Return to Transcripts main page
CNN's The Arena with Kasie Hunt
Trump: "No Compromise" On Voter ID Bill Despite GOP Opposition; Supreme Court Conservatives Expand Trump's Immigration Power; Permit Fuels New Taylor Swift & Travis Kelce Wedding Rumors. Aired 4-5p ET
Aired June 25, 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: I'm proud of you, hailing from Canberra, and someone with the -- I have a voice that projects as well. So now I know why. I think it's geographic.
BORIS SANCHEZ, CNN HOST: Something in the water, right?
(LAUGHTER)
KEILAR: Yeah.
Joseph McGrail-Bateup, great to speak with you. Thank you so much.
And THE ARENA WITH KASIE HUNT starts right now.
(MUSIC)
KASIE HUNT, CNN HOST: Hi, everyone. I'm Kasie Hunt. Welcome to THE ARENA. It's great to have you with us on this Thursday.
As we come on the air, President Donald Trump is once again in a standoff with congressional Republicans, and he's refusing to take no for an answer. Right now, the speaker, Mike Johnson, is at the White House as he tries to meet Trump's demand that Congress pass a sweeping election reform bill.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
REP. MIKE JOHNSON (R-LA), SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE: We're in an era with small margins and small majorities, and we've got to get things moving. There is a frustration the president has expressed about the unwillingness of Senate Democrats to do anything that follows common sense and follows public opinion.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
HUNT: But it's not just Democrats. A handful of Senate Republicans also oppose this bill, and of course, it's enough to stop it with a filibuster. The Senate Republicans have repeatedly refused the president's demand to eliminate the filibuster over this.
So Speaker Johnson's new plan is to pass these election changes using a process called reconciliation.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
REPORTER: Would you be open to a compromising measure that had provisions of the SAVE Act into a reconciliation?
DONALD TRUMP, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: Not really, no. The SAVE Act should be just -- no compromise.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
HUNT: No compromise. And that gets at the heart of a familiar dynamic in Trump 2.0. President Trump wants something, so he tells Republicans in Congress to make it happen. Most of them get on board, but some of the holdouts demand concessions. Normally, this is where some deal- making would happen in order to win those votes over.
But there you have the president saying, no compromise. The question now, who will blink first?
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
TRUMP: The most important thing we can have is what's called the Save America Act.
SEN. LISA MURKOWSKI (R-AK): He chooses to hold up his own agenda because he wants action on the SAVE Act. That's, I guess, his call.
TRUMP: We have to pass the Save America Act.
SEN. THOM TILLIS (R-NC): It's a distraction, and it's not going to happen in this Congress.
TRUMP: We got to pass the Save America Act.
TILLIS: Talking's good. SAVE Act's a waste of time.
MURKOWSKI: You don't have the votes, sir. You don't have the votes.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
HUNT: You don't have the votes, sir. There you have it.
All right, let's get off the sidelines, head into THE ARENA. My panel's here. We're also joined by CNN senior White House correspondent Kristen Holmes.
Kristen, always good to see you.
So the speaker has been at the White House for quite some time now. This, of course, a president who has often basically referred to himself as functionally the speaker of the House. What was the president's mindset going into this meeting, and what are officials telling you about it?
KRISTEN HOLMES, CNN SENIOR WHITE HOUSE CORRESPONDENT: Kasie, no days do I ever envy Speaker Johnson's job. But on a day like today, it seems particularly terrible. And that's because President Trump has doubled down on this idea that he believes he has leverage when it comes to the SAVE Act, and he wants to push it through.
Now, Speaker Johnson did briefly talk to reporters on the Hill saying he's passed the Save America Act in the House side three times. They'll get the votes. They'll get it done again. But this is obviously a larger issue now.
One of the things, of course, hanging in the balance is this housing bill, this bipartisan bill that President Trump literally stunned lawmakers on the Hill who are all touting this bill, celebrating the fact that it was going to get signed by canceling that and demanding that the SAVE Act go through.
Now, part of the conversation is going to be around that housing bill because Johnson's going to want to get that through. How he can thread the needle, though, to show that President Trump -- show President Trump that he does value what he is saying and advertises his agenda, that's going to be the real question.
The other part of this housing bill that's so fascinating is in order for that 10-day period to begin. And what I mean by that is that if President Trump does not sign the bill for 10 days. Once it is handed over to him by the House GOP leaders, then it becomes a law. Well, for all we know right now and all we've heard seems as though GOP leaders never actually gave him the housing bill. So they haven't started that 10-day cycle. So, that could be something that they're trying to leverage as well when they're talking about the SAVE Act.
Now, to make matters even more complicated for Speaker Johnson, who again, you heard him there, we've known this for the last several years since this House took session, he doesn't have a big majority. And now what you're seeing is these hardliners, these big Trump supporters, saying that they're not going to do anything on the House floor. They're not going to take up one thing until Save America is passed again. That's going to make Speaker Johnson's life a complete nightmare.
So if there's any way that Johnson can convince Trump to move forward with at least some of his agenda so they can get some things done while they're working on the SAVE Act, that is what he's going to try to be doing.
[16:05:11]
But again, this is a heavy lift for Johnson. Just knowing what I was told going into this meeting, that President Trump is doubling down on this, that all he cares about right now is fixated on the Save Act. But we have seen before Johnson be able to kind of cajole and have a conversation with Trump and move him ahead in different directions. We'll see what the outcome is here. As you said, this has been a pretty long meeting so far, so it doesn't necessarily seem as though it's going in a perfect direction for Speaker Johnson. There might have to be some extra convincing going on behind the scenes.
HUNT: Oh, rough day for the speaker of the House.
Kristen Holmes, thank you for that pointed assessment of where things stand. I appreciate it.
My panel is here in THE ARENA. CNN legal analyst, former federal prosecutor Elliot Williams; CNN special correspondent Jamie Gangel; former Biden White House communications director Kate Bedingfield; and Republican strategist, former Trump advisor, David Urban. They're, of course, both CNN political commentators.
Welcome to all of you. Thank you for being here.
Jamie Gangel --
JAMIE GANGEL, CNN SPECIAL CORRESPONDENT: I'm just laughing because I like an extra long meeting. Look, as Kristen said, you know, I think the nice way is President Trump is fixated on the SAVE Act. I think he's obsessed with it.
And I think part of that is sort of this continued delusion about 2020 being stolen. But for Republicans, there is an expression, "Take the win". And the Housing Act, that is taking the win. This is something that would be good for them, particularly facing November and elections.
KATE BEDINGFIELD, CNN POLITICAL COMMENTATOR: I mean, look, Trump has said -- he said it out loud. He doesn't care about the midterms. And I feel like the way that he's navigating this is just a reinforcement of the fact he's not concerned about the political fate of the folks who are having to run in marginal districts in this country, having to go back to their constituents empty-handed and say we haven't actually done anything on housing affordability.
He's driven by, I think Jamie rightly says, by his obsession, his fixation on the fact that he lost the election in 2020 and he is willing to hijack the agenda of his party to pass a piece of legislation that he thinks in some way, you know, vindicates him and protects and protects them moving forward.
But, you know, ultimately, holding hostage a piece of legislation that would help your members in tough races go back and win those tough races -- I mean, that's politics 101. So again, we got Trump's ego kind of dominating over political common sense here.
HUNT: Well, and David, I mean, didn't he run on the promise to make Americans' lives more affordable? I mean, wasn't that kind of the point? Here's a huge opportunity to take a step in that direction.
DAVID URBAN, CNN SENIOR POLITICAL COMMENTATOR: Here's audible sigh.
(LAUGHTER)
URBAN: There's a lot to unpack and what was just said.
So, number one, whether or not the president cares about the midterms about random House members running, he should, because he should care about his own political future. His own political future is inimitably tied to those in the House because -- you know, I'm not quite sure, but the president should be really aware that the people -- just the three Democratic socialists were elected in New York City, does he want to be like -- those are the folks are going to be like trying to peel back the onion at every -- every opportunity they can in this administration for the past year. There'll be subpoenas. There'll be oversight. There'll be nothing will get advanced past you know that January 20th swearing-in date for -- excuse me -- the January 6th date of swearing in for the next Congress.
So he should care a great deal about that. If he doesn't care about affordable -- doesn't care, he should care about it because he cares about himself. If everyone says he's such an egomaniac, he's always think -- he should cared about it because it's -- the selfish thing to do would be pass a legislation that helps you win, right? And so, I would think he would too and then the other thing that is lost I say or hope it's not lost that -- the system, listen, I agree, there's a lot of reforms that can be done in our election system. I mean, there's so many things.
But is it corrupt? No, it's not corrupt. Is it broken in a lot of ways? It's broken in a lot of ways, but it's -- you know, in Pennsylvania, there's 67 counties. Each county has their own election thing. California will watch how screwed up it is.
But again, the system works. And if it didn't work, the president just got reelected. He was just elected in '24. So it was broken in '20, but fixed in '24. So I get that he wants to, you know, fix the system, and I applaud him for that.
But that thing that's going to help the president the most is to pass this bill, walk around and wave it and say, I'm working to make housing more affordable for people, and I hear you making lives better, as opposed to, you know, sitting down with the speaker, probably has a sheet out, legal pad, and he's just counting, right? One plus one plus one.
Look, we don't have the votes, right? This is how it works. This is -- these things are just simple math problems. And if you can't get -- and listen, we know in the Senate, there's a lot of folks that don't want to support the president anymore, right? You've got Tillis, you go along the laundry list.
In the House, you heard the speaker, very narrow margins, fragile coalition, right? I mean, he's just basically saying, like, there's no way -- without saying "there's no way I can get this done", he's saying there's no way. And so I don't know how you get to where the president wants to do.
Even reconciliation is incredibly difficult to do, right? And there's a reason it's not done all the time, right? It's done like once or twice every Congress because it's incredibly impossible to get done. So I don't know how we get out of this at this point, right?
HUNT: Yeah.
URBAN: Pass that, housing bill's a good thing.
ELLIOT WILLIAMS, CNN LEGAL ANALYST: You know, this is a great conversation to have a week before the nation turns 250 years old, and there's a big reason for that, which is that the framers made Congress the most powerful branch of government for a reason. They can thwart --
URBAN: Co-equal, they're co-equal.
WILLIAMS: They are, oh, they are first among equals, and there's a reason why they are Article I of the Constitution. And the point is, they can disrupt and cause hell for any president for all the reasons you all are talking about here.
Sign the bill, it is Congress's bill. The people put them there to pass this legislation that can ultimately help the president. But what you're seeing here is how a Congress can really mess up what a president wants to do. Even, David, some of the things you noted come next year, the subpoenas and the hearings and the testimony and all of the above are Congress flexing its power at a certain point.
Yes, we think of the president as the head of American government, and I understand that, but he can't get anything done without basically bending the knee to Congress at a certain point. He's not seeing that.
URBAN: Well, especially when it comes to the Senate, right? You know, I was a chief of staff. I worked for a guy named Arlen Specter who thought, you know -- I mean, he was -- he was -- he ran for president like most senators do, right?
There's a joke I would say, you walk into the Senate chamber you say, "Mr. President" and everybody turns around because they all envision themselves at 1600 Pennsylvania --
HUNT: They all look in the mirror.
URBAN: And there's a reason they have a six-year term right they are insulated from this kind of give-and-take and a lot of these folks probably sitting in the caucus room the other day saying, you know, look, you're going to be gone. I'm still -- I run for re-election in five -- for five more years, right? You're gone at two.
HUNT: Yeah. Jamie Gangel, so "Punchbowl News" is reporting that Trump told Johnson this week that, quote, "No one gives a shit about housing," end quote.
Now, White House official did not respond to this report when we asked for comment, but did point to Trump's Wednesday comments in the Oval Office on the housing bill and affordability when he talked about the need to lower interest rates and that it would solve everything. What does that tell you?
GANGEL: I think there are a lot of Republicans who are saying WTF at this moment. Look, this is -- we've been through, you know, four months of gas prices and food prices and healthcare, and Americans are suffering, and we have inflation on the rise. I think the president needs to care about. Yeah, this House --
(CROSSTALK)
BEDINGFIELD: No, just -- I mean, it's the single biggest driver of political attitudes running into the midterms right now. I mean, it is the thing that people cite consistently, the cost of living, the cost of housing. I mean, the idea that people don't care, you know, it's absurd.
I think it's also worth remembering, you know, that President Trump has, he, you know, subjugated the reauthorization of FISA to this, like, obsession with the Save America Act. I mean, he is uninterested in anything but getting this bill passed, which is -- it's also sort of a bizarre thing, because the bill itself, the Save America Act, not particularly popular.
Elements of it, yes. I mean, elements of it are, to the point you were making, David, that there are, of course, reforms that can and should be done in our electoral system. Elements of it are popular. But the way it's been packaged, people believe it is an attempt by President Trump to manipulate mid-election in his interest.
HUNT: Yeah.
BEDINGFIELD: And so it's just, you know, for him to hold the entire process hostage for a bill that, even if he manages to get it passed, is not going to do his party a whole lot of good is a bizarre choice.
HUNT: We can put up the polling on the SAVE Act, actually, to show you who favors, opposes, and isn't sure about the SAVE Act. Okay?
So, 23 percent of independent voters favor the SAVE Act, which I think is probably the most important number. Only 60 percent of Republicans favor it. Now, only a handful of them seem to be willing to oppose it at this point.
But I mean, I will also say, David Urban, a lot of the changes that the SAVE Act would include -- I mean, I take your point on some of the things that certainly could make -- help build trust in the system.
[16:15:00]
But the reason there are Republicans who don't want to vote for it is that it does things that the Republican Party has fundamentally opposed for years in taking additional national control of elections that, you know, people like Mitch McConnell would always tell you, like, no, don't federalize the election. It's a safe thing.
URBAN: I mean, there's -- there's obviously a great deal of tension, right? You look at states, Florida, Florida gets it right. Florida, you know, on election night, they press a button. Everybody knows who wins.
California --
HUNT: They had a bad experience. URBAN: Well, Florida, we have a little --
(CROSSTALK)
WILLIAMS: It's not the bird --
URBAN: Couple of chads hanging here and there, but they learned. But they learned and they fixed it, right? And so in my home state of Pennsylvania, right, it's completely the opposite. It's like long drawn out process. Lawsuits takes forever. You feel like you're living in a third world country waiting for election night.
I think Americans deserve to know on election night who wins our elections, right? I mean, I do or maybe the next day. OK, but we shouldn't be waiting for like three months to figure out --
HUNT: It sows distrust in the past.
URBAN: Yeah. And it makes people feel -- when they move, when people bank, when they when you book airlines, you do things on your phone, the Snap, there's no, you know, you can order, you know, a kidney transplant and Amazon will delivered the next day, right? You can get everything in the world done overnight.
But we --
WILLIAMS: Whoa!
URBAN: But my point is --
WILLIAMS: Can we stay on that for a minute?
URBAN: My simple point is we can't get our elections done and people in America -- to your point, Kasie -- it just builds a great deal of distrust that the system's broken. It's not that it's being rigged because again, what happens is like you look at these places where California -- Democrats are behind, then the next day they're like, oh, all of a sudden, they're winning, right? And they win.
And people in a lot of places say, well, how's that possible, right? Well, you know, if you mail your ballot in on day, whatever, you can count it four weeks later, little sketch.
GANGEL: But, David, can I just say it's messy. Our system is messy. It can -- but that is not fraud or corruption. How messy gets spun can, you know, hurts trust
URBAN: But it undermines the credibility in the system. That's the problem.
HUNT: Right. I think the flip side of that is also the politicians who are then out there saying it's rigged are also huge part of the problem, not just the system itself.
All right, coming up next here in THE ARENA, we're going to talk with one of the few lawmakers left who represents an actual, real, live, living swing district.
Republican Congressman Mike Lawler will be here with how he sees this stalemate getting resolved.
Plus, things are getting testy at the Supreme Court. One justice accusing another of blindsiding him on the bench today as the court's conservative majority ruled to expand the president's power on immigration.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
TOM HOMAN, BORDER CZAR: Great decision. Temporary should mean temporary. That's the way the law was written. I'm glad that the Supreme Court recognized that.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[16:22:07]
HUNT: All right. Welcome back.
The Supreme Court today handing President Trump twin victories on immigration, with both decisions falling sharply along ideological lines.
In one ruling, the justices sided with the administration on ending humanitarian protections for thousands of Haitians and Syrians living under a policy known as Temporary Protected Status, shorthanded as TPS. It's worth noting here that the implications of that decision are likely to impact TPS holders from dozens of other countries.
In a separate decision, the court also ruled that the Trump administration could revive a controversial policy blocking asylum seekers at the border. That case, leading to a highly unusual and testy back and forth between Justice Samuel Alito, who delivered the majority opinion, and Justice Sonia Sotomayor, who wrote the court's lengthy and scathing dissent.
My panel is back and we're also joined now by Michele Goodwin. She's a constitutional law professor at Georgetown University.
Welcome.
And Professor, I want to start with you on the implications of these rulings here and also put in context to the biggest decision that we're still waiting for from the Supreme Court is one around birthright citizenship. So, I mean, what would you point to in the rulings today and what they may say about what's coming?
MICHELE GOODWIN, PROFESSOR OF CONSTITUTIONAL LAW, GEORGETOWN UNIVERSITY: Well, what we can see in the decisions today is that the majority of the Supreme Court, and it's a super conservative majority, has leaned into the executive orders and the positionality of Donald Trump, which has been an anti-immigration position, save for white South Afrikaners. And you have the cases that you spoke of today, both of the Mullins decisions, one, that involves Syrians and Haitians, where the court has essentially ended this practice, which has been a review of individuals who are coming from countries where they are at risk and threat.
And it was noted in the dissent that there's no problem here, basically that Donald Trump has created a problem that didn't exist because there's already been a mechanism in place to review whether those individuals from those countries could continue to enjoy protective status. Well, that's been upended, and I think one theory that we can see being pushed is this unitary executive theory, this idea that the president holds basically superpowers, and that's what we saw in those two decisions today, both of them striking against humanitarian policies, which we have embraced for a number of years.
HUNT: Elliot Williams, what were your reactions today?
WILLIAMS: You know what's interesting, far more than looking at what the Supreme Court does on any given day, it's always important to look about what problems they've created for the future with the decisions they've written. And there are a few sort of open questions right now.
[16:25:00]
For instance, on that asylum case, as the professor was talking about, in terms of -- you know, one can no longer apply for asylum by walking up to a port of entry because they're blocked from entering. They've created this odd problem that almost incentivizes coming to the United States unlawfully and then applying for asylum.
Literally, someone who jumps the fence and then claims asylum or overstays their visa has more rights to apply for asylum now than someone who tried to do it the legal way, which was walk up to a port of entry and try to get in. So how will they handle that in the future is a challenge. That's one.
And you know, we could seen the TPS, the decision coming, just based on how the oral argument went and how sort of the administration's general posture and the Supreme Court's general posture toward TPS over time, that temporary emergency status for people.
There was a major earthquake in Venezuela this week through which many people would likely be eligible or could seek protection under TPS in the future. How's the administration going to handle that? And certainly with more latitude now to either strip it away from or not extend it to people, it's just an interesting open question. And I'm really curious to see how the next few months look far more than what the decisions today set.
GANGEL: Yeah. Just from a humanitarian point of perspective -- yes, this was a win for Donald Trump. It's what he wanted. But it is going to reverberate. The wave of consequences really can't be understated.
Let's just take in southern Florida, the Haitian community. This is going to be a disaster for many families who, first of all, they've been here a long time. They're hardworking people. They have children now who have been born in this country who are citizens.
It is also going to be a disaster for our healthcare system. Many of these people work in hospitals, nursing homes, and it's going to have a huge impact.
WILLIAMS: Let me just say one more really quick sort of important legal point in that temporary protective status decision today, which the court had a few different ways that they could have decided the decision, focusing on this idea of what's reviewable, like what -- what decisions of the Secretary of Homeland Security can the court review?
They didn't really delve much into the idea that Kristi Noem, the former secretary of Homeland Security, really didn't follow much, if any, process in stripping these protections away. And I just think what we've now opened the door to is, and quite frankly, for a Democratic administration one day to really, without the process that Congress lays out, just start making rules on immigration far beyond what Congress, the most powerful branch of government, said earlier.
GOODWIN: If I could add to that --
HUNT: Sure.
GOODWIN: -- one of the concerns is the arbitrary nature of this, and just to underscore what we've just heard. And we've seen a president who can be quite arbitrary, change his mind, suggest that there are things that are one which are not one. And so when you have an administration that sadly has not paid close attention to the rule of law and can in some ways be consistent on the arbitrariness, then what you really do have is a bit of chaos that will be unfolding with regard to how the United States handles international humanitarian law and individuals who might seek refuge on its shores.
HUNT: Yeah, Kate Bedingfield, I actually want to ask you about the asylum case, because this is actually something that was originally started under President Obama.
BEDINGFIELD: Yeah.
HUNT: And then obviously under the Biden administration, things at the border got out of hand, as many Democrats would acknowledge and the president, you know, was able to run on that.
Do you see a world where Democrats defend what the court did on this?
BEDINGFIELD: I think -- I think it's a little bit of a complicated question. I think substantively on this question of the turn away policy -- yes, I think there are Democrats who will who will defend it, who will say the border. You know that we need to have better enforcement at the border that the asylum process needs to be not so open. Yes.
However, I think we have to remember politically, this all comes against a backdrop of numbers -- you know, the Trump administration's numbers on immigration falling even among people who came over and voted for him in 2024, in part because of what he was saying about tough enforcement. We've seen the situations, obviously, the tragedies in Minneapolis have greatly eroded people's confidence in the idea that the Trump administration is enforcing any kind of consistent and humane immigration policy.
So, the other thing I would just say about the politics of this, which I think is relevant, is there's a bipartisan bill in the House to enshrine Haitian TPS, one of the Republican cosigners was Mike Lawler, actually, who's going to be on the show.
HUNT: We're going to ask him about it.
BEDINGFIELD: You know, I mean, so this is somebody representing the swingiest of swing districts, you know, who signed on to this bill. So I do think the politics on this are a little bit more complicated than it might seem at first. Swingiest of swing districts, you know, who signed on to this bill.
So I do think the politics on this are a little bit more complicated than it might seem at first blush.
HUNT: Real quickly, I would just say that this is the kind of immigration things that Trump got elected to do.
[16:30:05]
Not the Minnesota, not what you saw there, not zip-tying nannies in parking lots. That was not -- it was to crack down on temporary, like TPS. The word temporary is in there for a reason.
I don't think it's been temporary. I think if you look at it, people have been here for years and years and years. It keeps getting extended and extended and extended.
If the Congress wants to do something, the Congress can act. They can codify this. They can make this law.
HUNT: But they tried.
URBAN: They can change -- they can change it. But my point is, you know, I don't think people look at this and see the system that's being abused and broken, okay? And then the same thing with asylum, right?
There's -- look, there's legitimate reasons people seek asylum. There's a legitimate way to do it. I think that people -- wide range of people in the electorate, as well as in the Congress, view that it's been abused. Both of those things have been abused. I think it's a win for Trump and the Trump administration, this and that. We're bringing about regular order, kind of tightening this part up.
This isn't zip-tying nannies. I disagree with you. I think that people back in the real world will say, yeah, we need to tighten this up. We need to fix these things. I do believe it's a political win for the president.
HUNT: All right. Michele Goodwin, thank you very much for joining us. I appreciate it.
The rest of the panel's going to stick around.
Coming up next year in THE ARENA, Republican Congressman Mike Lawler will be here as the House remains paralyzed over the president's demands to pass his restrictive voter ID bill.
Plus, new reaction on whether this week's big primary wins for New York Mayor Zohran Mamdani could actually benefit the right.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
REPORTER: There's some talk that, you know, Republicans may use the DSA results, the positive ones in New York, in swing districts.
REP. ALEXANDRIA OCASIO-CORTEZ (D-NY): You know, when I hear some of this -- some of this chatter about that, I mean, of course, I feel like it's deja vu all over again. There was so much fear around that when I was elected, and none of it bore out to be true.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[16:36:20]
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
REP. THOMAS MASSIE (R-KY): I think it's ironic that we control the House, the Senate, the Supreme Court, and the White House, and we're yelling election fraud. I mean, we won all the damn elections.
And we're in charge, and what are we doing with it? We're bankrupting the country. We're starting new wars. We're violating the Constitution. We're not cracking down on the fraud.
The problem is not the elections. We won the damn elections.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
HUNT: I mean, the man's right.
Republican Congressman Thomas Massie issuing a stark warning today that the president's focus on his restrictive voter ID bill is a, quote, "distraction," and that prioritizing it over a popular bipartisan housing bill would raise the likelihood of a, quote, absolute shellacking for the party come November. That, as sources tell CNN that Speaker Johnson may have to cancel House votes next week as well, with his leadership team privately seeing no way out of this mess that the president seems determined to create.
Joining me now, Republican congressman of New York, Mike Lawler.
Congressman, it's good to see you. You, of course, have the distinction of being one of the very few holders of a true swing seat. And you, of course, are fighting for reelection. Is the president helping or hurting your chances with what he is doing
here with the housing bill and the SAVE Act?
REP. MIKE LAWLER (R-NY): Look, I've been at the forefront of leading this effort to pass a housing package, along with Chairman Hill and Chairman Flood. Six of my provisions are in the bill. So I obviously want to see this get across the finish line. We're eight million units under built nationwide.
You know, under the Biden administration, you saw mortgage interest rates reach a 30-year high. And the fact that the average age of a first-time homebuyer is 40 years old is insane. I'm going to be 40 in September. I bought my house at 28 years old.
So we have a real housing crisis in this country. To me, this is one of the biggest issues that we can tackle to address affordability. You had broad bipartisan support, you know, critical provisions focused on increasing supply, increasing access to capital, reducing -- reducing regulatory barriers.
So we need to get this done. I understand the president's position as it relates to the SAVE Act and the Senate. The fact is they've tried to pass it. They can't. And even if the filibuster was revoked, I'm not sure they would have the votes anyway.
The reality is we have a major election coming up. We passed a comprehensive bipartisan housing bill for the first time in decades, and it happened under a Republican government. And so we need to not only get it signed into law, we need to champion it across the country. This will actually help address the issue of affordability.
You look at a district like mine, Westchester County, one of the highest taxed, most expensive counties in the country. The average home value went from $700,000 prior to COVID to $1.1 million. Most people can't afford that. And so we need more housing. It's that simple.
HUNT: I mean, when you put it this way, is the president being selfish here?
LAWLER: No, I think he's frustrated, obviously, with the challenges in the Senate, not just on this issue, but other issues and inclusive of some of his appointments and getting them passed, but that's the reality of the Senate. They move slow.
The Senate Democrats have been a complete impediment. I mean, shutting down the government for 118 days since October 1st was ridiculous.
HUNT: Yeah. All right.
LAWLER: But that's, you know, you see what's happening in their party. We saw it on election night on Tuesday in New York, where the socialists are storming in New York City, and that's why Chuck Schumer and Hakeem Jeffries bent to their will.
But these are the realities of a constitutional republic. We don't live in a dictatorship. We don't live, you know, in a in a government where it's by fiat.
We have to be able to compromise. We have to be able to work together to pass legislation. That's what I've done. That's why I championed this housing bill as much as I did over my three-plus years in Congress.
HUNT: So you, sir, also learned who you'll face in the fall when New York voters went to the polls. She's an Army veteran, Cait Conley.
She did an interview earlier today. I want to play a little bit of what she had to say about you. We'll talk about another side. Watch.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
CAIT CONLEY (D), NEW YORK CONGRESSIONAL CANDIDATE: Mike Lawler wants to get credit for doing things. You know, he's the guy who starts the fire and then wants credit for calling the fire department, when, really, he is an arsonist. I think this goes back to showing people exactly who he is. He'll say one thing and do something completely different. And that record, he's not going to be able to outrun, because people are feeling it every day in their homes.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
HUNT: Your response?
LAWLER: Look, my record is very clear. I've been rated among the most bipartisan and effective members of Congress. I have pushed back on the president and the administration when necessary, but I have fought to deliver results for my district, inclusive of taking on the president over the issue of SALT, quadrupling the SALT cap from 10,000 to 40,000 and delivering on the biggest promise I made to my constituents, which was that I would never support a tax bill that didn't lift the cap on SALT.
It's why New York saw among the highest tax refunds anywhere in the country because of the work that I did. So I have a very clear record. You just highlighted in the last segment my stance on Haitian TPS. I discharged a bill on Ukraine, discharged a bill on the faster labor contracts. I work to represent my district and deliver. I've done over 2,000 in person, in district events over the last three-plus years.
My staff and I have closed over 9,000 constituent cases, brought back over $50 million in benefits due. I've brought back over $70 million in community project funding to my district. I show up everywhere. I engage with every community on the issues that matter and I stand up for my district.
And when I agree with the president, I say it. When I disagree, I say it. You can't scream and yell, "I hate the president," and expect to get anything done. You have to be able to deliver.
It's why Joe Biden said that I was somebody he could work with, and it's why Donald Trump has said the same, because I know how to sit down and engage constructively to deliver for my district.
HUNT: Yeah, we're --
LAWLER: Just screaming and yelling doesn't do anything.
HUNT: We're about out of time, sir, but before I let you go, I just want to ask, you rallied with the president on May 22nd. Would it help you if he came back before November?
LAWLER: Look, he's running all over the country to these swing districts. If he wants to come back, he's welcome to. But the fact is, my constituents are going to make a determination based on my record, and I've delivered for my constituents and will continue to do so. I'll continue to do the job day in, day out.
This is an election between myself and Cait Conley, who supports open borders, who wants to abolish ICE, who wants to increase taxes and government spending, and who refuses to denounce AOC and the Socialist Squad --
HUNT: All right.
LAWLER: -- that is storming the Democratic Party. That's the choice in this election.
HUNT: All right, New York Congressman Mike Lawler, always good to see you, thanks very much for spending some time with us.
LAWLER: Thank you.
HUNT: All right, ahead here in THE ARENA, are you ready for it? New clues in the matrimonial mystery of one of the most famous, I think, I mean, well, okay, one of the most famous find. There's a king and queen of England. In the world, even close friends are being kept in the dark.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
REPORTER: Is it MSG?
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: I have no idea.
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: No, we don't know.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: I actually asked Travis last time, he laughed at me, so no. I'm half expecting there to just be a jumbo jet on a runway and they put us on a plane somewhere.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: I was in the desert looking at wedding venues, and here's what I've learned. It's expensive.
(LAUGHTER) TRAVIS KELCE, NFL PLAYER: Oh, yeah.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
HUNT: That right there. An honest reaction of a man planning a wedding, but is it Madison Square Garden level expensive? That is the question the entire Internet seems to be debating today amid mounting evidence that Taylor Swift may be planning the wedding of her wildest dreams at the famous New York arena the weekend of July 4th.
An event company known to plan weddings has submitted a permit application to hold an event in the MSG vicinity and for a canopy outside the venue. Or is this just a decoy? Fans, of course, did mistakenly show up to this Rhode Island venue earlier this month, where they thought for sure they would get to see the love story unfold in real life. The whole thing sending Swifties chasing their tails, trying to figure out where exactly the duo will say forever and always.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: I think she's doing an all out concert bash. Ceremony first elsewhere, and then they get bused in to Madison Square Garden for the concert of a lifetime of her nearest and dearest musician friends.
[16:50:07]
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: New theory, Madison Square Garden is the meeting spot that they're telling everyone to go to.
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Nothing will convince me that Taylor Swift is getting married in a domed arena. She has always been stealth. These are Easter eggs, but they're not the right one. Yeah, this is -- this is the wrong bunny dropping these off.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
HUNT: Joining our panel in THE ARENA, "USA Today's" Taylor Swift reporter, Bryan West.
Bryan, who's right? Is it MSG?
BRYAN WEST, SENIOR MUSIC REPORTER, USA TODAY: Hi, Kasie. You know, I have to admit I was a bit skeptical when I first heard about this being reported a couple of weeks ago. But the more I think about it and also think about the fact that Taylor does like control, especially when it comes to security, outside photography, flyovers, drones, paparazzi shots, it does seem like it could be a likely scenario. I do think that the Internet is right in those videos you showed, either this is the most elaborate decoy or this is actually a venue that they're going to be at this week, this next week.
HUNT: Can you say a little bit more about -- when you say she wants control over things, I know you pay really close attention. I mean, what -- what else can you say about what you've learned in covering her that maybe we're not considering, as we all speculate wildly and probably, you know, irresponsibly?
WEST: You know what, after the Eras Tour, we did see a large presence of security that surrounded her, especially after Vienna. I most recently saw her at the Songwriters Hall of Fame, where she did have handfuls of bodyguards that were around her.
I just think when it comes to a venue and multiple checkpoints, I mean, there have been cases and litigation against stalkers that this would be a venue that you could control. You could have several credential sites, and it would be easy for guests to get in. There's even an underground ramp that they could appear unnoticed.
So I think when it comes to security, Madison Square Garden is a good voice. There's also no flyover. So when it comes to drones or helicopters or also long lens paparazzi shots, you wouldn't have that with Madison Square Garden. She could help kind of control the photos and the videos that are being taken.
And then I was just thinking, is there a more iconic venue that could merge or marry both entertainment and sports than Madison Square Garden?
HUNT: You know, that is a good point. And now it's the panel's turn to speculate irresponsibly about what we think is actually going to unfold here, because let's be real. I mean, this is like the wedding of the century, essentially, like --
WILLIAMS: Yes. And it's exactly what -- it's just things are tough in America. It's what America needs to break up a cruel summer that we're having right now.
HUNT: Wah, wah, wah.
WILLIAMS: Look what you made me do. We can have bad blood here, Kasie. Come on.
BEDINGFIELD: I think --
URBAN: Kate's the expert here.
WILLIAMS: Kate's off.
BEDINGFIELD; You have to remember, she attended Jack Antonoff and Margot Qualley's wedding in August of 2023.
URBAN: Who are those people?
BEDINGFIELD: David doesn't want to be determined --
HUNT: To play the old man at the table right now.
BEDINGFIELD: What David wants to know is that in the break, we sang a duet to Florida off of the Tortured Poets department.
GANGEL: And I have it on video.
(CROSSTALK)
HUNT: And you have permission to tweet it --
WILLIAMS: And David knows Taylor Swift all too well.
HUNT: That's five?
WILLIAMS: That's five.
BEDINGFIELD: She attended the wedding, Jack Antonoff, her longtime producer, Margaret Qualley, an actress. And they -- it was overrun with crowds. I mean, they were absolutely swarmed. It was kind of a horrible event. Many speculate there's a song on Jack Antonoff on the new Bleachers album actually about this called "Dirty Wedding Dress." So I --
(CROSSTALK)
BEDINGFIELD: Listen, I was told -- when I was told we were discussing this, I was like, guys, I'm ready.
URBAN: But should be an entertainment network here.
BEDINGFIELD: But I do think that security -- I think that my guess is that experience was probably sort of that was a less formative and a lesson learned. And so while I kind of share everybody's sort of surprise at the outset, when I started thinking about Madison Square Garden, I was like, oh, it doesn't feel romantic.
She's got all the money in the world. She could make it beautiful.
URBAN: So again, again --
BEDINGFIELD: And it would allow her to not have her wedding be overrun by --
URBAN: My simple take is if you're one of the richest people in the world entertainment business, you get all these things. My destination wouldn't be, like, the Port Authority New York City.
WILLIAMS: Right.
URBAN: It wouldn't be --
BEDINGFIELD: Nobody's tracking the tail number of your private jet.
WILLIAMS: No.
URBAN: Well, you do. You send your -- you charter an A380. You send it to JFK. People get on a plane. They fly someplace. This is Taylor Swift trafficking --
HUNT: Probably you can track a tail number.
WILLIAMS: I think you're being dismissive of a real --
URBAN: You black it out.
WILLIAMS: -- love story. I'm going to keep going --
HUNT: We used that one already.
Ryan, we got about 30 seconds left here. I want to give you the last word. Jump in.
WEST: Well, I just love all the fearless puns. That was very well done.
(LAUGHTER)
WEST: I just think when it comes to tape, this is either the most, again, elaborate decoy. You're sending everybody in the middle 4th of July weekend to Central Manhattan, all the media networks, or it is about security.
HUNT: Yeah, no, fair enough, I guess we don't have to wait. Hopefully, we don't have to wait much longer.
Bryan, thank you. We always appreciate you. And come back after we actually learn, you know, what's actually gone down.
URBAN: Somebody tell me what happens.
(LAUGHTER)
[16:55:03]
WILLIAMS: I knew you were trouble when you walked in, David.
HUNT: Okay, that's six.
WILLIAMS: Okay, sorry.
HUNT: Okay, on that note, we'll be right back.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
HUNT: All right, thanks to my panel, really appreciate it.
Elliot, do you want one more?
WILLIAMS: I hate -- it's a blank space. It's a blank space in my head. I just can't. Boom.
(LAUGHTER)
HUNT: All right. Don't forget, you can stream THE ARENA live. Catch up whenever you want in the CNN app. Scan the QR code below. You can also catch up by listening to THE ARENA's podcast. You can follow us on X and Instagram @TheArenaCNN.
Jake Tapper is standing by for "THE LEAD".
Hi, Jake.
