Return to Transcripts main page
CNN's The Arena with Kasie Hunt
Just In: DOJ Says Purported Epstein Letter To Larry Nassar Is Fake; Third Quarter Economic Growth Propelled By Wealthy Americans; New Lawsuit Challenging Addition Of Trump's Name To Kennedy Center; Supreme Court Blocks Trump's National Guard Deployment In Chicago. Aired 4-5p ET
Aired December 23, 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]
ERICA HILL, CNN HOST: Yes. It's the time for the airing of grievances.
BRIANNA KEILAR, CNN HOST: I have no grievances.
HILL: I don't either.
KEILAR: Just thrilled.
HILL: I'm so happy to be sitting next to you, my friend.
KEILAR: Grateful to be here.
HILL: And "Die Hard", a Christmas movie.
KEILAR: Yeah, it is at the end. That's it.
And THE ARENA WITH KASIE HUNT starts now.
ANNOUNCER: This is CNN breaking news.
KASIE HUNT, CNN HOST: Breaking news this hour, a shocking piece of the Epstein files now said to be a fake.
Hello, everyone. Welcome to THE ARENA. I'm Kasie Hunt. It's wonderful to have you with us on this Tuesday.
As we come on the air, a major development from the latest release of the Epstein files. The Justice Department now says the FBI has confirmed that a disturbing letter purportedly sent by Jeffrey Epstein and mentioning Donald Trump is a fake. The department explained their reasoning on a post -- in a post on social media just minutes ago. They say this, quote, "The writing does not appear to match Jeffrey Epstein's. The letter was postmarked three days after Epstein's death out of northern Virginia when he was jailed in New York. The return address did not list the jail where Epstein was held and did not include his inmate number, which was required for outgoing mail," end quote.
The letter, which you can see here, was one of dozens of thousands of documents released this morning. Epstein purportedly sent it to convicted sex offender Larry Nassar in 2019, while both men were imprisoned and during the time that Trump was president.
Now it reads in part, quote, "As you know by now, I have taken the short route home. Good luck. We shared one thing, our love and caring for young ladies and the hope they'd reach their full potential. Our president also shares our love of young, nubile girls."
Now, just to underscore here, the Department of Justice now saying that this is a fake.
All right. Let's get off the sidelines and head into THE ARENA. My panel is here, along with CNN crime and justice correspondent Katelyn Polantz and CNN senior law enforcement analyst, former FBI Director Andy McCabe.
But, Katelyn, let's start with you. This letter that the DOJ now says is a fake. Walk us through what's happened here.
KATELYN POLANTZ, CNN CRIME AND JUSTICE CORRESPONDENT: Yeah, a lot of twists and turns and new information that's coming out today, Kasie, about this in a trove of documents, nearly 30,000, many of which shed light into the world of the investigation around Jeffrey Epstein and Ghislaine Maxwell, his coconspirator who was convicted after his death, and that there are many mentions of Trump or in this case, quote/unquote, our president, including ones that are unconfirmed, salacious and very potentially false in this situation.
This is the FBI looking at a letter, that is sent by a handwriting -- somebody who's written by hand, a letter signed as J. Epstein. And the FBI is telling the Justice Department, this department is now coming out publicly saying that this letter is fake. It is not from Jeffrey Epstein, around the days of his suicide. It was postmarked three days after Epstein died. That is one of the reasons that they say that this is not real.
They also say this had been flagged at the time that it was sent in the system and received by a prisoner. Supposedly Larry Nassar, who was at the time in Arizona in a federal prison.
The other reasons, Kasie, that the Justice Department is now coming out saying that this is not a true letter that Epstein would have written when he was in jail and right before his death. It didn't have an inmate number needed for outgoing mail. And then the writing also does not appear to match Epstein's handwriting.
But even on its own, this was one of the illuminating things that had been found inside this trove of documents had been obtained by the Bureau of Prisons and the Justice Department, and they did release it, and it had said that, you know, to Larry Nassar from a J. Epstein, "Our president shares a love of young, nubile girls," something that Donald Trump has repeatedly said that he does not do that and that he had much of a distance between himself and Epstein over the years, after he kicked him out of the Mar-a-Lago club -- Kasie.
HUNT: So, Katelyn, what did we find today? What else is out there that -- I know you mentioned that a lot of it has to do with the investigation. Presumably these documents that we're seeing that represent emails, correspondence, communication among DOJ employees, FBI employees are legit.
POLANTZ: Yeah. I mean, set aside something like this that has no context until the Justice Department comes up later in the day today and provides their statement saying that we believe this is fake. There are internal Justice Department documents, including records of the FBI, interviewing witnesses.
What those witnesses say, that may not be true, but there is something that is quite illuminating into the investigation around Epstein conspirator Ghislaine Maxwell before her trial, a prosecutor in the Southern District of New York got flight records of Epstein's in January 2020, at the time that he was the president and flagged, for the supervisor or someone else in the administration wrote an email saying that the flight records we received yesterday reflected that Donald Trump traveled on Epstein's private jet about eight times between the years of 1993 and 1996.
[16:05:20]
Some of those rides were taken with Ghislaine Maxwell on the flights. Some of those flights included women who would -- who would possibly be witnesses against Ghislaine Maxwell. And the line attorney apparently writing this inside the Justice Department, noted that they hadn't been aware of this before investigating Maxwell in 2020. So, this is after Epstein's death, and also that this person didn't want it to be a surprise down the road to whomever he or she is writing to.
So, a window there into the Justice Department putting Trump in the realm of this investigation, even at a time he was president, even though he has never been accused of a crime and apparently, has -- was not a subject or target in this investigation ever -- Kasie.
HUNT: All right. Katelyn Polantz, thanks very much for starting us off today.
My panel is here in THE ARENA.
CNN political analyst, White House correspondent for the "A.P.", Seung Min Kim; CNN political commentator, Republican strategist and pollster Kristen Soltis Anderson; Democratic congressman from Virginia, Suhas Subramanyam. He sits on the house oversight committee, which has been releasing batches of these images and documents from Epstein's estate. We're also joined by CNN political commentator, Republican strategist Brad Todd.
Thank you all for being here, especially just a couple of days before Christmas.
And, Director McCabe, I want to start with you on this because obviously noteworthy that the Department of Justice came out and said that they believe that this email is a fake, underscores some of the pitfalls, right, of putting these documents out without any context. We were talking about this when the first batch came out. There were a lot of photographs released with not a lot of information about when or where or any of the other identifying information that would help us kind of understand them. What do you make of and what is your understanding, having been inside
the bureau of -- of a document like this, and whether they would have determined that this was fake at the time? Just -- what context do you think is important?
ANDREW MCCABE, CNN SENIOR LAW ENFORCEMENT ANALYST: Yeah. Well, basically, Kasie, all of that, this is one of the reasons why the FBI does not release the entirety of their investigative files, really, about anything, ever. They release summaries, they release letterhead memos, they more, much more frequently, we present evidence in a court. Once someone's been, you know, there's been a probable cause finding that someone committed a crime. Then we go forward and prove that to beyond a reasonable doubt.
This letter, I think, is a perfect example of all of the kind of embedded pitfalls in what we have now. I totally understand certainly the victims and the general public's desire to have transparency and accountability, but I just really worry that unleashing hundreds of thousands of documents and essentially a database without any guidance, context explanations, analysis, is not ultimately very helpful in that process.
So I'm not surprised at all that we're getting things like this and reacting very strongly and talking about them on news, only for DOJ to come out and kind of puncture the balloon. The question is, are they going to give that same sort of effort for all of the other people who might also be wrongfully accused or, you know, suggestions are made by documents that are found in there?
It is very, very hard for anyone who is not a part of this investigation to do a competent review and understanding of whether or not these documents are authentic and whether or not we should believe the claims that are in them.
HUNT: It's a very, very good sort of overall warning. Thank you for that.
Congressman, I want to ask you about some of the other documents that we have seen here, most notably this post from Chuck Schumer. He's the minority leader in the Senate. And there are, according to one email, and again, we're obviously going to all have to be very careful with this material. But in this case, this is emails that are purportedly from inside the department.
You can see them on the screen here, basically saying that there are ten potential coconspirators, a number of whom have received grand jury subpoenas. It's abbreviated in there as, GJS in some cases. And the minority leader calling for us to know the names of these people.
Do you -- I mean, you all have been working with files from Epstein's estate. Is this the first you've heard of this? And what do you make of it?
REP. SUHAS SUBRAMANYAM (D-VA): It is. I mean, let's take a step back. They should have released all the files by this past Friday.
[16:10:02]
And so, it's very difficult to then get piecemeal releases past the lawful deadline at this point. So that's why it's difficult to have the full context on these documents, which is why we wrote the law the way we wrote the law. And they are covering this up in a criminal way, and we're going to pursue legal action.
With that said, you know, we don't know exactly. I hadn't heard about ten coconspirators either. But we do know is this administration said that Epstein and Maxwell weren't trafficking people to other folks and weren't -- didn't have coconspirators. Right? They were implying that.
And so, this contradicts a lot of what the administration, which had the files all along has been saying.
HUNT: Seung Min Kim -- I mean, what are you hearing from the White House as you're kind of reporting this out? Because, I mean, the president signed this law in secret. He had Lauren Boebert to the situation room to try to convince her not to sign the discharge petition that ultimately led to this law being passed. Right.
This is something that they really have not you know, the president talked a little bit about the pictures that came out of Bill Clinton, called him a big boy. I think in terms of being able to handle the fallout from it. But what are you hearing from them today?
SEUNG MIN KIM, CNN POLITICAL ANALYST: Well, I think what you're hearing from them today especially is -- well, first of all, on a technical level, the White House is largely deferring to the Justice Department and what they have been saying, and the Justice Department is saying that, look, this latest batch may contain a lot of unfounded allegations that are just not true. And if they were true, it would have come out much earlier, et cetera, et cetera.
And I think -- that's why I found, actually the last line of the statement regarding the FBI's assessment of the Nassar letter really interesting, because the last line says something to the effect of, you know, this, you know, not all, you know, documents in, in these files are going to be true, but yet we're still going to release them because it is our commitment to transparency in doing so. And they're trying to, you know, it seems like they're trying to really use that to inoculate concerns from lawmakers on Capitol Hill, that they aren't being transparent enough. And most importantly, the victims who are looking for more answers and more, more in the more in these files.
So that's right now, what the administration has been focused on trying to present themselves as transparent as possible, even if it's to the effect of having false information out there.
HUNT: Well, and they've also, you know, released names of at least one victim we reported here at CNN, had her name all over a number of these files.
Kristen Soltis Anderson, I mean, one of the big picture things that we have talked about here is the way that this story has splintered. President Trump's support because of the way that it shows that there actually was this group of people in power who were protecting each other at the expense of vulnerable people. Right?
I'm just curious, your sort of understanding, since you're talking to voters all the time and always focus grouping. I mean, none of this seems to help any of that. I mean, as these files have come out, it seems increasingly as though people who thought, you know, big tech in the form of, you know, Bill Gates, Hollywood in form of Woody Allen, they're all in these pictures with a Democratic -- you know, former Democratic president, with a former Republican president. I mean, it does not paint a pretty picture.
KRISTEN SOLTIS ANDERSON, CNN POLITICAL COMMENTATOR: That's in part why, even before Donald Trump's reelection, this was such a big issue amongst his supporters was this idea that there are the average Americans who -- for whom, if they were ever caught anywhere near any kind of scandal like this, it could destroy their lives. And yet there are an elite that feel like they are protected when they can sort of cavort with terrible people and it doesn't, like, rub off on them.
But to today's revelation, in this letter that comes out and then they say, no, this is actually fake, but Congress is making us put this stuff out here. Like, don't blame me. What I do worry is now, now anything that comes out, there's going to be this like cloud hovering over it, right? That well, what does this mean? Does this mean need more context? And that the pushing to just okay, you've got to dump everything, even if it hasn't all been able to be vetted or I worry, will actually further complicate what people can confidently feel they know about the situation.
BRAD TODD, CNN POLITICAL COMMENTATOR: I think that's exactly correct. I mean, there are powerful people here who did not go to jail for what is probable -- what we can probably be pretty confident were crimes. We also need to note the timeline here, though. Ghislaine Maxwell was indicted in the first Trump administration, convicted in the first year of the Biden administration. Joe Biden's attorney general, Merrick Garland, had these files in his possession for four years. He chose not to indict the other people who now might be coconspirators if this -- if this letter is correct.
There are a lot of unanswered questions about what Merrick Garland did and didn't do. And I hope House Democrats will be just as aggressive in calling him a for Congress.
HUNT: Congressman, why do you think that Merrick Garland didn't do more about these coconspirators?
SUBRAMANYAM: I think he would say that there is an active investigation and case against Ghislaine Maxwell. They hadn't prosecuted her yet. But I have questions for the Biden administration as well. I want to know why they didn't -- why didn't they release files? They had some time between when Ghislaine Maxwell was in jail. And, you know, they had a pretty good case set up against her to when Biden left office.
And so, certainly, we want to know more. But, you know, the Trump administration said from the very beginning they were going to release these files, and they haven't. [16:15:01]
And they've had a lot of time already, a lot of resources to redact the files and go through them the way they need to go through them. I think -- I think seven figures has already been spent on redacting files, and yet here we are. They're still telling us they need more time, but the law says they needed to do it by last Friday.
HUNT: Director McCabe, can I ask you? What -- what more do you think? The Justice Department could have done here with these files in -- I understand congress passed this law with a very short time frame, right, to put some of these things out there. But to the congressman's point, you know, they came into office saying they were going to put this out there. The attorney general went out and said, she's got the client list on her desk. She's going to go back and grab it. She's going to release it.
They actually did have plenty of time to read all of these files and potentially do some of this work. And yet now, they're saying, well, we couldn't do that. What do you make of that sort of set of decisions?
MCCABE: Yeah. Theres no question that the administration's behavior with respect to these files has changed wildly. Let's not forget the fact that they already -- theoretically, they already went through this entire task. Now it's a huge job. It takes probably hundreds, maybe thousand or more people to do this in a very compressed time period.
But they did that theoretically many months ago when they were originally reviewing these -- you know, the great client list, which we then learned didn't exist. We're considering putting the files out then, and only to then conclude that they weren't going to put any files out.
So, I would suspect, and, of course, the congressman can correct me on this. One of the thoughts leading to the short deadline to get this to, you know, that we see in the law was probably based on the assumption that they had already done a lot of this work.
So, for the DOJ to stand up now and say, well, this is a really big job and we're starting from scratch, doesn't really hold water. As far as I'm concerned.
HUNT: All right. Andy McCabe, thank you very much for your time today, sir. Always appreciate your insight.
MCCABE: Thank you.
HUNT: All right. The rest of our panel going to stand by.
Coming up next here in THE ARENA, we're going to keep our eye on the Justice Department website. We could see more Epstein documents released today.
But first, the good, the bad and the wonderful, as in Mr. Wonderful. "Shark Tank's" Kevin O'Leary will be here to break down the latest mixed signals on the economy and what the president today says will never happen.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
KEVIN O'LEARY, "SHARK TANK" INVESTOR: You're hearing that, quote, affordability. That's the problem. We've got to get affordability nailed down and get the protein costs for everyday goods and services people buy down towards 2 percent. A lot of that has to do with tariffs. And I understand the administration claims they don't matter. They matter
(END VIDEO CLIP)
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[16:22:06]
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
KEVIN HASSETT, DIRECTOR, NATIONAL ECONOMIC COUNCIL: It's a fantastic report, 4.3 percent. It's just about as good as GDP numbers get. Trump's trade policy is really working.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
HUNT: The White House very pleased this morning with a better-than- expected GDP report that showed the U.S. economy grew from July to September of this year. In fact, it was the fastest quarterly growth rate in the last two years.
President Trump immediately attributing the report to his tariff policies, posting that they are, quote, "responsible for the great USA economic numbers". That GDP report long delayed by the government shutdown, still part of a confusing mixed economic picture, because not even two hours after it was released, new consumer confidence numbers also dropped, showing the lowest level since April, with Americans of all income levels citing the worrisome job market.
Joining our panel now, Kevin O'Leary, he's the chairman of O'Leary Ventures.
Kevin O'Leary, thank you very much for being here. Is in fact, President Trump's tariff policy. The reason why we got this good GDP growth number.
O'LEARY: No, not the tariff policy. It's the underlying consumer that has been forecasting to go into a recession now for almost five years. It never appeared. Economy's doing very, very well. Part of it is because of the optimism around A.I., it's starting to show up in all 11 sectors of the economy. Obviously, there's some jobs, displacements. We talk about that as a result of it.
But this underlying force is quite something. And it's probably going to enhance earnings, which is one of the reasons the markets remain so high. And productivity in the country. It's all of this is being anticipated.
The tariffs actually are causing some problems in consumer confidence. You saw that on the downside around affordability, which is being used by the Democrats as a weapon going into the midterm elections, particularly around goods and services and food like protein.
So there needs to be some tweaking on the tariff policy. The GDP numbers are not -- should not be attributed to tariffs. They are actually inflationary, at least for one time, particularly on things that are high tariff rates like softwood lumber that's causing input costs for housing to remain high.
HUNT: Yeah, you mentioned the high cost of protein. I hear that's all anybody eats anymore.
Sir, do you -- how does the job piece of this fit in here? Because this job jobs report is rough. And as you mentioned, OK, the GDP numbers are good. But for a lot of people's day-to-day experience, they know more people now who maybe were recently laid off and are looking for work. And as you point out, they're having a harder time, you know, checking out at the grocery store.
O'LEARY: Yeah, that's true. All of that's true.
First of all, the GDP number is not good. It's spectacular. I mean, I know the government was shut down for 43 days, so the data is soft. But this is a upside miss like I've never seen before. It is spectacular. And I anticipate the administration will use it to its advantage.
This is a very good number.
[16:25:00]
So, let's take that and put it aside. Jobs -- there's going to be some disruption in jobs because basic jobs, particularly in financial services, are starting to be replaced. You know, for example tech support. Now you use A.I. agents to do that. And it's actually being very productive.
HUNT: Don't remind, yeah.
O'LEARY: But it's coming. It's coming. But, you know, at the same time, I don't -- I'm not that pessimistic about it because it's the same analogy of saying, oh, television is going to destroy radio in the '50s, never happened. And I think the productivity enhancement around A.I. is going to create more jobs that are higher paying. So I'm not worried about that.
This affordability issue, the two big issues in the midterm, which I guarantee you will start in January, will be affordability as a basket topic around anything that's too expensive, and also health care. These are two mega topics, and they're going to be highly debated for the next 10 months.
And so, get ready for that. You're going to be talking about it every night. And so, at the end of the day, we've got to figure out a way to get inflation down from 3.1 percent down to two. And that means tariffs have to be fine-tuned.
It's not that they're bad. They're just not reciprocal yet. Some of them are very, very high. And in all for some countries unfair.
HUNT: You forget you're talking to a panel that's based in Washington. The midterm election has been going on since the last presidential election.
Come on now, Congressman, can I ask you, though, about his larger point about affordability versus the job A.I. question mark? I mean, is he right?
SUBRAMANYAM: Yeah, I agree, and I would just say that, you know, these you know, I see Bessent with a big grin on his face talking about these numbers. It hasn't hit main street.
The reality is the tax cuts over the summer were for the wealthiest corporations and the wealthiest individuals. A lot of the spending is coming from there, and frankly, most consumers are spending more because everything costs more because of the tariffs.
And so, people are feeling the crunch in their wallets and their budgets this year because its Christmas time and they're feeling it even more. And this isn't -- this doesn't seem like this is actually going to get fixed anytime soon by this administration.
HUNT: Brad, I do take Kevin O'Leary's point that this is a huge GDP number for sure. But we also saw the Biden administration talk a lot about big numbers like this and not getting anywhere with voters.
TODD: Well, the fundamentals you want an economy, you want inflation approaching two and you want growth approaching four. We have growth over four. We have inflation that's down edging closer to two all the time, especially if you look at the last nine months. So, the fundamentals are right. But the president has to be clear that there's a lot more work to do.
We also should remember if Democrats had gotten their way, everybody in America would be eight days away from a tax increase. Every Democrat in Congress voted to raise every American taxpayers taxes on January 1st, thanks to President Trump and Republicans. That's not going to happen. I think that will help consumer confidence.
HUNT: That'll that kind of policy, though, Kristen, is not one that voters are really great at grasping. However, tax increase they didn't actually face, right?
ANDERSON: Well, and I also remember a time I think this was actually the 2016 primary. Brad, I wonder if you remember this where like this idea of 4 percent GDP growth, I believe was like a big cornerstone of Jeb Bush's presidential campaign. Like that was the goal and the criticism at the time of that was, that that's this like big high level thing. What does the average American think that means for them? And this is now the problem that the Trump administration is going to
face. If a tree falls in a forest and no one is there to hear it, does it make a sound? If the economy grows at 4.3 percent and nobody's there to feel it, do you get the political upside from it?
The Trump administration is really banking on the idea that sometime in the next 12 months, Americans are going to start feeling what this data says is theoretically happening.
HUNT: Kevin O'Leary, do you think they're actually going to start to feel it?
O'LEARY: I think the best way to solve this problem is to fine tune on items that are pain points for everyday individuals you've been talking about. When do they feel it? Well, get the price of food, bananas and pineapples and look at all the stuff we tariff that --
HUNT: You eat a lot of pineapples.
(CROSSTALK)
(LAUGHTER)
O'LEARY: Just telling you, there's so many bauxite, potash, softwood lumber. Why tariff stuff we don't make?
So, you can actually have an impact almost immediately by just putting a moratorium on those for the next 11 months. So, people show up at the grocery store saying, hey, wow, this stuff costs a lot less because, no, it doesn't have an eight or nine or 25 percent tariff in it. That's how to fine tune it.
And forget about giving helicopter checks to people. Take that and announce you're going to reduce the deficit. We don't need more money falling out of helicopters. That's very inflationary.
So, you want to get that inflation number on its way down to two, which is the Fed mandate by the way. And so that would help mortgage rates too. But really it's fine tuning the tariffs. It's telling people that the tariffs are causing a great GDP number, I'm sorry, I don't buy it.
HUNT: All right. Fair enough. Kevin O'Leary, thank you. I always appreciate it. Merry Christmas. Happy holidays.
O'LEARY: Take care.
[16:30:00]
HUNT: All right. The rest of my panel is going to stand by.
Coming up next here in THE ARENA, just hours before the airing of the Kennedy Center honors, a new twist in the controversy over the vote to add Donald Trump's name to the center's official branding.
Plus, a big development for a very popular type of medication. It is taken by one in eight Americans.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
DONALD TRUMP, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: Let's call it the fat drug. The fat drug. F-A-T, for fat people. Anybody use it at the table? Don't ask. But the fat drug.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
REP. JOYCE BEATTY (D-OH): What you may hear is that there was a unanimous vote to rename the Kennedy Center the Trump Center.
[16:35:02]
Be clear, I was on that call, and as I tried to push my button to voice my concern, to ask questions, and certainly not to vote in support of this, I was muted. Clearly, the Congress has a say in this.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
HUNT: That was Democratic Congresswoman Joyce Beatty. She's an ex- officio member of the Kennedy Center. She's now suing to remove President Trump's name from the facade of the building. You see it there in the filing.
Beatty argues the name change by the board of trustees was a, quote, flagrant violation of the rule of law and went beyond the powers given to the board by Congress.
This all coming as the pre-taped Kennedy Center honors is set to air tonight, hosted by none other than president Trump, who teased his, quote, master of ceremonies, skills on Truth Social, even asking viewers if he should quit the presidency to be a full time emcee.
Well, he was a TV star in his former life, right?
Seung Min Kim, this is just one of a number of things that Donald Trump has attached his name to. This year, there's the Kennedy Center. There's the Trump class battleships, there's TrumpRx, there's the Trump gold card. There are Trump accounts. There's the Donald J. Trump Institute of Peace.
KIM: Right.
HUNT: And in fairness to this branding strategy, even Joe Biden said, man, I should have put my name on the, you know --
KIM: The checks.
HUN: -- on the checks, right? Donald Trump signed the COVID checks. But this is, I think maybe next level. KIM: Right. Well, it's next level in part because there's the whole
congressional aspect. I think one of the reasons why this is hitting people in a different way, because obviously, Trump accounts, Trump gold cards, you can call those whatever you want. The administration certainly can do that.
But on this one, legal experts say this is a this is a -- this is a change that has to be done by Congress. And it's -- it's kind of the next chapter in a whole series of actions where the president has really kind of, you know, superseded congressional powers to accomplish what he wants. And I think that's why this is hitting in a different way.
ANDERSON: I also think it's because it's a living memorial to someone else and to a president that many Republicans and Democrats alike think fondly of. Now, that's not to say that I think Republicans certainly, or even your median voter, cares deeply about things like cultural institutions in Washington, D.C.
I remember there was a great deal of consternation during COVID because there was bailout money that went to try to keep the Kennedy Center open. And Republicans were like, is that an appropriate use of our tax money?
But at the same time, I think there are limits to if Donald Trump comes up with something new, it's a policy that's his. He wants to put his name on it. Fine.
But this feels like a little bit too far. And I think him going on what looks like a bit of an ego trip is really shifting focus away from accomplishments his administration ought to be spending time focused on. Instead of saying, look at me, look at me, look at how many things I can put my gold-plated name on.
HUNT: Yeah, Congressman, I mean, it is. You know, the Congress did not give the board the power to rename the Kennedy Center, which is --
SUBRAMANYAM: Yes.
HUNT: -- named for you know, a president who was assassinated and has, you know, been widely beloved over the years. What -- what can Congress do here? I mean, could you go and, like, just, I don't know, take the name off the building?
(LAUGHTER)
SUBRAMANYMAN: I can. I will for sure. I mean, you know, just to be clear, I do support him quitting the presidency to be a Kennedy Center emcee, if that's what it takes to quit the presidency. But aside from that, this is illegal, right? So we'll take him to court, right? Someone will take him to court, and someone already has, right?
But second of all, this is part of a pattern of overstepping their bounds when it comes to separation of powers and power of Congress, power of the White House and the executive branch. And then this is also another vanity project. He wants to rename the airport in my district, Dulles airport, after
himself. There's many other vanity projects he has, and while he's focused on vanity projects, people continue to look at high prices and losing their health care access. And the corruption in this administration. And so, this is a really bad look for him going into next year.
HUNT: Brad, do you agree with Kristen that like for voters this is a little tone deaf?
TODD: I don't think anybody cares outside, maybe 15 miles from Washington, D.C., but you know, John F. Kennedy and Donald Trump did have one thing in common. They were both tax cutters. You know, John Kennedy wouldn't fit in today's Democratic Party because he cut income taxes pretty severely.
HUNT: I appreciate what you're doing here, Brad.
(LAUGHTER)
TODD: Look, I think this is an executive order. And the next time there's a Democrat in the White House, they'll no doubt take the name off and put some other person's name on some other thing in retribution. That's kind of where our politics is right now.
I think the best advice for the president would be, though, to focus not on art centers and names, but on the economy, which is going well right now. I mean, at least it's heading in the right direction. He needs to talk about there's more work to do, and he understands people feel their pain.
But I would rather have all day today be about 4 percent economic growth instead of the name on a building.
HUNT: Well, I mean, and I think that sort of underscores -- I mean, Congressman, when you talk to you know, to voters, when you talk to members of the House who are in these frontline districts, what do they say about what they're -- what they're hearing? You know, especially as this sort of talk of a, of a blue wave seems to be growing, I would say, for the midterm.
SUBRAMANYAM: Yeah. You know, issues like this, like this Kennedy Center thing may not seem like a big deal, but when you combine that with what's going on in the economy, what's going on in foreign policy.
[16:40:04]
A lot of people who voted for Donald Trump felt like, okay, you know, I'm going to take the good with the bad, right? But now, they're saying nothing but bad at this point, and they're regretting their vote. And that's what happened in Virginia about a month ago when we had people go to the ballot. I talked to people coming to the ballot box, and they were saying, I voted for Donald Trump, I regret that vote. And not only is the economy bad, but he's Donald Trump and he's that personality as well. And the combination makes me want to vote for a Democrat now.
HUNT: Interesting.
All right, everybody, stand by for a second, because we do want to go to this breaking news right now from the Supreme Court and the White House.
CNN's Kevin Liptak is live for us in West Palm Beach, Florida. He's been traveling with the president.
And, Kevin, this relates to this ruling on the deployment of the National Guard. What are we learning from the White House?
KEVIN LIPTAK, CNN SENIOR WHITE HOUSE REPORTER: Yeah. And just to remind the viewers, the Supreme Court is now refusing to allow the Trump administration to deploy these hundreds of National Guard troops into Chicago. It's a rare loss for the White House at this particular Supreme Court.
And now we are hearing from a White House spokesman responding to it. She says that, "The president promised the American people he would work tirelessly to enforce our immigration laws and protect federal personnel from violent rioters. He activated the National guard to protect federal law enforcement officers and to ensure rioters did not destroy federal buildings and property."
And she goes on to say, "Nothing in today's ruling detracts from that core agenda. The administration will continue working day in and day out to safeguard the American public.'
Now, this ruling from the Supreme Court is a temporary one, but it could have widespread effects. Remember, the administration has tried deploying these National Guard troops in multiple different jurisdictions around the country, and it has become a tied up in courts, many of them filing lawsuits to claim that the administration didn't have the ability to do that.
And so, a rare loss for the White House at this court. But the administration and the White House saying that they will continue to try and up these efforts -- Kasie.
HUNT: All right. Kevin Liptak for us in West Palm Beach -- Kevin, thanks very much for that report.
Ahead here in THE ARENA, we've got a big update today. One of the most popular weight loss drug -- the mixed reaction is getting from doctors and patients.
Plus, are you a millennial? Is your child a millennial? Do you know any of us millennials? There's something you need to know.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[16:46:49]
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) TRUMP: Eli Lilly and Novo Nordisk are committing to offer Zepbound and Wegovy at most favored nations rates for American patients. They're both committing that future glp-1 weight loss drugs taken orally, which are currently under development, will be sold at no more than $149 per month. It's a massive -- think of that -- you go from $1,300 to $149 a month.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
HUNT: The wait is over. No pun intended.
The FDA has now approved a daily weight loss pill version of Wegovy. The starting dose of Wegovy pill will cost $149. For patients paying out of pocket, as President Trump announced last month, and it's going to be available by prescription starting in January. GLP-1 weight loss drugs have risen in popularity in recent years. A recent Gallup survey, finding that used more than doubled between 2024 and this year. This is 2025. One in eight Americans now say they've used some kind of drug like this at some point.
Dr. Jeremy Faust is an E.R. physician assistant professor at Harvard Medical School, joins our panel now.
Doctor, I got to tell you, I'm not sure I know anyone who doesn't know somebody who's taking one of these drugs. If they're not taking one themselves. Is this -- I guess here's my top line question, I think, is whether or not this pill form of this drug is as effective as the shots. Like should people who are have been waiting because they don't want to give themselves a shot for whatever reason? Is this going to work just as well?
DR. JEREMY FAUST, ASSISTANT PROFESSOR OF EMERGENCY MEDICINE, HARVARD MEDICAL SCHOOL: Well, thanks for having me. And the answer to your question is that the data are coming in comparing the injectables to the oral medications, the pills, and in a lot of cases, we are seeing data that suggests that the pills may be close to as good, but maybe not as good currently as the injectables.
But I would just say that the results for both mechanisms for both routes are so incredibly favorable. And I'm someone who generally comes to these conversations with skepticism. But for both routes, the outcomes have been really astounding.
HUNT: Is this just something that everyone is going to end up on at some point?
FAUST: I don't know about that, but as you said, use has increased and in certain age groups it's higher. And let's just get the numbers out there for the first time this century, we started to finally see decreases in obesity in adults in this country. That is a monumental achievement.
And we're not sure technically if its due to these drugs, but the timing sure looks right. And I've run the numbers myself. The effect size is about right, so it really does tell me that this could be the thing that we've all been waiting for. Look, the American Heart Association, the Diabetes Foundation, they've
been saying for years diet, exercise, diet, exercise. But you know what? None of it is as effective as these drugs or in combination. Obviously, that's the best.
So, the idea that that this is like a band-aid is really one that I think we need to reassess this. This is much more than a band aid.
[16:50:00]
HUNT: Fascinating. I want to have the cultural side of this conversation because, you know, on the one hand, you know, there's been so much judgment, right, of people who do the diet, do the exercise, do the things the doctors say, and for whatever reason, still have trouble losing weight, right? There has been in our culture this judgment around that, right? And people have often felt a lot of shame. There's still some shame for people who admit that they're taking these drugs. Right? Are people who don't want to, or there's this accusation that they're cheating or whatever.
And in some ways, the success and the widespread uptake of these should potentially give us some relief from any of that moral judgment. On the other hand, we also now have celebrities who are using these drugs and who look different because they do. Right? And in some ways, its setting a new and different body standard, potentially pressuring people into taking the drugs.
How are they viewed kind of generally speaking, like are they widely accepted? And what do you think is kind of the piece of this that's the most important?
ANDERSON: Well, you know, you showed those numbers earlier about the percentage of people who are now using these drugs relative to even just a year ago. I mean, the uptake has been massive, and in part it's because, as you said, people know someone who knows someone and they think I could benefit from this too.
And I think the thing that's most exciting is not that suddenly were all going to be able to look like supermodels, but think about a world where were all actually healthier, a world where there is less obesity. I mean, think about things even like second and third order effects, like how much money we spend on health care in this country and the potential effects of us having less obesity, less diabetes. I mean, there's some really exciting potential things out there around this.
HUNT: Yeah. Seung Min, what do you think?
MIN: Yeah. Well, I think first of all, the president -- President Trump really recognizes the political potency. I mean, he has talked about specifically these drugs several times at the White House that I can remember. And he also just kind of recognizes the political popularity of talking about prescription drugs, which is the same thing that President Biden talked about.
So, he has taken a lot of measures. He had drugmakers at the White House just last week talking about not this drug, but other drugs as well, and that, you know, while he's not focusing on health care in the way that congress may have wanted before, before the premiums are set to go up next week, he has certainly been focusing on health care in the way that he thought he thinks will be most you know, broadly advantageous.
HUNT: All right. Fair enough. Dr. Jeremy Faust, thanks very much for joining the panel. Really appreciate it.
All right. Coming up next, hear something totally different. We hate to break it to you, millennials. We are officially old. We'll explain.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[16:57:05]
HUNT: My fellow millennials, let's hold hands while we say this together. We're officially old. I'm sorry. What? When did that happen?
It's according to "The New York Times", so it must be official. The op-ed: This is the year millennials officially got old.
Anna Silman brilliantly writes, "The demarcation of our generational divide happens in a place that used to be ours to define: online. The Internet, once our safe space, has become increasingly hostile territory. Millennials' very existence has become so embarrassing to Gen Z-ers that they have coined a phrase for it: 'millennial cringe'. We are now unc and frequently also washed". What he had to explain both of those to me today.
One example this op-ed uses is something that I am definitely guilty of, and I didn't even know it was a millennial thing. Ending text messages with LOL, when you're not actually laughing out loud. And then there's also the overuse of the laugh cry emoji, which I also do all the time.
So, if you ever send a message like this on the screen, I'm sorry. You are unc and washed. This is a mostly millennial panel. Weve got one Gen Xer here.
TODD: I please take objection to that.
(LAUGHTER)
TODD: Yes, Brad is older than all the rest of us, but we're old now.
What makes you feel the most old, Kristen?
ANDERSON: So what makes me the most old is this piece referenced, the OC, like a touchstone, a cultural touchstone for me. And I realized that I am now closer in age to the mom on that show, Kirsten Cohen, than I am to any of the kids in the show.
The thing I think that was the most valuable about the piece, though, for all that it sort of defends millennials against these accusations that we're all you know, old and -- HUNT: We spend all our money on avocado toast.
ANDERSON: Right? It's basically saying --
(LAUGHTER)
ANDERSON: Look, we don't have the cultural cachet anymore. We're not in control of the culture, but we are in control of more economic power and more institutional power. There are millennials in Congress. Quite a few.
HUNT: Look at this.
SUBRAMANYAM: There we go.
HUNT: Not even 40 years old.
ANDERSON: Getting there.
HUNT: Well, the thing, you know, the thing that like I will never not wear ankle length socks to the gym, right? Like I cannot -- like -- I just won't -- I can't do it like I remember, like socks that are taller than the ankle as being so uncool.
ANDERSON: Stay to your principles.
HUNT: But now, apparently, I am incredibly uncool.
ANDERSON: No, no.
SUBRAMANYAM: You're cool.
HUNT: You know that?
SUBRAMANYAM: No.
ANDERSON: No.
SUBRAMANYAM: Yeah.
HUNT: My socks are definitely not cool.
SUBRAMANYAM: Going to tell you otherwise.
HUNT: No. Seung Min, what about you?
KIM: Well, actually, what I found really striking this week was when I found out the American Girl dolls are also turning 40. So, like us this year, they're also now old millennials. So, I mean, we're in good company, even though they clearly have an age like we have.
ANDERSON: They have a 1990s doll that's like the historic collection. It's tough. It's tough.
HUNT: Oh my gosh. I had Molly from the 1940s when I was -- when I was a little girl. TODD: The four of you have now spent more time on your generation than
all of Gen X combined.
HUNT: Yeah, well, that is the Gen X's cross to bear, Brad Todd. I will say that.
All right. Well, I guess I'm going to going to take my very aggressively uncool socks, out for Christmas vacation as we grapple with our new generational -- generational divides. I will see you all in the New Year. I hope you have a very merry Christmas. Very happy holiday.
Thanks to my panel. Really appreciate you guys being here.
Don't forget, you can stream THE ARENA live or catch up whenever you want to in the CNN app. Just scan the QR code below. You can also catch up by listening to our podcast. Follow us on X and Instagram. We're @TheArenaCNN.
Fellow millennial Phil Mattingly is standing by for THE LEAD.
Phil, how tall are your socks?
