Return to Transcripts main page

The Lead with Jake Tapper

Grand Jury Declines to Re-Indict New York A.G. Letitia James; Top Intel Democrat Calls Follow-Up Boat Strike Video Troubling; Watchdog Finds Hegseth Group Chat Risked Endangering Troops. 2021 DC Pipe Bomb Suspect Arrested, Facing Explosives Charges; Speaker Johnson Dismisses Frustration From Female GOP Members; Serena Williams On Returning To Tennis: "I'm Not Coming Back". Aired 6-7p ET

Aired December 04, 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 ANCHOR: Welcome to the Lead. I'm Jake Tapper.

This hour, massively different reactions from lawmakers today who got a briefing and saw the video of that September 2nd follow-up strike on the suspected drug boat. A top Republican says his conclusion is that the strikes were, quote, entirely lawful and needful. A top Democrat called it, quote, one of the most troubling things he's ever seen in office. That Democrat is the ranking Democrat on the House Intelligence Committee. He's going to join me in moments.

Also, from the pageant stage to the world stage, the new Miss Universe stops by The Lead. Her message on female empowerment, some of it born from this year's pageant drama.

And don't call it a comeback after speculation reignited this week about Serena Williams' possible return to the court. I'm going to be joined live by Tennis Champion Patrick McEnroe to talk about her decision.

All the stories coming in just moments, but we're going to start with the breaking news, a grand jury in Virginia declining to re-indict New York Attorney General Letitia James. The charges against her, a mortgage fraud case, were thrown out. Just ten days ago, the Justice Department tried to bring the case again. Earlier today, it said that you can get a grand jury to indict a ham sandwich. Well, apparently, the Trump people can't do that.

Let's get straight to CNN's Kaitlan Collins at the White House. Kaitlan?

KAITLAN COLLINS, CNN ANCHOR AND CHIEF WHITE HOUSE CORRESPONDENT: Yes, Jake. My colleague, Katelyn Polantz, and I are hearing that today, a grand jury declined to re-indict Letitia James on those mortgage fraud charges that the Justice Department has been seeking against her. And as you noted, in a case that was thrown out against her about ten days ago, they made clear when that happened that they were going to try this again. But today, Jake, they have failed and did not secure a new indictment against the New York attorney general despite their best efforts today, that we are hearing from sources that there should not be premature celebrations on this front, Jake, which likely means that they are going to try again. But given what you pointed out there that it's generally a pretty low bar for something like this, it's not clear if the Justice Department will be successful when it will try again or when exactly that is going to happen.

And so this is certainly a blow to their efforts as the president has made clear that he wants charges pursued here and he wants this investigation to continue, yet time and time again, ever since the beginning of this indictment when it first happened, we have seen them continuing to face roadblocks here.

We did reach out to the Justice Department, Jake. They did not offer any comment on what happens in the grand jury, and so far, we have not heard from James' attorney either on this front.

TAPPER: Kaitlan, we're also following the growing controversy around Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth and that follow-up strike that the U.S. military carried out on a suspected drug boat.

COLLINS: Yes, Jake. The one way that the White House really registers whether or not criticism is something that they need to address or be concerned about is whether or not Congressional Republicans are talking about it, especially Senate Republicans. And so I think given those two vastly different outcomes that we are hearing, depending on which party the lawmakers are in after they got those briefings today is something that the White House is noting here. Obviously, Democrats are coming out of that saying they have real questions and real problems and are troubled by what they heard from these two top military officials today who are briefing lawmakers.

But on the other side, Jake, Republicans are emerging from a lot of these closed door briefings saying that they believe the administration made the right move and was well within the legal bounds when they carried out that second strike that killed those survivors. And one of those notably is Senator Tom Cotton, who called it not only highly lethal, but highly lawful earlier today.

And so the White House has been pointing to answers like that when it comes to the questions that have been surrounding Secretary Pete Hegseth and his call here and what exactly happened behind closed doors. But I will note, Jake, that I've been talking to some White House officials, they don't expect the scrutiny is going to stop, but they're hoping that today's briefing will at least certainly address it and stem some of the criticism and questions that even Republicans had about this matter.

TAPPER: All right. Kaitlan Collins at the White House, thanks so much. And don't miss Kaitlan on her show, The Source with Kaitlan Collins. Tonight, she's going to speak with Democratic Congressman Adam Smith. He is the ranking Democrat on the Senate on the House Armed Services Committee. That's tonight at 9:00 Eastern only on CNN. Let's bring in Democratic Congressman Jim Himes of Connecticut. He's the ranking Democrat on the House Intelligence Committee. He was in the briefing today. Thanks for joining us, Congressman.

So, part of the briefing included video of the strike that has not been shown in public yet. What was your reaction to that video?

REP. JIME HIMES (D-CT): Yes, Jake, and I hope it will be shown to the public because it's going to be really important for the American people to know what is being done in their name. And, you know, it's pretty easy to get excited about, you know, efforts to take out drug dealers, but the video was enormously, enormously disturbing. And I can't describe it in detail, but to tell you that the initial strike, as you might imagine, when a piece of munitions falls on a small boat, did an immense amount of damage, causing a huge amount of fire.

[18:05:02]

And, ultimately, the end result was two individuals without any weaponry, without any tools of any kind, clinging to a wrecked boat, really what looked like flotsam.

You know, and we observed them for a long time and the commanders involved said that they believed that there might be some chance they would be rescued, that there might be some chance that the cocaine on board could be recovered, but these two individuals, to anyone looking at this thing would say, are moments away from slipping under the waves. The decision was taken to kill them and that is, in fact, what happened. And that was pretty hard to watch, I must say.

TAPPER: Earlier today, you told reporters that what you saw is a direct violation of what is written in the Defense Department manual for abiding by the laws of armed conflict. How so?

HIMES: Well, in the Defense Department manual on the laws of armed conflict, the example given of when you don't engage somebody, the military term is hors de combat, when they're removed from combat, when they're no longer capable of undertaking hostilities or threatening you. The example given in that manual is of shipwrecked sailors.

And, again, these were shipwrecked sailors, bad sailors doing bad things, making bad decisions, but they were shipwrecked sailors, barely afloat in a vessel that was completely awash, without any tools. There was no way these two individuals in that moment posed any sort of threat to U.S. forces. And yet nonetheless the decision, and, again, I'll say it again, the example that is given in the Department of Defense manual is of ship direct sailors, you do not kill them because they are out of combat, incapable of further hostilities. And doing so is, according to the manual, a war crime.

TAPPER: So, you're saying a war crime was committed.

HIMES: Well, you know, I want to be careful with my language here. You know, we didn't get the audio. But that's sure what it looked like to me. And, again, I don't want to get into the details, but I want you to imagine two individuals clinging to wreckage in the middle of a vast ocean without any tools, without any weapons. Look, if this guy had an AK-47 or an RPG or was, you know, calling in airstrikes or anything else, it would be a totally different thing. These were two guys who had survived a huge military strike, clinging to a piece of wood. And in that moment, subsequent to the first strike, the decision was taken to kill them.

TAPPER: Admiral Mitch Bradley, who was at the time commander of U.S. Special Operations, he was in charge of this mission, and also the chair of the Joint Chiefs, General Razin Caine, they briefed you and the chairman of House Intelligence. What did they say about the mission that struck you as important for Americans to know?

HIMES: Well, they were there to explain this particular mission and to give us some background. They didn't have a good explanation, and I asked this question explicitly for why the rationale for this second attack on the individuals had changed so dramatically.

If you'll recall, Jake, in early September, the Congress received a briefing that said that the reason that boat was re-attacked and struck and ultimately sunk was for safety of navigation. I guess the idea was that if this little motorboat had been out there, another boat might have hit it.

Now, we get presented with a whole other story that is basically designed to -- well, that is not designed to, but that is trying to get us to believe that these two individuals clasping wreckage in a vast ocean were a threat. That's the story we got today.

And, again, I was very clear with the admiral that I respect his service, that I respect him, but there's no way you can look at that video and say these two individuals are, in any way, a threat to anyone around them.

TAPPER: Was there anything that Secretary Hegseth had said to them that made them think, especially Admiral Bradley, that they needed to do the second strike or any other further strikes?

HIMES: Well, you know, so the answer to that question is probably no. I asked if there had been a kill them all order, as The Washington Post reported, or whether there was an order to sort of give no quarter. Those two things would've been clear war crimes. And the admiral said, no, there was no such order.

What worries me, you know, and I'm speculating here, but what causes a man of real integrity and of storied professional history, like the admiral, to order this strike? And my guess is it has something to do with the secretary of defense, who writes a book about how we need a lot less ethics and warriors involved and a lot more lethality. It probably involves, you know, generals and admirals being fired because they're not towing the administration line. That's a lot of pressure for an individual.

So, you know, culture and context matters. And even -- and I don't think there was. I would've been surprised had Hegseth given the order to kill them all. That would've been just a naked war crime. But the context matters here. And this was a context in which the commanders understood that, you know, disagreeing with your superiors probably means you get fired. And that they are looking to stretch and maybe even exceed the boundaries of the laws of armed conflict.

TAPPER: The admiral and the Joint Chiefs chairman also briefed the Senate Intelligence Committee.

[18:10:03]

The chairman of that, Senator Tom Cotton of Arkansas, was asked about your response to having seen the video. Take a listen.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

SEN. TOM COTTON (R-AR): I didn't see anything disturbing about it. What's disturbing to me is that millions of Americans have died from drugs being run to America by these cartels.

Jim may disagree with the entire operation. He may be okay with drug boats running to America, or at least thinking that it's an effective tactic to interdict them.

If you think these strikes are justified and righteous, as I do, and I want them to continue, then, of course, the second strike when you have two survivors who are trying to flip their boat back over and continue on their mission, remain in the battle.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

TAPPER: Your response, sir?

HIMES: Well, his facts are just plain wrong. This was probably a boat that was maybe 40 or 50 feet long. This is a vote that weighs several thousand pounds, and that is awash, meaning it is largely underwater. These were two individuals very -- you know, they weren't, you know, 15 feet tall. There was no way, and the admiral conceded this to me, there was no way they were flipping that boat back over. So, Tom Cotton's facts are just plain wrong.

And, look, I don't disagree with Tom that narcotics are a problem. Now, by the way, it's fentanyl that is the big problem in terms of overdoses, and this is all about cocaine. Somebody may explain that to me someday. But, no, they were not going to flip this boat back over. There was no way they were physically going to be able to do that. They didn't have radios, they didn't have tools or anything.

So, again, Tom maybe needs to look into his conscience and say these two individuals were a threat in that moment to absolutely no one. And so when we have sailors awash in the Persian Gulf and they're United States sailors because their motorboat has been machine gunned by the Republican Guard, does Tom Cotton really want the same logic he's applying to these two individuals to apply to what the Iranian Republican Guard might do to two sailors in distress in the Persian Gulf? I think he would probably answer that question with a no.

TAPPER: Democratic Congressman Jim Himes of Connecticut, the ranking Democrat on the House Intelligence Committee, thank you so much, sir.

HIMES: Thank you.

TAPPER: We have some breaking news in our Law and Justice Lead and a major update from the U.S. Supreme Court on that Texas redistricting case. You'll remember, Republicans in the state, in an unusual mid decade review, redrew the maps, the Congressional maps, earlier this year.

Let's get right to CNN Chief Supreme Court Analyst Joan Biskupic. Joan, what is the latest news from the U.S. Supreme Court?

JOAN BISKUPIC, CNN CHIEF SUPREME COURT ANALYST: Very big news, Jake, both politically and legally. The Supreme Court, the conservative majority, over the dissent of the three liberals, has said that Texas can use the map that it drew last summer to provide potentially five new districts that could flip Republican and enhance the Republican majority in the U.S. House. And what they said is that a U.S. -- special U.S. district court panel that had invalidated this map, saying it was drawn on unconstitutional racial lines, that Texas had actually divided people up by race.

This district court had said that and Texas had come up here and appealed it, backed by the Trump administration. Today, the Supreme Court majority said no, that this map deserved more deference from the district court. The district court should have taken into account a presumption of legislative good faith. That's been a standard that Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Samuel Alito have been really pushing over the years to sort of let states do what they want to do, even if there could be a cloud of racial division there.

So, you had the conservative majority essentially now locking in this new Texas map that you remember has triggered all this off-year redistricting throughout the country and at the goading of President Trump to shore up his majority.

Let me tell you a little bit about what the liberal dissenters said had happened here. Justice Kagan writing on behalf of herself and Sonia Sotomayor and Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson pointed to the fact that a district court had held nine days of hearing, combed through thousands of pages of testimony about what had gone on in Texas.

And this district court had also put a lot of attention on a letter from the Office of Civil Rights in the Trump administration that had pushed the Texas legislature to draw along racial lines, and the district court had found that indeed, that this had been an unconstitutional racial gerrymander, that it wasn't drawn just on political lines, which, Jake is allowed under the Constitution. You can draw -- you can divide people up based on their politics, but you cannot divide people up based on their race. And that's what the district court said had done there.

And let me just tell you what Justice Elena Kagan said in dissent about that.

[18:15:01] What basis does the majority have to thus substitute its under understanding of the direct evidence for the district courts? The short answer is it has none.

So, this is the end of the line for this Texas map. It can be used going forward now for the midterm elections, Jake.

TAPPER: All right. Joan Biskupic, thanks so much.

Let's bring in CNN's Jeff Zeleny and also CNN Senior Legal Analyst Elie Honig. Elie, your reaction.

ELIE HONIG, CNN SENIOR LEGAL ANALYST: Well, Jake, this is going to have major consequences for the 2026 midterms. As the justices appear to acknowledge, this means Texas will get to use its revised map, the new map that would give Republicans up to five more majority Republican districts.

Now, that's also -- it's important to understand this is not just some procedural stay. Sometimes we see the Supreme Court say, we're just putting it on hold for now. The six conservatives in the majority here say Texas likely will ultimately win on this issue. And as Joan said, the disagreement here is, is this new map a racially-based gerrymander? The six conservatives in the majority seem to say no, and the three liberals, in a furious dissent, it's 17 of the 20 pages of this ruling say, yes, this was a racial gerrymander. It should have been struck down.

Let me just read you one thing that I think encapsulates it. This is from the very end of the dissent, written by the liberal justices. They write this, court's stay, this court's decision today, guarantees that Texas' new map, with all its enhanced partisan advantage, will govern next year's elections for the House of Representatives. That result, as this court has pronounced, year in and year out, is a violation of the Constitution. So, you have your 6-3 split, conservatives on one side, liberals on the other, but Texas will get to use its changed pro-Republican map in 2026.

TAPPER: And, Jeff, the Texas Democratic Party just issued a statement that says, in part, quote, the Supreme Court failed Texas voters today and they failed American democracy. This is what the end of the Voting Rights Act looks like, courts that won't protect minority communities even when the evidence is staring them in the face, unquote. This ruling will have huge, political ramifications across the country, not just in Texas.

JEFF ZELENY, CNN CHIEF NATIONAL AFFAIRS CORRESPONDENT: It will. And, Jake, the bottom line is this is the best news the White House has had, politically speaking, all week long, actually, perhaps all month long. The reality here is this is going to allow what the White House has wanted from the very beginning, these redrawn maps to help Republicans get elected to help ensure that House majority.

What this ruling does not do, however, though, is affect these individual races. These races still have to be won. And this does not change the environment and the economy. This does not change the environment on what voters think of the Trump administration, local issues as well. So, what this does is basically reverts back to what the thinking was all along, that the Republicans in Texas were going to have an edge here. Of course, that set off a nationwide unprecedented series of redistricting rules. California, of course, is drawing it for the Democrats to have a Democratically-favored seats, if you will.

So, there is still very much an open question of these new districts here that have been drawn based on the Trump 2024 election alone. Are these truly as Republican friendly districts as they were a year ago? We shall see about that. But for now, at least, this is a huge sigh of relief for Republicans and a huge concern for Democrats who thought that they had a sort of an upper hand in this redistricting fight.

What it also may do is touch-off battles in other states, like Virginia, for example. There is a heavy discussion there of changing the lines to favor Democrats, Maryland perhaps as well. So, it does not end the discussion nationwide, but for Texas it does.

TAPPER: And, Elie, the Texas attorney general, Ken Paxton, a Republican, just said, quote, in the face of Democrats' attempt to abuse the judicial system to steal the U.S. House, I have defended Texas' fundamental right to draw a map that ensures we are represented by Republicans. The big, beautiful map will be in effect for 2026, unquote.

The same issue is going through the courts after California voted in favor of redrawing its maps in response to what Texas is doing. How might the U.S. Supreme Court decision impact the Trump Justice Department's lawsuit against California?

HONIG: Well, Jake, if this decision is applied consistently, it's good news for California. It's good news for any state that wants to change its map, that wants to gerrymander. And Important to note, a couple years ago, the U.S. Supreme Court came out with a controversial opinion where they essentially said we, the federal courts, are basically out of the gerrymandering business. That's for the politicians, that's not for us in the courts. Really, the court's only very limited role, and this was reinforced today, is to make sure there is not a racially discriminatory gerrymander.

Now, there was disagreement among the justices today about whether Texas did that or not, but, basically, what this, what this decision is signaling is that any state that wants to go ahead and change its Congressional districts, even mid-decade, like is happening right now, even if it's for partisan advantage, this is really a green light.

[18:20:02]

And heaven knows where this could go with other states that already are underway with their efforts, whether pro-Democrat or pro- Republican, or, as Jeff Zeleny says, other states that might want to get in on that action.

TAPPER: Elie Honig, Jeff Zeleny reacting to the breaking news from the U.S. Supreme Court, thanks so much. More trouble for Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth as the official in inspector general report on Signal Gate is released. The journalist accidentally added to Hegseth's war plans group chat joins me next to respond.

Plus, is a key Republican senator eyeing the exit? What Susan Collins of Maine said today when asked about her future.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

TAPPER: Our Politics Lead now, today's release of the unclassified version of the Pentagon inspector general report that we reported on yesterday confirms what we reported on yesterday. The secretary of defense, according to the I.G., put his own troops at risk when using a Signal group chat to shared sensitive attack plans targeting Houthis rebels in Yemen.

Hegseth seems to, for whatever reason, think he did nothing wrong. He posted on social media hours before the report went public, quote, total exoneration, case closed.

[18:25:04]

That is not what the I.G. report actually says. It actually says, quote, the secretary's transmission of non-public operational information over Signal exposed sensitive Department of Defense information. It says, quote, the secretary's actions created a risk to operational security that could have resulted in failed U.S. mission objectives and potential harm to U.S. pilots, unquote.

The report says, quote, if this information had fallen into the hands of U.S. adversaries, Houthi forces might have been able to counter U.S. forces or reposition personnel and assets to avoid planned U.S strikes. The report says, quote, the secretary's actions did not comply with a DOD regulation when he sent sensitive non-public DOD operational information over Signal from his personal cell phone.

I could go on and on, but let's just read some of the titles of the findings sections. Quote, the secretary did not retain the secretary's conversations on Signal as official records, as required by federal law and DOD policy, and it goes on and on. Anyone who is suggesting the I.G. report is a total exoneration is either misinformed or lying to you.

Joining us now is The Atlantic journalist, the editor-in-chief of The Atlantic, who was inadvertently added to that infamous Signal group chat, Jeffrey Goldberg. Jeffrey, what do you make of the inspector general report?

JEFFREY GOLDBERG, EDITOR-IN-CHIEF, THE ATLANTIC: Well, I make of it what you make of it, which is that it says that the secretary of defense endangered us pilots by sharing information in a Signal chat on a commercial messaging app with other senior leaders in the United States. And to add insult to injury, he didn't even know who was on the chat. I mean, it's basic, you know, digital hygiene that we try to know who we're texting, and I happen to be on that chat. Now, I'm not a Houthi rebel, so that was good, but imagine if you had been texting someone who actually wanted to share upcoming attack information with American enemies or adversaries, you'd be in a whole different situation right now.

I just -- I look at his tweet, you know, total exoneration and I kind of think, who are they trying to kid? I mean, he put upcoming attack plans into a Signal chat, not even knowing who's reading it. And the point is if this had been a subordinate official in the Defense Department, or a military officer or enlisted person who had been sharing information, one 100th as sensitive as the information that he shared, they would be fired, court-martialed and imprisoned.

So, what we're talking about here is a culture of impunity that the senior leadership of the United States is allowed to make ridiculous mistakes, right, and then act as if they haven't made any mistake at all.

TAPPER: The report also confirms that Hegseth declined to sit for an in-person interview with the inspector general as part of the investigation. Why? Why do you think he wouldn't do that?

GOLDBERG: You know why? Because he could. I mean, that's why. Because he didn't believe that he did anything wrong, and he was in a stonewalling posture and, apparently, he wasn't forced to do so. So, because he wasn't forced to do so, he didn't do so. He also hadn't -- you know, he did not save the messages. Luckily, The Atlantic published all the messages, so the I.G. was able to use what we had published to see what he had done in the Signal chat.

TAPPER: Did the I.G. ever contact you for the investigation?

GOLDBERG: No, they didn't, and I don't think that there was any need for that because I wrote everything I knew and I published everything I knew.

I did hold back certain key details in my reporting because they would've compromised national security, to my judgment and to the judgment of other experts I consulted. So, we try to be very careful about what we put out there. I mean, at least we tried.

TAPPER: So, as somebody who covers the military a lot and covers veterans a lot, to me, the part that is the most chilling is that this -- I'm just going to read this. It's from the inspector general. The secretary's actions created a risk to operational security that could have resulted in potential harm to U.S. pilots, potential harm to U.S. pilots. What must it be like, do you think, to be a U.S. pilot working under this Secretary of Defense and reading him say, total exoneration, case closed?

GOLDBERG: This is exactly what I was thinking today when I was reading that section. You're a pilot flying off a carrier to Yemen to bomb positions that are covered by air defenses, including air defense operations provided by Iran, right?

[18:30:03] And then you find out that your boss', boss', boss, the secretary of defense, is willy-nilly just putting out the upcoming time, the upcoming times and plans of your forthcoming attack. I mean, you have to have faith in your leadership when you're risking your life on behalf of the country.

And so there are pilots right now who are reading this I.G. report saying, wow, you know, if that information had fallen into the wrong hands, I could have been shot down. That's what it's saying.

TAPPER: Jeffrey Goldberg, thanks so much. I appreciate it.

Coming up, she captivated millions worldwide and won the crown and perhaps the most controversial pageant of its era. Miss Universe is live in studio, next.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[18:35:00]

TAPPER: In our World Lead, the Empire State Building tonight is illuminated in red, white, and green. Why? Well, those are the colors of the Mexican flag, and this is being done in honor of the brand new Miss Universe, Fatima Bosch, who was crowned in late November, did I pronounce that correctly, Fatima Bosch?

FATIMA BOSCH FERNANDEZ, MISS UNIVERSE 2025: Bosch.

TAPPER: Bosch, okay. She emerged as a fan favorite during a rather scandal-ridden year for the contest or after a video of a male pageant director in Thailand berating her for not promoting the host country went viral. The moment sparked a walkout from her and many of her fellow contestants and global discussions about female empowerment, which is part of her new mission as the title holder.

Ms. Universe Fatima Bosch is here with me now. Congratulations. Thank you so much for being here. We have your crown right here. I've been told I am not allowed to touch it.

FERNANDEZ: You can with one finger, if you want.

TAPPER: With one finger, I can touch it. And I'm told the pearls come from the Philippines.

FERNANDEZ: For good luck, yes.

TAPPER: So, congratulations. How have your first few weeks, has Miss Universe been?

FERNANDEZ: Well, I have like, I think 15 days, right --

TAPPER: 15 days, yes.

FERNANDEZ: -- since they gave me the job. So, I'm just --

TAPPER: You're hired? FERNANDEZ: -- enjoying every time, yes.

TAPPER: It's been good, all good?

FERNANDEZ: Yes, yes, all good. I mean, I'm learning a lot of different stuff and traveling, and I don't know, I'm trying to go step by step at the time.

TAPPER: Let's talk about the video from before the pageant because the pageant director in the video has now filed a lawsuit in Thailand to the host committee of Miss Universe denies that he used the word, dumb head. They said he used the word, damage.

Okay, despite the controversy, how did it feel to have so many of your fellow contestants support you in that walkout, and also there was this global support for you after the video became public? That must have felt -- it must have felt great.

FERNANDEZ: You know, we were in a concentration, so I didn't have the time to see like what happened --

TAPPER: Oh, is that right?

FERNANDEZ: -- in the world. When I speak up, I thought, okay, Mexico now is not going to classify (ph) this year.

TAPPER: Right.

FERNANDEZ: But I did what I did because of my values and what I believe.

So, at that time, I didn't realize all the support that they gave to me. And, of course, I was glad with all the different delegates of the countries to give me all the support. And then it was really weird because it's like you have all the support of the world and then you won and you have all the hate. So, it's like so much to deal, you know?

TAPPER: Then you won and you have all the hate?

FERNANDEZ: Yes, I feel like in social media. So, it's like it's weird, but at the same time, it is like, you need to continue being focused on what you need to do.

TAPPER: Oh, you have got to not pay attention to social media. I don't even know how many of those are real people versus bots, versus people that are paid, versus people that are just miserable and unhappy. What -- do you go online and say nasty things to people? I don't.

FERNANDEZ: No.

TAPPER: Yes. So, what kind of person does it? You need to just get -- just put up the filters and don't read any of that. The world is behind you. You're an inspiration. We don't normally cover the Miss Universe pageant. This is a very special thing because of you and what you stand for and your courage and also your mission of female empowerment. Talk to us about that and how important that must be, especially with the president of Mexico going through some really tough stuff herself.

FERNANDEZ: Thank you for your words. You're really kind. I really appreciate it. And, yes, it puts me emotional because. I'm here to speak up and I'm here to do philanthropy. So, it's like really hard, all the things that are going on because sometimes I think that people forget that we are humans.

TAPPER: Yes.

FERNANDEZ: And this crown is only with a purpose to serve others, and that's what I'm trying to do. And, of course, I don't take personal, like when they say kind things and also when they say rude things because everything is going to go. So, if you have a goal and a purpose, just follow it and don't get distracted about it.

TAPPER: So, the president of Mexico, Claudia Sheinbaum, has been very supportive of you both when the video came out and also after you won. She was obviously the victim of a groping incident we saw last month. She's been vocal about the harassment. She's dealt with it as a woman. A 2021 survey of women ages 15 and up in Mexico shows that 70 percent have dealt with at least one form of violence. 49 percent have reported sexual violence. It's just as bad in other places all over the world. I'm not trying to cast dispersions on Mexico.

With your new role, how do you see yourself working to bring as much of an end to this as possible in Mexico and beyond?

FERNANDEZ: Well, I really admire her. I think that nowadays, Mexico is living something really historical because it's the first time we have a female president.

TAPPER: Yes. We haven't had one yet in this country.

FERNANDEZ: And, I mean, she's doing everything to support women in my country, and I know that. And for me, with this crime, I'd be glad to use my voice, not just because -- not just for the women in my country, but all the women around the world to make like these, I don't know, like campaigns of respect and, you know, the rights and a lot of different stuff.

[18:40:13]

TAPPER: What else are you going to do with your position this year? What other issues are you going to talk about? What else are you going to do?

FERNANDEZ: Well, I think that I don't want to close just in one because now in all around the world are a lot of things that we need to put attention and to raise our voice for that. But I have working since years ago with immigrants and fashion sustainable design and also with -- since I was 14 years, I work with kids with cancer and I also work for the preservation of the butterfly -- of the monarch butterfly. TAPPER: So you have a lot of issues on your foot.

FERNANDEZ: Yes. I mean, like --

TAPPER: So, since you were 14, you've been working on kids with cancer. How old are you now?

FERNANDEZ: 25.

TAPPER: 25, okay.

FERNANDEZ: Yes. So, I think that in any place that they need help in anything, I will be there. I want to use this crown to bring light to the lives of others. And there is a lot of work and a huge agenda that we are going to have in this year, and I'm very glad that I can use this platform to make things with purpose.

TAPPER: I want you to focus on the positive stuff this year, and I don't want you to read the comments on social media. I want you to take it all in. You're an inspiration to so many women and girls, and men and boys around the world, and I don't want you to listen to the haters because it's not worth it. They're not worth it. And you're such an important person in the world right now.

FERNANDEZ: Thank you very much.

TAPPER: So, thank you so much.

FERNANDEZ: I will continue working because when God put a purpose in you, nothing can stop you.

TAPPER: Well, we're all lucky to have you and we're lucky to have you on the show. Thank you so much, Ms. Universe Fatima Bosch, gracias.

The rising revolt inside the GOP, it had speaker Mike Johnson answering questions today about whether he's been marginalizing women in his conference. That story's next.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[18:45:46]

JAKE TAPPER, CNN HOST: In the politics lead, brand new remarks from Donald Trump Jr. and the FBI Director Kash Patel, reacting to that suspect arrested, accused of planting pipe bombs at the RNC and DNC headquarters the night before the January 6th attack in 2021.

Take a listen

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

DONALD TRUMP, JR., SON OF PRESIDENT TRUMP: Two pipe bombs targeting the headquarters of the Republican Party, targeting the headquarters of the Democrat Party, I can understand maybe the media ignoring a targets on the Republicans because, again, their silence is golden and they only report on that. But I mean, that to me is a far greater threat than any of the

nonsense. You know, a grandma taking a selfie inside of January 6th. And yet it just disappeared. It's almost like that was the backup plan. If they didn't get what they wanted out of January 6th, which to me seems like a very clear setup operation.

KASH PATEL, FBI DIRECTOR: Well, look, you're absolutely right.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

TAPPER: What?

A court affidavit shows the suspect of the pipe bomb incident, Brian Cole, Jr., lived in Woodbridge, Virginia. That's outside D.C. with his mother and other family members. The documents state that he worked at a bail bondsman office. The FBI says it identified a bank account in six credit cards that he used to buy items to make the pipe bombs.

The FBI also says cell phone towers have data associated with his cell phone in terms of purchasing the items that made up the pipe bombs.

Back in studio is the panel. First of all, the idea that the January 6th attack was just grandmas with selfies -- I mean, do I need to even at this point, roll the tape of the violent attacks on police officers, one after the other, after the other? But beyond that, almost like this was the backup plan. If they didn't get what they wanted out of January 6th, what?

JAMIE GANGEL, CNN SPECIAL CORRESPONDENT: I really don't know what he's referring to, but let's just take one line. The media has not ignored any of this. We have asked about it over and over again. The FBI, it took five years. Sometimes that happens, but now they have a suspect. I don't understand the premise of the remark.

TAPPER: No.

OLIVIA BEAVERS, CONGRESSIONAL REPORTER, THE WALL STREET JOURNAL: Jake, I was in the capitol that day, and I was with a colleague, and I think we were on the forefront of covering the pipe bombs. And then we had to evacuate because of the Capitol assault. So, we were covering it. But a lot of things were starting to rise to the top at the time. And then there's just no leads for so long on the suspect.

So, we were trying to figure it out. But, you know, it did take law enforcement a while.

TAPPER: Also this idea that we that the media doesn't cover violence against Republicans. I mean, just in the last year, obviously, the horrific murder of Charlie Kirk, the horrific assassination attempts against President Trump, I mean, that's just not true. I don't even understand what world these people live.

ARLETTE SAENZ, CNN CORRESPONDENT: Yeah, it's a very bizarre statement that was made by Donald Trump, Jr. there. We also haven't heard of any motive specifically given to this suspect of this pipe bomb. And so, some of this seems a little irresponsible to -- be making these kinds of claims.

TAPPER: Let's turn to another story. In terms of the Republican Party this week, Congresswoman Elise Stefanik, she's leaving Congress to run for governor of New York. She called her own fellow Republican Speaker Mike Johnson a liar.

Congresswoman Marjorie Taylor Greene, also leaving Congress, has said Republican women have been marginalized by House leadership. Here is House Speaker Johnson responded earlier today.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

REP. MIKE JOHNSON (R-LA), SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE: I think it's a scurrilous claim. I think there's no foundation in it whatsoever. You know, people get frustrated. People say things, and there's a lot of people trying to stir division and dissension here, and we're just not playing along with that.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

TAPPER: So, I mean, the people trying to spur dissension and division, we should note in this instance are two Republican women criticizing him in the leadership. What's going on here?

SAENZ: Yeah. You know, house speakers have typically always have to deal with different factions and people frustrated with their leadership. But what's notable here is that we have very prominent women in the Republican caucus speaking out, questioning his leadership, and also saying that they're not being heard.

And I'm not sure that the way that Mike -- Speaker Mike Johnson decided to respond to this is the way to fix the issue here. Simply saying there's not a problem here. I don't agree with it, probably isn't going to reach or change the minds of some of these women who are starting to speak out to him. So we'll have to see if there's any ways for him to try to smooth over these tensions, because it does not seem like these women are going to stop speaking out.

[18:50:00]

GANGEL: It also goes beyond these two women. You know, it's not easy being speaker, asked Kevin McCarthy. It took him 15 votes, but it's these women. It's other members of the conference have become frustrated with Speaker Johnson.

I think that there are two questions. Does Donald Trump have his back until the midterms? And then this may solve itself if the Republicans don't hold the House, he's done being speaker.

TAPPER: So, let's -- Olivia, let's talk about the Trump of it all, because the speaker is taking some heat from other Republicans over the idea that maybe he and the Republicans in Congress are being too deferential to President Trump. Take a listen.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) REP. KEVIN KILEY (R-CA): We've been missing in action in a lot of ways. The House has not been in the drivers seat when it comes to key policy areas.

REP. THOMAS MASSIE (R-KY): You have a lot of intelligent, hardworking people who gave up a lot of things to be here in Congress only to find out that all they get to do is come here and rubber stamp whatever Donald Trump wants, because nobody wants to be a rubber stamp. You can get a monkey to do this job.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

TAPPER: We should point out those are Republicans. Now, Kiley is a moderate Republican from California who's probably about to be redistricted out of a job. And Massie is a very, very independent libertarian type from Kentucky. But still, those are two House Republicans criticizing the Republican Party for being too much of a rubber stamp.

BEAVER: Yeah. I mean, I think you're starting to see some of this follow. Speaker Johnson a lot of his strength is because President Trump seems to back him and protects him. If he starts losing that. We're trying to examine whether he will start losing support.

I will say Speaker Johnson does just kind of go back to the previous conversation. He does have women who like him and some of the people who have gone out against him. There is a backstory. Marjorie Taylor Greene and Thomas Massie led the effort to remove him from speaker, unsuccessfully, with Elise Stefanik.

There is some blame there for her not being able to rise to the U.N. ambassadorship, but it was still kind of all culminating at the same point. Usually when they leave for recess, things calm down. But that did not happen over this time period. It seems like everything is bubbling up and starting to fall on him at the same time.

TAPPER: There are those allies of Johnson who say this idea of blaming Johnson for Stefanik not going to the U.N., that that's not fair. It's true that Johnson, before Trump appointed anybody to his cabinet, said, you know, be careful in terms of how many house members you take. But then after she was nominated, he -- I don't think he said anything publicly, but one other point that the Johnsons allies say is the three people he picked, Matt Gaetz, Mike Waltz, Elise Stefanik, none of them actually serve in the position that they were -- they left Congress to serve.

SAENZ: Yeah. And so now he is facing Elise Stefanik, who is also running for governor of New York, and is also trying to show that she is a fighter in some ways, maybe pushing back at parts of the rubber stamping of Trump that's been happening. But you have seen that frustration bubbling up from her, even as she wasn't able to rise to that post.

TAPPER: All right. Thanks one and all. Appreciate it.

Is Serena Williams actually planning a comeback? I'm going to ask tennis champion Patrick McEnroe what he thinks, next.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[18:56:37]

TAPPER: Our sports lead now, tennis legend Serena Williams is making it clear that she will not be returning to the professional tennis circuit. In 2022, Williams announced she was evolving away from the sport to focus on her family. Speculation about a potential comeback started when the 23-time grand slam champions name appeared in an international tennis drug testing pool, a move required for any professional comeback. Williams tried to quiet the speculation in an X post, saying, quote, "I'm not coming back. This wildfire is crazy."

Joining us now, Patrick McEnroe, former professional tennis player and host of the "Holding Court" podcast.

Patrick, great to have you back, as always. If Serena Williams doesn't plan on coming back, why is her name on that list?

PATRICK MCENROE, FORMER PROFESSIONAL TENNIS PLAYER: That's the $64,000 question, Jake. And that's what we are all wondering, because if you hear the word "Serena" and "comeback" in the same sentence, you step up and you pay attention. And that's what we're doing.

And, you know, I think the tennis world would love to see her come back. She's 44. Why would she come back at this stage? She's won 23 majors. She was trying to win that elusive 24th in singles. She couldn't get it done post-pregnancy, though, she made it to numerous major finals.

So, it's pretty amazing what she did just there. So, could she win another major? That could be a bit of a stretch, but I think she's planning on coming back, Jake, and maybe playing a little doubles with sister Venus, who's a couple of years older but has still been playing sporadically in the last couple of years. That would be something we in the sports world and culturally people would pay attention to in a big way, because there's only one Serena Williams.

TAPPER: Oh, man, I sure would. I'm sure everybody would.

Just to be clear, like some random person can't put her name on a drug testing list, right?

MCENROE: No.

TAPPER: I mean, okay, just wanted to make sure.

MCENROE: Yeah, you have to -- you have to you have to go through that process for six months. So, she put herself on the list in October, Jake. So that means shed be eligible to play again, having gone through the testing protocols in April of next year.

So, to your question, I don't see that -- she's got to be thinking about a comeback. She likes to control the narrative, which is one of the great things about her as a tennis player and also as a -- as a celebrity and as a business person. She's been very successful.

So, I think the fact that this blindsided her is the reason that she put out that quick statement.

TAPPER: I want to turn to the World Cup draw that's happening tomorrow here in D.C. at the Kennedy Center. FIFA president Gianni Infantino is set to present the new FIFA Peace Prize award. Infantino has remained tight lipped over who's receiving the award. It is widely expected, however, that Donald Trump, president of the United States, is going to get the award.

Some human rights groups say this is just the latest example of corruption at FIFA. What do you think?

MCENROE: Well, I think that the Kennedy Center is going through some serious issues right now, Jake. I mean, it used to host -- I mean, it's a bastion of hosting opera, ballet, world class performances. Now they're worried about it just being Truth Social town halls and motivational speeches by the MyPillow guy.

So that's problematic. But it seems like Trump likes to put his name on a lot of things. Look, the FIFA World Cup coming to the U.S. is a big story. Mexico, Canada also hosting games. You got France, Spain, a couple of the favorites. So, it's a big event.

But, of course, Trump, as he likes to do, will try to put his name around as many things as possible.

TAPPER: Patrick McEnroe, good to see you. Thank you so much for joining us.

You can follow me on Facebook, Instagram, Threads, Bluesky, X and on TikTok @jaketapper. You can follow the show on Instagram @TheLeadCNN. If you ever miss an episode of THE LEAD, you can watch the show on the CNN app. Download it today.

"ERIN BURNETT OUTFRONT" starts now.