Return to Transcripts main page

The Lead with Jake Tapper

Officers Who Defended Capitol On Jan. 6 Sue DOJ Over $1.8B Fund; Speaker Johnson On GOP Incumbent Losses: We Don't Need People Trying "To Carve Out Their Own Lane"; Sen. Cassidy Bucks Trump On Iran, Ballroom After Primary Defeat; Uproar Over Anti-Semitism In Texas House Race; Trump-Backed Nominees Dominate In Tuesday's Primaries; Sen. Jeanne Shaheen (D-NH), Is Interviewed About Bipartisan Bill Would Cap Insulin Prices At $35 A Month. Aired 5-6p ET

Aired May 20, 2026 - 17:00   ET

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

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

KASIE HUNT, CNN HOST: All right. Thanks to my panel. I really appreciate all of you being with us today. Thanks to all of you at home for watching as well. We really appreciate you.

Don't go anywhere. "The Lead with Jake Tapper" starts right now.

[17:00:38]

JAKE TAPPER, CNN HOST: The Justice Department just indicted former Cuban president Raul Castro, age 94. Why now? The Lead starts right now.

Surrender to the United States or else that today as the U.S. announces new charges against Raul Castro, brother of longtime Cuban dictator Fidel Castro, role charged for his role in the 1996 killing of three Americans in planes over international waters. Does this case give the Trump administration an opening to put even more pressure on the communist island nation?

Plus, a new lawsuit from two police officers who valiantly defended the U.S. Capitol on January 6, 2021. They are now suing to stop the Trump administration's new $1.776 billion fund for victims of alleged weaponized prosecution.

And President Trump's big primary wins. Can he keep this up through November? The man leading the president's midterm agenda will be here on The Lead.

Welcome to The Lead. I'm Jake Tapper.

The Lead tonight, two police officers who defended the U.S. Capitol during the attack on the Capitol on January 6, 2021, these two officers are now suing the Trump administration over the Justice Department's new $1.776 billion, quote, "Anti-Weaponization Fund." In moments, I'm going to talk to one of the plaintiffs. This afternoon, President Trump made his own claims about why this fund, in his view, is necessary.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

DONALD TRUMP, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: -- Castro. a lot of people have suffered -- I wasn't involved in the settlement. The people were destroyed. They went to jail. Their families were ruined. They committed suicide. You know all the Biden administration and the Obama administration both of them. You're talking about peanuts compared to the value.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

TAPPER: The largest group of potential fund beneficiaries are the nearly 1,600 people charged in connection with their roles in the attack on the Capitol. Dominic Box, who spent a year and a half in jail awaiting trial on January 6 charges, told CNN that the fund is long overdue. Quote, "It's not OK for hardworking, average Americans to be chewed up and destroyed as a collective boogeyman," unquote. But on Capitol Hill, Republicans are trying to reckon with how to handle the controversy tied to this pool of money and its potential recipients. House Speaker Johnson today echoed Vice President Vance and Acting Attorney General Blanche when asked about these convicts getting money.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Thank you for being here. I am not --

REP. MIKE JOHNSON (R-LA), HOUSE SPEAKER: They are setting up a fund to compensate all Americans who have been the subject, the target of lawfare or weaponization of the federal government. Again, that's not a partisan proposition either. Everybody should support that. He did not say who will be eligible.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

TAPPER: Other Republicans, on the other hand, offered varying degrees of skepticism. Or at least in one case, a desire to stop the fund altogether.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

SEN. JOHN CURTIS (R-UT): I will tell you, my first reaction was this doesn't pass the smell test.

SEN. THOM TILLIS (R-NC): It sends a signal, hey, go. Breach the Capitol. Destroy the building. Assault police officers. You may even get compensated for someday. That's absurd.

REP. BRIAN FITZPATRICK (R-PA): We got to unpack exactly what it is, what the source of the funding is in order to stop it and or reverse it.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

TAPPER: The payments are coming from the Justice Department's Judgment Fund. That's a pot of taxpayer money created in 1956, set aside by Congress for monetary settlements by the government. In theory, Congress is the body that can set more guardrails for this pool of money. Though that would be easier said than done, I suppose.

Now, two of the officers who were at the scene of the Capitol attack on January 6th, Former U.S. Capitol Police officer Harry Dunn and current Washington, D.C. metropolitan Police officer Daniel Hodges. Those two are now suing to stop the new $1.8 billion pot altogether. They're filing claims that the Anti-Weaponization Fund, as it's called, endangers them personally and is a violation of the Constitution.

Here now, one of the two officers suing Daniel Hodges, who's here in a personal capacity. Officer Hodges, thank you for being here. Take us back to the moment you learned about this fund, this $1.776 billion fund, and decided to bring the lawsuit.

[17:05:00]

DANIEL HODGES, D.C. METROPOLITAN POLICE OFFICER: Right? Yes. It's unfortunate. It's shocking, obviously. It's terrible. Why should we be paying people to attack the Capitol, to threaten to kill the vice president to try and stop the transfer of power?

But at the same time, it's not surprising because Trump has made it clear for years that he's tied to these people, that he appreciates what they've done, he wants to support them, he gave them pardons and he's floated the idea of paying them for a long time now. So this is just, you know, the -- his promise come fulfilled, I guess.

TAPPER: When did you decide to sue?

HODGES: Our attorney reached out to us, me and Harry, and said that we would have a case to try and stop it. And I'm willing to do whatever I can to make sure that these people don't get that money, these ill- gotten gains from the American taxpayers. So I just said, yes, absolutely, if I can help, I'll do it.

TAPPER: So you and Harry Dunn allege that since you since speaking out about the attack on the Capitol, you four testified before the January 6th committee and such, along with Gonell and Fanone, you've both received credible death threats. Your attorneys claim in this filing, quote, "The anti-weaponization fund will both compensate and empower the very people making those threats," meaning the death threats. "Militias like the Proud Boys will use money from the fund to arm and equip themselves. And most chillingly, the fund will signal to past and potential future perpetrators of violence against Dunn and Hodges that they need not fear prosecution, to the contrary, they should expect to be rewarded."

Interestingly enough that he talked about that they're going to use the money to fund and army and equip themselves, militias, because there's a clause in it, as I'm sure you know, that says we can't be held responsible for what anybody does with this money. Can you talk a little bit more about what you've experienced in terms of death threats from some of these groups and what you fear this fund could bring on?

HODGES: Sure. You know, some are more explicit than others. Even today, just while I've been talking to media, I've received a couple threats since we announced our lawsuit. Some have been just vague, like, you know, we're coming to get you and your time is coming. Some have been more explicit.

Like I've had people send me video and footage of people killing themselves, posting -- pasting pictures of my head on instructions for suicide, stuff like that. That's just really horrific.

TAPPER: It's disgusting and it's not how most of us feel about you and other brave police officers who guarded the Capitol that day.

Republicans who obviously can control Congress are being asked about the fund. It's made up of taxpayer money. There's been a mixed response. We heard from one congressman from Pennsylvania, Republican Brian Fitzpatrick, like they're going to try to stop the fund. Others seem all for it. What's your message to Republicans in Congress?

HODGES: It's -- Republicans -- like Congress is the most powerful branch of government by design. Republicans could not only stop this fund, but all the insanity that we experience every day in this administration. They could do it today, but they choose not to. It is a conscious choice for them not to because they aren't actually against most of Trump's agenda. They could impeach him and any of these other bad actors today, but they're not going to.

TAPPER: The January 6 rioters were already pardoned on day one of the of President Trump's second term. He hadn't even been in office for a full day, actually just a few hours into it, including those convicted of violent offenses against police officers. Vice President Vance was asked about it and he held -- you know, he held the door open for the possibility that people who committed and were convicted of acts of violence against police might get some of these funds for other reasons. How does that make you feel?

HODGES: I mean, it's terrible. It doesn't make any sense to me on any level. It's hypocritical because these same people claim to back the blue all the time. I can't -- there is no ethical valid reason for them to be doing this. So I have to unfortunately assume the worst, that they have ulterior motives for their actions.

TAPPER: Where are the police unions in all this? Where's the FOP?

HODGES: That's an excellent question. Maybe some young upstart journalists can ask them what they feel about it. TAPPER: All right. Well, I'm not young.

Officer Daniel Hodges, thank you so much. It is a good question for the FOP. Joining us now, CNN Senior Legal Analyst Elie Honig.

And, Elie, you've looked at the filing of this lawsuit from the two officers. What are the chances of success based on what you've read and what you've heard? ELIE HONIG, CNN SENIOR LEGAL ANALYST: Well, Jake, I did read the filing very carefully. On the one hand, every word that the officers write in this complaint is true. They start off by, this is one of the most egregious acts of corruption in presidential history. I think the big legal obstacle, though, is going to be what we call standing, meaning the plaintiff in this case. The officers have to show that they will suffer some concrete injury and that that injury will be caused by the defendant's actions, here, the establishment of the funds.

Now, you just talked with Officer Hodges about the death threats that he's received. And the theory here is that they will continue to receive them even more. I'm not sure that's going to pass muster for standing as it's been technically interpreted in the courts. But the immutable truth remains. These officers are heroes. The people who attack them are villains.

[17:10:09]

And Officer Hodges is right, what he just said Congress can stop this if there's political will.

TAPPER: Well, I mean, Officer Hodges was physically attacked on January 6th. I mean, he's the one caught in that door crying out in pain. Presumably, individuals were convicted of attacking him specifically. That's not standing enough to say, like you're giving -- I mean, let's -- I mean, it would -- it would -- it would mean one of those individuals who specifically attacked him or specifically attacked Officer Harry Dunn was given money, applied for money, and was given money. But wouldn't that be standing?

HONIG: It would surely be standing to sue the person who injured them. That is unquestionable. But what they're doing here is sort of a legal bank shot. They're saying, OK, it's not about the physical injuries in imposed by these people, and it doesn't matter if this is just a corrupt, disgusting scheme. That's true.

But for standing, what they're saying is, well, we've been threatened. There's a concern will be threatened more. And the reason we'll be threatened more is because of this fund. Now, it's not entirely clear that threats on their own are enough for standing, and it's not clear that that's a direct enough causal relation.

I think -- and I think if you read the filing, it's clear the lawyers anticipate that standing is going to be a tough issue for them.

TAPPER: Well, one of the other things that they say in the filing, the lawyers for Hodges and Dunn, is that some of this money might go to the Proud Boys, might go to one of these militias that would theoretically perpetrate acts of violence with taxpayer dollars. And there's actually a clause in this settlement and the formation of this fund saying, hey, we are -- we in the government are not responsible at all for how this money spent.

HONIG: Yes, any sane person would raise exactly those objections. Those are reasons, I think, why we're seeing even Republicans object to this. There's a complete lack of transparency, a complete lack of accountability. Those are all 100 percent valid criticisms of this fund that I echo. But again, standing is a very technical, nuanced legal issue.

Standing has, by the way, is important. I mean, part of the reason Donald Trump lost many of his 2020 election challenges, his efforts to steal the 2020 election, is because the people who were suing lacked standing. So, yes, it's a technicality. Yes, it may be frustrating for people, but it is an obstacle you have to clear in the courts.

TAPPER: Elie Honig, thanks so much.

Coming up, what the House Speaker Mike Johnson, said today about Republicans losing their primary races and what they might think in the future when they decide whether or not to go against the president. Plus, the new push to cap the price of insulin at just $35 a month and helps some 8 million Americans who rely on that drug to survive.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[17:16:38]

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

JOHNSON: We're advancing America's first agenda, the America first agenda.

We need people here who understand that, who are not, you know, trying to carve out their own lane and do something that's destructive or, you know, counterproductive, I think, to the agenda.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

TAPPER: In our Politics Lead, that's Speaker Mike Johnson, Republican of Louisiana, on a lesson that he's taking away from these Republican primary defeats, urging recent losers such as Kentucky congressman Thomas Massie or Louisiana Senator Bill Cassidy to stick with the Trump agenda, despite the president attacking their political records.

With me now, two people who have served in Congress, Democrat Joe Crowley in New York, Republican Charlie Dent of Pennsylvania. So let's talk about this. First of all, just off the bat, like, what do you think of Speaker Johnson saying that, like, you shouldn't come and be independent, you should do this agenda before you.

CHARLIE DENT, (R) FORMER U.S. REPRESENTATIVE: Well, he clearly doesn't represent a swing district. I mean, a member from a swing district knows they have to develop their own identity, their own brand, that they simply tie themselves to an unpopular White House that they will lose. But if you're in a ruby red district like he is in Louisiana, sure, you can attach yourself to an unpopular agenda and still win. But if he wants to be the speaker next session, he better make sure his members have their own brand, their own identity and yes, even separation from the president at a moment like this.

TAPPER: Yes, well, especially enough to have a majority --

DENT: Correct.

TAPPER: -- I guess, is what you mean. Speaking of Louisiana Senator Bill Cassidy, president targeted him for defeat because of his impeachment vote. He voted to impeach President Trump back in 2021. Cassidy lost and then he turned around and voted for the War Powers Act to rein in President Trump when it comes to Iran. What did you make of that?

JOE CROWLEY, (D) FORMER U.S. REPRESENTATIVE: It's amazing the level of courage you develop when you no longer running for a political office anymore. This is the, you know, the end of his career politically. I'm not surprised by it at all. As much as maybe a little bit of a revenge, but also a little bit of applying the laws as maybe he's written.

TAPPER: Yes.

CROWLEY: Maybe both. But clearly they're going to be thorns, I think. There'll be some thorns in the side of the President and House and Republican House and Senate leadership these next six months.

DENT: (Inaudible) is a two way street.

TAPPER: It can be for sure. I mean, you have Mitch McConnell, who knows how he -- what he's going to do, he's been a thorn in the president's side. And then you have Thom Tillis and you have Cassidy. Pretty soon you have a majority if they vote with -- if they vote with Democrats. So Cassidy's also expressing now opposition to the funding for Trump's Big Beautiful Ballroom.

A reporter asked if that meant that we're seeing a Bill Cassidy unleashed. Here's his response.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

SEN. BILL CASSIDY (R-LA): They don't have engineering, they don't have architectural plans. Is it reasoned? Is it really thought through? And ultimately, can I defend it as being for the best of my country? I think I can.

So don't look for a narrative, actually listen to what I'm saying.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

TAPPER: So in light of what Congressman Crowley said, this is going to be a rough six months. I mean, in some ways, President Trump created that no vote or whatever Cassidy is going to be for the next six months.

DENT: Well, for me, look, I can't understand why any member thinks this is politically a good idea. At some point, as a member of Congress, you have to do this, you know, put your finger in the air. The wind is not blowing in your favor on this ballroom or on this fund, you know, to pay people who have been supposedly wronged by the Justice Department. You know, building an arch, you know, change the name of the Kennedy Center while people are struggling. I mean, I just think there's a political tone deafness to this and a disconnectedness. I mean, I'm glad that Cassidy has pointed this out, that this project is not popular, right, and you come from.

[17:20:17]

You know, if we want to put a spade into the ground, we need to pull a permit.

TAPPER: Oh.

DENT: Yes, we have to pull a permit. I mean, just don't tear down the East Wing and say, hey, we're going to -- we're going to build a ballroom.

TAPPER: Yes.

DENT: Yes.

TAPPER: So Tom Massie --

CROWLEY: Yes.

TAPPER: -- I want to ask you about him because he, you know, he has no Fs to give now for the rest of his term too. He, I mean, he -- President Trump and the Republicans in the White House targeted him for removal, as it were, when Massie was a really -- he was against them on the Big Beautiful Bill and some of the other important votes. After that, Massie -- that's when Massie started going after him on the Epstein files. It wasn't until the White House started targeting him. And now he can really do anything he want.

I mean, he'd go to the floor of the House, as some people are calling, and say, read all the names in the Epstein files.

CROWLEY: Well, I think what you're seeing here is the fallout from, I think, this particular election because he got several tens of thousands of votes. Massie's election was much closer than Cassidy's election was in Louisiana. His election in Kentucky was very -- was closer. Not close, but closely.

TAPPER: Massie got 45 percent and Cassidy --

CROWLEY: Right.

TAPPER: -- didn't even get 25 percent.

CROWLEY: Right. So I'm saying --

TAPPER: Yes.

CROWLEY: -- there are tens of thousands of people who voted for Massie. Some of them are going to get on the bandwagon and support the Republicans. Some of them are not, I think, are angry about this. You add that with independents. I'm not saying that district is going to go Democratic, but I think it's going to be a little bit more in play. A little more -- and I think you'll see that also in Texas, for instance --

TAPPER: Yes.

CROWLEY: -- with the endorsement of Paxton, that if Paxton wins, it actually could help Democrats win a seat that they've been after for 30 years and have been able to get.

TAPPER: Do you think that -- do you think that Paxton, if Paxton were to win, and I think it's probably likely with Trump's endorsement, that's really going to him, that that will make that a pickup opportunity for Democrats, the Texas Senate seat?

DENT: Yes. Of Course, it'll be very competitive. I'm not saying Talarico is going to win, but this could be a Roy Moore -- Roy Moore moment. Remember the candidate in Alabama --

TAPPER: Did he lost?

DENT: Yes. He was a significantly defective candidate for a whole host of reasons, and they nominated him. And of course, he lost to a Democrat named Doug Jones. This could be that Roy Moore -- Roy Moore moment. And you know, because -- I can see a lot of Republicans in Texas talk to some today, you know, who are corning people. They're not going to vote for Paxton.

I mean, there are some of them. That's a bridge too far. This man is so far out of the mainstream, so many problems legally and ethically.

TAPPER: Well, he's been indicted and he's been impeached --

DENT: Yes. And --

TAPPER: -- and his wife filed for divorce on biblical grounds.

DENT: Biblical grounds.

TAPPER: Yes.

DENT: I mean, there's a whole host of issues here.

CROWLEY: Isn't that a reason to run for president? I mean, at Senate.

DENT: But it's a bridge too far, though, for a lot of people.

TAPPER: All right, thanks to both of you. Really appreciate it.

Ahead, the blatantly anti-Semitic views of a sex therapist running for Congress as a Democrat, one that Democrats have already said they're going to vote to expel her from office if she ever makes it to D.C. I'm going to talk to her Democratic primary opponent next.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[17:27:27]

TAPPER: Continuing with our politics lead, we're going to look ahead to next Tuesday's runoffs in Texas. Lots of races there, but one particular House race is giving Democrats fits. It is the runoff in the state's newly redrawn 35th congressional district, just southeast of San Antonio. Now a sex therapist and housing activist named Maureen Galindo, she placed first in March's primary and she will be headed to a runoff. Things got really interesting last week when her campaign put up this blatantly anti-Semitic Instagram post, quote, "When Maureen gets into Congress, she'll write legislation so that all Zionism in support of Zionism is undoubtedly anti-Semitic since it's Zionists harming the Semites."

She's defining Semites as indigenous Arabs, I believe. It also says that she will "turn Karnes ICE Detention Center into a prison for American Zionists and former ICE officers for human trafficking. It will also be a castration processing center for pedophiles, which will probably be most of the Zionists," unquote.

The Lead, as well as CNN's political unit have reached out to Galindo's campaign multiple times. Here's the response we received via email this afternoon, quote, "Jews across the world are anti-Zionism. My proposal for Karnes Detention Center was never for Jewish Zionists, it's for billionaire Zionists regardless of religion. If they've done business for genocidal prison state materials or there's evidence of pedophilia from Epstein files, they should be brought to trial. This is a very popular sentiment across America. The DCCC," that's the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee, "has local media inflamed my comments because they want my Israeli backed opponent," unquote.

There's also a response from Democratic Congressman Jared Moskowitz and Josh Gottheimer who posted, quote, "If for some reason Maureen Galindo wins the congressional election in Texas 35, as soon as she's sworn in, we will force a vote to expel her every single day we're here. Maureen's insane anti-Semitic views, including putting Americans in concentration camps, have no place in our party or country," unquote.

With us now is the other Democrat in this runoff primary race, Democrat Johnny Garcia.

Mr. Garcia, thanks for joining us. Tell us more about this runoff campaign. And what do you make of Galindo saying you're backed by Israel?

JOHNNY GARCIA, (D) TEXAS CONGRESSIONAL CANDIDATE: Look, thanks for having me on. It just goes to show that our opponent is focused on every other thing but the real issues that are affecting everyday Texans here in this district, with the increase of groceries, gas and health care, we should be focused on these issues, not attacking our communities, our Jewish communities, our Latino communities here in this district. For one, it has no place in our party. Her hateful and vile rhetoric continues to divide our party at a time where we need to be uniting and strengthening our party so we could ultimately win this election here in this district. That's my focus right now.

[17:30:24]

TAPPER: She's being boosted by a political action committee called Lead Left PAC. It's spent hundreds of thousands of dollars to support her campaign. There's a lot of news outlets, including CNN, "The New York Times." Axio is suggesting that this PAC is probably a Republican effort to boost Democrats they think will be weaker candidates come November. What do you think? What are you hearing?

GARCIA: It shows that they're completely scared of my campaign and my ability to ultimately win this race. Look, we are building a broad coalition here in this runoff election and just days away from May 26th, we are seeing everybody in our communities in this state throughout the nation coalesce and uplift our campaign at a time where Republicans are meddling in this election. They are now spending nearly a million dollars to uplift a weaker Democratic opponent in hopes that they're able to fool the voters of this district.

We already know that Donald Trump called Greg Abbott to redraw this district in an attempt to give themselves an easy win, and you're seeing their same playbook play out in this attempt. Here in Texas, we are drawing the line in the sand to say, No te metas con Texas. Don't mess with Texas. We as Democrats are standing strong in this race, and we're ultimately going to send the message that we have the ability to win in November. We just need to make sure that we come out on May 26th and elect the right candidate to represent us in November.

TAPPER: Before Galindo had suggested that Zionists should be put in camps, she told Texas Public Radio's podcast "The Source" something just as anti-Semitic. This was on May 13th before the Instagram post. Take a listen.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

MAUREEN GALINDO (D), TEXAS CONGRESSIONAL CANDIDATE: I'm not anti- Semitic. In fact, my last serious relationship was with a Jewish man. Not a big deal to me at all. I am against Zionist Jews. When I said that the Jews who own Hollywood are doing this, do all Jews own Hollywood? Yes, no. The Zionist Jews do. The Zionists own our media, our banks, and all of our politicians, including San Antonio, and there's plenty of evidence for that. There's plenty of evidence for everything that I'm saying inside of the Epstein files.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

TAPPER: What was your reaction when you first heard that?

GARCIA: Look, it just goes to show how untethered she is from reality. Her doubling down on anti-Semitic remarks, conspiracy theories, and just her belief of what she thinks is reality when in fact it isn't. Reality is, is that we as Democrats, we don't have the luxury to lose in this election. As I say in law enforcement, I'm a sheriff's deputy that have served my community nearly two decades. In law enforcement, when we lose, people die. And we know in this midterm election cycle, there is so much riding on the line, and Democrats across the board are doing everything that we can to fight against this Republican opposition that we're seeing in this race. Now more than ever, we need to put forth the best candidate that's ultimately going to win this seat here in Texas and make sure that this gerrymander turns into a dummymander for Donald Trump and Greg Abbott.

TAPPER: Johnny Garcia, thanks. Really appreciate it.

[17:33:49]

Coming up, President Trump racking up the primary win. Some of his toughest critics just lost their races. Can the trend continue through November? The man behind President Trump's midterm agenda, White House official James Blair coming up here on The Lead.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

TAPPER: In our Politics Lead, nominees backed by Trump won big in last night wide slate of Republican primary elections across the country. In Kentucky, for example, Congressman Thom Massie, a longtime thorn in Trump's side, lost to the President's pick, former Navy SEAL Ed Gallrein.

In Georgia's governor's race, another critic of Trump's has fallen. Brad Raffensperger, Georgia's Secretary of State, drew Trump's ire in 2021 when he rebuked Trump's claims that the 2020 election results in his state were inaccurate.

Joining us now to discuss James Blair. He is senior advisor to the President. In many ways, the architect of Trump's midterm strategy. Is that fair to say? One of the architects. You're --

JAMES BLAIR, SENIOR TRUMP ADVISER: My job is to get it done for him.

TAPPER: Deputy architect. OK. So those five out of the seven Indiana state senators defeated. Massie defeated. Senator Bill Cassidy, Louisiana, defeated. Who's next?

BLAIR: Well, we've got a few more primaries to play out where the President is endorsed. And I expect that he will have a very strong record and probably win all of those endorsements. But --

TAPPER: There's Paxton versus Cornyn.

BLAIR: Yes.

TAPPER: That's Tuesday for Senate in Texas. Are there any other big ones that I'm ignoring?

BLAIR: I think that's probably the biggest one. We'll see if he weighs into the Georgia Senate runoff. You know, that's probably the only other big race out there that he hasn't weighed into that I can think of off the top of my head. For the most part, it's on to Democrats.

You know, we're starting to wrap up primary season and that'll be getting on with the process of beating the Democrats as we turn into the summer and the fall. TAPPER: I will get to that in one second. I will note that the endorsement of Ken Paxton, the attorney general who has been indicted, not convicted, impeached, not convicted. His wife filed for divorce on biblical grounds just a year ago. The NRSC was highlighting that. It's the only reason I bring it up. There are a lot of Republicans on Capitol Hill who wonder, maybe that's going to make the seat more competitive for Democrats.

[17:40:16]

BLAIR: Yes, I mean, obviously, I guess it depends on what lens you view it through. I think we would say that the Democrats have put up one of the most radically left candidates that they've put up anywhere for any Senate race ever. And certainly in the state of Texas with James Talarico. And obviously we're going to be highlighting that for the next five months.

He is way out of step with Texas voters, you know, all of his positions. I mean, there's too many to list here. Everything that you can say that is, he's like a far left fever dream. And the voters of Texas will know that.

TAPPER: You're very on message, but I was talking about Paxton versus Cornyn. Let me just ask you, the primary, are they, yes, the primary is Tuesday. The runoff is Tuesday. Is the President going to go to Texas? Is he going to campaign for Paxton? Is he going to try to do anything to help Paxton between now and election day, primary day?

BLAIR: I can't speak for the President. Obviously he could always make a decision to do something that he's not planning to do today. I don't --

TAPPER: OK.

BLAIR: -- there's not a Texas trip on the schedule. I expect that the AG will be successful there. Obviously he said that John Cornyn's a good man, but he just thinks it's time to have a new senator. And I think that the Republican senator will win.

TAPPER: So we just had on a swing state congressman, former swing state congressman, Charlie Dent, who used to represent the Lehigh Valley, as I'm sure you know, in Pennsylvania. His argument is there need to be some people who piss off the President every now and then, because they're in the swing districts. The President took aim at one of those individuals, Congressman Brian Fitzpatrick earlier today, answering report questions from Fitzpatrick's fiance, who happens to work for "Fox." He has at times broken with the President, including voting against the one big, beautiful bill. Take a listen.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

DONALD TRUMP, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: When her husband votes against me all the time, can you imagine? I don't know what's with him. You better ask him what's with him. Her husband, she's married to a certain congressman. He votes -- he likes voting against Trump. You know what happens with that? Doesn't work out well. (END VIDEO CLIP)

TAPPER: So I don't think they're married yet, but that's not the point. Fitzpatrick, like, that's one of three congressmen, as you know better than I, who are Republican, who represent districts that Kamala Harris won.

BLAIR: Yes.

TAPPER: Not a lot of them, but there are three of them. Does it -- don't you think that people like that need to be given a little wiggle room so they can maintain that seat for Republicans? It's the suburbs of Philly. It's fairly bluish.

BLAIR: Well, I'd put it to you this way. The congressman does vote, you know, against sort of our position sometimes, and you don't see the President attack him. Obviously today, he noted that he votes separately. He didn't attack him, and, you know, he has a long history with Congressman Fitzpatrick, and I think the President understands very clearly that there's some things he disagrees on, and I think he'll be successful in the fall, and that doesn't mean we can't agree or disagree, and that's sort of the point.

The President does allow for disagreement in the party, but there's some things that, you know, he's not going to allow for disagreement on, and that's what you've seen with some of the recent primary challenges that we've undertaken.

TAPPER: Like Nancy?

BLAIR: Yes, sir.

TAPPER: So let's talk about November, because there's a new "New York Times" poll showing the President losing his hold on independents, which he's been successful with in the past, 69 percent of independent voters poll disapproved of his job performance. It's up seven points from January. What are you guys going to do to get those independents back in order to hold on to the House and Senate?

BLAIR: It's really about giving them a clear choice. They can either vote Republicans back into power, or they can vote Democrats into power, and it's about making them understand what the choice is, you know, depending on which party's in power, and with Republicans, you've got the party of lower taxes who's already moved to cut taxes and wants to cut taxes further, the party of tough on crime policies, secure borders, strong military, or you've got the Democrats who voted for a $4 trillion tax hike, who tried to defund all interior immigration enforcement in this country, defund ICE and Border Patrol, which is what we're dealing with right now on Capitol Hill, as you know, Jake, we've talked about before, who don't want to support increased military spending as we need in this, you know, pivotal time to keep America's military supremacy in the world.

So this is the split screen that they have. No matter what you say about who the president is, these are the differences that play out on Capitol Hill, and it's about making the voters know very clearly. It's very easy in a presidential election to have a clear binary choice.

TAPPER: Right.

BLAIR: You've got two candidates, and that is the key in the midterms. You've got to have two candidates in a given district and connect to the voters, how that connects to the bigger picture for who's in control of the country.

TAPPER: All right. White House official James Blair, good to see you. Congratulations on your primary, all the pelts you have on your wall. I saw Thomas Massie-sized pelt added to the Blair rec room last evening. Congratulations.

BLAIR: Thanks for having me.

TAPPER: I guess.

[17:44:43]

Lawmakers putting aside previous policy differences for the American people. How often do we get to say that? Well, there is a new push to cap the price of insulin at just $35 a month and help some 8 million Americans who rely on the drug. We're going to talk about that next.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

TAPPER: Our Health Lead now, there is gathering momentum on Capitol Hill to provide help for the millions of Americans who suffer from diabetes. According to the American Diabetes Association, that is more than 40 million Americans and at least 8 million of them rely on insulin just to survive. Democratic Senator Jeanne Shaheen of the great state of New Hampshire is spearheading a bipartisan bill that would cap insulin prices at $35 a month. And she joins us from Capitol Hill.

Senator, tell us a little bit more about what your bill would do and does it have a chance of becoming law? I assume many in the powerful pharmaceutical industry oppose it.

[17:49:54]

SEN. JEANNE SHAHEEN (D-NH), RANKING MEMBER, FOREIGN RELATIONS COMMITTEE: Well, I think it does have a real shot at becoming law. Two years ago, we capped the cost of insulin at $35 a month for everybody on Medicare. We think it's important to do that for everybody who has type 1 or type 2 who needs insulin. Right now, we have 18 senators on the bill equally divided, nine Democrats, nine Republicans, and we're increasing that number every day. So now we're up to about a fifth of the Senate, more than we've ever had on this kind of a bill.

And we think it's important to try and provide some relief to families who are struggling with the cost of health care. And for people who have type 1 diabetes, they don't have an option of whether they're going to get used by their insulin or not. And when it's a choice between the cost of insulin or putting food on the table, we need to provide some help. And this is one way that we can do it. We would require all insurers to cap the price of insulin at $35. We would set up a pilot program for people who are not insured so that they could also benefit from lower cost insulin. And we would create an expedited pathway to get a biosimilar so that we could get a generic insulin to make it cheaper for people.

TAPPER: So earlier this week, on this matter of pharmaceutical costs, earlier this week, the President, along with others such as Mark Cuban, touted TrumpRx. That's his own effort to reduce drug prices. It's adding some 600 generic drugs eligible for discounts through TrumpRx. What do you think of that program? Do you think President Trump and Mark Cuban and others deserve some credit for that?

SHAHEEN: Well, I think anything we can do to lower the cost of pharmaceuticals is a benefit to the American people. We have to see how it gets implemented. But I would hope that the President and Mark Cuban and the administration would support this legislation because this is a way to provide some relief to people who are really struggling with health care costs, which have gone up with the expiration of the premium tax credits. They're struggling with the cost of gasoline, because of the endless war in Iran at this point. They're struggling with the cost of groceries.

Anything that's transported, Americans are paying more for. And you add on top of that tariffs, which are costing families about $1,700 a year. And people are struggling. And anything we can do to help them, we need to do. And that's what this bill would do.

TAPPER: While we have you here, let me talk about, ask you about some other stories in the news, because you're on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, the Senate Armed Services Committee. What do you make of Russian President Vladimir Putin's very chummy visit with China's Xi Jinping less than a week since President Trump went to China for the summer?

SHAHEEN: Well, again, President Xi rolled out the same kind of red carpet for Vladimir Putin that he rolled out for Donald Trump. And what we see continuously is that Putin and Xi and other dictators are playing Donald Trump. They understand that if they flatter him, if they make him think he's important, that they're going to be able to get something from him. And what we saw in that visit was President Trump offering our high-end chips to the Chinese so that they can increase their military performance in ways that help catch them up to where the United States is. And we saw Xi continuing to support Russia in this war in Ukraine in ways that are not in America's interest.

TAPPER: So after seven failed attempts, Democrats finally picked up enough Republican Senate support to advance this measure that would rein in President Trump's war powers when it comes to Iran. Republican senators Rand Paul, Lisa Murkowski, Susan Collins, and now Bill Cassidy voted with every Democrat except for Pennsylvania's John Fetterman. That brings the bill to the floor for a vote. Do those -- will those four Republicans also vote on passing the measure?

SHAHEEN: Well, I hope so. We'll see when the bill comes to the floor for a vote. But I think more and more Republicans are understanding, they're hearing from their constituents that they're concerned about this war in Iran that has no end in sight, that hasn't accomplished any of the goals that President Trump set out to accomplish, that are driving up the costs that they're paying at the gas pump, at the grocery store, and everything else.

And people are worried. They don't support this war in Iran. And they want to know when it's going to end. And the President has provided no plan. Every, you know, yesterday he said, oh, I was an hour away from ordering more airstrikes in Iran. Today we find out he was going to bring in former Iranian President Ahmadinejad, who was just as hardline as the regime that he replaced. So it's clear that there is no plan. There's no end game for this war. And that makes Americans very anxious.

[17:55:07]

TAPPER: Senator Jeanne Shaheen of the great state of New Hampshire. Thank you so much.

SHAHEEN: Thank you.

TAPPER: Coming up next, what the State Department wants you to know about their response to the deadly Ebola outbreak in the Congo.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

TAPPER: Welcome to The Lead. I'm Jake Tapper. This hour, an American doctor with Ebola is now being treated at a hospital in Germany and his family -- as his family is admitted to a special isolation ward. What we're learning tonight about their conditions and the experimental treatments being considered to who are exposed to this strain of the virus.

Plus, the Justice Department today announced the indictment of former Cuban President Raul Castro. The 94-year-old is charged with conspiracy to kill U.S. nationals over the 1996 shoot down of two civilian planes. The acting Attorney General saying he expects Castro will end up inside a U.S. Prison.

[18:00:04]

Also, Republicans in Congress signaling today they may not be able to give President Trump the nearly $1 billion --