Return to Transcripts main page

The Lead with Jake Tapper

Australia Begins Enforcing World-First Teen Social Media Ban; Bipartisan Calls Grow For Release Of Full Boat Strike Video; Day Seven Of Brian Walshe's Trial In Death Of His Wife; Rep. Jasmine Crockett (D-TX), Is Interviewed About Can She End Dems' 30-Year Losing Streak In Texas?; Honduras Seeks Arrest Of Ex-President Pardoned By Trump; Farming CEO Wants Trump "Double Down" On Rice Tariffs. Aired 5-6p ET

Aired December 09, 2025 - 17:00   ET

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

[17:00:00]

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: I thought she looked like someone guilty of.

JOHN MILLER, CNN CHIEF LAW ENFORCEMENT AND INTELLIGENCE ANALYST: So as he walks away with the driver's license, he's going to get on the radio now. And he's going to run that name in the driver's license. This is a counterfeit New Jersey driver's license. So eventually, when that call comes back, he's going to find out Mark Rosario is not who this person is, and they. They circle back to Luigi.

But the remarkable thing about this video is this is the first time we've seen him and heard him talk during this encounter.

MANU RAJU, CNN CHIEF CONGRESSIONAL CORRESPONDENT: Yes. Wow. That is some video. John Miller, thank you so much for bringing that to us. And thank you for watching. The Lead with Jake Tapper starts right now.

JAKE TAPPER, CNN HOST: I'm going to preemptively give today's show an A plus, plus, plus, plus, plus. The Lead starts right.

Telling kids to log off. Children in Australia are waking up now blocked from their social media accounts after the country passed a world first ban of social media for kids under 16. Could this be the first domino in a global trend?

Plus, addressing affordability. President Trump is just minutes away from a major speech on the economy in Pennsylvania. And in a new interview, the President is giving his economy top marks, grading it an A plus, plus, plus, plus, plus.

At the same time, he happens to be hitting new lows for public approval of his handling of the economy. 36 percent That's a -- that's an F, right?

And one day after jumping into the race for U.S. Senate, Democratic Congresswoman Jasmine Crockett will be here on The Lead. So what is her plan to win statewide in ruby red Texas, without appealing to a huge chunk of Trump voters? Welcome to The Lead. I'm Jake Tapper and our Tech Lead, millions of

children in Australia are waking up this morning logged off their social media accounts. Will other nations follow suit?

The world's first ever youth social media ban has taken effect today in Australia, blocking teens under the age of 16 from the following Instagram, Facebook threads, Snapchat, YouTube, TikTok, Kick, Reddit, Twitch, and X.

Most of these companies say they're going to comply with the ban, using age verification technology to identify those who are under 16 and suspend their accounts.

Now, you don't have to live in Australia to guess the motivation for this ban, because we've all seen countless headlines for years. Young impressionable minds falling prey to social media, bullying, harmful messages, sexual predators, reduced interaction in the real world, distraction, false information. I could go on and on.

Australian officials plan to monitor the impact of whether kids will subsequently read more books, take fewer medications, go outside more, et cetera, et cetera. But not everyone's on board with the ban plan. The Digital Freedom Project, a campaign group formed to fight the ban, filed a case in Australia's high court arguing that this is a blatant attack on the constitutional rights of young Australians to political speech.

Still, Australia's ban may be paving a path for other countries. Malaysia became the latest to join a list proposing their own national restrictions. Other countries include Denmark, Norway, countries across the European Union.

What about here in the United States? Well, there are some social media restrictions for kids, but there are many calls to take it further. Even former Obama White House chief of staff Rahm Emanuel, who is a possible 2028 Democratic presidential hopeful, is the first of that group to say this.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

RAHM EMANUEL, FORMER CHICAGO MAYOR: When it comes to our adolescents, it's either going to be adults or the algorithms. One of them is going to raise the kids. Today, I'm calling for the United States to follow suit to come up with its own plan to protect our children, help our parents, strengthen our families, and restrict all the social media when it comes to access to kids and adolescents 16 and younger.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

TAPPER: Let's get to CNN tech reporter Clare Duffy. Clare, Australia's move has led to some calls for the U.S. to follow suit or at least tighten social media restrictions for teens. Where do those existing restrictions stand?

CLARE DUFFY, CNN TECH REPORTER: Yes, Jake, right now, the existing restrictions for young people on social media really depend on what state you live in. The state laws are sort of all over the map here, and that means that the experience for teens in the U.S. is really going to vary across the country.

Just to give people a sense of some of the state laws that have been enacted over the last few years and the variety of restrictions that are in place here, Nebraska passed a law this year that requires social media platforms to verify the ages of users and get parental consent for minors to create new accounts.

[17:05:07]

Utah, Texas, Louisiana are requiring app stores to verify users ages and get parental consent for new downloads. New York is banning what it calls addictive social media feeds. Florida is banning teens under the age of social media under the age of 14 from social media altogether. And 15-year olds have to get parental consent. So there's a real variety here.

But I do think that we'll see both U.S. states and other jurisdictions around the world watching what happens with this Australia ban, whether it does in fact make teens and families feel better about their experience not on social media and crucially, how effective this law is at actually keeping teens off of these platforms.

We know that there are potential workarounds for teens here, whether that is using someone else's face to trick these AI age estimation systems or using a VPN to disguise their Internet traffic and make it look like they're accessing these platforms from another country.

So I think that effectiveness is something that other regulators around the world are going to be watching really closely here to see whether they could model regulation on this Australia ban. Jake.

TAPPER: All right, Clare Duffy, thanks so much. Let's discuss with Dr. Jenny Radesky. She's a developmental behavioral pediatrician from Michigan Medicine whose research focuses on family digital media use. Dr. Radesky, how will the success of Australia's ban be measured and do you think a ban like this one would be effective in the United States?

DR. JENNY RADESKY, DEVELOPMENTAL BEHAVIORAL PEDIATRICIAN: Well, the whole world is watching this ban right now, I think to see whether it does lead to the mental health benefits that they're hoping for or whether there are unintended consequences. I think people in the U.S. are especially worried about kids who go to social media for social support because they don't have it in their own communities and they're worried that for social media some kids is a lifeline and now that is being taken away, at least for the those kids 15 and under.

I think especially parents want to know, is this the solution that's going to help us have fewer arguments about social media at home to help me say no to my 11-year-old or 12-year-old who's begging for a social media account.

So I'm really glad that Stanford Social Media Lab is doing an evaluation project to see how well mental health might improve after this ban goes into effect.

TAPPER: I understand all the arguments in favor of the ban. A counter argument which you just touched on is the fact that social media also connects kids to other kids. It's not always negative. During COVID especially, I remember my son would game and he'd use Twitch to talk to his friends in a way that he wasn't able to do because of COVID.

How -- it just seems like there is obviously benefits that I understand, but there's also clearly going to be some risks to this.

RADESKY: Absolutely. And I think that's what youth tell us. So I am one of the co-medical directors of the American Academy of Pediatric Center of Excellence on Social Media and Youth Mental Health. We have a youth advisory panel that I just talked to last night and I asked them, what do you think are the problems with this sort of approach? What do you think are the good parts?

So they said the good parts is that it relieves some of the pressure to all be on social media. The bad part they said is, OK, so at age 16, do you just suddenly have this fire hose and culture shock of content? When you do open a social media account, they want it to be scaffolded a little bit more and have some developmentally appropriate experiences.

Maybe in middle school you could have a type of social media that's really just more messaging or just smaller friend groups and then as you get older, have a little bit more access to feeds, a little bit more access to safe human reviewed content.

So I really love that idea of designing the digital experience around what youth actually need for their social connections at different stages and then to remove the nonsense that stresses them out, like they don't want to be contacted by strange adults, they don't want to be fed, you know, harmful content, scary or upsetting content.

So I really like this idea of thinking not just about a black and white ban, but about a developmentally appropriate design that's going to be safer and much more positive for young people.

TAPPER: As of a year ago, there was a high level of bipartisan support for enacting Australia's ban. Here in the U.S. according to a Quinnipiac poll, 60 percent of Republicans, 54 percent of Democrats, 61 percent of independence were in favor. We are, on the other hand, a nation built on the idea of free speech.

And also, who is supposed to be raising our kids? I mean us, we, the parents or the nanny state? I could see that as a counter argument.

[17:10:02]

Do you think that free speech will ultimately stand in the way of a teen social media ban passing constitutional muster here in the US?

RADESKY: It's a great point. There are many state laws that have been locked in litigation or injunctions because they, the tech lobby is saying that they are impinging upon free speech. And part of that free speech is young people's access to information.

So I think we want young people to participate in the online world. I just want that online world to be safer and more, you know, designed more with their needs in mind, less with profits in mind. And you know, even some of the families who've gone through terrible losses and who worry that social media actually led to their child's death, they still have advocated for design based laws, more like the Kids Online Safety Act that want the tech world to be safer, not just these total bans at certain ages.

And so I think I would love for there to be more of a conversation within U.S. government about laws that both talk about access because boy, I would love for those under 13s not to be accessing social media. There's clear evidence that under 13s struggle more with their body image with problematic use when they get a social media account too young.

I think it's just as a side note, I think that's going to be a benefit of this social media ban. It has forced all the platforms to create age assurance strategies.

So age assurance means that selfie that they're taking or another way to verify that they're a kid versus an adult that hopefully will benefit us here in the U.S. because so many kids who are 10 or 11, they just falsify their age and get on social media and that is not linked with good outcomes. So that is my hope is that we can focus on healthy design as well as appropriate access.

TAPPER: Dr. Jenny Radesky from Michigan Medicine, thanks so much. Appreciate it. There is so much more to dig into this topic. Tomorrow at 3:15 p.m. Eastern I'm going to be hosting a conversation with the premier of South Australia, Peter Malinauskas and Jonathan Haidt who is the author of the book "The Anxious Generation." That book has been very influential, was a catalyst for Australia's social media ban. You can watch that live tomorrow on CNN.com and the CNN streaming app, 3:15 tomorrow.

Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth and top national security officials just wrapped up a briefing of congressional leaders as bipartisan calls grow for the Pentagon to release that video of that controversial follow up full boat strike video we're going to go live to Capitol Hill, next.

Plus, we are standing by President Trump is just minutes away from taking the stage in Pennsylvania for remarks on the economy. He'll be touting his efforts on affordability after repeatedly calling the issue of affordability a hoax and a con job.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[17:16:52]

TAPPER: In our world need -- lead, we have some breaking news. A briefing on Capitol Hill for some of the top congressional leaders just wrapped up. This after President Trump backtracked on the September 2nd strike on an alleged drug boat. Last week, President Trump said he wouldn't have had the military launch a second strike, killing survivors. Then in an interview with POLITICO published today, he said he doesn't, quote, get involved in that and said this about Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth testifying before Congress.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

DONALD TRUMP, U.S. PRESIDENT: I don't care if he does. He can if he wants. I don't care.

UNIDENTIFEID FEMALE: Do you think he should?

TRUMP: I don't care. I would say do it if you want. He's doing a great job.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

TAPPER: Joining us now From Capitol Hill, CNN's Arlette Saenz. Arlette, are what are you hearing from Republican senators about that boat strike?

ARLETTE SAENZ, CNN CORRESPONDENT: Well, Jake, Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth and Secretary of State Marco Rubio spent a little over an hour briefing top Republican and Democratic leaders up here on Capitol Hill as the administration is facing intensifying scrutiny over that follow up strike which killed survivors on an alleged drug trafficking vessel back in September.

Now, right now at the heart of the debate is whether or not to release the full video of that follow up strike that is getting some support from bipartisan lawmakers. Republic -- some Republicans saying that they do believe the Trump administration should take that additional step to make this public so people can see exactly how this played out.

But emerging from that briefing, top Democrats said that they were unsatisfied and at the very least, they want this video to be released for lawmakers themselves to see. But they said that Hegseth was noncommittal on that issue. Take a listen to Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

SEN. CHUCK SCHUMER (D) SENATE MINORITY LEADER: Was a very unsatisfying briefing. I asked Secretary Hegseth, Secretary of Defense Hegseth, would he let every member of Congress see the unedited videos of the September 2nd strike? His answer? We have to study it. Well, in my view, they've studied it long enough.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

SAENZ: Now the top Republican in the Senate, Majority Leader John Thune, said that he believes the committees who have jurisdiction over this matter are still going through the information to determine whether or not it this should be released. But he also said that he was not shown this video during that briefing.

But it all comes as there is that intensifying pressure from a bipartisan group of lawmakers who want to see this video release. We have also heard from Democratic senators who believe that Hegseth needs to come and publicly testify to give a full accounting of how these strikes were carried out. As many Democrats continue to warn that they do not believe that the Trump administration was within their legal authority to carry out these types of strikes.

TAPPER: All right, Arlette Saenz on Capitol Hill, thanks so much. We've been keeping close tabs on this murder trial in Massachusetts of Brian Walshe, who's accused of killing his wife. Why DNA evidence presented in court today is so significant. CNN's Jean Casarez will be here next.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[17:24:07]

TAPPER: In our Law and Justice Lead, today multiple forensic experts on the stand today going over the shocking DNA evidence in the case against Brian Walshe. Walsh is the Massachusetts man accused of killing his wife in 2023. He denies committing the actual murder.

He has pleaded guilty to misleading police and to disposing of his wife's remains. Her body is still missing.

CNN's Jean Casarez is following every step of this trial for us. Jean, how important is the DNA evidence in this case?

JEAN CASAREZ, CNN CORRESPONDENT: The DNA evidence is important to show that Ana Walsh's DNA was on so many items. But the reality is, and this might be what you're driving at, he has already pleaded guilty to conveyance of the body parts or dismembering her. And that's what all this goes toward. But the prosecution will turn it around to show he premeditated a murder. And so then this is what he did. Indeed, the results are there.

[17:25:02]

But I want to talk about the rugs right now because this is becoming very important in this case. Earlier on last week, a photo was entered into evidence right there. That's Ana Walshe when she's alive. And actually her children are around her, but they took them out of the picture. And note, that rug was in the living room, all right? It has some designs on it.

We just showed it a minute ago. But something that appears to be that rugged has a lot of blood on it. And there are different segments of the rug, pieces of it that have been put into evidence. The lone DNA profile is Ana Walshe on that rug.

Now, HomeGoods, on January 2nd, after his wife was gone, Brian Walshe went to HomeGoods. And we have surveillance video that the jury saw today. It was entered into evidence, and there he is. I think we have this video. He's rolling the cart around in HomeGoods. There he is entering. And when he finally gets up to the cash register with his cart, all right, and he's there. But what do you think? He has but three rolled rugs as he goes up to the cash register.

And they sort of look like the rug that was in the living room. And when law enforcement arrived after the fact, they took a picture of the living room. There it is, a brand new pristine rug. So obviously prosecutors will use that.

But let's listen to a little bit of sound from the DNA, because we know that there was a bloody towel. Her lone profile was on it of DNA, the head of a hatchet. It was only her profile. But then it comes to the hacksaw itself. Listen.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

SAMAN SALEEM, DNA ANALYST: This was a sample of stained area C on the blade of a hacksaw.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: And what was the DNA profile result for this item?

SALEEM: For this item, a female DNA profile was obtained originating from a single contributor.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: And were you able to come to a conclusion about the comparison to the known profile of Ana Walshe?

SALEEM: The DNA profile from this item is at least 30 million times more likely if it originated from Ana Walshe than if it originated from an unknown, unrelated individual.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

CASAREZ: So not really a surprise. Right. But the defense tried to make points by saying, in a trash bag, all these items can be commingled. There can be transfer of blood. Maybe there wasn't blood on all of them to begin with.

Jake, tomorrow should be a big day because the judge told the jury, we may have the conclusion of evidence tomorrow. She's talking about the prosecution's case in chief. That's what she's talking about. And they may get out early.

So we may have the final witness which would be Mutlu is his name Gem Mutlu and he was their guest New Year's Eve, known the couple for a long time. He said it was a joyous evening and it was a short time later that her life was ended.

TAPPER: Gene Casarez, thank you so much. Really appreciate it. And while this trial is in session, it is one of many events that you can watch live plus get up to the minute analysis from people like Gene Casarez or Laura Coates. This is all on the brand new CNN app. Download the app and then look for the trial under the tab, Watch.

Congresswoman Jasmine Crockett is coming up here next on The Lead. One day after launching her bid for U.S. Senate. Why the fierce Trump critic says she can turn Texas blue. That's next.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

TAPPER: In our Politics Lead today, it was something of a down-to-the- wire decision for Texas Democratic Congresswoman Jasmine Crockett to run for re-election to her House seat, or shoot for the U.S. Senate. Congresswoman announced her bid for Senate on Monday, joining an already somewhat crowded Democratic field.

Joining us now is Congresswoman Jasmine Crockett. So congratulations on your announcement.

REP. JASMINE CROCKETT (D-TX), SENATE CANDIDATE: Thanks.

TAPPER: Your official announcement is just a video of you, an image of you, while insults of President Trump of you play in the background. Why that decision? I mean, with the -- one of your opponents, Talarico, he -- he had a video, him with constituents, him with Texans. Why you solo?

CROCKETT: Yes, so there's a couple of things. Number one, I wanted to do something different. Because, number one, in order to flip the state of Texas, we're going to have to do something that we've never done. So I wanted to stay on brand with the fact that we would be different.

I also wanted people to understand who the President sees as a real threat, and it is me. He also made it clear a number of times that he sees me as a leader. Those were his words, not mine. And so I wanted to do that. That's number one. Number two, I wanted to do a real announcement with actual people, nothing that was staged.

I wanted the real people, and so it had to be in that moment. So I also wanted to make sure that we delivered a full speech that had all the substance there. So on that same day, if you were paying attention or if you were interested, you got the full meat of what it is that I want to do as the next senator in the state of Texas, as well as I did this with the people right there at home in my district.

TAPPER: So last night you told Laura Coates on this network that you don't need to get all the Trump voters in order to win the Senate.

CROCKETT: Yes, yes.

TAPPER: So you assuming you win the Democratic nomination. We should note, President Trump won Texas pretty handily by about 14 percentage points, so you don't need every Trump voter.

CROCKETT: Yes.

TAPPER: But you need a big chunk of them. Explain the math to me. How does -- how do you -- how does any Democrat, but especially one who is progressive and -- and outspoken, how -- how do you win over Trump voters?

[17:35:02] CROCKETT: So this is what I want to tell you about. There's two things that we need to talk about that are separate things that I think both of them are necessary to win. Number one, we actually have to turn out more voters. If you do the research on the state of Texas, we typically rank the lowest in voter turnout, period, in the country. We've got to get that up. I want to say the most recent one that I remember, maybe a little over 50 percent of people turned out.

When we looked at Georgia and we saw Georgia go blue, what they were able to do is they were able to get more people to participate. So that's number one. So for me, it was always about expanding the electorate. Number two, this is a great talking point that we have heard over and over and over, that maybe you need to sound like a Trumper so you can get Trumpers to be on board.

But what we know is that there were Trump and Mamdani voters. There were Obama and Trump voters. There were AOC and Trump voters. So a lot of people want to distill this down into something as simple as, oh, it's progressive or it's this. But the reality is that people vote for who they believe in. They vote for the people that they believe really care about bettering their lives.

And what we know is apparent is that a lot of people have been turned off by Trump. When we look at Tennessee, I'm not asking you to look far north or over in California. When you look at the red state of Tennessee, he won that seat by over 20 points. Yet it came within single digits. When you look at Mississippi, they flip two Senate seats.

When you look at Georgia on November 4th, they elected two Democrats statewide. So what I am saying is people are finally saying, you know what, even those that voted for Trump, because there's plenty that regret it.

TAPPER: Yes.

CROCKETT: And I think that those people would be more willing to listen at this point. But I think you've got to expand the electorate and you've got to talk to anybody who actually says, you know what, he played us.

TAPPER: Let me tell you. Let me ask you about a quote that you've made that has some Democrats worried about your ability to win statewide. In a December 2024 Vanity Fair profile, you talked about, quote, and I'm going to read a lot of the quotes just to put it in the context, "all the complexities within the Latino community, the immigration thing has always been something that has perplexed me about this community. It's basically like I fought to get here, but I left you all where I left you all. And I want no more you all to come here. If I wanted to be with you all, I would stay with you all. But I don't want you all coming to my new home.

It almost reminds me of what people would talk about when they would talk about kind of like slave mentality and the hate that some slaves would have for themselves. It's almost like a slave mentality that they have now about the time that that was published last year. Around a million Latino voters in Texas were voting for Trump. Do they all have slave mentality?

CROCKETT: No, and that's not what that said at all. To be clear, it did not say that every Latino has that type of mentality.

TAPPER: No, no. But slave the -- the ones that vote for people who believe in strong or -- or Trump's immigration policies.

CROCKETT: So -- so I don't believe that the people that voted for Trump believe in what they're actually getting. That is number one. What Trump said is that he was going to kick out the bad guys. And that's what I was talking about. I've been down to the border. I've been down to South Texas. I've campaigned down there. And so I am talking about exactly what was going on when I was down there on behalf of the Beto campaign.

In fact, when he was running for governor, I was sent as a surrogate. And I said, talk to me about what is going on. Why is it that they believe that they can win Latinos down here? Like, I don't understand what's happening. And there were people that were saying that they have fought and they had done everything the right way. And that there were bad people that were coming that were doing it the wrong way.

And so they were saying, no, we left. And I mean, when you think about people that are leaving asylum, they are leaving areas and situations that they feel like are harmful to them. So, yes, they're like, no, I don't want to be in this dangerous situation. And that's what I meant. But at the same time, I knew what Trump meant because Trump had a record. Trump had a record of locking up kids and putting them in cages. So I knew what Trump meant.

And so that's why it wasn't making sense to me. And ultimately, right now, I just came from a joint hearing that we were having on the Senate side. It's the Senate as well as the House. The first time I've had a joint hearing ever since I have been in the House. And I was listening to Latino American citizens that have been arrested by this regime. Some of those people may have voted for Trump. I don't know.

But they agree that what he's doing now is wrong. And it's about right versus wrong and not right versus left. And he sold them a bag of goods. And I knew that that's what he was selling because I knew his record.

TAPPER: All right. Jasmine Crockett, we'll leave it there. But we know you'll come back and answer our questions as you always do.

CROCKETT: Yes.

TAPPER: Congresswoman Jasmine Crockett, a fresh Senate candidate. Thank you so much for being here. Appreciate it.

[17:39:40]

President Trump's bizarre response when trying to defend his pardoning of former Honduras president convicted on drug trafficking charges as Honduran officials issue an arrest warrant for this newly pardoned, newly freed former leader. (COMMERCIAL BREAK)

TAPPER: In our Politics Lead, the former president of Honduras, Juan Orlando Hernandez, who President Trump pardoned from serving a 45-year sentence for drug trafficking offenses last week, including 400 tons of cocaine. Now Hernandez faces an arrest warrant by the Attorney General of Honduras, who is accusing the former president of money laundering and fraud. Now, President Trump was just asked about that pardon. Here's what he told Politico's Dasha Burns.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

DONALD TRUMP, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: Well, I don't know him, and I know very little about him, other than people said it was like an Obama-Biden type setup where he was set up. Very good people that I know, and they think he was treated horribly, and they asked me to do it, and I said I'll do it.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

[17:45:02]

TAPPER: Let's discuss with the panel. President Trump was also asked if the pardon sends the wrong message to drug dealers. Here's what he said to that.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

TRUMP: No, I don't think so. Look, I think, you know, when you weaponize government, they've weaponized their government just like they did over here.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

TAPPER: So just in point of fact, like this investigation started long before Biden took office, and also his brother, the Honduran president's brother, was prosecuted by Trump's lawyer, Emil Bove, who's now a judge, back when he was a prosecutor. I mean, I don't know what politics he's talking about here.

CHARLIE DENT (R), FORMER U.S. REPRESENTATIVE: Yes, I don't either. I don't know who these people are who said that he should get pardoned. I mean, this is making a mockery of the whole pardon process. This guy was busted for tons of cocaine that he was sending to the -- to the United States, laundering the money, and now we're blowing up boats in the Caribbean over fentanyl, which really doesn't come from Venezuela.

So there's an incoherence to this whole message. We're in a war on drugs, and then we're pardoning massive drug -- drug kingpins. None of this makes sense.

XOCHITL HINOJOSA, CNN POLITICAL COMMENTATOR: Yes, and I also think it's an important point that you will get a pardon from this President if you have the right connections in the White House. And that seems to be the constant theme. As long as you have the right lobbyists, you have the right friend of the President, or know someone in the White House, or can get that Oval Office meeting, then yes, you will get a pardon. And that's the message that it sends, is that there is one rule for Trump and his friends, and there is another rule for everybody else.

And I think that's what Trump thought he was going to get with Henry Cuellar. He thought, hey, I'm going to pardon you. I -- you know, let's hope.

TAPPER: Democrat -- Democratic congressman.

HINOJOSA: Democratic congressman --

TAPPER: Yes.

HINOJOSA: -- hoping that he would switch parties before the filing deadline, and that didn't happen. So I think we're just in year one of Trump. He has had several pardons. Obviously, a lot of them were January 6th pardons. But it's a constant theme about he is using one rule for his friends and another rule for everybody else.

TAPPER: So moments from now, Trump's going to give a big speech on the economy from Monroe County in Pennsylvania, where he barely beat Kamala Harris, just by 669 votes. The first Republican presidential candidate to win Monroe County since 2004.

So the President campaigned on affordability, but now he's calling it, "a Democratic hoax." Congressman Dent, you represented a swing district in the eastern part of Pennsylvania. What's your take on how President Trump is addressing the affordability issue?

DENT: Well, my take is, he needs to first listen to the American people who are telling him the cost of everything is too much, the cost of cars, the cost of housing, the cost of food, electricity, and acknowledge that there is a problem and stop calling it a hoax. And then he's going to have to actually stay focused on that issue in Pennsylvania tonight, and hopefully he doesn't, you know, drift off onto grievances that he ordinarily does. But he's got to take this problem seriously. He's going to have to actually offer real solutions.

And I think he has to answer for the tariff issue. I mean, tariffs are inflationary, and he keeps pushing them. Now he's acknowledging that they do raise costs, and that's why he's eliminating some tariffs. But -- but he's going to have to stay focused on this. He hasn't been able to do that up to this point. We'll see what he does up there, because that is a genuine swing area.

I used to represent part of Monroe County while I was in the State Senate. And, you know, it's -- it's wedged between the Scranton/Wilkes-Barre area and the Lehigh Valley. He's also there because that part of Pennsylvania, the President's numbers are sinking.

In Luzerne County, immediately next door to Monroe County, that was a very strong Trump county. Obama had won it. Trump won it three times by big margins. Well, guess what? The Democrats won the commissioner's races in the -- in November this year. I mean, this is -- there's something happening up there that's not good for the President. His base, strong area up there, the coal regions, he's slipping.

TAPPER: And, Xochitl, White House Chief of Staff Susie Wiles said in an interview with "The Mom View," whatever that is, that we should expect more events ahead of the 2026 midterm elections. Take a listen.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

SUSIE WILES, WHITE HOUSE CHIEF OF STAFF: Typically, in the midterms, it's not about who's sitting at the White House. It's you localize the election, and you keep the federal officials out of it. We're actually going to turn that on its head.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Good.

WILES: And put him on the ballot because so many of those low- propensity voters are Trump voters.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Yes.

WILES: I haven't quite broken it to him yet, but he's going to campaign like it's 2024 again.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

TAPPER: So, A, I mean, you know, he's 79 years old, and I don't know that he's going to be able to campaign the way he has in the past, but we'll see. He certainly works a lot. But, B, what do Democrats think about Trump being on the ballot as they say they want to -- they want to put him?

HINOJOSA: Yes, please. I think that with his approval rating so low right now, if you are a congressional Democrat or if you're running statewide for Senate or even governor, you want Trump on the ballot. You want someone who has brought up costs, who is going to bring up healthcare costs at the end of the month, who has not delivered on really very many promises that he promised. Yes, you want him on the ballot. And I think that it'll be really hard for congressional Republicans to figure out is, do they tell the White House, no, don't come to my district? And do they stand up to him? Or do they just take it because they don't know how to stand up to the President? So it'll be interesting to see what the Republican Party does.

[17:50:21]

DENT: Especially there. He's -- he's going to just around the Lehigh Valley and that seat up in the north where the Bresnahan holds. Again, these are swing districts that can go either way. And if I'm a congressman up there right now, I don't want the President coming into my district with an approval rating at 36 percent or whatever it is. I mean, that doesn't help. So, you know, at some point you have to start winning some crossover voters and independents. And just bringing somebody to rally the base in the way he does it may not be very helpful. TAPPER: Thanks to both of you. Appreciate it. President Trump claims countries are allegedly dumping cheap rice into the United States. Exactly what does that mean? What is the impact on American farmers? Well, I'm going to ask one of them who was sitting next to President Trump at the White House just yesterday. Stay with us.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[17:55:16]

TAPPER: And we're back with our Business Leaders series where we talk to small business owners from coast to coast about the impact of President Trump's tariffs and what they think of it all. On the heels of his announcement yesterday of a $12 billion aid package for farmers, there the President suggesting his administration will look into foreign countries allegedly dumping cheap rice into the United States. And joining me now is that business leader who was with the President yesterday, Meryl Kennedy. She's the CEO of the Louisiana- based Kennedy Rice Mill. Thank you so much for being here. I really appreciate it.

MERYL KENNEDY, FOUNDER AND CEO, KENNEDY RICE MILL: Thank you, Jake, for having me.

TAPPER: So you're asking the President actually to double down on rice tariffs.

KENNEDY: Absolutely.

TAPPER: The farmers we've spoken to on this show seem to think the tariffs are a net loss for them. A lot of them are Trump voters. They like Trump, but they don't like these tariffs, hence the $12 billion aid package because there are farmers who are hurting. How prevalent is your view among the agricultural community that you're in touch with?

KENNEDY: I just think tariffs are a misconception, right? So, truly, tariffs are something the rice industry has wanted even before Trump because we were seeing tariffs from other countries. So, for instance, India has a 70 percent to 80 percent tariff on the U.S. right now. We're also seeing tariffs --

TAPPER: When it comes to rice?

KENNEDY: Yes.

TAPPER: Yes.

KENNEDY: Also with Thailand having a 50 percent tariff. So we have no access to those countries and yet they ship rice into our countries, right? So we're asking for fair trade, not free trade.

TAPPER: So what do you want? Reciprocal tariffs? If a country has an 80 percent tariff on you, like India, then they should have an 80 percent tariff? KENNEDY: You know, I like reciprocal tariffs and I thought that they would work, but what we really want now is universal tariffs because the reality is many of these countries are overproducing, oversupplying, and then, unfortunately, dumping all over the world. So it's really pushing globally prices down and that's what's truly hurting the U.S. farmer.

TAPPER: So let's talk about that because yesterday you named India, Thailand, and China as countries that you said were intentionally dumping rice into Puerto Rico specifically, I think you said. They are, in fact, the top importers of rice into the United States. Thailand leads the way, at least more than 400,000 tons last year. U.S. rice imports have been on the rise, though, we should note, since 2000, 14 percent of the U.S. rice supply last year was from other nations. So what -- what exactly --

KENNEDY: No, unfortunately, it was more than that.

TAPPER: It was more than that.

KENNEDY: Our accounts for 30 percent are actually imported products.

TAPPER: Thirty percent, not 14 percent. OK.

KENNEDY: Yes, that's correct. Now, 14 percent increase year over year, but we've seen record imports for the last two years.

TAPPER: But just explain to us and our -- and our viewers what you mean by dumping, what the term, because that's a very specific term.

KENNEDY: It is a very specific term and I really think that the word dumping is the only word to be used here, unfortunately.

TAPPER: I'm not judging it, but just explain what you mean.

KENNEDY: Yes, no, I mean, what I -- what I mean by that is that countries are taking rice, like, from different origins and they're actually bringing it into the U.S., even if it might be at higher prices. Unfortunately, they're doing it, you know, before the tariff was put into place, right? So in excess quantities.

Now we're sitting here in the U.S. with more rice than we need. Our prices are depressed at levels that, you know, it -- a farmer can't survive on, right? We've never seen --

TAPPER: So they're swamping, in your view, they're swamping the country --

KENNEDY: They're swamping the country.

TAPPER: -- to get the rice down.

KENNEDY: Yes. And to get around the tariff as well, right? So they imported a ton of rice --

TAPPER: Before the tariffs hit. KENNEDY: -- before the tariffs hit. And then here we are, sitting with too much rice available in-country, and then, unfortunately, our farmers are facing just extreme pressure from other nations, too.

TAPPER: So here, so India is already facing this 50 percent tariff on goods imported to the U.S., including rice. A trade deal is still being negotiated. The president of the Indian Rice Exporters Federation says more rice tariffs would be a burden on the U.S. consumer. That's obviously their argument.

KENNEDY: Right.

TAPPER: Right? Because you -- as you acknowledge, it brings prices down. What -- what would you like the tariff on -- on rice from India to be?

KENNEDY: You know, India, Basmati rice is still a small category in the U.S., truly, right? It's more about the Indian government subsidizing their farmers so much so that the farmers overproduce and then dump this rice in the rest of the world. So this is a global issue, not just a U.S. issue. To me, what we're asking is that again, for free trade, doesn't always work. We need fair trade, right? If they're going to have a duty on us, we believe we should have a duty on them. But --

TAPPER: So when it comes to consumers, obviously the Indian rice is a special taste of its own.

KENNEDY: Yes.

TAPPER: But when it comes to just general rice, is there reluctance, a reluctance among consumers to buy American rice, or do Americans not really care? They just want rice.

KENNEDY: I think Americans really want U.S. grown products by I mean, American farmers, right? I think for the most part, if you were to poll America right now, they want to buy from -- from us, right? Farmers like my father, like the men that I know at home and women. So I -- I believe that the U.S. consumer wants to buy American made goods, period.

TAPPER: All right. Meryl Kennedy, thank you so much.

[18:00:00]

KENNEDY: Thank you.

TAPPER: Really appreciate you being here.

KENNEDY: We appreciate you having us.

TAPPER: And welcome to The Lead. I'm Jake Tapper. This hour, we're just moments away from President Trump taking the stage in one --