Return to Transcripts main page

CNN's The Arena with Kasie Hunt

Bessent Unveils New Sanctions: "Economic D-Day Is Coming For Iran"; Source: Jared Kushner, Hakeem Jeffries Meet To Discuss How White House And Democrats Can Work Together On Key Issues. Aired 4-5p ET

Aired August 24, 2026 - 16:00   ET

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

[16:00:10]

BORIS SANCHEZ, CNN HOST: Wow.

BRIANNA KEILAR, CNN HOST: Fascinating stuff.

Charlie, thank you so much for watching it so that we didn't have to. Thanks for being with us.

SANCHEZ: How long before this peyote you've had me wears off?

KEILAR: I was going to say the proper response to what you said earlier was, No, I did not slip something into water.

"THE ARENA WITH KASIE HUNT" starts right now.

(MUSIC)

ABBY PHILLIP, CNN HOST: Hi, everyone. Welcome to THE ARENA. Kasie Hunt is off today. I'm Abby Phillip.

As we come on the air, the Trump administration is preparing a global economic war against Iran, even as the president pushes one of America's closest allies away.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

SCOTT BESSENT, U.S. TREASURY SECRETARY: We are launching an economic onslaught against Iran's financial connections around the globe, around the globe. Our objective is to sever every economic lifeline that sustains this tyrannical regime until Tehran stands alone. This is economic asphyxiation of this regime.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

PHILLIP: Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent this afternoon unveiling a set of sanctions and policies designed to cut Iran off from the global financial markets. Central to that effort is getting everyone -- our allies around the globe to stop doing business with Iran and stop moving their money. So, it would seem like a good time to shore up America's alliances. But instead, at the very same time, the president is reigniting his trade war with one of America's neighbors and closest allies.

This morning, the Trump administration threatened new 50 percent tariffs on Canadian cars, trucks, and auto parts. This, in addition to new tariffs on hundreds of Canadian goods that were announced.

Now, Canada is responding with dollar-for-dollar tariffs of their own. Ontario's mayor, Doug Ford, says this morning that President Trump could kiss him in the you know where.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

REPORTER: Did the Prime Minister tell you to ask you to tone it down a bit?

DOUG FORD, ONTARIO PREMIER: No, he didn't. I'm not going to comment, but he wasn't against that. And I have a lot of real estate on my ass. So he has a lot of room to kiss my ass.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Well done.

FORD: I just do. I'm a big dude. What can I say?

(END VIDEO CLIP)

PHILLIP: Unsurprisingly, President Trump responded to that, quote, "Lots of bluster from Doug Ford," end quote. The president then insulted Ford's charisma and intelligence and threatened, quote, "Someone should get these clowns to fall in line or the consequences for Canada will be far worse."

Here's how Ford responded.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

FORD: I don't respond to a dictator like President Trump, a bully like President Trump. As I said before, he's the type of guy in school that would take your lunch money one day, take your toque off your head the next day and then steal your running shoes. But I'm not going to take any advice off a guy that's the king of bankruptcies and he's actually tariffing his own people, taxing his own people.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

PHILLIP: Let's get off the sidelines and head right into THE ARENA. My panel is here along with senior White House correspondent Kristen Holmes.

So, Kristen, what are you hearing from the White House as they're really juggling two major economic campaigns that could have actually significant impacts on the United States' economy?

KRISTEN HOLMES, CNN SENIOR WHITE HOUSE CORRESPONDENT: So let's start with Iran. This is all part of what we've been reporting for the last several weeks, the shift in strategy for the White House away from any kind of military action onto this economic action. Nothing is going to be very quick with this. It's going to be a long-term strangulation. We didn't hear the secretary of treasury today when he was outlining this give any sort of a deadline.

He did say that the U.S. is going to grow impatient, but he wanted to give these countries time to do the right thing. What's going to make this work is if the U.S. actually confronts some of these countries that have been doing business with Iran, which it hasn't in the past. That includes some of our allies and countries that President Trump has worked with in the past, like Turkey and Qatar.

Now, interestingly, Scott Bessent did say when he was asked specifically about China, which does business with Iran, that nobody was above this initiative. But skeptics are pointing to the fact that there have been these strict international tariffs and sanctions on Iran for decades, and it has never really moved when it comes to talking about the nuclear program or shifting their stance.

However, when you look at this as a large-scale perspective, when I'm talking to U.S. officials, they do believe that the economic strangulation is actually their greatest weapon now and their greatest asset, particularly when you see that those strikes after strikes after strikes were not moving the needle.

Now, on the other side of this, talking about that trade with Canada, now we're in essentially an escalating trade war, back and forth, Canada's saying they're going to match dollar for dollar. This is going to have real economic impacts at home. And you've already started to see some of these Republican candidates, particularly those who are in vulnerable races like dollar for dollar. This is going to have real economic impacts at home.

And you've already started to see some of these Republican candidates, particularly those who are in vulnerable races like Senator Susan Collins in Maine, speaking out against these tariffs, saying that it's going to impact these citizens, it's going to impact small businesses, it's going to put the cost onto U.S. residents.

Now, it's unclear exactly what led to the complete devolution here of these trade talks. One of the things Jamieson Greer said, the U.S. trade representative, was that Canada shifted its stance in the 11th hour. We've heard that kind of rhetoric from the United States before.

But one thing in particular when it comes to these tariffs and to this back and forth, that is something that most Americans do not want to feel, do not want to have the country be a part of. And whether or not this is just kind of the escalation before the de-escalation, that's be the big question here.

We've obviously seen President Trump back off before, but this is something that is not going to play well with Americans across the board and particularly again for Republicans who are going into their elections.

PHILLIP: Yeah, I think that is the big elephant in the room of all of this.

Kristen Holmes, over at the White House, thank you very much. My panel here with me in THE ARENA: political columnist for "The New

York Magazine", David Freedlander; CNN political commentator and host of Off the Cup podcast, S.E. Cupp; CNN political commentator and former communications director for Vice President Kamala Harris, Jamal Simmons; and with us, former Trump campaign manager Bill Stepien.

We're also joined by CNN political and national security analyst David Sanger.

Bill Stepien, let me start with you on the political because there's a lot to get to here but I think that the -- what Kristen was talking about at the end there which is that we're just a couple months away from the midterm elections and Trump is choosing to pick two big fights. He's picking a fight with Iran, and maybe there's a lot of justification for that. But the American people are going to have to feel the implications of that. And then he's also perplexingly picking a fight with Canada. Does that make political sense to do both of those things at the same time?

BILL STEPIEN, FORMER TRUMP CAMPAIGN MANAGER: This is really smart politics for Canada, which has three special elections one week from today, and they're holding a razor thin majority with the prime minister's party. This is tough politics for Republicans here, 30 percent of Michigan's exports Canada, 40 percent of -- I'm sorry, 40 percent of Michigan's, 30 percent of Ohio's. Michigan's the most -- Maine's the most trade-dependent state in the country. Alaska's not far behind. All those states either have Senate races and/or governor's races.

We're 71 days from the midterm elections. Mail-in balloting starts in Michigan in 41 days. These are things that Republicans really are having a hard time navigating right now.

PHILLIP: Yeah, even if you just take Maine and Michigan, just those two places. if I'm that is enough to give the Republicans a real headache.

S.E. CUPP, CNN POLITICAL COMMENTATOR: Yeah, and if I'm El Sayed in Michigan, if I'm Troy Jackson in Maine, if I'm Mary Peltola in Alaska, if I'm A Democrat running in a state that borders Canada, I wrap my arms around this issue. And I saw -- we saw Doug Ford, we've seen Carney.

But I also saw Manitoba Premier Wab Kinew, an Indigenous Canadian, come out and say, America's weak right now. America's the weakest it's ever been. Donald Trump is weak. We should fight. That's a Democratic campaign ad.

That man saying that Donald Trump is out of touch with the issues of affordability in his country is a Democratic campaign ad. And if I'm one of those -- those candidates, I wrap my arms around it.

PHILLIP: So let me play, this is, let me play J.D. Vance. He was -- J.D. Vance was in Maine, okay, playing this argument about how bad Canada is for America. Listen.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

J.D. VANCE, VICE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: Canada and China have been the two worst countries when it comes to trade policy anywhere in the world. What a shame that is. China, you of course expect. They're our biggest economic competitor. I would expect that from China.

I would not expect that from Canada. We have to remember, Canada is a state -- sorry, Freudian slip. That was actually an accident.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

PHILLIP: I'm not even sure that joke went down that well in the room. But I just want to be really clear with people. What he is saying there about Canada as a trade partner is not backed up by really any evidence, okay?

We do a lot of trade with Canada. They purchase a lot of our goods. And we get cheap oil from them. So, they've actually been a pretty great trade partner. Why do they keep obscuring the reality on this?

JAMAL SIMMONS, CNN POLITICAL COMMENTATOR: Yeah, it's pretty ridiculous. I grew up in Michigan on the Canadian border. So, people go back and forth, goods go back and forth. So, people who live in those states around the Great Lakes and around the Canadian border do that. I was on the phone today with a friend who is an Ohio car dealer and said, she told me it's going to be tough because a lot of these tariffs could add to destination fees, they go right into the customer's bill. They're going to have to pay for that.

The two things that I'm really shocked that the president went after. He went after Molson beer. Right? And he went after hockey stick, because I'm really shocked that the president went after. He went after Molson beer. right and he went after hockey sticks.

PHILLIP: I mean --

[16:10:00]

SIMMONS: Maine, Michigan Ohio, and then now cars. Doesn't make any sense to me at all politically.

DAVID FREEDLANDER, POLITICAL COLUMNIST, NEW YORK MAGAZINE: Canada's outpacing the U.S. in job growth, net-net is outpacing. Not even as a percentage. It is as adding more jobs than the U.S.

Like these are real problems. These are not like political problems. I mean people might want the fight and Republicans might thrill to it but like the economy is going to suffer from these even more than already has.

PHILLIP: Let me bring in David Sanger because David I want you to talk a little bit about what we heard from the Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent today on Iran, because -- and I want to play for you really what I thought was a very smart question from our colleague over at the White House, Kevin Liptak, who basically asked, after all we heard, we heard of threats of D-Day, all of this stuff, not a lot of specifics.

Let me just play that exchange and have you respond.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

KEVIN LIPTAK, CNN SENIOR WHITE HOUSE REPORTER: You describe this as an economic D-Day, but D-Day wasn't a threat of an invasion, and the U.S. didn't give a timeline to Germany. So why not impose the sanctions today?

SCOTT BESSENT, U.S. TREASURY SECRETARY: Well, we are giving everyone the opportunity to remedy bad behavior. Why would I want to blow up the global financial system? We believe that it is important to level set and give people a cure period, but they should know that that will move very quickly and that we are serious.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

PHILLIP: David, I mean, can you explain why there have been days and days of these kinds of threats? And even this announcement today wasn't terribly specific. Why not, if you're going to drop the hammer, just drop it on Iran.

DAVID SANGER, CNN POLITICAL & NATIONAL SECURITY ANALYST: Well, Abby, it's a really interesting question because this entire effort seems to be kind of backwards. I mean, when you think about how you use economic sanctions, presidents have turned to them for years and for decades with Iran as an alternative to military force. The Obama administration used them to force Iran into the negotiations that resulted in the 2015 nuclear agreement, whatever you think of that.

But this administration is kind of coming at it in reverse. It did some basic diplomacy. It then immediately went to war. That war failed to achieve the main objectives the president himself had described the day the war began.

And now, they are backing up to these sanctions. If, in fact, they are so powerful, and they could well turn out to be, why didn't they do this first, when it would have been a lot easier to get the allies to go along with this if they had then said, our alternative to this is actually beginning the bombing.

So, they've now burned a lot of bridges, and they've got to bring everybody in. And the biggest country they need to bring in is China, who the treasury secretary, a country the treasury secretary never even mentioned. But China bought 80 percent, more than 80 percent, of Iran's oil exports last year.

PHILLIP: Is there any sign, David, that -- you described it as a backward strategy, but is there any sign that it could actually change the status quo in this conflict with Iran?

SANGER: Look, it might. It's a bit of a desperation move after other efforts have failed. If, in fact, you could coax or batter other countries into cutting off all those ship-to-ship oil transfers, the gold transfers, the digital activity back and forth that allows Iran to get around sanctions.

Yes, the country is obviously hurting, and its own leadership has said so in recent days, as Secretary Bessent noted. So, it might bring about change, but it might also harden the country and people who would ordinarily rise up against the Iranian leadership and make them turn further on the United States. That's why economic sanctions always sound good and never execute quite as well as the initial promises.

PHILLIP: Yeah, S.E.?

CUPP: Yeah, David, it's S.E. Cupp here.

I'm really glad you made that point about sort of the backwardness of this and how usually you'd pursue economic sanctions before kinetic and we're doing it backwards. I'm wondering though, what you think about the reality that Donald Trump hasn't really done much coalition- building as well. That's usually something you do first, too. And for all of this work to work, all of these economic sanctions to work, we have to get a lot of partners and allies to do it with us.

How do you think that is going to go down?

CULVER: Well, the fact of the matter is, most of Europe believes that this was an illegal war. And so -- and then they, of course, got beaten up by the president for not joining militarily in the effort.

[16:15:03]

So, they are not inclined the way I think they might have been had he started with this before he took military action. That said, none of them want Iran to emerge from this with their uranium intact and a threshold nuclear threat out there. So, it's conceivable that they will find a way to go along with this.

The question is, can you do that sharply enough and quickly enough to actually bring about the kind of change in Iran that's been so elusive for the president so far?

PHILLIP: All right, David Sanger, always great to have your expertise. Thanks so much for joining us.

The rest of my panel is going to stay with us. Stand by here.

Coming up next, Democratic Congressman Gregory Meeks will enter THE ARENA. Is he on board with President Trump's economic fight with Iran? And what about the one with Canada?

Plus, IndyCar race takes over D.C. at 160 miles an hour. Ahead, the biggest moments from the first ever street race in the heart of the nation's capital.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: I saw the warm-up, and it was so cool. I didn't think I was kind of like, oh, they're just cars running, but the speed they're going, it was so freaking cool, and I got goosebumps, and I got all shaky. It was really cool.

BRIAN TODD, CNN CORRESPONDENT: You can see. Just look at the perspective here. Look at the speed and the noise. You can see, it's very impressive.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[16:20:54]

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

BESSENT: To those who enable Tehran do not discount the cost of testing Washington's resolve. No nation should expect to enjoy the rewards of our system while helping those who seek to destroy it. It is now a time for world leaders to make a decision between prosperity and isolation, peace and terror, America and Iran.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

PHILLIP: That was Treasury Secretary Scott Besson's warning this morning to countries and companies who do business with Iran. Do so at your own peril.

The Trump administration is hoping to squeeze Tehran with a new slate of damaging sanctions as the war enters that six-month mark.

Joining me now is the top Democrat in the House Foreign Affairs Committee, Congressman Gregory Meeks of the state of New York.

Congressman, thanks for being here.

Based on what you heard today from the Treasury Secretary, do you think that it is likely that these sanctions could bring Iran to the table or bring the regime to its knees in a meaningful way?

REP. GREGORY MEEKS (D-NY): No, I don't. And if you just listen to the Secretary, he doesn't either, you know, because that's why he cannot give you a timetable. That's why he cannot tell you who they're talking to.

He could not answer the question because when you think about who the president has made deals with, China, they're not included therein. He just talked about how he was going to reach out more to North Korea, who doesn't listen to him, and Russia, who clearly has been part of this whole Iranian situation.

So, look, under the JCPOA, for example, if you really want to get something done, it should have been done before you attack and go to war. That's why with the JCPOA, China was a part of it, Russia was a part of it, and our European allies were a part of it. But we have what now is a failed mission, because initially, by going to war, the initial objective was regime change.

What has happened as a result of that? We've got a new regime that's younger. Nothing has been better for the Strait of Hamas was open. Prices have gone up. Inflation has gone up.

Now, you know, what you'll see, it will cost the American people more money because of these sanctions, and of course, what you've seen also today, the tariffs that he wants to place on Canada. It just makes no economic sense, and we end up isolating ourselves.

It will be America against the rest of the world, basically what you heard Bessent said. And guess what? We lose in that situation, just as this president has put us in a much worse situation since he's become president.

PHILLIP: And I do want to ask you about those Canada tariffs. But on the China piece, as you pointed out, he didn't really talk about China, but he was asked about it and wouldn't say whether China would be penalized for doing business. We know that they do business with Iran. Is there any way that this can be effective if China is not directly impacted by a threat of sanctions if they continue to deal with Iran.

MEEKS: No, it is not, you know. And Iran is probably the most sanctioned country now. And it reminds me of failed policy of the sanctions.

It's similar to 60 years later. We still have sanctions on Cuba. The government is still there. There's not been any major changes in that. you know, some of the people of Cuba have suffered, but there's been no major changes there.

So, it seems to me that this plan, because everything else, everything he's done has failed. Regime change did not happen. Military might, you know, going to blow them up did not succeed. And so, this is what you're trying to do to end the game. It does not and it will not. The only thing that I think it can do is isolate us from our friends and our allies.

PHILLIP: And on Canada, what do you think is the impact on Americans of this escalating trade war with Canada?

[16:25:04]

MEEKS: It's going to cost us more money. Look, that's why I fought before when Trump tried to have these tariffs on Canada, I fought and had a bill passed in the House and the Senate to prevent it from happening. And later, that was also certified by the Supreme Court that it was illegal for what Trump was doing.

The cost, when you look at what it will cost the American people and farmers, you try to put sanctions on cars, that's all in Ohio, in Michigan, will cost them there. It puts us at an adversarial position with one of our closest allies.

And what I find that's really amazing about this, when I hear he says that Canada is taking advantage of the United States, guess what? He negotiated the Canadian trade bill when he was president the first time. So, if it is where Canada was taking advantage of America, it's because of his bad negotiations back then. But I think that -- you know, we need to work collectively together.

to make sure that this president doesn't continue to have the American people taxed more. That's what a tariff is. These tariffs are a tax on the American people, and we see the shape of this economy, gas prices now $4 a gallon, diesel $5 a gallon, food prices, beef, the cost of beef is going up.

There's nothing that he's doing to help the average everyday American. These tariffs are not, it's going to cost us more money, $40 trillion deficit now, another $1.6 trillion the CBO says the big, ugly bill will bring to the deficit that's coming up, you know, health care costs rising on the American people. This president is destroying the American economy.

PHILLIP: On the domestic front, Hakeem Jeffries, the Democratic leader, had a meeting with Trump's son-in-law Jared Kushner. Kushner is someone that you have actually tried to get to come to testify before your committee. Do you think that Jeffries was right to sit down with Kushner at this moment?

MEEKS: Look, I think that what Jeffries is doing and what we will do once we take the majority come January, we are going to produce and come and pass bills that are really going to reduce the cost of living for the American people. You want to work on it, you know, we will put those bills on. And it's going to be up to the president, if we win the Senate also, to veto them or let the bills that we're going to put forward because we're going to keep the promises that the president broke.

We're going to get ourselves out of this tremendous -- as we vote tremendously against this war in Iran, we're going to make sure that we're bringing down costs. We're going to make sure that we're going to deliver on what we've talked about.

We're going to pass those bills in the House. The president's decision and the administration, they can either support us or go against us. I know Hakeem Jeffries is just laying that down so that the Republicans know what we're going to be doing once we take back the majority.

PHILLIP: And I'm sure -- I'm sure you know that a lot of your colleagues also want to see a pretty hefty oversight agenda on the Democrats' part, but I also know a lot of Republicans believe that the real first move of Democrats if they retake the House would be to impeach President Trump again.

Do you think that Democrats should do that? Should they impeach him?

MEEKS: The only ones that's talking about impeachment is the Republicans, because they're trying to scare somebody for electoral purposes. What we've been talking about as Democrats, we are going to deal with the affordability issue. That's what we're going to be focused on.

We're going to deal with reducing the cost of health care. That's what we're going to be talking about. And we will, yes, we're going to be doing oversight on some of the corruption that has taken place by this administration.

Those are the three things. The only ones that mentions impeachment at all are the Republicans. We are focused on the accountability issue, we are focused on the affordability issue, and we are focused on driving down the cost of health care.

PHILLIP: All right. Congressman Gregory Meeks, we appreciate your time. Thank you very much, sir.

MEEKS: Thank you for having me.

PHILLIP: Up next for us in THE ARENA, more details on that closed-door meeting between the President Trump's closest advisors and the man who is in line to be Speaker of the House if Democrats retake that chamber.

Plus, hear Darline Graham's closing message as President Trump urges South Carolina to vote like he is on the ballot.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

SEN. DARLINE GRAHAM (R-SC): Lindsey and I, you know, we both have grit because we grew up in one room in the back of a bar and liquor store in central South Carolina.

[16:30:02]

We learned that you're not given anything in life that you have to work for it. And when people talk about "I don't have any experience," that's just not true.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

SEN. CHRIS VAN HOLLEN (D-MD): Look, I'm in favor of people meeting with whoever. They want you to discuss ideas, but it's one thing to have a meeting, it's another thing to see something real coming out of that.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

PHILLIP: House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries is facing some backlash today from the left flank of his party after it was revealed that Jeffries recently met with President Trump's son-in-law and close adviser Jared Kushner. During the private sit down, which was first reported by "The New York Times", the pair talked about the areas where the White House could work with Democrats such as immigration, housing, and the cost of living.

[16:35:11]

House Speaker Mike Johnson downplaying the idea that this could be part of the White House's preparation for a Democratic House majority come this fall.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

REP. MIKE JOHNSON (R-LA), SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE: I know Jared is a smart guy and he hedges bets, but I'm telling you what, you better not bet against the House Republicans. I don't know what that's about. I know Jared has interest in lots of other things going on. He's not really directly involved in the admin, at least in the day-to-day in the White House.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

PHILLIP: "New York Times" congressional correspondent Annie Karni joins the panel now. She first reported the story for "The Times".

Annie, what is the deal with Jared Kushner and the fact that he doesn't work in this administration? I mean, why would this meeting have happened with him, of all people?

ANNIE KARNI, CONGRESSIONAL CORRESPONDENT, NEW YORK TIMES: Well, Speaker Johnson's right. He doesn't have an official role this time around. But the family members of Donald Trump have always operated by their own rules. And we've seen over the course of the past two years, Jared is involved in every kind of major decision, mostly international, in Ukraine, in Iran, in Israel.

But -- so I mean, I don't think we should. If there's a meeting with Jared Kushner, that's a person who's very close to Trump and trusted by the president. So, it's not a random meeting with someone who doesn't matter. And in this meeting, we reported that Jared was encouraging Jeffries to schedule a meeting with Susie Wiles, the White House chief of staff. So, he was trying to push this relationship forward.

PHILLIP: So do you think that, contrary to what Speaker Johnson is saying there in that clip, that they are a little bit wide-eyed about the prospect that, first of all, that climate definitely favors a Democrat in this kind of cycle, but that they could end up with a Democratic-led House. I mean, is the White House actually cognizant of that and preparing for it?

KARNI: Yes. I mean, Speaker Johnson has a tough job right now. He has to continue to go and beat the drum and act optimistic about the chances of keeping control of the House, but the reality is that everyone I talk to, Democrat and Republican alike, are preparing for the possibility that the likelihood, not just the possibility that Democrats win back control of the House. Now the conversations I'm hearing are about whether it will be single or double digits.

So, yes, I mean, they're preparing, and they've been preparing for months, really, what it will mean for Democrats to have subpoena power, for Democrats to have the gavels. This White House is fully cognizant that the picture is going to change dramatically, most likely in November.

PHILLIP: Yeah, let me bring it into the room here in New York. Jamal, you heard Congressman Meeks say, we're not even talking about

impeachment. Yeah, sure, there will be oversight. That's our job, but we're not -- we're not going to impeach because we have to deal with the affordability agenda.

Do you think that the party outside of Washington is on the same page with that?

SIMMONS: I think there are two different lanes that are happening in the Democratic Party right now. One lane is the get-even lane, right? They want to go after the people who did all the wrong things. They want to go, whether it's impeachment or going after, in China, they call them the princelings, the children of all the elites, kind of have princelings here in the Trump administration, too, so go after them.

The other lane is the get a headline. So, it's the get even land and the get a headline. The get a headline are the people who just want to get ahead. They want their lives to be better, they want their costs to be lower.

And those are the people that I think the Democratic leaders are trying to appeal to because those are the ones who are going to vote for them. I think Hakeem Jeffries, he did the right thing. He just did it at the wrong time.

He should have had this meeting because he's thinking about governing. He's thinking about what's going to happen the day after election day. But right now, the Democratic troops are still bracing for war. They're not ready for peace.

PHILLIP: Maybe he thought no one would find out.

David, Mehdi Hasan says, the only meeting Hakeem Jeffries should be having with Jared Kushner is to tell him he'll be subpoenaed by the House for a corruption investigation on day one of the Democratic control of the House. This is pathetic stuff from the House Dem leader.

Tommy Vietor says Jared Kushner has no actual government role. He just uses his family's connections to get money from Gulf autocrats and fund corrupt deals. The only way Jeffries should work with him is with demands for documents and subpoenas.

Is that a fair thing to say two months before midterm?

FREEDLANDER: Of course, not. I mean, people like to be mad about stuff. It seems like there's a lot of online outrage about this meeting. We don't really know what was discussed I mean maybe he did talk about documents and subpoenas and impeachment and all this kind of stuff.

I mean, I just don't -- it's kind of hard to square why you shouldn't meet with this like close counselor to the president when you're Hakeem Jeffries. CUPP: But I think Jamal's, like the two lanes that you talk about, I think the more vocal is the get even lane, right? But I think the actual majority wants to finally govern and get some stuff done.

[16:40:00]

And I would never pooh-pooh either party for wanting to come together and talk about how to do that, I just don't know how productive that will be. Trump had absolutely no problem punishing Republicans. Remember when he wanted to sort of shelve that housing bill in favor of the SAVE Act?

And he was going to punish Republicans for not doing what he wanted. I think he will have no problem punishing Democrats if they become the party in charge.

PHILLIP: I also just genuinely wonder if the president is aware of may-- what maybe--

CUPP: How bad-- how bad this is --

PHILLIP: What Jared Kushner might be seeing coming.

CUPP: Yeah.

PHILLIP: I mean, I do know, like, the speaker, Mike Johnson, really has to be optimistic, and he is optimistic. But everybody else is not. And the president this morning, he put out a Truth Social post about how all the polls are wrong, and everybody is just sort of trying to deflate Republican turnout.

And he's acting that way. He's acting as if he has the upper hand. I mean, that just seems counterproductive.

SIMMONS: Bill, what say you?

STEPIEN: The speaker talked about betting, right? The betting market's put a 90 percent chance on Democrats winning in the House. The Senate's a toss-up right now.

So, I think if we take Congressman Meeks at his word and we want to talk about affordability and governing, this isn't a bad conversation to have early.

And keep in mind, there's also a relationship --

PHILLIP: You mean the conversation between Jeffries?

STEPIEN: Correct. And keep in mind, there's also a relationship. Jared got the first step back done. He brought Democrats like Jeffries to the table in the first term, conservative Republicans. Jared got that done. There's a relationship there.

I think Jared's more comfortable talking to Hakeem Jeffries than Mitch McConnell. He's a former New York Democrat. They talk the same talk and walk the same walk. PHILLIP: And I will say. The thing to note is that that relationship between Kushner and Jeffries is there. The Jeffries-Trump relationship is non-existent. It doesn't exist.

SIMMONS: Yeah, I mean, to the point earlier, I think Trump taught us something in his first term, which I very rarely say, taught us something good, which is that you should have conversations with people. The fact that we always hold off and say, like, oh, we're not going to talk because somehow we're punishing people by not speaking, it's always better to at least have an open conversation. I just think that the leader of the Democrats right now is misreading the room of his party because they're ready for battle.

PHILLIP: So let me just play on a different note, but on the note of what Democrats are preparing for going down their line. This is Pete Buttigieg. He was in South Carolina talking to Democrats about a big issue for Democrats' voting rights.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

PETE BUTTIGIEG, FORMER TRANSPORTATION SECRETARY: You see this culmination of their generational project to dismantle Black representation. in the United States Congress across the South, culminating in the Supreme Court gutting the Voting Rights Act. We know that even on a tilted playing field, you can win when you are on the right side of the people. And that's why we will win.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

PHILLIP: It is August of 2026. However, Pete Buttigieg is making some early work of some early state campaigning, and I think it is a sign that people like him know that they have to do some work, especially among Black voters.

CUPP: Yeah, well, but I also think he's smart, and I think he realizes that between the Voting Rights Act and redistricting, which is specifically targeting Southern Black Democrats, he realizes this could actually mobilize Southern Black Democrats, and Democrats need to be talking to that audience, because in the years since Obama, the Democrats have been losing Black voters.

Now, they haven't all become Republican suddenly, but enough have stayed home to empower Republicans. So, he's got to do some work, but they all do.

PHILLIP: Yeah, I mean, there's the backlash prospect that the South, all of this stuff that the Trump administration has been doing could actually energize Black voters in the South.

SIMMONS: Oh, I think it probably will energize. I think Buttigieg is smart to be there. Also, Black voters in South Carolina are a little more moderate in many ways. So what they're going to want to know from Pete Buttigieg is how are you speaking to us, not just about the economics, but also about some of the big social issues we care about?

PHILLIP: All right, Annie Karni, thank you very much for joining us. And the rest of my panel is going to stay with us.

For a little more ahead in THE ARENA, all the president's ballroom talk is turning attention to something that shouldn't be talked about. What a new report is revealing about the secret bunker that is already buried beneath the White House.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

DONALD TRUMP, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: I said, Look, go ahead. Design what you want. And that goes down five stories. You know, it goes down almost 65 feet.

REPORTER: And what's in those five stories?

TRUMP: Well, I'm not allowed to discuss that, but a lot of very detailed stuff.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[16:49:19]

PHILLIP: President Trump waved the green flag to start the IndyCar Freedom 250 Grand Prix that transformed downtown D.C. Now, before the race got underway, Trump drove the 1.7-mile course in The Beast. That's a presidential vehicle there.

The race capped off a series of events celebrating the nation's 250th birthday.

My panel is back with us.

An Indy 5 -- I would never have called for an Indy race in D.C. streets. Seems like a cool thing to do.

CUPP: Yeah.

PHILLIP: And they did pull it off. What did you make of it?

CUPP: Well, I'm a big auto racing fan. I prefer NASCAR, but Indy's great too. And I love seeing a race in a weird place, right?

[16:50:02]

A place you don't usually expect it, in familiar streets, maybe where you're used to walking around. I think it's very cool.

I would just say I would have preferred this in like peacetime, right? For a time when our economy is doing a little bit better. But I love this. I love car racing, and it's very much part of America.

PHILLIP: So, David, Rahm Emanuel says, I am all for a good race and a healthy competition. This weekend, IndyCar race through our nation's capital past monuments commemorating America's 250th anniversary. Meanwhile, Beijing hosted the world's biggest robot games and races. Pop quiz, who is racing toward the future and who is stuck in neutral?

I have to say, I'm not going to lie, I would rather see cars racing than robots. But I mean, his point is, are we like kind of stuck in the past while the rest of the world is racing?

FREEDLANDER: Yeah, but like Trump's whole thing is being stuck in the past a little bit, right? I mean, that's what like there's this nostalgia to it. I mean, you know, we talked earlier this show about like Trump, he does have real electoral problems going into November, but like this stuff he does so well, you know, this kind of like pop culture sports showing up the spectacle.

I agree with S.E. I mean, I think it's just kind of fun, and a Democrat running for president, of course, going to say we need to be focusing on more important matters, like robotics competition with China, but come on, it's like fun as hell out.

PHILLIP: Yeah. And if you're a 12-year-old, which is the point that "Axios" made, it's been a great year for you. You've had, well, the fireworks were more like an explosion this year. Sharks, cage fights, race cars, all of that.

On a slightly different note, this is all happening at the same time that Trump is also trying to remake Washington in other ways. He wants to build this triumphal arc. The ballroom is an issue that's stuck in the courts.

We learned this weekend that there actually is already a secret nuclear safe bunker at the White House that is 60 feet underground. The facility was completed during the Obama administration. It can house dozens of people for multiple weeks. It was built to withstand a nuclear blast ensuring that the president and his team have a command center to run the country.

This has been one of the rationales for building the ballroom, is to build a bunker. The president said it would be five stories underneath the ground. There already is one.

What do you think this is going to do for his case?

SIMMONS: One of the things I hear about the most from people who don't live in Washington is why did they tear down the East Wing of the White House? The East Wing, but they're tearing down the White House. The president did this because he wanted to build this ballroom that he's been talking about.

I talked to a former White House social secretary who said he probably could have gotten a coalition of all the former White House social secretaries together who would have supported building a ballroom because they all want -- the president just didn't seem like he wanted to talk to anybody else about it.

He wanted to do what he wanted to do the way he wanted to do it, and he didn't care about how much it cost. And now, we're stuck with him changing excuses every time he gets caught. PHILLIP: Yeah, I mean, it seems from the very beginning, there was

always a way to do this that actually could have worked. Because people do agree that there needs to be a bigger space, but he just wanted to not have anyone telling him how to do it.

STEPIEN: He always has his own ideas when it comes to building stuff. I'd say that this bunker that I learned about today, I worked there, I never knew about it. Planning started for 25 years ago after 9/11.

A lot's changed in 25 years, right? These weren't around. BlackBerry weren't even around.

PHILLIP: But it was completed in the Obama administration. I was there when they were digging and they wouldn't talk about the project. And everybody knew that something was going on that was security-related.

So, I mean, it's been some time, but I mean, these things are built to withstand the test of time. That's the reason that they're put there.

STEPIEN: The construction of it, the technology changes. I just had a home security system put in. They say update it every three to five years. It's been 20. So, things change.

PHILLIP: You don't need to.

FREEDLANDER: You're going to get a new ballroom in a couple of years.

SIMMONS: And, Bill, sure, you need to update it. The problem is, why didn't the president go through the process? The reason we have these processes is for reasons because we're not going to be building an art that's going to overwhelm the rest of the Washington skyline.

I've got friends who've been working on the Museum of the American Latino. For 20 years, they've been trying to get this thing built. They've got to get it slated for where it's going to be on the Mall.

They've got to figure out a bunch of things. The president is just kind of throwing these things out as he feels fit.

PHILLIP: It also just kind of makes this idea that if you don't build the ballroom, that the president is going to be forever insecure.

CUPP: Yes.

PHILLIP: That is --

CUPP: Well, he will be forever insecure, but-- I mean, insecure. But, yeah, no, I know what you mean.

PHILLIP: Insecure.

CUPP: But, like, it's never been --

PHILLIP: He's not only going to go to the White House, right?

CUPP: It's never been about security, because what's the national security need for a new reflecting pool, his name on the Kennedy Center, the Arch? All of this has been about Trump putting his name on pieces of Washington, D.C., physical pieces of Washington, D.C.

And had he just been open and gotten the coalition and said the things and gone through the process very much like the war itself, had he bothered to sell us on it, maybe he could have gotten everyone's buy- in.

PHILLIP: All right. That's it for us. Thank you very much to my panel here and to you watching at home.

"THE LEAD" starts after a very quick break.