Return to Transcripts main page
CNN's The Arena with Kasie Hunt
Now: National Guard Troops In DC On Trump's Order; Just In: Nasdaq & S&P 500 Close At Record Highs; Supreme Court Asked To Overturn Same-Sex Marriage Decision. Aired 4-5p ET
Aired August 12, 2025 - 16:00 ET
THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.
[16:00:02]
BORIS SANCHEZ, CNN HOST: This annual competition celebrates all unique furry family members and promotes pet adoptions. Alongside the title of the world's ugliest dog, Petunia took home a $5,000 cash prize, a sponsorship deal with Mug Root Beer and obviously the title, of notoriety that comes with it.
Beauty, of course, only skin deep, but Petunia looks like a star pup through and through. I think that the commissioner at the Bureau of the World's Ugliest Dog should be fired, because this is this is clearly rigged. She's a dork. There are way uglier dogs.
DANNY FREEMAN, CNN HOST: Cute.
SANCHEZ: We'll see you tomorrow. Thanks so much for joining us today.
"THE ARENA WITH KASIE HUNT" starts right now.
(MUSIC)
KASIE HUNT, CNN HOST: President Trump's crackdown on crime in D.C. begins. How will the districts leaders respond?
Let's head into THE ARENA.
(MUSIC)
HUNT: Hi, everyone. I'm Kasie Hunt. It's wonderful to have you with us on this Tuesday.
As we come on the air, National Guard troops are on the ground here in Washington. The Pentagon says about 800 have been activated in support of law enforcement agencies.
Today, the White House announced that 23 people were arrested in D.C. last night on charges ranging from homicide to fare evasion.
Now, given all of this, you might expect a fight between D.C.'s local government and the Trump administration. But today, the city's mayor and police chief emerged from a meeting with Attorney General Pam Bondi sounding almost positive about the surging federal presence.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) PAMELA SMITH, DC POLICE CHIEF: We know that we have to get illegal guns off of our street. And if we have this influx or enhanced presence, it's going to make our city even better.
MAYOR MURIEL BOWSER (D), WASHINGTON, D.C.: How we got here or what the -- what we think about the circumstances right now, we have more police and we want to make sure we're using them.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
HUNT: The tone being struck there, quite the contrast to other Democratic leaders who have found their states targeted by the president in the course of his second term. Governor Gavin Newsom called Trump a son of a B. Illinois Governor J.B. Pritzker compared him to the Nazis. The L.A. mayor, Karen Bass, described an immigration raid as outrageous and un-American.
Mayor Bowser, taking a very different approach. And it seems to be just what the Trump administration wants to hear. The attorney general described that meeting with D.C.'s leaders as productive, adding, quote, "We agreed there is nothing more important than keeping residents and tourists in Washington, D.C. safe from deadly crime," end quote.
This afternoon, White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt went even so far as to describe this as less of a takeover and more of a partnership.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
KAROLINE LEAVITT, WHITE HOUSE PRESS SECRETARY: Our entire focus is making sure that this is the most efficient operation possible, and that we are removing as many criminals from the streets, and we are cleaning up D.C. as best as we can, and working with the Metropolitan Police Department to do that.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
HUNT: All right. My panel will be here in THE ARENA.
We're also joined by CNNs senior White House correspondent, Kristen Holmes, which is where we start.
Kristen, what more is the administration saying about the federalization of D.C.'s police?
KRISTEN HOLMES, CNN SENIOR WHITE HOUSE CORRESPONDENT: Well, it's something that they continue to do and something that they say is probably going to ramp up. And I do want to quickly note about the difference between Mayor Muriel Bowser and the governors that you just listed, which is that Bowser has a much finer line to walk. And I've heard from a number of Democrats who say that there is just an understanding right now out of Bowser's office, and even among Democrats who don't like Donald Trump, that this is something that's going to happen, that legally, because D.C. is not a state, that there are just certain protections that the city does not have, that states like California or Illinois do have in place.
Now, while they did seem to be talking harmoniously on both sides, there was one issue in which there seemed to be somewhat of a discrepancy, and that is who is in charge of the Metropolitan Police Department.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
LEAVITT: Terry Cole as you heard from this briefing room yesterday, is in charge of the Metropolitan Police Department, and he's working with the chief to ensure that law enforcement officers are allowed to do their jobs in this city.
REPORTER: Are you answering to Terry Cole?
SMITH: I answered -- I answered to Mayor Muriel Bowser.
BOWSER: Our organizational chart, how we do business, how we fund the police, how we make changes, none of that has changed.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
HOLMES: Yeah. And so, you also heard from the Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt actually breaking down a larger organizational chart that had the president at the top, then Attorney General Pam Bondi, and then Terry Cole working in conjunction with the chief, but still in charge of that police department.
There's a lot of questions to hear as to how exactly this is going to work in execution. That meeting we saw between bowser and the chief of police and Attorney General Pam Bondi, as well as Terry Cole and the deputy attorney general. That was the first time that they had sat down to iron out some of these details.
But you're hearing there a Bowser really walked this line in terms of needing some things from this administration, particularly, again, given the fact that D.C. is under a completely different system than some of these other states, while still trying to have some autonomy over the city.
HUNT: All right. Kristen Holmes, for us at the White House -- Kristen, thank you very much.
And joining us now to discuss is the Democratic D.C. Attorney General Brian Schwalb.
Sir, thank you very much for being here. Really appreciate your time today.
BRIAN SCHWALB, ATTORNEY GENERAL, DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA: Thank you for having me.
HUNT: So, you just heard what the mayor had to say today. Your initial statement on this called Trump's plan to take over the police, unprecedented, unnecessary, and unlawful.
Is there daylight between you and the mayor on this?
SCHWALB: Well, I'd like to step back, Kasie, just to kind of frame where we are, because there is no question that violent crime has an adverse impact on any community, families, communities that are impacted by violent crime shouldn't happen anywhere, and certainly not here in the District of Columbia. And that's why we're laser-focused on trying to reduce violent crime.
What the president said yesterday at the press conference is very different than the facts on the ground here in the District of Columbia. We have done very well in reducing crime over the last couple of years. There's a lot more work to be done. But the fact of the matter is that local policing and local government have made meaningful strides in reducing crime in the District of Columbia.
Our view is that if the federal government really wants to work with the District of Columbia to keep us safe, we welcome that. We are working every day and have been working every day with federal law enforcement in terms of keeping the residents and the visitors of D.C. safe. There was no need for a takeover of the MPD to do that. We can keep doing the work we've been doing in collaboration and cooperation with our federal partners.
HUNT: What do you say to D.C. residents who simply don't feel like the city is safer now than it used to be?
SCHWALB: I tell them that. I feel that as well, that we want all to work together to reduce crime to where there is no crime in our city. Thats what we all aspire to do. One crime is one too many.
But we also have to recognize that we have made meaningful strides on violent crime. In particular, since January 2023, when I was elected. Violent crime has been reduced by more than 50 percent. Homicides are down, carjackings are down.
And so, we do have more work to do, but we need to keep doing it in a smart, disciplined way. And the most effective way to address local crime is through local policing and local leadership.
D.C. is a unique place. There are many federal buildings, federal parkland, federal jurisdiction. So, we are used to working collaboratively with our federal partners. The key is that there's no need for a federal takeover. And in fact, this provision of our Home Rule Charter, section 740, which has never in the more than 50 years of the District of Columbia, ever been invoked by a president, is something that is not necessary right now. And I'm very concerned about making sure that the terms of the Home Rule Act are law passed by Congress. The law of the country is complied with.
HUNT: Are you going to sue?
SCHWALB: My focus right now is on the facts, on the ground, understanding exactly what is happening and making sure that command and control of MPD remains with the chief of police and the mayor, that it has not been overtaken by the government. The Home Rule Act is clear that the president does have limited powers to assert an emergency and to ask for the services of MPD. It's limited in the sense that there need to be special emergency circumstances. It needs to be limited in time, and it needs to be limited for a federal purpose, not local law enforcement.
But under all of those circumstances, even if they did exist, command and control of MPD remains with the mayor and the chief of police. The president can ask for services. The mayor is required to provide those services, but they are provided under the command and control of our local police department.
HUNT: But if you've already said that this is unlawful, why not file a lawsuit now against the president?
SCHWALB: I'm focused on practical results and resolving problems. And oftentimes, if you can resolve things without being in court, it's for the best interests of everybody involved. Right now, my focus is on D.C. residents making sure that D.C. residents, visitors, employees are safe.
HUNT: So let's talk about D.C. residents for a second, because these headlines, you know, and I was a resident of D.C. for over 20 years. I've lived in all but three D.C. wards.
Okay, these headlines are different from when I first came to the city. Thirteen-year-old girl, 13, sentenced to seven years for 2023, beating death of a D.C. man. Teen sentenced in killing of Lyft driver who came to U.S. seeking safety. This was a guy who was a U.S. military interpreter who was shot and killed in an attempted carjacking, again by a 16-year-old.
Now, juveniles fall under you and the D.C. attorney general, Jeanine Pirro, or D.C. Attorney Jeanine Pirro has focused in on this inability that she says she has to prosecute juveniles. The law allows people up to the age of 24 years old to potentially have more lenient sentences from judges.
Is that working for people in D.C.?
[16:10:00]
SCHWALB: My office, since I've been the attorney general, is prosecuting juvenile cases and holding young people who hurt other people accountable every day at higher rates and higher numbers than long before the pandemic. So much so that our mayor had to issue an executive order expanding the capacity of our juvenile detention facilities to hold people that we are prosecuting.
HUNT: Should some of these people be prosecuted as adults?
SCHWALB: All of these young people that are prosecuted under the law can, in certain circumstances, be prosecuted as adults under our existing laws and can be prosecuted as juveniles under other circumstances. And our laws are working. Our prosecution is working.
And you're exactly right. The U.S. attorney's office in our city has jurisdiction over adults. The vast majority of crime that occurs in our city is committed by adults, not juveniles. And the jurisdiction to prosecute juveniles in our family court sits under our laws with my office, the office of attorney general.
HUNT: "The Washington Post" wrote a very lengthy piece that they put on their front pages, titled empty desks a truancy rate of nearly 30 percent among middle school students. And they wrote that it's fueling a crime wave.
Why is that happening? Is that not a failure of the mayor who is in charge of the school system?
SCHWALB: Look, we need young people to be in school. We need young people to be engaged in their learning. There are so many contributing factors that often get in the way that are barriers to kids getting into school, and we need to address those, and we are doing that as best we can.
Certainly, young people should be in school learning, and all of us, the community members, the government, everybody around needs to make sure that that's a high priority. It's certainly a high priority for me in my office.
HUNT: One other thing I wanted to ask you about is this cashless bail that the president brought up from the podium. Does that policy make it harder for D.C. officials to hold repeat offenders, people that the city knows have been behind previous crimes in the city? And do there need to be any changes to that policy?
SCHWALB: Yeah. Let's be clear. The District of Columbia has had a cashless bail system since the early '90s. This is nothing new.
And the answer to your question is no. If a defendant in a criminal case is a flight risk, if we're worried about them leaving the jurisdiction or they pose a threat to the public pending trial, courts can and do hold them pretrial. The notion of holding people without bail because they can't afford to make bail is something that our country, our city, and many other jurisdictions around the country confronted long ago. That is a vestige of recent ancient history, not what really is fueling issues today.
HUNT: Yeah. Fair enough.
How do you look at the connection if you think there is one between violent crime and a perceived acceptability of petty crime? I don't know if you've tried to buy a razor blade or some deodorant at a CVS in the District of Columbia lately, but it's a lot harder than it used to be. They're all under lock and key.
There have been some CVS pharmacies that have closed in various parts of the city because this is such a problem.
Would you like to see federal resources help fight petty crime to try to send a message?
SCHWALB: I think that wherever additional resources can be brought to holding people accountable. We ought to look for ways to do that. I believe in respecting the law, laws matter, accountability matters. And whether it's a petty crime or a violent crime, people need to know that the rules matter and that they're going to be fairly and uniformly enforced.
And certainly, when we're talking about communities and businesses that are adversely impacted by petty theft causing them, perhaps, as you suggest, to leave the neighborhoods, that has huge adverse impacts on people.
So, my view is if the federal government wants to assist and partner with the District of Columbia, we are welcome to it does not require a federal takeover or the kind of invocation of the Home Rule Act that, as I noted in the more than 50 years of our city, has never been invoked by any president.
HUNT: Finally, before I let you go. Obviously, the system here in D.C. is different than the states, and we are impacted more by Congress, and we have fewer of our own resources to prosecute people.
What do what would you like to see? How would you like to see the system here changed to allow D.C. officials to do more, to fight crime?
SCHWALB: Well, look, our democracy recognizes the importance of local representation on local issues like crime that local communities and their elected officials know better. They're closer to the streets, closer to the community trusted.
We need to move the District of Columbia to where we have more authority under the home rule act to have control over our criminal justice system and our prosecution system. Were the only jurisdiction in the country where the federal U.S. attorney is prosecuting local crime.
I'd like to see us move to a place where local crime is prosecuted by local prosecutors and the federal U.S. attorney appointed by the president. Does what U.S. attorneys around the country do, which is to prosecute federal crime.
HUNT: I know I said I was going to let you go, but I do have one more question for you, and id like to play something that the D.C. police union chairman had to say and just get you to respond to it, because I know we've been talking quite a bit about this.
[16:15:02]
Let's watch that and then we'll talk to you.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
GREGGORY PEMBERTON, DC POLICE UNION CHAIRMAN: Crime in the district is out of control and something needs to be done about it. This concept that crime is down is really an old trope. Our rank-and-file officers know that we're going call to call to call for armed carjacking, stabbings, robberies, shootings, homicides, and the crime isn't going anywhere. And so, we welcome the assistance. And whether that's federal agents
or the National Guard, we'll use it.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
HUNT: Again, the police union chairman, what do you say to him?
SCHWALB: Yeah. With due respect to Mr. Pemberton, I think his facts are wrong. I think his talking points are wrong.
We know what's happening in our city. We have more work to do. We need to all work together to reduce crime to a zero number. But we are going in the right direction under local control, local policies and local leadership, and we need to stay the course.
HUNT: All right. D.C. Attorney General Brian Schwalb, thank you very much. Really appreciate your time today.
SCHWALB: Thank you for having me.
HUNT: All right. Coming up, our panel is going to be here to weigh in on what we just heard from the D.C. attorney general and what the White House is saying today.
Also this hour, what the White House is saying about possibly getting rid of the monthly jobs report as new inflation data causes the Nasdaq and the S&P to close at record highs. We'll explain.
Plus, deal or no deal, how the administration is appearing to tamp down expectations around the meeting between Presidents Trump and Putin.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[16:20:47]
HUNT: All right. Welcome back to THE ARENA.
I want to bring in our panel now to discuss what we just heard from the D.C. attorney general about the president's federalization of the nation's capital's police force. In THE ARENA now, CNN political analyst and political reporter for "Axios", Alex Thompson; host of "The Chuck Toddcast", Chuck Todd; CNN political commentator, Xochitl Hinojosa is here; and former Republican congressman from Michigan, Peter Meijer.
Thank you all for being here.
Chuck, let me start with you just in terms of what we heard from the D.C. Attorney General there, because it's a really interesting combination of national and local politics of the crime that's -- that is here in the city.
I've lived in the district for a long time. I just recently moved out. I mean, you can feel the difference in crime between, you know, 10, 15 years ago and now, especially post pandemic for sure. But he seemed very strongly against this yesterday when the president first announced it and was a lot more tempered today.
Why do you think that was?
CHUCK TODD, HOST, THE CHUCK TODDCAST: Well, I think it's because I think the mayor's been in a different place for some time, and I think the police chiefs been in a different place for some time. And you certainly saw that.
Look, I do think that that the mayor has taken the right approach here, which is the problem D.C. is facing, is something that pretty much every major metro area is facing, which is underfunded police force. Why do -- they all need more resources. The D.C.'s been trying to fill empty police officer slots for years now.
HUNT: Billboards on the bus --
TODD: And they're -- they're not alone, right? This is an issue in Louisville, Kentucky. This is an issue in Cincinnati, Ohio. This is an issue in Chicago, Illinois. And this is a larger problem, right? They have people that don't necessarily want to be cops.
So, you know, I think that that mayor bowser is looking at this framing the right way. And if I were in the shoes of a partisan here, I'd make the push like, great. Yes. Surging resources. We need more resources. The problem is those resources are going to go away in a couple of weeks, and every city needs more of these resources.
So, the question is, and by the way, Donald Trump's first budgets in his first term all actually cut funding that was going to go to the idea of more, more local resources for police forces. But we've got to, you know, we've politicized policing to the point where it is scared potential police officers from wanting to be police officers, right? This is why we have this recruitment challenge.
But in some ways, look, I think the president has his own political reasons for why he did this.
HUNT: Right.
TODD: But the real issue is we are under-resourced in law enforcement around the country. And D.C. is going to get some help for a couple of weeks, and then they're going to wish they had it back. At least those on the front lines.
HUNT: Well, and let's talk about Muriel Bowser for a second. And I want to put this graphic up on the screen that shows her -- "The Washington Post" poll showing her approval rating on these numbers. And we did reverse these numbers on the show yesterday. We want to apologize for the error. We had homelessness and crime in the opposite positions.
But, Alex Thompson, this still tells a really tough story for Mayor Bowser and may explain why she's handling this the way she is.
ALEX THOMPSON, CNN POLITICAL ANALYST: Yeah, and that same poll found that half of everyone in D.C. thought that crime was either a very serious or extremely serious problem in the District of Columbia.
Now, some people took a victory lap because that was down from 65 percent the year before, but still, if you have 50 percent of your constituents saying that crime is either very serious or extremely serious, that is a political problem if you want to stay in office.
HUNT: Xochitl, you were at DOJ. How do you see it?
XOCHITL HINOJOSA, CNN POLITICAL COMMENTATOR: Yeah. I mean, I think what Muriel Bowser has done and what her problem from the beginning is that she should have asked Donald Trump for the federal resources -- resources and what resources she wanted. For example, more prosecutors to prosecute those cases, more FBI agents, but all led by the MPD.
Instead, she left it up to Donald Trump and in Donald Trump's world, he loves the National Guard. We've seen this. He wants to deploy the National Guard everywhere except on January 6th.
But other than that, he really would like to deploy the National Guard because he sees it as a sign of strength. He sees it as this is, I am deploying this force and they're going to go in and take over. He likes to see the takeover happen.
And so, her mistake was not working with the federal government to do that. And now she's stuck in a box to where she can't say no. She has to agree with it.
[16:25:00]
And Chuck is absolutely right. These law enforcement officers, they don't really have the resources they need and they do need the help.
The problem with the National Guard is, yes, violent crime may go down for a little bit because were always entering the winter months. But you know what? Violent crime is going to go up again next summer because that's when the warmer weather, it always goes. When it's warmer, it always goes up.
And what's going to happen then? National Guard is going to come in again? So, they need to find a long-term solution and they need to stop firing the FBI agents and the prosecutors and the ATF agents and everyone who could help in this and start, you know, bringing people back so they can help D.C. versus just doing the National Guard.
HUNT: Congressman, where do you come down on the National Guard question? Because of course, you paid a heavy price for the things -- a political price for the things that you said and did around what the president did in the course of the January 6th insurrection. And yet, when we were talking yesterday, you seemed more okay with what the president is doing with the National Guard here.
How do you actually feel about it?
PETER MEIJER (R-MI), FORMER U.S. CONGRESSMAN: Yeah, no --
HUNT: Why? MEIJER: I mean, if you let's separate out Los Angeles, you know, the
federalizing of the California National Guard and some of the you know, challenges around that, right? You know, so you have the legitimate Posse Comitatus issue.
But again, D.C. is a special place. The D.C. National Guard report directly to the army secretary. Thats a different chain of command. And the ability to utilize the National Guard in these type of periods for static site security to relieve challenges or even just presence patrols, I think that is one of the biggest challenges with the underfunding of police and with the challenges on recruitment is if you have fewer cops on the street, you have an increasing feeling of comfort among the criminals, that they can commit a crime and get away with it.
And that is then matched on the back end with lower clearance rates, with challenges on the investigation side, it creates that cycle of permissiveness, surging forces into that area, having a very visible presence is going to force those criminals to think twice. And that's why I think what the president is doing here is great. I don't have an issue --
HINOJOSA: It's only temporary. That's the problem. It's not a long- term solution.
MEIJER: Thirty-day, you know, component, after which Congress can modify. There could be an agreement with the mayor, right? The ability to have this potentially change how local resources and -- sorry, local law enforcement approaches federal resources, I think, could strongly be for the better.
THOMPSON: Possibly. But the Republican Congress did just take $1 billion out of the D.C. budget.
MEIJER: It's $20 billion budget. I mean, that's gone.
THOMPSON: Okay.
(CROSSTALK)
THOMPSON: So, 5 percent of the budget.
HUNT: That's a lot of money --
HINOJOSA: That's a lot of --
THOMPSON: You know, and they're trying to hire 500 police officers right now. And to Chuck's point, they're having trouble filling that.
I mean, like, if you -- if you watch Mayor Bowser over the last like two weeks, she basically has a help wanted sign attached to her at all times being like, please apply to be a police officer.
MEIJER: Sure. But that's also the challenge. I mean, defund the police may have been empty rhetoric, you know, in the long term, right, that a lot of Democrats are distancing themselves from it. But if you're -- if you're a young man or woman coming out of high school or college and thinking, what am I going to do? Do I want to go into a profession where, depending on which party is in control, I may or may not get paid, or they may or may not invest in it?
So I think that is the challenge is in some places -- yes, reality drives perception, but then in others, perception can drive reality. Whether it's criminality and the idea that a criminal can get away with committing a crime, or on the belief that you will have support from the taxpayers or from the people they elect. So, you can continue to have your job as law enforcement struggles with.
HUNT: I'm flashing back to like the Giuliani broken window crime theory. Wasn't that what was going on in New York at that point?
TODD: I'm old enough to remember when Joe Biden and Bill Clinton surged more police officers onto the street, and that was a big bipartisan effort right back in the -- in the '90s.
THOMPSON: And they both eventually apologized.
TODD: And then they ended up apologizing for it. And the look, the fact is, we do know this. If you surge resources, you can -- you get results. We know the answer to this. And for whatever reason, we're now having were having the same debate over and over again. You have different political actors on different sides.
Look, we need better trained police and we need more police, right? That's what the left wants and the right wants. And the idea that we can't figure out how to come to that agreement is quite frustrating.
HUNT: Isn't a statement on the --
TODD: Yes.
HUNT: -- the state of our politics?
All right, coming up next, what happened today on Wall Street that we've never seen before? Well bring you that.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[16:33:37]
HUNT: All right. We're back now with breaking news from Wall Street. The Nasdaq and the S&P 500 both closing at record highs today. Investors reacting to a cooler than expected inflation report that might -- maybe possibly open the door to an interest rate cut next month by the Fed. Which to be clear, that's what the markets are reacting to.
Speaking of new numbers, the White House today saying this about the future of one of the most well-known pieces of economic data.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
REPORTER: Will the Bureau of Labor Statistics continue to put out monthly jobs reports?
LEAVITT: Well, look, what I'll tell you about the Bureau of Labor Statistics, I believe that is the plan and that's the hope. And that these monthly reports will be data that the American people can trust.
(END VIDO CLIP)
HUNT: Not a yes, but also not a no. With the press secretary saying the administration hopes to continue putting out a monthly jobs report, responding to comments from the man that president Trump has now picked to be in charge of putting out that information, E.J. Antoni, telling Fox Business in an interview out today, the BLS should suspend the monthly jobs report, citing a, quote, lack of confidence in the data.
Chuck Todd, this -- I think we should play something kind of right off the top here from former economic adviser Stephen Moore, who claims that, like, this report isn't going away. I want to listen to that.
It's not quite what Karoline Leavitt said. Take a look.
[16:35:03]
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
STEPHEN MOORE, FORMER TRUMP ECONOMIC ADVISER: I think it's a bad idea to do that. In fact, I've talked to E.J. about it and he's not going to do that. We need monthly numbers. Now, what he's talking about is we do a quarterly number that's much more accurate than the monthly one. He's saying, well, maybe we. But he's backed off that we're going to continue to do monthly numbers.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
HUNT: Chuck?
TODD: Look, this is for those of us that reported on this and this -- you know, I learned a lot about these numbers back when the late Jack Welch claimed that there was some sort of conspiracy by Barack Obama to during 2012, right? And you look and the reality is, and this has been true of anybody that reports on these job numbers is the three- month number has always more reliable than the one-month number. And I was always told it takes three months to get one month right, okay?
And why the government can't do both. This idea that you can't and they do, right. We call them revisions. But that's what this is. It's on us. Who emphasizes the one month because its more interesting in the fluctuation. This gets out to the larger of what's the more interesting story versus what's more accurate.
The fact is everybody would be in a better place if you looked at it through the three-month lens. And that's the reality of the jobs numbers. It's just because you don't know in any one month. Oh, somebody forgot to fill out the form or somebody didn't return.
So, at the end of the day -- HUNT: It's gotten worse.
TODD: And it's okay that it takes three months to get one month, right? Say that. Right?
I mean, I think transparency and how we do these things is how we rebuild trust, you know, and this to me, is a part of the larger trust issue that is breaking down all of society right now.
THOMPSON: Well, and Donald Trump has already undermined the trust in these numbers because he is not reforming the BLS because he thinks that the survey system is broken.
TODD: No. This is going to make things worse. It's Orwellian.
THOMPSON: He is -- he is reforming. He is -- he is changing the BLS because he didn't like the numbers. That and so now no one has complete confidence the numbers are going to come out are going to be right.
Now, there are legitimate to your point, there are legitimate reasons for the surveys being weaker and the corrections to the monthly data becoming greater, which is what sort of precipitated this. But now, we are in a state where, you know, these market changing numbers that you used to come out every month. Theres less and less trust in them.
TODD: We've got to stop punishing people for correcting things. This is the problem in journalism. It's probably -- it's a good thing. Admit when you make a mistake.
MEIJER: Yeah, but the headline gets all the news. That's the correction then --
TODD: I know.
MEIJER: Right? That's always the challenge is, is the top line numbers that moves the market and moves the conversation, the revision. --oh and, by the way, right. Even if that revision was massive and significant in ways that could be favorable and could be disfavorable.
HUNT: Do you think that the president has done damage to the economy, to trust broadly by claiming that these numbers are rigged, because that is, there's a big difference between saying, you know, we went, we're not doing a good enough job getting these numbers right the first time. And that's politically damaging to me. And saying, these numbers are rigged.
MEIJER: Not long term. I mean, I think a lot of this, like there is a there's a certain discount or an entertainment value or a hyperbole adjustment that occurs when you're listening to Donald Trump. Right? You don't necessarily --
HUNT: All right. Hyperbole --
TODD: Peter, are you sure about -- the problem is we --
(CROSSTALK)
TODD: This is where I do think we've -- we comfort ourselves assuming more people discount him. And I don't think that's --
HINOJOSA: I agree, I completely agree. And the way that I saw this DOJ and the FBI, just because he continued to say they are -- the system is rigged. They're weaponizing the Justice Department and the FBI against us. And the overall numbers about whether or not people trust the DOJ and FBI went down.
I would say that the same thing is going to happen on the jobs numbers. The same -- I mean, every single whenever there were prosecutions against him and people had evidence and there were grand juries that brought back indictments on him, he said that it was rigged. What happened? He still won the election.
So, there are instances where people truly believe because he says it, that the system is rigged. And I do think it is going to matter what the numbers.
What gives me a little bit of hope, though, is that the new BLS commissioner isn't going to necessarily have -- he shouldn't have access to the data and he shouldn't be able to manipulate the data ahead of it. Going out. Now, if there is another bad jobs report, what does that do to Donald Trump? He is not going to like the fact that his -- the head of BLS isn't going to have that control. He believes that he should have that control. So that will be interesting to see how that goes moving forward.
MEIJER: The flip side is I have no doubt that Democrats will take issue. And this is I think, the big risk he's running is undermining the confidence of those numbers, because then his ability to project a positive message, if the numbers are good, will be undermined.
HINOJOSA: Yeah.
MEIJER: Because I don't have any, any doubt in my mind whatsoever that if it's a bad jobs number, Democrats will say like, this is the authoritative BLS component. It's going to be on the reverse. It's going to be if it's in his favor, that -- the confidence is ultimately undermined.
HUNT: In the context of this conversation, I think it's important to play something. I had a conversation a couple Sundays ago with Bill Beach, who was the former commissioner of the BLS.
[16:40:04]
He is someone who once worked for Heritage Foundation. He is someone who was very well-trusted by conservatives. In fact, sometimes when conservatives on Capitol Hill that I was covering weren't happy with something that, say, the Congressional Budget Office was putting out, they would call Bill Beach and say, hey, can you run the numbers for us? Right?
This is somebody with very deep well of trust from conservatives. I asked him directly if it was possible for these numbers to be, quote/unquote, rigged. I want to show you that because what he said I think was illuminating.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
HUNT: Can you explain to us, the president said that the BLS commissioner rigged these numbers? What do you think?
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
WILLIAM BEACH, FORMER COMMISSIONER, BUREAU OF LABOR STATISTICS: There's no way for that to happen. The commissioner doesn't do anything to collect the numbers. The commissioner doesn't see the numbers for -- until Wednesday before they're published. By the time the commissioner sees the numbers, they're all prepared. They're locked into the computer system.
The only thing the commissioner does on Wednesday is to kind of do the edits on the text. So, there's no hands on at all for the commissioner.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
HUNT: And again, Alex, this is someone who has a deep well of trust among conservatives.
THOMPSON: And even if you are conservative, you should be concerned because to the congressman's point, even if the numbers are good, no one's going -- a lot of people are not going to trust them now. And Democrats are, of course, going to say now the numbers are politicized.
If you know, the certainty with the tax cuts and everything else, and like the trade war doesn't go as many economists expected, if the economy does well, there's going to be a lot of people that are going to be very skeptical of the numbers coming out of the government.
HUNT: All right. Coming up next here, we're going to dig into the landmark Supreme Court decision that is maybe inching closer to being overturned. We'll dig in.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[16:46:11]
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
BARACK OBAMA, FORMER U.S. PRESIDENT: The Supreme Court recognized that the Constitution guarantees marriage equality. In doing so, they've reaffirmed that all Americans are entitled to the equal protection of the law, that all people should be treated equally, regardless of who they are or who they love.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
HUNT: That was then President Obama over a decade ago, on the day that the Supreme Court issued its landmark decision legalizing same sex marriage.
And today, just a decade later, the court, which looks very different now than it did in 2015, is formally being asked to overturn that historic ruling.
At the center of the case, Kim Davis. She is the Kentucky county clerk who refused to issue marriage certificates to same sex couples back then. She has filed an appeal to try and get the court to reverse its decision.
The justices will decide over the next few weeks whether they will hear the case. The renewed headlines come as public backing for marriage equality has essentially plateaued, or even declined over the last few years.
You can look at the numbers here, among Republicans, support has dropped to just 41 percent, which is down from majority support for years ago.
The chief political analyst for Christian Broadcasting Network News, David Brody, is joining our panel.
And David, let me start with you on this, because this is something that was very settled in public opinion. And you can see that there's still very strong support in the public for this.
But we obviously saw the fall of Roe versus Wade. And in that ruling, you saw the conservative Justice Clarence Thomas raise additional cases, saying we should reconsider all of the court's substantive due process precedents, including Griswold, Lawrence and Obergefell.
Now, that, of course, is the marriage decision. I'm interested to hear what you think about whether this is settled or not?
DAVID BRODY, CHIEF POLITICAL ANALYST, CHRISTIAN BROADCASTING NETWORK NEWS: Well, conservative Christians hope it's not settled. I think, Kasie, it's a death by a thousand paper cuts strategy that they're hoping for here. And that means that the Kim Davis situation may not indeed prove to be the case, obviously, that overturns Obergefell, but it could be the beginning of that potential victory down the road.
I mean, look for Roe v. Wade, right? It took almost 50 years. And we're talking about, once again, the 14th Amendment and the due process clause. And what conservative Christians believe is a right that was just made up out of thin air. I know the contours are different in both cases, but there are some similarities.
So, look, evangelicals believe in miracles. Thats all I'll say. And you know, Kim Davis is an interesting person to bring this suit to begin with because she has been divorced four times. She has had twins out of wedlock. That just shows you that God has a sense of humor, can use anybody at any time.
HUNT: David, can I just clarify you? You mentioned Roe versus Wade taking 50 years and obviously we saw I spent a long time over the course of my career covering how the religious right campaigned on that issue put it front and center, really just was absolutely relentless in how they approached that issue.
Do you think that same sex marriage, marriage equality is the next version of that for the Christian right?
BRODY: I don't see it right now. I don't see the momentum. You showed the polls and the polls are going the opposite direction. So that's clearly a problem.
[16:50:01]
Here's the other problem, Kasie, you have a Supreme Court that John Roberts has said is an incrementalist type court, if you will. I mean, John Roberts, remember, cited, as you know, against Roe v. Wade specifically. And so, I mean, look at the numbers here.
You got a numbers problem too, right? Everybody talks about, oh, the conservative Supreme Court. Hold on for a second. Alito, Thomas, Gorsuch, okay, you got three. Amy Coney Barrett? I don't know. Sit ten conservative Christians down and get them in a room and they'll go, I'm not quite sure about Amy Coney Barrett right about now. They like her with an asterisk.
And then you've got Brett Kavanaugh, who maybe could possibly be a fourth vote. Roberts isn't going to go for this. So you've got to get Amy Coney Barrett. I'm not convinced that this is any sort of 6-3 slam dunk or even a 5-4. I think it could be a problem, at least right now.
HUNT: Congressman Meijer, you have come down on the side of marriage equality in your voting record as a Republican. Do you think this is something that should be in the conversation, should be on the table overturning this ruling?
MEIJER: I don't know where. Okay. To be clear, there's plenty of folks who disagree with Obergefell. There's folks who disagree with the Respect for Marriage Act of 2020. 2021. I do not -- I do not discount that.
But the large public appetite, the sort of large public movement that does not exist. Donald Trump supports same sex marriage, right? The movement has the Republican kind of conservative era in general.
This is -- again, I don't want to say a settled issue because there's still strong disputes. But this is not an animating issue. This is not a rallying issue. This is not something that carries conversation or is really on many litmus tests anymore.
HUNT: I'll be honest, Chuck -- I mean, when I saw these headlines, I thought, what?
TODD: Yeah, President Trump's treasury secretary is married to a man, right? And is in a same sex marriage, right? I just -- I -- I don't -- I don't -- I don't think there's the political traction and I think frankly, since the ruling, you know, you've seen -- there's a lot more comfort in, you know, it turns out. Right.
This isn't a liberal or conservative issue. There are a lot of families.
HUNT : All the Cheney family.
TODD: Correct, right. A lot of families. And so, I think the edges have been rounded on this, even among the opponents of same sex marriage. So I don't look, I never thought a up until Dobbs, we'd never had a Supreme Court take away rights. We'd always sort of had every ruling. You know, they may take a while to give rights, but they -- we'd never had a Supreme Court take away rights. This would be an -- I just, you know?
HINOJOSA: Voting rights.
TODD: I don't -- I mean, I don't think that was a direct -- I don't think that's a fair --
HINOJOSA: Yeah.
TODD: I just think that that that Dobbs was the first time they literally took a right away from the American people. And there -- we've never seen that before. I can't imagine, and I agree with David, there's no way Roberts (AUDIO GAP) Kavanaugh to say, hey, let -- let's not even entertain this.
HINOJOSA: That's right. The votes aren't there. But I am, and I'm cautiously optimistic. What worries me, I think, is that we have reversed, you know, Roe v. Wade. There -- you have attacks on the Voting Rights Act, which are now being seen in Texas. Right now, we obviously -- the Supreme Court has given largely immunity to the president.
And so, in many ways, we have rolled back a number of different policies and given and rights that have the American people, I think, should be worried about. And so, I do think that there should be some worry in this country that the Supreme Court could go one way, although I don't think that they will.
THOMPSON: Well, well, I was going to -- it begs the question, is there the beginnings of a backlash? No one there's no appetite for it. But those numbers change so fast, they could -- we're only (AUDIO GAP) running on a constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage.
HUNT: Yeah, it's definitely changed fast.
David Brody, very quick, last word, do you think the court is going to take this?
BRODY: No, I don't think so. But though I do, I will say this, what Chuck Todd said about this idea that Roe v. Wade was the first -- Dobbs was the first to be overturned. That makes stare decisis a little bit more dicey, if you will, in the future.
HUNT: Yeah. Fair enough.
All right, David Brody, thanks very much for joining us. Really appreciate your time. Our panel is going to stand by. Coming up, something totally
different, the queen of eras in her new era.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[16:59:04]
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
JASON KELCE, HOST: What have we got?
TAYLOR SWIFT, MUSICIAN: We got --
KELCE: A briefcase.
SWIFT: Yep.
KELCE: Mint green with TS on it?
SWIFT: Yep.
KELCE: What's in it?
SWIFT: This is my brand new album, "The Life of a Showgirl".
(KELCE YELLING)
(END VIDEO CLIP)
HUNT: Jason Kelce is all of us.
Taylor Swift revealing the name of her 12th studio album. In true Taylor fashion, she is, of course, keeping all of us fans on our toes. She did not say when the album will be released, who's featured on it, what genre it is, but we do know this new era has a shimmery orange color scheme.
She updated her website so that you, all of us can preorder the album and the Empire State Building was even illuminated orange last night to celebrate. How's that for a collab?
This is Taylor's first new album since the record breaking Eras Tour last year. Her first release since becoming the owner of her entire music catalog.
I think whoever wrote my script on this, Jake Tapper, is not a Swiftie, because I don't think there was a single pun or reference to a song from a Taylor album. I hope you're not having a cruel summer, though.
