Return to Transcripts main page

The Lead with Jake Tapper

Trump Concedes Initial U.S. Assessment Found Iran Nuclear Site Damage Could Be Limited or Very Severe; Mamdani Poised to Win Democratic Primary as Cuomo Concedes; North Carolina Hardware Store Owner Says Tariffs Forcing Price Increases. White House Waives Executive Privilege For Former Biden Staffers. Aired 6-7p ET

Aired June 25, 2025 - 18:00   ET

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

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[18:00:00]

JAKE TAPPER, CNN ANCHOR: Welcome to The Lead. I'm Jake Tapper.

This hour, President Trump is set to return to the United States tonight after finishing up that NATO summit and insisting that the U.S. military strikes obliterated Iran's nuclear facilities and Iran's nuclear program. But in the same breath, the president admitted that initial assessments found the damage, quote, could be limited. So, which is it?

Plus, a stunner in the race for New York City Mayor as voters rejected the scandal-plagued former three-term governor, Andrew Cuomo, in favor of a 33-year-old Democratic socialist. Andrew Cuomo officially conceded to Zohran Mamdani in the race. But will Cuomo now still vie for the job running as an independent?

Also, Republicans are starting their interviews as they investigate President Biden's health and fitness and cognitive decline while he was in office. But now the White House is waving executive privilege for all of those Biden era witnesses. Is that normal? And how significant is this decision?

And the major announcement today from prosecutors in the Sean Diddy Combs case, just as closing arguments are set to start tomorrow,

The Lead Tonight, President Trump, his administration and the Israeli government all pushing back hard on that early U.S. intelligence assessment conducted by the intelligence arm of the Pentagon first reported by CNN, suggesting that Iran's nuclear program was likely only set back a few months by the U.S. strikes on Iran's key nuclear facilities over the weekend, not completely obliterated despite President Trump's repeated insistence that it was. The report was just an initial one issued with low confidence, meaning that the DIA is not sure of the findings.

Today, Israel's military says its assessment shows Iran's nuclear program suffered, quote, systemic damage. The CIA director, John Ratcliffe, and U.S. Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard released statements today saying that it would take Iran years to rebuild from the strikes. But Ratcliffe chose to characterize Iran's nuclear sites as, quote, severely damaged, not obliterated.

CNN's Kaitlan Collins was at the NATO conference today and joins us now from the Netherlands. Kaitlan?

KAITLAN COLLINS, CNN ANCHOR AND CHIEF WHITE HOUSE CORRESPONDENT: Yes, Jake. Nearly every opportunity that reporters saw President Trump today, this report came up and the president's thoughts on it, and notably, he did not deny the existence of the report and instead confirmed it and said he believed it was published too early, cited that it was an early preliminary report that was done, and he believes published -- he called the U.S. intelligence on it inconclusive and noted. One phrase that he said was in this report that was issued by the Defense Intelligence Agency saying that the damage that had been done by those U.S. strikes on Iranian nuclear sites was moderate to severe.

Of course, the president and his aides were hinging on that word, severe, saying that is what they believe was the result of this. Not moderate damage, as the report laid out, a window of what exactly the extent of that damage could look like. But, Jake, also the White House did something unusual today by issuing a statement on behalf of the Israeli Atomic Agency, something that had not yet been published by the Israeli Prime Minister's Office and distributing it to reporters that was talking about the extent of the damage that these strikes caused by the assessment that was done by the Israeli Atomic Agency.

I asked the president which intelligence he was relying on earlier today, whether or not it was United States intelligence or in Israeli intelligence.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

COLLINS: You just cited Israeli intelligence on these attacks. Earlier you said U.S intelligence was inconclusive. Are you relying on Israeli intelligence for your assessment of the impact of the strikes?

DONALD TRUMP, U.S. PRESIDENT: No, this is also Iran made the statement and it's also if you read the document that was given that he can talk about if you'd like, the document said it could be very severe damage, but they didn't take that. They said it could be limited or it could be very severe. They really didn't know.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

COLLINS: Jake, also at that press conference, you saw Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth standing over the president's shoulder. He came out and forcefully downplayed this report and what it found, even though it was done, I should note, by the Pentagon's intelligence arm here, and essentially they were saying that they still believe that the damage here was quite severe.

We've since seen statements follow from the director of National Intelligence, Tulsi Gabbard, and from the CIA director, John Ratcliffe as well. And something that the president told me was that, that they have had eyes on the ground.

[18:05:00]

He didn't say if they were Iranian, Israeli, or American eyes that were on the ground assessing the damage of these strikes, Jake, but he did talk about them bringing in more intelligence since this initial, early, preliminary report had been issued. So, that is notable.

But also, Jake, they have continued to come out against this report, railing against it. And the president actually, as he's flying home right now, just announced that the defense secretary, Pete Hegseth, is going to be holding a press conference tomorrow morning at the Pentagon to essentially defend the strikes here and what they believe the outcome was. Though obviously this is still a huge question as they are looking at this and also speaking with the Israelis as well about what the extent of these damages were and just how far back it put Iran's nuclear program.

TAPPER: All right. Kaitlan Collins in the Netherlands, thanks so much.

And, of course, don't miss Kaitlan on her fantastic. Show The Source with Kaitlan Collins tonight. She's going to interview former U.N. Ambassador and former White House aide to President Trump John Bolton. That's tonight and every weeknight at 9:00 Eastern only here on CNN.

Let's go join another one of our superstars abroad, CNN's Erin Burnett in the United Arab Emirates. And, Erin, President Trump says the U.S. and Iran are going to meet next week to discuss a potential nuclear deal, but the president also made it sound like he doesn't care that much about the outcome?

ERIN BURNETT, CNN ANCHOR: Right, right. I mean, I guess this is the way it goes. You say one thing, who knows what you mean? It's sort of maybe a dodge and a dart. But, obviously, Jake, these are the talks that we had expected would be going on now when Trump had given the two-week timeframe to make a decision on the strike, which, of course, he did to give him himself the freedom to strike Iran by surprise.

But what he said about those talks, which now, as you said, are supposed to happen next week, was interesting, basically implying that because the damage is severe and whether severe means just physically to the surface or also to uranium stores, and all these questions that we don't have answers to, but we need answers to.

The reality of it is he's implying that maybe it doesn't matter if there's a deal because the damage to the program is significant. Here's what he said a few moments ago.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

TRUMP: We may sign an agreement. I don't know. To me, I don't think it's that necessary. I mean, they had a war, they fought. Now they're going back to their world. I don't care if I have an agreement or not. The only thing we'd be asking for is what we were asking for before about we want no nuclear, but we destroyed the nuclear. In other words, that's destroyed. I said, Iran will not have nuclear. Well, we blew it up. It's blown up to kingdom come. And so I don't feel very strongly about it.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

BURNETT: Jake, of course, that just comes down to this question of enriched uranium. Now, obviously, J.D. Vance acknowledged that Iran does retain a significant store. He had said probably the majority, but we just don't know, of its highly enriched uranium, and that's what it would need for any sort of a weapons program to reconstitute and reengage in such an effort.

But to have a deal, Leon Panetta, the former CIA director, and you know him well, said to me just a little while ago, he said, look, you're going to end up in another war if you don't deal with this, Israel said they're going to keep their foot on the gas, that their operation is not over. They'll do what they need to do if Iran continues with this. But how do you make a nuclear deal if you don't have any information on what they have? So, that's one question. Another one, of course, is this question about enriched uranium and what they have and that you need enriched uranium for a peaceful nuclear program.

And, Jake, the final thing I would say about these talks that is so important is that it has now been 48 hours since the ceasefire was announced as we were standing here, and a U.S. base in the Gulf was struck. And we still have not seen or heard from the supreme leader of Iran. We've now heard from the new head of the IRGC. We've heard from the president of Iran, we've heard from the foreign minister of Iran. But the person who is supposed to be calling the shots on all of this, the ultimate leader, we have not seen or heard one word from since the ceasefire. And that is I think the inescapably huge elephant in the room. Jake?

TAPPER: Fascinating. Erin Burnett in the United Arab Emirates, thank you so much. And you should look for much more ahead on Erin Burnett OutFront, coming up right after The Lead here on CNN at 7:00 P.M. Eastern.

All right, joining us now, CNN Chief Law Enforcement and Intelligence Analyst John Miller as well as CNN Senior Political Commentator Adam Kinzinger, former National Guard pilot, former Republican congressman.

Congressman Kinzinger, let me start with you. The Trump administration says they're going to limit classified information that they share with Congress. A senior White House official told CNN that the administration believes that the early report was leaked after the assessment was posted to a system used for sharing classified intelligence.

Now, you've sat in on many briefings during your time in Congress. What do you make of all this?

ADAM KINZINGER, CNN SENIOR POLITICAL COMMENTATOR: Yes. I mean, it's honestly possible that somebody that shouldn't have leaked it is the one that leaked it. And I have seen on reports like this, you do initially get kind of initial reports where they say it's low confidence. They're like just on a couple of the things, maybe we know, we ascertain X, Y, and Z. And then as time goes on, you get to medium and high confidence based on more sources, whether it's signals intelligence, whether it's human intelligence.

[18:10:05]

In terms of limiting what they give to Congress, look, this wouldn't be the first time. I'm not going to excuse this administration on that. But very often when you sit down with all of Congress and they brief on whether it were strikes in Syria or ISIS or whatever the thing was of the day, they almost never revealed classified information to any of us unless it was in a smaller setting, so on my Foreign Affairs Committee or on the Intelligence Committee. And, unfortunately, that's just normal because you can't trust a lot of people to not get this information out.

But I think the bottom line is there's going to be a lot more intelligence coming in. Take the Israeli intelligence very seriously, because the Israelis obviously have quite good intelligence on Iran, I would say probably significantly better than us although we have certain capabilities. And we're just going to have to add all this together to figure out what happened.

TAPPER: Yes. Every White House thinks Congress leaks like a sieve. It's American as apple pie.

John, CIA Director Ratcliffe also released a statement today saying, quote, CIA, can confirm that a body of credible intelligence indicates Iran's nuclear program has been severely damaged by the recent targeted strikes. This includes new intelligence from historically reliable and accurate source method that several key Iranian nuclear facilities were destroyed and would have to be rebuilt over the course of years, unquote. Read between the lines for us. What's going on behind the scenes in the intelligence community do you think?

JOHN MILLER, CNN CHIEF LAW ENFORCEMENT AND INTELLIGENCE ANALYST: Well, what's going on behind the scenes is the White House is driving political appointees in the intelligence community, the director of the CIA, the director of National Intelligence, to put out these statements that are reaffirming what the president said. But when you look at the carefully worded statements, severely damaged is different from obliterated or wiped off the face of the Earth, or some of the more colorful terms we've heard coming from the president in the White House.

Here's the thing, Jake. Reading between the lines, what's really going on in the intelligence community is this kind of conduct is a terrible blow to the morale at places like the Defense Intelligence Agency, the DIA, the NSA, the NGA, because what they're tasked with is come up with a battle damage assessment working with the Department of Defense. We're going to need it quickly. There's a lot of key policymakers, including in the Oval, in the White House. So we're going to need this information now, base it on all source intelligence and come up with as good a story as you can put together on the idea that we'll be able to refine and update as there's tremendous pressure to make these deadlines and get these things out.

And now what they're getting is they're getting discredited by the president. They're under pressure to meet political needs as opposed to the facts that they find them. And there is this analytic standards that were established by the director of National Intelligence back when I worked there under the deputy director for analysis, Peter Lavoy, and the analytic standards were objectivity, right? Number one, this has to be not based on your opinion as an analyst or what you want it to be. It has to be based on the facts. Independence from political considerations, that means it can't be what the boss or the president or the director wants you to say. It has to be based on the facts as you found them. And timeliness, and that's the pressure point here, it has to be done quickly and using all the sources you can gather from all the different agencies. They believe that they did that and now they're basically being beaten over the head for the findings not matching exactly what people wanted to hear.

TAPPER: Yes, I don't really understand the response. They could have just said that it's an early assessment with low confidence. We hope it's wrong, move on. But instead, they attack the DIA and they attacked us in the news media for reporting it.

One of the ways they did that, Congressman Kinzinger, they said that the reporting on this DIA assessment that they acknowledge is legit, even if they disagree with it, they said that the reporting is demeaning to the service members who carried out the mission.

You are a former, or I think you're still in the National Guard, right? You're still an Air National Guard guy. You served in the Air Force. Is that true? Is it unpatriotic? Is it insulting to service members for us to report on an intelligence assessment?

KINZINGER: Oh, of course not. It's stupid and silly. And I think somebody said that one of the pilots called him from Missouri and said -- I mean, come on, that's nuts. Listen the military executed the mission flawlessly, and that's what the military's job is to do.

TAPPER: Yes.

KINZINGER: Now, where Trump backed himself into a corner was he said we obliterated this and then called for an immediate ceasefire. What he should have done is said, we hit this, we're going to assess the damage and then send the B-2s back for round two if you didn't completely destroy it to destroy it.

[18:15:06]

So, this is not a failure of any military action and nobody's saying that, nobody's suggesting that except the president. This would be a failure of leadership to follow up to ensure this is destroyed, if anything. Because what he did was demand a ceasefire, take, you know, the clause out of Israel being able to even continue and now we don't know. And now the only way to actually stop this if it's not completely destroyed is with negotiations or reopening this fight.

TAPPER: Yes. Former Congressman Kinzinger, John Miller, thanks to both of you. I really appreciate it.

As President Trump heads back to the U.S., I'm going to ask the chairman of the House Armed Services Committee, Former Affairs Committee, rather, what he thinks of this early intelligence assessment, how much damage was truly done to Iran's nuclear capability? Stay with us.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

PETEHEGSETH, DEFENSE SECRETARY: Iran's nuclear program is obliterated and somebody somewhere is trying to leak something to say, oh, with low confidence, we think maybe it's moderate. Those that dropped the bombs precisely in the right place, know exactly what happened when that exploded.

[18:20:04]

And you know who else knows? Iran.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

TAPPER: That was Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth pushing back earlier today against an early intel assessment from the Pentagon he runs, the DIA in the Pentagon, an initial report questioning the extent of the devastation that the U.S. strikes had on Iran's nuclear sites.

The White House has confirmed that this assessment exists and said that they disagree with it. And just to be clear, once again, there's no one questioning whether or not this was a risky call for President Trump to make. No one's questioning the bravery of the U.S. service members who carried out this attack.

Let's bring in U.S. Army Veteran and Republican Congressman Brian Mast of Florida. He is the chairman of the House Foreign Affairs Committee. Chairman Mast, have you seen this early Intel assessment, which I know is low confidence, meaning they're not even sure it's accurate this early, but have you seen the DIA assessment?

REP. BRIAN MAST (R-FL): Yes, I've been in skiffs all week. And I would just, you know, kind of layer on that when you're talking about these assessments. Number one, you're getting a different assessment from every intelligence agency. They're going to produce their own. And number two, you're using the word confidence. They're always going to say high confidence, low confidence, medium confidence, and they all very rarely agree in any one sentence that they're putting together.

TAPPER: How will we know -- just using your expertise, how will the American people know when it is high confidence that there actually was just an absolute obliteration of whatever was in those three nuclear sites, assuming -- I mean, we all want that to be the case. Nobody wants Iran to have a nuclear weapon. How long will it take for that assessment to come through? MAST: Look, let's you know, debate the semantics of obliteration in this way. You had Iran come to the table and say, okay, we're ready to end this war after 12 days and secede all of these hostilities if the other side is willing to do that. That didn't happen on accident. It happened, you know, as a result of the causation of the attack that Israel and the United States of America conducted together.

But, you know, really the crescendo of that being the United States of America, it obliterated them enough to the point that they said, okay, we're ready to come to the table and ceased this conflict.

TAPPER: So, there are still some outstanding questions as to whether or not the Iranians moved some enriched uranium out of these nuclear sites before the U.S. strikes over the weekend. Take a listen to what President Trump had to say today.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

TRUMP: We don't think they had nearly the time, because to get that out is a very difficult thing. It's not like moving a package or taking this carpet up and moving it. It's very difficult. It's very dangerous to do. We believe it's all down there.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

TAPPER: So, Senator Mark Warner, the top Democrat on the Senate Intelligence Committee, said that actually some of this enriched uranium could be moved easily. Take a listen to what he told National Public Radio yesterday.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

REPORTER: The Atomic Energy Agency says Iran has about 900 pounds of highly enriched, which as you say could have been easily moved.

SEN. MARK WARNER (D-VA): It has been widely reported and non- classified that you could literally move that in about ten carloads.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

TAPPER: How sure are we, the U.S. government, how sure is the U.S. government that none of the uranium, the enriched uranium was moved before the strikes?

MAST: I think we are sure that Iran knows that if there's any sensor anywhere in the region that picks up some hint of U-235 somewhere in any one location, in any Iranian space, that they can expect B-2 bombers to come overhead, as what happened before, and destroy that. I think that is certainly the confidence that exists because of what President Trump did. If there's any that shows up, if there's any that's former future developed that's enriched, if there's any that proliferates from Russia or anything else, they have every confidence, I believe, in Iran that President Trump will again destroy, obliterate, let's say obliterate, any presence of it.

TAPPER: Would you support such further U.S. military intervention if it was moved elsewhere and detected elsewhere?

MAST: I think President Trump delivered exactly what he promised, a limited strike in concert with Israel to accomplish a specific mission, that was make sure Iran doesn't have a nuclear weapon. And if he had to continue doing that in some other time and place, I would absolutely support him to do that. I think he has every authority to do so. We haven't got into the debate of war powers and the requirements for that, but I do believe he has every authority to do so. And I would support him in that.

Again, I think all of the American people would do so again because they recognize the threat that Iran has been. They will kill Americans.

[18:25:00]

There was two F-16s that fell off the deck of carriers in the past couple months. Why? Because they were being attacked by Houthis drones, Iranian drones. These are military arms of Iran. We had three Americans killed at Tower 22, a sergeant, a specialist, and a specialist killed at Tower 22 in Jordan, again, directly by the hand of Iran. And we had hundreds of thousands of Americans literally in danger in Israel as Iran was attacking Israel. So, they have every demonstration that they will kill Americans, and, of course, October 7th as well.

TAPPER: Yes, not to mention all of the U.S. service members who served in Iraq who were targeted by --

MAST: Absolutely, explosive (INAUDIBLE) projectiles, penetrators, everything that they put onto the battlefield in terms of IUDs killed and maimed many of my brothers and sisters, as you well know.

TAPPER: Yes. Thank you again for coming on today, Chairman Brian Mast of Florida, and thanks for your service, as always.

MAST: Thank you.

TAPPER: Voters brave the dangerous heat to send a resounding message in the race for New York City mayor. Our political panel weighs in next.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[18:30:00]

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

FMR. GOV. ANDREW CUOMO (D-NY): I want to applaud the assemblyman for a really smart and good and impactful campaign. Tonight is his night.

ZOHRAN MAMDANI, NEW YORK STATE ASSEMBLYMAN: I will fight for a city that works for you, that is affordable for you, that is safe for you. I will work to be a mayor you'll be proud to call your own.

(END VIDEO CLIP) TAPPER: In our Politics Lead, a stunning upset in New York City. Former New York Governor Andrew Cuomo congratulating 33-year-old New York State Assemblyman and Democratic Socialist Zohran Mamdani, who appears on track to be the winner of the Democratic primary for New York City mayor. We'll know officially in July because they have ranked voting in there. But the bigger question here, what does Mamdani's win mean for the Democratic Party?

Let's discuss with Emily Ngo, she's a political reporter for Politico New York. Also with us, our old friend, John Avlon, a former CNN senior political analyst who ran for office in New York last year, and former Congressman Jamaal Bowman of New York.

Emily, let me start with you. So, the Democratic establishment threw their support behind Cuomo despite the fact that several top Democrats, such as influential South Carolina Congressman James Clyburn, said back in 2021 that it would be in the best interest of New Yorkers for Cuomo to resign as governor. Take a listen at Clyburn then and Clyburn earlier this year.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

REP. JAMES CLYBURN (D-SC): It looks as if all of the allegations were substantiated. I don't see he'll survive that. So, I suspect will do himself in the city of New York or the state of New York a whole lot of good if he were to resign.

Join me in support of Andrew Cuomo to lead New York City. Andrew has an enviable record of standing up for people who are too often left out and left behind, and he will stand up to Donald Trump.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

TAPPER: That's not to pick on Congressman Clyburn, and I could bring you dozens of such examples. Emily you've been covering this race very closely. How much was this a vote for Mamdani versus a vote against Andrew Cuomo?

EMILY NGO, CO-AUTHOR OF POLITICO'S NEW YORK PLAYBOOK: I mean, if I had to say, it'd be equal parts, anti-Cuomo and pro-Mamdani, he ran a near flawless campaign that was truly grassroots from the beginning, the energy, the youthfulness, the viral videos, the fundraising at low dollar levels. It was all there from the start, and he did it himself without establishment support.

Clearly, you named Clyburn, but there are several House members, several labor unions who have taken issue with Andrew Cuomo in the past that just called for him to step down amid allegations of sexual harassment in 2021 but took issue with other parts of his record and turned around and endorsed him halfheartedly, many of them, because he had an air of inevitability about him.

But in the end, he conceded on the first night. We don't even have those ranked choice voting tabulations through. When it's said and done, I do expect Mamdani's lead to grow. He has a seven-point edge over Cuomo in those first choice votes now, but he's sure to be a lot of people's second choice especially after that pretty historic cross- endorsement agreement he had with Brad Lander that sort of set up a New York Jew and a New York Democrat in a collaboration that they say will take the party forward on the path that needs to go to move to a new generation.

TAPPER: And, John, you're chairman of Citizens Union of New York. Your group was backing Cuomo's bid for mayor. Do you think that Democrats as an institution, the establishment Democratic Party, lost credibility with voters after saying Cuomo should resign from, one, office in 2021 and then endorse him to run for mayor?

JOHN AVLON, CHAIRMAN, CITIZENS UNION OF NEW YORK: Well, first ,I should clarify the Citizens Union endorsed a slate of candidates. It was Cuomo, Lander, Myrie.

TAPPER: Okay.

AVLON: So, it wasn't a preference for Cuomo. But, look, I think the reason a lot of folks were backing Cuomo isn't because of establishment. It was because he was the most experienced mayoral candidate in recent memory, and Mamdani is one of the least experienced. But that takes nothing away from the fact that Mamdani ran an inspiring, positive campaign, reaching out, campaigning hard, leaning into digital grassroots. And Cuomo had the baggage of his past scandals, but also ran a more defensive rose garden strategy, and that clearly did not work.

I will note though, this is the Democratic primary. We may have a more competitive general election than normal, and it's also worth noting that we only had -- Mamdani had a big win, but only 10 percent of registered New York voters voted for him last night, only 10 percent. It's an argument for open primaries bringing more people into the process.

TAPPER: So, Congressman Bowman, let me go to you.

[18:35:00]

Republicans are obviously out there saying Mamdani is too extreme to lead New York City, but so are some Democrats. New York Democratic Congresswoman Laura Gillen, who represents part of Long Island, she wrote, quote, socialist Zohran Mamdani is too extreme to lead New York City. His entire campaign has been built on unachievable promises and higher taxes, which is the last thing that New York needs. Beyond that, Mr. Mamdani is called to defund the police and has demonstrated a deeply disturbing pattern of unacceptable, anti-Semitic comments, which stoke hated a time when anti-Semitism is skyrocketing. He's the absolute wrong choice for New York. That's a Democratic congresswoman saying that from New York State, not New York City, but right outside.

Congressman, you endorsed Mamdani. What's your response to your former colleague there?

FMR. REP. JAMAAL BOWMAN (D-NY): Yes. I completely disagree with that tweet, and I think the tweet is very disappointing. I think this is an opportunity and a time for Democrats to find common ground between the left center and right, come together and figure out how to collectively resurrect the party and move the countries forward. The country needs us to lead in this moment. The Trump administration has been a disaster for the consciousness and the confidence of our country, and this is a moment of inspiration and excitement, not just for the city of New York, but for the country.

I mean, he ran on affordability, universal childcare, fast and free busing, freezing the rent, bringing down grocery prices. That's not extreme. He's committed to fighting hate and anti-Semitism with a 800 percent increase in anti-hate programs. And so it's important for us to bridge the gap between members of our party so that we can, you know, do everything we can to save what America is supposed to be for all Americans.

TAPPER: All right. Congressman, thanks so much to you and to John and to Emily. I appreciate all three of you being here today.

Our small business series takes us to North Carolina next and to a family-owned store that's been open for more than 75 years. How have Trump's tariffs impacted this company? Are they raising prices on customers? Are they loving it? That's next.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[18:40:00]

TAPPER: And we're back with our Business Leaders series, where we hear from small business owners from coast-to-coast about President Trump's tariffs. Some are happy with how it's been going. Many are telling us that they're feeling stressed. B & W Hardware in Wake Forest, North Carolina, is a family owned store that will celebrate 60 -- I'm sorry, that will celebrate 76 years operating on Main Street next month. They specialize in outdoor products, specifically grilling. And who doesn't love to grill?

Owner Joe Kimray joins me now. Joe, how are the tariffs impacting your business right now when it comes to imports of products to your store?

JOE KIMRAY, OWNER, B & W HARDWARE CO.: Well, Jake, first off, I'd like to say thank you for having me this evening. I would also like to take just a quick second to thank the National Retail Federation for making connections like this where small businesses like ours have a chance to come on a show with you and just discuss what's happening at the ground level. I think a lot of times these are really high up conversations, but it's good to hear from us directly.

To answer your question, I think the biggest issue that we're facing right now is we are having to balance everything with the holiday ordering. We've got a lot of issues trying to predict what's happening in the holidays, what we need to order, and you've got to forecast your sales, but you've also got shifting consumer demand right now. And all of that is happening at the same time. I think that's our biggest thing that we're facing right now.

TAPPER: What do you import versus buy in the United States? KIMRAY: Personally, I'm a retail hardware store, so I buy from a large supplier that supplies hardware stores across the country, all the independent stores. So, they are directly buying from the manufacturers who import themselves. Many of the items in the hardware industry are made overseas. The majority of your screws, your nuts, your bolts, all of the everyday items that you need, a lot of those are made overseas.

And you mentioned earlier that we're really big in the grilling market. We are. And the majority of your grills are made overseas. Now, there are a number of grills that are made here in America. However, the price point in order to get it for the average consumer overseas is where you're going to reach that price point to make it make sense for the majority of American households.

TAPPER: So, if the tariffs have hit the manufacturers that make the products that you buy, have you had to pass on those tariffs to consumers? In other words, before President Trump imposed these tariffs, a lot of people in retail said, this is just a hidden tax on consumers. Is that the reality that your customers are living with?

KIMRAY: It is, Jake. Right now, I feel like retailers are the ones that are caught in the middle. Our wholesale prices have increased. That's caused us to have to increase our retail prices. And there's a lot of these companies that I work with, a lot of the grilling industry, they operate under a contract-based pricing where I'm required to sell it for what they want it sold for. Even if I wanted to try to absorb a little bit of that cost, which is really hard to do as a small business, even if I wanted to absorb some of that cost, I'm not even able to do that because I'm required to sell it for what they're telling me to sell it for.

TAPPER: And has this changed behavior by your customers?

KIMRAY: It has. We've seen a lot of dip in the higher end models. The $3,000, $4,000 grills, we're seeing a lot more sales of the $1,000 to $2,000 grills. Customers that would walk in and normally would expect to be buying that higher end model, they're dropping down to that middle range model and even some to the entry level models because the prices have gone up. I mean, it's just a pure truth that has happened is that retail prices have gone up because of this.

[18:45:04]

TAPPER: And, obviously, one of the goals for President Trump was to bring manufacturing back to the U.S. If President Trump were watching right now, what's your message to him about the goal of bringing manufacturing to the U.S. -- back to the U.S. with these tariffs?

KIMRAY: Sure. I mean, I don't want to speak for all small retailers, but I personally am committed to working with the president, the administration, any way I can to advance shared goals that we have, strengthening the economy, keeping inflation in check and ensuring we can get lower prices.

But when you look at trying to bring the manufacturing back to America, it's a great goal to have. However, it's not something that happens overnight. One of the companies that I represent quite well with the grill industry have said that even if they wanted tomorrow to turn around and say we want to manufacture our grills in America, you're talking a 3 to 5 year process in order to make that happen. It's not something that can happen overnight.

And retailers and the consumers are the ones that are now caught in the middle, because it's just not something that can immediately happen.

And I think the thing we need more from the president than anything is just stability, the constant changing percentages, a lot of the vendors that I buy from, they're having to raise their prices and they'll lower their price because everything seems to fluctuate on a weekly to monthly basis. The more stability that we can have in our industry, it's just going to drastically affect our customers in a great way.

TAPPER: The business one more time is B & W Hardware in Wake Forest, North Carolina. B & W, as in Barry and William and the owner, Joe Kimray. Thank you.

What does it actually stand for B & W?

KIMRAY: It stands for Barnes and Willis. This was my wife's family's business. I quit my corporate job about 13 years ago so we could keep it in our family, and that's their two family names that adorn this business on a daily basis.

TAPPER: Barnes and Willis.

All right. Got it right now. Thank you so much, Joe. Appreciate it.

KIMRAY: Thanks.

TAPPER: House Republicans say they will subpoena former Biden White House aides as part of their investigation into the former president's health and fitness and cognitive decline while in office.

So, who's going to win this legal fight? That's next.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[18:50:54]

TAPPER: Back with our law and justice lead.

The House Oversight Committee started closed doors -- closed door interviews this week with former Biden White House aides about the president's mental fitness and decline while in office. And now, President Trump is waiving executive privilege for all of Biden's former White House staff, saying they cannot invoke executive privilege.

Jim Schultz joins me now. He's a former White House lawyer for President Trump. Thanks for being here, Jim. Really appreciate it.

So, the committee chairman, James Comer, just announced that Anthony Bernal, who was the top chief of staff to the first lady, Jill Biden, is refusing to show up for his interview tomorrow. Comer says he's now going to subpoena him in addition to Biden's former physician. What happens if they still refuse to testify?

JIM SCHULTZ, CNN LEGAL COMMENTATOR: Well, look, then that goes before the court, and the court can order them to order them to testify. It's pretty settled that this executive privilege fault lies within the current president. We saw it happen during the Biden administration, where the January 6th folks, the interviewed folks in connection with January 6th. They said, look, executive privilege, privilege doesn't apply there. And Biden waved the executive privilege for those interviews.

Whenever you have something that deals with either criminal misconduct or perhaps alleged criminal misconduct, that's not what executive privilege is intended to protect. So, to the extent you have a cover- up or something else that's gone on in the White House pertaining to the president's ability to continue as president, perhaps for the results of influencing the outcome of an election, those are going to be serious questions. And I think that's something the president can waive privilege for those witnesses.

TAPPER: Do you think that if Biden had allowed Trump White House aides to assert executive privilege during the January 6th Committee investigation, that that would have been tougher for Trump to do today, to say that the White House aides for Biden can't assert executive privilege?

SCHULTZ: There's tradition, and then there's the law, right? And it's pretty settled that the privilege lies with the president in order to do that.

TAPPER: The current president.

SCHULTZ: The current president, in order to make that determination, it doesn't change what President Trump can do. It might have changed what -- how President Trump approached this, but I doubt it. I think in this particular instance, you know, the house wants to get to the bottom of what they knew and when they knew it, that something about you wrote about in your book, and they have a right to find that out. And executive privilege isn't going to protect it.

TAPPER: So, what criminality might there be? Because lying to the American people or misleading the American people, or misleading congress or donors or, you know, your own White House staff is not against the law necessarily.

SCHULTZ: I was using the criminality as just an example.

TAPPER: Yeah, yeah.

SCHULTZ: We don't know what activity the -- lying to the American people, certainly not a crime. But depending upon I don't know where this leads, right? They can certainly ask those questions.

You know, these are -- this is oversight. This isn't a court of law. And to the -- and it's really not their -- executive privilege isn't there to cover up activity -- isn't to protect and cover up activities. It's to give the president an ability to make decisions and not have those decisions called into question.

The real question here, was the president actually making those decisions or not, or was staff doing it, covering it up for purposes of trying to win an election?

TAPPER: And a lot of the focus is on the president's use -- President Biden's use of the autopen.

Neera Tanden, who was -- I think she was head of the domestic policy council for the White House, for the Biden White House, testified she did direct autopen signatures for documents. President Trump has also said he's ordering an investigation into the use of the autopen.

Biden put out a statement saying, let me be clear, I made the decisions during my presidency. I made the decisions about the pardons, executive orders, legislation and proclamations. Any suggestion that I didn't is ridiculous and false.

Neera Tanden saying she directed autopen signatures is not the same thing as saying she made the decisions.

SCHULTZ: No, that's right. But we don't know what Joe Biden, president Biden's capacity was when he made that statement. Did he actually make that statement? He could say it all day long. His spokespeople can say it all day long. But at the end of the day, was he capable of making those decisions at that time? Congress is going to find out.

TAPPER: All right. Jim Schultz, thanks so much. Really appreciate you being here.

Celebrations are now underway as amazon founder Jeff Bezos gets ready to wed Lauren Sanchez in Italy.

[18:55:03]

The events don't come without protests, of course. That's next.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[18:59:30]

TAPPER: In our law and justice lead today, prosecutors in the Sean "Diddy" Combs case say they will no longer pursue theories that Diddy was involved in attempted arson or attempted kidnaping. Those two alleged acts were part of the governments original racketeering conspiracy charge. Lawyers from both sides met today to discuss jury instructions. Closing arguments are expected to begin tomorrow.

In our world lead, Amazon founder Jeff Bezos and his fiancee Lauren Sanchez were spotted arriving at a Venice hotel ahead of their extravagant wedding festivities. Ceremony details have been kept discreet in an effort to dodge local protesters, who say the couple is not welcome in their city. The wedding is Saturday.

VIP guests are already arriving. The Venice mayor blasts the multimillion dollar event.

"ERIN BURNETT OUTFRONT" live from the UAE starts now. See you tomorrow.