Return to Transcripts main page
The Lead with Jake Tapper
President Trump Contradicts Netanyahu On Gaza Starvation; Ghislaine Maxwell Urges Supreme Court To Overturn Her Case; Columbia University's $221 Billion Settlement Deal; Columbia Agrees To Pay $221M In Deal With Trump Admin.; U.S. And E.U. Avert Disaster With 15 Percent Tariff Deal; Ok Superintendent Accused Of Having Nude Women On Monitor During Board Meeting. Aired 5-6p ET
Aired July 28, 2025 - 17:00 ET
THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.
JIM SCIUTTO, CNN HOST: Thanks too much to my great panel. Jake Tapper, of course standing by for "The Lead." Jake, all yours.
JAKE TAPPER, CNN HOST: Thanks so much, Jim. We'll look for more tomorrow in "The Arena."
Trump suggests Netanyahu is not telling the truth. The president saying there is starvation in Gaza. "The Lead" starts right now.
With images of emaciated dying children and Palestinians fighting for food, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu at best seems to be in a state of denial, saying falsely that there is no starvation in Gaza. President Trump says there sure is, and it's real. But what will President Trump do, if anything, to pressure his Israeli ally to alleviate this man-made humanitarian crisis?
Plus, a plea to the U.S. Supreme Court from the woman who groomed young teenage girls for Jeffrey Epstein and his corrupt pals. But, Ghislaine Maxwell does not argue she's innocent. She's pushing for her conviction to be overturned and using a similar argument to that once used by Bill Cosby, as Maxwell's attorney also asks President Trump for a pardon. Is President Trump actually considering such a thing?
And the stunning response from the Oklahoma school superintendent who wants to put Trump Bibles in public schools and is now accused of having images of naked women on a TV screen during an official meeting.
Welcome to "The Lead." I'm Jake Tapper and we're going to start in Gaza with our "World Lead." President Trump who just a few days ago called on the Israeli government to, quote, "finish the job in Gaza" by which he meant, we believe, start the ceasefire, President Trump publicly splitting from Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and Netanyahu's handling of the rapidly worsening humanitarian crisis.
Yesterday at a Jerusalem conference with Trump faith advisor, Paula White, Prime Minister Netanyahu said this.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
BENJAMIN NETANYAHU, PRIME MINISTER OF ISRAEL: There is no policy of starvation in Gaza, and there is no starvation in Gaza.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
TAPPER: Needless to say, humanitarian groups in Gaza say that whether or not starvation is policy in Gaza, it is reality. And for the Prime Minister to deny the existence of this man-made hunger crisis was too much even for Netanyahu's number one foreign ally, President Trump, to bear. Alongside English Prime Minister Keir Starmer this morning, President Trump was asked if he agreed with Netanyahu's comments.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
DONALD TRUMP, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: I don't know. I mean, based on television, I would say not particularly because those children looked very hungry.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
TAPPER: At an event about an hour later, President Trump then said this.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
TRUMP: That's real starvation stuff, I see it, and you can't fake that. So we're going to be even more involved.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
TAPPER: President Trump's comments come as international outrage swells, fueled by heart-wrenching images of starving children. Starvation has killed at least 14 Gazans over the past 24 hours, according to the Palestinian Ministry of Health. Israel's 10-hour-a- day pause in fighting in three parts of Gaza is meant, Israel say, to enable more aid to be able to reach people, but the Israeli military manages the entry of all aid into Gaza and blames the United Nations for failing to collect and distribute the aid that reaches individuals within the territory.
A source earlier today texted me these pictures from inside Gaza showing the complete breakdown of any semblance of order and the impossibility or near impossibility of the task facing aid workers as hundreds of thousands of people swarm the trucks. Some other nations such as Jordan and the United Arab Emirates are using air drops to try and stem the spread of starvation.
One man on the ground in Gaza tells CNN that this method only causes more violence. He decided not to rush to the aid. Take a listen.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
AHMAD FAIZ FAYYAD, GAZAN (through translation): This aid is disgraceful. We are not dogs be made to run after aid. People fought over it. We'd rather die of hunger with dignity than die in humiliation and filth.
(END VIDEO CLIP) TAPPER: In just the last several hours, condemnations for Netanyahu's handling of this crisis are growing intense inside Israel and inside the American Jewish community.
[17:04:54]
B'Tselem, an Israeli human rights group in Israel, became the first Israeli organization to accuse its own government of, quote, "committing genocide" against Palestinians in the Gaza Strip, adding that Hamas's heinous attack on Israel on October 7, 2023, cannot be a justification for genocide.
Inside the United States, the American Jewish Committee and the Reform Movement of North America have also given voice to the deadly hunger crisis in Gaza. Even the Chancellor of Germany, a country reluctant to ever criticize Israel, says that he's thinking about increasing pressure on Netanyahu and his government to alleviate this starvation. CNN's Jeff Zeleny is in Edinburgh, Scotland with the president and CNN's Jeremy Diamond is in Jerusalem.
And Jeff, President Trump says the U.S. is going to get more involved. What might that look like?
JEFF ZELENY, CNN CHIEF NATIONAL AFFAIRS CORRESPONDENT: Jake, President Trump talked today about setting up food centers and setting up an ability for the food to be allowed to be distributed without boundaries, without borders. But the simple fact that President Trump said starvation is real and Israel needs to do more, that was so significant.
Yes, that has become obvious watching these just gruesome images that the world has seen, but the president has not yet addressed it in the degree to which he did until meeting with British Prime Minister Keir Starmer. And that was the entire point, at least the top agenda item for that meeting here in Scotland.
For the British Prime Minister to say the English people are revolted by this, the world is revolted by this, and President Trump essentially echoed his deep concern. And that is something that he has not done. Even as recently as yesterday, as you said, the President was suggesting that the US needs to be thanked more. But now he's talking about setting up food centers and contributing more money.
The question is though what type of policy changes actually will be coming? Is Israel, is Netanyahu in particular going to be pressured to do more? But Jake, this is a test not only for the Trump administration, but also a test for the United States, for the Trump foreign policy, the American first agenda, if you will. The United States has often come to the aid of situations like this around the globe.
And for the president, he signaled really for the first time today that he was inclined to do so. We'll see what policies follow from that. But by saying starvation is real, directly contradicting Netanyahu, that was significant.
TAPPER: Jeremy, how long does the Israeli government anticipate this tactical pause in Gaza to let aid in will last?
JEREMY DIAMOND, CNN JERUSALEM CORRESPONDENT: Well Jake, the Israeli Prime Minister's office has just put out a statement saying that they will continue to work to ensure that large quantities of humanitarian aid get into Gaza. The Israeli military for its part has not said exactly how long these 10-hour tactical pauses effectively -- brief ceasefires in parts of the Gaza Strip, how long those will actually continue going forward.
But just the very fact that Israel is taking these steps, these tactical pauses, these safe distribution point routes for humanitarian aid trucks, it really is the best evidence yet that Israel was carrying out restrictions in Gaza prior on the distribution of humanitarian aid. Because many of these steps, Jake, are the kinds of steps that the United Nations and other humanitarian aid organizations have been calling on Israel to put in place for months now.
As they have said, that the Israeli military, Israeli government were making it too onerous a process and not facilitating the distribution of humanitarian aid once it actually made it into the Strip in order for it to be distributed among the population inside of Gaza. What is clear though is the United Nations is saying that these tactical pauses, these safe distribution routes, they are a welcome sign, but they need to continue for sustained period of time.
Yesterday, we saw that about 120 trucks of aid made it into Gaza. That's an uptick from where we've been over the course of the last several weeks, but it certainly is nowhere near enough. Nowhere near the hundreds, perhaps even thousands of trucks of aid that are needed to get into Gaza to even begin to alleviate the starvation crisis there. We know that people are continuing to die of malnutrition in Gaza right now, and it will take some time before enough aid actually gets in to the point where we stop seeing those daily death tolls.
In just the last 24 hours, the Palestinian Ministry of Health says that 14 people have died of starvation. That brings the total for this month alone, Jake, in Gaza to 77 people who've died of starvation.
TAPPER: Man-made starvation. Jeremy Diamond and Jeff Zeleny, thanks so much. Joining us now, CNN political and global affairs analyst Barak Ravid. Also with us, Yair Rosenberg, a staff writer for "The Atlantic." Barak, you report that two of Prime Minister Netanyahu's aides are in D.C. this week and you're going to talk to White House officials about Gaza.
What are you hearing about what the Israeli government's message to the White House is? Because this is a really stark moment with President Trump saying, no, that starvation is real, a direct contradiction of what Netanyahu said.
BARAK RAVID, CNN POLITICAL & GLOBAL AFFAIRS ANALYST: Today, Israel and the U.S. were together on an island, on a diplomatic island, when the rest of the world looked at them and said, you're responsible for what's going on in Gaza.
[17:10:04] And what President Trump did today is basically told Netanyahu, I'm off the island, you're now on your own, and you should change course. And I think that's very significant. Because, and to your question about the visit by Netanyahu's advisors, Ron Dermer and Tzachi Hanegbi, they will try and coordinate with Secretary of State Rubio and with Special Envoy Witkoff the policy going forward in Gaza, not only on the humanitarian issue, but also on the ceasefire deal and other issues.
But when you look at what Trump has been doing over the last six months, he basically didn't pressure Netanyahu at all. He allowed Netanyahu to do almost whatever he wanted in Gaza and we see the result. And in the only instance that Trump decided to do the opposite of what Netanyahu said, the result was that a hostage, an American hostage, was released and came back home with Edan Alexander.
And the question is whether President Trump will continue to give Netanyahu a free hand in Gaza and will basically follow his footsteps or he will try to develop a U.S. policy --
TAPPER: Yeah.
RAVID: -- and tell Netanyahu to follow him.
TAPPER: And Yair, you have a new piece in "The Atlantic" on why this conflict seems so intractable. You say that when Trump hosted Netanyahu in February and called for Gaza to be turned into the Riviera of the Middle East it was, quote, "taken as an affirmation of the maximalist dream of many Israelis and an explicit warning -- explicit warrant for ethnic cleansing by the Israeli far right. Once that prospect turned from a pipe dream into a president's plan, it quickly became an obstruction to concluding the conflict," unquote.
Given what we heard today, do you think this is a shift in Trump's views or what? I know it's difficult to predict President Trump's behavior, but I mean, it was a fairly stark contradiction.
YAIR ROSENBERG, STAFF WRITER, THE ATLANTIC: So as Barak said, I think that one has to look at Trump's past actions when we're trying to extrapolate to the future. And although Trump has now contradicted Netanyahu on this topic, he has in general given Netanyahu a pretty free hand. And when he's not, he's actually, with the Gaza Riviera proposal, actually joined the right flank of Netanyahu's coalition and said, why don't you just take the whole place, right? Or said, we'll take the whole place, which then the far right interprets as, we'll do it for you.
Until Trump comes out and says, I no longer support that plan, and that is not U.S. policy, I think you're going to continue to see the U.S. and Israel somewhat across purposes and also Netanyahu pushing this plan. And so I think that, you know, we'll find out in the days ahead if Trump is willing to go back on what I think was, you know, something that he perhaps regrets now, hard to say. But until then, no one has to assume that is U.S. policy.
TAPPER: Yeah. And just so people here watching understand the far right in Israel, we're talking about some far right policies of people who are openly prejudiced, openly bigoted against Palestinians, openly want to clean, want to perform ethnic cleansing to get Palestinians out of Gaza. I mean, it's pretty shocking stuff. Barak, what are you hearing from your Israeli sources about Netanyahu's flat out denial that there is starvation in Gaza? Not just a denial, that its policy or intentional, but just that it even exists.
RAVID: Well, it's not only Netanyahu. I think also people within the IDF have been denying the reality in Gaza. And, you know, already in March, when Netanyahu passed in the cabinet a decision to stop allowing humanitarian aid into Gaza, the foreign minister, Gideon Sa'ar, told him at that meeting, what's going to happen is that this decision will create a crisis. This crisis will turn into huge international criticism on Israel, and we will have to backtrack, and this will only be a win for Hamas. Four months later, this is exactly what happened.
TAPPER: Yeah. Exactly.
RAVID: And I think -- I hope, that the Trump administration watched this and saw how this developed and understand that this war, if it continues like that, can go on for another year. And for a president that said that he wants to end wars, he can get dragged into another year of war in the Middle East. And this will not be Biden's war anymore. It's going to be a Trump war, 100 percent.
[17:14:56]
TAPPER: Yair, what's the significance, if at all, of the Israeli human rights group at B'Tselem, not just criticizing Netanyahu, not just criticizing the war, but actually formally declaring Israel's actions in Gaza to be a genocide?
ROSENBERG: So, the report came out this morning. I was writing an article today. So I haven't had the chance to read it so I don't want to comment specifically, but I will say, you know, there are different human rights groups that have put out reports like this. The Israeli branch of Amnesty International has, you know, spoken instead of ethnic cleansing. I do think though that whatever people, in terms people want to put on the conflict, they should recognize that the words are less important than the reality and the people suffering.
And that's the sort of thing that should be able to unite people and galvanize them rather than that you know, words that people are very charged and people have trouble, you know, agreeing upon, but that is actually not the fundamental issue here. The fundamental issue is what is happening on the ground in Gaza to people right now.
TAPPER: Barak Ravid, Yair Rosenberg, thank you so much for your reporting. Really appreciate it. Coming up next, the legal technicality that Bill Cosby used to get out of prison, Ghislaine Maxwell is now also trying to use it to ask the U.S. Supreme Court to overturn her sex trafficking conviction.
Plus, President Trump is revealing new details about his fallout decades ago with Jeffrey Epstein. And the search for a killer after the deaths of a mother and father on a hiking trip in Arkansas, leaving their two young girls alone and fending for themselves.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[17:20:00]
TAPPER: In our "Law and Justice Lead," today, President Trump is revealing much more about his falling out with the now dead pedophile and sex trafficker, Jeffrey Epstein.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
TRUMP: For years I wouldn't talk to Jeffrey Epstein. I wouldn't talk because he did something that was inappropriate. He hired help and I said don't ever do that again. He stole people that worked for me. I said don't ever do that again. He did it again and I threw him out of the place. Persona non grata. I threw him out and that was it. I'm glad I did if you want to know the truth.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
TAPPER: Now, for those keeping track, this is now the third explanation we've heard of their falling out. Sources have said, one, Epstein hit on the daughter of a Mar-a-Lago member and that ended his friendship with Trump. Two, the "New York Times" reported Trump outbid Epstein for a Palm Beach mansion and that bidding war in something like 2004 drove a wedge between them.
But now we have three, this idea of Epstein stealing help from Trump. That's intriguing given the fact that we know that Epstein victim Virginia Giuffre had been a Mar-a-Lago spa worker when Ghislaine Maxwell recruited her and she became a victim of Jeffrey Epstein.
Speaking of Ghislaine Maxwell, today Maxwell asked the U.S. Supreme Court to hear her appeal and overturn her 2022 sex trafficking conviction. CNN chief legal affairs correspondent Paula Reid joins us now. So, I am not a lawyer unlike you and all the smart lawyers we have that come on the show. But Maxwell's argument to my ear sounded a lot like the Bill Cosby one that he successfully used.
She's not contesting her guilt or innocence. She's saying she should never have been prosecuted in the first place because part of Epstein's sweetheart deal in 2008 was a non-prosecution deal not just for him but for any of his co-conspirators.
PAULA REID, CNN CHIEF LEGAL AFFAIRS CORRESPONDENT: Yes. So she's looking backwards to 2007, he's offered this non-prosecution deal where hey if you plead guilty to state-level charges you will be covered when it comes any federal exposure.
Now this is a very controversial deal. It has been revisited by the Justice Department and largely invalidated, but her lawyers are arguing that her 2021 conviction, right? Because she and Epstein were charged roughly a decade later in New York that she should have been protected by that original deal as one of his associates.
Will the Supreme Court go for this? What's interesting is that this is not a common situation, but it is something that has come up and there's disagreement across judges across the country. And that is usually when the Supreme Court steps in. If they will need to resolve a dispute among the circuits, it's unclear if they're going to want to wait in here though, because this particular question, even though it might be kind of esoteric, comes with a lot.
Now, the earliest they would even touch this would be October when they come back for their term and we likely wouldn't get a decision until next June.
TAPPER: And meanwhile, Maxwell's attorneys are pushing this idea that she should be pardoned by President Trump. President Trump was asked about it. Again, take a listen.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
TRUMP: Well, I'm allowed to give her a pardon, but nobody's approached me with it. Nobody's asked me about it. It's in the news about that, that aspect of it, but right now, it would be inappropriate to talk about it.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
TAPPER: I don't know why he keeps on saying he's allowed to give her a pardon. Obviously, he's allowed to give her a pardon. He's president. But anyway, he says it would be inappropriate to talk about it.
REID: There have been a lot of surprising pardons in the last year, so the pardon of Hunter Biden, January 6 folks. But this, every time he gets asked that question, I'm just shocked because we are talking about someone who recruited, groomed, and even in some cases sexually abused young girls. And the reason -- part of the reason this controversy is just completely encasing the entire administration. It's going to Congress.
Potentially, we have all three branches of government enveloped by this is because there are legitimate concerns about whether predators are being protected. Now look, Maxwell's lawyer, he's no dope. He knows who he's talking to. In a statement today, he said quote, "President Trump built his legacy in part on the power of a deal. And surely, he would agree that when the United States gives its word, it must stand by it."
Now that could have two meanings. One, the fact that the Trump Justice Department is currently opposing Maxwell's appeal at the Supreme Court. Maybe he's trying to get the president to put pressure, more pressure on his Justice Department or continuing to lobby for a pardon, really the easiest relief for his client, but certainly would not resolve this controversy for the president.
TAPPER: Yeah, I mean, maybe -- maybe he's suggesting there's a deal for them to, you know, hash out with President Trump and the Justice Department. I don't know. Paula Reid, thanks so much.
[17:24:59] Coming up next, inside the $221 million settlement between Columbia
University and the Trump administration. And the cut of that money is specifically for Jewish employees at the school for violations by Columbia of their civil rights. Stay with us.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
TAPPER: In our "National Lead," many questions remain about Columbia University's $221 million settlement with the Trump administration to restore its federal funding. The deal resolves several investigations into allegations that Columbia violated anti-discrimination laws.
It also includes $21 million specifically to settle investigations led by the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, or EEOC, after Jewish employees at the university claimed that their civil rights had been violated on campus in the aftermath of the October 7th attack. Joining us now is Andrea Lucas. She is the acting chair of the EEOC.
[17:30:12]
Andrea, thanks so much for joining us, or chair I should call you. What did Jewish employees experience on campus that led to these investigations and ultimately the settlement?
ANDREA LUCAS, ACTING CHAIR, U.S. EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION: Thanks so much for having me, Jake. It's a pleasure to be here to tout this historic settlement. We saw on Columbia similar things across the nation in many universities. Jewish employees being barred from their campus workplaces, assaults, crimes, hate speech, instigations of violence, violent threats, really troubling things that should never have happened in the 2020s in America.
TAPPER: So your part of the $221 million -- of the 21 million.
LUCAS: Yes.
TAPPER: That -- that goes to Jewish employees of Columbia?
LUCAS: Correct, it goes directly to employees of Columbia. It's not a fine like the other component.
TAPPER: The other part is $200 million, Columbia paying a fine.
LUCAS: That's right.
TAPPER: And that's for what?
LUCAS: It's a civil rights fine. It's really historic to be able to have that. It represents the gravity of the issues here. But our portion, our jurisdiction is really powerful because it's remedial. So it's able to take money from the employer and directly to victims of anti-Semitism.
TAPPER: So the EEOC statement says you're going to -- you'll send out information about a confidential questionnaire to all Columbia employees, including students employed by the university, to determine who is eligible to receive any of this money. How will you decide who is and is not eligible?
LUCAS: It's a really broad, you know, the -- the investigation just came out of a commissioner's charge that instigated actually in the last administration. But that administration failed to follow up on it. It's -- it's really quite broad. It's any Jewish employee who's experienced anti-Semitism. So we'll be looking and it'll be fact dependent, depending on what the individual experienced.
But again, it's very expansive. Columbia has 37,000 employees. We estimate that there'll be hundreds of potential claimants given the size of its Jewish -- Jewish population.
LUCAS: So what kind of offenses are we talking about? Like what -- when -- when protesters stormed one of the administration buildings and -- and kept that, is that a violation of the civil rights of people who wanted to go into that building? Like what -- can you give some more specifics?
LUCAS: Yes. So Title VII prohibits hostile work environments. So if harassment has risen to a hostile work environment, just like you might have a hostile educational environment that can change the terms and conditions of your employment, basically.
So if you're barred, for example, from your workplace --
TAPPER: Yes.
LUCAS: -- if, you know, people are recovering for both emotional distress that they've experienced in the wake of anti-Semitic harassment, as well as back pay if they were forced out of their jobs. So we've seen situations where people have felt forced to resign, take medical leave, take sabbaticals because they feel so unsafe on campus that they can't perform their jobs.
TAPPER: So -- so you said they feel so unsafe on campus. So let me ask you about that. So does the presence of protesters, student protesters, who object to the war in Gaza, in Israel's war against Hamas, is that in itself a hostile work environment?
LUCAS: I think it's just, you know, hostile work environments are always fact-dependent. So I don't want to give you a -- a specific answer about that. I think the concern for Colombia is less about protests itself, but rather that you have an employer violating neutral time, place, and manner restrictions, right?
There's -- that's really long-standing First Amendment jurisprudence. You might have a right to protest, but you don't have a right to break the law, to assault someone, to engage in crimes on campus, to bar someone from access to their terms and conditions of privileged employment, like being actually physically able to get into your workspace, right?
We've got professors and employees who can't access campus because the protests are such a furor that they feel scared to go on campus. We've got a rabbi saying, don't come to campus. It's not safe for you here. Those students, many of them are, you know, work-study students at Columbia. They're employees, too.
TAPPER: I remember that rabbi, it was an Orthodox rabbi. We actually broke the news of that letter he sent out.
LUCAS: Yes.
TAPPER: He was warning people, don't come to campus. You're not safe here.
LUCAS: Right.
TAPPER: So people who -- who received that e-mail or who felt unsafe because there were individual moments where their people were assaulted or whatever, whether or not it was widespread, I don't know. But that feeling of unsafeness, that in itself is discrimination by the university?
LUCAS: That could be -- that could contribute to a hostile work environment. They could be eligible to recover.
TAPPER: So how do you -- how do you draw the line between the students that are -- that are allowed to protest a war that they see as unjust versus people feeling uncomfortable? Because obviously, you know, discomfort is part of life. It's part of education, for sure. And -- and -- and where -- I just don't know how you draw the line between discomfort and not feeling safe.
[17:34:59]
LUCAS: Yes. So, I mean, harassment, jurisprudence is pretty straightforward. It's severe or pervasive. So if you've got an employer that's refusing to enforce its policies, it's failing to allow people to complain. It's deterring people from being able to push back against that harassment. It's allowing crimes on campus. It's allowing people to have extremely disruptive protests, right?
You don't have an absolute right to say whatever you want, whenever you want it. You have to follow policies like you're not going to build a protest inside of a campus building. You're not going to protest during someone's work period of time or in their classroom, right? Campuses, they could have done this better. They knew how to handle this. There's a lot of hand-wringing about this, but it's actually not very complicated.
TAPPER: Well, let me ask you a question. So the -- the chant, from the river to the sea, Palestine will be free, some people say that's just a chant for liberation and freedom. Other people interpret that -- that as wipe Israel off the face of the earth and kill all the Jews in Israel. Is there any room for the first interpretation of this when it comes to making a decision about whether or not the protests are creating a hostile work environment or an unsafe work environment?
LUCAS: Again, it's going to be fact-dependent of what someone experienced. And the main thing here is we're not investigating this anymore. We've settled, right? We've resolved it. They've agreed that they had a problem. I think that -- that's clear. They didn't admit liability, but you've got Claire Shipman, you've got others, the former president admitting that they had a hostile work environment on campus. That's a direct quote from the former president of Columbia.
TAPPER: Is this just the first to come? I mean, there are other -- I mean, there are other campuses where we as viewers have seen scenes that probably make a lot of people feel uncomfortable. Is this just the first of many settlements?
LUCAS: Well, I'm not tired of winning yet. I'll say that. I don't think anyone in the administration is tired of combating anti-Semitism aggressively, unlike the prior administration. The EEOC is bound by really tight confidentiality provisions. The cabinet agencies can talk about their investigations. We are silent up until the point at which we make a resolution or we file a lawsuit.
So I think the takeaway for your viewers is that just because the EEOC has been quiet doesn't mean that we haven't been working hard. But I can't say more than that because we have to keep what we're specifically working on confidential until we land the deal.
TAPPER: Last question, which is just, are you worried at all about infringing on the free speech rights of students? Again, I'm not talking about direct threats, physical assaults, blocking people from entering a place. But if people are passionate about ending a war, where do you -- where do you draw the line so people know that they can have free speech rights? I -- I know the conservative movement talks a lot about free speech rights and oppression of that by the left, in their view. How do you make sure that this isn't oppression of free speech rights by the right?
LUCAS: That's something I cared about and thought a lot about when filing a commissioner's charge. But I think the key is you just stay on the bright lines of harassment jurisprudence, right? You can have free speech, but you don't have free speech to say it whenever you want, however you want. You don't have a free -- free speech right to break the law or to violate longstanding civil rights laws. And when that happens, you get what happened here, a, you know, 60-year historic settlement for anti-Semitism.
TAPPER: No, it's -- it's big. It's why you're here. The acting chair of the EEOC, Andrea Lucas, thanks for being here --
LUCAS: Thank you.
TAPPER: -- and taking our questions. We really appreciate it.
[17:38:22]
Coming up, the new trade deal between the U.S. and the European Union that looked next to impossible just a few weeks ago. What this means for shipments coming in from the E.U. and the future prices you'll be paying. That's next.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
TAPPER: In our Money Lead, the U.S. and the European Union managing to dodge an all-out trade war with Sunday's agreement, which sets a 15 percent tariff on most European goods entering the U.S., such as wine or perfume, pharmaceuticals, cars. But with some details of the deal still murky, economists are not sure whether to be cheering just yet.
Joining us now, KPMG's chief economist Diane Swonk. Diane, always great to have you here. Having a deal, of course, I assume is better than not having one. But a 15 percent tariff is higher than the 10 percent baseline that Trump placed on the E.U. back in April -- April 2nd. Who is this deal a win for?
DIANE SWONK, CHIEF ECONOMIST, KPMG: Well, I think it is a win for the administration in terms of our clients and what we're dealing with. They wanted to see some clarity, and we're starting to see an endgame emerge, even though we're not to the end yet, in terms of what will tariffs be, how do we deal with our supply chains, how do we adjust to this new environment? And that is the next phase of this
And part of the reason everyone keeps saying, you know, well, when are tariffs going to affect us? Well, they have. We've had the mother of all front running tariffs that we've ever seen in terms of buying and stock piling up and mitigating the effects of tariffs before they came in. But what's important is we're talking about moving the effective tariff rate in the United States from below 3 percent at the beginning of the year to what looks like will easily be double its current rate, which is around 9 to 10 percent, that people are starting to see sift its way into some of the consumer prices that we see out there and into employment.
So the bulk of the effects are still ahead of us. It takes six to 18 months for these things to show up. We're not a full six months in all the way, but at least we're starting to see some clarity on where the endgame likely will be, even though we don't have all those details even for next -- for this Friday, which is this Friday coming up in terms of what all the details are. They're starting to get a sense of, OK, this is what we can deal with.
And at least if we know that that reduces some of this paralysis from the uncertainty that we've been seeing since the beginning of the year on this.
TAPPER: So, as you noted, this Friday, August 1st, is the deadline for the countries that have not yet struck deals for tariffs. Trump floated a potential for the blanket tariff rate this morning. Take a listen.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
[17:45:03]
DONALD TRUMP, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: I just want to be nice, I would say, in the range of 15 to 20 percent.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
TAPPER: What do you expect Friday will bring and will countries getting a 15 to 20 percent tariff consider that to be nice? SWONK: I don't think countries will consider it nice, but also a lot of our own consumers and many of our own firms in the United States won't consider it nice. But that's not the point, right? They want tariff revenues. They see tariff revenues in the Treasury right now.
And as a result, those are to help offset other tax cuts. They're a tax hike, just like other taxes. That's what tariffs are. And they will push up consumer prices to some extent. And the Fed will this week have, I think, as many as two dissents of people who are more worried about how weak the economy already is rather than the effect of inflation. They're looking at the dissents that we're likely to see by the Fed.
They're going to dissent because they're afraid of the impact this will have on employment, not on prices, that it could be greater unemployment than prices. And the bottom line is we just don't know yet and we won't know till we get there. And that's the hard part.
TAPPER: All right, Diane Swonk, always great to have you. Thank you so much. Coming up next, the investigation into the Oklahoma school superintendent. He's known for wanting to put Trump Bibles in public schools, but now he's been accused of having images of naked women on a T.V. monitor while he was conducting official business. Excuse me? This story's next.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[17:50:50]
TAPPER: Our National Lead now, Oklahoma State School Superintendent Ryan Walters, who you might know because he in the past mandated Bibles in every classroom and directed all school teachers to play a video of him praying for Donald Trump, allegedly had images of naked women on a T.V. monitor that was visible to some members of the Board of Education during a meeting last week.
Superintendent Walters denied responsibility, is calling the allegations false and a political attack, quote, from a desperate failing establishment, unquote. Joining us to discuss is education reporter for the Oklahoman, Murray Evans. Murray, in your article you say that two members of the State Board of Education came to you to tell you about these claims. What exactly they tell you they saw?
MURRAY EVANS, EDUCATION REPORTER, THE OKLAHOMAN: Well, good afternoon, Jake. What they saw kind of stretches the bounds of imagination. They told me that, the first one Ryan Deatherage, told me that he saw images of naked women on this T.V. screen out of the corner of his eye and didn't really know what to do or say.
And sitting right next to him was another board member named Becky Carson. And then she also saw it. And Ms. Carson is a 62-year-old grandmother. And in her best grandmother and former teacher voice, loudly requested that the T.V. set be turned off. Both those two board members and two other board members told me that Superintendent Walters appeared flustered, got up and fumbled with the remote a little bit, did manage to turn off the television set, but then continued with the meeting like nothing had happened.
TAPPER: This is a -- this is a meeting on Zoom, I presume?
EVANS: Oh, this was during an executive session, so a closed session of the Oklahoma State Board of Education. Every month the board meets. These meetings are, they can be loud and raucous sometimes, heavily covered by the media. But during every meeting, there is a closed session. And -- and during these sessions, they discuss such sensitive things as teacher licensing, student appeals of transfers among schools was on the agenda this time. So very personal and private things that should be kept out of the public eye.
TAPPER: Yes. So this is all in his -- they're all -- they're all sitting in his office and behind him he has a T.V. --
EVANS: Yes.
TAPPER: -- with these images. Now we know the state is investigating these claims. What does the process look like? What happens if the allegations are -- are proven true? I mean, is there -- is there any reason why these two Board of Education people would make this up? It's quite a thing to make up.
EVANS: It -- it is quite a thing to make up. Where it goes from now, so this morning, the Oklahoma County Sheriff's Office received word from the State Office of Management and Enterprise Services. And OMES is kind of an umbrella agency for -- for all executive state agencies. OMES asked the Oklahoma County Sheriff's Office if they would conduct an investigation.
Literally this morning, the Sheriff's Office agreed. And so they're just in the very early stages of this. They have not talked to any board members yet, for example. As I understood it, they will want to talk to all the board members who were in the room. I would imagine the two attorneys who were in the room, one for the Oklahoma State Department of Education and one for the Oklahoma State Board of Education.
TAPPER: Yes.
EVANS: There was also an executive -- executive secretary in the room. I would imagine they'll want to talk to all of them. And we have no idea how long this process is going to take. I'm told if anything criminal in nature is found, then they will loop in the Oklahoma State Bureau of Investigation, which is another law enforcement agency that's separate from the Sheriff's Office. And then they can -- then the OSBI, a lot of acronyms, can -- can help with the Sheriff's Office in the investigation. It's way too early to speculate what might happen.
[17:55:19]
TAPPER: Bizarre story. Murray -- Murray Evans of the Oklahoman, thanks so much for your time. Appreciate it.
EVANS: Thank you, Jake. TAPPER: Today, President Trump is revealing new details about his past dealings with Jeffrey Epstein, plus what Vice President J.D. Vance said today about the Epstein files, which differs just a bit from what he said just before the 2024 election.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
J.D. VANCE, VICE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: Seriously, we need to release the Epstein list. That -- that is an important thing.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[17:59:54]
TAPPER: Welcome to The Lead. I'm Jake Tapper. This hour, even overseas, President Trump cannot escape reporters asking annoying questions about the Jeffrey Epstein drama continuing to unfold here at home.
