Return to Transcripts main page

CNN's The Arena with Kasie Hunt

Trump Agenda Derailed By Senate GOP Revolt Over $1.8B DOJ Fund; DNC Releases Report On What Went Wrong In 2024 Election; Committee Stacked With Trump Loyalists Approves Arch Design. Aired 4-5p ET

Aired May 21, 2026 - 16:00   ET

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

BORIS SANCHEZ, CNN HOST: -- completed in Paris in 1889, when people could climb all the way to the very top.

[16:00:04]

There are now, fortunately, elevators to ferry people up and down, no stairs needed.

Thank you so much for joining us this afternoon. Brianna took off a few minutes early. I wish I could have joined her. But nevertheless, I'm glad I stayed here with you.

THE ARENA WITH KASIE HUNT starts right now.

(MUSIC)

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

As we come on the air, President Donald Trump's agenda has been derailed by the Justice Department's so-called anti-weaponization fund. The acting attorney general, Todd Blanche, seen arriving at the White House just moments ago. This follows an unexpected visit to Capitol Hill, where Blanche tried to win over Republican senators who are questioning, if not outright opposing, the $1.8 billion DOJ fund.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

SEN. SUSAN COLLINS (R-ME): I do not support the weaponization fund, as it has been described.

SEN. JOHN HOEVEN (R-ND): We need more information on it. I mean, we discussed it yesterday, but that's why it's coming back because we need more information.

SEN. JOHN KENNEDY (R-LA): I'm open to a concept. If people have been injured by the government, they should be compensated. But I just don't know how this puppy dog will work.

I'm a labor man. I'm not management. I'm just going to a meeting. It probably could be an email, but I'm going to the meeting.

SEN. THOM TILLIS (R-NC): This is -- I mean, this is just stupid on stilts. REPORTER: Do you think you have colleagues that share the same

concerns that you're expressing?

TILLIS: They do, and they need to speak up. I mean, this is beyond the pale. This is not good for my colleagues. There's no one positive thing that could be spun out of this between now and November. This is bad policy. It's bad timing and it's bad politics.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

HUNT: Well, there you go. Republican senators in that meeting tell CNN they were blindsided by the announcement of the DOJ fund, which could see January 6th rioters, including potentially those who attacked police officers, receive taxpayer money.

So, now, the Senate is heading home for Memorial Day weekend without a vote on an immigration funding package. That's been a major priority for President Trump.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

REPORTER: Are you losing control of the Senate, sir? Are you losing control of the Senate? Senate Republicans?

DONALD TRUMP, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: I don't know. I really don't know. I can tell you, I only do what's right.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

HUNT: We at CNN have reviewed a copy of a fact sheet sent to lawmakers by the Justice Department ahead of acting A.G. Blanche's visit, and it provides new details about who they believe is entitled to taxpayer money.

Quote, "This is about seeking accountability for all Americans who were victims of lawfare and weaponization. Millions of Americans whose online speech was censored at the behest of the government. Parents silenced at school boards. Senators whose records were secretly subpoenaed. Churchgoers targeted by the FBI and so on.

Did you catch that? The Justice Department is telling some senators that they are the type of person that this $1.8 billion was set aside for. Not mentioned in the fact sheet -- January 6th rioters, election deniers and fake electors who have all told CNN that they do plan to ask for money. The Trump administration has repeatedly refused to rule out giving taxpayer dollars to people like those who assaulted police officers on January 6th, with the acting A.G. Blanche telling CNN that basically, that would be totally normal.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

PAULA REID, CNN CHIEF LEGAL AFFAIRS CORRESPONDENT: You're the nation's top law enforcement official right now. Would you be okay with people who were convicted of hurting police, getting taxpayer money? TODD BLANCHE, ACTING ATTORNEY GENERAL: Just to be clear, people that

hurt police get money all the time. Okay? There's a process where -- where if you are -- if you are, if you believe you have your rights violated, you can -- you can apply for funds, you can sue, you can file a claim, you can go to court.

In some of those cases, the state, the government, the federal government settles those cases. It's abhorrent to ever, ever touch a law enforcement officer, which is why anytime anybody does that and it's a federal officer, we'll prosecute them.

But that's a completely different question with whether an individual is allowed to apply for a claim.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

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

CNN legal analyst, former federal prosecutor Elliot Williams, CNN special correspondent Jamie Gangel, former Democratic congressman from South Carolina, Joe Cunningham. And he is the author of a new book, "Life of the Party: How Democrats Lost Americas trust how they can win it back. There's a pun in there. There is.

Were also joined by Republican strategist, former Mitt Romney campaign advisor Kevin Madden.

The good hair genes over here on the side of the table today. I mean, I like -- I can't get over it.

Elliot Williams --

ELLIOT WILLIAMS, CNN LEGAL ANALYST: And so, we're going to go to Elliot.

(LAUGHTER)

HUNT: I'm sorry, I can't say that about --

WILLIAMS: Oh my God.

[16:05:01]

HUNT: But it looks good on you.

WILLIAMS: Thank you.

HUNT: You wear it well. You really do.

Can you walk us through what was -- what was the attorney general -- the acting attorney general trying to tell Paula Reid right there? Because I was having trouble following.

WILLIAMS: I don't know what he's trying to say Paula Reid. Look -- to Paula Reid. Here's the problem: if someone is wronged by the law, there's a way to

recover already, right? So for instance, if you're wrongly indicted, you can get it dismissed, right? If you're wrongly prosecuted, you can appeal your case. If you're wrongly sued, you have a choice to win that case or get it thrown out or whatever else. All these remedies exist in the law.

Now, I take some issue with what he said about this idea of there already being settlement funds in the government, because yes, there are, but they were all authorized by Congress. And that's a very important distinction here. And that's why a lot of these senators are losing their minds over this. Like, you know, we talked about this briefly yesterday on the program, Kasie, but the 9/11 Victims Compensation Fund is sort of the gold standard of this.

Congress set it up. People have a process by which they can go and claim money. It's reviewed, its vetted, and so on and.

HUNT: Right. But to be like, is that comparable? I mean, that's a situation, right? Where theyre victimized by a terrorist -- by terrorists attack the country and the country decided collectively, we want to use taxpayer money to try to help people.

WILLIAMS: And Congress decided to do it.

HUNT: Right.

WILLIAMS: Congress decided -- if Congress wants to pay January 6th people, theyre more than welcome to do so. But they have to pass a vote and go ahead and do it.

And the other thing is that there's a clear process for people establishing what their injury is and what they were harmed by, and then how they should be paid off. This idea of compensating people for this nebulous concept of weaponization, which does not exist in the law. People feel it in their hearts. They might think of it as a political point, but it's just not. There's no statute that says weaponization is.

So compensating people for that is exceptionally difficult. Lawfare is another one. They've used that term multiple, multiple times.

HUNT: Constantly.

WILLIAMS: Constantly, but it's just -- but it's a vague concept. And no matter how much people mistrust the government or don't like it, it's still not a defined concept. And paying people for it is just going to be difficult. And that's why Congress is so upset.

HUNT: Yeah. Jamie, what are you hearing?

JAMIE GANGEL, CNN SPECIAL CORRESPONDENT: So a couple of things. First of all, I would like to say to Senator Tillis, "stupid on stilts" is the quote of the day. It's also true that we do not see Republicans stand up to Donald Trump like this very often. So to have this massive pushback, it reminds me of what every parent has once said to their child. What were you thinking when you did this? And I don't think the White House was thinking.

This is a dog whistle to January 6th rioters. That's what it is. I mean, it's Donald Trump. You know, you can't dress it up. It's also a problem when there are no guardrails in the White House anymore. This is a White House and the DOJ apparently filled with people who only say yes to Donald Trump and want to make him happy.

HUNT: Kevin Madden I mean, in an environment where -- I mean, primaries have showed Donald Trump still has an iron grip on the party, right? But that litany -- I mean, John Kennedy is no enemy of President Trump. And he's basically sending a massive warning flag. What's going on?

KEVIN MADDEN, REPUBLICAN STRATEGIST: Yeah. I mean, this is politically dead on arrival up there landed with a thud. I'm kind of reminded of the congressional mantra, vote your conscience, vote your district. And don't surprise me.

This violated all three, right?

HUNT: Right.

MADDEN: I mean, in good conscience, they are not going to be able to make the case for this. They're going to go back to their districts. This is not something that they want to be touting or sort of explaining their level of support for.

And, you know, with the fact that -- well, the last one, that don't surprise me, this caught everybody by surprise. Nobody three weeks ago knew that this was going to be on their agenda. Part of what they had to talk about and part of how they were going to spend the last remaining very valuable days before they break for recess, voting on or talking about. And so, that's why its, it's as politically toxic as it is.

HUNT: Yeah. And look, I think it's also worth noting for anyone who was at the Capitol on January 6th, obviously, the political imperatives about how Republicans have interacted with the president on the topic have evolved. But for those people who aren't on the Hill all the time, the cops that protected them, right? There are people that they know. They are faces that they see day in and day out, right? They are there all the time. You say hello to the same one. When you walk in the door, you say good night to the same one when you leave. And they put their lives on the line for these people. And I think it's important to remember the humanity of that as decisions like this are being made.

And while this Department of Justice overview of the anti weaponization fund does not list, as we reported at the top January 6th, rioters and again, that -- that subset of people who attacked police officers on that day in order to breach the building, right, doesn't mention them, but those who were there on that day, who were prosecuted for actions that they took, definitely expect this to be something that's common to them.

Let's watch what one pardoned January 6th rioter said about the fund to CNN. Take a look.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

BRANDON FELLOWS, PARDONED JANUARY 6TH RIOTER: So the number I've put in is $30 million, you know, $21.5 million is for the wrongful imprisonment. According to ChatGPT and Grok, and also my knowledge of January 6th cases, I'm in at least the three to five percent upper tier for how terrible and also how strong of a case I have. That's why I rationalize people, even violent people, getting paid for that day, because the government set it up. And also on top of that, they stole the election

(END VIDEO CLIP)

HUNT: Jamie Gangel, Elliot Williams, I mean, what --

GANGEL: Speechless.

(LAUGHTER)

WILLIAMS: The challenge here is that these were these are lawful subpoenas, lawful convictions, lawful indictments and so on. So, now, are we opening the door to every kid who's found with crack in his pocket?

But a -- but a cop shook him down in an unfair way, now able to sue the government, not on account of weaponization, but because he can claim that it was just unlawful in the manner he was arrested. Think about all the people and not even making this about crime and drugs or anything like that. But think about all the people that are convicted in the course of the year, but do not like the fact that they went to jail or got convicted, do they -- ought they to --

HUNT: Does anyone?

WILLIAMS: Right. And so this is someone who was convicted of a crime, either pled guilty or in front of a jury, had evidence presented, had an opportunity to plead all the above. And simply because he doesn't like it, is now claiming it to be worth $30 million.

This is utterly preposterous in terms of -- set aside the politics of it, just in terms of what it says about our system of criminal justice that ought to be final. And, you know, people have all kinds of opportunities to challenge things along the way that these folks availed themselves of at the time. You know, they all challenged their indictments, got them, you know, they stayed there. They had an opportunity to appeal. They got convicted. Sometimes you just have to go to jail.

HUNT: Congressman, I'm almost struggling with a question to you about the politics of this, since it's so -- it seems to be very clear that the politics of this are difficult. But, I mean, how do you look at what's played out here?

JOE CUNNINGHAM (D), FORMER U.S. CONGRESSMAN: I mean, it's hard to unpack the attorney general's argument. And he obviously had a hard time selling it to Congress, which means theyre going to have a much more difficult time selling it to the American people. But I see this as an opportunity for Democrats to reclaim the mantle for law and order and to stand with victims and to stand for justice.

You know, the campaign ads are going to write themselves, come later on this fall. But I think Democratic Party needs to do a better job of reclaiming these issues, whether it be on securing the border with immigration or standing with law enforcement and standing on the right side of those 80/20 issues that the Democratic Party has found themselves on the wrong side of these last few election cycles.

HUNT: And, Jamie Gangel, I mean, just kind of in a final big picture way of thinking about this. This is part of a settlement that the Trump administration, that the Trump family, I should say, cut by withdrawing the lawsuit, agreed to drop the lawsuit against the IRS for leaking the Trump's tax returns.

GANGEL: Right.

HUNT: And that also is going to protect them from any accountability for wrongdoing that may have occurred with the IRS.

GANGEL: So two parts to that. That case was about to get dismissed and thrown out because -- because Elliot will explain.

WILLIAMS: It was not -- it was not -- it was not -- he was suing himself. That can't happen in the law, set aside that he's the president. Kasie Hunt can't sue Kasie Hunt. That just -- it's a legal malady.

HUNT: That makes sense to me.

GANGEL: Yeah, but the second part of this is just -- can we just look at it politically for a minute? Taxpayers, people who are looking at gas prices, grocery prices health care prices are going to see a $1.8 billion slush fund. That's going to people who potentially, you know, potentially going to people who beat up cops. That's the way their taxpayer money, if you know, message to President Trump, you want to hold the House and Senate in the midterm elections, this is not the way to do it.

HUNT: Fair enough.

All right. Coming up, Republican Congressman Don Bacon will be here in THE ARENA.

[16:15:03]

Does he support giving taxpayer money to people convicted of violence against law enforcement?

Plus, was it Biden? Was it Gaza? Was it not going on Joe Rogan? The DNC has finally released their autopsy of the 2024 election. But does it answer the big question of what or who was to blame?

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) KAMALA HARRIS, VICE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: Joe, thank you for your historic leadership, for your lifetime of service to our nation and for all you will continue to do. We are forever grateful to you.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

HUNT: All right. Welcome back. We are continuing to follow the fallout from Acting Attorney General Todd Blanche's attempt to sway Senate Republicans on the administrations new so-called anti weaponization fund, an attempt that seems to have failed. Senators are set to go home for their weeklong Memorial Day recess without holding a vote on the bill that could include this.

[16:20:12]

Joining me now is Republican congressman from Nebraska, Don Bacon. He is, of course, leaving the House of Representatives.

And, sir, I know in many ways the experience that you've had is one that is in some ways emblematic of the Trump era, in that you have been willing now to speak out more aggressively about how you feel about what the president's doing. Some of your colleagues who have done that and then hoped to win a primary election have not fared so well.

What do you think this anti-weaponization fund, as they are calling it, represents?

REP. DON BACON (D-NE): Well, first thanks for having me on. And I think I've been very honest and pointed for the last six years, frankly --

HUNT: Yeah --

BACON: -- since the 2020 election. But it's different when you're when you have a president of the other party, and it's easy to criticize, but I've had to step up this past year on Ukraine tariffs, a few other things. But to your question here, this whole thing smells. You have the president is the -- is the plaintiff, but he's also in charge of the defendants.

So he's, in a sense, negotiating with himself. And most people look at that. And that's not impartial, right? You want -- it's not -- you want something that's impartial. It surely looks partial.

So there has to be some kind of arbitrator or some kind of like a judge or something that helps provide an impartial decision on who would get this money. Everybody has the right to sue. The president has the right to sue. But you can't negotiate with yourself on a taxpayer settlement. And that's what's happening.

HUNT: And obviously, a lot of this has taken place in the Senate since that -- that's where the ball is at the moment. What is it do you think about this as opposed to the litany of other things that a lot of Republicans have been unhappy about with President Trump? They may not be willing to say it in public, but you and I both know quite well that there's a lot that falls into that category.

This is something where they seem to be drawing a line. Why this?

BACON: Well, again, you have the president negotiating with himself and how much taxpayer money should be given out and who should be going to. And so just on the surface, it looks bad. I mean, he represents both sides of this debate. And so it's a very -- it's a very partial structure. And there should be some kind of arbitrator in it.

It's just -- it's easy for everybody to see. I think there's also a lot of pushback on the, you know, the ballroom and the security, the billion dollar security requirements. I've actually dug into it. And there's a lot of good defenses we need to be putting in at the White House.

And so, there's some -- I would say there's some arguments for some of this funding, but I think what's happened here, the consequences of going against Senator Cassidy, now, Senator Cornyn, I think that that hurts the president on these issues that's important to him. And so a lot of senators and congressmen in my shoes see people who are respected and who've tried to be honest and good senators or congressman, than getting targeted, I think that hurts them.

And he should have anticipated this and thought like two or three moves down the road or, you know, after making these endorsements. What's the impact? I think it's just common sense that Senator Cassidy would push back on some of this stuff now. And you'll probably see Senator Cornyn more likely to do so, too.

HUNT: What are you hearing from voters back home about the ballroom in particular why? I mean, do you think that has really broken through with voters? And if so, why?

BACON: Well, initially the -- you know, the East Room was taken down and the president said, we're going to pay for all of this out of donor money. And I think like said, okay, if it's going to pay for it out of donor money, it's going to cost the taxpayer money that maybe we can live with that. And I think that's where I was at.

And then you get told that we need $1 billion for ballroom security. It was a terrible rollout of this need for having security at the ballroom. That's how it was framed.

And there was no support to spend $1 billion for a ballroom. But I've dug in with this. I've worked with the secretary of homeland security, who I know he's a friend of mine, actually, only about 10 percent of this billion was going to security for the ballroom. The other 90 percent was going to defend the entire complex.

And there's threats out there that we have to be more prepared for. And as you would know, drones would be one. But there's other high end threats that we need to ensure that we have the ability to defend the White House on. So, I think that they make a good case for the need. But the rollout was so bad and botched, I think they've got to start from scratch.

[16:25:02]

But I do think the events of this past week with Senator Cassidy and Senator Cornyn undermines his effort to make this case.

HUNT: So basically, what I hear you saying is you've looked at the facts of the matter enough that you could get behind spending a lot of money, potentially $1 billion or $900 million to secure the White House complex. But because Americans think the billion dollars is for the ballroom, it's politically untenable.

BACON: Well, I think you said it better than I did.

HUNT: So I just wanted to make sure I understood you. Yeah.

BACON: It's the facts because I've dug into it. There are threats out there, and this is -- I have to be careful because you want to tell terrorists or other countries your vulnerabilities. But there are areas that we need to increase and improve the defenses on. And that's what this billion dollars was really for.

But it was rolled out as $1 billion cost for the ballroom, and that has no support. And I think that's what most people that's what most people think. And so I think they got to start from scratch on this on this area. But I would say that he did himself. No benefit by going after respected senators.

I'll give you an example. Senator Cornyn was one of the biggest fundraisers, and there are a lot of senators that owe their reelections to a large degree to Senator Cornyn. And I know that it hurt when they heard this endorsement that went the other way. And the Senate spent lots of money trying to help Senator Cornyn and then have the rug pulled out from underneath them, does not play well.

And I think it doesn't play well in the house side either.

HUNT: All right. Nebraska Congressman Don Bacon --

BACON: Thank you.

HUNT: -- thanks very much for your time, sir. I hope you'll come back soon.

BACON: Yes, ma'am.

HUNT: All right. Still to come here in THE ARENA, what went wrong for Democrats in 2024? CNN has obtained a copy of the so-called autopsy. We'll walk you through it, tell you what's in it, and also note what isn't in it.

Plus, yet another board picked by the president gives yet another green light to one of his construction projects ahead. The new design for Trump's arch. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

TRUMP: It's the Arc de Triomphe would be the one that you would probably know in Paris. Its one of the most beautiful. Its a very similar size, slightly larger. We're doing we have to do slightly larger. It doesn't have to be a lot larger. Otherwise, you'd all be disappointed in me.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[16:31:51]

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

JOE BIDEN, FORMER U.S. PRESIDENT: This is not a time to be complacent. That's why I'm running for reelection.

I've been able to do it the -- with the COVID, excuse me, with dealing with everything we have to do with -- look, if -- we finally beat Medicare.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

HUNT: Those two sound bites back to back. I mean, wow, does that really hit? Now's not the time to be complacent. And that's why I'm running for reelection, Joe Biden says. And then he steps on to that CNN debate stage. And that happened.

So this brings us to the question, was Democrats' fate in the 2024 election sealed when Joe Biden decided to run for reelection and then to participate in the debate, or was it because of this moment when the party put Kamala Harris at the top of the ticket with no real primary process?

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

HARRIS: The path that led me here in recent weeks was no doubt unexpected. But I'm no stranger to unlikely journeys, so --

(END VIDEO CLIP)

HUNT: Or was it because Kamala Harris then declined to sit for an interview with one of the country's biggest media figures.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

JOE ROGAN, PODCAST HOST: She had an opportunity to come here when she was in Texas, and I literally gave them an open invitation. I said, any time I go, I'll do it at 9:00 in the morning, ill do it at 10:00 p.m., I'll do it at midnight. She's up.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

HUNT: Or perhaps it was her fateful response to this question one month before the election.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

SUNNY HOSTIN, CO-HOST OF "THE VIEW": Would you have done something differently than President Biden during the past four years?

HARRIS: There is not a thing that comes to mind.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

HUNT: So even though a version of the Democratic National Committee's 2024 so-called autopsy report, an autopsy saying why something happened the way it did, it was released today, a year and a half after the election. We still don't really know the answer to any of those questions, because the 192-page report, which was meant to be, which was sold as an honest evaluation of what went wrong for Democrats and which the DNC had withheld for months, did it address any of those things? No, no, it did not.

Joining us now in THE ARENA is CNN senior political and global affairs commentator Rahm Emanuel, who, of course, has played -- I don't even know, Rahm, how to list all of your titles in the Democratic Party. You were Obama's White House chief of staff. You led the DCCC, you were then ambassador to Japan under President Biden.

Why -- why did they put out a report that didn't grapple at all with what every American could plainly see and said was the problem with the Democratic nominee for president in 2024, their sitting president and his declining health?

[16:35:00]

RAHM EMANUEL, CNN SENIOR POLITICAL AND GLOBAL AFFAIRS COMMENTATOR: Look, I mean, you listed four -- was it this, this or this? It was E, not A, B, C or D. It was all of the above. Every one of those things led to what happened in November 2024 and ended up with the result of Donald Trump.

Now, if you have five minutes to read something, go read the poll in "The New York Times" about Democratic primary voters. Theyre really clear what it takes to win. Identify basically with independent voters because we're a minority party. That's how you have to win. Be more pragmatic, more focused on winning elections.

Just if you take the election -- you just had Don Bacon up -- beacon, Don Bacon up from Nebraska. We nominated the right candidate for gives us the best campaign chance of winning that seat and adding to the Democratic majority in the House of Representatives. That was a pragmatic decision by primary voters.

Not all this stuff about analyzing the past. I don't think that report is worth anything. It's not worth the paper its written on. I wouldn't put it into claw to give you an answer. There's spelling mistakes on all that thing. It's clearly -- that wasn't written by A.I. It's a waste of time. What the future tells you, which is everything I've worked on five

national races. President Clinton's election, reelection, Obama's, the DCCC had made Nancy Pelosi speaker. We are a minority party that must be identified with independent voters to make a large coalition to win swing districts, swing states, and a national election that will be determined three presidentials, seven states, 500,000 voters have determined the last three presidential elections.

Focus on winning and what it takes to win. That's all that matters. And the Democratic primary voters know that much better than the party elite in D.C.

HUNT: Wow. I just I feel like we could just go to break. I mean, you said it all right there.

EMANUEL: Well -- well, you did all those clips and I'm having PTSD right now. So --

HUNT: I -- I mean, that does not -- that does not surprise me. I mean, the other piece that was not mentioned here is the war in Gaza, which of course, was a, you know, significant pain point for Democrats, right? It was a divisive issue inside the party.

I mean, coming away from this, it seems to highlight that the same phenomenon that led to no one trying to get Joe Biden to step off the stage, right? A fear of blaming anybody or telling anybody that theyre wrong, is that part of the culture of the party? Is that part of the problem?

EMANUEL: Yeah. So, look, two things I would say to you is one is if you said Gaza, I would tell you not having an answer for the price of groceries was more important than the issue of Gaza, if you go across the country.

HUNT: Sure.

EMANUEL: Now, was it okay? So to me, if you think it was Gaza that cost us the national election, I would tell you not having an answer for the American dream. The fact that people can't afford a down payment on a home, theyre taking money out of their savings, and the insurance companies are denying them health care, and they can't afford the price of groceries. That's what is -- the American people are looking at answers for.

Number two, look, as I said this, you know this you and I have talked about this. I'm for across all three branches of government, 75 up and out, pre-TSA, you're actually got clear. You're touchless. Get out of town.

You're no better -- you're not going to hit your peak at 78. So that's what my view is.

Now, I -- you know, I think Joe Biden made an implicit, if not explicit pledge, never told people it wasn't true that he was going to serve as a transition, didn't do it, violated something he said. And it did cost the party. And more importantly, it cost the country than the party, and then the process after the fact. That's a fact.

Now, my thing is road forward. We have three presidentials that tell you the same thing. Seven states, 500,000 voters will determine who's the president of the United States. We have to build a broad enough coalition that independents, which they will do this November, are breaking two to one for Democrats.

That's what we have to do in 2028. It's going to be a choice election, and we have to have a more persuasive argument to move them, to find common cause with us. That's how you win in persuadable and in national elections, with independents being the largest party in the country.

The second thing I would say that wasn't brought up in your list, we declared -- we brought the culture wars to our schools. We lost. People weren't interested in bathroom access. They're interested in classroom excellence.

They weren't interested in defunding police. They were interested in a better police. They were interested in enforceable border. We declared cultural wars on the wrong set of issues, rather than the groceries and the affordability that people have kids now graduating college that are living in the basement, not living on their own. Theyre taking money out of their life savings to make the paycheck, get to the 31st of the month. And they spend 50 percent of their day fighting insurance companies for coverage that their doctor asked them to get.

If you address those issues, guess what? The American people will reward it. That's not a big surprise, and it doesn't take a genius to figure that out, or masters from the Kennedy School of Government.

HUNT: Well, you know, you have a masters from, you know, the school of hard knocks on campaign politics, which is, I think, why you're able -- you're so well able to articulate all of this.

For you, though. I mean, as you look ahead, you obviously are making some arguments that, you know, you could use if you were to run for president, the primary electorate in the Democratic Party is not the same as the independent general election voter that you were talking about. And they have been telling pollsters theyre unhappy with the party. There is a -- in many ways, you know, a push for, you know, anger, right? I mean, you've heard J.B. Pritzker say, you know, we got to be angrier than we were before functionally. They're essentially saying none of it's good enough. And they may look to the left for that.

EMANUEL: Well --

HUNT: Are they prepared for this?

EMANUEL: I don't agree, I -- you know, Kasie, I don't agree with that analysis. It's right today in the -- in "The New York Times" on the poll, Democratic primary voters. By two to one, they want the party, quote/unquote, "move" to the center so theyre more electable.

That -- the overarching goal is winning, losing on principle is not successful. By two to one, they prefer a centrist, more moderate position. That is what the Third Way poll said. "The New York Times" poll. That is where when we win, that is how we do it.

I don't believe anger is enough. I think tough times call for a tough leader that knows how to fight powerful special interests. Just being angry for the sake of angry may be emotionally gratifying, but you haven't paid for anybody's college education that way. You haven't made sure that people, when theyre saving money for their retirement, its actually there when they retire. You haven't given them just being angry. You haven't told them how theyre going to fight the insurance companies so they can get the health care coverage.

Anger for the sake of anger, not much I know how to you know, that doesn't get any. Knowing how to beat a powerful interest and get 10 million kids health care, take on the NRA and beat them, knowing toughness is not anger.

And so, I would also say the Democratic primary voters, and this has been my advice to President Obama, President Clinton was my own advice to myself. Sound is not always fury in politics. Sometimes it's just a kid sitting in their underwear, tapping away on the computer down in the basement.

The majority of the Democratic Party, overwhelming majority of the primary voters, want somebody that knows how to win by identifying and being more to the focus ideological center and being able to make a home and common cause with independent voters.

We learned the lesson over and over again, and we ignore it at our own peril. And then you end up with Donald Trump and his corruption.

HUNT: We walked through a lot of the things that the autopsy report did not say about what went wrong. One of the things it did seem to say is that racism and sexism were major parts of the explanation for why Kamala Harris lost. Are you in the camp that believes that Democrats need to nominate a person, a white, male, potentially Christian person who is as palatable as possible to independent voters?

Some have argued that. Michelle Obama was out there saying the country is not ready for a woman. What say you?

EMANUEL: What says me? Look, in 2024, let's be frank, we didn't have a choice. In 2020, we didn't have a choice. 2016, you could argue we didn't have a choice.

The excitement about 2028 is, for the first time almost since 2020 -- 2008, almost two decades. We're going to have a real choice. If you didn't have a choice in 2024, 2028, setting up to be Baskin Robbins, it's going to be 31 flavors. You're going to get everything you want. And, you know, if I decide to run, I'm going to be -- I'm going to be rocky road. So my --

HUNT: You said this earlier.

EMANUEL: The primary voters -- yeah, my primary voters will decide what not just the character or kind of like sitting in an A.I. typing up. They're going to make a decision who has the ideas and who has the strength to see those ideas through. Do they have the right ability to build a broad enough coalition to allow us to win? And they'll decide what that person looks like or acts like? That's it.

HUNT: All right, Rahm Emanuel, rocky road, thank you very much for being here. See you soon, I hope.

EMANUEL: Thanks, Kasie.

HUNT: All right. Talk to you later.

EMANUEL: Yeah.

HUNT: Ahead here in THE ARENA, the president's plan to build the tallest arch in the world right here in Washington. It is now one step closer to becoming reality with a little less gold.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

REPORTER: Moments ago, the Commission of Fine Arts approved your design -- design for your arch. Do you think you need congressional?

TRUMP: Oh, that's good news. I finally get good news.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[16:54:10]

HUNT: Welcome back.

President Trump's triumphal arch is one step closer to becoming reality. The Commission of Fine Arts, it's a key agency that the president stacked with his own allies, approved a revised design of the 250-foot tall structure.

Now, if you're like us and you're wondering what this monument might look like, it's going to sit at a critical essentially ceremonial entrance to our nation's capital. Look no further, these renderings on your screen right now are from the Commission on Fine Arts' website.

They were made by Harrison Design. It's a Washington architectural firm, and they show what the arch will look like from different vantage points once it is built.

This is the view from the Arlington Memorial Bridge before, right?

[16:50:03]

This is what it looks like now. This is what it would look like after.

From the Lincoln Memorial before, and after.

From the Lincoln Memorial Circle, before and after. And finally, the view from Parkway Drive before, and after. Wow.

Jamie Gangel, pretty stark.

GANGEL: Yeah. So I gather just technically, there were some gold lions that the president agreed to take off, but there are still gold eagles. The gold -- look --

HUNT: That's before and after, by the way.

GANGEL: This --

HUNT: On your screen, right. The left -- the left side of -- my left side of the screen. And the right side. Okay. So that's what it looks like now. And that's the rendering.

GANGEL: So just -- if you're not in Washington or you haven't visited sort of a point of personal privilege, I walk this walk a couple of times a week and go past there. And it is beautiful.

And one of the groups who's actually bringing a lawsuit is a veterans group. And that is because what you may not be able to see here is Arlington Cemetery rising behind Memorial Bridge.

HUNT: And actually, our control room -- Jamie and I were talking about this before the show because this is an important point. So that is the view right there. Okay. That looks to your -- the Linc -- in this -- in this view, the Lincoln Memorial would be to your back. In front is the Memorial Bridge and the Arlington National Cemetery. So this would be the drive.

Now, let's see if we can get to the one where you can see its going to come back here in just a moment. There is a beautiful building that sits on the top of the Hill. That is essentially a monument to. It is in honor of our nation's fallen veterans. And those hillsides are dotted. You'll see white dots on those hillsides with the tombstones that honor our nation's fallen.

And again, many of our -- we actually -- my family was honored that my grandfather was laid to rest and my grandmother were laid to rest there just a few weeks ago because he earned a Purple Heart in World War Two. He was wounded fighting for the country. Section 60 of this cemetery is where some of our nation's most recent fallen casualties, men and women who have given their lives for the country, rest.

And again, what we're seeing is the renderings with the arch in them. And what is noteworthy about that, and this is the picture where you, in theory, would be able to see the building that is a critical central part of the cemetery. You can barely see it right through this arch. That's what it looks like now.

And yes, it's a little bit distant, right? It's that white sort of dome looking thing right below the tree line at the end of the bridge. Okay. It's a -- it's what you see. It's the focal point.

When you were driving across that bridge from the memorial, the Lincoln Memorial behind you, it is unmistakable how the cemetery and everything that it means is the imagery that you are left, that you sit with. And I have thought now that my grandfather is there, that instead of seeing the things that are there to honor him and everyone like him, who has given so much for our country, it's going to look like this instead.

Let's put the arch back. There it is. That's what you're going to see in the line of view. Now, you can argue about what our nation's priorities should be, can be. I want to let Jamie pick it back up in a second, but I want to play what the president said about who the arch is for before we continue this conversation, let's watch that

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

REPORTER: What is this --

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Let's go, let's go. Thank you, thank you, thank you all. You come this way. Thank you. Thanks, guys.

REPORTER: For who?

TRUMP: Take a look.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Okay.

REPORTER: Yeah. No, I know where it is. Who is it for?

TRUMP: Me.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Thank you, thank you, thank you, guys.

TRUMP: It's going to be beautiful.-

REPORTER: Trump --

(END VIDEO CLIP)

HUNT: That was Ed O'Keefe of CBS. And he asks, "Who is it for?" And the president says, "Me. It's going to be beautiful." Jamie?

GANGEL: So there's an expression, less is more, unless you're Donald Trump.

HUNT: Right.

GANGEL: And I really think in this case, to your point. And it's really sort of hard to see in these pictures how majestic and moving the view of Arlington Cemetery is right now. And I think a lot of historians, a lot of veterans' families just feel as if this takes away from it. And this is all about what Donald Trump wants.

I just would quickly add, the more we are talking about the arch, the ballroom, the reflecting pond, he's turning into a swimming pool, President Trump is very happy that we are not talking about gas prices, food prices, and that the Strait of Hormuz still is not open.

[16:55:08]

WILLIAMS: Oh, you know, I've been waiting for the day when having an art history degree and a law degree would come together and I will just say, no idea. I will just say --

CUNNINGHAM: This is your big chance to show --

WILLIAMS: This is my big chance.

No, no, real, real quick, real quick. We talk about the Arc de Triomphe and that's the model for this here, that was built by an emperor and it took 30 years. There's got to be process and you got to think about what the people want. This ain't it.

HUNT: All right. On that note, we'll be right back.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

HUNT: All right. Thanks very much to my panel. Really appreciate you all being here. Thanks to you at home for watching as well.

But don't go anywhere because Jake Tapper is standing by for "THE LEAD".

And, Jake, I will not be here tomorrow. So enjoy your Memorial Day weekend.