesla. He said, quote, I'm going to let others draw their own conclusions about that.
But there are significant concerns among Senate Republicans about the potential impact on the debt and deficits. The House passed bill, according to the Congressional Budget Office, would add nearly $4 trillion to deficits over the next several years.
And that is something that some conservative Republican senators have raised concerns about, including one senator, Utah Republican John Curtis, who told me earlier today that he has significant concerns about the debt.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
SEN. JOHN CURTIS (R-UT): The deficit in the House bill, according to CBO, raise a few trillion dollars.
RAJU: Does that concern you?
CURTIS: It's hugely concerning to me. And if you look at the House bill, just to simplify it a little bit, we're going to spend in the next ten years about $20 trillion more than the revenue we bring in. And they're cutting 1.5 trillion out of 20 trillion. Most of us wouldn't do that in our businesses, in our homes. And we certainly don't do it in the state of Utah. And so that's a big concern to me.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
RAJU: He went on to tell me that there will be a significant amount of work that still needs to be done in order for him to support this plan, and that's what I'm hearing from a lot of Republican senators, Kasie. They want a lot of changes.
But the Senate Majority Leader John Thune wants to push this through, get this through the senate and onto the president's desk by July 4th. And that would require a lot of compromise within his own conference, because right now, people are digging in and taking their positions and hoping ultimately, the leadership listens to their concerns.
HUNT: When you started this off, saying the politics have been scrambled, that's your headline for today, our banner on the bottom.
Manu Raju, thank you, as always for your great reporting.
Our panel joins us now, CNN legal analyst Elliot Williams; national political reporter for "The Washington Post", Sabrina Rodriguez; Democratic strategist Adrienne Elrod; and CNN senior political commentator Scott Jennings.
Welcome to all of you. Thank you all for being here.
Scott Jennings, we've got a new tweet just in from e Elon Musk. You look excited.
SCOTT JENNINGS, CNN SENIOR POLITICAL COMMENTATOR: Oh.
(LAUGHTER)
HUNT: So, he writes this. Quote, in November next year, we fire all politicians who betrayed the American people. He's, quote, treating someone who, you know, we'll figure out exactly what these other things are that he's criticizing him for. And this also coming as CNN is reporting here that White House officials are telling CNN that they were surprised by Elon Musk's scathing criticism on Tuesday.
JENNINGS: Yes.
HUNT: Were you Scott Jenning's surprised? And it does seem to scramble the politics.
JENNINGS: A, I wasn't surprised because I had spoken to him about what was motivating his service in Washington a few weeks ago, and he told me he's here to try to make America not go bankrupt. I mean, this is on his mind. We have a $36 trillion debt, and it should be on all of our minds. So that's number one.
Number two, I don't think that were done with the bill yet. I mean, as you know, and as the reporting says, lots of changes are going to have to be made in the Senate to get it out of the Senate. And then those will have to be reconciled. The reconciliation will have to be reconciled with the House. And more changes still may come.
So, you know, I guess I want multiple things. I want the president to get his agenda and the agenda, the core part of this, and the thing that is not negotiable, is the extension and making permanent the tax cuts, investment in border security, energy deregulation, the biggest welfare reform in recent history. I mean, these are non-negotiable, I think, to the president, because it's what he ran on.
But the Republicans should listen here to Elon when it comes to the national debt. We have work to do on this. We have governing responsibility. And maybe it doesn't come in this bill, but the rescissions package is to come. And our other work to come here, getting a handle on a $36 trillion debt is not going to be easy, but it is necessary because this is not sustainable.
HUNT: Adrienne Elrod, I mean, this has put Chuck Schumer on the same side as Elon Musk.
ADRIENNE ELROD, DEMOCRATIC STRATEGIST: Yeah. I mean, who would have thought that would have happened?
Look, a couple of things, I don't really know at the end of the day, how many people are going to be impacted by Elon Musk tweeting that he doesn't support this bill?
[16:10:01]
I mean, he's deeply unpopular among Democrats. He's certainly waning or less popular among Republicans. He's out of Washington now. I think Mike Johnson actually was right. He said he's concerned about
this bill because it doesn't have the tax credits for the EVs, and that's going to affect his industry. So I think that's one category.
But look, at the end of the day, Scott, here's the bottom line. This bill at its current state is $4 trillion. You talk about the fact that we are $36 trillion in debt. That is absolutely a challenge that we Americans have to deal with. And it's something that Congress has to deal with.
And the House could only get this bill passed if it was $4 trillion. So, I think reconciliation is going to be really important here. But they passed this bill in the House by the hair of my chinny chin chin. So, I think the next few weeks are going to be very, very interesting to see what negotiations.
HUNT: Well, it's only one bill because mike Johnson basically said I can only do one vote., guys.
JENNINGS: I do think that was the right move. I mean, multiple votes would have been bad.
HUNT: Elliott Williams, the acknowledgment that Mike Johnson, the speaker, made in saying that Elon Musk is doing something because his companies have a certain interest. Right. I feel like the initial months of the Trump administration, Republicans fell all over themselves to insist, insist that that had nothing to do with what Elon Musk was doing in Washington. He wasn't here for his deregulation, for his rocket ships, or for financial benefits for his car companies. But Mike Johnson has basically acknowledged that out in the open.
ELLIOT WILLIAMS, CNN LEGAL ANALYST: It's hard to know what motivates anyone. Now you can look at the result, and certainly Tesla could stand to benefit from it. Yes, all of that. And his comments have scrambled the politics of it.
And I think you know, to the segment really laid this out -- well, but to go even further, just look at some of the senators that we will need or Republicans will need to get to 50 on this. Theres this odd hodgepodge of both conservatives and moderates who have problems with the bill. You know, Susan Collins and Lisa Murkowski, who two people who often bucked the Republican Party line but have expressed concerns with the bill, Jim Justice, the former governor and now senator from West Virginia.
The point being you know, if were all folks that thought alike, you could probably make a fix to the bill and get everybody on board. But the kinds of concessions that will be that will need to be made to get them to that number 50 that he was talking about, are going to be remarkably difficult.
Now, certainly when there's political will, people can figure out there ways to come together. But this is a really tough lift for Senate Republicans. And I'm more curious than anything about how they do it. SABRINA RODRIGUEZ, NATIONAL POLITICAL REPORTER, THE WASHINGTON POST: I
also think what's funny here is sort of the politics for Democrats. Like, of course, Democrats know that they're iced out of this process, that its just going to be. Senate Republicans now debating, trying to figure out what's going to happen with House Republicans.
But for Democrats, you know, seeing House Democratic Leader Hakeem Jeffries come out and say, you know, truer words haven't been spoken, when just a week ago, you know, they were out criticizing Elon Musk. The amount of ads that have already been cut by Democrats criticizing Elon Musk sort of again, speaks to I think the theme of this is really the scrambled politics, but it's going to be curious to see how Democrats, after how critical they've been of Elon Musk and his role in this administration, are going to sort of capitalize on when there is dissent with Trump.
HUNT: Yeah. Let's listen to a little bit more of what Rand Paul had to say here about this. He's talking about just -- and Paul is someone who wanted to make spending cuts since he came to Washington. Let's talk a little bit more of what he said, and we'll talk to Scott, who is, of course, Rand Paul.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
PAUL: If you look at the spending cuts, it's complicated because at 1.5 trillion, that sounds like this enormous number, but it's over ten years, so it's 150 billion a year. They're also increasing spending for the military and for the border, 300 billion. That's actually more than all the DOGE cuts that we've found so far.
So, something doesn't really add up here. And I can't be on record as being one who supports increasing the debt by 5 trillion. I think that's irresponsible.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
HUNT: I mean, Scott Jennings, the man -- you know, there are others. Jamie Dimon is warning there's going to be a crack in the bond market. Ray Dalio, who's a longtime hedge funder, has basically said in the long term this debt and deficit poses real, actual long term risks to the like very security and stability of our country.
And yet, you know, Republicans, im not sure I ever thought that like your party ye of Mitch McConnell land in the original would be pushing for this.
JENNINGS: Well, because it does a lot of things that Republicans ran on last year. I mean, you got to remember why Donald Trump won the election. He said he was going to make the tax cuts permanent. He said he was going to invest in border security. He said he was going to build up the military and all the things that Rand, who I love and have voted for many times, all the things that that he said he was going to do --
HUNT: Love him as much as you do.
JENNINGS: I love them all. They're all my friends.
WILLIAMS: So, relentlessly on message.
JENNINGS: But I, you know, Kentucky is an amazing place right now. We have McConnell, we have Rand, we have Massie.
WILLIAMS: And Scott Jennings.
JENNINGS: So, President Trump is an amazing place. But for all the Republicans who live in Kentucky, they voted for Trump and they voted for Trump to enact his agenda.
[16:15:02]
They want him to make the tax cuts permanent and do the rest of the things that are in the bill.
And I ultimately think, however, they end up adjusting it. That's how they got it out of the House was the force of Donald Trump's political will. That's probably how they're going to get it out of the senate, and it's probably how they're going to forge a compromise that can pass both chambers.
I don't know if they can do it by July the 4th or not. Certainly August. They have a little wiggle room before August. But if they -- if they don't do this, they'll be held to pay back home because the Republican voters want the president to succeed.
ELROD: But they don't want their Medicare and Medicaid cut. And that's --
JENNINGS: They're not -- they're not illegal. I said voters, not illegal aliens.
ELROD: Okay. We're not --
HUNT: Okay. On that note, we are out of time in this segment.
Up next, more drama ahead as Republicans try to deliver on President Trump's agenda, Democratic Congresswoman Debbie Dingell here to talk about how Democrats plan to respond.
Plus, new developments in the investigation into that antisemitic attack in Colorado. The suspect's family is now in federal custody. We'll explain.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[16:20:19]
HUNT: All right. Welcome back.
Sources tell CNN that the family of the suspect in the antisemitic Molotov cocktail attack has been taken into ICE custody. According to court filings, the suspect, Mohammed Soliman, has a wife and five children. At this moment, it remains unclear what the immigration status of those family members may be.
Here to discuss, former FBI deputy director and senior -- CNN senior law enforcement analyst, Andrew McCabe.
Sir, thank you so much for being here. I really appreciate it.
Can you talk to us a little bit about -- clearly, this was a horrible attack. We heard from the president yesterday saying he blamed President Biden and those immigration policies for the fact that he was in the country. But now, of course, this has gone on to affect his family.
Is this usually how things like this are handled?
ANDREW MCCABE, CNN SENIOR LAW ENFORCEMENT ANALYST: Kasie, there's not much about this situation that's unusual, right? It's as you mentioned, a horribly violent, unprovoked attack on citizens, most of them elderly, in Boulder, Colorado, who were engaged in a peaceful remembrance, really, not even a protest to draw attention to the plight of the Israeli hostages.
Now, the situation with the family is really curious because we know from reporting that the family has been pretty cooperative. We know that they voluntarily surrendered his cell phone. They took his cell phone to the local police station and turned it over.
We also know that the FBI, the leader of the Denver field office, said yesterday during the press conference that the family had been cooperative and been speaking to investigators. So, to put the family in custody at this point, if that's been done purely for immigration reasons, is a bit of an odd move to be honest.
As an investigator, if you have a cooperative family that's providing information about your attacker, you might want to really work with them and not threaten their cooperative stance by putting them in custody right away. You can always do that later if their immigration status is in doubt.
It's possible that the family could actually provide information that you might need at trial, or might be helpful at trial if they were willing to testify as to things they heard the attacker say or preparations they saw him embark upon, things like that. They can give you a context for how he became radicalized. So, by putting them in custody, you definitely take the chance that they are no longer in a position to cooperate. And you might cut off that stream of information.
Thats the one thing that really kind of catches my eye about it as an investigator.
HUNT: It's really interesting way to think about it. In terms of -- I mean, one thing that we've seen the Trump administration do in cases of students, for example, is just straight up revoke visas and then take, you know, say that they've taken people into custody because the visa has been revoked.
Is that a tool that could have been used here?
MCCABE: It's certainly possible. Just looking at the way that the frequency with which that's been done in the last few months, it's hard for me to say exactly what statute or what policy they would pin an action like that on. It's also, I think, probably more likely that the family members are probably out of status in the same way that we know the attacker was.
He had a -- he had filed an asylum claim, which we understand was still pending, but he also had a work permit that had expired. Of course, his original status was a tourist visa that was that had also expired. So it may be that this arrest was really more of a statement about what the current state of affairs is with immigration enforcement.
We know that the administration is really putting a ton of pressure on ice and other cooperating agencies to pump up the numbers of people who have been taken into custody. This is a very high-profile event. I'm sure, that put this family on ICE's radar in a way they probably weren't before this.
So, you know, it may have been a target of opportunity. We'll see as it plays out, if that's a good thing or a bad thing for this case and for the many people in the Jewish community who are very, I'm sure, focused on making sure that this prosecution is successful.
HUNT: Elliott Williams, can I ask you about this from a legal perspective? I mean, I -- and you heard, of course what Mr. McCabe had to say about the investigation, you as a prosecutor, how do you look at it?
WILLIAMS: Oh, I think this is another one where the political and legal realities may not line up. Certainly, there's probably strong public interest in immigration action being taken against the folks.
[16:25:02]
But as we've seen over these last months, sometimes immigration actions trigger legal challenges.
Now, I understand, now, again, we're just getting information about this, that they're seeking to get them out of the country via expedited removal. And depending on what's in the back -- in the background that they're finding, that may or may not be a basis for doing so.
So, number one, like was there fraud in their applications then they could enter into expedited removal proceedings. Is there you know have they come very recently know because they've been here for quite some time.
So, there are some questions that need to be asked. But again, I get it. There are reasons why people are going to want them removed. If they haven't committed a crime merely being the family member of someone who's a notorious figure is not itself grounds for removal from the country, even if they were unlawfully present. HUNT: Yeah. Sabrina, you've covered the immigration system with some,
you know, somewhat extensively. This -- they are using the Trump administration is using the powers they have in new ways.
RODRIGUEZ: Absolutely. And I mean, what we've seen here is, of course, a political calculation. The first comments that President Trump made yesterday in regards to this attack was attacking, you know, Biden's immigration policy and sort of attributing this to Biden's immigration policy, as we were still waiting for more details and continue to wait for more details here.
So there's certainly a political calculation here, because this attack ties back to the broader message that president Trump had on the campaign trail about, you know, his promise to deport criminals, to deport people in the country that were committing acts of terror. So, this sort of ties neatly into that message for him, especially at a time where were seeing more headlines about, you know, him deporting people and local communities that were family members, parts of the community. So, this sort of gets to tie back to that message from the campaign trail.
WILLIAMS: And you might have a better basis for getting them out of the country by simply following established procedures, than by testing the boundaries of the law, because if you test the boundaries, you might end up tied up in litigation over it for years and years and years.
HUNT: Okay. Director McCabe, I just want to end on sort of the bigger picture here, beyond what's going on just with these family members. The DHS put out an intelligence bulletin June 2nd, so yesterday, saying that they remain concerned that success, the successful homeland attacks and messaging from foreign terrorist groups and their supporters will, quote, continue to inspire violent extremists to mobilize to violence in the U.S.
How common is it for people to see something like this -- see that it happened, and then start to make their own plans to try to do something?
MCCABE: Kasie, there's no question that the inspiration factor is high here. We've already seen the terrorist attacks on Israel on October 7th, and the follow on Israeli military action in Gaza has inspired a lot of the sort of grievance and unrest that ultimately leads some people, like this person in Boulder, like the shooter we had here in D.C. a week and a half, two weeks ago, to take matters into their own hands and resort to acts of violent terrorism.
The 350 percent increase in antisemitic acts in this country from 2019 to 2023, most of that attributable to the situation, the hostilities in Israel. So, we can expect to see more of this every time someone is successful and gets on the world stage by doing it, the chances are that they may inspire someone else to follow that suit.
HUNT: All right. Andrew McCabe, thank you very much for being with us today. Really appreciate your time, sir. Hope to see you soon. And coming up next here in THE ARENA, hurricane season is upon us. No,
not a punch line. Apparently, the acting head of FEMA thought it was pretty funny. We'll talk about that.
Plus, how is it that Chuck Schumer now finds himself on the same side as Elon Musk?
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
SCHUMER: If even Elon Musk who's been part of the whole process and is Trump's buddy, says the bill is bad, you can imagine how bad this bill is.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[16:33:37]
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
REPORTER: How mad do you think President Trump is going to be when he finds out that Elon Musk said, I'm sorry, but I just can't stand it anymore, this massive, outrageous, pork filled congressional spending bill is a disgusting abomination?
KAROLINE LEAVITT, WHITE HOUSE PRESS SECRETARY: Look, the president already knows where Elon Musk stood on this bill. It doesn't change the presidents opinion. This is one big, beautiful bill and he's sticking to it.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
HUNT: Beauty apparently in the eye of the beholder.
The White House today trying to shake off that fresh criticism from Elon Musk over the presidents so-called big, beautiful bill, which, of course, as you saw there, Musk is now calling a disgusting abomination.
Musk now, perhaps surprisingly, finding interesting allies.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
SCHUMER: Well, I hear something happened while we were at lunch, which led me to make some news here today and say something I didn't think was imaginable. I agree with Elon Musk. If Elon Musk, who's been part of the whole process and is Trump's buddy, says the bill is bad, you can imagine how bad this bill is.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
HUNT: All right. Joining us now to discuss, Democratic Congresswoman Debbie Dingell of Michigan.
Congresswoman, it's wonderful to see you. Do you agree with Elon Musk?
REP. DEBBIE DINGELL (D-MI): Yes, I do. Maybe not for the same reasons, but I think he's made a lot of Democrats on the Hill today, as he's called this, a disgusting abomination.
[16:35:03]
I mean, this bill hurts a lot of people. A lot of people.
I mean, Yale's come out with this study that says 51,000 people will die because of it.
So, I hope the American people who were listening to him earlier this year are listening to his description of this bill. So, while I may disagree with him on some of the reasons I find -- find it this way those are perfect words for what this big, bad bill is.
HUNT: Yeah. And he -- you know, it may have been clear that Elon Musk felt a certain way about the bill before, but the phrase he used is particularly. Sharp. I would say, though, he probably doesn't like it for different reasons than you don't. Do you think the bill adds too much to the national debt?
DINGELL: Look, if we weren't giving the billionaires tax cuts, there were many other ways that this bill could have been done without adding to the deficit. So, yes, I do have a problem with that part of the bill because of the way it's been done and who it's giving corporate tax favors to.
HUNT: Interesting. Let's turn to --
DINGELL: To billionaires.
HUNT: I want to turn to the Democratic Party because, of course, we have seen, you know, unified messaging on this focus on Medicaid for sure. But there doesn't seem to be beyond that kind of a unified way of thinking about how to push back against Donald Trump and particularly, you know, how to learn the lessons of the past election.
I want to play something for you that Senator Bernie Sanders came out and said, just in the last day or so. It was for him, even remarkably sharp. Let's watch.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
SEN. BERNIE SANDERS (I-VT): It was the fault of Kamala Harris and her consultants. I ran all over the country trying to elect Kamala Harris and begged them. Talk to the needs of the working class. Kamala spent more time with Liz Cheney almost than with anybody else. What does that message out to working class people?
(END VIDEO CLIP)
HUNT: Do you think that Bernie Sanders is right about this? DINGELL: So remember who you're talking to and do some of those words
remind you of what I was saying in 2016? So, we do need to talk to working men and women. I want to be clear. We are fighting a lot of bad stuff right now, and Democrats are unified in fighting the damage that is going to be done to working men and women, unified across this country.
But we also have to get into -- we have to talk to working men and women in the places that they go, from the union halls to the schools, to the churches, and tell them why we will make a difference, what we will be fighting for in the '26 elections and in the '28 elections.
HUNT: One other piece, of course, of the fight that was litigated in the last election, but that is going to be part of 2028 and the future that you are talking about is, of course, I mean, the word that Republicans critics would use is woke, right? And there's this issue in California right now with a transgender athlete who won a competition out there. And the Trump administration has said they plan to fine the state of California.
Their governor, Gavin Newsom, has said he opposes allowing transgender athletes to compete.
Where do you -- where do you stand on it? But more critically, how do you think this type of thing interacts with what you're talking about with working class voters? What do they want to hear on this in your view?
DINGELL: Well, quite frankly, I think Republicans are trying to deflect from the real issues. Like Donald Trump said he would lower costs. Has he?
He's put up somebody that says tariffs can be a tool, but he's created total chaos for corporations and for consumers across this country about increasing costs. What are we doing to lower prescription costs? We're throwing people off health insurance plans. But what we're doing with Medicaid and the wraparound and the Affordable Care Act and corruption, we need to be talking about corruption.
They will do anything to not have to talk about what the issues are that working men and women do care about across this country. And let's start with the economy and jobs. That's the number one issue they care about.
HUNT: Congresswoman, briefly before I let you go, obviously, one of the things that's included in this, quote/unquote, big beautiful bill are EV related tax cuts or tax breaks that they want to get rid of. And I know that there are a lot of issues that will affect your constituents, voters, the automobile industry in Michigan.
Is there anything that you think is a really big deal in here on that front that were not paying attention to?
DINGELL: Well, there's a lot of things about how we keep manufacturing competitive in this country. There are eliminating a lot of things, like helping manufacturers convert plants. But I want to go -- suddenly, also interesting that Elon Musk not only
thinks this bill is disgusting, but he wants to see EV tax credits in this country.
[16:40:07]
Here's the reality. The fact of the matter is we need to be a global leader. We've always led in innovation and technology. We're competing in a global marketplace.
China is subsidizing the production of their EVs. China is manipulating their currency. They're using slave labor. We have got to compete on a level playing field. And those tax credits are just part of making sure we stay a leader in the global marketplace.
We don't need to eliminate the internal combustion engine, but we also need to be building electric vehicles for the global market.
HUNT: All right. Congresswoman Debbie Dingell, always grateful to have you on the show. Thank you so much for being here, and see you soon.
DINGELL: Thank you.
HUNT: All right. Coming up next, what is driving President Trump's reported anger toward one of the Supreme Court justices that he appointed?
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[16:45:20]
HUNT: All right. Welcome back.
New CNN reporting today revealing President Trump's increasing frustration with members of the Supreme Court. Sources say that he has privately complained about some of his own appointed justices, and that they're not sufficiently standing behind his agenda.
CNN's senior White House correspondent Kristen Holmes joins us now with her new reporting.
And this, Kristen seems to focus particularly on one justice in particular, Amy Coney Barrett.
What have you learned?
KRISTEN HOLMES, CNN SENIOR WHITE HOUSE CORRESPONDENT: That's right, Kasie. So, all of his justices, all three of them, Brett Kavanaugh, Neil Gorsuch, Amy Coney Barrett, they have all come under the scrutiny of Donald Trump. However, he has been more fixated on Barrett, his most recent appointee.
And we are told that that is for a number of reasons. And just to be clear, it's not one ruling. We are told that it's a wide array of things that have started to bother the president. But one of them is the fact that this has been fueled by some of his
right-wing allies, who have said that Barrett is weak. They have said that she is not presenting. She is not ruling in the same manner she said she would when she interviewed for this job back in 2020.
And so far, they've actually gone as far as to say that she might be scared because of threats on her and her family. We know earlier this year there was a bomb threat called in on her sister. So, Donald Trump has asked allies and advisers if things would change, or if it would be better if she had increased security.
Now, I did ask the White House exactly what Donald Trump was saying behind closed doors, and they didn't deny that he was attacking these justices at all. They just said that President Trump will always stand by the Supreme Court. The president may disagree with the court and some of its rulings, but he will always respect its foundational role. Obviously, Kasie, this takes on a heightened level of importance given the fact that so much of the agenda now is in front of the courts. So much of it is expected to go in front of the Supreme Court.
HUNT: All right, Kristen Holmes for us, Kristen, thank you. Always wonderful to see you.
Our panel is back to discuss.
Scott Jennings -- and Elliot, I want to get you to weigh in on this as well. But, Scott, there has been a remarkable amount of anger aimed at Amy Coney Barrett from a lot of people, the MAGA right online. She previously has been, you know, she was incredibly well respected, obviously recommended by the Federalist Society and others. Trump seems to have taken issue with that as well.
Clearly, once these justices are on the bench, they have their own power. And Trump is not the first president to be frustrated with the way a justice turned out to actually rule once on the bench.
But what do you make of Trump's anger, first of all? But also, what that means Amy Coney Barrett should be worried about or doing, if anything?
JENNINGS: Well, I don't make much of the anger because, as you pointed out, all presidents are unhappy with the Supreme Court from time to time. And as the statement from the White House said, whatever frustration he might have with an individual ruling, he's always going to respect the Supreme Court and its foundational role, which means respecting the decisions that it makes. So, I don't have any fear about the situation.
He has a right to be angry. I mean, they have a legal point of view on these cases. And if he doesn't win a case, obviously you know, it's not going to make him very happy.
What should Amy Coney Barrett do? I mean, she should follow the law. I mean, were conservatives.
We put people on the bench so that they will rule according to the constitution and the law, not make up laws and make things up as they go along. That's what Democrats do. They put people on the bench to do that.
So, all conservatives should expect our appointees to just simply be constitutional conservatives, originalists. That's what we want out of them.
HUNT: Yeah. I mean, I feel like this is one of those things that's also getting scrambled. I mean, we've been talking about how on spending down is up and up is down on Capitol Hill. Like we can put up some of Barrett's rulings in these Trump Supreme Court cases. And again, our reporting says it's not necessarily just one thing, but these are three instances, the Alien Enemies Act, the firing of government watchdogs, and of course, the USAID.
I mean, there has been some seriously creative use of laws on the books by this administration. The Alien Enemies Act is a great example of that. So, while I understand your kind of originalist argument, like in this case, she's kind of ruling to say, like, hey, like you shouldn't actually use this long standing law in this very strange way that we've never seen before.
JENNINGS: Yeah, well, he disagrees and I disagree. And a lot of Republicans disagree. And so, we can voice those disagreements.
It's probably not going to make any difference to her. I mean, as you pointed out, once you put these people on the bench, they can turn off their phones and close their laptops, not pay any attention to anything at all out in the world.
But do I expect them to not be criticized when they make substantial errors, which maybe she did in these cases? No, of course, they're going to take some criticism, but I don't anticipate it having any impact on their futures.
HUNT: Elliot Williams, I want to play a moment back in March with President Trump and the chief justice, John Roberts.
[16:50:04]
This played out around the state of the joint address to Congress, State of the Union-style speech.
Let's watch.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
DONALD TRUMP, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: Thank you again. Thank you again. Won't forget it.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
HUNT: Thank you again. Won't forget it.
We obviously don't have any more official context beyond that, but I think big picture and this is what we're getting at this a little bit with Scott. You know, the idea is supposed to be that you become a Supreme Court justice. You turn off your phone, you stop caring what the politics are.
You leave that at the door. You do it with, you do -- you know, you uphold her or you follow the law?
WILLIAMS: Yeah.
HUNT: Is that actually our reality?
WILLIAMS: No. And this is absolute lunacy from the president. Let me just be blunt about it.
Amy Coney Barrett votes with Justices Alito and Thomas, I believe, about 80 percent of the time. She is responsible for Dobbs. She was one of the -- which overturned Roe v. Wade, one of the justices in the majority of that, in addition to the ones you named there, trans service members. Deportation for Venezuelans. A host of decisions that went Donald Trump's way.
The fact that there are a handful of them that did not, and that that's engendering this anger in the president is just simply ridiculous.
Because it comes and I don't think it's in isolation because it comes a week after blasting the Federalist Society, to whom he owes a debt of gratitude for helping put folks on the bench, that that cemented his vision as a president.
So, this is ridiculous. This is the president who truly seems to believe that courts are there to serve him, not conservative values. And it's just -- it's preposterous. I'm sorry.
HUNT: All right. On that note, coming up next here. Did you know that there's a hurricane season? We're going to show you a remarkable admission from not just anyone on the street. The new acting head of FEMA.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[16:56:32]
HUNT: Welcome back.
The new acting head of FEAM, that's the Federal Emergency Management Agency told staff that he was previously unaware that the United States had a hurricane season. I'm sorry. What?
According to multiple sources, the comments were made during a briefing on Monday. And while some staffers interpreted it as a joke, others say that it fueled concern about his appointment. A DHS spokesperson did tell CNN that the comments were made in jest.
The White House says that they are taking hurricane season seriously.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) LEAVITT: Of course, we know that we are into hurricane season now, and I know FEMA is taking this seriously, seriously. Contrary to some of the reporting we have seen based on jokes that were made and leaks from meetings, but Secretary Kristi Noem and the FEMA leadership are all over this.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
HUNT: The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, NOAA, predicting a 60 percent chance of an above normal season. And it all comes amid questions about what the recent cuts from DOGE at FEMA and NOAA will mean for weather warnings and response to any destruction.
Our panel is back.
I mean, this used to be the kind of thing that you never got over. Let's play that moment with George W. Bush, who was talking to the then --
JENNINGS: Let's not.
HUNT: -- director, I know, Scott Jennings. And he doesn't want to hear it, but we're going to play it anyway. Watch.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
GEORGE W. BUSH, FORMER U.S. PRESIDENT: I want to thank you all for -- and, Brownie, you're doing a heck of a job. The FEMA director is working 24 -- they're working 24 hours a day.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
HUNT: So needless to say, Scott, that didn't go over well because in fact, the response to Katrina was, I think you would agree. Most people would agree a very difficult time, poorly handled by the Bush administration, a very low point politically for them.
I know you're making faces at me, but let's be real.
JENNINGS: Well, I think -- I think the narrative about this, let's take the state and local response off the hook. Well, we can quibble about that later.
HUNT: We can quibble about that later.
But the point, I mean, this is interesting to me because, you know, the White House doesn't always go along with reporting that comes out and say, hey, actually, like were doing, you know, that was a joke. We're taking this seriously. Yeah, I think this is potentially super damaging. If there's a whole bunch of, you know, Trump voters who get hit badly by a hurricane.
JENNINGS: I know, look --
HUNT: Americans, not just Trump voters. JENNINGS: I don't know what the truth is here, but I think the way the
previous administration handled the hurricane in North Carolina was atrocious. I have more confidence in the Trump administration, which what they already did when they came into office, not only handling.
HUNT: Even though there's like 25 percent less employees, because --
ELROD: Even though Trump wants to immediately --
JENNINGS: But they immediately cleared the backlog of cases on the North Carolina case. And they've done a great job handling the wildfire situation, at least the part they can do out in California. So, I just -- I don't know what happened here, but I think they've done a good job on what they've been handed so far.
HUNT: Sabrina?
RODRIGUEZ: Well, I think as a Floridian, this is one that I pay close attention to.
But I think one of the you know, of course, the focus right now is on the headline of the joke. I think one of the bigger pieces of news was that in that meeting, he had said that they're not going to have an updated disaster plan for this year's hurricane season because Trump is reviewing FEMA.
So I think really, it's less about the joke and more about what's going to play out, which obviously we don't know this hurricane season. But just seeing as the president has talked about wanting to eliminate this agency, how exactly are they going to respond to inevitably, hurricanes that will be hitting this country this year?
HUNT: Yeah, I mean, it's -- as you point out, with that hurricane in North Carolina. The stakes are incredibly high here. And of course, this is why, you know, the joke is it's a little bit difficult.
Guys, thank you so much for being here.
Thanks to all of you at home for joining us as well.
Don't go anywhere. "THE LEAD WITH JAKE TAPPER" starts right now.
