Return to Transcripts main page

CNN's The Arena with Kasie Hunt

Officers Who Defended Capitol Sue To Stop DOJ's New $1.88 Fund; Trump Celebrates MAGA Victories Against GOP Incumbents; Justice Department Indicts Former Cuban Leader Raul Castro. Aired 4-5p ET

Aired May 20, 2026 - 16:00   ET

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

[16:00:00]

BRIANNA KEILAR, CNN HOST: There's a surgeon general advisory. Do you think it can work?

BORIS SANCHEZ, CNN HOST: Surgeon general sounds like an intense role, especially to a kid. Yeah.

KEILAR: Yeah, they're going to believe it.

THE ARENA WITH KASIE HUNT starts right now.

(MUSIC)

KASIE HUNT, CNN HOST: Hi, everyone. Welcome to THE ARENA. I'm Kasie Hunt. It's great to have you with us on this Wednesday.

Right now, the first legal challenge to the president's plan to give taxpayer money to supporters who claim they were unfairly targeted by the government. Today, two former police officers who protected the Capitol on January 6th sued the Trump administration, arguing that the so-called weaponization compensation fund is unconstitutional.

Their lawsuit alleging this, quote, "In the most brazen act of presidential corruption this century, President Donald J. Trump has created a $1.776 billion taxpayer-funded slush fund to finance the insurrectionists and paramilitary groups that commit violence in his name," end quote.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

DANIEL HODGES, FORMER DC POLICE OFFICER: I remember him foaming at the mouth. He also put his cell phone in his mouth so that he had both hands free to assault me. Eventually, he succeeded in stripping away my gas mask and a new rush of exposure to CS and OC spray hit me.

A mob of terrorists were coordinating their efforts now, shouting "Hi- ho!" as they synchronize, pushing their weight forward, crushing me further against the metal doorframe. A man in front of me grabbed my baton that I still held in my hands, and in my current state, I was unable to retain my weapon. He bashed me in the head and face with it, rupturing my lip and adding additional injury to my skull.

(END VIDEO CLIP) HUNT: So that's Daniel Hodges describing what was happening to him in those moments that you saw on the screen next to him as pro-Trump rioters injured him, and more than 100 other officers on January 6th.

Hodges and fellow former officer Harry Dunn's suit argues that money from this new fund could end up going to some of those very same people who attacked them in what you just saw.

And let's make no mistake, there are some January 6th convicts who do think they're owed taxpayer dollars. In new interviews with CNN Capitol rioters, election deniers and fake electors are all celebrating the news. One man who was convicted on six counts related to January 6th telling us this, quote, "This is long overdue. It's not okay for hardworking, average Americans to be chewed up and destroyed as a collective boogeyman," end quote.

In recent days, the Trump administration and its allies have had multiple opportunities to simply say that they won't give money to people who stormed the capitol, assaulted police officers, or tried to stop the peaceful transfer of power. And they've made a point to not rule it out.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

DONALD TRUMP, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: People were destroyed. They went to jail. Their families were ruined. They committed suicide.

You know, all the Biden administration and the Obama administration were reimbursing those people for their legal fees and for their costs and for anybody involved. So, we think that those people, we think that anybody involved in that process should partake. And you're talking about peanuts compared to the value. It destroyed the lives of many, many people.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

HUNT: All right. Let's get off the sidelines and head into THE ARENA. My panel is here.

CNN contributor, host of "The New York Times'" "The Interview," Lulu Garcia-Navarro; CNN political commentator Jonah Goldberg; former White House communications director Kate Bedingfield; and former speaker pro tem Patrick McHenry.

We are also joined by CNN legal analyst and former federal prosecutor Elliot Williams.

Welcome to all of you. Thank you so much for being here.

Jonah, I want to read from your new piece in a second.

But, Congressman McHenry, I want to start with you just because, you know, you have served at the highest echelons of the Congress, which was attacked on January 6th. And this is just a piece of the, you know, group of people. This is just one subset of people that that could benefit from this fund that President Trump has set up to benefit his allies. But, you know, is it right

PATRICK MCHENRY (R), FORMER SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: Oh, of course not. No, but I'm an outlier. I'm sitting on your set here. I'm not in Congress. So --

HUNT: No, yeah.

MCHENRY: I hold a different stance and many of my party I voted to accept the electoral count on January 6th. I was on a very different side of the pictures you just showed on TV.

So, my stance and view has long been different and is unchanged. It was --

HUNT: But there were a lot of colleagues who were with you on that day or in the immediate aftermath. Who then? I mean, even Speaker Kevin McCarthy changed his tune.

MCHENRY: Let's separate two things.

HUNT: Right?

MCHENRY: Separate these two things. One is this group of folks on January 6th that the president said he was going to pardon in the election, got elected, and then pardoned them as a full class of people.

[16:05:08]

Fairly unprecedented, a massive statement, something I didn't support. But he actively campaigned on it and fulfilled point one, point two. There is a victims' slush fund at the Department of Justice that has long, long standing. We've given administrations too much power on handing these things out. And this administration is using it in fulfillment of its political agenda. That can be cleaned up and should be cleaned up.

So, I want to separate the two things. The weaponization of government, though it is now almost orthodoxy within the Republican Party that the government was utilized to target Republicans out of power, first in the Obama administration and then second in the -- in the Biden administration. Some of that is true. If you look at Jack Smith getting members of Congress cell phone records that was clearly overly broad targeting, but much of it is not true, but has become part of just what is in the water, in terms of politics.

So, this is absolutely troublesome and not going to be easily resolved. And it's going to put a lot of pressure on the Hill, because Leader Schumer has already said, we'll have this as a vote on vote-a- rama, So you're going to have senators, particularly senators, are not so happy right now having to opine on something that they do not broadly support.

HUNT: Yeah. I -- well, I mean, you can even see it already in -- this is a vulnerable member of the House of Representatives, Congressman Brian Fitzpatrick of Pennsylvania, who was pressed on this fund. This is what he had to say today. Watch.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

REP. BRIAN FITZPATRICK (R-PA): We got to unpack exactly what it is, what the source of the funding is in order to stop it and or reverse it.

REPORTER: So, do you want to stop it?

FITZPATRICK: Oh, 100 percent.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

HUNT: Congressman, just to stick with you for a second. I mean, the president is now personally basically threatening Fitzpatrick with primary challenge. I mean, is there any way Republicans hold that seat if they get rid of him? I mean, how is this not in anybody's interest if you're a Republican trying to, you know, pass things, do policy in Washington?

MCHENRY: The first term, this is the four years in between. It's -- since the president came down the escalator. I mean, this is just part and parcel of how Trump operationalizes his power within the Republican Party, purely.

But what I would say is this you still have members of the party like Brian Fitzpatrick, who will state what they believe and will stand up for it regardless of the consequences. And they make up the difference between having a majority and a minority in the house and a majority and minority in the Senate. This really matters for the final two years of President Trump's administration, whether or not he has pure adversaries on Capitol Hill or a majority with some complicated people that do hold people to account.

And I think this is quite consequential for the last two years of President Trump's term.

HUNT: Yeah. Fair enough. Elliot Williams, before we dig further into the politics here, can you just sort of explain to us the legality or lack thereof? I mean, what are -- what are -- what is allowing them to do this? Can Congress stop it? What is your view of that?

ELLIOT WILLIAMS, CNN LEGAL ANALYST: Right. I mean, it's really a question not for me, Kasie, but for Congress, because of the fact that there are certainly and I think Patrick had alluded to this a little bit, there are victims compensation funds that exist. For instance, the big one being the 9/11 victims compensation fund for people who were harmed on that day. There's a pot of money. People can establish how they are harmed. Right?

But that's established by Congress. The crime victim fund, the most common one that the Justice Department uses was established by Congress. This year was not. And it certainly and this is, frankly, one of the arguments raised in the Capitol police officers lawsuit is that it just wasn't established by Congress. It was in effect, by Fiat, that the Justice department created this $1.776 billion fund. So that's the big question here. What actually created the authority

for this fund, number one? And number two, the very thing underlying the fund weaponization and lawfare, these two terms don't actually exist in the law. They're not defined. And so, ultimately, administering payments to people based on this nebulous concept that doesn't actually exist in the law. It's a political term, but not a legal one.

So, hashing that out is certainly something that can happen in the courts. But really, congress is the body that ought to be looking into whether and how such a fund would be operated.

HUNT: Gotcha.

So, Jonah Goldberg, I mean, you wrote this in your new piece today, that, quote, it may, in fact, be legal for the president to be the judge in his own cause and create a taxpayer financed slush fund for him to reward cronies and henchmen on a whim. But I struggle to think of a hypothetical scenario that -- hypothetical scenarios that would be more likely to arouse in Madison and his contemporaries, the now misplaced reassurance that impeachment wasn't available remedy.

It seems like you're basically saying, well, it may be legal and there's nothing we can do about it.

JONAH GOLDBERG, CNN POLITICAL COMMENTATOR: Yeah, so no offense to many of my colleagues, including Elliot, who's a dear friend, legal punditry about impeachment has done this country a massive disservice over the last 30 years.

[16:10:07]

The Founding Fathers in no way thought that you had to -- I understand the term high crimes and misdemeanors. They in no way thought that impeachment was solely reserved for illegality. The thing I was referring to in the column was that Madison was asked at the ratifying convention in Virginia, what would you do if a president encouraged essentially henchmen or loyalists to commit crimes in his name, promising that they'll pardon them afterwards? Madisons like, that's a no brainer. You'd impeach and remove him from office.

Well, Trump encouraged these people, whether it's legal incitement is another issue. He encouraged these people to do what they did at the Capitol, and then he pardoned all of them. And now he actually wants to cut checks to them.

I don't know what the actual formula is going to be, but if it's -- they're basically 1,600 people who are prosecuted, that comes out to this fund of $1.1 million apiece. Now, that's not going to go that way but that's appalling.

HUNT: It really underscores how much money there actually is.

KATE BEDINGFIELD, CNN POLITICAL COMMENTATOR: We haven't even touched on. There are two things here we haven't even touched on yet. I mean, one, this is a settlement in a case that Donald Trump brought against the Trump administration IRS. So, this is effectively Trump and Trump's personal legal interests settling this case against the Trump IRS, taking what is taxpayer money. I mean, this is $1.8 billion worth of taxpayer money and moving it into a fund that he can then control for personal purposes.

So, it's so many elements of this are im -- to me are just impossible for a Brian Fitzpatrick, who has, in my opinion, said the right thing, but to go back to his constituents in a swing district and say, you know, this is a -- this is a president I can support. This is a good stewardship of our tax dollars in the United States government.

The other piece of this we haven't discussed yet is the IR -- the audit immunity that Trump has instituted as part of this settlement for himself, his businesses and his family. So, moving forward, he is -- has barred essentially the government from auditing any of his taxes. And there are elements of that that are obviously incredibly troubling.

And so, you know, it is yet again, I mean, I feel like we, you know, we sit here and say this over and over, but, you know, yet again, Donald Trump using the office of the president to further his own political interests, to further his own financial interests, and basically making no bones about it.

HUNT: Lulu, I mean, it is something that is in some ways under- discussed, the Trump family will leave Trump's second term so much wealthier than when they came in.

LULU GARCIA-NAVARRO, CNN CONTRIBUTOR: Yeah. This is a government of graft. It is a government of corruption. There are now multiple investigations into potential leaks from the government about key decisions that Trump might have made to do with oil futures and Iran. I mean, everywhere you look under every rock, someone is cashing in, and the majority of those people cashing in are connected to Donald Trump.

And I do wonder at what point people will start to call this what I think most academics and researchers who look at this, would say and that this is a corrupt, authoritarian government that is self-dealing. And at a certain point, you know, it just becomes so egregious that -- you know, one has to look at it and say, how -- does he believe that he can do this, that his government can do this and there not be any repercussions for it? Because it is completely shameless at this point.

There is no legal sort of ramp -- there's no legal framework for any of this. I just want to remind you that actually -- that initial thing that kicked all this off that $10 billion that he was suing his own IRS for, that was not made public by anyone. That was investigated by "The New York Times". And that's how that came out into the public domain. That was being hidden from the public.

So, you know, this is not only actions that are being taken, to take away taxpayer money and use it for the self-interest of the president. It is being hidden from the American people. HUNT: All right. We -- clearly, we're going to have a lot -- a lot to

deal with in the coming weeks and months. Elliot Williams, thank you, my friend. Always great to have you.

The rest of our panel is going to stand by. Coming up next here, Democratic Senator Chris Van Hollen will be here in THE ARENA. He is proposing a new amendment to bar the DOJ from giving money in this new compensation fund to violent criminals. But will the Senate get on board?

Plus, Thomas Massie goes down, albeit swinging. The Kentucky Republican may have been defeated by a Trump backed challenger, but now he sounds like he's ready to burn it all down.

[16:15:04]

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

REP. THOMAS MASSIE (R-KY): Today is the six-month anniversary of the Epstein Files Transparency Act. We've taken out two dozen CEOs and ambassador, a prince, a prime minister, a minister of culture. And that was just six months. I got seven months left in Congress.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

MASSIE: I would have come out sooner, but I had to call my opponent and concede, and it took a while to find Ed Gallrein in Tel Aviv.

[16:20:01]

If the legislative branch always votes with the president, we do have a king. If the legislative branch always vote which votes whichever way the wind is blowing, then we have mob rule. We got to take care of America first, America first.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

HUNT: President Trump last night extending his endorsement winning streak after Republican voters in Kentucky chose the Trump-backed Ed Gallrein over incumbent and longtime Trump foe Thomas Massie. Massie's primary defeat coming amid the success of Trump-backed candidates in Georgia, Indiana and Louisiana, with Trump hoping to flex his influence once again next week in the Texas Senate race.

Trump's involvement, though, threatens to derail what could very well be his last six months with a majority in Washington. The Senate's top Republican, John Thune, acknowledging today that Trump's ousting of these incumbents makes things, quote, "more complicated" is an understatement in the Senate, by essentially freeing up those incumbents to vote against the president's agenda if they so please.

Joining our panel in THE ARENA, CNN political commentator, former Trump White House communications director, Alyssa Farah Griffin.

Alyssa, great to see you. And I want to talk in a second about this kind of broader idea. But I want to kind of zero in on what's going on here with the president, with John Cornyn, with kind of the vindictive way he has gone about keeping scores with every person who he has primaried or, you know, pushed back against.

John Cornyn is one of the less egregious offenders, by Trump's standards. And yet he still finds himself in this position.

ALYSSA FARAH GRIFFIN, CNN POLITICAL COMMENTATOR: Right. I suspect that many close Trump advisers were trying to get the president to end up endorsing Cornyn. This is somebody who criticized him after January 6th, the way that virtually every sitting Republican did. He didn't vote for conviction.

He's also in Senate leadership. He's one of the most prolific fundraisers in the senate. And he's -- he's a beloved member of the Texas Senate. So, what he did by going forward with his endorsement of Ken Paxton, somebody who's been riddled in ethics charges, somebody who's got some issues with his ex-wife in the picture and brings a lot more questions I would say to this race is he made Texas a lot more in play.

When you're talking about Texas potentially being in play for Democrats, you're in a rough place. John Cornyn, it was the school of thought that he would be significantly more competitive against James Talarico, a very talented Democratic candidate. But it also goes beyond Texas, Kasie. And, you know, this is this is now making it a tighter race, and it's going to divert resources from other must-win Senate races like Maine, like North Carolina, like Ohio.

It just makes it that much harder for Republicans to fight to keep their majority because of this endorsement, which simply came down to loyalty and just barely even, you know, crossing the line of loyalty many years ago.

HUNT: Well, and here is what the wall street journal reported from Senator Tim Scott, who, of course, is the person charged with trying to get Republicans elected to the Senate, quote, "Senator Tim Scott called President Trump on Tuesday with a last ditch plea. Scott, who leads the Senate's campaign arm, urged him to reconsider, according to people familiar with the conversation. Trump was looking for an opportunity to send a message to congressional Republicans, some of the people said."

Jonah Goldberg, the -- is this -- I mean, when I think about this and I think about what the president is potentially facing over the course of the next six months, he is clearly placing his own personal feelings ahead of potential political accomplishment. If you're trying to get anything through Congress. Now, I guess there's a question of whether this matters, that matters at all to this president who seems to be willing to do whatever he feels like he's able to do.

But that aside, in many ways, he's acting in a way that's against his own self-interest. GOLDBERG: Yes, I think that's correct. That is a -- that is an astute

and accurate observation of the facts. I think he -- look, first of all, I -- it's a very common story with him. I think he probably saw some polling numbers that said he thought Paxton was going to win.

Trump always wants to be Ferris Bueller. He sees a parade. He runs out in front of it and pretends that he's leading, right? And so I think that's part of it.

I also think he very much enjoys having the Republican caucus terrified of him. And he's on a streak with that, with the Indianapolis -- with the Indiana stuff and all the rest. And that is his mode. He would -- he's always would have preferred to be the head of a -- the undisputed head of a rump party, than the actual head of a majority party, where he actually had to negotiate with other centers of power within the party.

[16:25:05]

He wants to be unalloyed ruler of the Republicans, and right now, because of his power over primaries, he kind of is.

BEDINGFIELD: Yeah, I was just going to say the same thing about I think he just enjoys it. He just personally likes it. He likes the fact that he's got the Republican caucus essentially running scared. He likes the fact that he knows that they're saying quietly to each other, what's he doing? This doesn't make sense. This isn't strategic.

He views himself as above politics, beyond politics. However, you know, however you want to define it. And he just likes being in charge. So, I think we always, you know, we always try to apply some sort of strategic thinking to what Trump is doing. He just likes being the guy.

GOLDBERG: We're also not talking about the Strait of Hormuz, which is a --

BEDINGFIELD: Well, that, too. That, too.

MCHENRY: Frankly, every president wants this power. Every president. No president looks at the Senate or looks at the House and says, "You people matter to me." They do this begrudgingly.

So, what this says? I mean, I think what this says is that Trump is master of his domain, and his domain is the Republican Party, and he fully owns the Republican Party. There is -- we've had this discussion over the previous months. What at what point does his power abate? And do you have a breaking point with Republicans? Not today, that's for sure.

GOLDBERG: My point is, he'd rather lose the seat than not have.

MCHENRY: OK. So, let's -- let's unpack this. Thomas Massie was not a part of the governing coalition in the House. He is a different character of this Congress than he was in previous congress.

He sits on the rules committee. He's been a problematic vote the whole congress.

HUNT: Trump's not the only one that's glad to see him go. I wouldn't say.

MCHENRY: It's complicated because Thomas is quite complicated. He's -- he's been a libertarian, true believer. He represented that class of 2010 that came in that were the rabblerousers, change-oriented and all this stuff. And he has one of the greatest followers on Twitter, by the way, is Liam Donovan.

He retweeted this thing from like 10 years ago. And the quote from Massie was, "All this time I thought they were voting for libertarian Republicans. But after some soul searching, I realized that they voted for Rand and Ron and me and these primaries, they were voting -- they weren't voting for libertarian ideas. They were voting for the craziest -- it's daytime TV -- SOB in the race. And Donald Trump won best in class, as he had up until this point. He defined there."

So, the idea here is how do you own the party? Trump owns the party that is manifest here, and he doesn't care about the next six months of legislating, because there's really not any legislation left.

GARCIA-NAVARRO: But what does he get when he owns the party? Right. I mean, I hate to beat this drum yet again, but what does he get when he owns the party? What he gets is no internal opposition, no guardrail.

MCHENRY: Adulation.

GARCIA-NAVARRO: No. But it's not even adulation. That makes it like psychological. He practically speaking, then gets to do things unopposed. And so, this again, mimics behavior of people who cannot stand dissent.

BEDINGFIELD: But I think -- so I absolutely agree with that.

GARCIA-NAVARRO: Wants it.

GOLDBERG: But lots of presidents have tolerated Arlen Specters and all sorts of.

MCHENRY: Barely.

GOLDBERG: If they thought they were going to lose the seat to Democrats.

BEDINGFIELD: But let's also remember this is happening in the closed circle of the Republican primary electorate. And it's going to look very different in November when he is at 37 percent and he is having to face independent voters. And some Republican voters who are tired and frustrated.

MCHENRY: I didn't say it was good for Republicans in the midterm. That's a separate conversation entirely.

HUNT: Alyssa Farah Griffin, I mean, you were around for the quote, unquote, crazy SOBs that Congressman McHenry referenced. Jump in here GRIFFIN: Well, I like to remind people that, like, I worked for the

Freedom Caucus a decade ago. Thomas Massie was to the right of the Freedom Caucus. He was -- he is a very unique force. Theres a lot at play with him.

Listen, Epstein was certainly a factor. But this is someone who votes against all government funding bills, against all foreign aid, and in recent years has become, let's say, a dicey figure on his social media. This this seat doesn't matter in the sense that whoever got the nomination was going to win because it's a safely Republican district.

But what I would remind folks is Donald Trump is incredibly effective at primarying other Republicans in primaries, its then winning general elections in midterms when he's not on the ballot that he's less effective at. And I want to do just a brief political in memoriam for you. Kari lake, Doug Mastrianos, Blake Masters, Mehmet Oz, Herschel Walker, Adam Laxalt, Tudor Dixon.

He's less good when he's not carrying the top of the ticket. And when he's going with people who are purely loyal to him over who are stronger general election candidates. John Cornyn is a stronger general election candidate.

HUNT: Yeah, there's a huge, huge, huge difference between being able to control the outcome in a primary like this and being able to get somebody across the finish line in a general.

Alyssa Farah Griffin, always love having you. Thank you very much for being here.

The rest of the panel is going to stand by. Coming up next, Democratic Senator Chris Van Hollen joins us live in THE ARENA after pressing the acting attorney general on just who's going to benefit from the DOJ's billion dollar -- billion plus dollar anti-weaponization fund.

[16:30:02]

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

SEN. CHRIS VAN HOLLEN (D-MD): Simple question will eli -- will individuals who assaulted Capitol Hill police officers be eligible for this fund?

TODD BLANCHE, ACTING ATTORNEY GENERAL: Well, as it makes plain, anybody --

VAN HOLLEN: Just let me know if they're eligible for the fund.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

SEN. SUSAN COLLINS (R-ME): It is highly irregular and this is not something that should be put in place without a lot more scrutiny. REPORTER: So, do you want to stop it?

FITZPATRICK: Oh, 100 percent.

SEN. JOHN CURTIX (R-UT): From all outward appearances, this doesn't pass the smell test.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

HUNT: All right. We are continuing to follow the bipartisan backlash against the administration's new so-called anti-weaponization fund, which is now facing a lawsuit from two January 6 police officers who don't want to see that money go to rioters who assaulted them.

[16:35:15]

It's a matter that our next guest pressed the acting attorney general, Todd Blanche, about during Blanche's appearance on Capitol Hill yesterday.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

VAN HOLLEN: Simple question will eli -- will individuals who assaulted Capitol Hill police officers be eligible for this fund?

BLANCHE: Well, as it makes plain, anybody --

VAN HOLLEN: Just let me know if they're eligible for the fund.

BLANCHE: As was made plain yesterday, anybody in this country is eligible to apply if they believe they were a victim of weaponization.

VAN HOLLEN: Mister --

(END VIDEO CLIP)

HUNT: All right. Joining me now is Democratic senator from Maryland, Chris Van Hollen.

Senator, thank you very much for being here.

And I do want to also note that you announced today that you plan to introduce an amendment to block violent criminals and child molesters from receiving payouts from this fund. Do you expect -- what is the prognosis for that, actually getting a vote? We are, of course, headed for a lengthy voting process, most likely in the U.S. Senate. And explain a little bit more about why you're taking this stand the way you are.

VAN HOLLEN: Well, Kasie, I'm going to push very hard for a vote. As you say, we're going to be voting probably into the night tomorrow night. And I think everybody should be on record on this simple question. Should your taxpayer dollars, my taxpayer dollars, everybody who's watching taxpayer dollars go into a slush fund that can be used to pay people who assaulted Capitol Hill police officers on January 6th, can pay other people who have been convicted. Criminals can pay people convicted of being child molesters.

According to the acting attorney general, who's really acting as the president's personal attorney, which was his old job, this fund is open for payments to those kind of people, which is just obscene and outrageous. So, I think we should have a vote, and everybody should understand where senators stand on that question.

HUNT: What is your sense of who might apply for this? Because I want to -- I want to play something for you. The vice president, J.D. Vance, said yesterday about what kind of people and who might ask for this money. Watch.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

J.D. VANCE, VICE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: Republicans can apply for it. Democrats can apply for it. As you know, the president of United States has pardoned a number of Democrats who he felt were actually subject to this law fair. I mean, if Hunter Biden wants to apply for this particular fund, he is welcome to.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

HUNT: What is your view of who is eligible for this and is there potentially a strategy for Democrats to apply for the money if they were denied the money, might that allow for legal standing to sue?

VAN HOLLEN: Well, two things, Kasie. One, I think we should work to just get rid of this slush fund altogether. It is ripe for abuse. And to your question about who will actually get payments, the person who's going to appoint all five of the so-called commissioners here is the acting attorney general, Todd Blanche, who, of course, was the personal attorney to President Trump.

So, it essentially Donald Trump is appointing the people who are going to decide who decides to get who they give the money to. So, I -- the whole history of this has been an effort to reward the rioters of January 6th. And that is why people who participated in those riots have been anticipating getting these funds.

And the final point I'll make here, Kasie, is this is not going to be transparent, despite what they say, if you listen very carefully to their lawyerly words, they don't have to publish the names of the people who are getting these payouts. And that's because they don't want the public to know that people who have been convicted criminals are going to be getting taxpayer dollars through this slush fund.

HUNT: Senator, I also want to ask you about some of the election results that we saw yesterday with primary elections across the country. Of course, the president weighing into Republican primaries in a fairly significant way, Thomas Massie losing his seat. But the president also endorsed Ken Paxton in the Texas Senate primary against sitting Senator John Cornyn.

You've run the D triple -- the DSCC the campaign arm for senators.

[16:40:03] Do you think Democrats -- if Paxton wins this primary, should spend money in Texas to try to get James Talarico over the finish line?

VAN HOLLEN: Oh, Kasie, I think the Democrats should invest in Texas. The Texas senate race. No matter what. We have a terrific candidate in Talarico. He's been very focused on bringing down peoples costs to do what Donald Trump said he was going to do, which is to bring down costs and actually to keep us out of wars.

Donald Trump has started wars and is raising costs, Talarico is really somebody who wants to take on the special interests. And while Donald Trump, when he weighs in the way he did for the super MAGA candidate, Paxton, what he's doing is narrowing the electorate for that Republican candidate in the general election.

And so, this will help Talarico, because if you're an independent voter, you're not going to want just a MAGA extremist. And in the Massie race, what we learned was the Republican Party has become 100 percent the party of Donald Trump because Donald Trump said he wanted to, you know, dig deep into the Epstein files, Donald Trump said he wanted to keep us out of war. Epstein did dig into Epstein files. Massie did.

And Massie wanted to keep us out of wars. What Trump had said, and Trump came out against him. So, the bottom line, what Trump is doing is going to help Talarico and Democratic candidates.

HUNT: Finally, sir, before we go, we lost, of course, the country lost. One of your former colleagues, the former house finance chairman, Barney Frank, who I know you worked with when you were a member of the House. I remember him sitting in the phone booths in the, you know, reporting rooms off the House floor as the country was trying to pass as you all were trying to pass tarp legislation that it had just failed. It was really, really significant days for the country. And he played a real leading role.

He before he passed away, he gave an interview with my colleague Jake Tapper, and he spoke with "Politico" about his final message to Democrats going forward. And I want to play a little bit of what he said to Jake, and then I'd welcome your reflections, but also your reaction to his prescriptions. Watch.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

FORMER REP. BARNEY FRANK (D), MASSACHUSETTS: Some in the movement, then use that as an opportunity to advocate a set of cultural and social norms that go beyond what people want. But even where I agree with them on the end, I think they make a mistake by taking the most controversial parts of the agenda and turning them into litmus tests.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

HUNT: What's your reaction to what he said there? That essentially the party should not be applying these cultural litmus tests? I think it's worth noting, too, that he was a real fighter and champion for the rights of lesbian and gay Americans, of which he was one. VAN HOLLEN: Well, first, let me say Barney Frank was a good friend of

mine, and it was just a joy to have the chance to work with him as a member of the House. And he was an incredibly consequential figure, and especially important figure at that time of economic and financial crisis you spoke about. And of course, he was an amazing champion and voice for LGBT rights and was one of the very first legislators to come out. And he will be remembered for fighting for rights, too.

And as I understand, Kasie, what he was saying, it's not that we should ignore people's rights because he'd be the first to say we need to fight for everybody's rights. But let's also make sure that we focus on what brings us all together in this fight, which are those kitchen table issues which, regardless of your background, you know, regardless of your gender, regardless of your race, regardless of your sexual identity, everybody needs to make sure that they can take care of their family, put food on the table.

And I think his message was, let's also focus on those key issues that bring us all together. And I do think that's an important message.

HUNT: All right. Well, I'm very sorry for the loss of your friend, sir. And of course, it was -- it's also a loss for the country.

Senator Chris Van Hollen, thank you very much. Really appreciate your time.

VAN HOLLEN: Thank you.

HUNT: All right. Ahead, here in THE ARENA, the Justice Department has just indicted one of the last surviving leaders of the Cuban revolution. How this adds to the will they/won't they when it comes to the administrations months long threat of seemingly invading the island?

[16:45:09]

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP

REPORTER: What's coming next for Cuba?

TRUMP: Well, we're going to see. It's a failing nation. You see that. It's falling apart.

They have no oil. They have no money. It's a failing nation. So I just can't tell you that.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

BLANCHE: For the first time in nearly 70 years, senior leadership of the Cuban regime has been charged in this country in the United States of America, for acts of violence, resulting in the deaths of American citizens. Nations and their leaders cannot be permitted to target Americans, kill them, and not face accountability.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

HUNT: That was the Acting Attorney General, Todd Blanche, announcing criminal charges against former Cuban president Raul Castro, the brother of Fidel Castro. The charges center on the 94-year-olds alleged role in ordering the 1996 shootdown of two civilian aircraft that killed four people, including three Americans.

It's worth noting here, today is Cuban Independence Day.

And the timing of the indictment comes at a contentious time for U.S. Cuban relations, something that the Secretary of State, Marco Rubio, addressed today when he released a video in Spanish urging the Cuban people to align with President Trump.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

MARCO RUBIO, SECRETARY OF STATE (through translator): The real reason you don't have electricity, fuel, or food, is because those who control your country have plundered billions of dollars, but nothing has been used to help the people. But President Trump is offering a new path between the U.S. and a new Cuba. In the U.S., we are ready to open a new chapter in the relationship between our people and our countries.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

HUNT: All right. My panel is back.

Jonah Goldberg, it seems suspiciously that Marco Rubio is interested in changing the regime in Cuba. And we took a significant step toward that today. Is that the case?

GOLDBERG: Oh, this is like the most obvious reveal that we've had. I mean, like, the Iran thing was a little bit of a surprise, you know, at the margins. They've been signaling that they want to do this for a very long time. Perversely, the fact that Iran's not going as planned actually makes this more attractive, I think, for the administration, because it gives them, first of all, an opportunity for a better --

HUNT: Why? Won't people look at this now and say, wait a second, we just screwed up Iran. Why are we doing something else?

GOLDBERG: Because it allows them to talk about something other than Iran. I mean, other than that, look, I have no sympathy for the Castro regime. I'd like Congress to do something, talk about it, have a hearing. But I feel like I've been saying that for over a year now about 18 other subjects.

GARCIA-NAVARRO: I mean, I'm Cuban-American, obviously. The folks in Miami are very happy. Rubio is a product of those folks in Florida. This has long been a dream.

This also helps Trump politically if it actually goes off, because of course, you have a lot of Miami Cubans, Venezuelans and others who would look at this very favorably.

But, you know, Raul Castro, I'm no fan, is 94 years old. The idea that you're going to be taking this, you know, 94-year-old and dragging him to America is pretty unlikely. This to me seems very patently like a public a PR push where they're basically holding this over their head. They've been squeezing the island for some time now with shortages of fuel, et cetera, et cetera.

So, you know, it's a waiting game to see who cries uncle first. But I do not see in our future either an invasion or an operation to take Raul Castro and make him stand trial in the United States.

GOLDBERG: I expect by this time next year, we'll be talking about Trump's post on truth social of making Cuba a 51st state.

HUNT: Congressman?

MCHENRY: I'll take the under on that. I think it's faster than that. But I agree with you, Jonah. This is the most predictable thing ever. And with you, Lulu, that this is highly popular among Hispanics in south Florida, very popular.

And what the Secretary Rubio has done is a concerted effort. First, the Venezuelan operation, which then softened up the Cubans actually further, kind of pulled them out of any support system outside the island. And then the actions against the regime in Iran. The first weekend, how the devastating consequence on the regime sent a further chilling sign.

And all of this stuff is Trump's list of the hardest things in the world that have been left undone. And he's trying to check them off. Now you can -- we can couch this on whatever you want to say about how he does it, but he's looking at the hardest things in the world. And on that list is a trade deal with China. And that is the big thing for the year.

All these other things are expeditions. In his word, he uses this over and over like they're just trinkets along the way. The big deal is with Xi and China, and these things are just the adventures along the way, as wild as that may sound.

BEDINGFIELD: I think it's clear from a humanitarian standpoint that the status quo in Cuba for the Cuban people is unsustainable. What the administration ultimately decides to do, we'll see. I agree with Jonah broadly, that I think there is some element of, hey, look over here now going on here, given how things are going in Iran. But certainly, don't question that this would have enormous popularity in South Florida. And, you know, were they able to make some sort of substantial change, that it would probably be something that a Marco Rubio interested in running for president in 2028 --

GARCIA-NAVARRO: What happens day two?

BEDINGFIELD: Well, exactly.

GARCIA-NAVARRO: What happens day two, day three, day four. Like, sure, let's say the fantasy, you know, happens.

[16:55:04]

But --

HUNT: Right. Yeah.

GARCIA-NAVARRO: Who takes over the island? Who?

HUNT: "You break it, you buy it" phenomenon. Yeah. For sure.

GOLDBERG: Marco Rubio in a Fidel uniform memes have already started.

(LAUGHTER)

MCHENRY: Yeah. Well, within a year's time, President Trump will step foot on the island of Cuba.

HUNT: Okay, there we go.

MCHENRY: That's my prediction.

HUNT: We're going to -- somebody, write that down. Okay. We're going to follow up with -- with the speaker pro tem.

All right. We'll be right back.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

HUNT: All right. Thanks to my panel. I really appreciate all of you being with us today.

Thanks to all of you at home for watching as well. We really appreciate you.

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