Return to Transcripts main page

The Lead with Jake Tapper

House Votes To Release Epstein Files In Near-Unanimous Vote; Senate Green-Lights Epstein Bill Already Passed By House; Gov. Ron DeSantis (R-FL), Is Interviewed About Bipartisan Calls For Congressional Term Limits; Federal Court Blocks New GOP Friendly Map In Texas. Aired 5-6p ET

Aired November 18, 2025 - 17:00   ET

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

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

KASIE HUNT, CNN HOST: All right, thanks very much to my panel. Really appreciate all of you being here today. Thanks to you at home for watching as well. Don't forget, you can now stream The Arena live. You can catch up whenever you want.

It's all in the CNN All Access app. You can scan that QR code below on your screen. You can also catch up by listening to The Arena's podcast. We're also on X and Instagram. But definitely do not go anywhere because Jake Tapper is standing by for "The Lead."

Hi, Jake.

JAKE TAPPER, CNN HOST: Hey, Kasie. We'll see you back in "The Arena" tomorrow.

HUNT: Have a great show.

[17:00:36]

JAKE TAPPER, CNN HOST: Senator John Thune, the ball's in your court. The Lead starts right now.

First the House, now the Senate voting as soon as tonight, possibly, on the Epstein files and releasing them. As lawmakers agree it is time to see everything that the Justice Department has on the dead pedophile and sex trafficker Jeffrey Epstein and any other accomplice or client who was in his orbit. What do Epstein survivors want to see happen next? I'm going to ask an attorney representing victims and a victim.

And President Trump rolling out the red carpet, strongly defending the Saudi crown prince, the man the CIA once said ordered the murder of Saudi journalist Jamal Khashoggi of the Washington Post. Khashoggi's widow is going to be here on The Lead to respond. Plus, rapper Nicki Minaj taking the mic at the United Nations today, the issue she felt compelled to address and call for urgent action.

Welcome to The Lead. I'm Jake Tapper. We start with breaking news from Capitol Hill, where the U.S. Senate could be just hours away from passing the bill to release the Epstein files. This after what at first blush appeared to be a stunning show of bipartisan unity in the House, where the bill to release the Epstein files passed this afternoon, 427 to one. Now, we should note that this astounding margin only came to be after every House Democrat and four House Republicans united to make it clear this bill would be voted on and would pass. Once that happened, then everyone else in the House and President Trump ran up to the front of the parade as if they had been there the whole time.

Speaker Johnson, who voted for the bill, wants changes for the Senate version so as to better protect the survivors of Epstein's, their privacy as well as other sensitive material, he says.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

REP. MIKE JOHNSON (R-LA), HOUSE SPEAKER: There's an easy way to amend the legislation to make sure that we don't do permanent damage to the justice system. And I'm going to insist upon that.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: If there's no changes to the bill, will you urge the president to veto it should it land on his desk?

JOHNSON: Cross the information. We come to it.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

TAPPER: Now, Senate Majority Leader John Thune says it's not likely that changes will happen and we should note the legislation as it stands clearly says, quote, "The attorney general may withhold or redact personally identifiable information of victims or victims' personal and medical files," unquote, and any material that depicts injury, physical abuse, death or child sexual abuse or would jeopardize an active investigation or national security. President Trump says he would sign the legislation, although as commander in chief, there are legal paths for him to compel the Justice Department to release the files without the Congress getting involved at all. He could do so right this second. President Trump today asking -- attacking an ABC News reporter for asking the simple question why he wasn't pursuing that avenue.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

DONALD TRUMP, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: You're a terrible person and a terrible reporter. As far as the Epstein files is, I have nothing to do with Jeffrey Epstein. I threw him out of my club many years ago because I thought he was a sick pervert. But I guess I turned out to be right.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

TAPPER: In point of fact, that reporter is a nice person and a good reporter. The president threatened ABC's broadcast license moments later. And over the weekend, when a Bloomberg reporter, also a woman, asked him about the subject, he said, quiet, piggy. Why such a short temper on this topic, Mr. President? Today, a group of the survivors of Epstein's abuse and trafficking, accompanied by lawmakers and the late family of the late Virginia Giuffre, another abuse survivor, took to Capitol Hill to remind leaders what this is all about. Justice for the victims. And several demanded more from President Trump.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

HALEY ROBSON, EPSTEIN SURVIVOR: To the president of the United States of America, who is not here today, I want to send a clear message to you. I do understand that your position has changed on the Epstein files, and I'm grateful that you have pledged to sign this bill. I can't help to be skeptical of what the agenda is.

[17:05:05]

JENA-LISA JONES, EPSTEIN SURVIVOR: Show some class, show some real leadership. Show that you actually care about the people other than yourself. I voted for you. But your behavior on this issue has been an national embarrassment.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

TAPPER: Wow. Joining us now, Spencer Kuvin. He's one of the attorneys for survivors of Epstein's abuse and trafficking. Thank you for joining us. How are your clients and other survivors feeling now that this bill has passed the House almost unanimously?

SPENCER KUVIN, ATTORNEY REPRESENTING EPSTEIN SURVIVORS: Well, thank you for having me on, Jake. They're thankful and hopeful. But you've got to remember, you know, we're talking about literally hundreds of survivors. I represented nine of them, including victim number one, who was the first young girl that went forward to police here in Palm Beach, Florida. And they're not ubiquitous, right?

Some of them are fighting as hard as the victims you see in D.C. Others want to just forget that their lives ever coincided with Jeffrey Epstein whatsoever. But the ones that are fighting for the release want the full information to be released immediately. And as you pointed out in the broadcast just now, President Trump has said time and again that he could declassify information at the stroke of a pen. In fact, I think he was quoted as saying, just by thinking of it, he could release classified information.

So, release it. Release it all today.

TAPPER: Speaker Johnson has expressed concerns about whether this legislation does enough to protect the privacy of the victims, especially those he just referred to who have not come forward. Do you share his concern? The legislation allows the attorney general to redact their names and any identifiable characteristics. But do you think that's -- that needs to be solidified?

KUVIN: No, I think it's a false issue. It's a false issue that he's raising at this point because the law does protect my clients and other survivors that wish to remain anonymous because of the childhood sexual nature of these allegations. Again, some of the victims have been brave enough to come forward and show their faces and give their names. Others have chosen that they would like to still remain anonymous. And this law provides for that.

And that's why this law should be passed, should be signed, and we should see this information immediately.

TAPPER: We heard several of the survivors today in their remarks, including people who voted for President Trump, calling him out, asking him for show -- asking him to show stronger leadership on the issue, questioning his motives in some occasions. What have you been hearing from them about their frustrations with President Trump and his administration?

KUVIN: Well, it's frustration. You know, I said today that this is a double U turn, right? During the president's campaign, he promised that he would get to the bottom of this and release information. And a lot of my clients, along with a lot of other United States citizens, voted for him because of that. He then got into office and apparently was shown what's in the files and changed his mind, or he was briefed on it by the attorney general.

There's no reason why he should have changed his mind. This information needs to be released. And now when he realized that he was about to lose the fight in Congress and it was going to be passed with an overwhelming majority, he then changed his mind again and said, go ahead and release it. So let's see the documents. We want to see them now.

TAPPER: An interesting contradiction in a way. President Trump ordered the attorney general, Pam Bondi, to investigate a number of Democrats named in Epstein's emails that were released by the Oversight Committee, including former President Clinton, former Treasury Secretary Larry Summers, investor Reid Hoffman, et cetera, et cetera. But according to Pam Bondi, just a few months ago, the Justice Department had already done an exhaustive review of the Epstein material and there was no one left to prosecute. As this write up in the National Review puts it, "The Justice Department is in the business of investigating crime, not of conducting political opposition research. It would be a federal crime to have conspired with Epstein in a sex trafficking ring, but Deputy Attorney General Todd Blanche and FBI Director Cash Patel have already said after a scorched earth review of the government's vast array of Epstein files, that there is no evidence of that," unquote.

How do you view this?

KUVIN: Well, it's interesting, and I think that this is a dangerous point that the president has raised now, because as Representative Massie has pointed out in a number of press conferences, that if there's an open investigation, the Department of Justice can keep certain investigation materials confidential. So there may be an ulterior motive to what the president is doing here so that he can keep additional materials away from the American public by saying that there's still an open investigation. But if they attempt to do that, I have a feeling that there are a number of victims that will file suit under the new law that is passed to force the federal government based on what you've already just shown to make sure that this information is released.

[17:10:13]

TAPPER: All right, Spencer Kuvin, thank you so much. We appreciate it.

When Epstein was not the top story, it was relentless reporting by a Miami Herald reporter that uncovered many of his crimes and brought light to this story. I'm going to ask her what she makes of the argument that this push to see Epstein files could have happened well before now. And later, the single name that keeps popping up in the many mortgage fraud cases against perceived enemies of President Trump.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

TAPPER: The legislation to release all of the Justice Department's files on pedophile and sex trafficker Jeffrey Epstein now goes to the U.S. Senate after passing the House 427 to one. Republican Congressman Clay Higgins of Louisiana is the one who voted against it.

Let's discuss what's going on here with Miami Herald investigative reporter Julie K. Brown. Just a reminder, her reporting in 2017 and 2018 exposed so many of these horrific details of Epstein's alleged sex trafficking ring. She's also the author of a great book I recommend, "Perversion of Justice, The Jeffrey Epstein Story."

[17:15:07]

Julie, welcome back to the show. So hours before bringing the Epstein vote to the House floor today, Speaker Mike Johnson said this. Take a listen.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

JOHNSON: The Democrats had every one of the Epstein files in their possession for the four long years of the Biden administration. The Biden Department of Justice had the files the entire time and not a single one of the people who are so loud and animated right now, they never said anything about it for all those four years.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

TAPPER: Is that accurate?

JULIE K. BROWN, INVESTIGATIVE REPORTER, THE MIAMI HERALD: Well, it's just, it's not only inaccurate, it's ridiculous. I mean, the case was an open criminal investigation during the Biden administration. They were pursuing charges against Ghislaine Maxwell as we know. They obtained a conviction and after that she appealed. You cannot open up your criminal case files when a case is still open.

And by being under appeal, the case still remained open. Also, by the way, there -- we really don't know to what extent they were still trying to hold other people accountable in this case. They obtained a lot more information in the past couple of years from new victims who have come forward and they may very well have stood still, been investigating other possible charges against other possible people who were involved.

It always kind of surprised me that one of the things the Trump administration never said when they came into office or never mentioned whether the case was still an open investigation or a closed one. And so we're still left wondering what kind of case they were building, possibly against some of these other wealthy and powerful people who were involved with Epstein.

TAPPER: On Monday, President Trump said that he would sign the Epstein bill if the Senate passes it. In the current legislation, Attorney General Pam Bondi has the right to withhold or redact any information that would, quote, "jeopardize an active federal investigation or ongoing prosecution," unquote. Are you at all concerned that this vote might only be symbolic because President Trump last week ordered the Justice Department to investigate Epstein's ties with high profile figures who are Democrats?

BROWN: I'm not only concerned because of that. Of course, now they're going to use the it's an open investigation card to probably hold back material. But I'm also quite frankly concerned about the way this case has been handled from the very beginning with all these FBI agents. The New York Times reported that they were combing through these files. We had the leak of a member of the Justice Department say on camera that they were purposefully redacting the names of key figures, key Republican figures from these files.

So there's going to be a lot of questions about how, you know, solid these files are when they are released. I felt that part of the speaker's remarks today was an effort to sort of remind people that there's going to be things in here that they're not going to release. So he was sort of setting the stage, I think, for heavy redactions where we're going to see pages and pages of things that have five words on them and the rest of the page is going to be redacted. That's the way the FBI files right now look, and there's no reason for them to do those kinds of heavy redactions.

TAPPER: Julie K. Brown, thank you so much and thank you for your journalism as always. We really appreciate it.

After a red carpet welcome earlier, President Trump is soon going to host a swanky dinner. For who? For the Saudi crown prince. Why so many people in the human rights community find all this special treatment troublesome and worth calling out. Stay with us.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[17:23:07]

TAPPER: Now our series today at the White House, today at the White House President Trump hosted and praised the Saudi Crown Prince who reigns over rampant human rights abuses. And he defended the Saudi leader against the U.S. Intelligence Community's assessment that he, MBS, approved the killing of journalist and dual U.S.-Saudi citizen Jamal Khashoggi. It all started like this, Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman, also known as MBS, was greeted at the White House with horses and trumpets and a flyover of fighter jets, setting the tone for how President Trump views bin Salman, MBS, and the importance of the Saudi Arabian relationship.

Those interests, including getting Saudi Arabia to join the Abraham Accords which would help normalize relations with Israel. President Trump says he spoke with MBS about this and got a positive response. The president also said that the U.S. will sell Saudi Arabia F-35 fighter jets.

So what about Trump's personal interests? The Trump Organization, run by the president's sons, is involved in major real estate projects in Saudi Arabia, although today President Trump denied any conflicts of interest.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

TRUMP: I have nothing to do with the family business I have left and when I -- I've devoted 100 percent of my energy, what my family does is fine.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

TAPPER: Many critics of course argue that U.S. interests do not warrant today's state like visit or even a visit to the Oval Office, period. 9/11 families united urged President Trump to, quote, "ensure accountability for the role the Kingdom's government agents and state run institutions played in providing material support to Al-Qaeda and the 19 jihadi hijackers who murdered our loved ones before any new agreements with the Kingdom are made," unquote. Here's how that question played out when a reporter asked MBS about it.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

MOHAMMED BIN SALMAN, SAUDI CROWN PRINCE: Osama Bin Laden used Saudi people in that event for one main purpose is to destroy this relation, to destroy the American Saudi relation.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

[17:25:04]

TAPPER: Not exactly an apology or accountability. In general these days the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia is not exactly known for having a stellar human rights record. Yet President Trump, on the other hand, he seems to think they are known for that.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

TRUMP: What he's done is incredible in terms of human rights and everything else.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

TAPPER: Now that's curious given that the U.S. state Department accuses Saudi Arabia of many human rights violations, including repression of free speech, repression of the press, disappearances, torture, cruel punishment, arbitrary arrest and detention, restrictions of religious freedom, and credible reports of arbitrary or unlawful killings. Of course, the most high profile of all those who were killed by the Saudi government was dual U.S. Saudi citizen Jamal Khashoggi of the Washington Post. When a reporter asked MBS about this, President Trump jumped in and said, things happen.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: The U.S. intelligence concluded that you orchestrated the brutal murder of a journalist.

TRUMP: He's done a phenomenal job. You're mentioning somebody that was extremely controversial. A lot of people didn't like that gentleman that you're talking about. Whether you like him or didn't like him, things happened, but he knew nothing about it and we can leave it at that. You don't have to embarrass our guests by asking a question like that.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

TAPPER: Things happen. Here's the thing that happened, Mr. President, in October 2018, while you were president, Jamal Khashoggi, a Washington Post columnist, was, according to U.S. intelligence, killed and dismembered in the Saudi Consulate in Istanbul by men with close ties to the highest levels of the Saudi government and Saudi Crown Prince MBS. In fact, the 2021 Office of the Director of National Intelligence report reads, quote, "We assess that Saudi Arabia's Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman approved an operation in Istanbul, Turkey, to capture or kill Saudi journalist Jamal Khashoggi," unquote. A Turkish official told CNN that Khashoggi's body was cut into pieces after he was killed. MBS has of course, long denied any involvement.

Today he said this.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

BIN SALMAN: About the journalist, it's really painful to hear, you know, anyone that been losing his life, fault, you know, no real purpose or not in a legal way. It's painful and it's a huge mistake and we are doing our best that this doesn't happen again.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

TAPPER: Not nearly as painful for Mr. MBS as it was for Jamal Khashoggi. Of course doing our best to make sure it doesn't happen, he said. Except something similar has happened again. Just five months ago, Saudi Arabia executed Turki al-Jasser. That was another journalist, this one known for exposing corruption. The Associated Press reports that this time Saudi Arabia publicly leveled charges of various terrorist crimes and accusations of destabilizing the security of society, though authorities did not detail or provide any evidence, according to Human Rights Watch. Still, the nation's high court upheld that death penalty. Look, American presidential kowtowing to the Saudi royal family is an ugly and bipartisan tradition born of geopolitical realities and our national addiction to fossil fuels. But we don't have to go along with the charade about who and what MBS is.

Some breaking news on the Epstein files on Capitol Hill. The Senate has just taken up this vote. This is a big development moved rather quickly. CNN's Manu Raju is coming up with what just played out next.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[17:32:52]

TAPPER: Back with some breaking news in our Politics Lead, a major update on that Senate vote to release the Epstein files. Let's get right to CNN's Manu Raju on Capitol Hill. Manu, we didn't even know if the Senate was going to take up the Epstein files bill. What is playing out right now?

MANU RAJU, CNN CHIEF CONGRESSIONAL CORRESPONDENT: Yes, just a couple of weeks ago, it seemed like this bill was dead on arrival. Just a few days ago, it seemed like it was dead on arrival in the United States Senate. But now it is on its way to the President's desk in a remarkable turnaround in an extremely fast move here. The Senate has essentially green-lighted this bill to be approved as soon as tonight and be sent to the President's desk.

Now, essentially, what happened was that in the aftermath of this House vote this afternoon, 427 to one, just one member of the entire United States House voting against it, this is now on its way to the Senate. Now, there has not been a formal process. It has to be formally sent over to the United States Senate.

That process will take some time to get through the official -- official writing of getting the bill over across the Capitol. It's an arcane process. But once it gets over to the United States Senate, that's when the bill can be read in the Senate and essentially -- essentially passed.

So what we just saw moments ago was Chuck Schumer, the Senate Democratic leader, he went to the floor of the United States Senate, and he said he asked for what's known in the Senate as unanimous consent. That means that all 100 senators have to agree or one senator could object and slow things down. He asked unanimous consent that for when the Senate receives the final paperwork of the bill that just passed the United States House, that it would be approved by the United States Senate.

Nobody objected to that, Jake. So what that means is that as soon as it's formally transmitted, this bill is formally transmitted from the House to the Senate, the Senate will essentially have it approved. It will be approved in their chamber. There does not need to be a roll call vote. And then it will go to the President's desk for his signature, in which the President has indicated that he will sign.

[17:34:52] Despite fighting this for months, despite the efforts by the Republican leaders, particularly in the House, to try to deny its vote, ultimately the President capitulated, said that he believed that the House Republicans should vote for it because dozens were already planning to buck him and the Speaker of the House, who did not want this bill to come to the floor, ultimately voted yes, which has been a remarkable turnaround, pushed by a handful of members in the House representatives, pushing their members to, pushing the leadership, circumventing the leadership, forcing this on the floor, ultimately getting the leadership behind this, and now through the Senate in a blink of an eye, and now on to the President's desk.

And within 30 days, when this becomes law, Jake, that's when the Justice Department will have to comply to release the files, the Epstein files, and if it does not comply for whatever reason, it has to explain why. But right now, a remarkable moment as the Senate greenlights passage of this bill that has dogged the House in particular over the last several months.

TAPPER: All right, fascinating stuff. Manu Raju, thanks so much.

Also breaking on Capitol Hill, the House has passed a resolution disapproving of Democratic Congressman Chuy Garcia of Illinois because of the way and he timed his decision to retire. It was a measure, as you know, sponsored by Democratic Congresswoman Marie Gluesenkamp Perez. She and 22 other Democrats joined 213 Republicans in supporting the resolution.

Now, let me explain. This all goes back to Congressman Garcia's November 4th announcement that he intends to retire for understandable health and family reasons. It's an announcement he made only after the deadline to file to run for his congressional seat next year.

But Garcia's chief of staff had been tipped off ahead of time. So just before the deadline, she filed paperwork to run and she will be the only Democrat on the ballot in a primary in an overwhelmingly Democratic district. Essentially, Congressman Garcia cooked the books and picked his successor.

He denied any other candidate a chance to run, and he prevented a choice for his constituents. Rather undemocratic for a member of a party that regards itself as a protector of democracy. One might think Gluesenkamp Perez would be commended for courageously criticizing what is obviously election subversion by a member of her own party. Very rare to do so in a perfect world.

Sure, she would be praised, but not in tribal Washington, D.C. Axios is now reporting that members of the Congressional Progressive Caucus are privately discussing introducing a retaliatory measure against Gluesenkamp Perez, something to do with her donations from corporate political action committees or something else. Her office did not respond to that Axios article.

After today's vote, Gluesenkamp Perez said that she is profoundly grateful to those who stood with her. She wrote, "Congress is a legislative body, not a social club, and the American people will not accept blind calls to party loyalty in defense of an effort to deny them the right to a free and fair election."

In our Politics Lead, a new bipartisan call for congressional term limits. Now, maybe you're thinking, yes, you've heard this before. Well, it's true. During her 2024 run for president, Republican Nikki Haley memorably mocked Congress as the most privileged nursing home in the U.S. And now Florida Republican Governor Ron DeSantis, who is a former member of the House, has teamed up with a former colleague, Democratic former Maryland Congressman David Trone, and they're co- chairing an effort to establish congressional term limits.

Thanks for being here, guys. We really appreciate it. So in a recent New York Times op-ed, you guys wrote, "the House and the Senate are dominated by career politicians, buoyed by reelection rates that routinely exceed 90 percent, who seem more concerned with clinging to power than serving the public." How will term limits change that, do you think?

GOV. RON DESANTIS (R-FL): Well, one, I mean, people support term limits. We're a divided country on so many things. I've never seen an issue, Republican, Democrat, liberal, conservative, black, white, rich, they support term limits. Why? Because we do need new blood in Congress.

And people say, well, the election's the term limit. The incumbents hardwire this in with the party nominations, campaign finance, congressional franking. It is not an even playing field. And so doing congressional term limits forces turnover. And I think it will draw a great class of people to want to serve.

TAPPER: How will you force your former colleagues to willingly give up power? Because obviously this would have to become something that goes through the House and the Senate.

DAVID TRONE (D), FORMER U.S. REPRESENTATIVE: Congress has to pass it. But we got to start with the state legislatures. They get Title 5 amendments and force a convention at possibly the state legislature. But by 34 states, if they sign up, we have 12 already. Then they're going to have to have a constitutional convention, limited term limits only, 50 states will determine what they want to do.

That's out of control of Congress. Then after it's ratified by 38 states, it would become law. That'll never happen. Never, never. Because Congress will step in to save their own skin and grandfather themselves in and pick a number. They'll pick a number. We might not agree with the number might be. It doesn't matter. Congress will control that.

[17:40:09]

TAPPER: So that one of the best arguments I've heard against term limits is that it will end up empowering the unelected, meaning lobbyists and staffers. What's your response to that?

DESANTIS: Could they be any more empowered, Jake? I mean, think about it. We have a massive bureaucracy. Some people like it. I don't. That is exercising massive amount. It's a fourth branch of government. Congress has given away its power over the years. Congress doesn't do appropriations like they're supposed to. They do massive omnibus bills. Who's writing those omnibus bills? Is that a deliberative process? No, that's congressional staff that's doing it.

So I think they're already very powerful. I don't see how the balance could be tipped anymore. What I think may happen, I think will happen. You have new blood. They'll be reformers. And it's not going to be good enough. Say, well, this is how we've always done it. How you're doing it has not worked for this country.

TRONE: I think that's really well said. But I think we should add that Jake, Abramoff, the old mega lobbyist with the prison, four-year, 2008, his comment was, I don't like term limits. No lobbyists like term limits because then we have to repurchase new legislators. It's a bad day.

TAPPER: So what about the argument that you were taking away choice from the voters because, you know, let's just say there are some people who actually think they have good representation in Congress. I assume that your constituents, when you were a member of the House, and your constituents, when you were a member of the House. What about that? Like, some of these people are good at their jobs and they want them.

DESANTIS: So there are definitely going to be examples where people are doing great and they're going to be term limited out. But that's going to be outweighed by the good that's going to come from liberating people from the entrenched political class that has caused so much problems. And so no one's ever said it's 100 percent panacea, but I think we'll be much better off if we have term limits.

And interestingly, the founders thought about doing term limits and they decided not to. Part of it's like, why would people want to be in Congress for third? They just didn't think it would be your horse and buggy. I think the founders today would say that we -- that would be a good positive reform.

TAPPER: By CNN's count, with a little less than one year until the midterms of 2026, 37 House members, including 22 Republicans, 15 Democrats, plan to leave Congress. That's more than usual. Another argument from them might be, we don't need to change the Constitution. There's already turnover.

TRONE: Turnover is just so negligible. And as you said, with 95 percent re-election rate and everyone staying 30, 40 years, I saw a comment the other day that said, you know, Congress is less popular than traffic jams. That's a bad day. I mean, nothing is getting done in this toxic atmosphere. We've got to say new ideas. That's what's got to rule.

DESANTIS: And I think what happens is, seniority plays such a big role. So it's true, there'll be people that only serve two because they get frustrated because there's no upward mobility. I mean, I remember when I was in, like, every Democrat-ranking member, I think, was probably in their 70s. A lot of the Republicans were there. So you literally have to say you're going to do 20, 25, 30 years to actually be in a position where you're going to be able to exercise, you know, significant influence over the legislative process.

A lot of people get burnt out from that. They're like, I don't want to do that. So the turnover, I think, is -- is pushing out some idealistic people who are running into the congressional meat grinder.

TAPPER: Yes.

TRONE: The governor hit the best standpoint there. It's in eliminating the seniority system, have a system based on merit and good ideas and a sense of urgency that we've got to get something done, serve, and go home.

TAPPER: The Founding Fathers did not put in term limits for the president, either, but they were added after FDR. President Trump faces those term limits. He is not going to be able to run for reelection in 2028. Are you thinking of maybe running?

DESANTIS: I'm not thinking about anything because I think we have a President now who's not even been in for a year. We've got a lot that we've got to accomplish. I'm obviously working hard to continue to put blades on the board in Florida. But look at the election results two weeks ago for Republicans. That was not good.

You know, we've got to do a good job as Republicans, and I think that should be the -- the number-one priority. And the way you do well in the midterm elections is to produce positive results. And so I would focus on that. This jockeying and all that I don't think is productive for us. Get things done for people. You know, we showed in Florida. When I came in, we were a purple state. You know, now we're considered a red state because we produced results and people followed.

TAPPER: All right. Florida Governor Ron DeSantis, former Democratic Congressman David Trone, thanks to both of you. Appreciate it.

DESANTIS: Thanks.

TRONE: Thank you.

TAPPER: A federal appeals court is now blocking Texas from using its newly drawn congressional map in next year's midterm elections. It's a major setback for President Trump, Governor Abbott, and state Republicans. In the ruling, a Trump-appointed judge -- Trump-appointed judge. Let me say that again. Wrote, "substantial evidence shows that Texas racially gerrymandered the 2025 map." Racial gerrymandering is deemed unconstitutional. President Trump asked Texas to redraw some districts to help Republicans pick up five more seats in the House in 2026.

[17:44:58]

Here in studio is the panel. So, the court ordered Texas to use its previous map, which the state enacted after the 2020 census. The ruling is likely to be appealed. I should note the one that I just talked about. But, Joe, Texas did kick off this redistricting arms race that's happening all across the country. What's your reaction? JOE BORELLI, REPUBLICAN COMMENTATOR: I think this fight is far from over. I mean, Texas was sort of the first out of the box, even though it's been tried here in New York two years prior, unsuccessfully. I think this is not going to resolve anything. I think, as you pointed out, you're going to see an appeal quickly from Republicans in the state. I think they have a good argument to appeal the process on.

However, I don't know what's going to happen with the other states. Democratic states have promises to -- promised to do this in response. Will Maryland take a step back now that Texas may have a setback? Will California? Will Gavin Newsom take a step back after winning in the referendum? I don't think so. So, I think this is far from over, and I think people should get their -- their fighting feet ready.

TAPPER: So, in response to the ruling, let me answer your question about Gavin Newsom out there in California. Governor Newsom posted, "Donald Trump and Greg Abbott played with fire, got burned, and democracy won."

And as you know, weeks ago, California voters overwhelmingly backed Democrats' tit-for-tat plan to try and pick up five seats that would lean Democrat in response to what Texas did. Republicans challenged the California maps in federal court, arguing it violates the Constitution because, "it draw -- it drew new congressional district lines based on race specifically to favor Hispanic voters." So, the Justice Department has since joined that lawsuit.

Again, this is all just playing up. But, Christine, Governor Newsom predicts the challenge to California's map will fail. What do you think?

CHRISTINE QUINN, PRES & CEO, WIN: Look, first of all, I think Joe's right. This is far from over. Nobody's giving in. It's a bad day for the president because I think the President and Governor Abbott really thought they had an easy go of it, that they were just going to redraw the maps and everything was going to be fine.

And I think it's probably shocking to the President that a judge that he appointed went against him, particularly today, when so many other Republicans have gone against him. But there's no reason that Maryland or California or any other state is going to back down because we don't know what's going to happen on appeal. And at the end of the day, if you think you've won just in round one, you're ultimately going to lose the fight.

TAPPER: Interesting. So, over the past few days, President Trump has been focusing on Indiana to pick up at least a seat or two. And he's been pressuring Governor Mike Braun to pick up two Republican seats. Today, the governor posted, "I will support President Trump's efforts to recruit, endorse, and finance primary challengers for Indiana's senators who refuse to support fair maps," what he calls fair maps.

Joe, this comes after state Republicans voted to adjourn the state Senate until January because they were not on board. What do you think about primary threats that President Trump is -- is pushing against people who aren't on board with this redistricting effort? BORELLI: Look, I think the president faces a very existential threat by losing the House come -- come January, come January of 2027. I think we have to do everything possible to keep up with Democrats.

TAPPER: What's the existential threat, just impeachment?

BORELLI: No, the existential threat is potentially losing the House and losing the agenda. We have -- things have been going great. We have one big, beautiful bill. We're reducing inflation. We're making trade deals. We're repatriating money. All of this stuff is good stuff that's happening for the administration. It wouldn't happen if Democrats like Hakeem Jeffries and his company were there leading the House. That just wouldn't be the case.

So if you believe in President Trump, if you believe in the MAGA movement, yes, you want to see some -- some feet to the fire when it comes to getting some of these maps redrawn.

TAPPER: And, Christine, let's turn to the Epstein files because just moments ago, the Senate agreed by unanimous content -- consent to approve this House bill, which earlier in the day passed 427 to one after Republican leaders like Speaker Johnson called it a political show vote by Democrats. What's your response to this?

QUINN: I mean, I am very heartened that the bill went through the House so quickly and so overwhelmingly and that the Senate is going to take it up because, you know, this conversation has deteriorated, mostly led by the President, to one about politics.

And look, Joe Biden should have released these files. This is not a Republican or Democratic issue. It's about those women who were girls when this happened. And we seem to forget that. And they're so courageous. They were out there today. I'm glad that this will come to an end. This part of it will come to an end for them today because you have to remember, every time this gets brought up in the press and somebody like the President calls it a hoax or a political maneuver, it's another punch in the gut to these women who saw their childhood ripped apart by this horrible man. And the President needs to stop making it about politics.

TAPPER: So here's what, Joe, here's what one White House official who spoke on the condition of anonymity to "Politico" about this controversy, "are people ever going to be satisfied? No, because people in this country genuinely believe that the federal government is in possession of a list of pedophiles who work with Jeffrey Epstein, and that is just not true." Now, I want to remind our viewers why some people out there might think that the government has such a list. Take a listen.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: The DOJ may be releasing the list of Jeffrey Epstein's clients? Will that really happen?

[17:50:01]

PAM BONDI, U.S. ATTORNEY GENERAL: It's sitting on my desk right now to review. That's been a directive by President Trump.

J.D. VANCE, VICE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: Seriously, we need to release the Epstein list. That is an important thing.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

TAPPER: I mean, this is one of the things why people think that list exists, because people like Pam Bondi and Vice President Vance, although he wasn't vice president at that moment, have been talking about the Epstein list.

BORELLI: Look, I don't blame anyone for thinking there's an Epstein list, because the one thing we do know is that more people know about Epstein, his clients, and his victims than are being told about now. That's why I think Republicans ran on this issue. They promised to do it, and I'm glad they delivered.

But we can't forget that -- that Chair Comer, the House Oversight Investigation, is trying to get, by the way, the one president who's been in a photograph with one of the Epstein accusers getting a massage. She was 22 in that picture, and she told the investigators that she had been raped and tortured by Jeffrey Epstein for four years. That president does not want to testify before the House Homeland -- before the House Oversight Committee.

If the Democrats are suddenly, suddenly got serious, and this is why it's political, it suddenly became an issue when -- when Democrats needed to divert from the -- from the shutdown, but if Democrats remain serious, they should encourage President Clinton to testify before the committee.

QUINN: There have been people, Democrats and Republicans, who've been working to get this list out for years. It has nothing to do with the shutdown. It has to do with what is right. And let's be clear, whether it's Larry Summer or any other Democrat, whether they were president of the United States or a dog walker, they should come out and they should be held accountable.

BORELLI: Tell President Clinton to testify.

QUINN: Anybody who has anything to do with this should come forward and testify.

TAPPER: Thanks to both of you. I really appreciate it.

Coming up next, connecting the dots on four different cases of alleged mortgage fraud -- mortgage fraud, all of them involving perceived enemies of President Trump, and tied to one single Trump official whose name keeps coming up in these investigations. Stay with us.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[17:55:55]

TAPPER: In our Law and Justice Lead, eight Democratic senators are accusing a key Trump ally of abusing his authority by targeting prominent Democrats and public officials for investigation. These senators are asking the Government Accountability Office to probe whether Bill Pulte, who leads the little-known Federal Housing Finance Agency, misused government resources with his various accusations of mortgage fraud against prominent Trump foes. Pulte's attacks have rankled his opponents, as well as some officials in the Trump White House.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

TAPPER (voice-over): He's a fierce Trump loyalist, and increasingly one of the loudest voices in the administration.

BILL PULTE, FEDERAL HOUSING FINANCE AGENCY DIRECTOR: What data is he looking at to keep up rates? He's looking at no data. He's looking at his own hate, in my opinion, for President Trump, which is disgusting.

TAPPER (voice-over): And today, there are serious questions about whether he is misusing his powers, weaponizing the access he has to confidential information in order to seek vengeance against Trump's political foes.

His name is Bill Pulte. He's chair of both Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, the massive government-backed mortgage firms.

PULTE: At Fannie Mae, we have $4.3 trillion, if you can believe that, on our balance sheet. At Freddie Mac, we over -- have over $3 trillion.

TAPPER (voice-over): In just over eight months, in what is usually a low-profile regulatory position, Pulte has become deeply embroiled in a slew of controversies, because, frankly, his position is not supposed to be used to fish for potentially damaging information about politicians and the other party.

PULTE: I'm not going to be intimidated by the media, the politicians. They can say whatever they want.

TAPPER (voice-over): Pulte ousted about a dozen internal watchdogs at Fannie Mae, according to "The Wall Street Journal." That move reportedly coming after an internal investigation at Fannie Mae into whether Pulte improperly accessed the mortgage records of Democrats, including New York Democratic Attorney General Letitia James, who previously pursued criminal charges against Trump.

PULTE: If you commit mortgage fraud, you know, you need to be held accountable, period.

TAPPER (voice-over): Pulte denies the firings were related to the probe, instead telling "The Journal" that the layoffs were part of efforts to rein in investigations related to DEI programs. It is clear that there is an effort targeting several of President Trump's perceived enemies, sending criminal referrals for alleged mortgage fraud to the Justice Department.

In addition to Letitia James, targets include Federal Reserve Governor Lisa Cook, California Democratic Senator Adam Schiff, and, most recently, California Democratic Congressman Eric Swalwell, all of whom deny wrongdoing.

REP. ERIC SWALWELL (D-CA): It's all nonsense. Next week, when we hear about someone else who's a political opponent of Donald Trump being investigated, it will also be nonsense.

TAPPER (voice-over): Like Trump, Pulte is the scion of a home-building fortune, worth at least $190 million, according to his financial disclosures. Pulte's frequent visits to the White House and influence with the President have irked some in the Trump administration. Back in September, according to sources, Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent almost came to blows with Pulte, after Bessent accused Pulte of talking negatively about him to Trump in private.

More recently, much to the chagrin of others in the Trump administration, Pulte pushed Trump to advocate for a 50-year mortgage plan.

TRUMP: It's not even a big deal. I mean, you know, you go from 40 to 50 years and what it means is you pay, you pay something less.

TAPPER (voice-over): The idea was widely panned across the political spectrum, including among his supporters. But Trump has so far ignored criticism of Pulte, instead cheering him on Truth Social messages such as this writing, keep moving forward, William. Don't let the radical left weakling stop you. It is worth pointing out that taxpayers are footing the bill for Pulte's efforts that have resulted in acts of revenge against Trump's enemies.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

TAPPER: So far, none of the criminal referrals from Bill Pulte have resulted indictments. Republican officials who have listed multiple properties as their principal residences in mortgage filings have not faced similar scrutiny.

[18:00:01]

Welcome to The Lead. I'm Jake Tapper. Two major events breaking Tonight in Washington, D.C. the Senate has unanimously agreed to pass the bill to release the Epstein --