Return to Transcripts main page

The Lead with Jake Tapper

Trump Says, Ukraine Could Still Win It, I Don't Think They Will; Trump, Colombian President Escalate Spat Over U.S. Boat Strikes; Former Official Sounds Alarm On Social Security Data Vulnerability; Transportation Secretary Trolls Musk: He's Behind Schedule; Biden Completes Course Of Radiation Therapy For Cancer Treatment. Aired 6-7p ET

Aired October 20, 2025 - 18:00   ET

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

[18:00:00]

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

This hour, a major reversal from President Trump who now says he does not think that Ukraine can win the war against Russia after all. The new comments coming just a month after the president said he thought Ukraine could not only win the war but win back the territory Russia had seized. How much of this is because of Trump's call last week with Vladimir Putin?

Plus, he resigned from the Social Security Administration after warning that your personal information was being put at risk in moments. That whistleblower is going to join me live for his very first T.V. interview to explain the reasons behind his stark warning.

And new fallout from the Jeffrey Epstein scandal as police reportedly launched an investigation into none other than Prince Andrew. Looking into whether he tried to use a bodyguard to dig up dirt on Virginia Giuffre after she accused him of sexual assault. We're going to go to London to get a live update ahead.

Our Lead tonight, President Trump, making yet another reversal on how to ultimately settle the war between Russia and Ukraine when taking questions about Ukraine's chances today at the White House.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

DONALD TRUMP, U.S. PRESIDENT: They could still win it. I don't think they will, but they could still win it. I never said they would win it. I said they could win. Anything can happen. You know, war is a very strange thing.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

TAPPER: The seeming switch comes after what officials say was a tense meeting between President Trump and Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy on Friday with President Trump even raising his voice as he became frustrated, we're told. He's now insisting that Ukraine make territorial concessions to Russia for the war to end. It's a notable change from just a month ago when Trump posted that he thought Ukraine was in a position to fight and win the territory back in its original form. This latest flip comes on the heels of a lengthy phone call last week with Russian dictator of Vladimir Putin, whom he's preparing to meet in Budapest later this month.

CNN's Chief White Correspondent Kaitlan Collins is joining us now. Kaitlan, is it fair to say that Trump's opinion is changing based on when he last spoke with Putin?

KAITLAN COLLINS, CNN ANCHOR AND CHIEF WHITE HOUSE CORRESPONDENT: Yes. It's kind of a pattern that we've seen playing out over the last ten months, nine months since Trump has been in office, where oftentimes a conversation, whether he speaks with European leaders, with Zelenskyy or he's frustrated with Putin, shifts his view of this. I mean, just a few weeks ago he was saying that Ukraine could win all of it back. He wasn't as skeptical of it back then as he was framing that today. And so I think that's why this is such a notable shift.

And we talked to people on Friday after that meeting with Zelenskyy at the White House and they were describing it as frank, tense, at times uncomfortable. And you know when White House officials, you know, Jake, obviously is covering the White House when you take the reporting and they don't dispute it, and they use words like, direct and frank, obviously, it was pretty tense behind the scenes because that's their diplomatic way of saying that it wasn't really the conversation that Zelenskyy came to Washington wanting to have.

He thought the president was on the verge of giving Ukraine Tomahawk missiles because Trump sounded like he was on the verge of doing so. And then he really pulled back dramatically on that. He kind of looked at it going into the meeting, the call with Putin, skeptically, talking about the U.S. need for Tomahawk missiles. And so I don't think the meeting on Friday went the way Ukraine wanted it to go.

TAPPER: Yes.

COLLINS: I think they are still hopeful that eventually that something will happen. And the other framing of this is Trump is looking for a potential next meeting with Putin and Budapest is that Ukraine views that as potentially a good thing because it'll show the president that Putin's not willing to make concessions. I don't think we know how that's going to play out, but we've seen how this has changed his position already.

TAPPER: And, Kaitlan, Trump also gave us a preview of his upcoming meeting with president Xi Jinping of China. What did he say?

COLLINS: He sounded really optimistic about the tariff aspect of this, the trade deal, framing it as something fantastic, they could make. He called Xi a friend of his. That came after just a few weeks ago. He seem -- a few days ago. He seemed to be about to call off the meeting with Xi Jinping on the sidelines of the summit that he's going to in South Korea. So, we'll see if that happens.

But the two other things that he said about China that stood out to me also, Jake, was, one, he's signing a critical minerals deal with the Australian prime minister today. That's to counter China. So, that's moves that the White House is making in terms of countering China on that front.

But he also said that he doesn't think China's going to invade Taiwan. He said that maybe it's something that Xi still wants and it's the apple of his eye, but he sounded very optimistic on whether or not the Chinese leader is actually going to go after Taiwan, which he believes is his, which I thought was a notable comment given that has obviously been a concern of US presidents that Trump says he doesn't think it's going to happen on his watch.

TAPPER: Kaitlan Collins, thank you so much. And don't miss Kaitlan on her show, The Source with Kaitlan Collins. That's tonight and every weeknight at 9:00 Eastern, only on CNN.

Joining us now to discuss, Republican Congressman Ryan Zinke, who joins us from his home state of Montana. Congressman, the president has now seemingly shifted his views several times on whether he thinks Ukraine needs to cede territory to Russia.

[18:05:04]

His newest opinion seems to be that battleground should freeze where they are. This comes after a call with Vladimir Putin. Does it concern you at all that Trump seems to have not taken a firm stance?

REP. RYAN ZINKE (R-MT): Well, I would shape it this way.

TAPPER: Okay.

ZINKE: I would shape it this way. You know, as a former SEAL commander, situation in terrain matter. And, actually, I think the president has been pretty consistent on Crimea. Russia's going to maintain Crimea, pretty consistent, I think, on NATO and pretty consistent on some territorial swaps. I think at the end of the day, what he recognizes his situation in strain.

Look, the Russians have lost 500,000 troops. The Ukrainians have lost generations, maybe two or three generations. They're fighting with older men, and in many cases, adolescents. Russia has the superior force, although both sides have been brutalized. The president wants to stop the conflict. He wants to stop the killing.

So, I think he's right in that. And I remember all along I've said, look, you know, Russia has weakened itself over time. And you look at the oil prices, one should look at this too. How much pressure is on Russia, as oil falls below 60 barrels a day, not a lot of room for Russia to make a lot of money, certainly no room to make concessions. So, I think actually the strategy is working and I'm actually hopeful we're going to see at least a ceasefire and a peace deal being made.

Earlier on the show, we had former Democratic Congressman Rahm Emanuel, who gave President Trump lots of credit for the peace deal between Israel and Hamas, but said, basically, where's the 20-point plan for peace between Russia and Ukraine? I think he was basically saying there needs to be more of a specific effort. These are the 10 things, 20 things that need to happen. What do you make of that?

ZINKE: Well, I think at the heart of it is NATO security, making sure that deal has been made, that Russia holds it. And right now, Russia has not held much. Remember, Russia is going after civilian targets. Ukrainian, by and large, has not, military targets, infrastructure. So, Russia is the aggressor here. What assurance are we going to have? I think an international force probably work. I'm delighted what's happening in Gaza, but a couple players in NATO, Turkey to be, you know, one of them should be highlighted, had a lot of influence on getting rid of Assad, had a lot of influence, I think, positive influence on Gaza, and Turkey can play a very positive role also in your Ukraine. But I think there's going to be -- it has to be some security assurance, absolute that this aggression stops. And we're going to have to hold to it. I think NATO, their forces, Poland, I think there's a lot of opportunity there to make sure we have a force of merit to stop the aggression for once and for all.

TAPPER: Let's talk about the Middle East. Witkoff and Kushner are arriving to meet with Prime Minister Netanyahu today in Israel. The ceasefire deal that they brokered, it was tested this weekend. It's still there, but it was tested. Israel struck Gaza after Israelis, the IDF accused Hamas of an attack that killed two IDF soldiers.

Next up, if phase two is going to be phased in here of this peace deal of the ceasefire deal, next -- point six Hamas lays down its arms. How do you see that happening?

ZINKE: Well, I think the only way possible is, again, the neighbors that have all come together, the international force is going to have to be proactive. In many cases, there's not a lot of difference between Hamas and the Gaza population because Hamas was the ruling party, you know, and not just a couple of months we're talking a long period of time. And the rebuilding part, a think at the end of the day Gaza needs to see hope that they can rebuild, that there's some carve- out, some future for them better than living in squalor and wreckage and violence.

So, what I'm hoping is that, yes, the security force to disarm Hamas, but also on the other hand I'm hoping we see some economic future being realized for the people of Gaza that had been long been suffering. There's no doubt about that.

TAPPER: All right. Montana's Republican Congressman Ryan Zinke, thank you so much, sir, as always.

Tensions escalating between the Trump administration and the country of Colombia over the strikes on alleged drug boats and now a fight over a local fisherman who claims to have been a target. We will explain.

And in his first television interview, a former chief data officer at a very important federal agency warns that your personal information could well be at risk.

[18:10:00]

We're going to talk to him next.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

TAPPER: In our World Lead, tensions are flaring between President Trump and Colombia's President Gustavo Petro after Petro accused U.S. officials of, quote, murder following a U.S. strike on an alleged drug boat last week. President Trump posted video of the strike, the sixth such attack by the U.S., and says the two, quote, narco-terrorists who weren't killed have been released to their home countries of Colombia and Ecuador. Trump also hit back at Petro, calling him a, quote, illegal drug leader, and announced he would end all U.S. aid to that country.

But Colombians are being told one of the earlier U.S. strikes killed a fisherman. That fisherman, Alejandro Carranza's family spoke with state-run Colombia T.V. outlet, RTVC Noticias, and say he's innocent. Now, to be clear, CNN does not know if he was involved in the drug trade or not, but this is what the people of Colombia are being told.

[18:15:04]

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Alejandro Carranza is a fisherman. We were raised in fishing families, and while there, that's him right there because he's a curious person. And while he's there with the engines and they are stranded.

He said goodbye on Sunday at 5:00 A.M. as usual -- September 14th. As usual, they left early to fish and we haven't heard from him since.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

TAPPER: Again, that is state run Colombian T.V. We do not know if that is true or not, but that is what the people of Colombia are being told. Also, this weekend, Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth confirmed a seventh strike alleging that the U.S. killed, quote, all three terrorists on board that vessel.

Joining us now, CNN National Security Correspondent Natasha Bertrand and anchor for CNN en Espanol, Juan Carlos Lopez. Juan Carlos, thanks so much for joining us, Natasha, you as well.

So, Colombia's interior minister says, the surviving Colombian detainee from that sixth boat strike was in really bad shape when he was returned by the U.S. What else are we hearing from the government of Colombia?

JUAN CARLOS LOPEZ, CNN ANCHOR: The story we're hearing is that the survivors are from the submersible. Now, you don't go fishing and it's submersible, but the attack that they're alleging that killed the innocent fisher mode was a different one where the boat is just standing still. And he says the motor is raised, the outboard motor, and that was a sign that they were in distress and they were attacked.

That's what President Petro has been saying. But President Petro's very active in social media just as President Trump is, and Colombia is very polarized. So, you have people who follow him, believe what he's saying, but a lot of the population in Colombia don't believe what he's saying and know that something is going on in the Caribbean. Obviously, it's a drug route, but there is concern about the actions by the U.S. just eliminating boats without any type of evidence of what's happening there.

TAPPER: And, Natasha, is there a legal reason behind why the Trump administration decided to release the two people who were not killed in that boat strike on Thursday? One would think if they were narco- terrorists that they wouldn't be released.

NATASHA BERTRAND, CNN NATIONAL SECURITY CORRESPONDENT: Yes. Keeping them in military custody, it would've been in keeping with their argument that they are in an armed conflict with these drug traffickers. But I think that the even more interesting question is what legal rationale would they have had to actually keep them in custody. That is what legal experts are raising questions about. Because while the Trump administration has kind of unilaterally declared that they are in this armed conflict with these enemy combatants that are these drug cartels, Congress has not issued an AUMF. There has been no litigation on this issue.

And the U.S. military actually, we have reported, they really didn't want this headache. They did not want to try to figure out what to do with these two survivors. And so they, from the moment they picked them up, were leaning towards releasing them to their home countries because that was simply the least messy course of action.

But, again, it raises a lot of questions about, well, if you felt like you had enough evidence against these two individuals, couldn't you have tried to hand them over perhaps to civilian law enforcement for prosecution in the U.S.? Might you have tried to send them to Guantanamo, try to charge them under some kind of military commission?

Again, it raises a lot of questions about the strength of their evidence and whether or not they were prepared to have it challenged in open court because, again, federal courts, they have not ruled on this issue of whether they're actually in an armed conflict with these traffickers. So, that also posed a potential risk if they kept these guys in custody.

TAPPER: And, Juan Carlos, you heard President Trump has said that he's going to cut off all aid to Colombia. What kind of aid does Colombia get from the U.S., if any?

LOPEZ: For fiscal year is about $378 million between humanitarian aid and military aid, and there's a big -- a very deep relationship between the Colombian military and the U.S. Colombia's been a very strong ally, even during the petro government, but Colombia is the largest producer of cocaine in the world, and the U.S. is the largest consumer. And if they're not working together, then the challenge gets even bigger.

TAPPER: And you talked, Natasha, about there is no AUMF authorization for the use of military force against these alleged narco-traffickers. Is there any appetite in Congress to either write one or at the very least, start to assert some legislative power here?

BERTRAND: Well, you've heard from Democrats anyway, that they at least want to hold hearings on this because there has been virtually no information given to the Hill about all of these strikes. But then you have some Republicans in Congress, like Cory Mills, for example, who is crafting legislation for an authorization for the use of military force. The question is, is that actually going to move through? Is it going to get passed? But Congress right now is very much in the dark about all of this.

TAPPER: All right. Natasha and Juan Carlos, thanks to both of you, I really appreciate it.

Meet the whistleblower who tried to stand up to Elon Musk and his DOGE staffers when they slashed budgets and potentially put the personal data of millions of Americans at risk. He's going to give us his very first television interview. That's next.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[18:20:00]

TAPPER: In our Politics Lead, a whistleblower who warned the Department of Government Efficiency, or DOGE, warned that they were putting American Social Security data at risk is speaking out. Chuck Borges involuntarily resigned as the Social Security Administration's chief data officer in August. He said the agency took actions against him that made it impossible to just do his job.

Today, a new profile of Borges' details, his experiences as Elon Musk's DOGE staffers disrupted the agency, quote, I cannot count how many employees I saw cry, and that is at all levels of the agency from executives downward, unquote.

Joining us now for his very first T.V. interview is Chuck Borges. Thank you so much for joining us, Chuck. So, you say you suffered from a, quote, culture of fear. You wrote that in your resignation letter. Describe what you felt raising these concerns and being met with what you say was a hostile response.

[18:25:03]

CHUCK BORGES, FORMER CHIEF DATA OFFICER, SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION: Raising these concerns was an extremely terrifying choice to make. As the chief data officer hours responsible for the data safety and security of all Americans' personal information and finding the series of checks and balances that we put in place around your data to keep it safe was frankly disturbing. And I lost a lot of sleep because of it as I investigated this issue and felt that I couldn't do my job to protect the public's data safely. I spent a lot of sleepless nights trying to decide what to do.

At the same time, I encountered employees who were perpetually in fear for their jobs, being told to take involuntary resignations. There were times I saw employees breaking down at their desks and crying. I've seen employees cry in meetings. It was psychically and physically a very stressful time.

TAPPER: Was -- the concerns you had about the safety of the data, okay? Was it because the DOGE people were incompetent in doing -- not knowing what they were doing, or were they trying to get the data to use it for some other purpose?

BORGES: Well, I can't speak to the motives. As the chief data officer, I was never actually informed what the motives were for the need of this data. My concern was around the elimination of those checks and balances that I described, which put your data at risk. As an example, you have a laptop there, let's say that laptop is the cloud and you put your data on the laptop. That increases the risk of your data being exposed. Now, I want you to give me the laptop. Once you give me that laptop, I want you to give me your password, and then I want you to walk away.

Each one of those steps is a check or balance that we put around your data to keep it safe. And when you bypass or circumvent those checks and balances, it was the totality of risk about your data that I was concerned about the most.

TAPPER: Yes. Social Security Commissioner Frank Bisignano told Senate Finance Committee Chairman Senator Mike Crapo that Social Security data is secure, and as of September, none of it has been, quote, accessed, leaked, hacked, or shared in any unauthorized fashion, unquote. Do you have any knowledge of that not being true?

BORGES: What I would ask the commissioner and what I would ask the Social Security Administration is to back that assertion up with documentation. There is a wealth of documentation that the agency maintains from system logs to audit trails, email communications, and chats between team members that could verify the truth or -- of my claims or the truth of those assertions.

TAPPER: So, Bisignano also says that it's standard practice to store the specific data that you flagged in the agency's cloud. And he says the server is secure. Do you disagree?

BORGES: Again, I would say that you can back that up very easily with documentation. When I was the chief data officer and I raised these concerns internally, I asked for documentation from both my colleagues and from my superiors to try to prove or disprove my concerns.

I received some information from my colleagues that only increased my alarm, and my queries to superiors were completely ignored.

TAPPER: What information did you get that increased your alarm?

BORGES: When I made my initial disclosure, I raised concerns that that specific data had been copied to a cloud environment, and, again, the independent security controls around it had been bypassed. The information that I received in my investigation seemed to corroborate that.

TAPPER: And what could somebody do with this data if they had access to it? BORGES: So. Social Security maintains a very complete set of personal information on everybody. When you apply for a Social Security card, it's basically all the information on your birth certificate. Think your mother's maiden name, your father's middle name, your place of birth, all those wonderful pieces of information that we use to answer security questions when we apply for an account at the bank or for a mortgage.

Usually, bad actors have to go to the dark web or somewhere else and build that picture of you piece by piece. This is that complete snapshot of your personal information. So, it's the most critical data set I feel that Social Security maintains. And if it were to be accidentally leaked or breached, the results would be catastrophic.

TAPPER: You were a naval officer for decades. You served in Iraq. And I'm wondering did that play any role, your experiences as a veteran, play any role or as a seaman play any role in your feelings, your need to come forward to be a whistleblower? Did the sense of duty play a role there?

BORGES: They did. It did. As a military officer, we get a lot of training and we spend a lot of time in discussion and thought about what to do in certain ethical or moral dilemmas. What to do when you feel like you may be faced with an immoral or an illegal order and how to react to that.

[18:30:01]

From my perspective, as the chief data officer responsible with oversight for all your data and seeing these checks and balances being bypassed and being abrogated and seeing the risk to the public through my training as a military officer, it helped me work through the moral dilemma and feel like I was compelled to report my concerns.

TAPPER: Why would they fire you? Why would you -- I mean, it seems to me like you're exactly the kind of person I want in charge of my data. You resigned, but you said kind of like involuntarily. You seem like the kind of person anybody would want in charge of their data. You're very, very serious about it. And, you know, even if the administrator disagrees with you, I would still want that person being a pain in my ass about it until he felt good about it. It doesn't make any sense to me.

BORGES: So, as the chief data officer, I have a statutory obligation to protect the agency's data safety and data security. When I found these checks and balances being bypassed and I saw the risk to the public's data, I had a couple considerations I had to make. The first was that I could be legally liable for any possible laws being broken around this data being moved, and that was a serious concern for me. Again, as the C-suite official in charge of data, I had a responsibility that others do not.

Additionally, once I reported these concerns, I was essentially ignored by senior leadership. I had very little interaction with them and it was a very stressful time.

TAPPER: All right. Chuck Borges, thank you so much and thanks for your service.

BORGES: Thank you, Jake. Thanks for having me.

TAPPER: I really appreciate you being here.

If you wondered why Prince Andrews suddenly gave up using his royal titles last week, well, the answer may lie in some new disturbing allegations related to the Jeffrey Epstein scandal that we're going to tell you about, next.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[18:35:00]

TAPPER: In our World Lead today, two new developments involving Jeffrey Epstein victim Virginia Giuffre are putting renewed focus on the abuse she suffered and renewed scrutiny on Prince Andrew. One in her posthumous memoir, which is set to be published tomorrow, Giuffre feared that she might die a sex slave at the hands of Jeffrey Epstein in his circle, and, two, police in London are investigating whether Prince Andrew asked an officer to dig up dirt on Giuffre who had accused him of sexual assault.

CNN Royals Correspondent Max Foster joins us. And, Max, there are also some new allegations against Prince Andrew and Giuffre's memoir. Tell us more.

MAX FOSTER, CNN ANCHOR AND ROYAL CORRESPONDENT: So, some of these books have been released ahead of schedule. The British media managed to get them from a book shop, but shouldn't have been putting them out, but we're getting a sense of it. And also Amy Wallace, who co- wrote this book with Virginia Giuffre, has also just started appearing in the media as well.

So, in this book, Giuffre describes in harrowing detail some of the abuse that she suffered at the hands of several men, not just Prince Andrew. Prince Andrew's the only one that she's naming, and Amy Wallace is saying it shouldn't be up to the survivors or victims to out their abusers. It should be the authorities that should do that, which is why she's calling for the broader Epstein files to be released.

We've also been hearing from Republican Congresswoman Marjorie Taylor Greene, who's also been pushing for these documents to be released as well, backing calls by the author and Giuffre to have the Epstein files released.

So, in the book, for example, she describes how Prince Andrew tried to hire trolls to harass her. And that ties in, you could argue, with a police investigation currently underway here in London, looking into an email where Prince Andrew apparently tried to dig dirt on Virginia Giuffre, asking a police officer to look into her criminal record and even handing over her private Social Security number and date of birth. So, that's being investigated.

And the Royal family had hope that last week they could distance themselves from this by working with him to get rid of those titles. Instead, it's just drip, drip, drip. And today, King Charles was actually in Manchester, the scene of that horrific terror attack trying to support members of the Jewish community. And the palace was only asked about Prince Andrew, and it's clearly frustrating them. But there are many people who feel that actually the royal family could be doing more here, Jake.

TAPPER: All right. Max Foster in London, thank you so much.

Let's bring in James Marsh. He's an attorney who has represented several of Epstein survivors. James, thanks for joining.

So, on Friday, the House Oversight Committee released transcripts of its interview with former U.S. Attorney Alex Acosta, who had negotiated that 2008 sweetheart plea deal with Epstein. Acosta in the interview defended his handling of the deal. He said, quote, if we go to trial and we roll the dice and we do the crapshoot and we lose, what kind of signal does that send? That says that he got away with it, that you can do that more. So, we thought it was very important to send that signal, and that's why, that's one reason we favored the negotiating plea, unquote.

What do you make of that explanation for not taking the case to trial for settling with this plea deal that was pretty cushy?

JAMES MARSH, ATTORNEY REPRESENTING EPSTEIN VICTIMS: I mean, that's not an unusual reaction by prosecutors in cases like this, especially when you have vulnerable victims and victims of sexual assault. I think what is more interesting about his testimony was the fact that this sentence was to be served out in the state court system. Now, that's very unusual and should have raised a lot of red flags, and this whole notion of this non-prosecution agreement, which has never been adequately explained in any of the testimony or investigation.

So, while the sentiment is accurate and sometimes protective of victims, I think all of the other things that were the result of that decision are much more concerning.

TAPPER: Acosta also said, quote, many victims refuse to testify. Many victims had changing stories, unquote. How are Epstein's survivors reacting to Acosta's remarks here?

MARSH: I mean, part of the problem with this original pros prosecution is the lack of involvement and respect for victims.

[18:40:03]

That case went all the way up to the 11th Circuit. So, the lack of victim notification, victim support, victim engagement, I think, really reflects poorly on this decision-making process. And it's just not fair for him now to turn it around and blame the victims for not being willing to do the job that they should have done in that office to begin with.

TAPPER: I know for some survivors of Epstein's abuse, some we've spoken with, the continued coverage over this case can be a lot to deal with, triggering, re-traumatizing, do they have confidence in the House Oversight Committee's investigation? What do they want to come out of it?

MARSH: I mean, I'm counseling people and my clients and everyone in general, but this is going to be a long process. We're really going to get to the bottom of who Jeffrey Epstein was, how he came to power, how he's able to leverage that power, especially in this prosecution. Some of the top lawyers in the country were working for him. Some of the lawyers that were working for him had served in that office under Acosta.

So it really shows you what power and privilege will bring in the criminal justice system. Our clients and other survivors are painfully aware of that reality, and it's going to be a long, long time before we get the entire answer here.

One of the things that was intriguing to me was this whole notion of whether or not Epstein was involved with intelligence and Acosta spoke to that, but it also raised more concerns. Because if you trace that story back to its origins, that's from reporter Vicky Ward, and she got that information from the Trump transition team. So, there's a whole another set of records and questions that we need to be asking just on that specific point.

So, I think in order to be an effective investigation, it's got to be long, thorough and leave no stone unturned. And that's obviously very difficult for these clients and victims and survivors who've waited decades for any kind of accountability.

TAPPER: All right. James Marsh, thank you so much. I really appreciate your time.

Is President Trump's former best buddy about to lose out on a massive government contract? Why Elon Musk's mission to the moon could be in jeopardy, that's next.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[18:45:55]

TAPPER: In our politics lead, we have an out of this world kind of trolling. Transportation Secretary Sean Duffy announced today that his agency is now reopening the books for a contract that had been awarded to Elon Musk's SpaceX. The project, known as Artemis III, which aims to return astronauts to the moon in mid-2027, is behind schedule, Duffy says.

Of course, one company that stands to benefit, Musk's fellow billionaire and tech rival Jeff Bezos, who owns Blue Origin, in addition to his position at Amazon.

Chuck Rocha is back with me. Also, Ashley Davis, a former Homeland Security official for the George W. Bush administration, and "New York Times" reporter Ken Vogel is with us, mainly because he has a new book out. It's called "Devils' Advocates". It's the hidden story of Rudy Giuliani, Hunter Biden and the Washington insiders on the payrolls of corrupt foreign interests.

We'll get to this in one second. But I do want to get to -- Ashley, Musk -- Elon Musk, quick to respond to Sean Duffy posting on X, quote, "Blue Origin has never delivered a payload to orbit, let alone the moon."

How much do you think this is about? Like which is the best craft versus sticking it to Elon Musk now that he and Trump had their falling out?

ASHLEY DAVIS, FORMER HOMELAND SECURITY OFFICIAL, GEORGE W. BUSH ADMINISTRATION: I don't necessarily think it's about Duffy sticking it to him because of the Trump fallout. Remember, they've been kind of bickering since March over the dosage cuts at FAA.

TAPPER: Right.

DAVIS: And so, I think that there's never been goodwill. But I also think the most important -- this is a space race. Listen, I mean, we're competing against China to go back to the moon, to build infrastructure, to get to Mars, which is the ultimate goal.

And if they -- I mean, I don't know if they're really behind contract. I'm assuming that's true. But the president wants this done by the time he's out of office. And so, if they're behind schedule, then it should be opened up again.

TAPPER: I thought that Musk and Trump had maybe patched things up. They were at the Charlie Kirk funeral to get together. No?

KENNETH VOGEL, AUTHOR, "DEVILS' ADVOCATE": I mean, their relationship is not what it once was and the timing here is notable, I think because it was only back in May when Trump put forth his budget proposal that actually included more money for NASA, despite cuts across the government and cuts at NASA for other things, for privatized lunar space exploration, which was intended for Musk, and maybe a little bit for Bezos.

But you know, fast forward a month, they have this falling out, and now all of a sudden, there's a different tune being sung by the administration.

CHUCK ROCHA, DEMOCRATIC STRATEGIST: Let me put the Wisconsin spin on it. Duffy's from Wisconsin, and I'm going to bring this home. Elon Musk spent a whole bunch of money there trying to win a Supreme Court race. And so, Duffy still a little bitter about that, on top of the DOGE stuff, on top of the cuts to the FAA.

TAPPER: So let me bring in former Republican congressman-turned-felon George Santos as an issue here. He's making the rounds after Trump's commutation, saying he's been given a second chance.

Take a listen to what he's had to say on CNN.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) GEORGE SANTOS, FORMER U.S. REPRESENTATIVE: I have been granted a second chance. I have made a very, very concise decision to apply that for good and use that to make amends with my community, with my friends, with my family, and those who I have left a sour taste in their mouth. This isn't about, you know, glitter, stars and glam or going back to Congress.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

TAPPER: Democratic Senator Elissa Slotkin of Michigan responded to this news by saying, quote, ban the presidential pardon.

I wonder, Chuck, after Biden pardoned Hunter and then pardoned many members of his own extended family on his way out the door, did Democrats have a leg to stand on when it comes to pardons and commutations?

ROCHA: I think what Biden did belittles the process, just like I think George Santos belittles the process. As somebody who's made lots of mistakes and ask for forgiveness, I think there's a process in place for folks who have rebuilt their lives. For folks who went through the process of going through the pardoning procedure. That's why they have it.

So, folks who've done all the right things get some little bit reward at the end. But I think all of this just belittles the whole thing.

TAPPER: And actually, some Republicans, especially New York Republicans, who were the first ones to in Washington to call for Santos to step down or be censured, are balking at this Republican Congressman Nick LaLota said this when asked about it.

[18:50:06]

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

REP. NICK LALOTA (R-NY): He stole -- he's not only a liar, but he stole. He stole $3 million in campaign funds from many of my constituents. Many of my supporters who got built by him and his lies. He stole an election, defrauded voters of New York's third congressional district, a district that borders mine. He's a distraction. He's a shame, and we need to be able to move on sometime soon from George Santos.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

DAVIS: I'd rather go back to talk about Ken's book or the Eagles, because I don't have much to say about George Santos. But listen, I mean, the bottom line, he's still a felon, which is the most important part of this, even though he was commuted, he is not -- he's still felon. So, it's different than a pardon.

Remember, this is what happened with Scooter Libby. That's what Bush did to Scooter Libby. He commuted him, not pardoned him, which is why he was never able to practice.

TAPPER: Right. And Cheney has never forgiven Bush for that.

All right, let's talk about devil's advocate. You shine a light on this underground world that ties Washington to insiders such as Paul Manafort and Hunter Biden, to foreign cash, corrupt foreign interests. Tell me the most shocking thing you learned while researching this?

VOGEL: I think it's the bipartisan nature of it. You know, you have these consultants and lobbyists who do battle in the U.S. on domestic politics, and they're standing on ideology for whatever their party or candidate believes. And sometimes they clash bitterly and then they go overseas and they're not on the red team or the blue team.

They're on the green team. They work together for sometimes brutal autocrats who are misaligned with U.S. interests, and they're willing to take that money to try to whitewash their reputations and get them at least out of the crosshairs of the U.S. government. Sometimes the international community, and sometimes even further to get them funds from the U.S. in the form of military assistance or other foreign aid.

TAPPER: Give us the most blatant example.

VOGEL: I mean, you mentioned Manafort. He's really a pioneer of this space. And of course, it ended up with him being prosecuted by the Mueller team and going to jail before getting pardoned by Donald Trump. He's back out.

He's doing some of the same stuff. He's working for -- he's working for politicians in Albania who were sanctioned by the U.S. and he's trying a sort of a different spin on what he did back in the '80s and the '90s, when he would bring these politicians to Washington and say, this person is your bulwark, President Bush or President Reagan against communism in this part of the world. That's geopolitically important.

Now he's saying, this person, just like you, President Trump, was persecuted by the deep state in their country, and they believe that you're the greatest president ever. And that's sort of the new -- the new twist in this.

TAPPER: So -- and what about Hunter Biden? You have Hunter Biden on the cover here. What's -- I mean, we know about Burisma. What else do we need to know?

VOGEL: Yeah, there was a fact pattern where Hunter Biden basically went around the world and offered his services to people who were targets of anti-corruption campaigns that were pushed by the U.S. government and sometimes by his father. In the case of Burisma, in the case of another example that I get into in Romania. He is essentially working for people who want to use his influence and his cachet to brush back the U.S. or to get the U.S., you know, on their side.

TAPPER: How prevalent, Ashley, actually, how prevalent do you think this is? I mean, I suspect there's a lot more of it. They don't -- I don't know, Hunter or Paul Manafort, but I suspect there's a lot more of this than we even know. DAVIS: Absolutely. And having a firm in this town, I'm very -- the

only foreign clients that I will ever take are ones that are part of either the E.U. or Canada or Mexico. I will not take any foreign clients because I think it's so dangerous.

ROCHA: Political consultants are now doing this, and they're going in and helping people run for office, not doing government affairs work. But I see it all the time. We don't take any foreign clients because of that.

But you see Democrats and Republicans going into foreign countries helping run the election and helping give advice because they know how to do it here.

TAPPER: And there's also media figures, not news media per se, but media figures who take foreign investments and then give they just happen to coincide with them saying nice things about that country. We've seen some of that people taking money from Russia, I think last year. Right.

VOGEL: Yeah. Yeah. That's right. There was influencers who were taking money from Russia. They say they didn't know, but there were charges brought against the middleman and actually had a story last week that was excerpted from the book about a number of people close Trump allies who went over to Republika Srpska. It's a small autonomous region of the Balkans. And they were they were preaching the gospel of this authoritarian leader who's trying to -- who's under sanctions in the U.S. and is facing charges from an international body that's trying to push him out of office.

You had Rudy Giuliani hosting this guy on his podcast, Mike Flynn, tweeting favorably about him. Lara logan hosted him on his podcast, -- hosted him on her podcast. So, you know, a lot of this stuff is not disclosed in the way that the regulatory regime in the U.S. is set up to capture this stuff and apply transparency.

[18:55:00]

So, it's really up to like reporters or folks who are watching it to try to sleuth it out. And that's what I try to do.

DAVIS: It's not worth the money. I think people -- so many people in this town that have -- that have fallen very quickly are because of this, because of this, exactly what you're writing about.

TAPPER: All right.

DAVIS: I'm going to start saying names.

TAPPER: Chuck Rocha, Ashley Davis, thank you so much. And Ken, congratulations again on this book, "Devil's Advocate" out in bookstores today.

We just got an update on President Biden's treatment for prostate cancer. That's next.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

TAPPER: Just into our health lead, former President Joe Biden has finished a course of radiation therapy as he battles prostate cancer, a spokesman confirmed to CNN. Ashley Biden posted a series of photographs on Instagram and wrote, quote, "Dad has been so brave throughout his treatment. Grateful," unquote.

It's unclear what Biden's next treatment steps will be. He is expected to speak on Sunday, when he receives a lifetime achievement award.

You can follow me on Facebook, Instagram, Threads, X, Bluesky and on the TikTok @jaketapper. You can follow the show on X @TheLeadCNN.

If you ever miss an episode of THE LEAD, you can listen to the show once you get your podcasts.

"ERIN BURNETT OUTFRONT" starts right now. Take it away, Erin.