Return to Transcripts main page
The Lead with Jake Tapper
Rep. Nancy Pelosi, (D-CA), Is Interviewed About House Seats, Redistricting, Donald Trump's Attack, Medicaid, Kamala Harris, California Gubernatorial Race, Jerry Nadler; T.X. Releases New Map In An Attempt To Gain Five House Seats; Gov. Newsom On T.X. Redistricting: "2026 Election Is Being Rigged"; Pelosi Responds To Trump's Latest Attacks; Kamala Harris Will Not Run For California Governor; Rep. Nadler Draws Primary Opponent Challenging Him On Age; Grand Jury Transcripts Requested By DOJ Include Testimony From Only Two Witnesses; Rep. Mike Johnson (R-LA), Is Interviewed About TX GOP Releases New Map In Attempt To Gain Five House Seats; Rep. Mike Johnson (R-LA), Is Interviewed About Facing Resistance From GOP Conference On Epstein Case; Tsunami Alerts Issued In Multiple Regions After 8.8 Earthquake. Aired 5-6p ET
Aired July 30, 2025 - 17:00 ET
THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.
KASIE HUNT, CNN HOST: The Arena today. And thanks to my panel as well for being here. Really appreciate you guys.
And if you miss any of today's show, you can always catch up by listening to The Arenas podcast. Just go ahead and scan the QR code. It's right there on your screen. You can follow us wherever you get you podcast.
You can also follow us on X and Instagram at The Arena CNN. Jake Tapper is standing by for "The Lead."
You've got a big show planned, Jake. The speaker emerita and the current House speaker.
JAKE TAPPER, CNN HOST: That's right, Johnson and Pelosi together again. Thanks, Kasie. We'll see you back in "The Arena" tomorrow.
HUNT: See you tomorrow.
[17:00:31]
JAKE TAPPER, CNN HOST: We called in some big voices to talk about the news for today's show. The Lead starts right now.
Ahead, a one-on-one with House Speaker Mike Johnson and the former Speaker Nancy Pelosi. From the Epstein files to the one Big Beautiful Bill Act to Medicaid cuts, we'll ask about it all, including the one issue that had a Democratic governor calling Vice President JD Vance a dum-dum earlier today. Plus, brand new details in that deadly crash near D.C. between the passenger plane and the army helicopter, we're learning a pilot tried to change course less than one second before the collision. What else was revealed today, coming up. And a Harvard professor insists that a comet in space is actually full of alien life. We're going to hear him out. I for one, welcome our new insect overlords.
Welcome to The Lead. I'm Jake Tapper.
We're going to start in the politics league. We've got two big interviews just minutes away. House Speaker Mike Johnson will be here later in the show as well as his predecessor in that seat, the former Speaker Nancy Pelosi. Both key figures as their parties fight for House control in 2026, with Republicans making a rather dramatic move in that direction. Today, Republican leaders in Texas showed their cards laying out a proposed congressional map, redistricted, that could help them gain five additional House seats in next year's midterm.
The tactic dates back to our founding fathers, it's called gerrymandering. It's one that the president has publicly supported for weeks now.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
DONALD TRUMP, PRESIDNT OF THE UNITED STATES: I think we get five and there could be some other states. We're going to get another three or four or five in addition. Texas would be the biggest one and that will be five.
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: So are you -- are you calling them for a complete redrawing of the congressional map in that election (ph)?
TRUMP: No, no, just a very simple redrawing. We pick up five seats.
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Where exactly?
TRUMP: But we have a couple of other states where we'll pick up seats also.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
TAPPER: Democrats control some states, too. And they say, hey, not so fast, we're going to fight back and change our maps to our advantage in places such as California, Pelosi's home state. We're going to ask Speaker Pelosi about that as well as Speaker Johnson.
There's also the big news today from the Federal Reserve, leaving interest rates unchanged for the fifth straight time, a decision bound to arouse the ire of President Trump. For months, Trump has threatened to fire the Federal Reserve Chairman Jerome Powell, in part if rates are not lowered. We're going to talk about that. And then there is, of course, the One Big Beautiful Bill Act that is now the One Big Beautiful bill law. The Congressional Budget Office estimates it will leave some 10 million Americans and others without health insurance by 2034. That's less than nine years away.
And of course, there is also the Jeffrey Epstein saga, overshadowing almost everything in Washington. Democrats want the files on the dead pedophile and sex trafficker completely released. Some Republicans have joined their demands. Today we learned that the grand jury transcripts that the Justice Department is running to judges to ask whether they can be released, apparently those transcripts that they've requested only include testimony from two witnesses, only two.
So where to begin? Bringing -- let's bring in right now the former House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, Democrat of California.
Good to see you, Speaker Pelosi. Let's start with redistricting because Texas Republicans earlier today unveiled their highly anticipated map of how they would redraw districts in their state to basically flip five Democratic House seats, make them Republican. Under this map, for example, Democratic Congressman Greg Casar's seat is completely eliminated. Congressman Henry Cuellar, Congressman Vicente Gonzalez's districts will be made more Trump leaning. Now, Democratic governors, as I don't need to tell you, in places such as California are vowing to fight this tit for tat.
Do you support that? Should California respond with their own redistricted map to give Democrats more seats?
REP. NANCY PELOSI (D-CA), SPEAKER EMERITA: Yes. But before I go into that, let me just say that what you just described was the elimination of many minority seats in Texas. And that's unfortunate because the gerrymandering that they're doing is also undermining the diversity that we need to have in the Congress.
As far as California is concerned, we would go to a commission. We have a commission based redistricting. Instead of the gerrymandering that they're doing in Texas, we've had a commission that has drawn the lines in California. We would alter that a bit in order to pick up the seats that we need.
[17:05:07]
It's not necessary if Texas doesn't do this. But the Texas redistricting and what the president has talked about, other parts in the country is indicative of the poverty of ideas that the Republicans have. And they have to resort to these kind of gimmick -- this kind of gimmickry in order to try to hold the House. But we will hold the House and we will participate in California if Texas decides to go forward.
TAPPER: Your governor, Gavin Newsom, said that the 2026 election is being rigged by the Republicans. Is that how you see it?
PELOSI: Absolutely. Absolutely. But it's who they are. But again, so much is at stake in this election. We fully intend to take back the House.
We only need about three seats. I want 30, of course. And they know that. That's why they have to go into this rigging process. But we will, again, we have the capacity to have more seats in California.
We can win them in the election or we can ensure them in the change in the commission. Now, with the caveat that the commission would, in the next redistricting, go back to drawing the lines.
TAPPER: This afternoon, President Trump mentioned you and he made an allegation about your investments. I want to roll that clip and then give you a chance to respond.
PELOSI: Yes.
TAPPER: Seem to be having some sort of --
PELOSI: (Inaudible)
TAPPER: Yes, it was -- let me just read what he said. I'm sorry that we had some sort of technical issue, Nancy Pelosi became rich.
PELOSI: Why do you have to read that. We're here to talk about the 60th anniversary of Medicaid. That's what I agreed to come to talk about.
TAPPER: Yes, but I want --
PELOSI: And what that means in the election.
TAPPER: I wanted to give you a chance just to respond. He accused you of insider trading. What's your response to that?
PELOSI: That's ridiculous. In fact, I very much support the stop the trading of members of Congress. Not that I think anybody is doing anything wrong. If they are, they are prosecuted and they go to jail. But because of the confidence it instills in the American people, don't worry about this.
But I have no concern about the obvious investment so had been made over time. I'm not into it. My husband is. But it isn't anything to do with anything insider. But the president has his own exposure.
So he's always projecting. He's always projecting. And let's not give him any more time on that, please. We are going forward here and I'm very proud of my family. And while he might make fun of us while somebody inspired by him breaks into our home and hits my head in a deadly fashion, hits my husband over the head and he thinks that's a riot, I'd rather not go into some of my other complaints about him right now, rather to talk about the 60th anniversary of Medicaid and Medicare.
What a triumph, a gate pillar, a great pillar of economic and health security for the American people. I -- we had over the weekend a carrying across generations initiative of a 60-hour, a 60-hour vigil of all of us taking turns, myself, my daughter, my granddaughter and all the rest taking turns over 60 hours to tell stories of how all of this, well, this means in people's lives. We since -- just -- since all this has emerged, have had 300,000 calls from our Californians to people in public and health districts for them to the constituents to call their Republican members of Congress who have voted for this shameful, shameful, dirty, filthy, stinking, lousy, rotten, anything but beautiful act. And now we are engaged in the Save Medicaid Summer. So today is the 60th anniversary. It's something to be very, very proud of. And instead of what the Republicans are doing to deprive people of access to health care who need it so badly, people with disabilities who need it so badly --
TAPPER: Yes.
PELOSI: -- for the children --
TAPPER: Let me ask you --
PELOSI: -- that needed it so badly.
TAPPER: -- polling over the weekend from the Wall Street Journal showed Democratic approval rating for the party as a whole at an all- time low with only 33 percent of voters having a favorable impression of the party. Do you think the changes to Medicaid that are going to be made to -- that are going to be made because of the one Big Beautiful Bill Act, do you think that is going to help Democrats significantly in the midterms next year?
PELOSI: Well, I think were always going to win. As I said, we only need three seats. And Hakeem Jeffries, we're very proud of him, will be the speaker of the House. But again, certainly the vote that these people took to throw people off of Medicare to close rural hospitals to the hundreds and in terms of the hundreds, in terms of hospitals and rural clinics and the rest and to what it does for our veterans who -- and people with disabilities who need help, yes, it should be helpful.
[17:10:20]
But the fact is we wish they would just change their vote. We'd rather have Medicaid and not have it as an issue in the campaign. But if it is, we certainly make sure people know how their member of Congress voted. You know, I always repeat Lincoln, Lincoln said public sentiment is everything. With it, you can accomplish almost anything.
Without it, practically nothing. But for that to prevail, people have to know. So that's what we're making sure that people know what the difference is in this election when it comes to their well-being and people are telling their stories. And last '18 when we won before winning 40 seats, 31 of them in Trump districts, people -- 10,000 events around the country, people telling their stories. You'll see a lot of this just now and we fully intend to win.
And we'll know even more by September and October when people start filing for election. When you see the A team that the Democrats put forth and having to the Republicans in trying to defend what they are doing to the American people by voting to cut, cut, cut. Now our summer is about cancel the cuts --
TAPPER: Yes.
PELOSI: -- cancel the Trump Medicaid cut.
TAPPER: So you just -- we just got some news a couple hours ago from your home state of California. We're learning that your former senator and vice president Kamala Harris is not going to run for governor in California. This obviously opens the door for her to run for president again in 2028. Is that something you'd like to see?
PELOSI: Well, I'm sure that -- I support any decision that she made in terms of running for governor in California. And now we're off to a gubernatorial race where we have many great candidates. One in particular, Eleni (ph) (inaudible) have my support. But if Kamala was not running, whatever she decides to do in the future, that election three years off, I'm focused on this one right now and then the gubernatorial -- the governor's race now as well as the first and foremost for me winning the House to save our democracy and to save health care for our children and for the American people.
TAPPER: Yes. Democratic Congressman Jerry Nadler from New York is now facing a Democratic primary challenger in his race in the midterms, 26-year-old Liam Elkind, says he's running against Nadler because he no longer thinks Nadler has the energy or the mindset to respond to the threat posed by Donald Trump. What's your response? Are you going to back Nadler?
PELOSI: Well, Nadler decided that he's going to run, if he does, of course I will support him. I've always support at the incumbents. And again, that isn't without any encouragement for other people to express their own enthusiasm about the future. But let me say that I have had my disappointments in New York elections in the past. Let's hope that whatever happens there ends up on the very plus side of Democrats taking back the House.
I have an -- I've never not had an opponent. I've never not had an opponent. I don't remember anybody endorsing me from the Congress, but I've never not had an opponent, that's politics.
TAPPER: All right, Speaker Emeritus Nancy Pelosi, thanks so much. Appreciate your time.
PELOSI: Cancel the Medicare cuts.
TAPPER: Always on message.
Speaker Mike Johnson is also coming up. We're going to get his response to all this as Republicans fight to hold the house control in 2026. Plus, a new memo from the Justice Department today revealing that the Epstein grand jury transcripts that the Justice Department is trying to get unsealed is only two witness testimonies. What else this memo reveals? That's ahead.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[17:17:52]
TAPPER: In our law and justice lead, today, the Justice Department has now filed a memo in New York justifying why they say they believe a judge can unseal records in the Jeffrey Epstein case in that jurisdiction. But CNN is now learning that the grand jury transcripts the DOJ is requesting there include testimony from only two people, both of them law enforcement officials. Nothing else from the transcripts do they seek.
Let's bring in former federal prosecutor Elie Honig.
Elie, only two witnesses, how do you interpret that?
ELIE HONIG, CNN SENIOR LEGAL ANALYST: Well, Jake, it's no surprise here because I think DOJ has shown us that they're really much more about the appearance of transparency than actual transparency. Now, you and I have discussed on this show several times over the last few weeks, given what DOJ asked for, grand jury testimony, that was going to be a very small slice of the entire file. Turns out, we learn now it's only two witnesses. Not surprising, by the way, this is the way the feds indict cases. We have the luxury, we don't have to bring in every victim and witness.
Most of the time we just put an FBI agent on the stand, he or she summarizes the case, and you walk out with an indictment. So it turns out all DOJ is even asking to release here is these two witnesses testimony. And by the way, Jake, this is also the testimony that a judge has to approve. Not at all clear a judge is going to approve any of it. The Florida judge has already rejected DOJ.
Now we have their pending request with the New York judge. So even if that request is granted, we're going to see a very thin slice of the file. And if it's rejected, we're going to see none of it.
TAPPER: Yes, I talked to a prosecutor earlier today who described all of this as Trump administration theater. If they really wanted full transparency, how many of the Epstein files in the FBI offices, in the Treasury Department, in Southern District New York, in the Southern District of Florida, how many files could they just release right this minute if they wanted to?
HONIG: All the rest of it, Jake. Everything but those two grand jury testimonies. Because all the other stuff falls outside of the grand jury, and that's in DOJ's unilateral control. Yes, they'd have to redact, they'd have to take out victim and witness information and Social Security numbers, you can do that, though. And that what -- that's what I think is telling here.
[17:20:02]
The only thing they're asking to release is the very narrow bit of the file that they don't have control over, all the rest of it they could put out tomorrow. And I think that really exposes some of the hypocrisy we're seeing from the Justice Department.
TAPPER: And correct me if I'm wrong, Todd Blanche, the deputy attorney general who used to be Trump's personal attorney, meeting with Ghislaine Maxwell last week twice, we don't know if anybody else was in those meetings, which is odd enough, but if he really wanted information from Ghislaine Maxwell, couldn't he just convene a grand jury and then just force her to testify? And if she exercised her Fifth Amendment right, have the judge hold her in contempt and fine her and punish her? I mean, doesn't the government, for somebody who is in prison, have a way to compel testimony? HONIG: We do, Jake. And I've done it, and I'm sure that Todd Blanche has done it in his SDNY days. Now, the way you would do this is you would convene a grand jury, you would serve a subpoena. What would happen then is Ghislaine Maxwell would certainly assert her Fifth Amendment right. The way you overcome that as a prosecutor, as you just said, you go to a judge and you get an immunity order, which doesn't mean she gets out from under her existing conviction or sentence.
It just means that her testimony would not be used against her moving forward. So that's the way you would do it. The advantage of doing it that way is, first of all, you would have it transcribed. We would have an official word for word record. Second of all, she'd be under oath.
So Blanche chose to take the less formal way, which prosecutors often do. But, yes, if he wanted her under oath and in a formal setting, he could have convened a grand jury.
TAPPER: But I'm just saying, like, to the idea that this is theater, I mean, like, he doesn't have to meet with her private. If he really -- privately -- if he really wants this information to get out there, he has the legal tools to do that. She doesn't have to have clemency or a pardon dangled in front of her. She can be compelled to do this.
Meanwhile, Elie, the House Oversight Committee rejected the idea of giving Ghislaine Maxwell immunity in exchange for her congressional testimony. Do you think she ever has any plan of ever cooperating, given the number of demands she had attached to the -- to the congressional testimony?
HONIG: Well, there definitely are some silly demands in her letter, but the one that's not silly is the Fifth Amendment.
TAPPER: Right.
HONIG: And to the point of theater, Jake, Congress has the ability to overcome that. Congress can immunize her. The fact that Congress immediately says, well, we subpoenaed her, she very predictably took her fifth and. But we're not going to immunize her, that tells me there's a show going on in Congress as well. If they really wanted her testimony, they would have the same power to get it that Todd Blanche would, but apparently they're not all that interested.
TAPPER: It's all just playing out right in front of our faces. Like there are ways to actually compel this woman to speak. There are ways to actually release all the Epstein files, and the people in power are just not doing it.
HONIG: Yes.
TAPPER: All right, Elie Honig, thanks.
HONIG: Thank you, Jake. I mean, look, DOJ has a lot of power here. Yes.
TAPPER: Elie Honig, thanks so much.
House Speaker Mike Johnson is down in his own district in Louisiana wrapping up a day of events, speaking with constituents, talking about Trump's agenda. We're going to talk to him about all of it, including the fight for the control of the House in 2026. That's next.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[17:27:28]
TAPPER: Welcome back. We're going to have speaker Mike Johnson live on The Lead in just minutes. But first let's go to CNN's Alayna Treene who's at the White House where President Trump is just making news, saying he wants to not only host next year's G20 Summit, but he wants to do it at a certain place.
Alayna.
ALAYNA TREENE, CNN WHITE HOUS REPORTER: That's right. We have some new reporting, Jake, that the president has been quietly having discussions about hosting the G20 Summit next year 2026 at his golf club in Miami. Now, I'd remind you that he actually first had this idea during his first term. He wanted to hold the G7 Summit, a different gathering of world leaders, at his golf club in Miami as well. He ended up reversing course on that, though, during his first administration because he received widespread backlash and outrage over deciding to hold a meeting and a gathering of all of those world leaders at his own property.
However, we are told that from a White House official that I spoke with, they said that this has been in discussion for weeks now and they are still trying to figure out if this is something that would actually happen. But this is really the property and the host site that he is zeroing in on.
Now, I would remind you as well that part of the reason there was so much outrage when he first had this idea during his first term is because there were questions of potential conflicts of interest. The emoluments clause of the Constitution essentially says you can't, you know, have any sort of a profit from these type of events. And the way they tried to get around that in the first term was arguing, you know, this would be a run at -- of an event run at cost, meaning that it wouldn't be for profit and that it would be much cheaper to host it there. So I'm curious to hear what some of the ways that they're going to try to finagle it -- this if this ends up being where they end up having the G20 Summit. All to say, from my conversation with this White House official, they said right now this is the number one place for where they're hoping to have this.
TAPPER: All right, Alayna Treene at the White House, thanks so much.
Also in our politics lead, multiple Democratic sources say that Texas Republicans proposed new congressional map shows Republicans are indeed trying to gain five more congressional seats through partisan gerrymandering, which could help them hold onto their narrow majority in the 2026 midterm elections. Democratic governors in some states, such as California, are vowing to do the same. One Democratic lawmaker describing it as a redistricting arms race. Today, Vice President J.D. Vance tweeted, "The gerrymander in California is outrageous. Of their 52 congressional districts, nine of them are Republican.
That means 17 percent of their delegation is Republican when Republicans regularly win 40 percent of the vote in that state. How can this possibly be allowed," unquote. And this drew a reply from California Governor Gavin Newsom, who wrote, "Try again, dum-dum," unquote, with an image of a map that shows that the most gerrymandered states are, in fact, Republican ones. If you look closely at that, you'll see that there is an exception there for Illinois, which is quite gerrymandered.
[17:30:13]
House Speaker Mike Johnson joins us now from Bossier City, Louisiana, where he just met with his constituents and community leaders and business owners. Speaker Johnson, good to have you on the show again. It's been a while. Wanted to get your response. Speaker Pelosi said that if, indeed, Texas goes through with this plan, then California will respond in kind.
REP. MIKE JOHNSON (R-LA), HOUSE SPEAKER: Hey, Jake, great to be with you. Yes, coming to you from 4th District of Louisiana here. I've been working through the district throughout the day, and everybody's watching all this closely. I'll tell you that the redistricting is the responsibility. It's the prerogative of the states, and so not really my lane.
But I would take issue with what Speaker Pelosi said, is that, you know, apparently, I think California, by my understanding, they have to amend their Constitution to redistrict again. So we'll see what happens in Texas and around the country. I'll tell you this, Jake, I'm -- I am confident that when it comes to these congressional seats, we can win any seat in any district in America, because we have a great story to tell in the midterm election. And I'm very bullish about the outcome, regardless of how the redistricting comes out.
TAPPER: Well, let me just ask you, I get -- I get that it's a -- it's a -- it's an issue that the states get to make, but instead of having an arms race on redistricting, which is what it looks like we're about to have, would it not theoretically be better for every state to have an independent commission so that voters get to pick their members of Congress instead of members of Congress getting to pick their voters? Wouldn't that theoretically be a better goal?
JOHNSON: Well, the devil's always in the details, Jake. I mean, some of these blue states have had commissions, and they have worked out so that they've eliminated Republican seats in their states. We've already seen that in some of the -- some of the states around the country. So I'm not sure that's the solution either. I tell you what, I will work with whatever we have at the end of the day.
We have a -- a solid, hardworking Republican majority in the House right now and the Senate. We're delivering for the people, and I'm very excited to go out and tell that story. I'm very excited about the midterm election. You know that we're going to defy history when we grow the majority in the House, because it's only twice in the last 90 years that a sitting president has picked up seats for his party in that first election cycle.
But we're going to do it this time, because we have a very favorable map, regardless of how will this comes out, and we have policies we're delivering on our promises for the people. That's going to make all the difference.
TAPPER: Well, let's talk about that, because moments ago at your event in Louisiana, you praised all the work that went into passing Trump's so-called Big Beautiful Bill Act. Let's discuss one part of the bill that greatly impacts your state. The Urban Institute estimates that 116,000 to 132,000 Louisiana adults could lose Medicaid because of the new federal work requirement.
And the executive director of the Louisiana Rural Hospital Coalition this week told WRKF that hospital closures are likely because of this legislation. Take a listen.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
JEFF REYNOLDS, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, LOUISIANA RURAL HOSPITAL COALITION: If you reduce what Medicaid is paying, there's less money for the providers to provide services to everybody, to expand services to have access and capacity. If a hospital shut down, that shuts down for everybody, whether you have private insurance or Medicaid or Medicare.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
TAPPER: He said before those cuts take effect, federal and state leaders need to come up with a plan to keep rural hospitals afloat. I'm sure you care a lot about that. So what's the plan?
JOHNSON: Jake, there's a lot of misinformation out there. Let me take those in turn. The first one, you said it was the Urban League that came out with their study, said 100,000-plus people are going to lose Medicaid because of the work requirements.
TAPPER: Yes.
JOHNSON: Then that means they're choosing to not work. OK. Think about what we put into the bill. This is a very important reform that is about 90 percent in public opinion polls. If you have able-bodied workers, young men, for example, without dependents, they need to be working, not riding the wagon. We only institute it in the bill, Jake, 20 hours a week, 20 hours to work, be looking for a job, be in a work training program or volunteer in your community.
Who can't do that? So if somebody drops out of the program because they're unwilling to do that, they did not deserve to be on that program in the beginning. And I will take that to any town hall in America, anywhere, and explain it. They made that choice. That's about -- about 1.7 million people you're talking about, or about 4.7 million people, in fact. But also we've got the illegal aliens out of Medicaid. That's 1.4 million people, and about 1.2 are people that were receiving Medicaid from multiple states at the same time, gaming the system, cheating the system. We had to do these reforms to shore up the programs, to strengthen them for the people that need it most.
We're in the 60th anniversary of Medicaid and Medicare. Medicaid was intended for young, single, pregnant women, for the disabled and the elderly, not for people who could be working and are not doing it. They shouldn't be riding the wagon. With regard to the rural hospitals, Jake, there's a lot of misinformation out there as well. We did not cut Medicaid, and -- and we did not cut the funding for the rural hospitals.
[17:34:56]
In fact, in the big, beautiful bill, as you know, there's a big fund, a $50 billion fund for the rural hospitals and underserved hospitals, and we built in flexibility for the states to be able to work out their funding mechanisms. So there's a lot of alarm and a lot of misinformation out there right now that's just simply not true.
And the reason I'm looking forward to that midterm election is because we'll be able to tell the truth, that people will see the results of this, and they're going to vote accordingly.
TAPPER: Well, let me ask you about that. You talked about public opinion polls. There's a new "Wall Street Journal" poll shows that Democrats as a party got their lowest rating from voters in 35 years. However, even with that, when people were asked how they would vote if the midterm election were held today, more voters said they would back a Democrat over a Republican. Three points, 46 percent for the Democrat, 43 percent for the Republican.
What is the disconnect here? Do you worry that there could be a backlash for some of the Medicaid changes in the bill, which some Republicans in your own conference warned against, that there would be political repercussions?
JOHNSON: There won't be, because people will see the -- the effects. We're going to demonstrate for them that we did the right thing. And the One Big, Beautiful Bill is going to make all boats rise. It'll be just like what we did with the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act in 2017, but this time on steroids, jet fuel for the economy. I'm telling you, every demographic is going to be doing better. Wages will go up.
People will have more money in their pocket that they won't have to send to Washington for their federal tax bill. They're going to have more opportunity, more economic mobility, and they will feel that before they go to vote. I don't put a lot of stock in election polls, and I certainly don't this early out, so who knows what the questions were asked, what the basis was.
But I'm telling you right now that these policies are very popular. There was a poll, if you want to cite polls, a poll that came out about a week and a half ago, the Harvard-Harris poll, and they tested 21 as the major provisions in our bill, and 17 out of the 21 had majority support. That's in the face of the onslaught of the Democrats and the media's misinformation about it.
So wait until our guys go out and -- and ladies go out and tell the story. People will feel it. They'll see it. They'll understand it. They're going to vote accordingly.
TAPPER: Let me ask you about foreign policy. I know it's an issue you care a lot about. We're seeing these images of dire conditions in Gaza, malnourished, starving children. On Sunday, Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu said, "there's no policy of starvation in Gaza, and there's no starvation in Gaza."
Now, President Trump disagrees. He says there is starvation, and it needs to be alleviated. "The Jewish Chronicle" reports that at a meeting last night for the Board of Deputies of British Jews in the U.K., attendees say its leader, Phil Rosenberg, "said Israel was increasingly at risk of moving towards pariah state status in the international community." Are you concerned at all about that?
JOHNSON: We've got a humanitarian crisis in Gaza. I mean, the pictures tell a thousand words, and it's heartbreaking. We want an end to the conflict there. We want peace, and we want to end that whole crisis. President Trump is using a strong hand to try to forge that, and -- and we're moving in the right direction.
There -- the IDF under Israel, of course, has opened new channels for food aid to go into Gaza, and -- and we've set up new mechanisms. The U.S. is going to work with our partners and allies around the world to make sure that happens, but that -- that is going on meanwhile, while we're trying to broker the peace there.
So I -- I do hope it comes to an end soon, and -- and we -- we bring an end to this -- this suffering and misery, because it -- it is quite sad and quite alarming to see.
[17:38:22]
TAPPER: Stick around. I also want to ask you some other questions. House Speaker Mike Johnson, stay with us. We're going to squeeze in a quick break, and we'll be right back.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
JOHNSON: I'm for transparency. We should put everything out there and let the people decide it.
There is no daylight between the House, Republicans, the House, and the President on maximum transparency. He has said that he wants all the credible files related to Epstein to be released.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
TAPPER: That's House Speaker Mike Johnson, not long ago, calling for more transparency from the Trump administration on the Epstein files. A few days later, he said there's no daylight between House Republicans on -- House Republicans and President Trump when it comes to the issue of maximum transparency.
It does seem, though, along came some daylight. Republican Congressman Thom Massie of Kentucky and Democratic Congressman Ro Khanna of California filed a discharge petition that would force a House vote on the release of all the Epstein files.
Speaker Johnson argues the petition doesn't do enough to protect the victims and says it would force the DOJ and FBI to release information, "that was not even credible enough to be entered into the court proceedings."
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
JOHNSON: I don't understand Thomas Massie's motivation. I really don't. It's interesting to me that he chose the election of -- of President Trump to bring this, to team up with the Democrats and bring this discharge petition.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
TAPPER: After that, House Oversight Committee Chairman James Comey said he would subpoena the Justice Department for additional Epstein files. And House Speaker Mike Johnson's back with us. Here it is, Speaker Johnson, as I told you, your favorite topic, the Epstein files. So this issue is going to be waiting for you when Congress returns.
And just this afternoon, Congressman Massie posted, "Speaker Johnson has been promoting this non-binding resolution, hoping to give cover to those who don't want a full release of the Epstein files. Embarrassingly, Section 3 of his resolution refers to Section 2, which doesn't exist." Massie calls your resolution -- resolution a glorified press release. He says his bill would be binding as the force of the law. And he says it does protect the victim. So I wanted to give you an opportunity to respond.
JOHNSON: Look, I have no interest in getting a back and forth with Thomas Massie. He's doing what he's doing. Everybody can judge the motivation for themselves. I don't know what he's talking about. I don't have a resolution. There is a -- a -- a resolution that's out there that was passed by the -- the House Republicans on the Rules Committee. And that's, you know, Freedom Caucus members and a cross- section of members who are for maximum transparency as well.
It is carefully drafted. It protects the victims. And it has disclosure requirement within a 30-day window or shorter time period, if I remember right. That is the -- the right method to do it. The discharge petition was brought in a way that was, in -- in my view, just a little bit haphazard. OK, they didn't have lawyers drafted. I don't think they used the -- the legislative council to do it.
[17:45:08] And so there's some things that are erroneous in the legislation. For example, they say they want to protect child sex abuse victims, but they cite the wrong federal code article. So it makes it unworkable. So there's some problems there. We have to make sure that while we're pushing all the -- the credible evidence out and information to the people so they can draw their own conclusions, we have to protect the innocent victims.
And we have a responsibility to do that. And I'm going to be insistent about it. So, you know, people can say whatever they say, but we're going to get transparency for the folks, but we're going to protect the people who have already gone through great harm.
TAPPER: Yes, without question, I think everybody agrees that the names of the innocent victims, the names of the victims of this should be redacted full stop. No, no question. I do want to ask you, though, because in 2023, when you announced plans to publicly release thousands of hours of footage from the January 6th, 2021 Capitol attack, critics argued that it could be a safety risk because the footage detailed how rioters access the building and the -- the routes lawmakers used to find safety.
And you said in a statement at the time, "this decision will provide millions of Americans, criminal defendants, public interest organizations and the media an ability to see for themselves what happened that day rather than having to rely upon the interpretation of a small group of government officials."
Now, obviously, the Capitol attack and the Epstein sex trafficking scandal are two different things. But the principle of trusting a small group of government officials is the same. I think one of the problems people have, especially MAGA base people, MAGA Republicans, is that a small group of government officials entered into a sweetheart deal with Epstein in 2007, 2008, and then seem to have been protecting a lot of the bad guys who availed themselves of these victims.
JOHNSON: Well, look, all I can say is we've been intellectually consistent about this whole thing. I want everything to come out about the Epstein evils that is possible to be released because the people that were involved in those unspeakable evil acts should be punished with the greatest severity of the law.
And it's -- it should have happened a long time ago. So I'm -- I'm fully in favor of that. We have to do it in a responsible manner. That's why we're intellectually consistent just with the J.C. tapes. We want people to draw their own conclusions. But there's a couple of hours that were never released because it shows the secret exits, for example, in the Senate, like that would be create a harm for people who serve in that body.
TAPPER: Sure.
JOHNSON: So we -- we have to do it in a -- in a responsible manner. But look, I'm pushing for aggressively for the full release of everything that is possible. And by the way, so is the President. He has said the same thing. We're using every mechanism within our power to do that and to do it as quickly as possible.
TAPPER: Let's turn to something that's a very important topic to -- to not only you, but all those beautiful people behind you, FEMA and natural disasters. During the Los Angeles wildfire disasters earlier this year, you said that California leaders were derelict in their duty. And you said that you agreed with President Trump that there probably should be conditions on FEMA aid to California because of that. Next month, as I'm sure I don't need to tell anybody in that room, next month is the 20th anniversary of Hurricane Katrina, which devastated your state, the -- the storm and also the failure of the levees.
Now, Louisiana at the time had a Democratic governor, Kathleen Blanco, and she was also very criticized as unprepared. That would not have justified President Bush from withholding federal aid or from -- from the -- for the people of Louisiana, though, right?
JOHNSON: No. But -- but the policies that were pursued in California is very different than the things that happened in Louisiana with the failure of the levees. This is not dereliction of duty in Louisiana. It is in California because they forced these radical leftist policies and -- and bad governance, frankly, that put them in position where the natural occurrence of a -- of a wildfire, the -- the damage was exacerbated exponentially.
It was the result of bad policy choices. So what we've said, I think, is very common sense. They're going to have to improve upon that if they want federal taxpayers to bail them out. And that -- that is, I think, a very reasonable position. And I think it's one that most taxpayers around the country would demand and respect.
By the way, after hurricanes in Louisiana, the big events that we've had over the years, there's often strings attached to federal aid. For example, if you live on the coast, you got to -- you got to put your -- you've got to rebuild at a higher elevation. You have to put your house up on stilts if you're on the coast, those kinds of things.
And -- and no one says that that's unreasonable. So we're being consistent with public policy. We're being good stewards of federal taxpayer dollars. And I think what we're demanding of California is some sanity for a change. And I think the American people are behind us on that.
TAPPER: Well, I hope the -- the people in that room and everybody in your region doesn't have to worry about FEMA for a long, long time, forever, really, if I had my wish.
JOHNSON: Me too. Me too.
TAPPER: House Speaker Mike Johnson, thanks for joining us today. Really appreciate it.
JOHNSON: Thank you. And thanks, all my friends, for being with us. Thanks, Jake.
TAPPER: Thanks everyone. [17:49:57]
Coming up next, the tsunami scare across the entire Pacific after one of the most powerful earthquakes ever recorded is the time to worry over. Can we exhale? We're back in a moment.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
TAPPER: In our World Lead, lingering effects throughout the Pacific, after a record-setting 8.8 earthquake off of Russia's east coast, it sent tsunami waves across the region, threatened all of the U.S. west coast. CNN's Nick Watt joins us now from Santa Monica, California, which was also on Tsunami Watch earlier today. Nick, is it time to exhale? Are we out of the woods?
NICK WATT, CNN NATIONAL CORRESPONDENT: Pretty much, Jake, but there is still one area of concern up on the Oregon-California border around Crescent City. Because up there, there is a weird channel under the ocean that really channels waves into Crescent City. Now, back in 1964, 11 people were killed there. Nearly 300 buildings destroyed when the tsunami hit. So they are concerned.
[17:55:04]
During the night, at about 3:00 a.m., they hit high, and a dock was pulled off pilings up there. But as one city official says, we were fortunate this time. However, up in that area on the border with Oregon, people are still being advised to stay out of the water. Because it's not just one wave necessarily with the tsunami, there are a series of waves, and of course, there can be currents as well that are dangerous.
You know, we saw this down by Half Moon Bay, down by San Diego overnight. We saw boats and the marinas getting lifted up continuously, up and down, by the relentlessness of this wave. It wasn't just a single wave.
Now, Hawaii was perhaps the biggest area of concern. All warnings have been lifted there now. There were evacuations. Hilo Airport was even closed so people could evacuate from a neighborhood just by the airport and cross the tarmac. The worst we saw there was about ankle- deep water a parking lot.
But listen, this is an inexact science. It's better to be safe than sorry. We've all seen from 2004, more than 200,000 people died. This time, all good, better safe than sorry. Jake?
TAPPER: Nick Watt in Santa Monica, thanks so much.
Just hours ago, despite pressure from President Trump, the Federal Reserve announced that they were going to keep interest rates unchanged for the fifth time in a row. What does that mean for your money? What does it mean for the future of Fed Chair Jerome Powell? Is he about to get fired? We have some new reporting on the pressure on Powell from Trump and his allies, next.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
