Return to Transcripts main page

The Lead with Jake Tapper

Rep. Melanie Stansbury (D-NM) Is Interviewed About Bondi Defends DOJ Handling Of Files, Says Blanche Was In Charge, Source: Bondi Answered Questions On Ghislaine Maxwell In Interview; Federal Judge Halts Work On Trump's "Anti-Weaponization Fund"; Blue Origin Rocket Explodes During Ground Test; Trump Reacts To Judge's Decision To Scrap His Name From Kennedy Center. Aired 5-6p ET

Aired May 29, 2026 - 17:00   ET

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

KASIE HUNT, CNN HOST: But don't go anywhere right now. Pamela Brown is standing by for "The Lead." Hi, Pamela. Hey, there.

PAMELA BROWN, CNN HOST: TGIF. Hey, yes. Happy Friday. Hope you have a great weekend.

HUNT: You too.

BROWN: And we'll look for more next week in "The Arena."

HUNT: See you soon.

[17:00:36]

PAMELA BROWN, CNN CORRESPONDENT: Pam Bondi says one person oversaw the release of the Epstein files and it wasn't her. The Lead starts right now.

A closed door interview with former Attorney General Pam Bondi defending her role in the release of the Epstein files. What she said in the room about Ghislaine Maxwell, Jeffrey Epstein's coconspirator. Plus the world watching as a daring rescue unfolds deep inside a remote cave. One man today pulled out alive. So can crews get to four more survivors still stuck underground?

And President Trump says he is near a final decision on Iran. What sources are telling CNN about those deliberations today in the Situation Room?

And welcome to The Lead. I'm Pamela Brown in for Jake Tapper on this Friday. And we start in our Law and Justice Lead. Frustration on Capitol Hill today as a highly anticipated Epstein files interview with former Attorney General Pam Bondi resulted in this very few answers and seemingly no real progress on justice for victims of Epstein sex crimes. Instead of sitting for an on camera under oath deposition with the House Oversight Committee, Bondi sat for a transcribed interview.

And Democrats in the hearing say Bondi repeatedly noted that Todd Blanche, her successor, was in charge of releasing the Epstein files. Her opening statement read, quote, "As the head of a large department with broad responsibilities, I did not lead every aspect of this effort or conduct that document review myself. I delegated oversight over this process to Deputy Attorney General Todd Blanche."

Now Bondi disputed the characterization that she threw Blanche under the bus there writing on X, quote, "Not true. I praised acting AG Blanche's management of this herculean task. I said his ethics are beyond reproach and that he is an incredible attorney general."

If only this hearing had been on camera so the American people could see and decide for themselves. That aside, House Oversight Democrats, including Melanie Stansbury of New Mexico, who joins us next, unloaded on Bondi during a break in the hearing.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

REP. MELANIE STANSBURY (D-NM): This is absolutely a cover up and a smokescreen to prevent Pam Bondi from having to testify under oath pursuant to a congressional subpoena.

REP. MAXWELL FROST (D-FL): Every single one of our questions got one of three responses. One, not to my recollection or I don't know. Number two, talk with Todd Blanche, I don't know anything about it. And number three, I am not talking about Donald Trump.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

BROWN: So only one Republican member attended this hearing, and that was committee chair James Comer. Seen right here, he spoke with Epstein survivors ahead of the hearing or we should say, interview, including Liz Stein, who said this.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

LIZ STEIN, EPSTEIN SURVIVOR: These files contain leads, names, connections, friendships, patterns, witnesses, travel records, financial relationships and institutional failures. In any other sex trafficking case of this magnitude, those leads would be aggressively pursued. But in this case, they have not been.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

BROWN: All right. Let's go live now to CNN's Paula Reid. So, Paula, you're learning some new details about Bondi's testimony.

PAULA REID, CNN CHIEF LEGAL AFFAIRS CORRESPONDENT: That's right. I just got off the phone with a source who is in the room, and I'm told that Bondi was asked a few questions about Ghislaine Maxwell. Now, according to my source, Bondi told lawmakers that she thinks Maxwell should, quote, "die in prison and that she should not receive a pardon." She used the word evil to describe Maxwell. Now, Bondi was also asked about Maxwell's controversial prison transfer following her high profile meeting with then Deputy Attorney General Todd Blanche, Bondi testified that she had no knowledge of this transfer.

She was not the one requested it, who requested it. But she also said that it is common for these kinds of transfers when there are security concerns.

Now, you heard from lawmakers outside the hearing room. I was up there on Capitol Hill. It appeared to be pretty contentious outside the room. But I'm told even by this source inside the room, Democrats were actually mostly pretty civil and polite notable since Bondi's last appearance on Capitol Hill was quite contentious. But an important note here is that she is still recovering from treatment for thyroid cancer.

In the photos that you've shown, Bondi had that white bandage across her neck. And I'm told that she still actually can't move her head from side to side. So when she was addressing lawmakers, she actually had to turn her entire body to address them. And that circumstance, I'm told, helped keep things pretty civil given her condition because as this source noted, she had the perfect excuse to back out of this appearance, but she still showed up.

[17:05:24]

Now, as you noted in the introduction, Democrats are insisting that Bondi tried to place a lot of the blame on for the issues and the errors here on now, acting Attorney General Todd Blanche, while Bondi disputes that, says that's not true. It's clear that Blanche and likely FBI Director Kash Patel will be likely the next focus for this committee. Bondi was the 13th witness they have talked to in their investigation into all things Epstein. But we really won't know, Pamela, exactly what she told them until they release that transcript as early as next week.

BROWN: So as early as next week is when we're expecting that transcript. All right, Paula Reid, thanks so much.

And joining us now is Democratic Congresswoman Melanie Stansbury of New Mexico. She is on the House Oversight Committee and was there for Bondi's interview today. Also with us is Epstein survivor Liz Stein. You saw her earlier.

So, Liz, just before we start, I want to know how you're doing because I imagine every time there's a big development in this story, it must weigh on you.

LIZ STEIN, EPSTEIN SURVIVOR: Of course it does. This is incredibly difficult for us all to do, but that's part of the reason why we do it. We have a position of visibility that not all survivors get. And that's not lost on us. And so we continue to fight this fight because of that.

BROWN: If you could have been inside that room, which survivors were not allowed in, what would you wanted to press Pam Bondi on?

STEIN: What I would have wanted to know from Ms. Bondi today was what were the procedural aspects by which these files were reviewed? What was the redaction process? We saw over and over and over when these files were released survivors names, identifying information were unredacted time and time again. Yet we're seeing perpetrators names redacted all over the place. It feels very intentional on the part of the Department of Justice to expose survivors' names and cover up perpetrators names.

BROWN: And Congresswoman, how was that dealt with in the interview? Because I know that that was part of the discussion.

REP. MELANIE STANSBURY (D-NM): Yes, well, we asked extensive questions about the entire process and the lack of compliance and breaking of the law and the fact that the Department of Justice have still not provided documents that we subpoenaed all the way back in July and August. Pam Bondi did not appear for her subpoena deposition. This was a voluntary transcribed interview. They still have not released by Pam Bondi's own admission, she said that there were 6 million files that were responsive to the Epstein Files Transparency Act, and they've only released 3 million of those files. And so we asked extensive questions about the process by which the files were reviewed, how they were produced, how the redactions were made.

And in my own line of questions, I asked specifically, you know, the identities, the personal identifying information, pictures, videos of girls, of survivors, both as adults and as children were released publicly yet they redacted the names of potential perpetrators who committed acts of sexual violence. And so I asked specifically the names of perpetrators and I asked about her compliance with the law. And I also asked her about whether she felt personally responsible. And I'll just say this, not only did she pass the buck Todd Blanche and Kash Patel and anyone else she could throughout the day, she seemed to show no personal remorse regarding how any of this has been handled.

BROWN: And actually, Liz, before this started, you pressed Chairman Comer on that about the redactions and why some of the perpetrators names were redacted, but survivors names were not when those survivors didn't want their names out there. Let's play that and then we'll talk on the other side.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

STEIN: Survivors names over and over and over were exposed, yet we see time and time again perpetrators names have been redacted and they shouldn't have been.

REP. JAMES COMER (R-KY): Yes, well --

STEIN: Are we going to get some answers about that?

COMER: I hope so. Those are questions we're going to ask. If there's are questions at the conclusion of this that weren't asked that you all felt should be asked, then let us know and we will. We will get those questions answered.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

BROWN: So from what you heard from the committee about this interview, did you get any more clarity, Liz, and will you follow up with Chairman Comer?

STEIN: Unfortunately, I haven't received a lot of clarity and I know that most of the survivors that I'm in contact with feel the same way. Absolutely will I follow up with Chairman Comer? We have said all along that this is not a partisan issue for us. This is a crime. It's a crime of sex trafficking and we're willing to cooperate in any way that we can to see justice in this case.

[17:10:14]

BROWN: I wonder, Congressman, you heard Paula layout, you know, we saw the video of Pam Bondi with the white strip on her neck because she recently had surgery for thyroid cancer. Do you give her any credit that she showed up today even though she didn't answer the questions in the way that you wanted her to answer?

STANSBURY: Congress issued a legally binding subpoena for her to be deposed in front of Congress while she was the sitting attorney general, she did not appear for her deposition. She chose to come in for a voluntary interview today and not comply with her subpoena. She is still legally bound to comply with her subpoena. And unfortunately, the chairman allowed her to testify today, not under oath, without cameras, without recording, and without any transparency into the process. And during the actual interview, you all hopefully will see the transcript in a written format in the next week.

What you will see is that the U.S. Department of Justice sent attorneys and shut her down over and over and over again and would not let her answer questions. And in fact, because it was a voluntary transcribed interview and not a deposition, when she was pressed to provide answers about compliance with the law, the DOJ attorney stepped in and said, she's here voluntarily. She doesn't have to answer that question. And in fact, we're not going to answer questions.

So they were actually quite combative about the fact that they were not going to answer questions that would have been legally required had they been under sworn oath and in a deposition setting. So, no, I don't give her credit for not complying with her subpoena.

BROWN: So did you learn anything new?

STANSBURY: You know, I think a useful piece of information is she was asked whether or not she thought that Maxwell should be pardoned, as you said here, and she said no. And I think that is a very useful piece of information because it does appear that Maxwell has been trying to, you know, barter to get her freedom out of prison. I think we also got some more clarity into some of the other individuals who've been handling this case inside the Department of Justice. And I think that it confirmed for me, just in the way in which they responded, that while countries all over the world have prosecuted or investigated crimes, we've got the U.K. pursuing Prince Andrew, we've got France pursuing, you know, crimes that happen in Paris, here in the United States, the United States Department of Justice has not investigated, arrested or apparently prosecuted a single individual since this bill passed in Congress. And we are left with survivors having to come to Washington, D.C. over and over and over again to beg the chairman of the committee that is supposed to be conducting oversight just to get the AG under oath. That's ridiculous.

BROWN: Liz, what do you hope to see next on that front? And you just heard her talk about the fact that Pam Bondi discussed others in the Justice Department, presumably Todd Blanche, Kash Patel and others handling this case. They haven't gone before the committee yet. I'm wondering what you would like to learn from them.

STEIN: I think that any information that we can get that brings us closer to justice is important. But I think that's something that we need to remember here, is that the Department of Justice keeps effectually telling us there's nothing to see here. There's nothing to hide. Well, if there's nothing to hide, why are they all hiding?

BROWN: Very quickly, will -- do you think the committee will be reaching out Todd Blanche and Kash Patel?

STANSBURY: Oh, you better believe it. Yes, absolutely.

BROWN: When will that happen, you think?

STANSBURY: As I understand it, the ranking member today transmitted communication to the chairman requesting that we get them in front of the committee immediately.

BROWN: All right. Well, we'll see what happens on that front. Thank you so much, Liz Stein and Democratic Congresswoman Melanie Stansbury of New Mexico. We appreciate it. Thank you.

And just ahead, that urgent cave rescue. Why the operation is temporarily on hold at this hour.

[17:14:13]

Plus, a man detained after a car crashed into an airport terminal. The statement the driver allegedly made about actor Tom Cruise as police took him into custody.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

BROWN: Breaking news in our World Lead, the world is watching to see the four known remaining survivors be freed from a flooded cave in Laos. Flash floods blocked the exit trapping them for more than a week. The rescue crew removing the first survivor earlier today as you see right here amid perilous conditions. CNN's Will Ripley is exclusively reporting from the scene. He interviewed one of the Thai divers by phone on the status of the operation and CNN producer Kocha Olarn translated the interview.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

KOCHA OLARN, CNN PRODUCER: Today's extractions activities will suspend for tonight. They will resume again at 9:00 a.m. the reason is that all the divers and rescuers are very, very tired. So the guys that he retrieved today has some problem with his hands and foot because of -- it's been in the water and damped area for a long time. And he has some problem at his stomach.

He says that this is one of his most difficult job that he has to do as a rescuer in his entire career.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

BROWN: Again, four men are still trapped inside. Two other people believed to have entered the cave are still missing.

And another wild scene in the National Lead, this one in Michigan where police detained a man they say drove through a terminal door at the airport in Detroit. Authorities say the 67-year-old seemed disoriented and even told officials he was there to meet with Tom Cruise and to save his dad. He drove slowly through concrete jersey barriers, then through a terminal door. A woman trying to get out of the way was slightly hurt but refused treatment and continued onto her flight. No one else was hurt.

[17:20:03]

And moving over now to Galveston, Texas, about 50 miles south of Houston. Take a look at this. Just a terrifying rescue at Pleasure Pier. Fire officials say it took nearly four hours to rescue eight students who were stuck on a roller coaster nearly 100 feet in the air, all of them having to climb down a ladder to get to safety. Thankfully, in this case, no one was hurt.

And owners of the pier say the ride will be inspected before it's back in service. That's probably a good idea.

Up next, two major legal cases against the Trump administration, including one late today on the Kennedy Center, why a judge says President Trump's name must come off the historic performing arts venue. We'll be back.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[17:25:10]

BROWN: All right. In the Law and Justice Lead, two legal setbacks for the Trump administration. First, a judge ruling against its $1.8 billion anti-weaponization fund. And then another judge says President Trump must take his name off the Kennedy Center and says a building can't close for two years. CNN's Betsy Klein is following this one.

Betsy, what more did the judge say in this Kennedy Center case?

BETSY KLEIN, CNN SENIOR WHITE HOUSE REPORTER: Well, Pamela, this really marks a major blow to President Trump's efforts to transform the Kennedy Center. This federal judge ruling both against the name change and the planned closure. The president was elected chairman of the board of the Kennedy Center early in his second term. And since then, we've seen him oversee major changes to both the leadership and programming at the Kennedy Center. And that has led to some slumping ticket sales as well as major artists pulling out of planned appearances, which some saw as driving this desire to close. On his watch, his handpicked board of trustees renamed the institution the Trump Kennedy Center back in December. And then in March, they approved a plan to close for two years starting in July. So U.S. District Judge Christopher Cooper says that any Trump signage and Trump references on the website, in pamphlets, any materials must be removed within the next two weeks. He says this is because that its status as a living memorial to JFK cannot be changed without congressional approval. And then separately, he says they have to halt the closure.

He says in his opinion, there is no evidence that the board took account of its full range of statutory obligations in determining that a wholesale shuttering of the Kennedy Center was appropriate. He said the board rendered this ill-informed and seemingly preordained decision without regard for how it would accomplish its full array of statutory responsibilities.

Now, I've spoken to numerous sources who have really expressed great concerns about a two-year closure, including performers who would find alternative venues and not return, as well as staff with expertise being very hard to replace and both audiences and donors potentially drying up. Now, the Kennedy Center says that they plan to appeal this ruling. We'll be watching all of that very closely.

BROWN: In fact, it's already on the building, right?

KLEIN: Yes.

BROWN: So, OK. Betsy Klein, thanks for bringing us the latest in this ongoing saga.

And we have more legal news. Breaking news coming in just now, a new legal order related to President Trump's settlement with the IRS. Let's get straight to CNN's Katelyn Polantz.

Katelyn, this is just coming in. What are you learning?

KATELYN POLANTZ, CNN CRIME AND JUSTICE CORRESPONDENT: Well, Pam, it's the second time in eight hours today where a judge has said they need to put the brakes on what is going on with the Justice Department setting up the $1.8 billion settlement fund. Now, in this particular situation, there are two parts to the case. There's the setting up of the fund. We learned this morning that a judge in Virginia was putting on hold setting up that fund and making any payments to people who would have claims for anti-weaponization there. This part, it's a different judge in the -- in Miami's federal court in Florida who is saying that she wants to hear the Justice Department's argument for why there wasn't some sort of serious misconduct done by the Justice Department when they closed an underlying case where Donald Trump was suing the IRS and then said the way they were closing it was they were going to set up this $1.8 billion anti-weaponization fund.

So the judge here, this is Kathleen Williams. She's an Obama appointee from 2011. She previously closed the books on the case, at least in the docket, but now she says by June 12, she wants the Justice Department to explain why there wasn't collusion here and whether the case needs to be reopened. So a lot more to come here on how this fund was set up and the end of that case of Trump suing the IRS.

BROWN: OK, Katelyn Polantz, thanks so much.

And that other legal setback that Katelyn referenced, a federal judge issuing that temporary injunction blocking the Trump administration's anti weaponization fund. The Trump administration says the fund is meant to compensate people wrongly targeted by the federal government. Joining us now is Skye Perryman, president of Democracy Forward, which brought this emergency lawsuit forward.

So, Skye, your legal team persuaded a federal judge to issue this temporary injunction. Walk us through your argument.

SKYE PERRYMAN, PRESIDENT OF DEMOCRACY FORWARD: Well, this fund, there is no authority for it. It's rank corruption and it violates multiple provisions of our U.S. Constitution as well as federal law, as well as frankly, what every single American. I mean, you see so many people opposed to this, understanding this is just so corrupt. But what happened today was the federal court said, wait a second, administration, wait a second. President Trump and Department of Justice, you can't just move to move money in and out of this fund to compensate people without actually a court looking over what you're doing and making sure that it is in fact lawful, which of course, we believe it's not lawful.

[17:30:01]

The Department of Justice refused to agree to pause any action on the fund so that the courts could look at it. They wanted to sort of escape accountability.

And a federal judge today, in our case, were very pleased, put the brakes on that and told them that they can't do anything with the fund until she can consider the arguments and the legality, which, of course, we are quite confident that our clients will prevail in seeking, getting an order that the fund is unlawful.

BROWN: So as you hear in that other case related to the IRS settlement, the judge is asking Trump and his family and the Trump organization to respond by June 12th to these accusations that you're basically laying out. What is your reaction?

PERRYMAN: Well, the Florida judge, of course, seems deeply troubled. You had 35 federal judges across the -- former federal judges across the judiciary, ideologically diverse, some appointed by conservative presidents, some appointed by more progressive presidents, all coming together to ask the federal judge to take a look at what the President and his lawyers did here. Because it looks like, and of course, we believe that that case was a complete sham. And it was just about trying to extract settlement. It wasn't really about the law or any kind of legal basis.

And so I think you see the Florida court having a lot of questions too. June 12th is the same day that the court in Virginia has set the hearing in our emergency case, challenging the fund. And then of course, we'll hear it sounds like from President Trump's lawyers that day as well in the Florida matter.

BROWN: And this pause is the result, this pause with the weaponization fund, because I know there's a lot to keep up with here, is a result of a lawsuit filed on behalf of this diverse coalition who say they've been targeted by the Trump administration and they're ineligible to receive money from it. So I'm wondering, you know, clearly you all think the fund is illegal, but if it is allowed to go forward, would your clients try to receive money from the fund?

PERRYMAN: You know, this fund, there's just no authority for it. But even if it were to go forward, what our case lays out is all the different ways in which the administration has forecasted and said in final documents, it would pay that is unconstitutional and unlawful. Our clients are such a diverse group, as you just said. We have a former career federal prosecutor who was fired by the administration because he worked on January 6th cases just doing his job.

We have reproductive health care professionals who have been threatened by people that seek to violently block clinic access that the fund would return money and pay money to people that have been found to violate federal law and being convicted. We have a city and then, of course, a protester and a pro-democracy voting group. So it is such a diverse coalition.

And what all of these plaintiffs have in common is the harm that they're currently experiencing, the threats that they're experiencing. And then, of course, as you said, the belief and the knowledge that this is unlawful.

BROWN: All right, Skye Perryman, thank you so much.

[17:33:04]

And coming up, we talk to an astronaut about that massive explosion involving the Blue Origin rocket and what that blast could slow down, how it could slow down future missions to the moon.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: That is crazy and not normal.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

BROWN: In our Out of This World Lead, an explosive reminder that rocket tests don't always go well. This was last night at Cape Canaveral Space Force Station in Florida. Blue Origin was test firing the engines on its New Glenn rocket. No liftoff was planned, no astronauts were aboard fortunately, and nobody on the ground was hurt. But we're left with tons of questions as we watch this truly crazy video of this fireball going into the sky. So let's put our questions to former NASA astronaut Garrett Reisman. Thank you so much for coming on. I mean, just watching that. Let's play a slower version here of the rocket's ignition. And you can see the flames at the bottom of the rocket's engine start. But then seconds later, right here, it's on the screen. There seems to be an explosion higher up and then everything blows up. Does that seem significant to you?

GARRETT REISMAN, PROFESSOR OF ASTRONAUTICAL ENGINEERING, USC: Yes, I concur with the fellow taking the video that that was crazy and not normal. So it happened very quickly and it made quite a big blast. You know, I don't think we've ever had a rocket with that much explosive force detonate on the pad, maybe in U.S. history.

I heard estimates as high as a kiloton, which is almost 10 percent the power of the atomic bomb that was dropped during World War II. So we're talking about a massive explosion.

BROWN: Wow. And what would something like that do to the launch pad and the support equipment around it? And it really is remarkable no one was injured or killed in this, right?

REISMAN: Right. What we do whenever we're doing operations like this, we're very careful to evacuate everybody to a safe distance. And that blast zone is something we calculate to make sure that nobody gets hurt. And obviously it worked. The safety protocols worked in this case. So, yes, but you would expect a lot of damage to the pad. And that's a big concern because it's the only pad that this rocket currently has to launch from.

There's no other, there's no pad B, if you will. But I was a little bit encouraged by the fact that today we saw some still photos from a drone where it looked like the damage wasn't quite as bad as I had feared. So there was a lightning tower that was completely destroyed. There was a transporter erector that was also completely destroyed and mangled.

[17:40:12]

But a lot of the other hardware, the tank farm looks OK. The main hangar there looks like it withstood the blast. So surprisingly, it's actually in better shape than I had feared.

BROWN: Yes, that is a surprise. Amazon founder Jeff Bezos owns Blue Origin and this New Glenn rocket named after late astronaut John Glenn is designed to lift heavy payloads. Both Blue Origin and Elon Musk's SpaceX are competing to produce a rocket that will help NASA land people on the moon. How do you think last night's accident could impact the moon program?

REISMAN: Wow. Well, it is going to be a severe impact and in several ways. So first of all, this rocket was going to launch the Blue Moon Mark 2 lunar lander, which was something we desired to have in place for the next Artemis mission, Artemis 3. The plan was to send up a crew in the Orion spacecraft and dock not only with the Blue Moon Mark 2, but also with the SpaceX Starship, which is having its own issues.

And now it looks like it's highly unlikely that with the announced time of doing this within the next year, that that will likely happen without this rocket because you need this New Glenn rocket to get that Blue Moon Mark 2 up to low Earth orbit for Artemis 3. They might proceed just with SpaceX if SpaceX is ready. But their plan B has now got a very big question mark. BROWN: Yes, for sure. Garrett Reisman, thanks so much.

REISMAN: My pleasure.

BROWN: And President Trump just weighed in on the ruling from a federal judge ordering his name be taken off the Kennedy Center. Our political panel is standing by to react. That's next.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[17:46:18]

BROWN: In our Politics Lead, President Trump is now responding to the judge's ruling today that he cannot add his name to the Kennedy Center. The judge also blocked the planned temporary closure of the years-long renovation. Trump responded to this and said, in part, based on the fact that the radical left Democrats care more about opposing your favorite president, me, than saving a dying performing arts center, almost all of which lose large amounts of money throughout the country. We are going to be working with Congress to transfer this failing institution back to them so they can make a determination as to what to do with it.

My panel joins me now. Terry Moran, you at first with that face, that expression.

TERRY MORAN, JOURNALIST: It's a rare retreat.

BROWN: Yes.

MORAN: You just want to slap his name on it because he's him. He's the president. He gets to do what he wants. The judge said no. The Kennedy Center was named by Congress through the passage of a law. If you want to change that name, you go to Congress and get a law passed.

Now, I think the last thing Republicans want to do is demonstrate to their voters that they care more about slapping Trump's name on the side of the Kennedy Center than helping their constituents with the real problems of their lives. But who knows? You can get them to do most things.

BROWN: It is interesting. What do you think T.W.?

T.W. ARRIGHI, VICE PRESIDENT, PUSH DIGITAL GROUP: I guess we'll die a quiet death. Look, I think it's noble to try to renovate the Kennedy Center. I thought it was, I knew, look, anybody who was looking at this clear eyed knew the second he slapped his name on it, it was going to be temporary at best. There was going to be a legal injunction or the Democrats got in. They were going to take it off.

It was temporary at best. And Donald Trump likes to do this. Always push the legal limit, push it, push it. And then when the final court decides it's sort of over, he lets it die.

BROWN: But it's kind of surprising because this was a district court judge. I mean, they could fight this in the court. ARRIGHI: He probably knew it wasn't worth the squeeze.

KATE BEDINGFIELD, CNN POLITICAL COMMENTATOR: Yes, well, I didn't mean to interrupt you. I think he sees that the biggest political problem he has right now is that people who voted for him in 2024 thought he was going to work on bringing prices down and they don't feel like he's doing that. And so every minute that he spends focused on vanity projects like putting his name on the Kennedy Center, he's illustrating to people that he's not focused on the things that matter in their lives. So I'm a little surprised to see him take such a sanguine response here. But the politics dictate that that's the right thing for him to do.

MORAN: And one thing that the judge's opinion reveals is that Congress didn't stand up for itself. This is an obvious case. This is a basic principle of law and not a peep out of it. Not a peep out of this vandalism, this act of vandalism that they just kind of went along with because they're so afraid of. And it took some district court judge to say, no, if you look at the law, this is pretty obvious.

BROWN: Yes, he said it's clear as day or something like that, that Congress should be the one to decide this. I want to talk about something else, and that is what's happening in Texas and what we're hearing from Senator John Cornyn. Now, we've seen some of these senators who have lost, right, who Trump went up against now being more open with what their real thoughts are. And Senator Cornyn posted a not-so-subtle take on how he sees the GOP primary race that he just lost to Attorney General Ken Paxton. And he did it by way of an old fable. Let's read this fable.

Story time here on The Lead. Here it goes. A scorpion wants to cross a river but cannot swim, so it asks a frog to carry it across. The frog hesitates, afraid that the scorpion might sting it. But the scorpion promises not to. It goes on to say, midway across the river, the scorpion stings the frog anyway, dooming them both. The dying frog asks the scorpion why it's stung despite knowing the consequence, to which the scorpion replies, I am sorry, but I couldn't help myself. It's my character. Is Trump the scorpion here? What do you think?

[17:50:01]

ARRIGHI: Well, at first, actually, I thought the scorpion was Paxton and the Texas GOP was the frog. And then I remembered it dawned on me, wait a minute, Donald Trump told the snake story on the campaign trail for years. And it was the same thing, just reworded. The woman found a wounded snake, nursed it back to health, and the snake bit it and said, why do you trust me? I'm a snake.

So then it begins, oh, wait a minute, he's talking about Trump. And look, at the end of the day, whether or not Paxton wins or not is actually kind of besides the point, because it's going to cost so much more money to get him there. And that will mean Donald Trump will have to crack open the pocketbooks of his PACs, which he has been very reluctant to do.

All Republicans hope he does so. But there's a lot of cautionary tales here that if we don't want this to be the crazy, crazy race that we think it might be, people are going to need to pay up because Ken Paxton can't raise a dime.

BROWN: And James Talarico, for his part, the Democrat, Texas Senate hopeful, he said he raised 3 million in the 24 hours following Ken Paxton becoming the GOP nominee.

BEDINGFIELD: That's not a small chunk of change. No, it's not. And, you know, as challenging as Texas is demographically for Democrats, this -- the combination of a uniquely damaged nominee in Ken Paxton and a talented guy like James Talarico, you know, this and the President's overall approval rating across the board being at about 37 percent.

This is a moment where Democrats might be able to make a play here in a way that they haven't in years past. And I think the fundraising point is important because Talarico is able to raise money. He excites a lot of the Democratic base, even outside of Texas, frankly, which is where a lot of these candidates raise money.

But, you know, you also have in Paxton somebody who can't tap into traditional Republican donors the way John Cornyn did. Cornyn was a prolific fundraiser. And so not only do you have Paxton, you know, carrying around a lot of baggage that's going to be front and center in this race, but you -- they -- Republicans have also cut themselves off from a huge line of fundraising that they've previously been able to tap into with John Cornyn.

BROWN: Yes.

ARRIGHI: The Republicans overall and Trump related groups are about $200 million plus in the green. The DNC is in the red. Look, I worked on the Lindsey Graham 2020 race, and I remember every Democrat from San Francisco to Boston wrote maxed out checks to Jamie Harrison.

I saw junk poll after junk poll saying Jamie Harrison was very close. And then a week before, oh, my gosh, he's up four on Lindsey Graham election. He -- probably Jamie Harrison broke every fundraising record up into that point.

And then what happened on Election Day? Lindsey Graham won by over 10 points. Why? Because you can put if you could put lipstick on a pig when it comes to progressivism. But conservatives in the South still won't bite. And Lindsey Graham was the biggest lightning rod aside from Donald Trump that year. And it didn't pay off.

BROWN: You think this could be another example where there's a lot of hype around Talarico? And --

MORAN: Well, it's Texas and it's a long shot, but he's doing something very, very different, I think, which is sort of trying to find a way forward in our politics. A lot of what we're hearing, you know, all these Republicans, as soon as they lose their primary, they find their spines again, right? And they start addressing, they tell the truth about what they actually believe in and what they think. I think that's a shame. Talarico, it seems to me, is at least trying to find a way past the venom and the outrage and the constant trolling and the constant, at least get to a point.

And that stands in stark contrast with Ken Paxton, who is that in spades. I think one of the things we'll find out about in Texas is, is that yesterday's political style? It feels stale to me. I think people are exhausted of the constant barrage, you know, what Katie Miller and the Democrats social media manager did. I think people are sick of it. And Paxton versus Talarico is that contest as well.

BROWN: There's this new CNN piece out today that looks at Talarico's efforts to win over black voters who strongly backed Jasmine Crockett. And Crockett's spokesperson said in a statement to CNN, the Democrats need to make tough decisions on where to prioritize spending, saying, "Do they invest in a Texas long shot or double down in states where they've won statewide, such as Alaska and Georgia?" What do you think about that?

BEDINGFIELD: I actually think that's a very clear headed way of thinking about where Democrats should put their resources. Now, obviously, she's got some personal acts to grind, given the outcome of the primary there. And that's, you know, understandable on a human level, I suppose.

But look, Texas is a tough state for Democrats. It is absolutely true that Hispanic voters who came over to Trump in 2024 have -- are coming back toward Democrats. And there may be it may be that Talarico is able to animate some of those voters and get over the finish line. And what looks like is going to be a really, really tough year for Republicans.

But Democrats need to make tough choices about where they can win. If I were making decisions about where to put money, I would also look I would take a really hard-nosed look at where Democrats think they can win.

[17:55:00]

So I actually, you know, there'll be a lot of -- she'll get a lot of blowback for saying that. And obviously, the personal component of it is, you know, maybe less than gracious. But as a strategic matter, not wrong.

BROWN: Maybe she has a point in your view. All right. Thank you all. Great discussion.

Well, gas prices are high and Americans are feeling the economic squeeze because of the war with Iran. So could that be coming to an end soon? President Trump spent hours in the situation room. What we know about his closed door meetings, up next.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

BROWN: Welcome to The Lead. I'm Pamela Brown in for Jake Tapper. The Lead tonight, we're waiting to hear the results of today's White House situation room meeting to discuss a possible deal with Iran. In a lengthy Truth Social post, before the meeting started, President Trump again listed his demands. And at the top of this list, "Iran must agree that they will never have a nuclear weapon or bomb. The Hormuz Strait must be immediately open, no tolls, for unrestricted shipping traffic, in both directions.

[18:00:04]

By the way, a line about Iran agreeing that it will never seek, develop or acquire any nuclear weapons.