Return to Transcripts main page

CNN's The Arena with Kasie Hunt

Tulsi Gabbard Resigning As Director of National Intelligence; Judge Dismisses Charges Against Kilmar Abrego Garcia; Trump Acknowledges "Allowing" DOJ To Create $1.8B Fund. Aired 4-5p ET

Aired May 22, 2026 - 16:00   ET

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

OMAR JIMENEZ, CNN HOST: One of the very best associate producers here at CNN.

[16:00:03]

Wish you and the whole family all the best in this new chapter of your lives. So cute.

BORIS SANCHEZ, CNN HOST: Thank you so much for joining us, Omar.

JIMENEZ: Good to see you.

SANCHEZ: Always great to be with you. Safe travels, as you head back to New York. The weather not so good on the East Coast this weekend.

THE ARENA WITH KASIE HUNT starts right now.

(MUSIC)

ANNOUNCER: This is CNN breaking news.

VICTOR BLACKWELL, CNN HOST: Welcome to THE ARENA. I'm Victor Blackwell. Kasie Hunt is off.

And Tulsi Gabbard is out. This afternoon, President Trump announced Gabbard has tendered her resignation as the director of national intelligence, effective June 30th. The president wrote, "Tulsi has done an incredible job and we will miss her."

Now, in the resignation letter, the president shared, Gabbard disclosed that her husband had recently been diagnosed with an extremely rare form of bone cancer. She wrote, "At this time, I must step away from public service to be by his side and fully support him through this battle."

The president has also announced that Aaron Lukas, the principal deputy director of national intelligence, will serve as acting DNI.

So, let's get off the sidelines and head into THE ARENA. My panel is here, along with CNN senior White House reporter Kevin Liptak.

Kevin, I want to start with you. What more do you know about Gabbard's decision to step down? KEVIN LIPTAK, CNN SENIOR WHITE HOUSE REPORTER: Yeah. And we understand

that she informed the president today that she was planning to step aside. She will be in the role until the end of June. So, more than a month. But that decision, clearly a personal one. She's citing her husband's battle with a very rare cancer and the need to be at his side as he goes through all of that.

But, you know, despite what the president said, that she had done an incredible job, that he will miss her in that post. The two of them had really been on a collision course for quite some time. You know, even heading into this role, she was somewhat of an unusual choice. She had really made her career starting as a Democrat, as a -- in Congress and later as a Democratic presidential candidate on this really anti-interventionist stance.

She herself was a veteran. She had made the case over and over again that the U.S. had repeatedly gotten into these foreign conflicts that she said were foolish, only to come into a Trump administration that began intervening over and over in all parts of the world, most notably in Iran.

And I think it had been clear for quite some time that she had essentially been sidelined. You know, she did not have a major voice around the table when it came to the decision to go to war with Iran, when the U.S. was debating going into Venezuela and the president was convening his national security team here at the White House, there was a very remarkable moment when she was posting from a beach in Hawaii, apparently unaware that any of this was happening.

And it always seemed like there was kind of a mismatch between her positions on foreign conflicts and the stated foreign policy of President Trump.

Now, she did take a different lane at the ODNI. She was really looking into some of these questions of voter fraud. So, for example, you saw her down in Fulton County, Georgia, when the FBI was raiding an elections office there. She also put out this report seeming to downplay a Russian election meddling. And so that, I think, was an attempt in some ways, to try and put herself in the good graces with President Trump.

But it never really seemed to stick. You know, there was always this disconnect. And even over the last several months, you heard these rumblings of frustrations between the white house and Tulsi Gabbard. So even though she is leaving for this very important, very personal reason, it was evident that I think this relationship was never really built to last. And I think we should note here, victor, that after, you know, relatively little turnover in the first year of this administration, we have now seen four cabinet secretaries depart just in the last few months. And I do think it's important to note that all of them have been women.

BLACKWELL: Kevin Liptak giving us a lot to talk about there from the White House. Thank you so much.

The panel is here in THE ARENA. CNN contributor, host of "The New York Times'" "The Interview," Lulu Garcia-Navarro; "Bloomberg's" White House correspondent Jeff Mason; former director of public affairs at the Justice Department, Xochitl Hinojosa; and Republican strategist Shermichael Singleton. They are both CNN political commentators.

Also joined by CNN chief law enforcement and intelligence analyst John Miller. He used to work for the Office of the Director of National Intelligence.

John, I want to start with you. Before we get into all of the palace intrigue, and there is plenty, talk first about what this departure means at this point in the war with Iran and all of the other potential vulnerabilities that the country may be facing.

JOHN MILLER, CNN CHIEF LAW ENFORCEMENT AND INTELLIGENCE ANALYST: Well, it could signal a shift on the part of the White House. I mean, you have to start with the idea that, excuse me, Victor, Tulsi Gabbard was always a fish out of water. She came into the DNI as a congressperson from Hawaii, a person who had served in the Army reserves reached the rank of lieutenant colonel. But no experience, no background as an intelligence officer in any intelligence agency.

And to be the DNI, you have to be the leader of the intelligence community.

[16:05:02]

So it was one of those things where you say, okay, why Tulsi Gabbard? And with a steep learning curve like that, how is she going to reach to equal the people who have been in that job before her with absolutely no background in intelligence?

And, you know, as Kevin pointed out, you saw departures from her role being down in Atlanta with the FBI serving search warrants. You know, the foreign intelligence that the 16 intelligence agencies collect, theyre literally barred by law from investigating things on U.S. soil, investigating American persons, investigating persons in the U.S. even. And there was no indication of foreign interference made in Georgia still hasn't been yet, although we've been told to stand by.

So, it's been an awkward run for her.

BLACKWELL: John, stand by. I have more for you.

Let's bring it to the table.

And, Jeff Mason, to you first. Her tenure at the -- as director of national intelligence was rocky at best. We heard, obviously, some of that from Kevin Liptak off the, I guess, talking points of the administration when it came to the justification for the war with Iran.

Let's listen to some of that, actually.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

REPORTER: What intelligence do you have that Iran is building a nuclear weapon? Your intelligence community has said they have no evidence that they are at this point.

DONALD TRUMP, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: Well, then my intelligence community is wrong. Who in the intelligence community said that?

REPORTER: Your director of national intelligence, Tulsi Gabbard.

TRUMP: She's wrong.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

BLACKWELL: How much do you think that played into -- into this departure?

JEFF MASON, WHITE HOUSE CORRESPONDENT, BLOOMBERG: Well, a couple of things. I thought it was interesting today. First of all, that Gabbard got her resignation out before the president commented on it. That's unusual. It's usually the president who likes to make this kind of news about his cabinet and about major changes going on.

So I don't know what to read into that, other than perhaps that's an example of the disconnect between her and the person that she works for. Number two, for sure. I mean, the Iran piece is, is a huge messaging moment for Tulsi Gabbard. And it also underscored the fact that she really was not part of the inner circle on this war and on many other things that should normally be part of a nice job.

BLACKWELL: Lulu, Democratic Senator Adam Schiff, he reacted to Gabbard's resignation. He posted this on social media. While the circumstances around her departure are deserving of our sympathy, let's be clear, Tulsi Gabbard's only positive contribution to our nations national security is her resignation. We must ensure that a ten-year marked by a devotion to the person of the president and not the security of the country, represents a terrible exception at DNI and not the new normal.

How much harder does it now become in this climate to get her replacement confirmed?

LULU GARCIA-NAVARRO, CNN CONTRIBUTOR: Depends who it is. I mean, it depends who it is. I mean, lets think about this. The person and people that the president put into all these cabinet positions at the jump, he was -- had the wind at his back. You know, come into congress. Everyone was sort of celebrating him.

And even though a lot of these people were, to say the very least controversial, there was goodwill there. There's not a lot of goodwill there now. And among Republicans in particular, I was about to say with Tulsi Gabbard, was she there? Like, I mean, it's sort of like, yeah, this is not an important person who's just left. It's an important position that she completely abdicated because she didn't have the relationships or the experience, but her as a figure within this administration. I got to tell you, she just wasn't important at all.

XOCHITL HINOJOSA, CNN POLITICAL COMMENTATOR: Yeah. And to that point, I mean, the, the timing is obviously sympathies to her, her and her husband who are going through this terrible time. And, but and she didn't control this timing, but I think -- it is going to be a big test for this administration. There is an election coming up. It is likely that Democrats at least take the house. They -- Democrats are already preparing for what happens if President Trump and Speaker Johnson and you know, Republican administration don't accept the results of those elections.

What happens if they end up sowing doubt? What happens if they say there was foreign interference? What happened -- theyre going to use every tool at their disposal to try to muddy the waters, when it comes to the election?

DNI, the head of DNI is critical to that. Head of DNI with the secretary of DHS and the FBI director all run somewhat of a war room leading up to the election to make sure there isn't any foreign interference and to make sure that our elections run smoothly.

It has also been reported that Kash Patel is potentially on rocky ground with the president. We have a new DHS secretary. It is not helpful to the American people when you have this many changes to your national security team, especially before an election and especially during a war. So, it will be interesting to see, and it will be interesting to see whether they put someone up to confirm before the election, to have someone in place so that they can carry out what Donald Trump wants them to carry out.

BLACKWELL: Shermichael?

SHERMICHAEL SINGLETON, CNN POLITICAL COMMENTATOR: I mean, look, the deputy has done a fairly good job from what I've been told. I know Tulsi. I've known her for a long time. My condolences to her husband.

That said, though, when you consider the implications for the conflict in Iran, Russia, Ukraine, the Chinese implications in the South China Sea, you want a director who has a good relationship with the president. That's just fundamentally important.

And so while I hate to see Tulsi leave under these terms, when you consider what's at stake for the country, when you consider what's at stake for many of our Western allies who do depend on sharing intelligence with our intelligence apparatus, you need that person who's clearheaded, level minded, and has the robust experience of 18 different complicated agencies, Victor.

And I'm not necessarily convinced that's what we've seen over the past year and a half. And it's nothing against Tulsi. I just think the timing wasn't right. I don't think she meshed well with the president. And you want that at a minimum, if the person is going to execute the job well.

BLACKWELL: John, to my first question and really to pick up on what Lulu said here, is that was she there? I asked, does her absence create some vulnerability? But if she's not in the inner circle and she's not doing the job, that for which she was confirmed, does she shake up this, this infrastructure at all? Does her absence create any additional vulnerability?

MILLER: Well, what it creates is opportunity. I mean, the DNI is in charge of standards for the intelligence community, policy for the intelligence community, and review, meaning if one of the agencies, the CIA, the NSA, the NGA, get something wrong, it's the DNI who will go back over it and say, here's what went wrong. And here might be the policy to fix it. All of that requires great depth and experience, and not just experience, but also the respect of the leaders of those agencies that you are supposed to be lording over.

She did not have that experience, which then didn't give her that amount of respect and confidence, confidence over the part of the agency she was overseeing. So when I say opportunity, it means that the white house has a chance to pick someone who's not just a political loyalist and a great American. She served her country in the military and in Congress. But to pick someone who is a better fit for that job, that will give confidence not only internally, but as you pointed out externally to our allies who have had great doubts about their partnership with the American intelligence community since this administration started and some of the things that have occurred.

BLACKWELL: And, Jeff, I mean, what's the likelihood of that? I mean, you consider the choices of the president thus far. And also, let's put this in the current climate, the deep frustration inside the conference with the White House at the pier at this point, the calendar closing in on midterms. I mean, you add kind of the things we've been talking about up to this point. Also the influence of his revenge tour on some of these senators who step against him.

So, what do we expect as we get to the replacement for Tulsi Gabbard?

MASON: I think if you look at precedents and even current precedents with other departments where the cabinet member has left, President Trump likes acting department secretaries. And so that seems likely that he would perhaps keep her deputy in the role of acting DNI and then see, you know, wait it out through the election and see how it goes.

BLACKWELL: But then risk Democratic control of the Senate?

MASON: Sure. I mean, which would be an even bigger risk, right. But then, you know, he could he could appoint another acting. I'm not saying he wont try to get something done before then, but you don't see him doing that at justice, for example, right now. And he would probably have a hard time getting Todd Blanche confirmed as the attorney general. He'll have the same that same set of cards if there's a Democratic Senate next year.

BLACKWELL: Of course, one of the more -- go ahead.

HINOJOSA: Well, I was going to say -- and the name of the game right now, especially the theme I think this week is loyalty to President Trump. You saw what he has done in primaries, et cetera. And I don't see any scenario -- well, I love to think that someone who is qualified for this job and maybe potentially independent would serve in this job. And he might think that that is a smart thing to do. Loyalty is his number one goal. And we saw that with Todd Blanche. And I think that that is exactly what he's going to try to do here.

BLACKWELL: We, of course, saw that with, as we've talked about this trip to Fulton County, Georgia, to the elections office in January where the DNI was there, you know, baseball cap, black jacket, collar pulled up as the FBI is searching the elections office. She was pressed about that.

This is Democratic Senator Mark Warner. Here's what she said.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

TULSI GABBARD, DIRECTOR OF NATIONAL INTELLIGENCE: I was at Fulton County, sir, at the request of the president and to work with the FBI to observe this action that had long been awaited. I was not aware of what was in the warrant or was not in the warrant.

SEN. MARK WARNER (D-VA): And what was the president's specific request for you to go -- what was the specific request that was made by the president for you to show up in Fulton County?

GABBARD: To go and observe the FBI's activities on this issue.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

BLACKWELL: And, Shermichael, that didn't get her back in, in the president?

SINGLETON: No. I mean, Victor, she -- her entire ethos from the beginning very anti-intervention from the very beginning when she was in Congress, when she ran on the Democratic ticket. So it never surprised me when the president nominated her. I understand why politically, but I was never surprised that they didn't quite get along, especially now when you look at the fact that the president has been in Cuba now, Venezuela again, Iran, the president stepped back and forth with Ukraine and the Russia issue.

I think Tulsi's ethos internationally would be to step away from all of those things. And so when you're looking at a president in his second term, who does believe, after the success of Venezuela, that there is an opportunity to sort of throw around some U.S. weight, militarily speaking, you have a DNI chief who is absolutely saying we shouldn't be doing those things, why would that all of a sudden get her back into the president's good graces?

GARCIA-NAVARRO: It's not only the president, though. Who is Tulsi Gabbard for?

I mean, she was a former Democrat. Her party utterly rejects her. She rejected her party as well. And also she's not a Republican. So at the end of the day, she has no constituency.

BLACKWELL: All right. We got more to talk about.

John Miller, thank you so much for being with us at the top of the show. The rest of the panel is going to stay by. Coming up, the breaking news. A judge has now dismissed charges against Kilmar Abrego Garcia and said the federal investigation into him was tainted and vindictive.

Plus, it's lights out at the Ed Sullivan theater as "The Late Show" comes to an historic end.

Ahead, a look at the star-studded goodbye for Stephen Colbert.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

BRYAN CRANSTON, ACTOR: Hey, I'm here. Maybe I could be your last guest.

STEPHEN COLBERT, TV HOST: That would -- that would be great, Bryan. The thing is -- and I'm right here. We already have a pretty special one lined up. I'm sorry.

CRANSTON: What the hell am I here for?

(END VIDEO CLIP)

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[16:21:43]

BLACKWELL: Breaking news, a federal judge has dismissed charges against Kilmar Abrego Garcia. He's the man the Trump administration claims it mistakenly deported to El Salvador before he was brought back.

CNN's chief legal affairs correspondent Paula Reid is covering this breaking news.

Paula, how did this judge explain the decision to drop the charges?

PAULA REID, CNN CHIEF LEGAL AFFAIRS CORRESPONDENT: So this is, of course, one of the Trump Justice Department's most high profile criminal cases. And Abrego Garcia's lawyers have been trying to argue that this case was politically motivated because, of course, his client came to national attention when he was removed to El Salvador, despite a judge's order barring his removal to the country. When he was brought back here to the U.S., the Justice Department filed these two counts of allegedly transporting unlawful migrants back in 2022, and his lawyers have been trying to get the case tossed, arguing that this never would have been brought if he had not sort of had this national controversy over his removal to El Salvador.

And today, the judge agreed with his lawyers, writing, quote, the objective evidence here shows that absent a successful lawsuit challenging his removal to El Salvador, the government would not have brought this prosecution. The evidence before the court sadly reflects an abuse of prosecuting power. Now, in a statement a few moments ago, the justice department shot back saying, quote, another activist judge has placed politics above public safety. The judge's order is wrong and dangerous. The Justice Department, Victor, says it will appeal today's decision.

BLACKWELL: All right. Paula Reid, thanks so much.

The panel is back.

Xochitl, let me start with you. The very first line of this judge's opinion referenced one of FDR's attorney generals -- attorneys general, I should say. Let me read it.

Then-Attorney General Robert H. Jackson warned his fellow prosecutors long ago of the danger of picking the person first and the crime second. That is the situation here.

What do you make of that framework and those being the first words from this judge?

HINOJOSA: What we always say at the Justice Department is you investigate a crime, not a person. And that is not what they did here. And remember how this started? It was a justice department attorney who said that they had made a mistake, and it was Stephen Miller who then quickly went on television and tried to rewrite that.

Now, let me remind you, Stephen Miller is not a lawyer, but he has a big hand in the Justice Department and the decisions that they make. And it was very telling that several Justice Department, career Justice Department officials resigned over this matter.

And so my advice to the Justice Department, this administration is the career people are there for a reason. They've argued cases. They've won cases. They understand they are nonpartisan.

And you must listen to them. And they have a point. Things like this don't happen whenever you listen to career officials within the Justice Department.

So I think this is a big test. They continue to make mistakes. Most of the cases that have been thrown out have been because political leadership has made the decision. And they're going to continue to have that track record if they can go down the road of politicizing the Justice Department.

Now, should Abrego Garcia apply for that weaponization fund? I don't know, maybe. I mean, at this point, right? But it -- it'll be interesting to see what they try to do here moving forward to him.

[16:25:02]

BLACKWELL: Jeff, we learned about him because it was a mistake, right? And then the White House tried to make him the poster child, put him front and center. Another loss for them. What's this mean for the White House?

MASON: A couple of things. It brings back a negative story into the news for sure. And that is, I think, an example of other things that are going to be challenges for the president politically going into the midterms. We've obviously got several months between now and then, but immigration, unlike the 2024 campaign, has not been a winner for him politically over the last several months.

This is exhibit -- this is exhibit A, exhibit B, or what is probably even more prominent are the two people who were killed earlier this year by ICE agents. That is a story that's not getting a lot of attention now because there are so many other things, but it has not -- those things did not help his poll numbers, and neither did this.

BLACKWELL: Yeah. Lulu?

GARCIA-NAVARRO: Yeah. I think it's another defeat for Donald Trump's Justice Department. And I think the wider context within which this sits is that, you know, a lot of Americans are very unhappy with the way that immigration has been dealt with and Kilmar Abrego Garcia became sort of a poster child for that in some ways, in the earlier part of the administration, there's been so many other egregious things that have happened since then.

But you know, if they continue to sort of pursue him and as this judge says, persecute him, it only plays into this idea that they are really trying to hurt people and not doing this for the right reasons.

BLACKWELL: And we've also seen Democrats latch on to this story. We saw Senator Van Hollen go down and visit him and sit with him as well.

GARCIA-NAVARRO: Because he got sent to a prison in El Salvador.

BLACKWELL: Sure.

GARCIA-NAVARRO: You know, you know, this maximum security prison, with no redress where people disappear into sort of a gulag. That's why they did it.

SINGLETON: I mean, he was a poster child, though, Lulu, for a while, until it was revealed that he wasn't necessarily the greatest guy. When we found out that he had physically assaulted his wife, at least on one or two occasions.

GARCIA-NAVARRO: No angel, right?

SINGLETON: But the point is, Democrats, over time eventually stepped away from him. Now, with that said, politically, as I'm looking at midterms --

GARCIA-NAVARRO: That has got nothing to do with the legality of what happened.

SINGLETON: But that's not my point. My point is, politically, even Democrats looked at him and said, perhaps this isn't the best person to take on the mantle of being the poster child for the issues that Democrats may think the administration is doing incorrectly as it pertains to immigration.

That said, politically, though, Victor, I'm looking at a state like Texas, and I'm looking at the five new gerrymandered districts where Republicans had hoped to win all five. Maybe we win three out of the five.

Now I'm looking at other southern states where there are large Hispanic populations. And the fact that in 2024, the president got 40 plus percent of the Latino vote. You have seen significant diminishment in that support over the past year and a half. And what are the electoral implications for Republicans running in districts where they will need some of that goodwill that's now been erased?

That's what I look at politically. And so if I'm advising the president, the administration on this one, I say, let's move on from this. There are more critical issues where we should try to rebuild some of that goodwill before early voting starts in September.

GARCIA-NAVARRO: Particularly always say they should listen to Shermichael, and they don't.

BLACKWELL: Always listen to Shermichael.

GARCIA-NAVARRO: And they don't.

BLACKWELL: You don't have to go to the district, the statewide race. This could also which could be very close, could help. Talarico, do you expect the White House is going to take that advice?

MASON: I was just going to say so. She was saying that the Justice Department should take her advice about listening to career officials. I don't think this administration. I'm sorry to both of you, is taking your advice on either issue.

BLACKWELL: All right. To the panel, thank you for that. The breaking news coming in throughout the day.

Still to come in THE ARENA, Democratic Representative Suhas Subramanyam is here. What does he make of the Republican pushback to the Justice Department's new so-called anti weaponization fund? We've been talking about as people line up now to get some of your money.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

JAKE TAPPER, CNN HOST: Do you really think Donald Trump's going to want you to have any money?

MICHAEL COHEN, FORMER TRUMP ATTORNEY: Probably not.

TAPPER: OK.

COHEN: But wouldn't that be something if he actually decided to do it.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[16:33:35]

BLACKWELL: Welcome back. President Trump's push for his so-called $1.8 billion anti-

weaponization fund is dividing members of his own party. Now this issue has become so toxic that Senate Republicans left Washington yesterday without voting on a bill to fund one of the president's key priorities, immigration enforcement. Trump, for his part, aired his frustration on Truth Social this morning, and he wrote this, "I gave up a lot of money in allowing the just announced anti-weaponization fund to go forward. I could have settled my case," which is odd because earlier this week he said that he was not involved in the creation of the fund.

Listen to this.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

DONALD TRUMP, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: It's been very well received. I have to tell you, I know very little about it. I wasn't involved in the whole creation of it, and the negotiation. But this is reimbursing people that were horribly treated, horribly treated as anti weaponization. They've been weaponized. They've been, in some cases imprisoned wrongly. They paid legal fees that they didn't have. They've gone bankrupt. Their lives have been destroyed and they turn out to be right.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

BLACKWELL: Democratic Congressman Suhas Subramanyam sits on the House Oversight Committee and joins us in THE ARENA.

Congressman, thanks for being with me.

First, your reaction now to the president a couple of days ago saying I don't know anything about it. And now that he allowed this to happen and gave up some money in order to put it in place.

[16:3504]

REP. SUHAS SUBRAMANYAM (D-VA): That's an absolute joke that he knew nothing about it. And it's an absolute joke that they're pushing forward with it at a time when people are struggling to pay the bills, when they've cut health care tax credits, when they've cut food assistance for kids, they somehow have the money to be able to create this slush fund that insurrectionists can use to profit from what they did, essentially. I mean, this is going to be the most corrupt carve- out I've ever seen in modern American history.

BLACKWELL: So you have two bills aimed at killing this. You're obviously going to need some Republican support to get it passed through the House. Do you have any?

SUBRAMANYAM: Yeah. I mean, Republicans should join us. The problem is they are so beholden to Donald Trump and the Republican Party right now that theyre afraid of crossing him.

And this is one instance of personally crossing him, right? Because he personally benefits from it. His family personally benefits from this. So when you see all these primaries out there where people like Massie in Kentucky are losing when they cross him, it makes other Republicans afraid. And so that's the Republican Party now. And the only solution to that is to vote them out.

BLACKWELL: So I heard you say that Republicans should back this, and were hearing some of the condemnation from the Senate. Do you have the support in the House? I mean, what are you hearing from Republicans in the House? Do they sound much like what were hearing from the senators?

SUBRAMANYAM: I'm not hearing much at this point. I think they understand that it's a bad idea. They understand that if a Democratic president did this, they would be up in arms. But they're also afraid. So what will -- what will take precedent for them? What will be more important, protecting the American people and American taxpayers or supporting insurrectionists because they are so beholden to this president?

That is the decision that they have. I know where I stand, which is that I'm going to support the American people and stick with the American people. And that means pushing forward these bills and putting it to a vote, forcing them to vote on it.

BLACKWELL: So the reporting from our White House team is that the White House is not interested in changing this fund. The structure, the commission. If this anti-weaponization fund moves forward, is there a place in which you could settle where there would be exclusions, say, for people who are convicted of violent crimes, if this will become a law?

SUBRAMANYAM: I do not want one penny going to anyone who was there on January 6th. I do not want one ounce of amnesty for the Trump family, for their tax crimes that they've committed over the years. And so -- so to be very clear, there's no negotiating on this. I do not support one dime of it, much less $1.8 billion being used as a slush fund to pay off these insurrectionists who tried to over -- undermine and overturn our elected officials and our elected democracy.

BLACKWELL: Yeah. And I hear there are many people on this who are taking an absolutist position that there should be no money for, not just the people who were there on January 6th, or the election deniers or the fake electors. But there should not be tax money going to just the president's supporters with very little transparency. But that may not be what happens at the end of the day. And so if there is, is there any overlap in which you could see Congress executing some controls over the money if the president holds his position that it should go through?

SUBRAMANYAM: There's no negotiating on this, period, end of sentence. The reality is that none of them should get any sort of payouts or settlements. They were all there. They all could have left, but they broke into the Capitol and they would -- Capitol police officer was killed.

No one who was part of the insurrection should get any sort of payout at all. And there's no negotiating for me, and I hope no other Democrat negotiates either. I hope Republicans don't negotiate on this, and we just move forward with lowering costs for the American people and covering health care. With that $1.8 billion that theyre taking, stealing from the American taxpayer.

BLACKWELL: Let me get your thoughts on some new CNN reporting about this interview. The House Oversight Committee had on Thursday with former Epstein assistant Sarah Kellen accused three men of wrongdoing, identified them by name.

Frederic Fekkai, a French celebrity hairstylist, Philip Levine, the former mayor of Miami Beach, and cruise industry entrepreneur, and Patrick Demarchelier, a French fashion photographer. What else are you learning about that, in that hearing?

SUBRAMANYAM: Well, Sarah Kellen was the right hand person to Jeffrey Epstein, but she was also a survivor in the sense that he abused her on a weekly basis. And so, you know, she has a complicated past with all of this. She was willing to put forward these three names because she cited them as people who directly abused her and sexually assaulted her.

But she would not put forward names of other people who sexually assaulted other girls. She did not want to divulge that. What? That said, she has a lot of information. And so, you know, I'm interested to see how were going to eventually get to the bottom of what other information she does have, because she wasn't willing to share it yesterday.

BLACKWELL: Now, the people that CNN has spoken with, these men have denied these allegations. But what is the oversight committee doing to, as you say, get to the bottom of the allegations? What's next?

SUBRAMANYAM: Well, next week we have Pam Bondi coming in. So the easiest thing would be to have the files that are being withheld released. And so, we want to know exactly why that's happening.

And then second, you know, certainly, you know, we can continue to look into the details of these allegations. But the reality is the Department of Justice should be investigating this. They should be reopening investigations into all of the people who are accused and cited, and I hope local governments and local law enforcement will look into investigations as well if crimes were committed there.

Look at what's happening in the U.K. Prince Andrew himself, the former Prince Andrew, now he got his title taken away. He's being investigated. He's being arrested. He's being investigated for sexual assault and sexual crimes.

BLACKWELL: And I'm glad you brought him up. I'm glad you brought him up. There was some talk about trying to get him to testify before Congress. Is that moving forward?

SUBRAMANYAM: I still want him to testify. He's not an American citizen, so we cant compel him to testify. There's no consequences for him not to testify. But if he is interested in clearing his name, he will come to Congress

and testify. And we will be flexible. We can do it virtually. I've said over and over again that we welcome his testimony, and he can clear his name through that testimony process.

BLACKWELL: All right. Virginia Congressman Suhas Subramanyam, thank you so much.

Up next in THE ARENA, the end of an era. How Stephen Colbert, his audience and President Trump are saying goodbye to "The Late Show".

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

COLBERT: People have been asking me what I plan to do after tonight. And the answer is drugs. But --

(END VIDEO CLIP)

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[16:46:56]

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

COLBERT: On night one of "The Colbert Report" back in the day, I said, anyone can read the news to you. I promise to feel the news at you. And I realized pretty soon in this job that our job over here was different. We were here to feel the news with you. And I don't know about you, but I sure have felt it.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

BLACKWELL: After 11 years on the job. Stephen Colbert signed off from "The Late Show" in a star studded affair. Celebrities made cameos throughout the first half of the show, all trying to be the last guest.

But the one person who Colbert has long wanted to interview his White House whale, if you will, a white whale, not White House whale. See how that slipped out? White whale will, if you will, wouldn't come out to his come out of his dressing room.

Lulu, please don't do this.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

COLBERT: Your holiness, please come out. Leo! Leo, please. We got a show.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: No way, Colbert. You call that a Chicago dog? Pope, don't play like that. Leo, out!

(END VIDEO CLIP)

BLACKWELL: Luckily, superstar Paul McCartney was there to save the day. McCartney first appeared at the Ed Sullivan Theater more than 60 years ago, when, of course, the Beatles made their debut on American TV. And he returned to sing the fitting song hello, goodbye as he helped Colbert turn off the lights one last time.

(VIDEO CLIP PLAYS)

BLACKWELL: All right. The panel is back.

Lulu, let me start with you.

Political comedy force for obviously more than just "The Late Show", but "The Daily Show" and Colbert Report. What's this departure mean?

GARCIA-NAVARRO: It means a couple of things. There's the cultural part of it, and there's the political part of it. And then there's the part that where those two things meet, you know, sort of culturally, you know, Colbert came up you know, as this kind of very edgy comedian playing this character of this conservative media personality and interviewing people in persona. And then was given this perch.

And I think, you know, he kind of entered the pantheon as we know it of these late night hosts that have been the narrators of our culture for a very, very long time. And he oversaw its decline. I think we can be honest about that.

But that there's the political part of that, which is, you know, since Paramount, you know, basically took over this franchise, there was a lot of you know, conjecture that this was politically motivated. And I think what everyone has come to understand in popular culture, like whatever Paramount does or doesn't say, they deny it, but popular culture is now understood this to have been a political act to appease the president so that he would approve the merger.

[16:50:00]

We've seen CBS move to the right under the Ellisons. And so, you know, we see him as a victim. That is the way that he is now commonly understood in popular culture. Leaving aside partisanship, you know, he is seen as a victim of this administration and of freedom of speech.

BLACKWELL: Yeah. And so, we talked about he talked about how political the show was now, I guess last night was the last episode. What does that say about where we are considering he was winning that slot with all the politics?

HINOJOSA: Yeah. I mean, part of living in a democracy is you should be able to be a comedian and criticize the federal government and not feel like there's going to be repercussions from your boss, right? If you crack a joke or two about the leaders in our country, that is part of living in a democracy.

And I think that Lulu brings up a great point. They it is, it opens up the question about what now happens at CBS and other places. While they say it was a financial decision, I don't think that the Americans trust that it actually was. And I think that CBS and Paramount have a lot of work to do to gain the trust of the American people, given the recent actions that they have made, you know, on -- at CBS.

And so, I do think that if this was a decision that was based on politics, there is a going to be a big conversation. And I think people are just going to see what else happens, what else -- any time that there is dissent, where else -- who will be silenced because of this administration?

GARCIA-NAVARRO: And we've seen that with Brendan Carr in the FCC, right? This didn't come out of, you know, a vacuum. This isn't speculative. We're not just imagining that this is what happened. I mean, we saw Brendan Carr, the president, others make explicit -- explicit -- explicit threats.

BLACKWELL: Well, tonight, "Comics Unleashed" premieres at that -- I shouldn't say premieres. Its been on for 20 years, but it takes over that slot. Byron Allen is the host.

Byron was on with me last night on "LAURA COATES LIVE", and he says, one thing, you will not get on this new show is politics. Here's part of that conversation.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

BYRON ALLEN, HOST, "COMICS UNLEASHED": I think there's a place for that political humor. And there's -- you can go get that from Jimmy Fallon and Jimmy Kimmel and Bill Maher and John Oliver and Seth Meyers. If you want political humor, go get it. That is not what we're doing here.

And I think, you know, there's a huge audience out there that appreciates the fact were not doing political humor. We don't care. We don't care who you vote for, what's going on. We're just here to make you laugh.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

BLACKWELL: And, Shermichael, as I said, with all the politics, Stephen Colbert was winning that slot. Do you think that approach to the time slot meets the moment in the country?

SINGLETON: I think it's a bit subjective. I mean, Republicans, as Michael Jordan once said by Jordans, too. And I have a lot of trust in Byron Allen. I mean, he's been an innovator in many, many ways as a businessman, I'm personally happy to see an African American entrepreneur pick up that time slot. I am wishing him nothing but success with this new iteration in terms of moving away from a hyper partisan lens and trying to be broader.

I do think sometimes we get so bogged down in all of the partisanship, nonstop, 24/7. And every time I'm out with Xochitl, I always try to find a moment to say, this is my friend. We don't always agree, but I love her to death. And we talk all the time.

And I think it's important to showcase that and highlight that for the American people. So anytime we have a moment to show the commonalities, I think that's a positive thing. GARCIA-NAVARRO: I do. But if you look at Greg Gutfeld, I mean, he

actually is one of the most prominent people in late night and it is hyper partisan. So I often find this argument that somehow, you know, that this was too partisan in one way and that it doesn't happen in another. You know, I think it's a little disingenuous.

The only other thing I'll say, I wish him all the best, Byron Allen. I think it's wonderful. But at the end of the day, this idea that an entire topic and such an enormous topic that we all, touches all of our lives is not safe for humor. That reminds me of countries that I've been to all over the world. Russia, Venezuela, under Chavez, Cuba, you know, where people are too afraid to make jokes about power and politics. And it's safer to keep your mouth shut.

BLACKWELL: Jeff, the president celebrated this, said that "Thank goodness finally gone. And others even less talented, they will soon follow. May they all rest in peace."

For an administration who said that this was going to be the end of cancel culture, it was the end of, you know, beginning of standing up for the First Amendment after the Biden administration, this is not that.

MASON: No, it certainly isn't. And President Trump does not like critics. He doesn't like being criticized in a high profile way. Like in a platform like Stephen Colbert had. So he has -- he has lashed out at Colbert a lot. He's lashed out at the other hosts.

What I think is also interesting from a political perspective is just the evolution of the use of those shows in political life.

[16:55:05]

I mean, I started covering the White House with Barack Obama, he would go to those shows to get a message out. President Trump has used them as a as a way to criticize.

SINGLETON: Victor, if I could just add really quickly, I don't necessarily doubt Paramount's position that it's an expensive show to produce. We know that. And linear television rating has seen the numbers dive.

BLACKWELL: Yeah. All right, Shermichael and the entire panel, thank you very much.

You can watch more of THE ARENA tomorrow, THE ARENA SATURDAY airs at noon and again at 4:00 p.m. Eastern, right here on CNN.

"THE LEAD WITH JAKE TAPPER" starts after a break