Return to Transcripts main page

The Lead with Jake Tapper

Judge Says, Trump Unlawfully Blocked $2 Billion in Funding from Harvard; Trump Claims U.S. Will Suffer so Greatly If He Loses Tariff Case; Epstein Survivors to Trump and Congress, Release the Files. Race For Virginia Governor Enters Final Stretch; Sources: Trump Admin Meddles In NYC Mayor's Race. Aired 6-7p ET

Aired September 03, 2025 - 18:00   ET

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

JAKE TAPPER, CNN ANCHOR: And welcome to the Lead. I'm Jake Tapper.

This hour, a $200 billion ticking time bomb, it's attached to Trump's tariffs, as the president prepares to take his tariff case to the U.S. Supreme Court. Experts say, if the White House loses, the U.S. government would have to pay tens of billions of dollars in refunds to companies that paid in trade tax.

[18:00:006]

Plus, a powerful and emotional day on Capitol Hill as Epstein trafficking survivors called for more transparency and urged lawmakers to protective abuse victims. The survivors also revealing they're discussing creating their own list of abusers from Epstein's orbit if all of the information about his case is not released.

Also, what could be a major development in the race for New York City's next mayor, is the White House really involved in trying to clear the field to give their preferred candidate a better chance of defeating the Democratic nominee?

Welcome to The Lead. I'm Jake Tapper. All those stories and more in just moments, but we're going to start with some breaking news. A federal judge just gave Harvard University a huge win over President Trump. The judge siding with the Ivy League school in its effort to restore more than $2 billion, billion with a B, in federal funding that was frozen by the White House.

Let's go to CNN's Betsy Klein, who's bringing us this breaking news. Betsy, what did the judge say in his ruling?

BETSY KLEIN, CNN SENIOR WHITE HOUSE REPORTER: Yes, Jake, it's going to major victory. For Harvard University to restore more than $2.2 billion in federal funding for research that was frozen by the Trump administration earlier this year.

Now, Harvard is the only university that's been targeted by the Trump administration to take this fight to court. And the administration has been arguing they are cracking down on anti-Semitism. But this really has been a much broader fight over federal funding, academic freedom, as well as campus oversight. So, U.S. District Judge Allison Burroughs ruling moments ago that there was no obvious link between the affected projects in anti- Semitism. She actually points to a couple of those projects, including a model that helps emergency room physicians at the V.A. determine whether suicidal veterans should be hospitalized, research on ALS, as well as a government program on emerging biological threats.

And in her ruling, she wrote that there is little connection between the research affected by the grant terminations and anti-Semitism. She goes on to say that the administration used anti-Semitism as a smokescreen for a targeted, ideologically-motivated assault on this country's premier university. She's also taken issue at numerous social media posts by President Trump about Harvard, saying they were untethered from anti-Semitism.

TAPPER: Betsy, what might happen next in this battle between Trump and Harvard?

KLEIN: Well, this is a victory for Harvard for now, but the Trump administration has already suggested they are planning to continue to escalate their battle against Harvard. We heard from President Trump in July, well before this ruling was reached, that he planned to appeal, and we just got confirmation moments ago from White House Spokesperson Liz Huston, who said in a statement, quote, we will immediately move to appeal this egregious decision, and we are confident we will ultimately prevail in our efforts to hold Harvard accountable.

Now, of course, officials had been in talks with the White House about a potential settlement deal, about $500 million. That seems very uncertain right now. Jake?

TAPPER: All right. Betsy Klein, thanks so much for that breaking news.

Turning now to our Money Lead, in a series of multi-billion dollar what if questions. What if, as the federal appeals court recently ruled, what if most of President Trump's tariffs are based on a misreading of the law and are unconstitutional? What if the U.S. Supreme Court upholds that ruling? What if the U.S. Treasury then has to refund more than $200 billion to businesses that paid those tariffs? Here are President Trump's rather dire answers, both yesterday and today.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

DONALD TRUMP, U.S. PRESIDENT: If you took away tariffs, we could end up being a third world country.

And if we don't win that case, our country is going to suffer so greatly.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

TAPPER: It sounds bad.

CNN's Vanessa Yurkevich is at the magic wall. Vanessa, what kind of a potential mess might we be looking at here?

VANESSA YURKEVICH, CNN BUSINESS AND POLITICS CORRESPONDENT: Yes, Jake. It's very messy because we've never had tariffs at this scale, and we've never talked about a refund check totaling more than $210 billion. This is the amount that the U.S. government has collected through August 24th from tariffs. And a reminder to folks out there, who's paying this? This is U.S. businesses that have paid this much money because of the Trump administration's tariffs.

Now, where do we stand exactly? So, on Friday, there was an appeals court that ruled that Trump's tariffs were unlawful because he was using the -- a powers act, an emergency powers act, also known as IEEPA, and the judge essentially said, that's unlawful. So, the Trump administration now is planning to appeal that with the Supreme Court. However, if they're not successful, Jake, the ruling goes into effect on October 14th, which means that the U.S. government is going to have to stop collecting tariffs and pay back all of that money to U.S. businesses.

How does that happen? Well, no one really knows, but here are some guesses from experts.

[18:05:02]

The government could either just refund all the tariffs to those U.S. businesses and importers who have paid them. They could argue that they're only going to refund the tariffs to the plaintiffs that were on that ruling on Friday. And that's just a few. That's not a lot of businesses. Or they could require -- the federal government could require individual importers or individual businesses to request refunds. Jake, we're talking about thousands, thousands of businesses that would have to make those requests. That would surely take a lot of time and could be quite confusing for businesses who are just trying to do the math on how much they have paid so far.

TAPPER: And, Vanessa, while this is all going on, we're going to get a lot of information about the job market this week. Today, we got the first part of this data. What does it say?

YURKEVICH: We got the Jolts report earlier today, and that talks about openings, hirings, and separations, layoffs or firings. What we saw in this new report this morning was a little bit different than what we've been seeing. We saw now that there are fewer jobs available, so about less than one job per job seeker. You see the numbers right there. Jobs open, 7.18 million. Those looking for a job, those unemployed, 7.2 million.

So, now the job seeker no longer has the upper hand as they had in the pandemic. And that is really a softening of the labor market, which really supports what we saw in the July jobs report when we saw a really, really meager 73,000 jobs added in the month of July. President Trump was really upset by that, and he fired the head of the Bureau of Labor Statistics because of that.

Where are the jobs openings increasing? Where are they decreasing, Jake? Well, healthcare and social assistance. This is a category that has seen a lot of robust hiring. A reversal here, fewer jobs opening in that category, fewer jobs by down by more than a hundred thousand in retail and trade, mining and lodging, also fewer openings. Some increases that we've seen, increases in positions, constructions. We know construction. We know the president's going to like that, manufacturing as well and wholesale trade.

Jake, I will just say that this is a snapshot of the labor market. A lot of folks are looking to that major U.S. government jobs report later this week on Friday. That is what the president is also going to be looking at to see if those numbers are to his liking. Jake?

TAPPER: Yes, interesting. Vanessa Yurkevich, thanks so much.

Let's explore the possibilities with an expert, wealth and investment manager firm president, Ross Gerber. Ross, if the court's rule that Trump's tariffs are illegal, the U.S. Supreme Court, how much of a blow could this be to Trump and to the economy?

ROSS GERBER, CO-FOUNDER, PRESIDENT AND CEO, GERBER KAWASAKI WEALTH AND INVESTMENT MANAGEMENT: Well, it's a much bigger blow to Trump than the economy. I think it's actually good for the economy. This idea that it's somehow bad for the economy to take away this huge tax on American consumers is actually false. And the refunds would all go back to U.S. companies that are paying this. So, I don't see how that's a negative when the tariffs are the problem.

And I think, really, where the negative is it's a huge blow to Trump's belief system that executive orders are the way to put his policies in place versus doing it the correct way, the way our Constitution states, that Congress has the right to make these tariffs and laws. These exceptions that Trump are using are for very limited purposes and for national security issues. And it's just hard to argue that putting tariffs on every country in the world is a national security issue.

So, I don't know where this goes, but it's more another blow to Trump's style of managing this country. And it's a severe blow because I think he fundamentally doesn't understand the separation powers of the United States.

TAPPER: Speaking of Trump's style, Vanessa was talking about the Bureau of Labor Statistics is going to have the new jobs numbers this Friday, and I was just wondering how do you think they're going to be received on Wall Street given the fact that he fired the last BLS, Bureau of Labor Statistics director because he didn't like numbers and he said some really just demonstrably false things about numbers she'd put out to help Joe Biden that -- or Kamala Harris, rather, that she actually had not. Do you think people are going to take the BLS numbers on face value because of all the experts and serious policy people at BLS or are people going to wonder are these shaded just because Trump didn't like the last bad numbers?

GERBER: I spent a lot of time actually on the Bureau of Labor and Statistics websites, reading these reports, and there's literally thousands of inputs. These are factual numbers that are gathered throughout our country through an extensive process that is beyond belief, to be honest. It's incredibly detailed. And so the idea that the numbers would be manipulated out of either fear or desire, I think it's possible but probably not probable.

So, I'm not going to discount the numbers.

[18:10:01]

I always kind of use my own numbers anyways. And I think smart, you know, financial firms have other methods than just using CPI and BLS numbers to determine inflation and employment. And from my own, you know, numbers, we're seeing a softening in employment, but it's still a pretty strong economy. So, we expect more of the same of that.

But I think the idea that somebody might lose their job because of a bad number is a very, very poor way to manage the government. Once again, these are not political people. These are statisticians that work for our government and they don't care who's president. You know, when you work in the State Department or you work in a lot of these places, you work for the U.S. government, and it's not about politics. And I think that's the mistake that Trump's making is that many of these people could care less who's president. They do their job, then they try to do them well, and it's for the benefit of our country.

TAPPER: Ross Gerber, thanks so much. I appreciate it.

Even before the rumors on social media, medical experts were paying attention to the 79-year-old president's health. And CNN's, Dr. Sanjay Gupta is going to join me next to break down what we know and what we don't.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

TAPPER: In our Health Lead, before deranged social media conspiracies about President Trump's health, some even speculated over the weekend that he had died, newsflash, he's fine. White House reporters and other observers were paying attention some to some very real developments when it comes to the health of our 79-year-old president.

[18:15:03]

And joining us now is CNN Chief Medical Correspondent Dr. Sanjay Gupta. So, Sanjay, sticking to the facts here, we have seen pictures of Trump's hands. He had bruises on his hands, and we've also seen pictures of swollen ankles. These are all, you know, legitimate photographs and actual things. What is going on here?

DR. SANJAY GUPTA, CNN CHIEF MEDICAL CORRESPONDENT: Yes. If I can, just for a second, Jake, a little preamble. When we've approached things like this, and I've been doing this a long time, obviously, we see the same things that the public is seeing here. A couple things, we hear from his doctors because we want to rely, as you're pointing out on data, evidence, and facts when it comes to the president's health. We do talk to a team of other doctors as well emergency room doctors, cardiologists, gerontologists, vascular surgeons to also weigh in on what's going on with the president. So, when you specifically talk about his ankles and his hands, for example, something people have noticed, what his doctors have said is that this is due to something known as chronic venous insufficiency. Basically, the blood is not leaving the extremities as well as it should, and he gets swelling. It's not uncommon over the age of 50. About 5 percent of adults have it as you get older. He's going to be 80 next year. Even more people have it, close to 25 percent of people, according to some studies.

So, my point being is that it tracks. We see this, what you're seeing on the screen there. They call it chronic venous insufficiency, that tracks, that makes sense.

With his hands, that bruising, people who are older can get a condition known as actinic porpora, basically thin skin on the back of the hands. If you've had a lot of sun exposure, that can worsen it. It makes those blood vessels underneath the skin very, very delicate and prone to bleeding. And when you bleed like that, because the skin is so elastic, it causes pretty significant bruising, which can look alarming. But a small amount of blood in that space can do it.

So, again, that tracks, and that is based on what we're hearing from his doctors. And then sort of like just putting it through the sniff test with other docs as well, E.R. doctors, cardiologists, gerontologists, vascular surgeons. So that's -- you know, when we look at these sorts of things, that's how we approach it. What we've been told by his doctors seem to make sense. They say that the bruising on the back of the hand is a result of aspirin use, lots of trauma to the hand from handshaking they say, but also just older skin. It can look like that over time, Jake.

TAPPER: What more do we know about his health? He was the oldest president to ever be sworn in.

GUPTA: Yes. Well, so, you know, we have basic facts. You know, we haven't gotten the same amount of information about President Trump as we have from some presidents in the past, but we obviously know his age, we know his weight, we know his blood pressure. We know that he talked a lot about the cognitive testing, this screening test for cognitive decline. The Montreal Cognitive Assessment Exam say that he got a perfect score on that. And then as I was talking about his skin having sun damage, we know he takes certain meds. We know in the past he's had testing that showed evidence of heart disease, but he is taking statins and cholesterol-lowering medications, and, again, that aspirin that I mentioned earlier. But that's kind of all we really know, Jake. There hasn't been a lot that has been forthcoming.

I will say, again, having covered him, you know, going back to 2016, you've sometimes heard some really hyperbolic things as well about him. He could live to be 200 years old, for example. So, it's challenging because we want to rely not on speculation but on substance. So, I think, obviously, he's not going to live to 200, but trying to like find that line in terms of reporting, I think, is really important.

TAPPER: Yes. And also there's no law mandating that the president has to disclose anything. And while the president may -- President Trump may have disclosed more, this year than he has in the past, especially when he was running last year, there's still a lot of questions and there is not a full disclosure of everything going on with him or with any previous president?

GUPTA: No. I got to tell you, you know, again, I've been doing this for 25 years. John McCain, you may remember, Jake, back in 2008, was the only candidate at that point to release all of his medical records. And he basically gave us a room in Arizona, said here all my medical records, you can have access to them for a certain number of hours. It's like pages and pages, and, you know, I went through all that.

But most candidates or presidents, if they become president, have not released their entire medical records. So, this is not unusual. Usually, we just get these summaries, Jake.

TAPPER: Yes. Congress should pass something for future presidents requiring it. That's my opinion, having written a Biden book about lack of disclosure.

Dr. Sanjay Gupta, thank you so much. I appreciate it.

GUPTA: You got it.

TAPPER: The suspect accused of killing a kid after he played a game of ding-dong ditch, a prank, that suspect was in court today. What we're learning about the final moments before this tragic shooting, that's next.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[18:20:00]

TAPPER: Our World Lead now, at least 15 people were killed and several others injured after a streetcar derailed in Portugal. This happened today in the capital city of Lisbon. The streetcar opened back in 1885 some 140 years ago. It's a very popular tourist attraction. It carries passengers up and down a steep downtown hill.

In our National Lead, we're learning new details about the moments following a doorbell prank that turned deadly Saturday night in Houston, according to authorities, moments after 11-year-old Julian Guzman was shot in the back while playing ding-dong ditch with his cousin. Guzman collapsed to the ground and cried out in pain. The boy's cousin told police he had to army-drag Guzman, believing his legs were paralyzed. Julian died while being treated for a gunshot wound to his back.

Let's bring in CNN's Ed Lavandera. Ed, the suspect in this case appeared in court for his bond hearing today. Tell us what happened.

ED LAVANDERA, CNN SENIOR NATIONAL CORRESPONDENT: Well, it wasn't a terribly long hearing but enough for the judge to determine that the 42-year-old suspect will be held on a $1 million bond, if he is able to come up with the money, to post a bond. [18:25:05]

There were some conditions set to what his release might look like.

But we also heard, Jake, from investigators saying that there could be additional criminal charges pending, as well as this murder charge escalating to a capital murder charge because of the victim's age. And if that happens, that would make the suspect eligible for the death penalty here in Texas. Jake?

TAPPER: And you also learned more details about how this shooting unfolded.

LAVANDERA: Right. We were able to get a hold of the arrest warrant affidavit, which laid out in that a conversation that investigators had with 11-year-old Julian Guzman's cousin, who was with him ding- dong ditching on Saturday night. And according to that interview with the other child that they had been to this particular house, the suspect's house, several times, and it was on this last time that they saw the suspect come around from the side of the house. And as they started running away, they heard one shot that was fired into the ground and the second shot, which was fired into the back of the 11- year-old victim.

The prosecutor did tell us that these shots were fired from at least 20 feet away, and those court documents also detail that the suspect was out on the edge of his property, and which is one of the reasons why prosecutors do not believe this is a case of self-defense, that it's a case, in the words of the prosecutor, a cold-blooded murder. Jake?

TAPPER: All right. Ed Lavandera, thank you so much.

Epstein survivors gathered on Capitol Hill today to send a message to President Trump and to Congress, release all of the Epstein files and protect victims. An attorney who represented multiple Epstein survivors joins us live next.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[18:30:00]

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

CHAUNTAE DAVIES, EPSTEIN SURVIVOR: It's about the weight we live with daily. It is about the families broken and the futures stolen. So, I ask you, President Trump and members of Congress, why do we continue to cover up sexual abuse and assault? Who are we covering for?

SKY ROBERTS, VIRGINIA GIUFFRE'S BROTHER: Virginia said it best, and I quote. I have physical and mental scars that will never heal. I have memories that will never go away. They say time can heal but this won't, not until the justice system makes an example out of these people with so-called privileges.

HALEY ROBSON, EPSTEIN SURVIVOR: We, the survivors, are suffering severely.

There is no hoax. The abuse was real.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

TAPPER: Those are some of the Jeffrey Epstein survivors and family members of a survivor who spoke today on Capitol Hill. Some pleaded with President Trump to support a bipartisan bill that the White House currently strongly opposes for the Justice Department and FBI to release the full Epstein files.

Let's bring in Jack Scarola. He's an attorney who's represented nearly 20 Epstein victims and spent 18 years litigating cases against Epstein. So, Jack, Epstein's survivor Lisa Phillips today said, if all of the information related to Epstein's case is not released, then the survivors are going to come together and they're going to create their own list of abusers. One question that I think a lot of people are wondering is why aren't they just releasing the names now? Why don't they just go up at that press conference and give the names of the people that trafficked or raped them? I know the answer, but why don't you explain it?

JACK SCAROLA, ATTORNEY FOR EPSTEIN VICTIMS: That question was asked at the press conference. And the answer that was given is a very reasonable response. They are concerned about retaliation. They have been ignored. They have been lied to. They have been accused today of being participants in a political hoax.

And so they are going to take steps very carefully moving forward and recognize the fact that the names of those to whom they were trafficked is an important issue. But it is not nearly as important as the assault against the civil justice system and the criminal justice system that has been taking place over the course of the last two decades.

That's where the real story lies and those are the real answers that need to be sought. And that's a major portion of what the victims were attempting to achieve during the press conference today.

TAPPER: So, let's talk about that, what you refer to as the assault on the criminal justice system. Obviously, we know that Jeffrey Epstein, despite multiple accusers, got a sweetheart plea deal in 2007, 2008 from then-U.S. Attorney Alex Acosta that allowed him basically to have work released from prison for a very short amount of time and a non-prosecution agreement. What else are you talking about in terms of the assault on the justice system?

SCAROLA: We're talking about why the victims' rights to have been informed about every step in the prosecution of Jeffrey Epstein, why those rights were not only ignored, but why they were actively deprived of those rights. Why Alex Acosta committed in writing to Epstein's defense team that the rights afforded to victims by federal law would be evaded and that they would not be informed of that plea deal? That is terrible abuse.

TAPPER: This is what President Trump said today, minutes after the survivor spoke out and pleaded with him to not call this a hoax, take a listen.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

TRUMP: It's a Democrat hoax that never ends.

I understand we've given thousands of pages of files and I know that no matter what you do, it's going to keep going.

[18:35:00]

And I think it's -- really, I think it's enough because I think we should talk about the greatness of our country and the success that we're having.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

TAPPER: So, you have represented nearly 20 Epstein victims. What was your reaction when you heard that earlier?

SCAROLA: I was very, very upset because I know how my clients and the hundreds of others of Epstein-Maxwell victims react to being told that they are part of a political hoax. It's unimaginable that anyone could have made that accusation in light of all of the evidence that has been gathered about the reality of what went on.

The hoax here has nothing to do with the facts of the Epstein case. The hoax is the prolonged cover-up of those facts. The hoax is sending someone in, dangling a pardon in front of Ghislaine Maxwell and providing her with an international platform to revise history and talk about what a wonderful gentleman Donald Trump was every time she had any contact with him. That's where the hoax lies. The hoax lies in not fulfilling the promise of transparency.

TAPPER: Jack Scarola, thank you so much. I appreciate it.

It's said to be one of the first major tests of Trump's second term when voters in Virginia head to the polls later this year. Next, I'm going to be joined by one of the candidates running to be Virginia's next governor.

Stay with us.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[18:40:00]

TAPPER: In our Politics Lead, only 62 days until voters in the Commonwealth of Virginia elect a new governor, one of the biggest elections since President Trump retook the White House last year, and a crucial test for both parties ahead of the 2026 midterms. Regardless of the outcome, Virginia voters will elect their very first female governor.

And here now is one of the major candidates, Republican nominee and currently current Virginia Lieutenant Governor Winsome Earle-Sears. She's a U.S. Marine veteran. Welcome to The Lead, Lieutenant Governor. President Trump is hitting crime as a big issue, national issue. Last month, the Virginia Police Benevolent Association, which backed your boss and the current governor, Glenn Youngkin, as well as your run for lieutenant governor in 2021, they endorsed your opponent, Abigail Spanberger, the Democratic congresswoman. What was your reaction to that?

LT. GOV. WINSOME EARLE-SEARS (R-VA): Well, you'll have to ask the police association why they did that, because my opponent, Abigail Spanberger, has taken thousands of dollars from the Defund the Police PAC. I mean, she's already signaling exactly what she's going to do. And, by the way, the Police Benevolent Association has been losing members ever since they decided to endorse her.

So, you'll have to talk to them about that because I have sat in many, a group of law enforcement, Department of Corrections personnel, sheriffs, and they have told me, Winsome if you don't win, we are leaving. And so she is going to destroy the safety and security that we have here because they don't believe that she will protect us. And it's the first job of any governor is to protect the citizens. And when I raised my right hand to do so, I raised my right hand to protect, defend the Constitution of the United States, and that still goes for the people of Virginia. So, I'm ready.

TAPPER: What's the Defund the Police PAC? That's the name of an actual PAC or are you describing a PAC?

EARLE-SEARS: It's the name of a pack, and you'll have to ask my opponent about that, because I've told her she should take -- she should give the money back. But, apparently, she's not, because that's not who she is. We cannot trust her. She says one thing and she does another. She, in fact, voted to defund the police and get rid of their qualified immunity, which, by the way, to get rid of your qualified immunity means that, in the course of you doing your job, then you will actually lose everything that you have should anything occur. Would you take that job? No. And that's why the police are saying that they will support me. Law enforcement will.

TAPPER: I want to play part of an ad that's pinned at the top of your social media feed on X. Take a listen.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: How liberal is Abigail Spanberger? She voted to allow men in girls' sports, bathrooms and locker rooms. Spanberger believes this woman has a right to undress next to young girls.

REP. ABIGAIL SPANBERGER (D-VA): Our LGBTQ neighbors have the same legal rights as anyone else.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Spanberger is for they/them, not for us.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

TAPPER: So, that's obviously an echo of the ad that President Trump ran against Vice President Harris. I guess I have two questions. One is your message seems very negative. I mean, this is your pin tweet and it's about your opponent. And, second of all, is this issue about trans rights the issue that Virginians are most concerned about when they talk to you out there when you're campaigning?

EARLE-SEARS: What you're saying to me, Jake, is that the truth's negative. The truth is the truth. And what we are saying is the truth. My opponent has voted against parents' rights, against parents knowing what's happening in the schools, against parents knowing what the curriculum is that's being taught, against if the curriculum is changing, against knowing the school administration is helping their children to transition. She has voted against -- Abigail Spanberger has voted against parents knowing if there's violence in the schools. She is not coming forward to defend what she has voted for.

[18:45:01]

Don't believe what she says. Believe her votes.

So, my opponent, I'm calling her No Backbone Abigail, because that's who she is.

She wants to be governor of our great Commonwealth of Virginia, but she is nowhere to be found to defend these policies that she voted for. And she was proud to do so. But yet now she will not defend them.

JAKE TAPPER, CNN HOST: I want to ask you about some of the impacts of President Trump's policies on your state. The budget and tax bill that passed this summer, the one Big, Beautiful Bill Act, KFF, a nonpartisan health policy organization, estimates that roughly 350,000 people in Virginia are going to lose health insurance because of that bill. The chief financial officer of Virginia's Department of Medical Assistance Services estimates that Virginia hospitals could lose up to $26 billion as a result of the changes to Medicaid in this bill.

What's your plan to offset those costs?

EARLE-SEARS: So, Governor Youngkin and I have spoken about this. And from what I understand, there are no Virginians who are going to lose their Medicaid coverage in Virginia unless that's something that they choose, because under the BBB, you will be required to at least 40 hours per month of some sort of whether you're looking for work or whether you are going to school, some sort of activity. And so, we are not taking anyone off the Medicaid rolls.

And let me say something. You know, I am the only candidate who has mopped the floors of a food pantry. I am the only candidate who has led a men's prison ministry for two years. One of the best things I ever did with my life.

And finally, I'm the only candidate who has run a women's homeless shelter for women and their children. And when we were in the shelter, we required each woman to be able to look for work, and I would drive them myself to jobs. I would drive them myself to training because I wanted them to succeed. TAPPER: Uh-huh.

EARLE-SEARS: That's what we want for Virginians. And we have -- we have the -- in the budget, we have run surpluses in Virginia, $10 billion since we've been in office. We've given back $9 billion to taxpayers. We have the money. We can help Virginians.

TAPPER: Right. But I was asking about up to $26 billion in cuts to rural hospitals and $10 billion obviously is less than 26.

EARLE-SEARS: Well -- well, no, let me finish that then. So, we have spoken -- I have met with folks who are running our rural hospital systems, and we have talked about the various ways that we can help. We're looking into all that we can possibly do because we are not going to let any Virginian go without health care.

I had to provide that as a matter of fact, when I had my business in Virginia.

TAPPER: All right. Virginia Lieutenant Governor Winsome Earle-Sears, thank you so much. And obviously, we extend an invitation to Congresswoman --

EARLE-SEARS: Thank you.

TAPPER: Water -- okay. Water fountains are for everyone. Agreed.

EARLE-SEARS: We -- yes.

TAPPER: Agreed.

EARLE-SEARS: Just a reminder.

TAPPER: All right. Agreed. Thank you so much.

And obviously, we extend an invitation to Congresswoman Abigail Spanberger.

Here in the studio is the panel.

That was, by the way, what she did at the end there with the sign -- that is a reference to there was a rally, I think it was in favor of trans rights, but I'm not sure. But in any case, there was somebody at the rally that had a sign that was pretty offensive saying that if trans kids can't -- I forget the exact thing. But it was something like, trans kids can't come to school, you can't drink from my water fountain, which obviously Lieutenant Governor Sears and Congresswoman Spanberger both attacked as racist, which it was.

And anyway, that's just for people confused as to why she may have held up that sign. If you're not a Virginia political junkie, you would not know that.

You're a Virginia voter, Marc. Democrats want this to be a referendum on President Trump. What do you make of the race? The latest polls I've seen have Spanberger ahead. MARC SHORT, FORMER CHIEF OF STAFF TO VP MIKE PENCE: Well, look, I

think that as northern Virginia populations continue to swell with federal government employees. Virginia has moved, frankly, from being a purple state to truly a blue state.

Glenn Youngkin won. He is a good candidate. He won, I think, in a perfect storm when you had Democrats control all levels of government after the Biden victory in 2020. The last time we had a Republican governor, Bob McDonnell, was the same thing the year after Obama's clean sweep.

So, typically, this is headwinds for Republicans to run in this environment, particularly when Republicans control all levers of government.

Winsome Earle-Sears has inspiring personal story. She's a Jamaican immigrant who served in the U.S. Marines, as you said. She started a small business. She's a mom.

She should be somebody that the Republicans should be supporting more than they are, frankly. It is a headwind race for us. But she's not getting a lot of support from national Republicans.

TAPPER: Yeah. What do you make -- what do you make of the race? Spanberger for people who don't know, I think she's been in Congress for two or three terms. She's a former CIA officer. So, her calling her know background is an interesting.

MO ELLEITHEE, FORMER DNC COMMUNICATIONS DIRECTOR: Yeah.

TAPPER: What's your take?

ELLEITHEE: Yeah. Look, I've done, I think, seven or eight statewide races in Virginia over the years and where I might quibble a little bit with Marc is, I think Virginia is still a purple state. It's a bluish shade of purple, but it's still a purple state.

[18:50:02]

It's a very competitive state.

But where the population is swelling, the northern Virginia suburbs and the Hampton Roads suburbs around Norfolk, those are two economies, two regions where the economy is completely dependent on federal government. The number of federal employees, federal contractors, small businesses that depend on federal employees and their business.

This Big, Beautiful Bill and the whole DOGE effort is costing Virginia like tens of thousands of jobs, according to many estimates, she has no response. Winsome Earle-Sears has no response to that. Abigail Spanberger is running a very disciplined campaign, talking about her differences with that, as well as her differences with the national Democratic Party on some issues.

And she's kind of figured out how to thread the needle in a competitive purplish state that I think in other races, in that kind of an environment, people might learn from.

TAPPER: So, President Trump has said he wants crime to be the big issue in 2026. He's making that pretty clear by sending the National Guard to California. Now they're here in D.C.

Today, some Republican senators held a press conference highlighting the success of the crime crackdown in D.C. Take a listen.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

SEN. ROGER MARSHALL (R-KS): One of my staffers' cars in the apartment was riddled with bullets. Two other my staffers' vehicles were broken in, and a fourth staffer was attacked by young punks.

SEN. ASHLEY MOODY (R-FL): We got here and immediately started hearing staff that was afraid to go out at night from their apartments, members that had staff murdered, attacked, assaulted.

SEN. TOMMY TUBERVILLE (R-AL): I've had to step over homeless, have had to ask police, you know, to help in certain areas.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

TAPPER: Marc, today, President Trump said he's considering sending troops to New Orleans, which does have a Republican governor. Is this just going to continue? What -- how do you see this playing out for the midterms?

SHORT: Look, I think it's going to continue, Jake. I think it's a good issue for the president politically. I think he was right to send troops into D.C. It is our nations capital. It also has federal oversight.

Even though I think it's a good political issue for the president, because Democrats keep going and claiming that there's actually not serious crime in Chicago or D.C., which I think puts them in a really bad, awkward position. I do think that constitutionally, it should be something the governor's request National Guard support. It's not something that the executive branch has authority to do except here in D.C.

TAPPER: There you go, invoking that pesky Constitution again, Marc.

What do you think?

ELLEITHEE: Crime is a problem, right? I'm a Democrat who thinks crime is a problem in a lot of places. The biggest case of mass crime recently in D.C. was January 6th, and the president pardoned all those criminals.

But there are ways to help tackle this. And mayors have been asking for it. More cops, give us budget for more cops. This president's legislation cut that. Invest more in safer communities. He stopped that.

So, there are ways to do it besides sending troops in. TAPPER: Yeah. I mean, there is a way to solve the problem, but

partnering, which has happened in the past.

Thanks to both of you. Appreciate it.

Is the White House now meddling in the race for New York City's mayor? One of the leading candidates seems to think so. Is it true? We'll tell you about it. And coming up.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[18:57:31]

TAPPER: In our politics lead, is New York Mayor Eric Adams planning on joining the Trump administration? Two sources telling CNN that aides to President Trump have floated the idea of offering Mayor Adams, who is currently seeking reelection as an independent, a job. The goal seems to be to clear the mayoral field to help consolidate support for Andrew Cuomo against the Democratic nominee, Zohran Mamdani.

Here's what Mamdani said about the potential shakeup in the race earlier today.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

ZOHRAN MAMDANI (D), NEW YORK CITY MAYORAL CANDIDATE: Today, we have learned what New Yorkers have long suspected, that Andrew Cuomo is Donald Trump's choice to be the next mayor of this city. He feels just as confident as we did yesterday that we will win this race in November. This is, however, about an affront to our democracy.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

TAPPER: Joining us now to discuss is CNN's Gloria Pazmino.

Gloria, what is the Adams' campaign said about this story?

GLORIA PAZMINO, CNN CORRESPONDENT: Well, the Adams campaign has denied that. Eric Adams has recently spoken to President Trump about the mayoral campaign, or that he is considering any sort of job in the administration.

But two sources familiar with the conversation have told me that this is a strategy that they are considering in an effort to narrow the field. This is very good news for Andrew Cuomo. He has said that he thinks he has a good chance to beat Zohran Mamdani, but only if Eric Adams gets out of the way. You see the split the same electorate.

So as long as Eric Adams stays in the race, things get complicated for Andrew Cuomo.

Now, I do want you to hear directly from Mayor Eric Adams, who forcefully denied that he is thinking about leaving this race. Take a listen.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

MAYOR ERIC ADAMS (D), NEW YORK CITY: The rumors I don't know about. I have a job. I'm running for my reelection, and I'm still doing that. And I'm looking forward to getting reelected.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

PAZMINO: Another new thing we learned today, jake, is that the mayor was just in Florida, where he did say he met with some political figures. He said he met with the Mayor of Miami, but did not elaborate who else he met with. But for now, he is insisting that he is staying in the race, which I should say is a very uphill battle for him, both against Cuomo and against the Democratic mayoral nominee, Mamdani.

TAPPER: All right, Gloria Pazmino, thanks so much for that update.

You can follow me on Facebook, Instagram, Threads, X, and on TikTok @jaketapper. You can follow the show on X @TheLeadCNN. If you ever missed an episode of THE LEAD, you can listen to the show whence you get your podcast.

"ERIN BURNETT OUTFRONT" starts now.