Return to Transcripts main page

CNN's The Arena with Kasie Hunt

Supreme Court Keeps Ballroom Construction Going For Now; Trump & Vance Both Hit Campaign Trail In Effort To Rally GOP; Letters Shed Light On Relationship Between Trump And Close Aide; Navy Weighs Naming Carrier After Trump, Not Black WWII Hero. Aired 4-5p ET

Aired August 21, 2026 - 16:00   ET

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

(MUSIC)

[16:00:25]

JIM SCIUTTO, CNN HOST: Hello, everyone. Welcome to THE ARENA. Kasie Hunt is off. I'm Jim Sciutto.

As we come on the air a big, if temporary win for President Donald Trump. The Supreme Court allowing him to continue building a massive ballroom at the White House. The order signed by Chief Justice John Roberts will allow construction to continue while the High Court considers the matter. This just days after the president basically said that anyone not on board is unpatriotic.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

DONALD TRUMP, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: So, the people that are opposing the ballroom are people that, in my opinion, are very disloyal to our country. This is for future presence. This isn't for me. This is for future presence. And it's a gift. We're making a gift to our country, spending hundreds of millions of dollars to build a ballroom.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

SCIUTTO: Work on that ballroom has been effectively constant since Trump ordered the demolition of the East Wing last October. The administration telling the court that the project is now almost 65 percent complete with a crew of 250 people working 20 hours a day, seven days a week to get it done.

Still, the Supreme Court could eventually rule against the project, saying the president needs congressional approval. What happens then is anyone's guess, but with the East Wing completely gone, and construction continuing around the clock, the president does not seem too concerned about that possibility.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

REPORTER: You're talking about all the construction out here and certainly the ballroom project.

TRUMP: Right. REPORTER; What is your plan if the Supreme Court rules against that?

TRUMP: Well, we hope that doesn't happen. I can't imagine it happening. The lawsuit had -- the person had no standing. It was a person that said she walked along and she didn't like the view, even though nothing was built, a person that didn't like it and never even saw a rendering of it. We've gotten tremendous architectural reviews. It's beautiful.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

SCIUTTO: So, let's get off the sidelines and head into THE ARENA. My panel is here along with CNN crime and justice correspondent Katelyn Polantz.

So, Katelyn, temporarily allowing the work. How long does that mean?

KATELYN POLANTZ, CNN CRIME AND JUSTICE CORRESPONDENT: Well, Jim, it's a placeholder order at this point in time. It's the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court putting out one sentence saying that construction is not going to have to stop at midnight. That was what the plan was when a lower court had decided that Congress needed to have a say in the building of this ballroom.

The White House had continued construction. They still are working on it. It's a seven day a week project. And the White House is arguing that they need to build up this massive ballroom because it is a, quote, "military complex or militarized complex", that they need it for national security reasons, not just to host thousands of people on the White House grounds, as Donald Trump would like to do.

Now, where this is in the court, though, is it is a case now before the Supreme Court. This is just an order that's buying time so that the nine justices all may be able to weigh in somehow. And whether they will determine whether construction would stop or construction can continue on, that's a question for another day when we don't have an answer to now.

There's been a lot of arguments over this, though, and when Donald Trump speaking to that reporter saying that the person that had sued, there is a big question over that, whether there is standing for an architectural historian in Washington to have the ability to sue to stop the ballroom.

So far, the courts have said that, yeah, that person does have the ability to sue here, that it is offensive on a cultural level historical level to that person and to the National Trust for Historic Preservation that they can sue and that the courts can stop this because Trump hasn't gotten full approval by Congress.

SCIUTTO: Yeah, not the Supreme Court yet, though. Katelyn Polantz, thanks so much.

My panel is here in THE ARENA. CNN legal analyst, former federal prosecutor Elliot Williams; CNN political analyst, national political reporter for "Axios", Alex Thompson; Democratic strategist, former director of message planning in the Biden White House, Meghan Hays; and former aide at the National Republican Senatorial Committee, Liam Donovan.

We're also joined by CNN senior legal analyst and former federal and state prosecutor, Elie Honig.

Elie, I want to begin with you. So, you've got a 250-person crew, 20 hours a day, seven days a week. I imagine that pace is quite deliberate. It's two-thirds done. I mean, has Trump effectively already beaten the courts by building before he gets an okay? I mean, he's creating facts on the ground.

ELIE HONIG, CNN SENIOR LEGAL ANALYST: Well, this is part of Donald Trump's age-old litigation strategy, which is, in this case, literally knock it down first and then force other people to go into the courts and get a court to find a way to undo it. And you're right, Jim, there is a practical problem here. There's really only two ways this comes out.

If the U.S. Supreme Court to go into the courts and get a court to find a way to undo it. And you're right, Jim, there is a practical problem here. There's really only two ways this comes out. If the U.S. Supreme Court, whenever it decides to rule, says this is lawful construction, then fine, the construction will be completed.

[16:05:05]

But if the Supreme Court says, and agrees with the lower courts that have ruled on this, and says this is unconstitutional, this has to be authorized by Congress and it's not been authorized, then we're going to end up in a situation where we have a hole in the ground and a 65 percent complete construction. And you know what that's going to do? That's going to point the spotlight to where it should have been from the start, which is to Congress.

Congress undoubtedly, everyone on both sides agrees, Congress has the power to authorize this fund, to authorize this building or any other building, and they've not done so. And that's the fundamental problem here. So, if we end up in this hole-in-the-ground situation, then everyone should look down Pennsylvania Avenue at Congress to take some action.

SCIUTTO: I mean, let's be frank, Congress has quite willingly surrendered a whole host of powers in recent months and years.

Elie, I want to play what Attorney General Todd Blanche said about the ballroom earlier this week.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

TODD BLANCHE, ATTORNEY GENERAL: We don't believe we have to go to Congress. We believe Congress has already given us the authority to do what we're doing. Many presidents have done a tremendous amount of work to the White House, as they should. President Trump has said for many months now, almost a year, that he has the authority to do this. And he said that because he absolutely does have the authority to do

this. And we're hopeful that the Supreme Court recognizes that and so that we can get the ballroom finished as soon as possible.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

SCIUTTO: That's clearly part of the strategy, is it not, Elliott? But two courts say the ballroom is unlawful because Congress hasn't approved it. I just wonder what that precedent would mean. If the president can do it without Congress's approval, why can't he tear down the Washington Monument and put up a golf course or the Lincoln Memorial, rename it the Trump Memorial?

ELLIOT WILLIAMS, CNN LEGAL ANALYST: And this is the practical problem that Elie Honig just mentioned a moment ago, and it's the litigation strategy, in effect, if you have already taken an action and then there is legal action that says that that action must be stopped, but the action has been taken already, we have a problem. You have a giant hole in the ground.

So, I mean, no -- I do not think the president is going to knock down the Washington Monument, but again, there's a practical question and a legal question here that's sort of a mess. Now, back to the point about Congress, number one, the attorney general is absolutely wrong, Congress is the body here that ought to, number one, have authorized whatever needed to be built and could intervene if they so chose.

But the president is on to something when he makes the point that the individual who sued here over this probably doesn't have standing. Standing is this idea that the person who is harmed by an action is the only one who's able to file a lawsuit. Yes, she was bothered by what she saw by the construction there. Yes, the historic preservation folks do have an interest in it, but I don't know if they are the party that was legally wronged that has the right to sue.

There's probably a better case to be made that Congress ought to sue the White House and then could move forward.

SCIUTTO: Well, by then the ballroom will sue.

So again, it's a mix of these practical and legal questions.

It will be waltzing around the ballroom by then. Liam, earlier this week, President Trump, as you'll remember, took quite a lengthy tour around the renovations underway around the White House. I want to play some highlights from that.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

TRUMP: Every stone is two degrees rounded. This Granite has a million- year life. It's a very strong stone.

We put topsoil, brand new earth on top. It's a tapered pole, great. I'm very good at flagpoles. The ballroom is so much a military component with the drones and the bomb shelter. It goes down five stories. Here it goes down almost 65 feet. You look at the lettering and you look at the joints, they're like

flawless. Those are called shear walls. And they're of the greatest strength concrete. You look how fine that's cut, these are three different coins, all different. But that and like that. They're going to be flipped.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

SCIUTTO: There's a political question beyond the legal question, Liam. Here's the president describing with pride an extremely expensive renovation project as the American people are suffering through affordability issues here, 58 percent of respondents say they're angry or disapprove of President Trump's renovation projects specifically

Is this politically smart for the president as the midterms approach?

LIAM DONOVAN, FORMER NATIONAL REPUBLICAN SENATORIAL COMMITTEE AIDE: I don't think it's particularly salient heading into the last 75 days of this election. It played an outsized role, I think, a year ago when there was not really a lot going on and people hadn't locked into politics quite yet. You know, it's surfacing at this point, I think, is probably unhelpful as Republicans try to be out there talking about their positive agenda, the things they've accomplished, and trying to shine the light on the DSA candidates that are being nominated across the country.

Not helpful. but I don't think it's going to be what people heading into the voter booth are thinking about.

SCIUTTO: Meghan, do you disagree?

MEGHAN HAYS, DEMOCRATIC STRATEGIST: I do a little bit just because I think that this just shines a light on that we are spending money on helipads and ballrooms and reflecting pools rather than trying to lower the cost for people on gas and groceries and health care and also we have a war that we're fighting that nobody wanted to go to. So I just think it's a tangible effort that we can shine a light on and I don't think it's helpful, but I will say that I'm not sure that the American people care necessarily what it is.

I think it's just that they care that nothing is being done to help them.

[16:10:01]

SCIUTTO: Right. I mean, that's a problem for Democrats, is it not? Because they've not figured out how to stop.

HAYS: But Democrats aren't in power, so what are they supposed to do? So, they're doing and fighting at every point that they can, and they're trying their best to get their positive message out there. But when you have a tangible effort that you are building a ballroom and somebody can't afford gas or healthcare, that is a real messaging problem for Republicans.

SCIUTTO: Alex? ALEX THOMPSON, CNN POLITICAL ANALYST: Well, to both of your points, Democrats are going to publicly criticize this project, but privately, they would actually love it to continue going on the next three years because they do see it as obviously an obsession of Trump's. And this actually obsession of Trump's goes back to the Obama era. He famously called David Axelrod and suggested building a ballroom back then.

This has been something of his obsession. And Republicans have basically resigned themselves that Trump is not going to be on message, that he is not going to talk about an affirmative agenda. And so, the longer this ballroom is the center of his mind, the happier Democrats really are.

SCIUTTO: Elliot, I have to ask you a question. If Democrats take the House and perhaps the Senate in the midterms, you have another president in a couple years who's not a Republican, can you legally reverse this? Can they rename?

Well, let's say he puts his name under Kennedy's name on the Kennedy Center. Can you take that down? I mean, tearing down the East Wing is a whole other issue, but -- I mean, there's a question of the Trump arch, the arc to Trump going up in front of Arlington National Cemetery. Can these things be reversed later?

HONIG: Well, that's the thing about precedent. It does outlast any one president, any one person. And so, the answer is yes, but practicality sometimes precludes that, right? So, if Donald Trump gets away with putting his name on the Kennedy Center and now they're trying to put an inscription that says renovated by Donald Trump or whatever, that's fairly easy to remove.

But if this new East Wing ballroom goes up, even if legally a president is allowed to take it down, I think there's obviously a massive practical problem with doing that. And I think, look, Donald Trump is a -- you've heard the expression that possession is nine- tenths of the law. And what that means is that a lot of times just the practicalities on the ground dictate the result in court.

We like to think that the law is based on books and high-minded principles and theory, but sometimes whoever's built the building is going to just win. So, I think this will be an interesting question for the next president, whether it's a Republican or a Democrat. I don't think the next president, if we look at history, is going to be likely to try to name everything after him or herself. And there will be some things that can be undone, but there will be other things that will be more or less permanent.

SCIUTTO: Elliot, there's a precedent question here, right? Because if a future Republican or Democratic president or whatever party, President Trump has massively expanded presidential power and really dissolved, some voluntarily, Congress has given up an enormous amount of power itself. But the Supreme Court certainly, at least on anything related to official acts, has taken away the potential of criminal prosecutions down the line. I imagine a future president might try to take advantage of that him or herself. WILLIAMS: Right. A future president can. It really is a president problem. And moreover, future Congresses can try to claw back some of the power that they've ceded. But I think the American public has in their head now that the president is, to use acute term, imperial rather than imperil. We have a now of a very powerful president that's been growing over certainly the last generation or so, and Donald Trump has taken it to another level.

You know, we've talked about this a couple times in this panel today. This really is about Congress and their failure to hold not just this president, but quite frankly, the last several presidents in check. They are the first branch of government and aren't really acting like it.

SCIUTTO: Not, though, just about Congress, Elie Honig, right? Because the Supreme Court has given, has expanded presidential power and seemingly has given President Trump some particular leeway here. I mean, down the line, do you see the Supreme Court being equally open- minded, as it were, to a president, a different president or of a different party?

HONIG: Well, there's no question that this Supreme Court has allowed Donald Trump in some respects to expand executive powers in substantial ways, but they've also put certain limits. So, I'll give you an example of the first one. The Supreme Court gave us a ruling this term that said the president can remove the heads or members of quasi-independent federal agencies, the National Labor Relations Board and that type of agency, for whatever reason he wants or for no reason at all.

And for 90 years before this, it was always understood he could only remove those people for cause. The exception, of course, is the Fed. So that is sort of a different bucket. So, that is a major power that Donald Trump is the one who went out and got it, but every president from here on out is going to have that as well.

But I will say this Supreme Court did put the brakes on some of Donald Trump's extensions of executive powers. When Trump tried to impose emergency tariffs, the Supreme Court said no. When Trump tried to redefine birthright citizenship and narrow it down, the Supreme Court said no, when Trump tried to deploy the National Guard on the streets of Chicago, the Supreme Court said no.

So, there's no question that executive power right now is at an all- time high. That rule of law will be with us for many decades and generations.

He did, of course, find another way to impose tariffs. We'll see if that survives the courts.

[16:15:00]

Elie Honig, thanks so much. The rest of my panel, please stand by.

Coming up next, in THE ARENA, the sprint to the finish in South Carolina, the president making a last-minute trip south to try and pull his preferred Senate candidate over the finish line. Plus, the vice president also on the campaign trail pushing the administration's economic agenda just days after the national debt hit a remarkable $40 trillion.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

J.D. VANCE, VICE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: We got a lot of work to do, but we're making progress on all the things that matter the most.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

VANCE: I believe that this November, you and I and our fellow citizens, we're going to go to the ballot box and we're to face a choice. Do we believe in the United States of America?

[16:20:04]

Do we demand that the American president fight for the American people first?

CROWD: Yeah!

VANCE: Then, my friends, I ask you, each and every one of you to stand on your own conscience, to vote for patriots, to vote for people who are going to fight for you.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

SCIUTTO: Right now, the president and vice president are on the campaign trail. J.D. Vance appearing in his home state of Ohio to tout the administration's economic achievements, despite a series of tough headlines this week, most notable perhaps the U.S.'s record $40 trillion national debt.

Meanwhile, President Trump himself is headed to South Carolina, where he tried to pull Darline Graham's candidacy through the finish line following a debate flub this week that even one of her endorsers described as, quote, "eyebrow raising".

Trump's rally with Graham comes after a string of recent primary losses by candidates Trump-backed.

My panel is back now.

And, Elliot, I will start with you, because here was part of Vance trying to make the economic case to voters speaking specifically about housing. Have a listen.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

VANCE: We got a lot of work to do, but we're making progress on all the things that matter the most. On the affordability question, we know that under Joe Biden, the cost of a median-price home nearly doubled. Now, for the first time in over five years, rents are falling for the first time. He got a lot of work to do, but we're finally seeing that American dream of homeownership become accessible again to our young people.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

SCIUTTO: There's some cherry picking of data there, right? Because mortgage rates aren't going down, and that's a primary driver of the cost to buy a home here. But he's trying to sell that economic message as best he can. Are folks buying it?

WILLIAMS: I don't know if folks are buying it. The interesting thing is I wonder what the shelf life on saying the word Biden is and how long either the president, the vice president, whomever else, can continue to do so because of the fact -- it's like the Pottery Barn rule. You broke it, you bought it. At a certain point, this is your problem to deal with. And looking back at Joe Biden may not be a winning approach. So I'm curious as to what voters think.

However, the one thing J.D. Vance is doing here that his boss is not is saying the word affordability and making clear that this is something that is affecting many voters, affecting many people's lives, and something that they have to think about if they want to win elections in 2026. The president's not really there. He's talking about ballrooms.

THOMPSON: I mean, voters infamously do not care why things are not going better. They just care -- they just want you to fix it. It didn't work when Joe Biden's administration tried to blame Trump's administration and vice versa. Voters have a very low tolerance for that.

I'd also say one of the most interesting things of this speech was actually more of a 2028 angle. J.D. Vance actually went after the Wall Street Journal-esque plank of the Republican Party and basically the big business part of the party. And he basically blamed them for the last 40 years of deindustrialization. So, this speech was not just about the midterms, it was also about J.D. Vance's future.

SCIUTTO: Meghan, do Democrats have a sufficient message to say we're going to do better, a message that is not entirely -- it's all Trump's fault. I mean, Trump's, of course, president, but they'd have to present the alternative plan.

HAYS: I think in 2026 in the midterms coming up, I think Democrats are trying to fight, show their base and their voters that they are fighting back against Trump and wanting to have some power in Congress to push back on that fight so I'm not necessarily sure that we need to have a forward-looking plan for the midterms. That changes in '28 immediately because if you all of a sudden have control of the House and you don't have a plan and you're not making people's lives better and they still feel like they're paying a lot for gas and health care and groceries that backfires because Donald Trump's on the ballot in '28. So, Democrats really that might get that slide them through in November, but it will not slide through coming in a presidential.

SCIUTTO: So, Liam, among the things that the administration is trying to blame the -- blame on the prior administration is this massive debt now passing -- surpassing, as we noted, $40 trillion.

Here's Vance doing exactly that.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

VANCE: Even though the debt is too high, even though we inherited this debt bomb from the Biden administration, we actually do have a plan to get the economy growing faster than the debt. And that's the most important thing. The issue that we've had under the Biden administration and what we're still kind of dealing with is that the debt was growing faster than American GDP. That's the problem.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

SCIUTTO: Okay, so let's look at the facts. Let's show you how the debt has grown, not just under the Biden administration, but under the Trump administration. The facts are that the Big, Beautiful Bill has, as the CBO said, it would add it to the federal deficit and therefore to the national debt.

So, what is the factual Republican response to that?

DONOVAN: Look, I think the question of how to attack this problem and going back to Biden, that just speaks to the challenge Republicans have is there's not a really good boogeyman that they're facing.

[16:25:00]

We don't have Pelosi. We don't have Bernie Sanders. They're trying to come up with one.

And going back in time to Biden, it's the best you have and you kind of go into the midterms with the environment that you've got. But there's no great answer to this except it's a bipartisan problem. You look at that chart right there, it really is.

PELOSI: Yeah.

DONOVAN: And so, I mean, you're in the throes of this midterm trying to fire up your base and say whatever you need to say to put the jerseys on, especially in a state like Ohio, which shouldn't be that hard, but in this environment is. So, I think they're just out there trying to play the hits.

PELOSI: You know what I'm thinking is I watch that clock, if you put it up on the screen, that number rises, it raises borrowing costs, right? And there's a direct effect on your mortgage rate. I'm thinking I got three kids, it's going to be an effect on the rate they pay on their student loans going forward. I mean, folks may not make that connection, but that is a very real economic connection. And to this point, Alex, the administration doesn't have an answer. They're fighting tooth and nail to try to keep long-term bond yields down, but markets don't seem to be impressed.

THOMPSON: It's a bipartisan problem, but Trump is also not doing anything to actually address it. In fact, you know, past Republican administrations, their answer to it was, you're going to reform Social Security, reform Medicare. Democrats that say you're privatizing it, you're cutting it.

Donald Trump wants to do -- I mean, despite some of the cuts in Medicaid, Donald Trump has not proposed to do any of those things. He has the Republican Party and the Democratic Party, neither side have any plan to address this natural debt that's Republicans in charge right now, and they're not doing anything.

SCIUTTO: Right. I mean, listen, the painful thing is to cut spending and to raise taxes, and no one wants to be rid of those things.

I want to turn because we got an important race coming up in South Carolina, and that is the race to -- well, hold the seat held now by Lindsey Graham's sister. Didn't have the best moment in the debate last week. Let's have a listen.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

DEBATE MODERATOR: Are Taiwan and the South China Sea national security issues for the United States? And if so, why or how?

SEN. DARLINE GRAHAM (R-SC): I'm just going to be honest here. I'm not on national security, I'm not that informed on national security, so -- but I do support the military. I'm not a polished politician up here. National security is not my thing, not my area of expertise.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

SCIUTTO: I mean, you said in the U.S. Senate, you kind of got to know, right? I mean, that is part of your job, is it not? What does that mean for that race?

DONOVAN: Look, I think the aw shucks routine can be charming. I think this was a rough moment for her.

But look, if she was going to be a senator and she still might be, it's going to be on the strength of Donald Trump. It's not going to be because she's Darline Graham. I think there's a little bit of a name ID and there's a little bit of fondness for Lindsey.

But at the same time, like he was constantly fighting a primary challenge. So, this will be a pure question of the strength of Donald Trump to muscle someone in that position. I don't think that's the end-all, be-all, but I can imagine the Truth post if she does not win because he's got an excuse right there.

SCIUTTO: But let me ask you, are Democrats as afraid of the Trump endorsement as they were in the past? I mean, it's still very powerful, but there were certainly some misses in the most recent primaries.

HAYS: I mean, I don't think Democrats are sitting around waiting for Donald Trump, who they're going to endorse and not endorse. I think sometimes the endorsement helps Democrats a lot because it's like, you are just going to rubber stamp his policies. You're already rubber stamping them. And I think it makes their challengers in these elections more helpful.

But I think the more we watch that as staff who've had to prep people, the cringier and awful it gets. But I do think the voters in South Carolina are going to show grace in that. And I think that her authenticity will be OK.

SCIUTTO: All right, we'll see. Coming up next in THE ARENA, the new report that details personally letters that the White House aide Natalie Harp purportedly sent to President Trump, including why she calls him, quote, "my guardian and protector".

Plus, exclusive CNN reporting on the U.S. Navy working to rename an aircraft carrier slated to honor a Black war hero, and one of the potential names being floated instead is, well, understandably, stirring up some controversy.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[16:33:19]

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

NATALIE HARP, TOP TRUMP AIDE: George Bailey's father was right. All you can take with you is that what you've given away. And, Mr. President, that makes you the richest man in the world, for you have used your strength to make America strong again.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

SCIUTTO: Right now, we are learning new details about Natalie Harp's close working relationship with President Trump. "The Daily Beast" today publishing letters reportedly written by Harp to the president in 2023.

In one of those letters she writes, quote, "I never want to bring you anything but joy. I'm sorry I lost my focus. You are all that matters to me. I don't want to ever let you down. Thank you for being my guardian and protector in this life," end quote.

In another letter, Harp writes, quote, "And please, when I fail, will you tell me you have the absolute right to cuss me out if need be when I deserve it because no one knows or cares about me more," end quote. We at CNN have not independently verified that Harp wrote or sent those letters to Trump.

In a statement, the White House said, quote, "Natalie Harp is one of the most loyal and hardest working aides on President Trump's team," end quote.

Joining our panel now to discuss is Caroline Sunshine. She was the deputy communications director for the Trump 2024 campaign. Of course, my panel is back with me as well.

Caroline, if I could begin with you, you of course have experience inside the Trump White House. Can you describe your understanding of this relationship, and is it out of bounds with relationship that members of Trump's staff have with him?

CAROLINE SUNSHINE, DEPUTY COMMUNICATIONS DIRECTOR, TRUMP 2024 CAMPAIGN: Hi, Jim. Thank you so much for having me.

You know, I have the pleasure of knowing Natalie Harp and she's hardworking, she's loyal and she is really devoted to her job.

[16:35:05]

And what is Natalie Harp's biggest crime that we've learned from those letters? That she's loyal and devoted to her job of serving the president of the United States. I mean, Natalie Harp didn't add a hostile anti-Trump reporter to a Signal chat. That was Mike Waltz.

And on top of being hardworking and loyal, Natalie is very humble. She does not seek the spotlight on her own. In fact, she was one of the only senior staff members who didn't participate in that now infamous "Vanity Fair" photo shoot, even though she had the opportunity to and they wanted her to. And she's the only person that didn't participate because she knows that her job is to serve the president of the United States, not to serve herself.

SCIUTTO: Liam, the details in the letter published by "The Daily Beast", they paint quite a picture of this relationship. There apparently are concerns among White House staffers themselves about this, the closeness of this relationship. In your view, is this professional?

DONOVAN: I don't think the closeness of the relationship would be a concern. I think it's more a question of his information flow to the extent that she's always around him and clearly has very, you know, fond feelings and feels like she needs to protect him or whatever. I think that's the question as a political matter, particularly heading into midterms.

Is the president getting the right information to able to make? He is -- as a -- at a gut level? He's a very good politician, is presumed to have better instincts than a lot of the establishment figures in the party. If those facts are not reaching him in the right way, that's what would concern me, not closeness or appropriateness, but is he getting the right information to make good decisions.

SCIUTTO: Do you have a different view?

HAYS: I mean, I think that the letters are cringeworthy, but again, no one would know about this if the people around Trump and in Trump's orbit weren't leaking this information. Nobody would know who Natalie Harp is.

These same people exist in every administration with senators and with members of Congress, and nobody knows them by name, and nobody would be able to point them out in a photo unless you were traveling press with us. So, I just think there must be a concern coming from the White House that this information about this particular staffer is out there or we wouldn't know about it.

THOMPSON: I mean, true, the Democrats have no independent information verifying there's anything inappropriate about their relationship. And well before Jon Osseff sort of put this, threw this out there in order to elevate himself, that there were concerns to Liam and Megan's point that about the information flow. She is called internally sometimes by the human printer and most things she prints are very positive information about the president from fans and everything else.

So, I think there is significant concern within the Trump orbit. This goes back to the 2024 campaign that she is there as a yes man and that she sometimes reinforces some of --

SCIUTTO: Well, let's be frank, though. This is not isolated.

Okay, go ahead, Caroline, because it's not isolated. We've seen the Trump cabinet meetings where praise of the president is almost a required price of entry to those meetings. And there has been questions, for instance, in the Iran war planning, how the president received information that contradicted his own view of the progress of the war.

SUNSHINE: Well, Natalie Harp is not responsible for any of that information getting to the president. Again, what's her biggest crime? Being devoted and loyal to the president that she serves?

What concerns me is that those letters are being leaked from members of the president's own staff who I think have selfish motives and who are jealous of the respect that the president has for Natalie.

One thing that has really bothered me is that I haven't seen an adequate defense of Natalie from this White House. You know, I remember when Susie Wiles gave an interview to "Vanity Fair" that backfired, when there were rumors that the Chief of Staff Susie Wiles was leaving, the administration kicked into full gear. Every cabinet secretary, every staff member from senior to junior levels put out tweets, put out statements defending her.

I mean, the media says awful things about the president every day of the week, and you never see that kind of response from the White House. But Natalie isn't getting that same treatment. I mean, the White House press secretary herself. has come out with a few you know half-assed statements but nothing like full-throated defense you've seen for other staff members.

And I believe what Susie Wiles says where she says it's all one team, we're all on the same team it has to be all team or nothing so Natalie's part of the team is one of the president's favorite team members. She should be getting that same treatment and that same defense.

SCIUTTO: So, why do you believe the White House isn't coming into her defense more -- more steadfastly?

SUNSHINE: I think there are staffers in the administration that resent the fact that Natalie serves the president and the president only. And again, if you read all the press coming out, what is her biggest crime, chasing after him in golf carts? So, I'd rather her chase after him in a golf cart than chase to go leak to reporters, which a lot of staff members do when they don't agree with the president's decision.

Or as I mentioned, Mike Waltz adding an anti-Trump reporter to a very sensitive Signal chat.

So, I do believe there's resentment in the White House ranks for the fact that Natalie is loyal, devoted, doesn't seek the spotlight, and she has the eternal respect of the president and she deserves it.

[16:40:05]

SCIUTTO: Liam, is there an issue in your view beyond Natalie Harp of the president surrounding himself with folks who won't challenge him or won't deliver inconvenient information or contradictory information? Tell him what he wants to hear?

DONOVAN: I think Natalie is sort of a stand-in for that concern. But I think to Caroline's point, the interesting thing to me is this is a story plucked from the first term. This feels like 2018, right? It has been such a leak-free ship this time. And so that's what hits different to me, is this could have been pulled just from the first term.

So, what's changed?

SCIUTTO: Quick thought, Elliot?

WILLIAMS: You know, I think -- anyone worked for an elected official knows that the idea of intimacy of some form between a staffer and the boss it happens they trust each other and whatever else a lot of people were focusing on that and not serious reporting about Natalie Harp not having a background check for a bunch of the time that she was working there.

To this information flow question, that is a question folks should be asking not probing the details of, you know, whether she and her boss were too close to each other.

SCIUTTO: All right. Panel stand by. Caroline Sunshine, we do appreciate you joining us.

SUNSHINE: Thanks for having me.

SCIUTTO: Coming up next on THE ARENA, a warship meant to honor a Black war hero could be getting a name change before it even sets sail. What CNN sources are telling us about talks to potentially honor President Trump instead. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

THOMAS BLEDSOE, DORIS MILLER'S GREAT-NEPHEW: This isn't just about a name on a ship. It's about an opportunity and a goal. It's about a significance and what it means to be an American.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[16:46:02]

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

TRUMP: Last month, the Navy announced that the next American aircraft carrier will bear the proud name of USS Doris Miller. That's pretty good.

They won't give me that honor. That's a big boat. That's a big ship.

All right, one day maybe, but in the meantime, you're right, one day maybe.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

SCIUTTO: Didn't forget. That was President Trump in early 2020 when the Navy announced it would name an aircraft carrier after Doris Miller, a Black sailor hailed for his heroic actions during the attack on Pearl Harbor.

Now, CNN has exclusive reporting that the U.S. Navy is working to rename that aircraft carrier. Two sources tell CNN there have been internal conversations about renaming it to honor Trump.

CNN political analyst and historian Leah Wright Rigueur joins our panel now.

Leah, it's so good to have you.

Miller's great nephew, Thomas Bledsoe, he spoke to CNN last night. I just want to play some of his reaction to this news.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

BLEDSOE: One of the things about Doris Miller's story is not only about him being the hero that he was on that day at Pearl Harbor, but it was also about an individual stepping beyond the means of what they were assigned to do and going above and beyond. This isn't just about a name on a ship. It's about an opportunity and a goal. It's about a significance and what it means to be an American.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

SCIUTTO: Talk us through Miller's legacy. If I have it this right, he was memorialized in Pearl Harbor. I mean, this is an inspiring story of those attacks in 1941. What does he mean to black sailors and service members?

LEAH WRIGHT RIGUEUR, CNN POLITICAL ANALYST & HISTORIAN: Well, I think the story of Miller is actually one that is a hugely American story. It is about the epitome of what people will do for their country and for their fellow citizens. You know, he starts off as essentially working in the mess hall and is instrumental in saving the lives of dozens of men during the attack on Pearl Harbor in 1940 -- in December 1941.

On top of that, he goes on later and very heroically dies in battle, right, in one of the worst submarine attacks that the United States sees in the 1940s. And I think one of the things that we see over and over again is that universally, the military, the Navy, the American public has been very laudatory in terms of understanding what Miller's contribution was to this American project. So, there's never been any real question about it. It's always been about, is he -- what will the United States recognize? And how can we recognize him for all of his massive contributions?

SCIUTTO: The Navy is looking, according to CNN reporting, at naming a different warship, not the carrier, which is, of course, the largest warship in the U.S. Navy, after him. Would that be a suitable replacement, in your view?

RIGUEUR: I actually do not think that it's a suitable replacement. I mean, one of the big and one of the particular things about this honor, about the Miller, one, it's already been announced. It was already announced.

Second of all, he would become the -- it would be the first naval aircraft carrier to be named after a black man. And so, when you think about the actual fight of the Miller family over the course of the last 70 years, they have been pushing for this kind of recognition, they've been pushing for the Medal of Honor. And the only place where this has ever been held up is because explicitly of racism.

In 1942, 1943, 1944, when he is recommended for the Medal of Honor after his dad, the Secretary of the Navy, who blocks it because he says, we can't have Black people being recognized in this kind of way. So, there's a kind of sick twist to see, you know, 70 years later that we're still having these same kind of being recognized in this kind of way.

So, there's a kind of sick twist to see, you know, 70 years later, that we're still having these same kind of conversations.

[16:50:00]

SCIUTTO: Yeah. Elliot, not insignificant, is the person whose name would replace Miller's on that carrier, and that is Donald Trump. I mean, unprecedented to have a carrier named for a sitting president. I mean, is there a legal answer to this, or is there a budgetary answer, a congressional answer?

WILLIAMS: Congress can do anything. This is really up to Congress. But I just want to make one correction. I think we've spoken about him

working in the mess hall, Doris Miller. It's beyond that. It's because that was one of the few jobs that he was entitled to work in as a --

SCIUTTO: This was design hierarchy.

WILLIAMS: And I just want to be clear, the supreme heroism of this individual, it goes beyond, well, he was just doing a job that he wasn't able to do and took a gun and took arms up for his country. No, he was forced to work in a vessel and then engaged in these acts of heroism.

Now, you know, maybe Professor Rigueur will disagree with me on here. I don't think there's a Black person in America who is surprised by all of this chatter and this talk. I am not at all. And before I get pilloried for playing the race card, I would urge and challenge everyone to make the case for this, make the case for why you should take this individual's name off of a ship and put anyone else's on, let alone Donald Trump's.

And no one can make a credible or plausible or believable case that's not reeking of racism. Come on.

SCIUTTO: Liam, can you make a case?

DONOVAN: I would not try. But I think the other piece is we're kind of assuming the premise here. I mean, number one, can the Secretary of the Navy, as directed by the president, change the name of the ship at this stage? Absolutely. Will it have staying power? I went to the commission of the USS George Washington in 1992 as a 10-year-old, my dad was on that ship. That was named back in 1986, previous administration. This is going to take eight years to complete.

I have full expectation that whatever happens here, if they make a poor choice and rip this name off, and whether it's putting on Donald Trump or anyone else, there will be a future president that has a say on this. And there's a precedent for it because the Trump administration changed the name of a Navy ship in Harvey Milk that was already in the fleet.

So, I think it's much ado about nothing. It's fun Friday cable news fodder --

(CROSSTALK)

SCIUTTO: Because we were just talking about the East Wing, right? I mean, there are a whole host of things that the president's putting --

WILLIAMS: And quite frankly, this is a much lower lift than destroying and rebuilding the East Wing. All they have to do is slap a name on a ship.

DONOVAN: I think self-regulate in the sense is a terrible political choice. He has a win there for the taking. He did this. This is him.

Seventy years, as Leah said, 70 years this has been out of reach for whether it's Barack Obama or Joe Biden, and woke couldn't do it, but Donald Trump's going to do it. Cuba Gooding Jr. played him in the movie. Who loves the movies?

SCIUTTO: In the movie, he came out of the kitchen, right, to shoot at Japanese fighters coming in.

Leah Wright Rigueur, we appreciate you joining us, and we will be right back.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[16:57:23]

SCIUTTO: As the war with Iran nears its six-month mark, I had the opportunity to speak with Iranian photojournalist Yalda Moaiery, who's been on the front lines of the conflict. Now, she's a target of the regime herself. Moaiery was sentenced to 15 years in prison by an Iranian court this month for, quote, "activities in furtherance of the interests of the Zionist regime against national security."

Here's what she told me at the beginning of war, and more recently, about how life in Iran has changed.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

SCIUTTO: Do you have hope that the war will help you?

YALDA MOAIERY, IRANIAN PHOTOJOURNALIST: I have to say that people are hopeful that the regime will (INAUDIBLE) not be this far. But there is no evidence in (INAUDIBLE), no evidence on the ground, but people are very hopeful.

SCIUTTO: So, you're saying people are still hopeful it might change?

MOAIERY: Yeah, and people are supporting the war. If I want to be honest, and if I want to be -- I have to be honest and I have to be the (INAUDIBLE). And people want the war to be continued because they tried many peaceful ways to change this regime and they (INAUDIBLE) do anything, so they hope that this time something happens to them and the regime will fall with this war.

SCIUTTO: Do you believe that the war ultimately, and people that you interview as a journalist and a photojournalist there, do they believe the war has made the Iranian regime weaker or stronger?

MOAIERY: Stronger. Unfortunately, we are facing with a very, very dangerous and you know -- I mean, the most -- the most, worst version of the Islamic Republic that I haven't seen. I mean, I am the child of the Islamic Republic I was I was born some years just after the regime took the power, but I've never seen such a thing in my life.

The very new version of the Islamic Republic is much, much more angry, much more tough. And I cannot remember 40 years ago very clearly, but when I'm hearing from my parents or the elderlies, this is even I remember 40 years ago very clearly, but when I'm hearing from my parents or the elderlies, this is even harder than that time. (END VIDEO CLIP)

SCIUTTO: And now she's a target herself, facing 15 years in prison.

Thanks so much to my panel. Thanks so much to all of you at home for watching.

"THE LEAD" starts right now.