Return to Transcripts main page
CNN's The Arena with Kasie Hunt
Trump Blames "Radical Left" In Lengthy Christmas Post After DOJ Uncovers More Than One Million New Possible Epstein Docs; DOJ: Working "Around The Clock" To Review Possible New Epstein Docs; Trump Tells "Politico": Zelenskyy "Doesn't Have Anything Until I Approve It" Ahead Of Expected Peace Deal Meeting On Sunday; Trump: U.S. Launched "Deadly" Strike On ISIS In Nigeria; 10 House Republicans Leaving Congress To Run For Governor. Aired 4-5p ET
Aired December 26, 2025 - 16:00 ET
THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.
(MUSIC)
[16:00:13]
SARA SIDNER, CNN HOST: Hey there. Welcome to THE ARENA. I'm Sara Sidner in for Kasie Hunt. I hope you're all enjoying the holidays with family and friends.
Maybe you too, took a little vacation and stayed off social media. But you know who didn't? President Trump. He posted more than 100 videos and comments from his followers.
But one of the few messages that he wrote himself, the one he ended the night with, was this one quote, "Merry Christmas to all, including the many sleazebags who love Jeffrey Epstein." It goes on. But yes, he is talking about Jeffrey Epstein.
That followed the stunning announcement on Christmas Eve from the Justice Department. The DOJ announcing it had uncovered an additional one million plus documents potentially related to the case against Epstein. It said, quote, "We have lawyers working around the clock to review and make the legal requirement redactions to protect victims, and we will release the documents as soon as possible. But due to the massive volume of materials, this process may take a few more weeks," end quote.
This latest document, discovery, follows the release of hundreds and thousands of heavily redacted Epstein documents beginning last Friday.
Earlier today, I spoke with Nick Akerman, one of the prosecutors in the Watergate scandal, about the redaction process and his thoughts on the revised timeline for releasing the documents.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
NICK AKERMAN, FORMER ASSISTANT SPECIAL WATERGATE PROSECUTOR: It's a matter of just putting a black mark over people who are victims. That was it. There's certainly nothing in there for national security. There's no other really valid reason not to turn over all this information. This should have taken no time at all. They should have been able to do it in that month. They knew where the documents were. This is just a lame excuse.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
SIDNER: All right. It's time to get off the sidelines and head into THE ARENA. My panel is here, along with CNN crime and justice correspondent Katelyn Polantz.
Katelyn, we're going to start with you. What's next for these newly uncovered files? They're not new documents. We should be clear, but they are newly discovered.
KATELYN POLANTZ, CNN CRIME AND JUSTICE CORRESPONDENT: Newly discovered to the Justice Department, Main Justice, as they are having to prepare them for public release. It's a lot of records, Sara. That's the bottom line here. It was always a lot of records way back this summer and even years ago, we were very aware how much was in this.
The FBI had 300 gigabytes of data related to its investigations of Jeffrey Epstein, both many years ago out of Miami, when that plea deal was cut, and then again when he was investigated much further and Ghislaine Maxwell was taken to trial in 2019 through 2022. Three hundred gigabytes is a massive amount of paper data, video, photos, audio, all kinds of stuff from the various searches done by federal and law enforcement into Jeffrey Epstein, his home in the Virgin Islands, his ranch, his place in New York, his place in Florida.
What we know, though, is that the Justice Department, they just aren't through it all, and they need help getting through the rest of it. They were unable to meet that deadline, getting through all of the material from those investigations from the FBI and the SDNY by Friday, last Friday. They by that point in time, they were able to have processed several hundred thousand documents, redacted them, looked at them, and then put them out on their website for transparency.
And then this past Tuesday, they got to about 30,000 more records that became public. But now, our understanding and the Justice Department had said from Friday last Friday that they were expecting several hundred more, several hundred thousand more documents that needed to be released. We do now know there are a million more documents that the FBI and the Southern District of New York are providing two main justice for their attorneys to go through, and that has prompted the Justice Department to call for volunteers, even out of the U.S. attorneys office in the southern district of Florida, roping in another group of lawyers to work on these over the holidays.
We don't know when the next batch will be, how big it will be, and how long it will take for the Justice Department to go through all of these, but it could be several more weeks, far longer than Congress ever intended -- Sara.
SIDNER: That is an understatement. Katelyn Polantz, thank you so much. I do appreciate it.
My panel is here in THE ARENA. Political common -- Good Lord, it is the 26th. Too much eggnog. Political columnist and features writer at "New York Magazine", David Freedlander, CNN political commentator and host of the "Off the Cuff" podcast on iHeartRadio, S E. Cupp, and former Democratic mayor of New York city and presidential candidate, Bill de Blasio. and Republican strategist Chapin Fay.
Chapin, I'm starting with you because of the Truth Social. There is a lot in this, but you saw the beginning of it where he mentions Jeffrey Epstein. He calls people sleazebags. He says, look, you know, these people thought that he was the greatest on earth, only to drop him like a dog when things got too hot.
Who is he doing this for? Is this supposed to be red meat to the base, which sometimes he uses Truth Social for? Or is this a huge mistake?
CHAPIN FAY, REPUBLICAN STRATEGIST: I think it's for everyone, and it's also part of the Trump personality, right? He's getting his message out. He's taking some shot some people and making it clear he's been consistent on this, right? And what I would say about this is, you know, this whole thing is despicable. A lot of people have a lot to answer for or should or hopefully will.
But the Trump administration is the one that arrested Jeffrey Epstein in 2019. He's the one releasing these documents now. Or, you know, through the Congress and in the intervening four years, Joe Biden was presiding over the Justice Department. And I think anyone's going to sit here and tell me that the Democrats who tried everything under the sun to take this man out in and out of office during campaigns and campaigns, and there's a silver bullet sitting in Joe Biden's DOJ to take this man out. I just don't buy it.
That being said, right, the documents are going to come. A lot of people have to read them. A lot of people have, you know, the Watergate prosecutor guy didn't mention, right. Maybe there's no national security implications, but you cant just release documents from the department of justice without someone reading it first, right? So that in itself is going to take a lot of time. So, I think it's proceeding as it should be.
SIDNER: Going over it.
I hear you scoffing. So I'm going to go to you, S.E.
S.E. CUPP, CNN POLITICAL COMMENTATOR: Well, first of all, what's happening with Trump? This is a little self-care. This is self- soothing. Okay? I take a bubble bath. I do a little skincare. This is what he needs to make himself feel good right about now.
But I'll never understand the political impulse to draw this out. You remember back before the August recess, Mike Johnson, I'm sure at the at the bequest of Donald Trump was trying to prevent the vote to release this so that it would carry over the August recess. Now it's about to carry over the winter break. Blink and it will be midterms.
And as just a political person, a political operative and strategist, I would never want this story dominating every single news day heading into midterms. But this is by choice. This is what I think Donald Trump thinks is best for him if we draw this out, people will get bored of it. They'll get distracted by other things.
I won't -- at one point. I'll just have to -- I won't have to keep answering questions about it. I think that would be true if MAGA itself wasn't just as interested in getting to the bottom of this as Democrats are.
SIDNER: Yeah, I do want to quickly play bill and have you respond something from Congresswoman Dean, who talked to my colleague Kate Bolduan this morning. Here's what she said.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
REP. MADELEINE DEAN (D-PA): It defines -- it defies credulity for anybody to say, we just found a million pages of documents they have known all along where the documents are. And there are -- there have to be hundreds of people who worked on these files who would be able to provide the expertise to get them out, unless you tried to bury them somewhere hide them in a ballroom or a basement. I don't know but it makes absolutely no sense.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
SIDNER: We did not miss the dig there that was made. But I do want to ask you about whether this discovery of a million more documents that were not previously disclosed to the public or the DOJ says, we didn't -- we didn't quite know existed there. How that affects its credibility to the American public, do you think?
BILL DE BLASIO (D), FORMER PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE: You know, I think this all gets back to the kind of culture of conspiracy theory that has become so prevalent, and no one created that more than Donald Trump and the MAGA movement in the last 10 years. And it is coming back to bite them real, real hard because right now, I think a lot of folks I agree with S.E., a lot of folks in the MAGA world. I give them credit, actually. They're not believing their own leaders anymore.
And so, when you say, well, okay, it's DOJ. Yeah, there's not a lot of faith in DOJ, but there is an intense interest to see what has been covered up for so long. So, in a funny way, that obsession with conspiracy is now out of control for Donald Trump.
He -- you know, I was wondering myself, why would he keep talking about it? Because he actually doesn't know what else to do at this point. It's a train out of control. And in the end, folks are waiting to see what's in those documents.
And I actually think they believe those documents more than anything else they're hearing, because they don't have faith in either party. They don't have faith in Trump anymore. MAGA, the MAGA base, does not believe Trump on Epstein anymore. And that is fatal for the midterms.
SIDNER: David, how much do you think the fact that there were people who were flaming, blowing up these conspiracies, like the head of the FBI, or Mr. Bongino, you know, they were -- they were using these things to really ramp up the number of people who paid attention to them, and now they're in charge. And looking at this and everyone's trying to say, no, no, no, this didn't happen. No, Epstein actually did kill himself. How much is that affecting all of this?
DAVID FREEDLANDER, POLITICAL COLUMNIST AND FEATURES WRITER, NEW YORK MAGAZINE: Oh, tremendously. I mean, let's be clear. Like, I don't know. We don't really know what's going to be in these millions of documents, but we do know that Donald Trump is on the record praising Jeffrey Epstein in my magazine, in "New York Magazine", and specifically praising him for his attraction to young women.
[16:10:06]
We know that there is video footage of Donald Trump and Jeffrey Epstein ogling women together. Like, I'm not sure what other bombshells are going to come out of this thing. Like it's already out there in terms of Trump and Epstein.
CUPP: This is the thing with the conspiracy theories, to Bill's point, he's absolutely right. It's a faucet. When you turn on the faucet, you have to keep running the water and you can't then tell your fans who you've conditioned to want more and more. Now it's time to turn off the faucet.
Tucker Carlson seeing this, you know, the MAGA media sphere is seeing this. And now, Trump, Dan Bongino, Kash Patel, Pam Bondi, they all turned the spigot on, and now they're trying to tell their fans, just turn it off. That's not how that works.
DE BLASIO: It doesn't have to be original material to make an impact. Those photos are searing, right? I mean, these are folks who felt rightfully that something horrible had happened, that these women, these young women were mistreated, something horrible happened.
And in fact, they were expecting a lot of the fault to lay with Democrats. Now they see their own guy shoulder to shoulder with Epstein over and over and over again. Actually, every single time they see it matters.
SIDNER: And we just need to be clear. I mean, we saw pictures of Trump. We saw his name in there, you know, many more times than people originally thought publicly.
DE BLASIO: Right.
SIDNER: And we saw that letter that, that Epstein wrote that had a bunch of salacious details that he put in it making accusations against Trump.
But none of that has been considered a criminal activity on the part of Donald Trump. Nor have you seen the same thing with Clinton, where you saw pictures of President Clinton, you know, in the pool and that sort of thing.
But I know you want to jump in here, so I'm going to -- let you go ahead and jump in when you see all of these things taken all together, though, it doesn't look good, does it?
FAY: No, it looks terrible. Like I started with, it's despicable. And a lot of people should have a lot to answer for. But I just want to make one small point about this is sort of this issue. And what the congressman just said was -- is a microcosm example of the struggle people have trying to attack the Trump administration. You can't, on one side of your mouth, tell me that Kash Patel and Dan Bongino are running, a incompetent FBI, and then act like you're surprised that they lost occupants, right? Either they're, you know, the smartest cover up officials in Washington, D.C., or they're incompetent, right?
You got to pick what your attack is here because they are -- they are mutually exclusive. And this is this is this is this is what Democrats or Republicans all the time, right? George W. Bush is a moron. But also, all these conspiracy theories about how he organized 9/11 without, you know, a whisper, right?
So, these conspiracy theories, I think, are generated on the left, and you can't have it both ways.
SIDNER: I do want to quickly go to, something that we heard from one of the lawyers representing one of Epstein's survivors when it came to learning about these. More than a million documents that were recently discovered by the DOJ. Here's what he said.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
JAMES MARSH, REPRESENTS SURVIVORS OF JEFFREY EPSTEIN'S ABUSE: For our purposes at least, we've been asking for these documents since the summer. If these are the prosecution files, they're very important for uncovering, really, the genesis of Jeffrey Epstein. What he was engaged in in the '90s when my client, Maria Farmer, made her complaint and how well he was known. And we know that he was well known to the federal government at that time. So, these -- these documents may not be relevant to the current period, but I think they're going to give us some important historical perspective on the origins of Jeffrey Epstein.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
SIDNER: So, he's talking about sort of the origins, and it gives you a fuller picture. I do have to ask you, and I'll start with you, S.E. You know, in Virginia Giuffre's book, she said that she was raped by a prime minister. And her attorney then said that that name went to investigators -- that investigators know the name of this.
Why do you think we haven't seen some of those names? Because the law is very clear that it doesn't matter if it embarrasses people or not, doesn't matter what your position in the world is, those things should not be redacted, and they should be given to the public.
CUPP: Look, I can't speak to whose motives, who benefits most from covering stuff up because we just don't -- we just don't know. Theres a lot of people in there and just showing up in a picture isn't necessarily indicative of criminal activity.
It's gross. It's not just gross for Trump, it's gross for Bill Clinton, who is showing us who has always been. I think Democrats need to finally come to Jesus about that guy. You don't need to trot him out anymore.
But listen, if there's -- if it's on the books, if it's on the law that you are allowed to release these names now, everyone from left and right is saying, do it, do it and do it now. So, the -- you have to go to whose interests are most served by covering it up. And you know, you have you can connect those dots. I think pretty easily.
SIDNER: Okay. I think we are going to leave it there and move on to the next subject.
We have breaking new coming up in THE ARENA. 2026 is almost here. And that means the midterm elections are about to kick off. Ahead, how Democrats are trying to rebrand in the new year and why.
[16:15:01]
Plus, Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth warning of more to come after a U.S. airstrike targeting ISIS in Nigeria. We've got new details on the Nigerian government's involvement.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
YUSUF TUGGAR, NIGERIAN FOREIGN MINISTER: Any country that is willing to work with Nigeria based on our moral precepts and ethical considerations and respect for territorial integrity and sovereignty, we're prepared to do so. And we demonstrated this yesterday
(END VIDEO CLIP)
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
SIDNER: All right. We've got some breaking news with President Trump warning that Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy, quote, "doesn't have anything until I approve it," end quote.
[16:20:03]
That new comment coming just minutes ago in an interview with "Politico". Zelenskyy is expected to meet with Trump at Mar-a-Lago on Sunday amid a push for a peace deal with Russia.
CNN's senior White House reporter Kevin Liptak traveling with the president. He is in West Palm Beach for us.
Kevin, these new comments from the president seem to lower expectations for a peace deal as we are learning that Zelensky is talking about making some accommodations, perhaps giving up some territory in this latest round of talks.
What are you hearing?
KEVIN LIPTAK, CNN SENIOR WHITE HOUSE REPORTER: Right. And the president does sound somewhat lukewarm about the prospects that this one meeting could result in a peace in Ukraine. But, you know, I still think just the fact of this meeting happening at all is a sign of some progress. You remember it wasn't that long ago, I think only a couple of weeks that President Trump said that he didn't think it would be useful to sit down with Zelenskyy if they were not close to reaching a deal. So, it does seem as if this would indicate that some significant progress has been made.
And, you know, there have been quite intensive talks, including down here in south Florida between the president's envoys, Steve Witkoff and Jared Kushner, and a delegation from Ukraine. They also met an envoy from Moscow to try and sort of reconcile all of these different plans.
Remember, President Trump has put out this multi-point peace plan. What Zelenskyy is doing is coming back with his version of what this plan might look like, it includes provisions like security guarantees for Ukraine, talking about Ukraine's sovereignty. But I think it still is clear that there is a long way to go. You know, an official told us about a week ago that they were about 90 percent there on this plan, but it is that remaining 10 percent that is proving so difficult, namely, the question of land concessions. You know, Putin has not given up these maximalist demands that Ukraine give up the entire Donbas region.
And so, I think the goal for President Trump and for his officials, as Zelenskyy is now heading here to Palm Beach, is to try and find a way to massage that issue, to get Zelenskyy on board with this. Now, what Zelenskyy is saying today is that he is willing to put this peace plan up for a referendum in his country if Russia agrees to a ceasefire. But of course, Putin has not agreed to a ceasefire. Putin will not be here in Palm Beach, and it remains an open question of what, if anything, Moscow will agree to.
SIDNER: All right. We're going to move on to the subject of Nigeria. This is all happening a day after the president announced deadly strikes on ISIS terrorists, he said, in Nigeria, what went into the decision making behind the scenes to launch that attack
LIPTAK: Yeah, and what the president says is that he was going after ISIS terrorists for what he calls a slaughter of Christians in Nigeria. It's a topic he's been talking about for some months now. You remember it was in November. The president said the U.S. would go into Nigeria, quote, guns a blazing if the country there didn't do more to protect Christians.
Now, this attack involved more than a dozen Tomahawk missiles. It was targeted in the northwestern part of the country. U.S. Africa Command says that multiple terrorists were killed.
And it is interesting, Nigeria's leadership says that it was coordinated with the U.S. on this, a significant because in the past, they have kind of bristled at the president's suggestion of U.S. intervention in all of this. The security situation in Nigeria is extraordinarily complex. You know, Muslims have been targeted by violence. Christians have been targeted by violence. The reasons are a multifold. Some of it certainly is religious persecution.
But you also just see, you know, everyday crime. You see disputes over land when you talk to officials, they note that the region where this strike took place, the Sokoto State, is majority Muslim and reports from the ground, you know, people have seen in their village these missiles landing on the ground in fields. They have not seen any casualties. And so, I think there's still more to be learned from Nigeria about how exactly this transpired.
But President Trump signaling this might not be the last strike, saying that there could be many more terrorists killed if, quote, their slaughter of Christians continues -- Sara.
SIDNER: Yeah. The foreign minister, to be clear, made very clear that, look, they worked with the Trump administration, but that he does not believe that this is a religious issue that's going on in the country. It is a regional one. Kevin Liptak, thank you so much for your reporting there for us from West Palm Beach.
Joining us now in THE ARENA is retired General Wesley Clark. He is the former NATO Supreme Allied commander.
Let's first talk about peace talks between the United States and Ukrainian negotiators earlier this month in Miami did not lead to a whole lot. I think this is the seventh meeting face to face between President Trump and Zelenskyy. But this time it's a bit different because Zelenskyy is willing to do something that he hasn't been willing to do, which is making concessions, perhaps giving up some territory to create a demilitarized zone if there are security guarantees.
[16:25:07]
Do you think that this -- this particular issue may push the negotiations forward, finally?
GENERAL WESLEY CLARK (RET.), FORMER NATO SUPREME ALLIED COMMANDER: I think it does put more pressure on Vladimir Putin to do something. But what we're in is a sort of three-cornered sand fight in a sandbox in which President Trump wants an agreement. He's approaching it in a pretty much amoral fashion. In other words, he's not distinguishing between the aggressor and the violated party. He just wants the fighting to end.
Putin wants Trump to put pressure on Zelensky. Zelensky was under tremendous pressure. President Trump said he had no cards. But amazingly, Ukraine has held on. It's even thrown the Russians out of the little town of Kupiansk and it's holding its own in Pokrovsk.
And so, it looks like Putin has the military problem with himself. And so, it's being worked out through diplomacy, that is to say, Putin uses diplomacy to try to split the United States away from Ukraine, Ukraine away from the Europeans, the U.S., away from the Europeans. While he's still betting that he's going to succeed militarily.
The less success he has militarily, the greater the chance that we'll get a cessation of hostilities there. What President Zelenskyy wants to do is do enough so that President Trump will put the pressure on Putin, rather than on him. And so that's the question is, will President Trump see what, what is being offered by Zelenskyy and then say to Putin, look, you got to come, you got to give me something.
You got to give me something on this. Or will he simply say no, it's not enough yet. And put the pressure back on Zelenskyy. The trick of the negotiations from the Ukrainian side is get the pressure put on Putin. More pressure means a greater likelihood that Putin will concede and you will get a cessation of hostilities there.
SIDNER: I do want to turn to Nigeria and just get your read on what happened on Christmas Day. There were strikes according to the Trump administration, on ISIS targets. And he's saying this is -- look, this is all about trying to help Christians who have been killed there. To be clear, Christians and Muslims are killed in Nigeria.
Is it a good strategy or how do you see it?
CLARK: You know, we really don't know enough at this point to judge the effectiveness of the strikes. What we do know is that the United States has been on the back foot in West Africa for some time. We did have good intelligence, including predators in Niger. But the coup a couple of years ago resulted in the withdrawal of our predators there. So, we probably don't have as good eyes on potential target.
I suspect that the pentagon has been working on this target, where these camps and so forth, getting some information from the Nigerians, looking at our intelligence overhead and so forth. And we fired some lambs at it. We'll have to see what the bomb damage assessment says. But in general, this is not the way to defeat terrorists, because once they know you're coming after them like this, they disperse, they camouflage, they mix up with the people, and you end up with a lot of collateral damage. A lot of ordinary people are hurt in something like this, and you end up being discredited.
So it's a -- it's a one-time blow. It reinforces what the president said. He's serious about this, but it's not a way to really help Nigeria deal with the instability and terrorists in their northeast and northwest.
SIDNER: Yeah, as our reporters in Africa and Kevin Liptak mentioned it's complicated what is going on in Nigeria as within many countries. And so, you know, you have to take it as a whole. But we will see what happens because they are promising the Trump administration potentially there is more to come. And I know you'll be watching and we'll be talking to you again, General Wes Clark, do appreciate it. Thank you so much.
CLARK: Definitely.
SIDNER: All right.
CLARK: Thank you.
SIDNER: Up next in THE ARENA, new CNN reporting on what's driving more and more House Republicans to leave Congress and run for governor instead.
Plus, the vice president called white nationalist Nick Fuentes' influence, quote, vastly overstated. What the manosphere is saying about Fuentes' future in the Republican Party now.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
JOE ROGAN, HOST, "THE JOE ROGAN EXPERIENCE": You got anybody in mind?
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Nick Fuentes.
ROGAN: Nick Fuentes? He could probably win a few years. What's 20 years from now look like, you know? Maybe someone like that can win.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[16:34:12]
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
REP. MARJORIE TAYLOR GREENE (R-GA): It is extremely frustrating, as a rank and file Republican member in the in our majority, our Republican majority that many of us women are not taken seriously and our legislation is not taken seriously.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
SIDNER: Some Republicans in Congress are expressing frustration not just with Democrats, but with their own party and the general vitriol in Congress, which has led to a number of lawmakers deciding not to run for reelection next year. Well, it's not yet a record number of lawmakers leaving Congress. We are seeing a new trend in the House.
Ten Republicans have opted to run for governor instead, the most in the past 50 years.
CNN's Annie Grayer joins our panel.
You wrote this story. It was really interesting. What is it that's appealing to these lawmakers to leave Congress and run for governor instead?
ANNIE GRAYER, CNN SENIOR REPORTER: Well, Sara, if you look at the start of this term, let's take it back to January, where Republicans had control of the House, the Senate, and, of course, Trump in the White House. There was a lot of positive momentum. Republicans were really excited about the trifecta and all that. They thought they were going to be able to accomplish.
And now to where we are in December. The level of frustration that so many Republicans across the conference are feeling for what they say is just a lack of momentum, a lack of ability to codify President Trump's agenda. Take on top of that the security threats that so many members face, the time away that they're feeling from their families, and just the calculus that so many Republicans specifically are making are starting to think, you know, I would rather be one of one in the executive of a state that maybe is even a very Republican friendly state. They think they're having an easier time getting legislation, accomplishing things from that post than remaining in Congress.
Now, these are -- a lot of these Republicans who are running for governor are leaving pretty safe seats that are not necessarily leaving their party in a lurch, but it just speaks to the level of frustration that so many Republicans who I spoke to for this story told me that they're feeling, for example, you know, passing legislation, working so hard to try and pass something in the House that often just sits in the Senate. And, you know, we're dealing with such narrow majorities here where Republicans have to work extremely hard just to make some changes to some of the major party policy agendas, like immigration, like trade, like tariffs.
You know, if you talk to Republican leadership, they will tell you they're doing the best they can. House Speaker Mike Johnson says he's in the consensus building business, and he has to work with all the different factions and try and keep his very narrow majority together. But when you have Republicans who a lot of them come from business or small, like working in smaller government backgrounds and are very used to executing, getting things done, the frustration that so many feel in the House is really reaching a boiling point.
And that's why I think we're seeing this new trend where people are more interested in running for state offices, state offices, specifically governor instead.
SIDNER: Thank you, Annie, for your reporting and stick around. I'm going to go to the panel real quick here.
Chapin, you just keep getting the first answer because, you know, we're talking about Republicans here, and I'm curious what you make of this because you're hearing a few things here. It's the vitriol, right? It's the death threats and the threats that they're getting. And but it's also the party itself and the infighting that's happening and the pressure. I mean, are you hearing the same sorts of things from lawmakers?
FAY: Yeah. You know, being a member of Congress is a thankless job. Getting things done is monumentally difficult, even when you have all the levers of power on your side. Right? And you have to run for re- election every two years. And some people live and have to travel a great deal to get there.
And being a governor is way more fun and way more powerful. And I think you're seeing, you know, the Republicans in Congress are seeing President Trump being able to do the things that he's doing in the executive branch. And they realize they're sort of following, right, or chasing after him.
And I think that as a governor, you can get just a lot more done. Here in New York, the governor is very powerful. You can do a lot and you can affect a lot of change. So, I think, you know, maybe the numbers are a little bit higher. We're also heading into a midterm. So, the headwinds are going to be against Republicans just historically.
I think seeing how the Trump agenda plays out next year will maybe buttress that a little bit for them. But being a member of Congress is a thankless job. And like you said, there's death threats. The country is so polarized, people are literally being killed in the streets for, you know, their political views.
So, you know, you make $200,000 a year, you're supporting your family in two different locations. And it's a difficult job. So, I think there's a lot of things that go into a member of Congress's decision to do something else.
SIDNER: Bill, I'm curious if you think that part of this is a calculation that 2026 is coming, and considering what happened in Virginia, considering what happened in New Jersey, that this is also one of the reasons in your mind.
DE BLASIO: It is. But it cuts both ways because 2026 is not going to be a great year down ballot either for governor races around the country for Republicans. I mean, right now the trend is so clear.
And look, if Donald Trump were moderating, he was changing his style, his message, if he was actually authentically talking about affordability, maybe you'd say these folks think they could bounce back in '26. We don't see any evidence of this. I think it will be a very tough for Republicans running for anything in 2026.
But I think there's a second piece. The Trump administration created, something we've never seen before. They neutered the Congress in a way that bluntly, no Republican or Democratic president has ever done.
And it's not healthy. It's not what the Constitution says. It's not what the founders intended. It's not what the people want. The people actually want the different parts of government standing up and creating those checks and balances.
If you're a Republican member of Congress, you don't have a lot to do. You don't have a lot to do. You can't speak your mind. You can't do real oversight.
And in the past, I want to give Republicans credit down through the years, Watergate being the shining example. Theres been times where Republicans held their own administrations feet to the fire.
[16:40:02]
They can't do that now.
So why would anyone want to be there, honestly, as a serious professional?
SIDNER: S.E., there's a new Gallup poll out, and I just wanted to throw this up, and it shows that none of the top Trump administration or congressional leaders cracked 50 percent approval.
The person who's the highest -- look at it, Jerome Powell, a name that a lot of people wouldn't necessarily know, the Fed chairman.
What does this tell you? As far as the chances, when you look much further for Vance, for Rubio, as they look at potential runs for president?
CUPP: Well, the Republican Party is in trouble right now. 2028 is a ways away. But listen, there's something I'm not buying a little bit in all of this, right? The intransigence in Congress, not new, unfortunately. The vitriol not new, the inability to get things done, the death threats.
This isn't really new. What's new here? Trump is a lame duck president. Okay, it was all fun and games when you wanted to be, you know, go to congress to get famous, to get rich, to become a celebrity. When Trump had power and that power was on to maybe another a second term and he'd carry you with him potentially.
Then you didn't care that I'm not getting anything done. You didn't care, really, that conservatism was no longer on the ballot or in legislation. It's not fun anymore when he's a lame duck, and now you actually have to worry about your political future.
We can pretend it's about Congress so bad, intransigence. And I want to get stuff done. You were fine with this -- you, Republican members of Congress -- you were fine with this. When Trump still had a chit to pay out and bring you along with him.
SIDNER: On the right.
CUPP: Yeah.
SIDNER: David, I want to breach this or broach this very carefully. But we heard from Joe Rogan on a recent episode who was talking about the possibility of a certain person who he said could be somebody that rises in the Republican Party. He was talking about Nick Fuentes, a known white nationalist.
Let me let you hear what he said. And there's a lot of joking, but then it seems to go serious. Listen.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
JOE ROGAN, HOST, "THE JOE ROGAN EXPERIENCE": You got anybody in mind?
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Nick Fuentes.
ROGAN: Nick Fuentes? He could probably win a few years.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Hold on, let's talk.
ROGAN: Listen, he couldn't have existed before, right? Ten, 20 years ago. Couldn't have existed. Now, super popular.
What's 20 years from now look like? You know? Maybe someone like that can win.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
SIDNER: Rogan is a very powerful voice. We saw that in the election of Donald Trump in this so-called manosphere. And a lot of these things would start with jokes, but then they would get serious and people start going like, oh, maybe. What did you make of that?
FREEDLANDER: I think he's absolutely right. I mean, I think that it wouldn't surprise me at all to see Fuentes somehow be a leader of the Republican Party in, in 10 or 20 years time. I mean, no one thought Donald Trump would be president. I mean, that seemed like a joke in like 2016, 2015.
So, you know, it's -- Fuentes clearly has an audience. He clearly has some popularity within the Republican Party. You have Republican leaders not denouncing him. You know, this is sort of how it starts. He has a following. You know, where this ends? I don't think any of us can say.
SIDNER: Well, that's quite a statement. We're going to leave it there.
Annie Grayer, thank you so much.
The rest of the panel, don't go anywhere.
Ahead, what about the Democrats? Ahead in THE ARENA, we will look at the other side of the aisle and how Dems are trying to reinvent themselves.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
SEN. ELISSA SLOTKIN (D-MI): I think the Democratic Party should be leading instead of just saying, no, no, no status quo. Status quo, don't change. No, embrace change.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[16:48:07]
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
SEN. CHRIS MURPHY (D-CT): We have become the party of the status quo.
PETE BUTTIGIEG, FORMER TRANSPORTATION SECRETARY: We can't be wedded to the old ways or the status quo.
SLOTKIN: I think the Democratic Party should be leading instead of just saying no, no, no. Status quo. Status quo, don't change.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
SIDNER: What did you hear over and over again? If Democrats had a phrase of the year, it just might be "status quo". It's been a long year for the Democrats with infighting on Capitol Hill and the campaign trail over whether the party's tent is big enough for socialists like Zohran Mamdani and moderates, Abigail Spanberger.
As attention turns to midterms and even 2028. Some notable faces of the party have been testing out a new strategy as anti-establishment disruptors. But as "The New York Times" asks, can Democrats reinvent themselves as disruptors?
My panel is back with me.
I'm going to start with you, Bill, because you. You did back Mamdani earlier than many. I do want to go to a poll that is a very unfortunate poll. For Democrats and the president. It says CNN did this poll and it came out a day ago, and it says, do leaders care about what people have to say? The population.
And 51 percent said that Donald Trump does not care at all what they have to say. But nearly 40 percent of Americans say the Democratic leadership doesn't care at all about what they have to say. I mean, what do they need to do to fix this disastrous feeling among potential voters?
DE BLASIO: Look, Mamdani gave us all an incredible lesson in how to fix this situation. He spent his entire campaign out in communities, not scripted events, not disconnected from the people, but actually embracing the people. Talked about affordability all day long. He did not focus on social issues or identity politics. He focused on affordability with extraordinary consistency.
[16:50:00]
And he said yes. He said the status quo was broken in all sorts of ways and he meant it. So, what I'd say is, God bless these Democrats who have finally figured out that what we did in 2024 was as backward as it possibly could have been. In 2024, an election, honestly, for president, we could have won. It sounded like our candidates first, Joe Biden and Kamala Harris, were satisfied with the status quo. It sounded like they really didn't want to shake things up. Famously, Kamala Harris on "The View" not having anything different she wanted to do than Joe Biden, but it also sounded like they were more concerned with this abstract question of democracy, which meant so little to people compared to the fact they couldn't make ends meet when they're trying to pay the bills end of each month.
SIDNER: The cost of eggs.
DE BLASIO: So -- yeah. In the end, we -- and I'm -- it makes me so angry. Democrats literally seem complacent and accepting the status quo and even backing up status quo institutions.
Mamdani showed us that we should actually get back to our historic roots and be about working people, and about the fact that things are not working for working people. We got to do something profoundly different. And that's how you also win elections.
SIDNER: He's a fan. He's a fan from a song that most people know.
DE BLASIO: Good.
(LAUGHTER)
SIDNER: I am going to go to you, David, because you wrote this article in October. Back in October is the Democratic Party's future Zohran Mamdani or Mikie Sherrill? And I am curious if Zohran Mamdani, the ideas permeate, but whether someone like him is singular to New York, because this is such a very unique city.
FREEDLANDER: Well, I don't think he's singular to New York, but he is a singular political talent, and I think that's the real difference. I mean, he is an extraordinary generational political talent, and I think that kind of can change the contours of the debate a little bit. And so, yes, like a socialist will probably not win in Virginia or in a statewide election, but like someone like Mamdani could win. I think, you know, choosing things, putting forth policies that are like outside of the box as long as they are the messenger that he is.
CUPP: I think to the question of Mamdani or who did you say?
SIDNER: Mikie Sherrill.
CUPP: Mikie Sherrill or Spanberger, whatever. The answer has to be yes, right? For the Democrats, depending on where you're running. But the problem I think Democrats have had for the past many cycles actually, is they spend a lot of time telling voters what they should care about instead of listening to voters about what they do care about.
And Bill got at this because, you know, sometimes this lines up in 2022. Democrats said, you know, what voters should care about is democracy and abortion. And voters agreed. And that's why Democrats did really well in that midterm.
In 2024, what voters were saying was, I care about the economy, crime and immigration. And Democrats from a fairly condescending position, said, what you should be worried about is democracy and climate change and abortion and women's rights. And none of those things are wrong to care about, but you have to be running in a real world, listening to voters at what they are telling you, screaming at the top of their lungs, in some cases, this is what we care about.
Mamdani listened, and he was on those issues. He may have wanted to talk about more progressive things. He didn't talk a lot about climate change. I bet he wanted to. What he did was listen, and voters were telling him, it's the economy, it's affordability, it's rent, it's transportation, it's energy prices.
So, it's just about listening. It doesn't have to be an ideological this or that for Democrats. You just have to get off the high horse, come down to the people and just listen to what they're telling you.
SIDNER: You got an amen from this one over here. So, there you go.
DE BLASIO: Preach, preach.
SIDNER: I mean, agreement over here. Now, do you I mean, should Republicans be worried as Democrats do jump on this thing? Affordability, right? We're hearing that and getting away from the status quo. When you have the president saying affordability is a hoax and you got all these mixed messages and people are saying, no, it isn't, I know what, I pay for groceries now, and I know I don't like it.
FAY: Well, they have to do something, right? Orange man bad is not a good strategy and people are tired of it, right? You can't just be against everything President Trump wants to do.
Negative campaigns work, but they only work when you've given voters the simultaneous, positive, proactive campaign. Okay, we hate this guy. And this guy is the worst thing since sliced bread. What are you for? Right? That's the only way to do it.
And Democrats have to be for something. I can\t tell you what they're for other than whatever Donald Trump says the opposite.
DE BLASIO: Yeah, but listen, with Trump saying affordability is a hoax, he is becoming everything bad he said about Joe Biden.
CUPP: Yeah, totally.
DE BLASIO: He is denying what people are experiencing. And amazingly, after all the mistakes of, quote/unquote, Bidenomics trying to sort of sell people that the gig economy was great, even though your personal economy sucked right now, Trump's doing exact same thing -- touting these big economic statistics, right? Who the hell cares about GDO when you can't pay the bills?
FAY: But I'll tell you what people do care about. Much like all my advice in the Trump era is pay attention to his words. But look at the actions of what's happening.
[16:55:00]
Inflation is coming down. Gas prices are the lowest they've been in a long time.
So, the affordability agenda is working and it's happening. And if it continues with this momentum, that's what I talked about maybe buttressing some of those headwinds for Republicans. Right?
If there are fewer wars, there's fewer Venezuelan gang. You know, headlines across the country, these things are happening. And Trump's doing them regardless of what he says.
SIDNER: We will have to see, because that could be a big change. If the economy improves greatly, we will see what happens.
We will be right back.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
SIDNER: Thank you to my excellent panel here.
Phil Mattingly, I'm watching you standing by for "THE LEAD". Take it away.
