Return to Transcripts main page

CNN's The Arena with Kasie Hunt

Now: Clock Ticks Down Toward Higher Tariffs With Many Countries In Limbo Before Trump's Deadline; Epstein Victim's Family Demands Answer; Kamala Harris Announces New Book. Aired 4-5p ET

Aired July 31, 2025 - 16:00   ET

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

[16:00:00]

BORIS SANCHEZ, CNN HOST: According to state controlled outlet Arab News, the region's governor has ordered the immediate closure of the resort while an investigation takes place into the collapse.

Goodness, that is frightening.

BRIANNA KEILAR, CNN HOST: It's horrific.

THE ARENA WITH KASIE HUNT starts right now.

KASIE HUNT, CNN HOST: The countdown is on. What impact will the tariffs have when they go into effect tonight?

Let's head into THE ARENA.

Sources say the president is feeling emboldened just hours before his sweeping global tariffs go into effect. But not before America's biggest trading partner scores a last-minute pause.

Plus, the family of one of Jeffrey Epstein's victims demands answers after Trump said he knew that the convicted pedophile, quote, stole their loved one from Mar-a-Lago.

And then time to tell all. Kamala Harris announces a new book about her ill-fated bid for the White House, as Democrats across the country grapple with unpopularity, uncertainty.

(MUSIC)

HUNT: Hi, everyone. I'm Kasie Hunt. Welcome to THE ARENA. It's wonderful to have you with us on this Thursday.

Right now, we're just hours away from the big deadline in President Trump's trade war. At midnight, major tariffs will go into effect on imports from countries around the world. The only exceptions, the few countries that have reached deals for lower or delayed rates.

This morning, President Trump announced that Mexico, the United States' largest trading partner, would receive a 90-day pause to allow for more time for more negotiations and sources inside the administration tell CNN that a series of last-minute deals and positive economic indicators have Trump feeling emboldened to proceed with tonight's deadline.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

KAROLINE LEAVITT, WHITE HOUSE PRESS SECRETARY: The so-called economic experts repeatedly said that the American economy would be in a recession this summer. Well, summer is here. It's almost over. And that recession does not exist.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

HUNT: That recession does not exist. And it's true. We have not seen a recession this summer.

But the broader economic picture pretty mixed. GDP rebounded in the second quarter. Consumer spending rose last month, but so did prices. Inflation and job growth and income growth have both slowed. The truth is, we just don't know what impact these tariffs are going to have on the economy because they haven't gone into effect yet.

But that, of course, changes tonight. And after he has spent months blaming Joe Biden, blaming Jerome Powell, Donald Trump's signature policy will become reality. And for better or worse, he'll own the economy that follows.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

HOWARD LUTNICK, U.S. COMMERCE SECRETARY: I got all these phone calls from my Wall Street buddies and they were going crazy. They're like, you don't know what you're doing. You're going to destroy the market.

And let me tell you who the experts are. Donald Trump and his trade team have proven -- the EU pays. Japan pays, Korea pays. Vietnam pays. The Philippines pay.

PETER NAVARRO, WHITE HOUSE SENIOR COUNSELOR FOR TRADE & MANUFACTURING: A lot of people, Maria, talk about Donald Trump for the for the peace prize, the Nobel Peace Prize. I'm thinking that since he's basically taught the world trade economics, he might be up for the Nobel on economics.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

HUNT: Okay, our panel is going to be here to weigh in in just a moment, but we're going to start with CNN chief domestic correspondent Phil Mattingly, also, our explainer in chief here at CNN on matters such as this.

So, Phil, I'm a little less than eight hours until this self-imposed tariff deadline. What do you expect?

PHIL MATTINGLY, CNN CHIEF DOMESTIC CORRESPONDENT: Head on a swivel, right? Head on a swivel, Kasie. You the panel, be prepared. Never know what could happen over the course of the next -- I laugh a little bit about it, but honestly, that's kind of been the case over the course of the last several days. And our colleague Alayna Treene was reporting that the president felt

emboldened on the issue of trade and tariffs. Everything I've heard is exactly the same. And that's been the case over the past -- the better part of the last couple of weeks. And I think that's because of a couple of elements here that are important to put together to understand why we are where we are right now.

And I'm not trying to follow in any way Peter Navarro or Howard Lutnick, how could you ever match up where they are on these specific issues? But the president and his team do feel like they can spike the football right now, given, A. where things were on April 2nd, but B, a series of dynamics that have played out underneath the broader economic picture over the course of that time period.

First and foremost, the idea of retaliatory tariffs, one country has really retaliated and that is China. They're still kind of ongoing negotiations with China about where things stand there. But every other major nation, major trading partner, did not retaliate.

[16:05:01]

Over the course of the last couple of weeks, Kasie, every other major nation came to the White House and continued to offer increasingly better options and proposals for the president to sign off on. That has made White House officials feel like they are very much in an -- not just an emboldened position, but they had leverage all along, and they are at a point of maximum leverage right now, which means for those countries that don't have agreements yet and they're not very many major ones still out there, it's very clear Canada is not going to move towards one anytime soon, at least before the deadline.

India seems to also have pretty much run into a brick wall over the course of the last couple of days, but I think you can probably see if the presidents going to sign off on extending the pause with China that's currently in effect, or at least the current state of play, where things are right now. You mentioned Mexico earlier. I think the other thing you want to watch to Malaysia, India, Canada, off the table, Malaysia possible seeing where things go on this.

I think the reality is this is real. And, Kasie, when we talk about kind of the market was exhausted over the course of three and a half months, people were probably on some level as well. The presidents got about 17, 17-1/2 percent tariff rate for the country.

It was 2.3 percent when he entered office. This is the highest rate in almost 100 years. And people are kind of chill about it. He got what he wanted and he's getting agreements with a lot of questions.

But he's doing what he said he was going to do. He's getting what he wanted and how that plays out, I think, is an open question right now. But that's where he is.

HUNT: No, it's a -- it's a really, you know, it's a big picture that underscores a real shift in, quite frankly, our global ways of doing business.

Phil Mattingly, always grateful to have you. Thank you very much.

All right. Our panel is now here in THE ARENA. CNN contributor, "New York Times" journalist and podcast host Lulu Garcia-Navarro; the former policy director for Mitt Romney, Lanhee Chen; former New York Congressman Max Rose; and the former chief of staff to Vice President Pence. Marc Short.

And we're also joined by "Shark Tank" host, chairman of O'Leary Ventures, Kevin O'Leary.

Thank you all for being here.

I actually think we briefly had Marc and Kevin there in the same shot, which is relevant because they're very much on opposite sides of this issue.

Kevin, let me start with you. The sort of theory here, or the question being posed, you know, was President Trump right about tariffs where everybody else was wrong? What say you?

Kevin, that was to you. Can you hear me?

I think we may not be able to communicate with Kevin O'Leary.

So, Marc Short, you're going to get to go first.

And actually, the thing I had for you was from "The Wall Street Journal" editorial board, which called our most recent GDP, GDP report the weirdest GDP report ever.

And they say, if you think President Trump's tariff reductions don't affect the economy, take a gander at Wednesday's report for the second quarter GDP. The economy grew 3 percent on an annual basis, but largely because imports collapsed. The crazy swing in imports shows how much Mr. Trump's up and down policies have disrupted business decisions and left companies scrambling to adapt. This seems to have had a negative effect on private investment, which fell 15.6 percent in the second quarter.

MARC SHORT, FORMER CHIEF OF STAFF TO VICE PRESIDENT MIKE PENCE: Well, look, I think you have to combine the first and second quarter GDP because the first quarter, I think was exceptionally low because of the trade agenda. And in the second quarter is probably lifted a little bit high because of exactly as you say, that the imports fell off a cliff. So that helps the GDP number go up.

I think that it's odd to me of all the issues, for our party to import from the Democrats, that we would take Bernie Sanders trade agenda, and I've never seen a Republican administration with more central planners than this one. I think that it's bad economics.

But, Kasie, from a legal perspective, there's no precedent for any president having this authority today. In fact, inside the federal court of appeals, there was an argument on this that I think did not go well for the administration that I think will likely lose again, that, you know, 250 years ago, the original tea party activists actually fought a revolution over the notion of the king imposing tariffs on tea. And here we are now, 250 years later, and it seems like the Republicans want to have a whimsical approach to levying tariffs across the globe on every single country, friend and foe alike.

And I think the economics are bad. I think it's bad for national security. And I think it's also something they're going to lose on legally.

HUNT: All right. I think we've retrieved Kevin O'Leary from the technical wilderness.

Kevin, what say you about all this?

KEVIN O'LEARY, CHAIRMAN, O'LEARY VENTURES: I disagree with. All of that. This is so simple. Let me lay it out.

You go to Europe, you take an American product, you sell it in Italy. They whack a 13 to 15 percent VAT tax, consumer tax. And you go to the airport, you get your money back, of which 1 percent people do.

[16:10:00]

Same in Canada, same in Mexico, England, Switzerland, all the same.

All the Trump has done because we've never had consumer taxes in the U.S., you can't get that through Congress. He calls it a tariff. Reciprocal and kind of the highlight deal right now is the E.U., 26 cats being herded and Germany and France are a little, for lack of better words, pissed off. But what he did is he whacked them with a reciprocal 15 percent VAT tax.

In the U.S., you ship something over here from Europe, you pay the same thing they whack an American product with. It's not that complicated.

And the market because, listen, I don't give a rodents rear end about, you know, politics. I care about policy. I have to invest.

The market has absorbed this idea. And GM came out last week and said, okay, I get it. Our margins are down on car part tariffs, but we think we'll eat a third. We'll push a third out on price increases and we'll use A.I. to solve the other third. No one's even talking about the productivity of A.I.

HUNT: That's the thing, price increases. People are going to pay more for their cars.

SHORT: Forty-five percent decrease in profits.

O'LEARY: Okay, so tell me why the American economy right now is at its highest value in history? This is not an ad for Trump.

I'm an investor. Somethings working here. It's a policy decision. I'm a policy guy.

The Europeans have been sucking 15 percent cash for 40 years out of America. And you're unhappy that we're doing the same thing to them?

I don't think so. Get over it. Breathe the oxygen and be happy with your portfolio.

HUNT: Lanhee Chen, you jump in, you're a policy guy, too.

LANHEE CHEN, FORMER MITT ROMNEY POLICY DIRECTOR: Well, yeah, look, I think that what we're seeing here is the structural resilience of the American economy. I mean, that's really what this is all about, right? If you think about the numbers we've seen, for the most part, I actually think they paint a pretty good economic picture. I think consumers feel pretty good. We'll see how they feel when we get to Christmas. All right?

A lot of the inventory that were seeing now is pre-tariff inventory. We'll see how that affects prices as we go on. Inflation is running a little hotter than we would like. So, there are elements of this that are warning signs. But overall, overall, the economy is performing pretty well.

And I would also say this, I think one thing that President Trump has done is to reset the deck chairs in terms of expectations on tariffs. Good or bad, I think the reality is that we all expect and markets expect a certain level of tariff to be there, whether that's good or bad news were going to see. But the point is he has done exactly to your point. What he said he would do on trade policy.

LULU GARCIA-NAVARRO, CNN CONTRIBUTOR: Well, has he though, because let's think about who the main trading partners of the United States are. China, Mexico and Canada. Oh, wait a second. Do we have any trade agreements with them yet? Are there tariffs with those people yet? No, there are not.

And we have just seen the president Trump has delayed what's happening in Mexico. He has so far not taken the bait with Canada. And we don't know where we are with China.

And so, what I would say about this is that, you know, this idea that somehow these tariffs have come in and it's all been priced in and this is beautiful and wonderful. Were not there yet.

MAX ROSE (D), FORMER NEW YORK CONGRESSMAN: I've been waiting so many years to say Kevin O'Leary, Mr. Wonderful, is dead wrong here. I mean, this is -- this is an awesome opportunity.

Look, what we've seen for the last six months is an emotional and political roller coaster with Donald Trump announcing tariffs, then saying they're not actually happening. So you can't understand yet what the markets' reaction will be or what the price reactions will be, because no one actually believes that he's going to do what he's saying he's going to do.

So, let's assume that this actually happens, those prices, the 17, 18 percent, the consumer is going to bear them. It's simple utter math.

I'll tell you the only metric I look at, which is obviously politics. And when the economy is not going well against the president's party, you will see people running for seats that they wouldn't otherwise be able to win.

Take Colorado, for instance. Jessica Killin, Eileen Laubacher, running just recently announced two veterans for Colorado fourth and Colorado fifth, two seats that Democrat doesn't usually think that they can win, but they see the direction the economy is going and they see this chaos. And those are legitimate pickups for Democrats in amazing seats.

HUNT: Mr. Oleary, aka Mr. Wonderful, your name has been invoked. Would you like to respond?

O'LEARY: Yes. Just so we all know, Mr. Wonderful is never wrong. And I'm telling you why. Because Mr. Wonderful works with the numbers.

He simply works with the numbers. I don't get involved in congressional seats. I don't give a damn. I care about the numbers. And the numbers are extremely good on inflation, on job -- increase in actual job wages are fantastic. GDP growth came in way ahead of consensus.

This is what matters. And regarding Canada and Mexico, don't worry about them. They're going to come into the fold because Canada has all the energy. Some deal is going to be cut. Don't worry about that. Same with Mexico.

[16:15:00]

It takes time. No one -- no administration -- I'm not defending Trump. I'm talking about policy. No one has ever done this many trade deals in six months. It's impossible.

All you're reading are the headlines. The headline on Europe is 15 percent reciprocal. I get it, I accept it, I'll work with it, with all exceptions.

Remember, the only reason the Europeans are taking the pain at all is pharma and automotive. They can't live without access to the U.S. market. So Trump is squeezing their heads to access this market.

After decades of sucking 15 percent VAT taxes out of the U.S., now they have to absorb the same suction if you want to call it that. And listen, Canada is a geographic gold mine for America.

HUNT: Marc?

(CROSSTALK)

SHORT: We keep saying Europe is the one paying for this. It's the Americans paying it. The tariff is a tax on Americans.

And if you're a European automaker, your choice is now. Oh wait, I have a 15 percent tariff on American. Or you know what? There's a 50 percent steel and aluminum tariff if I decide to make it in America.

It's like all you're doing is hurting American consumers. And yes, marks an all-time high. Kevin is right about that.

(CROSSTALK)

SHORT: But markets fell when he announced these tariffs on April 2nd. He's then delayed them for 90 days.

So, now, let's see what happens they actually go into effect tomorrow.

HUNT: Kevin?

O'LEARY: Kumbaya. Let's talk about aluminum. Nobody can make aluminum without bauxite.

Who's got all the bauxite in North America? Not some of it. All of it. The Canadians up in Alberta.

So, I guarantee you with certainty, there's going to be a deal because you cant make aluminum in America without Albertan bauxite.

Sorry. That's just how it works. And I know that. The market knows that. Investors know that, it's going to get worked out.

You may not like his style. I get it. I am -- ignore the noise of Trump. The bombastic statements, all that stuff.

Policy, my friend, work with me on policy and you two will be right. Work with me.

GARCIA-NAVARRO: Can I ask you a question though? And I am just curious. Where do you fall on Brazil? So, you have President Trump saying, I'm going to put 50 percent tariffs on Brazil. The biggest coffee producer.

So, if you drink coffee, that might be a bad thing for American consumers. And he's doing it for political reasons. If you care just about the numbers, how does that sit with you? I am genuinely curious.

O'LEARY: Well, if I'm in Brazil and my number one importer of coffee is the United States, which I'm going to assume that's the case because a lot of people drink coffee, including me, every day. They're going to say, oh, that's not good. Maybe we should work something out.

Trump is -- listen, I'm not endorsing how he does it. I don't care. What I care about is what comes out the other end of the meat grinder.

So he's using the market size of America, which is more than half the world's consumption. It's huge. No one has ever done this before. Nobody.

You may not like it, but he's saying to Brazil, hey, I'm going to cut you off from the American market until you do what I want. And I'm willing to negotiate.

Some person in Brazil is responsible for coffee exports, saying to the head guy in Brazil, hey, big, big boss, we're all going to be eating worms here if we don't work this out, there'll be a deal there, too. You just don't like the way the -- you know, here's the thing I think

that people have to understand, Trump --

(CROSSTALK)

GARCIA-NAVARRO: I mean, I think it's -- Brazil is -- no, but Brazil is distinct because this isn't about, hey, someone should pay more because -- I used to be a correspondent in Brazil. Someone should pay more because we, you know, they're treating us unfairly.

This is actually a political thing. He doesn't like the way their sovereign government is treating an ally of his there. It's not about the economics. I'm just curious -- I'm just wondering about that.

HUNT: Briefly, Kevin, we got to get going, unfortunately. But go ahead.

O'LEARY: Okay, I don't care about that. All I care about is what comes out the other end.

And the weird thing about this administration, Trump lets the cameras roll. He lets you watch the sausage being made. It's crazy chicken stuff. But I don't watch that anymore.

I -- I just -- I don't care. I wait for the policy. I'm an investor. Thats all I care about. And that's what we should all do. Bring it down a notch. Let the theater roll, work on the policy.

HUNT: All right. Kevin O'Leary, aka Mr. Wonderful, as has been mentioned a couple times today, thank you very much for coming on the show. I really appreciate it. Hope to see you soon.

O'LEARY: You got it.

HUNT: All right. Our panel is going to stick around because up next, the family of one of Jeffrey Epstein's most well-known victims is responding to recent comments from President Trump. We're going to talk with Gloria Allred. She, of course, an attorney who has represented more than a dozen of Epstein's victims.

Plus, after her long awaited announcement yesterday, there's another announcement today from Kamala Harris. We'll explain.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[16:24:11]

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

REPORTER: Did one of those stolen, you know, persons, that include Virginia Giuffre?

DONALD TRUMP, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: I don't know. I think she worked at the spa. I think so. I think that was one of the people, he stole her. And by the way, she had no complaints about us, as you know. None whatsoever. (END VIDEO CLIP)

HUNT: The family of Virginia Giuffre, who is one of Jeffrey Epstein's most well-known victims, speaking out today about those remarks that you heard there from President Trump. His claim that Epstein, quote, stole her away from his Mar-a-Lago spa.

The Giuffre saying in a statement, quote, "It was shocking to hear President Trump invoke our sister and say that he was aware that Virginia had been, quote, stolen from Mar-a-Lago.

[16:25:05]

It makes us ask if he was aware of Jeffrey Epstein and Ghislaine Maxwell's criminal actions, especially given his statement two years later that his good friend Jeffrey quote, likes women on the younger side. No doubt about it. We and the public are asking for answers. Survivors deserve this."

White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt, responding in a statement to CNN that Trump was, quote, directly responding to a question posed by a reporter about Ms. Giuffre. He did not bring her up.

Giuffre, who worked at Mar-a-Lago as a teenager in 2000, died by suicide in April.

We are joined now by attorney Gloria Allred. She is, of course, a longtime victims' rights attorney and has represented some of the other victims. Gloria, thank you very much for being here.

Can I ask you, as someone who is very familiar with the facts of all these cases, who has spent a lot of time working on this, how you viewed President Trump's statement?

Obviously, we heard from the Giuffre family. They said, you know, what does this say about what he knows?

What did you hear in what he said that might be relevant for what matters to these cases?

GLORIA ALLRED, PARTNER, ALLRED, MAROKO AND GOLDBERG: Well, I think it was important that the family also said, apparently the brothers and sister in law want to know whether or not President Trump was aware of the criminal actions of Jeffrey Epstein and of Ms. Maxwell. We all know that President Trump has indicated that he was a friend of Jeffrey Epstein, a long time before Virginia even went to work at Mar- a-Lago, apparently in about 2000, and socialized with him.

So, since they want answers and I -- on behalf of my many Epstein clients who were victims and survivors of Jeffrey Epstein I think there are a lot of good questions to be asked.

One I haven't heard that I would love to have answered is, did the FBI, in the course of their investigation of Jeffrey Epstein and of Ms. Maxwell, ask President Trump, even when he was not President Trump, any questions about what he might have known about Jeffrey Epstein and Ms. Maxwell. I think that's important because and at what point, President Trump has said that Jeffrey Epstein was, quote, "a creep", end quote, and that perhaps there was a complaint at Mar-a- Lago about inappropriate actions by Jeffrey Epstein when he was at Mar-a-Lago.

So I'm curious as to whether in the files that I and millions of others have advocated, be released to the public, if they will show any interview of Donald Trump. Now, that doesn't mean they would have had to compel him to do an interview. And that doesn't mean that he's guilty or engaged in any inappropriate or criminal actions.

But anyone who might have known and been perhaps, quote, a friend of Jeffrey Epstein might have been somebody that the FBI might have wanted to interview, and the prosecutors might have wanted to interview.

Here's my evidence for that case, we know that the United States attorney for the Southern District of New York, at one point went public and said he would like to interview Prince Andrew. And the reason he wanted to interview Prince Andrew, aside from the fact that he was in a photo with Virginia and Ms. Maxwell, apparently was, he just wanted to know what he might know about Jeffrey Epstein and Ms. Maxwell.

That interview never took place. Prince Andrew never agreed to it. Apparently, there's a dispute about scheduling, but apparently, he never would agree to an interview and never completed one. I think he should.

I think any person, whether they're prince, a president, not a president, an elected official, a citizen, a neighbor, anybody who might have relevant evidence about a criminal act, especially one against children, should volunteer, not even wait for the FBI or local police or anyone else to come and ask, should say, look, I'd be happy to give you whatever information I have or I don't really know this, but you know, I might have information that could help.

[16:30:02]

I want to know if that ever happened with President Trump and others. And so, it's one of the reasons I'd like the files to be released. And if so, what did he say? Or if he wasn't interviewed, why not?

HUNT: So, in terms of wanting the files to be released, I mean, one of the things that when people say why they shouldn't be released is that it might be harmful for the victims. You seem to disagree.

ALLRED: You know, I really don't like to hear arguments that protect women and girls out of their rights, so to speak. I mean, it used to be that women couldn't be employed at night. This was many years ago as waitresses because the employers would say they might end up getting raped in parking lots on the way to their cars. So, they were basically, it was called protective labor legislation.

HUNT: I've talked to a lot of my older women colleagues who were protected out of covering some of the biggest stories. So, I'm tracking you.

ALLRED: Right. So I'm saying we don't need to protect women and girls from information. I do think we need to protect their identity or anything that might identify them, their names. We do -- we should not release any videos that show them engaged as children in sexual acts. With -- my understanding that Mr. Epstein did video them often with, you know, mostly without their knowledge and consent -- maybe always without their knowledge. And of course, they couldn't consent as children. And he also did that to adults.

Those should never be released. Those should never be viewed, but anything else should be made public.

HUNT: All right. Gloria Allred, thank you very much for coming on to talk about this. I do really appreciate your time and hope you come back.

ALLRED: Thank you. And may Virginia rest in peace. Thank you.

HUNT: All right. Coming up next here, we're going to talk politics. A subtle jab Kamala Harris is taking at Donald Trump today after saying she won't run for California governor next year.

Plus, how the fight over congressional maps in Texas is now renewing a debate among Democrats about age and their party's future.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

REP. LLOYD DOGGETT (D-TX): We do need young leaders, but we don't need everyone in our team to play the same position.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[16:36:43]

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

KAMALA HARRIS, FORMER U.S. VICE PRESIDENT: With candor and reflection, I've written a behind the scenes account of that journey. I believe there's value in sharing what I saw, what I learned and what I know it will take to move forward.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

HUNT: Former Vice President Kamala Harris, fresh off of announcing her decision not to run for governor of California, announcing she's got a new book about her whirlwind presidential campaign. Surprise, surprise. She will also be appearing on "The Late Show with Stephen Colbert" tonight. This, of course, all adding to speculation about her next move, whether she is planning another presidential run in 2028. Certainly, the door is now open.

Our panel is back. Lulu, what say you? I mean, I think there are cynics out there who would say, oh yes, of course she's got a book out. And that's what all of this is about. But what do you make of the way she has been positioning herself over the last couple of days?

GARCIA-NAVARRO: I emoji. I think, you know, it's really interesting. I was never convinced she was going to run for governor of California. I think it was -- I just think it was a bit of a sidestepping for her. And I just think she was vice president. She was the candidate.

She has a case, I think, to make, which is the title of the book, which I've heard sort of repeated by other Democratic operatives, which is the Democratic Party did her dirty. They gave her 107 days.

She was hamstrung by President Biden, who said, you know, you have to be in lock step with me. She didn't get to make her case. And so, this might be, I don't know, a reintroduction.

HUNT: She could have decided to break with him. I mean, she didn't.

GARCIA-NAVARRO: She could -- she could have and she didn't. And so -- and but what I'm -- what I'm trying to say is I think this is her reintroduction, possibly to the American people.

HUNT: Lanhee, you are, in addition to being a Romney -- former Romney person, you are also, of course, a big time in California. What were you expecting here?

CHEN: Well, I -- I mean, I thought she was going to run for governor, in part because it's an important job. And what else was she going to do between now and figuring out whatever her next political move would have been? It's not a great reason to run for governor. It's a really important job, but that was my expectation.

I don't think were going to get a whole lot out of 107 days book. I expect to see it in the bargain bin at Barnes and Noble in a few in a few weeks.

HUNT: Ouch.

CHEN: Look forward to reading it then. But look, I just think that fundamentally, that this is the challenge the Democratic Party has, which is where's the -- where's the new leadership coming from?

ROSE: Wow.

CHEN: And it's -- and it's just -- it's one of those things where it's a recycling of the past. And maybe she'll run in '28, doesn't present a new vision for anybody I don't think.

HUNT: Congressman?

ROSE: Well, remind me to stay on his good side. That was harsh.

Well, the -- look, she -- Harris could have won is nothing to do with 107 days. She was the vice president. You could stand up a campaign quickly in this day and age, 100 percent name ID.

The reason why she lost is because she ran with a team that was Obama 4.0, that was playing this ball game like it was 2007, 2006, 2004. It was absurd. Everything was hyper analytic, sliced and diced. The electorate, word salad to the extreme. No one knew what she stood for at a time where everyone wants the Democrats to be clear, crisp and bold.

[16:40:01]

So that's what I'm looking to see, is that does she blame this on 107 days, or does she blame this on the fact that she outsourced her campaign to David Plouffe, who was 20 years too late with his strategy?

HUNT: Marc?

SHORT: There's nothing -- there's nothing Republicans like more than seeing Joe Biden and Kamala Harris still in the news. I mean, there's no -- there's no other gift we could be given.

And like and like if they eventually do turn the page, what is the future of the Democratic Party? Mamdani and AOC? I mean, their party is in such a mess right now.

And so, yeah, let's just keep recycling and Kamala and Joe Biden news clips. It will be good for the Republican Party.

HUNT: Well, I'm glad that you raised Mamdani and AOC because of course, the police officer who was slain in that shooting in Midtown Manhattan earlier this week was laid to rest today and his killing has brought the primary on the Democratic side for mayor into a debate about defunding the police, which is, of course, you know, a defining cultural debate. Andrew Cuomo was on this program earlier this week talking about Mamdani, his previous statements around this.

Mamdani was -- did a lengthy news conference yesterday and changed his tune somewhat on his previous defund the police statements. Let's watch what Mamdani said.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

ZOHRAN MAMDANI (D), NYC MAYORAL CANDIDATE: My statements in 2020 were ones made amidst a frustration that many New Yorkers held. I am not defunding the police. I am not running to defund the police. Andrew Cuomo is far more comfortable living his life in the past and attacking tweets of 2020 than in running against the campaign that we have been leading for the last eight months.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

HUNT: Congressman, is that the kind of debate that you think is going to win Democrats control?

ROSE: Well, look, first of all, good for him not supporting defund. I mean, that that era was my political Vietnam. And I would urge every Democrat never to support that term ever, ever again.

SHORT: You only had four and a half years to clean it up. It sure is quick on it.

ROSE: He referred to it like some people refer to their, you know, spring break photos. You know, that was 2020, man. It was a crazy time.

SHORT: Indiscretion of his youth.

ROSE: You know? Come on.

But what I would say is, look, he always could have gone a little further. He could have said that I was wrong. And I think it's one of the misconceptions about politics. Voters applaud you when you come out and say, I'm not perfect, I made a mistake, should not have held that position.

But I do certainly think it's a good thing that he went so far as to say that he does not support it right now, particularly at a point of high turmoil in New York City.

HUNT: Political reporters older than me would refer to a Sister Souljah moment, Marc Short.

SHORT: Well, I mean, it's a great question that, will he still support intifada against the Jews?

HUNT: He's changed the way that he talked about that a little bit.

SHORT: How many other issues he changed? He still support government controlling the grocery stores in New York City?

HUNT: Well, so that interestingly, Michael Bloomberg once supported subsidized grocery stores in specific underserved parts of the city. But that's a longer and different conversation. I think --

SHORT: I'm not endorsing Michael Bloomberg either.

HUNT: The point that you're making is this is ground you guys want to be on.

SHORT: Well, sure. And like each one that he recants, it's going to open the door of, well, what about this other statement you made? Are you recanting that one too?

And so, yeah, it's going to keep creating a lot of openings for Republicans.

CHEN: The issue is a lot of Democrats I talked to will say, well, this is really just about the mayor of New York City. It's about a single election.

The reality is this is the bigger challenge they face, which is, is -- what is -- the future of the Democratic Party has not been well- defined. And therefore, in the absence of definition, right, this is what steps into the vacuum is a debate about what this person said and whether its credible or not for them to disavow what they've said when it feels like their entire political career has been in support of the kinds of positions that he's now trying to disavow now that he's in a competitive race.

And so to me, it doesn't feel credible. And it's a challenge, I think, for Democrats around the country now.

HUNT: So, one other big piece of this story for the Democratic Party right now is this redistricting fight that's going on in Texas, where Republicans in the legislature, there's five potential seats. They could change the lines for to hand Republicans. It would force Democrats into matchups against each other.

Congressman Lloyd Doggett is one of those. He was on our air earlier with one of my colleagues saying that he plans to run for reelection.

Let's watch what he said.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

DOGGETT: It's not a matter of me running against him. I'm in District 37. Two thirds of my people are there. I filed for reelection, but we are -- we have set about a plan to work together, united, to fight this plan. And whatever happens after this, we can take a look at it then.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

HUNT: So, Lulu, Lloyd Doggett, actually, I believe the first Democrat to call for President Biden to step down in the wake of his debate. Still, one of the older members of Congress here sparking a debate about, you know, what should the future of the party look like? He basically defending himself, saying -- well, I mean, I think we played in that clip. He was basically saying, well, we don't all have to be young.

What do you make of it?

GARCIA-NAVARRO: I think among the many challenges that people have so ably discussed here of the Democratic Party, the other one, of course, is generational. And I wouldn't -- I don't believe that Mamdani is like the younger generation necessarily. Theres a lot of younger Democrats who do not subscribe to that particular viewpoint. It is a party that has a lot of different ideas in it.

That said, there is a hunger I have to tell you, among many people to see a lot of these older Democrats move on out.

HUNT: Congressman, you agree with that?

ROSE: In certain districts, absolutely. Particularly where I mean, some of these members can't remember their name. I mean, this is like this is really, really bad here. And it's finally good that were talking about it. Some of them are, you know, still running and moving. I mean, look, let's not forget. GARCIA-NAVARRO: Is that the -- is that the bar?

ROSE: That's the bar.

GARCIA-NAVARRO: They're moving. They're running.

ROSE: And there's some of them that are over 80 that can outdrink all of us at this table. But the point here is that the Republican Party right now is led by a man who's nearly 80 years old, and he excites a bunch of young people. Bernie Sanders is still packing arenas filled with young, energized people.

So, it is not as simple as, let's just bring out some, you know, people who are in their early 30s who can make cool videos. The Democrats, irrespective of their age, need to be bold in opposition to this administration and need to present very clear ideas, not 30-page white papers about policies that helps everybody. That's change. That's a positive improvement.

And do it with authentic candidates. I don't care if they're on Social Security or not.

HUNT: That's a good line.

All right. Coming up next here, we've got new details on President Trump's latest overhaul of 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

LEAVITT: The White House state ballroom will be a much needed and exquisite addition of approximately 90,000 total square feet. I have provided some photos for all of you in the room today. This is the interior of the ballroom space. It's quite beautiful.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[16:51:32]

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

TRUMP: In the White House, as you know, for 150 years, they've wanted to have a ballroom. They don't have a ballroom. They have meeting rooms. They have those beautiful -- you've seen -- you've interviewed me in those rooms.

INTERVIEWER: Yes.

TRUMP: But they're beautiful meeting rooms. But they never had a ballroom. A ballroom meaning someplace they could sit 600 or 700 people.

I said, you know, if I win this second term, I'm going to build a ballroom, a beautiful ballroom for the White House.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

HUNT: Big, beautiful ballroom.

Donald Trump, builder, real estate developer now remaking the White House. First, it was adding all of that gold, most of that gold that you see in the Oval Office. Then it was the Rose Garden, which is now paved. Two massive flagpoles were installed on the north and south lawn, and now the White House has officially announced one of his larger renovation projects that will dramatically change the grounds that promised one big, beautiful ballroom.

Lulu Garcia-Navarro, what does this say?

GARCIA-NAVARRO: Are you asking me because I'm the female here? You know, clearly, I'm obsessed with --

HUNT: No, I'm asking you because you always know --

GARCIA-NAVARRO: Because I'm -- you know, because I'm clearly, like, obsessed with home decorating. And which is all true --

HUNT: I personally am.

GARCIA-NAVARRO: I'm personally -- I literally watch --

HUNT: My personal hobby.

GARCIA-NAVARRO: -- HGTV all the time. I thought you knew that. That's why you came to me.

HUNT: I did not know that, actually.

GARCIA-NAVARRO: So, what I would say is, I guess more power to him. Like, you know, if he wants to create a big, beautiful ballroom, he can do that. I think the questions are to be a little bit of a curmudgeon and a boring journalist is to say, you know, who's going to pay for it? Are we going to know? How are we going to track that? You know, all the kind of boring stuff about influence peddling, et cetera, et cetera.

HUNT: He is very angry at Jerome Powell for spending lots of money to renovate the Federal Reserve, but seems happy to spend money on his renovation.

What do you think?

ROSE: I support it, I support it, but his style is horrible, right? What is this palace of Versailles stuff? You know, it's godawful.

But in all sincerity, we should agree on this. Me, Max Rose, a Democrat, says, good. May I have a new ballroom? Republicans, when Democrats have the White House, cannot clutch their pearls. When our president wears a tan suit. Okay?

So, like, let's -- we have to move past this because -- GARCIA-NAVARRO: For a pool, I thought you were going to say cant

clutch their pearls when we build a giant pool. Thats where I thought you were going with that.

ROSE: Now you're thinking. Now you're thinking.

GARCIA-NAVARRO: Yeah.

ROSE: But it's amazing when the Republicans are in opposition, they suddenly are fiscally conservative and morally upright and every dollar and cent. And you can't even wear a tan suit.

And now Donald Trump wants to build a $200 million ballroom, and they applaud him. So I'll get behind the ballroom if they get behind any level of consistency.

HUNT: Are you behind the ballroom?

SHORT: I'm not worried about Democrats tan suits, but I look I think the president and the first lady both have a great sense of style. I think it's fine, but I think what you said is right, Kasie, I think, right, a week after going to the Fed, I got to wonder what Jerome Powell is in their thinking right now because I think it undercuts a lot of their arguments against Jerome Powell.

HUNT: Well, he's certainly -- that particular moment where Jerome Powell, still one of the few people in Washington, at least on, you know, who will stand next to Donald Trump and basically publicly contradict him. I mean, Lanhee Chen, it does seem like he wants it to be Mar-a-Lago, right, the White House?

CHEN: The sensibility is very similar. The design esthetic seems to be very similar. And, you know, that's his design esthetic. I -- as long as -- as long as taxpayers are not footing the bill, I'm fine.

GARCIA-NAVARRO: Do you think --

(CROSSTALK)

GARCIA-NAVARRO: Do you think we'll have the demolition thing like HGTV, will see him like smacking against a wall?

[16:55:04]

HUNT: All right. Unfortunately, we're out of time for this, for this particular conversation.

We'll be right back.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

HUNT: All right. Thank you all very much for joining us. A spirited, spirited show. I'm sorry we can't let you all into our discussion of the various design esthetics that might be options for the White House we were having during the break. If you did miss any of the show, you can always catch up by listening

to THE ARENA's podcast. Just scan that QR code below on your screen. Follow wherever you get your podcasts. You can also follow us on X and Instagram @TheArenaCNN.

Thanks for all -- to all of you for joining us.

Don't go anywhere. "THE LEAD WITH JAKE TAPPER" starts right now.