Return to Transcripts main page

The Lead with Jake Tapper

Former Labor Secretary To Be Interviewed On House Probe Of Epstein; Epstein Victim Wants Detail Of Sweetheart Deal; Governor Pritzker To Fight Trump From Sending National Guard To Chicago; National Guard In D.C. Carrying Firearms; Judge: Abrego Garcia To Stay In U.S. Amid Deportation Challenge; CBO: Tariffs Could Lower Deficit By $4T Over Next Decade; Sen. Andy Kim (D-NJ) Is Interviewed About South Korean President Asks Trump To Meet With Kim Jong-un. Aired 5-6p ET

Aired August 25, 2025 - 17:00   ET

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

UNKNOWN: I think that is something that Democrats can get behind like finally someone is fighting for us. At the end of the day, the Democratic Party, I honest -- will be at a low percentage in terms of approval until we start winning. Democrats need to see some wins on the board electorally in order for the Democrats to sort of come together and start embracing the next generation.

PAMELA BROWN, CNN HOST: All right, thank you all so much. Really interesting conversations here. Jake Tapper --

JAKE TAPPER, CNN HOST: Hey, Pamela.

BROWN: -- is standing by for "The Lead." Hey, Jake. Have a great show.

TAPPER: Good to see you. Thanks so much. We'll look for more tomorrow in "The Arena."

BROWN: Sounds good.

TAPPER: A governor, a Democrat says the president sending troops to his state shows that the president's mental faculties are slipping. "The Lead" starts right now. National Guard troops on D.C. streets now armed with rifles as President Trump looks to expand his federal police takeover in more U.S. cities. And now, some mayors and governors are pushing back.

Plus, brand new court order on Kilmar Abrego Garcia challenging the Trump administration's plans to deport him to Uganda after his brief weekend release from criminal custody.

But first, brand new subpoenas for documents related to Jeffrey Epstein. The specific material wanted for review and the former federal prosecutor, Alex Acosta, who arranged that sweetheart deal for Epstein, now scheduled for questioning.

Welcome to "The Lead." I'm Jake Tapper, and we have some breaking news in our "Law and Justice Lead," quote, "reviewing the possible mismanagement of the federal government's investigation of Jeffrey Epstein and Ghislaine Maxwell." The House Oversight Committee today announced that they will be interviewing former U.S. attorney Alex Acosta on September 19. Acosta, as you might remember, is the former Trump labor secretary who way back in 2007, 2008 negotiated that sweetheart plea deal with Jeffrey Epstein.

The committee is also issuing a subpoena for the Epstein estate demanding to see NDAs, nondisclosure agreements, and Epstein's last one testament, and that alleged birthday book, and any potential list of clients involved in sex, sex acts, or sex trafficking. All of this follows the Friday afternoon release by the Justice Department of a transcript and audio of its interview with Ghislaine Maxwell, the convicted sex trafficker and Epstein associate, in her interview with deputy Attorney General Todd Blanche.

She denied there being any sort of Epstein client list, and she said she never heard allegations that President Trump acted inappropriately. Maxwell also denied that Epstein paid her millions to recruit young women or lured a masseuse from Trump's Mar-a-Lago resort.

(BEGIN AUDIO CLIP)

TODD BLANCHE, FORMER DEPUTY ATTORNEY GENERAL: Do you have recollection of you ever recruiting a masseuse from Mar-a-Lago spa to give -- to go give a private massage to Mr. Epstein?

GHISLAINE MAXWELL, JEFFREY EPSTEIN ASSOCIATE: I've never recruited a masseuse from Mar-a-Lago for that, as far as I remember. I can't ever recollect doing that.

(END AUDIO CLIP)

TAPPER: That is a notable claim, perhaps false, because Virginia Giuffre, the out outspoken Epstein victim who died by suicide earlier this year, claimed that Mar-a-Lago is specifically where Ghislaine Maxwell recruited her. Then in the second day of her conversation with Todd Blanche, Ghislaine Maxwell said this.

(BEGIN AUDIO CLIP)

MAXWELL: I realized that I was -- the allegation at least is that I met (BLEEP) in Mar-a-Lago and so I felt I needed to address that and I didn't want to leave that hanging because that seems weird under the circumstances. And also, but I couldn't remember anyone that -- and maybe, you know, it's a long period of time. So the issue is not that I'm trying to not say, but I just don't, I don't remember anybody that I would have, but it's not impossible that I might have asked someone for there.

BLANCHE: I don't -- I don't know exactly what you said yesterday, but I don't think what you said yesterday is different than what you just said.

(END AUDIO CLIP)

TAPPER: Of course, the first blaring question here is why should anyone believe anything that Ghislaine Maxwell has to say. Even in Trump's first term, the Justice Department labeled Maxwell a brazen liar. A key reminder is that the people who matter most in all of this are the victims, the survivors, people whose words should matter more than that of a convicted sex trafficker.

In just a moment, I'm gonna ask one of those victims her thoughts on all of this. But first, let's bring in CNN senior justice correspondent Evan Perez. Evan, what exactly does the House Oversight Committee want from the Epstein estate?

EVAN PEREZ, CNN SENIOR JUSTICE CORRESPONDENT: Well, they were -- they're asking for a number of documents. Chiefly among them, they're asking financial documents. They're looking for anything that could be construed as a client list.

[17:04:58]

Obviously, you know that the Justice Department says there is no such thing as a client list. So they're looking for other ways to sort of get to that, perhaps, a list of people who may have been involved in some of Epstein's crimes.

They're also looking for any nondisclosure agreements that he may have ordered people to sign as a result. And also, importantly, they're asking about that book, that book that the "Wall Street Journal" reported on. It was a birthday book that Ghislaine Maxwell, says that she helped put together. If you remember in her interview, she doesn't remember whether, Trump -- Donald Trump was one of the people who provided a letter for that book. That's what the "Wall Street Journal" has reported. The president himself has denied this and he is suing the journal and, of course, Rupert Murdoch over that allegation.

TAPPER: And the committee, the House Oversight Committee led by, Chairman James Comer also wants to hear from Alex Acosta, the former Trump labor secretary, who way back in 2007, 2008 was the U.S. attorney for the Southern District Of Florida, and he negotiated that sweetheart deal --

PEREZ: Right.

TAPPER: -- For Epstein. Why do they think it's so critical to hear from him?

PEREZ: Well, you know what? Jake, because we really haven't heard much from Alex Acosta ever since he left the Trump administration when this story first kicked off --

TAPPER: 20119, yeah.

PEREZ: Right. Exactly. When he resigned, we haven't heard much from him. And so I think it's actually one of the more important interviews that that the committee is asking for, which is to for him to explain why he entered into that very sweetheart deal that allowed Epstein to plead guilty to local charges in Palm Beach County and not really bring down the hammer from the federal government, which is eventually what happened with the Southern District in New York.

TAPPER: Yeah. And he also got work release and --

PEREZ: Right.

TAPPER: -- he also -- they --

PEREZ: Very good term.

TAPPER: -- they used a victim who was like 17 instead of 14.

PEREZ: Right.

TAPPER: A whole bunch of fishy stuff in there. The other blaring question, of course, is why is the Deputy Attorney General doing on this, Todd Blanche? And also if you read the transcript, it's very frustrating as a journalist, I'm sure you experience this too. He did not push back at all on some things she said that were clearly lies or at least deserved some follow-up.

PEREZ: Right. I mean, this is partly why a lot of the criticism of this is that, you know, was Todd Blanche there as a deputy attorney general trying to get to the bottom of this? Was he there essentially helping Donald Trump find exculpatory information from Ghislaine Maxwell? That's what comes away. Listen to this exchange between the two of them.

(BEGIN AUDIO CLIP)

MAXWELL: If you met Epstein, there is no way that this cast of characters of which it's extraordinary and some are in your cabinet, who you value as your co-workers, and you know would be with him if he was a creep or because they wanted sexual favors. A man wants sexual favors, he will find that. They didn't have to come to Epstein for that. Now did some? Okay. I don't know. I wasn't there. I didn't see it.

BLANCHE: So when's the last time you think you were with Mr. Epstein when he got a massage?

MAXWELL: I want to say 2007.

(END AUDIO CLIP)

PEREZ: And, you know, there's a lot of the interview that goes like this over two days, Jake, and what you repeatedly see is the purpose that Ghislaine Maxwell is going after here. She's trying to get out of prison. She is hoping for a pardon, which is why it goes on the transcript, goes on for so long, back and forth about the birthday book and whether she remembers Trump contributing anything to it.

And also that, you know, she never saw President Trump do anything untoward or anything wrong in her presence. And then, of course, the secondary part, which is that I did nothing wrong. I saw nothing. No crimes committed. And so this was her effort, really, better than anyone else's, right, to try to set the table for herself.

TAPPER: All right. Evan Perez, thank you so much. And joining us now is Liz Stein. She is a survivor of Epstein and Maxwell's trafficking ring. She now works as a survivor mentor and policy associate at the Support Center for Child Advocates in Philadelphia. Liz, thank you so much for coming on. I'm really interested, to learn what your reaction is to the contents of the Maxwell transcript, the very fact of her being interviewed by the deputy attorney general, her prison transfer, and the overall treatment of Maxwell.

LIZ STEIN, ANTI-TRAFFICKING ADVOCATE: I think that it's pretty obvious that she's not being truthful in this interview.

[17:09:56]

And I think that something that the public might not be aware of, you know, if you're someone who isn't following this case really closely is that in her federal indictment, there were perjury charges stemming from a deposition that was held in a civil suit with -- involving Virginia Giuffre. And when it came time for Maxwell's trial, those charges were severed because the prosecutors did not want the testimony from those charges to unduly influence the jury.

And when she was ultimately convicted of the other counts, those charges were dropped. So we're already talking about someone who has been less than truthful previously. And I think that it's really difficult for us as survivors, to have the government speaking to someone who's been convicted of this crime and giving her any weight whatsoever, in terms of leniency.

I mean, the move to a federal prison camp is really an unprecedented move for someone who's been charged with these crimes. And so, I'm just curious why the government is putting so much stock in what Ghislaine Maxwell is saying, but they're not talking to the actual victims of this crime.

TAPPER: Former U.S. attorney for the Southern District Of Florida, Alex Acosta, who obviously was the leader of that sweetheart plea deal that Epstein got back in 2007, 2008, he is now going to do an interview with the House Oversight Committee, we learned this afternoon. I'm just wondering, what would you like to learn from that interview? What does he need to answer?

STEIN: I think that we all want answers about the details of the sweetheart deal that Epstein was given in Florida. Why, if he was being investigated by the FBI, why was he able to only have to face one charge, a state charge and no federal charges. And so I think that what I would really like to see and what I hope for is transparency with Mr. Acosta and actually telling us what happened in the creation of this deal and really not holding anything back.

I think that, we need the people who were involved to be transparent regardless of any repercussions that they might feel from the administration because what we're missing here is the fact that this is a crime. Sex trafficking is a crime. And by the administration's own admission, this is a crime that had a thousand victims. Think about that. I mean, would you be okay with a crime happening in your community that victimized a thousand people and the majority of them were underage girls and young women? I don't think anyone could be okay with that.

TAPPER: And you speak --

STEIN: I think that it's getting -- go ahead.

TAPPER: No. No. Go ahead. I think it's getting --

STEIN: I think that we are focusing on the people that are involved in this particular sex trafficking and we're getting very polarized because of the positions of power that they hold. But I think that what we really need to do as a nation is kind of dial that back and look at what this is in its purest sense. And this is a crime and there are criminals involved and criminals need to be charged for the crimes that they commit.

TAPPER: So you speak very interestingly and movingly about sex trafficking and how it's not probably what the average American envisions when they hear that term. Tell us what you mean.

STEIN: Yeah. So I think that it's interesting to point out that I am a victim of this crime and I consider myself to be a rigid, reasonably intelligent, and aware person, but I didn't even realize that I was trafficked until Epstein was arrested in 2019.

The way that it was in my mind was that I became involved with this, with these friends and I had a really horrific, horrific experience, but I didn't even realize that I had been trafficked until Epstein was arrested. And I think that people are just not educated on what sex trafficking is. I certainly wasn't. I thought that I knew what it was and I think that that is also a really big piece of the puzzle that's missing. I don't know if people really understand what they're talking about.

TAPPER: Right. You're not like kept in a dungeon. Right? You're not kept in a dungeon. You're not chained.

STEIN: No.

TAPPER: But you're manipulated.

STEIN: No. Yes. And so, you know, the perception I think in the media is that, you know, it is a man who comes along in a van and scoops up a little girl with blonde hair and blue eyes and takes her somewhere and locks her up and chains her.

[17:14:59]

And it really, sex trafficking does not look like that in the majority of cases at all. You know, sex trafficking needs three elements to be present, force, fraud, and coercion in order to compel someone into a commercial sex act. And a commercial sex act is anything of value that is received for a sex act, and I don't think that people understand that. You know, a lot of the young women that I work with, something of value to them could be housing. It could be a cell phone if they don't have a cell phone. It could be anything that is, you know, of financial benefit to the

person who's being compelled to do this act. And I think that there's also a misnomer too when people hear coercion, they think that there's some kind of choice in that. And when you're being deceived, you know, there really is no choice. And so I just think that, you know, in addition to people watching the coverage of this particular case, maybe we need some education on what the crime of sex trafficking actually is.

TAPPER: Yeah. And it's actually interesting because I was reading the Ghislaine Maxwell transcript in her interview that was released Friday afternoon, and she talked about how these masseuses, she calls them, these young women that she, you know, drafted and brought into Epstein's orbit, that there's no way they would ever come back and meet with him again if they had been raped.

And that's, of course, a complete misunderstanding of how sex trafficking works because they would if they depended on Epstein to live or to have a place to live or for money.

STEN: Many of them did.

TAPPER: Yeah. Exactly. Has anybody --

STEIN: Yeah. Many of them did.

TAPPER: -- from the Trump administration or Congress reached out to talk to you?

STEIN: Nobody has reached out to talk to me. And I also attended Ghislaine Maxwell's trial in New York and I spoke a victim impact statement at her sentencing and I have not talked to anyone, in our government yet. And I think that that's part of what makes a lot of us who are survivors of Epstein and Maxwell really infuriated, that our government is willing to drop everything and go to Florida to talk to Ghislaine Maxwell, but those of us who were impacted directly by her crimes and Jeffrey Epstein's crimes, no one's spoken to us about what our experience was.

TAPPER: Ms. Stein, thank you so much for talking to us. Appreciate it.

STEIN: Thanks so much.

TAPPER: Just moments ago, a rather forceful Democratic Illinois governor, JB Pritzker, pushing back sharply on President Trump's plan to send National Guard troops to his state, saying that the decision shows President Trump's mental faculties are slipping. Did this critique just send this takeover to a whole new level? Stay with us.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[17:20:00]

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

JB PRITZKER, GOVERNOR OF ILLINOIS: You are neither wanted here nor needed here. Your remarks about this effort over the last several weeks have betrayed a continuing slip in your mental faculties and are not fit for the auspicious office that you occupy.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

TAPPER: That was Democratic governor of Illinois, JB Pritzker, just a few minutes ago blasting President Trump's plan to send the National Guard to Chicago and blasting his mental faculties as well. This intensifies the feud between Democratic governors and mayors and President Trump and his administration as the president tries to take his federal crime crackdown nationwide. Former Illinois Republican congressman and CNN senior political commentator Adam Kinzinger joins us now.

Congressman, President Trump today called Chicago a, quote, "killing field" and indicated he will send in National Guard troops. What's your reaction? And do you agree with what Governor Pritzker had to say there about President Trump's mental faculties?

ADAM KINZINGER, CNN SENIOR POLITICAL COMMENTATOR: Yeah. I mean, I fully agree. Just look at it. Look at some of his ramblings. It's been, like, completely different from what it used to be. But listen, Jake, six minutes ago, the Republican Party believed in things like local control, state should be able to make their own decisions, communities, and now the president really as a power play, let's be clear, particularly after you saw him threaten Baltimore, is doing this simply to try to look tough and not invited to Illinois and frankly, shouldn't be allowed there.

TAPPER: Violent crime in Chicago, the governor pointed out, is down dramatically from last year, at least according to statistics. It is, of course, still pretty high as it is in most major cities. Chicago's mayor says sending in the military is not the best way to help reduce crime in Chicago. You represented Illinois. Is there any benefit to sending in the National Guard or any facets of the military? And what would a better approach be if President Trump were truly sincere, in your view, in his desire to bring crime down in these cities?

KINZINGER: Yeah. You do it as a partnership. So the military can be helpful. The guard can be helpful. For instance, if they want to cover certain duties of the Chicago police that are non-law enforcement to allow more cops on the street, that's important. But, Jake, here's the thing as a country we have to think about. You could put a soldier in every square mile and reduce this country to have zero crime. I read the book "1984." That's what they did there. Is that what we want to live in where you just occupy every city because of so called crime?

That is how dictators come to power. It's how authoritarians come to power on the backs of that, of safety and security. It's one thing when the -- if the mayor said we need help here, then do that as a partnership, but to do it against it -- and by the way, when the president federalizes these troops because he won't have state authority to do it, they won't have law enforcement capability anyway. They'll be Title X federal troops and they can guard like federal buildings. TAPPER: If President Trump had been in charge in commanding the

National Guard and the D.C. police as he's doing today, back on January 6, 2021, what might have happened, do you think?

[17:25:01]

KINZINGER: Well, he put -- if he was commanding the D.C. police, I'm sure he would have pulled them. They were very heroic in showing up to the capital to defend it at the perfect moment. But this is the point, he's been saying -- remember, his big -- one of his biggest, like, mistruths about January 6 was that somehow Nancy Pelosi or the mayor of D.C. didn't deploy the National Guard. They don't have authority over the National Guard. Only the president does. He's proving that today and debunking one of his biggest conspiracies that happened that day.

TAPPER: Former congressman, Adam Kinzinger, thank you so much. Good to see you, sir. Meanwhile, President Trump says because of his crime crackdown, Washington, D.C. is one of the safest cities in the country. CNN's Brian Todd is live outside Union Station in D.C. And Brian, the National Guard troops are now authorized to carry pistols and rifles. You've seen quite the evolution as this federal takeover enters its third week.

BRIAN TODD, CNN CORRESPONDENT: We really have, Jake. You know, when they got here a couple of weeks ago, they were not carrying any firearms. We were told they would not carry any firearms. They were seen kind of patrolling around their vehicles at monuments and at places like Union Station here. Now, of course, we can show you the first visuals, illustrating our reporting that they are now authorized to carry firearms. I'll step over here and our photojournalist Jay McMichael (ph) will zoom in. You can see these National Guardsmen here. We're told they're from Louisiana. You can see the pistols that they're carrying.

According to a joint task force spokesperson, the National Guardsmen will be carrying -- the majority of them will be carrying M17 pistols. Some of them will be carrying M4 long rifles. Now according to the spokesperson, this is an important thing here. They said that these weapons would only be used by the Guardsmen for personal protection, meaning self-defense, that they would not be used for policing.

And, speaking of the National Guard being asked to do some policing, President Trump signed an executive order today tasking Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth with establishing, quote, "specialized units" in the National Guard that will specialize in quelling public disturbances and public order issues. So we're gonna see how it plays out regarding whether the National Guard will be asked to do any actual policing or not.

Earlier today, I caught up with D.C. Mayor Muriel Bowser at a school event, and I asked her, her response to the National Guard now carrying weapons. Take a listen.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) MURIEL BOWSER, MAYOR OF WASHINGTON, D.C.: I don't have anything more to say than what I have said. I don't believe that troops should be policing American cities.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

TODD: And separately, I spoke to two aids for Mayor Bowser who told me that mayor Bowser has spoken to mayors and leaders of other cities where President Trump is considering sending the National Guard to. They would not characterize the nature of those conversations or even name the cities, but she has been in touch with mayors and other leaders of these cities where the president is considering doing the very same thing. Jake?

TAPPER: All right. Brian Todd, outside Union Station in Washington, D.C. Thank you so much.

Coming up, a judge's brand new order pushing back on the Trump administration plans to deport Abrego Garcia. That's, the undocumented immigrant who lived in Maryland and then was deported to El Salvador, briefly released from custody, who could now be sent by the Trump administration to Uganda. Stay with us.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[17:32:32]

TAPPER: In our Law and Justice Lead today, a judge will require Kilmar Abrego Garcia, that's the Salvadoran man, an undocumented immigrant who was living in Maryland before he was deported back to his home country earlier this year, despite a judge's order to prevent him from being shipped back to El Salvador. They are going to push to have him remain in the U.S. while he challenges deportation to Uganda. That's right, Uganda.

Immigration officials detained Abrego Garcia this morning in Baltimore. He had reported to an ICE facility for a check-in when he was then detained. He delivered a statement to the community before he entered the facility alongside an immigration activist who translated for him.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

LYDIA WALTHER-RODRIGUEZ, CHIEF OF ORGANIZING AND LEADERSHIP, CASA: Happiness is simply being with my family and being able to spend simple memories with them. Those moments will continue to give me hope to continue in this fight.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

TAPPER: CNN's Priscilla Alvarez was in Baltimore this morning and is here with us now to unpack it all. Priscilla, so what are the next steps in this legal battle?

PRISCILLA ALVAREZ, CNN CORRESPONDENT: Well, there are multiple steps that are going to unfold from today, but a federal judge did order that for now the United States needs to keep Abrego Garcia on the continental United States for now and not be moved to another detention facility. I'll get to that in a moment, but what we heard over the course of these initial court proceedings was concern from the federal judge about the way the administration wants to handle his deportation.

As you mentioned there, they are floating Uganda, a far-flung country that he has no ties to as one that he could be deported to. And that stems, Jake, from a plea deal that the Trump administration had offered, essentially telling him that once he was released from criminal custody on Friday, that he would either take a plea deal and then have his criminal sentence here in the United States and then be deported to Costa Rica, or if he didn't do that, which he didn't, be deported to Uganda.

So the attorneys for Abrego Garcia have been saying that this is punishment, that this is retaliation, it makes no sense for them to send him there, and that is what the federal judge is concerned about. So she is setting up a scheduling order, essentially telling both parties, the Justice Department and Abrego Garcia's team, get together, tell me how you want the schedule to look like moving forward, and we will sort of go from there.

But what I can tell you, Jake, right now is in terms of timeline, there is an order already blocking his deportation until Wednesday. Based off what she was saying over these court proceedings, it's unlikely he'd be deported before the end of the week, but this is still very much in motion. And in the interim, she told them not to remove, or sort of -- rather, not to switch locations again, because while he was in Baltimore this morning, he is now in a detention facility in Virginia.

[17:35:10]

It's common for ICE to move people around, but she is saying keep him there now, because these proceedings are very active.

TAPPER: And they want him to plead guilty for charge of human trafficking, and this has to do with that stop in Tennessee years ago that no charges were ever filed until this became a case this year?

ALVAREZ: Yes, and you can understand the whiplash for viewers on this. Attorneys have refuted that he is involved in human smuggling. Federal judges have said the evidence is flimsy on this, but the administration has been sort of painting him as a bad actor, someone who has criminal charges, even though he has not been convicted of these charges. And it is the reason, Jake, that they brought him back from El Salvador, for him to face these charges in the United States.

But even with that being the case, and with a trial set for January, they're trying to deport him in the intervening period. So you can see why this gets so confusing, why federal judges just don't understand the administration's strategy here. And in the interim, all of this is playing into where he goes.

TAPPER: This is very bizarre. Priscilla Alvarez, thanks so much. What could be a new hidden cost of Trump's tariffs, reducing the deficit by $4 trillion. But who's paying for it? Is it the American consumer? Stay with us.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[17:40:32]

TAPPER: And we're back with our Money Lead. President Trump is touting what could be a financial windfall for the United States, but at whose expense? Is it American consumers? It's based on Trump's new tariff rates for various countries.

The Congressional Budget Office updated its projections and now estimates that Trump's tariffs could reduce the U.S. deficit by a whopping $4 trillion over the next 10 years. Let's bring in Justin Wolfers. He's a professor of economics and public policy at the University of Michigan.

So, first of all, what do you think are the chances that the tariffs will actually last through 2035, which the CBO is basing its estimates on?

JUSTIN WOLFERS, PROFESSOR OF ECONOMICS & PUBLIC POLICY, UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN: Close to no chance, and that's one of the biggest problems, which is the whole idea of tariffs is you provide an incentive for people to set up shop, but the tariffs are going to change before the shop gets set up. And as a result, I'm not sure we're going to get much action out of this.

TAPPER: So then the big question about this $4 trillion is where is this $4 trillion coming from? Is it coming from foreign governments? Is it coming from foreign companies? For months here on The Lead, we've been talking to small business leaders about how the tariffs are affecting them. Most of them say that they are currently eating the tariffs, but eventually are going to have to pass on the cost to their consumers. So I wonder, in this projection, who pays this $4 trillion? Is it mostly American consumers?

WOLFERS: Yes, Jake, I -- I want to come back to something you said in The Lead. You said this windfall for the American budget. It's not a windfall. It's a tax. And when you charge people a tax, the government gets revenue. It's as simple as that. In this case, here's how it works. If Best Buy -- if Best Buy brings in a washing machine, say from Korea, that washing machine gets shipped to America and it sits in the port in customs, and it can't get out of customs until Best Buy writes a check for the tariff.

So at the first level, Best Buy, an American company, is paying the tariff. But we economists like to look at it a little harder. Everything's connected to everything else. So there are some other things that could happen. Well, Samsung could decide what they want to do is keep their market share, which means they'd have to cut the price they're selling that washing machine at.

But there's a price index called the Import Price Index, and it measures the price of our imports, not surprising. That has not fallen a penny. What that means is that Trump's promise that foreign companies would pay this tax turned out to be false. At the moment, Best Buy is paying the tax, but probably what's starting to happen -- what has started to happen a few places and will happen more over the next few months, is Best Buy will discover that its costs have gone up and then it's going to jack up the price.

Either way, the cost is being borne by Americans right now by Best Buy and therefore by my 401(k), which is invested in that. Later on, they'll jack up the price and it'll be American consumers. Simple point here. It's a tax on Americans being paid by Americans.

TAPPER: Yes. Just to be clear, when I said windfall, I was saying that's what President Trump -- how President Trump is describing this. So what to do with the $4 trillion coming from the tariffs? Trump once said he was considering a kind of tariff rebate check for American consumers. Here's what the Treasury secretary said about that -- said about that last week. Take a listen.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

SCOTT BESSENT, TREASURY SECRETARY: I think at a point we're going to be able to do it. But President Trump and I are laser focused on paying down the debt.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

TAPPER: What do you think?

WOLFERS: I think he's exactly right that it would be crazy for there to be a rebate check. By the way, Jake, do you remember just a few months ago we were being told that there would be so many trillions of dollars saved by DOGE? We'd all be getting rebate checks. And I went all over T.V. having arguments with people saying how big would the rebate check be? And it turns out DOGE never saved anything.

In this case, the Republicans just passed a budget. Their budget took an already existing budget deficit and made it worse. Let's not talk in trillions. What this is, is basically $400 billion per year over 10 years. That's the easy way to think about it. And basically they've already spent that. They've spent that giving tax cuts to rich people.

So what does this mean? It means overall what we've done is we've swapped one set of taxes for another. It used to be we had high income taxes on rich people. We've gotten rid of that. And to fill the budget hole, we're now putting tariffs on. Now, tariffs are paid by everyone. They're a sales tax, effectively.

And so that means we've shifted taxes from the rich to the working and middle class because all of us buy imported stuff. And therefore, all of us are paying these tariffs. Justin Wolfers, University of Michigan, thank you so much. Good to see you, sir.

[17:45:00]

WOLFERS: Pleasure, mate. TAPPER: Just two weeks after the Trump-Putin summit in Alaska, now South Korea's leader wants President Trump to set up a meeting with North Korea's Kim Jong-un, even as the dictator makes a show of testing new missiles. That story's next.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

TAPPER: Topping our World Lead today, President Trump hosted South Korea's President Lee Jae Myung at a critical time for the historically ironclad alliance, rattled over Trump's unpredictability with trade and security as North Korea and China continue to threaten the region. Before the meeting, North Korea fired a new round of test missiles, accusing South Korea of stirring up tensions at the border.

In the Oval Office, President Lee praised President Trump as the, quote, only person who can improve relations with North Korea's dictator, Kim Jong-un. Take a listen to President Trump earlier today.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

DONALD TRUMP, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: We'll arrange a meeting between you and Kim Jong-un. Would you like that? That's a very tough question. Look, I -- I get along great with Kim Jong-un. And -- and whatever I can do --

(END VIDEO CLIP)

[17:50:08]

TAPPER: Joining us now, Senator Andy Kim, a Democrat from the Garden State in New Jersey. He is the very first Korean American to serve in the United States Senate. And you just got back from Korea and Japan. Let's play a little more from President Trump talking about the Korean Peninsula earlier today.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

TRUMP: If Hillary Clinton, crooked Hillary, won that election, I think you would have had a nuclear war. It would have taken place, and it would have been horrendous for everybody, including them.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

TAPPER: I'm not sure if you have a reaction to that, but if you do, I'd love to hear it. And do you think it's a good idea for President Trump to create a meeting between Kim Jong-un and President Lee?

SEN. ANDY KIM (D-NJ): Well, I think what's important right now to recognize, and I hope President Trump sees this very clearly, which is that North Korea is in a fundamentally different place now than they were during Trump's first term. We're talking about now, you know, Vladimir Putin is sending billions of dollars to North Korea. We literally have North Korean troops in Ukraine fighting alongside the Russian military.

You know, North Korea feels strong. They feel like they have a strong partner in Russia. They're actually less dependent on China now. They are less desperate for food and resources. So, you know, I just -- we need to go in with our eyes wide open in terms of the geopolitical situation. And if President Trump is serious about exploring, talking with North Korea, or taking these types of steps, one thing that absolutely needs to happen is we have to reassure our allies, South Korea, Japan, others in the Indo-Pacific, that right now, when I just visited South Korea and Japan and -- and talked with leaders around, they call us unpredictable. They call us, right now, unreliable.

You know, we need to be very careful when we're seeing, you know, talks and summits with Vladimir Putin. Right now, our allies and our partners are -- are worried, and we need to make sure we're stepping up for them.

TAPPER: President Trump tried very hard in his first term for some sort of denuclearization in North Korea. Obviously, that didn't happen. Obviously, I don't begrudge him for trying, and trying a new approach, but it didn't -- it didn't work. What do you think came of all that? Was it only just a boost for president -- for Kim Jong-un?

KIM: Well, look, it certainly lifted Kim Jong-un to the global stage in that way, but again, I'm a diplomat by trade, work at the State Department.

TAPPER: Right.

KIM: I don't -- I'm not opposed to -- to talks, but one thing that always needs to happen is that we need to make sure that any engagements, we have to make sure that our allies are feeling like they are part of this. You know, we see the same challenges when it comes to the talks between Trump and Putin. You know, our European allies, especially our Ukrainian partners, you know, they are sometimes feeling uncertain or shaky about our posture vis-a-vis them.

When it comes to a place like North Korea, I mean, this is at a time when China feels like they're on the ascent. You know, when I was going around Asia or I talk with leaders in the Indo-Pacific, they are talking about how China is on a charm offensive right now. They are out there engaging, and they are saying that America is on the decline, that we are not going to be there for them.

TAPPER: You just got back from a trip to South Korea and Japan with Senator Tammy Duckworth, Democrat of Illinois. You were discussing economic and security partnerships, one of which was an emphasis on shipbuilding. Today, President Trump said the U.S. is going to -- going to buy ships from South Korea but also have South Korea make ships here in the United States. Tell us more about this partnership when it comes to this.

KIM: Yes, I don't think the American people might know as -- as much, but, you know, South Korea is a shipbuilding juggernaut, and right now the United States needs ships, both military as well as commercial, auxiliary. This is something that Senator Tammy Duckworth has been leading up as well as a lot of my colleagues.

This can be a win-win. You know, so, yes, there are areas where I disagree with President Trump about foreign policy in the Middle East or to Korea or else -- or to Asia or the Middle East or elsewhere, but when it comes to shipbuilding, when it comes to boosting our innovation, investing in -- in advanced technologies, artificial intelligence, semiconductor chips, memory chips, these are areas of commonality.

So I've certainly been trying to urge the Trump administration, my Republican colleagues in the Senate, let's focus in on the places where we know there's bipartisan support, where we know there's a national security need. I live about 15 minutes away from the Philadelphia shipyard, the Philly shipyard, which was bought by a Korean company, Hanwha, and, you know, that, again, is a great partnership that can happen where we can make sure we're building up our capacity, you know, building jobs here in the United States, you know, building up ship -- our shipbuilding capacity while engaging with a strategic ally.

You know, that's a win-win. We don't need to constantly see things right now through a zero-sum lens when it comes to our foreign policy. So often, Trump's America First policy sometimes comes across as if it's America only. And I think we need to show that there are still places where our allies have a lot to offer the United States.

[17:55:11]

TAPPER: All right, Senator Andy Kim, Democrat from New Jersey. Good to see you, sir. Thanks so much for coming here.

Some rather nasty digs today between President Trump and the Illinois governor. Trump called Governor Pritzker a slob. The governor suggested that Trump's mental faculties are slipping. How far is this going to go? We're going to talk about this and play some of the back- and-forth, next.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

TAPPER: Welcome to The Lead. I'm Jake Tapper. This hour, unconstitutional and un-American, that is how Illinois Governor J.B. Pritzker is pushing back this afternoon, calling President Trump's suggestion of sending National Guard troops to Chicago a, quote, political stunt. We're go -- going to go live to Chicago in moments. Plus, we're going to break down whether Trump's actions would even be legal.

[18:00:01]