Return to Transcripts main page

The Lead with Jake Tapper

Blanche Says, DOJ Not Moving Forward With Trump's $1.776 Fund; Tonight Primaries In Six States, Including Key Races In California, Iowa; Florida Sues OpenAI, Alleging It's Unsafe For Children; California Voters To Narrow Down Candidates In Governor's Race. Aired 6-7p ET

Aired June 02, 2026 - 18:00   ET

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

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[18:00:00]

JAKE TAPPER, CNN ANCHOR: Welcome to The Lead. I'm Jake Tapper.

This hour, the acting attorney general, a gentleman named Todd Blanche, was up on Capitol Hill just a few minutes ago. He said that the Justice Department is currently not moving forward with President Trump's $1.776 billion so-called anti-weaponization fund. But does that mean it's dead just for now or dead for good? I'll ask a Republican and a Democrat who were in today's hearing in just moments.

Plus, today, Florida sued OpenAI, that's the company behind ChatGPT, alleging that the company knows its chatbot is not safe, especially for children. This comes just a few months after Florida also launched a criminal investigation into OpenAI. And the man behind both of those actions, the state's attorney general, is going to join us live to explain his concerns and the changes that he wants to see happen.

Also, we, of course, are watching primaries across the country on this election night, including a race in New Jersey, where President Trump endorsed Republican Congressman Tom Kean Jr., who's running unopposed. Trump said in his Truth Social post today, Kean won't let voters down, despite the fact that Kean has not been seen in three months, hasn't voted since March, and has yet to explain his absence to his constituents. We're live on the campaign trail ahead.

The Lead tonight, acting Attorney General Todd Blanche says the plan for that $1.776 billion so-called anti-weaponization fund, well, that plan is off.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

TODD BLANCHE, ACTING U.S. ATTORNEY GENERAL: We're not moving forward with the fund. You're right that there's a date that -- in the case in the Eastern District of Virginia in June, but we are not moving forward with the fund, period.

There were a lot of people in this country who had their government weaponized against them. The reasons for the fund, I think, were -- it remain as important as they were before, but we are not moving forward with the fund.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

TAPPER: That statement to lawmakers on Capitol Hill, we, emphasis, are not moving forward with that fund. That comes just one day after a judge ruled to temporarily pause the creation of the fund.

Let's get right to CNN's Paula Reid. Paula Reid, you know, I'm skeptical by nature. We are not moving forward with the fund doesn't mean that they're never going to. How are you taking this?

PAULA REID, CNN CHIEF LEGAL AFFAIRS CORRESPONDENT: Yes, that is how I take it, actually, Jake. In speaking with sources, this is a rare example where you see the Trump administration backing off of a controversial initiative. And what makes this all the more surprising is that for two weeks, Trump administration officials have been insisting that not only is this legal, but this is something that taxpayers would want.

It was just a little over a week ago, Todd Blanche told me in a sit- down interview that he believed, quote, this is something that taxpayers would want their tax dollars spent on. And in speaking with lawyers who worked on this, both outside the administration, inside the administration, Jake, it was clear that they are so shaped by their experience with the Biden Justice Department that they really did believe, not only legally, but also morally, that this was necessary.

Clearly, though, Republicans on Capitol Hill were hearing something different from their constituents. But even in the face of blowback from lawmakers on Capitol Hill, they were still committed to this. But I'm told over the past week or so, it became clear to political advisers that this was going to be a political liability that could continue to hang over Republicans through that critical midterm period. And it was that, the potential political price, that eventually got them to back off.

TAPPER: And, Paula, what about the other part of this agreement having to do with Trump's IRS audits?

REID: That's a really important point, Jake, because this fund was part of a larger settlement to resolve Trump's $10 billion lawsuit against his own IRS. And as part of this, the government agreed that the IRS would not look into the president's, his family, or his businesses as a sort of retroactive protection. And here's what Blanche had to say about that part of the agreement.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

REP. ROSA DELAURO (D-CT): But you are moving forward with this second order?

BLANCHE: It's not moving forward. There's a settlement. There's a settlement that the IRS entered into with President Trump and others, his family and his companies. As part of that settlement, as is customary in IRS settlements, there's a separate A.G. order. (END VIDEO CLIP)

REID: So this part of the settlement was announced quietly the day after the fund was announced, a day after Blanche appeared before a different group of lawmakers. It has not gotten the same amount of political blowback, and that is probably because it's more opaque in terms of the cost potentially to taxpayers. With this protection, Trump could, depending on how those audits panned out, reportedly maybe be on the hook for up to $100 million.

[18:05:06]

Again, that has not received as much attention as this $1.8 billion fund that would then be open to anyone who has been investigated by the Justice Department and is not happy about it. So, it's clear, there would have to be a considerable political blowback, including from Republicans, to get the administration to back off of this, because my sources say they are still committed to this part of the agreement.

TAPPER: All right. CNN's Paula Reid, thank you so much.

And later in the show we're going to have two lawmakers, one Democrat, one Republican, who were in that hearing with Acting Attorney General Todd Blanche.

Now, let's turn to our Politics Lead. We're going to continue to track key races in today's primary elections, the race for governor of California, Los Angeles mayor, there's an Iowa Senate seat that's open, and more. Candidates right now are making their final pitches to voters. Well, most of them are. Not one candidate in a New Jersey House race who's running unopposed in the primary, but beyond that, he has not been seen publicly for nearly three months.

Republican Congressman Tom Kean Jr., he's running unopposed, as I said. President Trump endorsed Kean today, saying, quote, he will never let you down, even though Kean has missed more than 100 floor votes and given no real reason for his absence. He hasn't been seen in almost three months. Beyond his office vaguely citing some sort of medical issue, the mystery continues to bloom in the Garden State because it's still unclear where Congressman Kean is or how he is or when he might return to work.

CNN's Danny Freeman is at a polling place in Westfield, New Jersey. That's where Congressman Kean Jr. lives. And, Danny, we're just now getting a new statement from the congressman?

DANNY FREEMAN, CNN CORRESPONDENT: That's right Jake. Just in the past hour we got a new statement from the congressman, I should say the congressman's campaign. I'll get to part of what he said in just a little bit. But, Jake, you really laid out the big question that has been captivating both Washington, D.C., and this area of New Jersey where I am for months, where is Congressman Tom Kean?

Now, voters today, Jake, they had their first opportunity to make their voices heard on this mysterious illness and lack of presence in his job. And I can tell you, Jake, they had a lot to say about it. But let's just recap where we are.

Congressman Kean, as you said, has not been seen in public for nearly three months. He's missed several votes on Capitol Hill, and there's no official date yet set for his return. In April, the congressman put out a statement saying he was dealing with, quote, a personal medical issue, but gave no more details than that. Then last month, he told the New Jersey Globe that he'd be back in, quote, the next couple of weeks, again, without more information, and still, Jake, he has not resurfaced.

Nevertheless, as you noted, he ran unopposed in today's Republican primary, got a big enthusiastic endorsement from President Trump. But there has been frustration here in Westfield from voters. Democrats, Jake, they were pretty aligned. They want him gone by the fall. But Republicans, Jake, they're very conflicted, too. Take a listen.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

BOB KOWALESKI, REPUBLICAN PRIMARY VOTER: He could be MIA for six months, he wouldn't be as bad as half the people that are in it on the other side of the aisle there. Those people are a disgrace and shouldn't be in office.

CLAUDIA CUCA, REPUBLICAN PRIMARY VOTE: We have to have people who stand up for various issues, and he wasn't there.

FREEMAN: Do you currently feel represented well by Congressman Kane?

CUCA: No, not at all. He's not there, and when he is there, he's not doing anything.

FREEMAN: And that's not good enough to get your vote in a primary?

CUCA: No.

DONNA SCHULTZ, DEMOCRATIC PRIMARY VOTER: I mean, none of us could do that. You couldn't just take a job and not show up and then not tell anybody what's going on. It's disrespectful to the country, really.

CAROL NIXON, DEMOCRATIC PRIMARY VOTER: Sorry, he's not well enough to vote in Congress, but, quite frankly, when he was voting, again, a lot of his votes, I think, were against the interest of District 7.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

FREEMAN: Now, Jake, as you noted at the top, just in the past hour, we got a new statement that Kean posted to his Twitter account, or his X account, rather. I'm going to read it in part, which says, quote, right now, I am focused on my recovery, and under the advice of healthcare professionals, I will transition from virtual work to in- person work within a matter of weeks. At that time, I will be completely transparent as to the nature of my medical condition.

Jake, I'll note almost every voter we spoke with very much wished the congressman well. They just wanted that transparency that the congressman addressed right there, especially when there are so many important issues on their mind, like affordability. Jake?

TAPPER: All right. Danny Freeman, thank you so much.

Let's go back to our top story tonight, the acting attorney general, Todd Blanche, saying that the Justice Department is not moving forward with President Trump's $1.776 billion so-called anti-weaponization fund.

Joining us now from the House Appropriations Committee, Pennsylvania Democratic Congresswoman Madeleine Dean. Congresswoman, what is your reaction to the news from Acting Attorney General Blanche that the Justice Department is not moving ahead with this fund?

[18:10:00]

And do you believe that he's parsing at all? Like might they move forward with it in the future, just not now?

REP. MADELEINE DEAN (D-PA): I'm pleased with that decision, but how absurd does it sound just two weeks later, ten days later, this big agreement, this big settlement with the president suing himself and suing our government and then coming up with this $1.8 billion slush fund for criminals, basically, pardon people and then pay them off as well. So, I'm pleased that is dead.

It was very strange that Mr. Acting Attorney General Todd Blanche would not commit to putting that in writing because, of course, the agreement is in writing. So, it's very important that that not remain open with the slush fund in writing. So -- but he wouldn't, for whatever reason, come up with that.

TAPPER: What do you make of Blanche's assertion to the ranking Democrat, Rosa DeLauro, that the provision barring -- that would bar the IRS from probing Trump or Trump's family or Trump's business' past tax returns, tax filings, that will remain in place, that's not going anywhere?

DEAN: Well, it shows just how absolutely conflicted this man is, and that was my line of question. Of course, it went toward justice for Epstein survivors, but an absolute absurd agreement.

If you read that very brief agreement, which he is the signer on, it offers amnesty to the president, to his family for all of their enterprises in terms of tax liability. Forbes and others have estimated that for this year alone, that would be more than $100 million in tax freedom.

Jake, I have a simple question, who asks for such tax freedom? Who asks for that kind of amnesty, and, by the way, all my family and all my businesses too? This is a very corrupted Department of Justice when they're signing up agreements like this, and, of course, Blanche said he was not going to rescind that one.

TAPPER: You noted that you asked the acting attorney general about the Justice Department's handling or mishandling of the Epstein case. Because you'd had a conversation with him prior to the public hearing, I want to play some of the exchange because it was pretty heated.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

DEAN: Is your obligation to the victims and survivors of Epstein's heinous crimes and all his perpetrators, or is your first obligation to the president of the United States?

BLANCHE: So, without a doubt, we want to bring justice to every victim --

DEAN: When will you bring that justice?

BLANCHE: Can I please finish?

DEAN: He told me that the victims didn't give good names.

BLANCHE: Let me be crystal clear, that this Department of Justice will always protect victims, and will always prosecute anybody we can, okay? Full stop, no ifs, ands, or buts, okay? What you are showing in a game of showmanship are redactions because of victims.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

TAPPER: What else did he tell you privately that you're able to share with us that you would have brought up today if time had allowed?

DEAN: Well, he actually did blame the victims to me, to my face, when I said, when are you going to begin the prosecutions? Because after all, we have one dead guy, and we have a lady in a summer camp, and that's it, for more than 1,000 children, girls, and women who were trafficked, raped, sexually assaulted by Epstein and the other perpetrators. And you know what he said to me at the Department of Justice just privately between us? He blamed the victims. Well, they didn't give us the names. I said, you're the top prosecutor in the United States. I would think you'd be chomping at the bit to get to prosecuting.

What I walked away with was the cover-up is complete. He blames the victims for not giving names. The victims have said, please meet with us, and the Department of Justice has not met with them. And, of course, there is 20 years of investigation. The names are known to this Department of Justice, to this acting attorney general.

But, remember, he was paid nearly $10 million a year or so ago to defend Donald Trump as a private attorney. He then hung a 30-foot banner on the Department of Justice, which I think is grotesque and revealing of the failure of independence of the Department of Justice, a menacing Trump face as the face of the DOJ. And then do you know what he said when he was asked if he doesn't get to be completed, or to be approved as attorney general? He said, I would say to the president, I love you, sir.

The guy is under terrible conflict. You could see he was quite dismissive and agitated in our conversation both at the Department of Justice privately, but then publicly before the American people. He has no interest in pursuing justice, and that's what I'm going to keep pushing for.

TAPPER: Democratic Congresswoman Madeleine Dean from the great Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, thank you so much. I appreciate you being with us today.

[18:15:00]

Coming up, we're going to have more reaction to the Justice Department announcing that it is dropping its plans, at least for now, to create that $1.776 billion fund. I'm going to talk to the House Republican next who also questioned Blanche in that hearing.

Plus, over the last seven days, gas prices have seen their largest weekly decline since the 2008 financial crisis. So, will the prices keep dropping as we head into the summer?

Stick around.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

TAPPER: We're back with more on our top story, the acting attorney general, Todd Blanche, telling lawmakers on Capitol Hill that the Justice Department is not moving forward with the nearly $1.8 billion so-called anti-weaponization fund.

Let's bring in Congressman Mark Alford, a Republican from Missouri, who questioned Attorney General Blanche, Acting Attorney General Blanche last hour. Congressman what is your reaction to the news about the fund?

REP. MARK ALFORD (R-MO): Well, look, I'm glad, Jake. Thanks for having me on. I think members on the other side of the dais there were a little shocked when Todd Blanche kept saying, hey, we're not going forward with this weaponization fund, and they wouldn't take yes for an answer. It's the answer that they wanted. The administration's not going to go forward with it for whatever reason, and, you know, then they wanted to him to put it into writing.

[18:20:05]

I mean, he just said it under oath in front of Congress. I don't -- what do you need, a blood oath from the acting attorney general of the United States of America? He said the administration is not going forward with this fund, case closed.

TAPPER: Well, a Democratic lawmaker was on the show a few minutes ago, not Madeleine Dean, a different one, Senator Slotkin, and she said something along the lines of that, you know, the administration had previously said that the ballroom at the White House would be paid for by -- entirely by private funds, and now they're seeking up to a billion dollars in security for that same ballroom, and you can't take the administration at its word. That was her argument. What do you say to that?

ALFORD: Well, I can get into the specifics of the ballroom if you want to talk about that. Look, the private donations are going to build the ballroom. The money that was requested through the appropriations process was going to pay for security funding, a secure bunker, a drone platform on top. If you've been to the White House lately, Jake, you know that in the north end or the -- I guess that's the north end of the White House now is a visitation center where you have to come through above ground. And it's not a great security situation for the biggest target in the United States of America of potential terrorists.

The Supreme Court has asked for money. We went over and met with them to build a similar security structure for the Supreme Court, so people visiting the Supreme Court don't have access to the building. They have to go through another portal to get there. Congress has it. For goodness sake, you've been here, the visitor center, and they're adding other structures to make sure that we're safe here.

Why should the president of the United States not be safe, and the foreign dignitaries who are going to use this ballroom? It is much more than a ballroom. That all got convoluted.

And I get Slotkin's argument for this. That is what the Democrats go back to all the time, but Todd Blanche was very clear, and you can go back and look at his sound bite on this, that this fund is not going forward, case closed.

TAPPER: Before you go I wonder about your reaction to President Trump's decision today to name Bill Pulte the acting director of National Intelligence. He obviously doesn't have experience in the intelligence space, and a lot of people, including Republicans in the Senate, are blanching on this because -- no pun intended, because he has been something of an attack dog for the president from his perch at the Housing Authority.

ALFORD: Well, look this is the president's prerogative. He is the executive. He can appoint whom he wants to these positions. And, of course, it's up to the folks behind me in the Senate to confirm these choices. We'll see what happens there.

President Trump has famously picked people who are leaders for these positions, typically business leaders because they have the business acumen.

Now, I don't know the level of intelligence that Mr. Pulte has or his concentration on that or his experience in the intelligence world. I'm not on the Intelligence Committee. I don't really have the level of intelligence that would be needed for something like that anyway.

But there are others, like Mr. Pulte, who are leading in our nation in different cabinet positions that I think the ordinary American would say, what are they doing there? Well, they're there because the president of the United States wants them there to help carry out the America First agenda. And I believe that Mr. Pulte has proven himself in other areas, and he'll prove himself in this area as well.

TAPPER: Missouri Republican Congressman Mark Alford, thank you so much for your time today. Coming up next, our newest installment in our series A.I., Friend or Foe? The attorney general of the State of Florida will join us live to explain why he's just filed a lawsuit against the company behind ChatGPT.

Stick with us.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[18:25:00]

TAPPER: We're back with our series, A.I., Friend or Foe? President Trump signed an executive order earlier today requiring tech companies to give key government agencies in the Trump administration early access to new artificial intelligence models before they're released to the public. The executive order is the biggest step toward regulating -- regulations of A.I. in the U.S. on a federal level, and it's a total reversal of the Trump administration's previous hands-off approach to any A.I. regulation.

Today, we're going to take a look at the risks of this developing technology, specifically the role that it allegedly played in last year's shooting at Florida State University. Florida is now the very first state to sue OpenAI and its CEO, Sam Altman, alleging that they know that ChatGPT is not safe, especially when used by minors.

The lawsuit builds on the first ever criminal investigation into OpenAI, which was launched by Florida Attorney General James Uthmeier over whether the company bears criminal responsibility for the FSU shooting.

Now, we have previously reported on The Lead that the accused shooter in that case had extensive conversations with ChatGPT in the lead-up to the shooting about how to disengage the safety on a gun, when the school student union might be busiest, and on and on.

Here to discuss is the Florida attorney general, James Uthmeier. General Uthmeier, thanks for joining us.

OpenAI responded to your lawsuit by saying, quote, we built safety for minors directly into our products, including a more protective experience specifically for minors, an age prediction tool, defaulting users whose age we are not confident into our more protective experience, and giving parents tools to monitor their kids' use of A.I. We know pointing to this work will not bring a child back, but we're committed to getting this right, unquote.

JAMES UTHMEIER (R), FLORIDA ATTORNEY GENERAL: What's your response? Well, it's a fluffy sounding statement that it sounds like ChatGPT wrote. Unfortunately, it's just not true.

[18:30:02]

People are getting hurt. People are losing their lives. Here in Florida, we're seeing countless cases where conversations between ChatGPT and human beings are educating, facilitating and empowering people to go out and hurt themselves, commit suicide violently attack others, and in the worst of cases commit murder.

We even have a case here in Florida where a guy kidnapped students at the University of South Florida, murdered them, and was asking ChatGPT how to dispose of the bodies. The reality is the algorithm here, it is designed to be addictive. It is designed to mimic empathy and human emotions to solicit more conversations, emotions, and ultimately lead people to do some dangerous things.

So, we've suffered a lot of harm here in Florida. We're going to hold them accountable. They need to pay for their damages, and they need to redesign their program to protect kids.

TAPPER: I want to get to that change their programming in a second but tell -- explain how you counter the argument that ChatGPT makes. For example the Florida Southern example that you just gave. Somebody could theoretically go on Google and say how to dispose of a body. What's the difference between that and ChatGPT giving the answer?

UTHMEIER: Well, the big difference is that they're are designed to make this addictive, and it's designed to mimic human responses. So people are having conversations. We have evidence that over 70 percent of teenagers have turned to chatbots for companionship, relationships. It's acting like a human and encouraging behavior. The problem is it's encouraging behavior that's also illegal. It's encouraging crimes. And at the least it's gathering significant evidence about plans and detailed information that somebody's providing leading up to an attack.

So, at the least, they ought to be flagging for law enforcement what information they have. We know they have it. They're the best in the business at storing, analyzing, and processing data. Our law enforcement needs to know somebody's looking at pictures of guns and asking a robot, which one should I use to kill a bunch of people?

TAPPER: You told you -- just said you that OpenAI needs to change the programming. What do you mean by that? What changes do you want to see?

UTHMEIER: Well, they certainly need to design it where it's not encouraging illegal activity. It's not facilitating people that want to create child pornography or design pipe bombs or, you know, go conduct mass shootings. They also need to have parental controls. Right now, young kids can go on, and they advertise to kids that you can have conversations, and they will keep it a secret from your parents. This is wrong. It violates Florida law, and it needs to stop.

TAPPER: Florida Attorney General James Uthmeier, thank you for being with us today. We're going to be covering this for the long-term, so I'm sure we'll have you back sometime soon. And OpenAI is, of course, welcome to come on the show to give their view as well. Thank you so much, sir.

UTHMEIER: Thank you.

TAPPER: Coming up next, CNN has exclusive reporting about a new investigation launched by the House Ethics Committee into a sitting member of Congress. The reporters who broke the story are going to join me on set in moments.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[18:35:00]

TAPPER: In our Law and Justice Lead, exclusive CNN reporting revealing that the House Ethics Committee's investigating Democratic Congressman Jimmy Gomez of California over allegations of sexual misconduct. Sources tell CNN that the panel attempted to follow up on a New York Post story which alleged that Congressman Gomez kissed an aide who worked for a different member of Congress at a party in 2023.

Now, at the time, a spokesperson for Gomez told the Post that the accounts were, quote, not true, and the make-out session, quote, didn't happen.

Let's bring in CNN's Annie Grayer and Lauren Fox to discuss. And, Annie -- first of all, to both of you, congrats on the scoop. Annie, how did this investigation come together, and how is the congressman responding to this news?

ANNIE GRAYER, CNN SENIOR REPORTER: So, Jake, what started with the Ethics Committee following up on that New York Post story that you mentioned, turned out as they were reaching out to people, they did come across a separate allegation of sexual misconduct against Congressman Gomez from California, and that is what they're investigating now.

And I --

TAPPER: So, not the make-out session, something else?

GRAYER: Something separate.

TAPPER: Okay.

GRAYER: And Congressman Gomez gave us a lengthy statement in response to our reporting. I'm going to read for you some of that statement now, where he says, quote, years ago, I made personal mistakes outside my marriage that have caused real pain to my wife and family. Although my actions were consensual in nature and haven't violated the law or House ethics rules, that doesn't diminish the impact that these mistakes have made on those I care about the most. I take full responsibility and have committed myself to working through the pain privately with my wife and family. I am deeply sorry for the pain and embarrassment that I brought into our lives.

That's just part of the statement from Congressman Gomez, where he also says he will fully comply with whatever inquiry House Ethics Committee continues to pursue.

TAPPER: And, Lauren, you and Annie spoke with more than a dozen current and former female staffers who say they faced harassment for House members or senior Congressional staff. This is separate and from the Gomez incident. Their accounts were shared anonymously for fear of retribution. Walk us through this reporting. LAUREN FOX, CNN CONGRESSIONAL CORRESPONDENT: Yes. I mean, essentially this was a month-long investigation that me, Annie, our colleague Alli Gordon, and our colleague, Jeremy Herb, undertook. And in the conversations that we were having with women, we learned a couple of things. One, sexual harassment is pervasive on Capitol Hill, not just from members, but also senior staff.

We also learned that if you are a woman and you are thinking about coming forward, the process is extremely intimidating. There's a number of doors that you can knock on, a number of groups that you can go to, offices you can go to, and yet each one has its own hurdles, whether that's the House Ethics Committee, the Office of Congressional Workplace Rights, other offices that give you lawyers or access to counselors. But, really, when it comes to getting accountability, the process is fraught, it's unclear, and it takes a very long time, Jake.

And so in the conversations that we had with these women, oftentimes women just decide it's not even worth it.

[18:40:01]

TAPPER: And, Lauren, a former staffer, sought therapy available on Capitol Hill after she was allegedly harassed by her chief of staff, but the counselor warned her that the system rarely provided accountability and came at great personal and professional cost. Tell us more about that.

FOX: Yes. So, during the course of this counseling, this woman was told by the counselor that if she did eventually want to report this, that she should record the incidents and write them down. And she said that as she was really weighing whether or not to come forward. She said that she felt like she really got the therapy and she worked through this emotionally, but she never was going to get the accountability, and she decided she wasn't going to come forward because she did believe that the process was going to be so difficult, so opaque, that it ultimately wouldn't really be worth it to come forward.

TAPPER: And, Annie, one staffer detailed the uncomfortable text message, messages she got about her underwear from a sitting lawmaker. Is Congress trying to do anything to improve this system? I mean, that chart you put up, we put up a second ago, I mean, that looks like a Pentagon chart, and I don't mean that as a compliment in the sense of just bureaucracy almost as if they don't want there to be accountability.

GRAYER: It's a very complicated process, but there is a bipartisan effort underway where leadership in both the Republican and Democrat Parties in the House are, have established a task force to try and work through the labyrinth of offices and try and streamline the process.

But fixing the actual nuts and bolts of this is just, I think, one piece of this. One thing that we really pulled, really learned in our reporting is that there is a cultural bedrock issue here as well, that you can streamline this process as much as you want, but if they're not -- if people do not feel comfortable in that they can come forward and not feel fear of retribution, fear that they won't get a promotion, fear that their anonymity won't be protected, it doesn't matter how many changes you may make to the system.

So, there's sort of a two-pronged approach going on here where you have lawmakers really trying to make changes happen, but larger questions about how to address the cultural issues up on Capitol Hill.

TAPPER: Great reporting by Annie Grayer and Lauren Fox. Per ushe, thanks to both of you, I appreciate it.

It is election night in America with voters in six states casting their votes. Two of the biggest races, California, we're live on the campaign trail in Los Angeles in just moments.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[18:46:14]

TAPPER: Yes, the election jam, we're rocking out to it here in the CNN studio.

Several major primary races happening tonight across six states, including a wild governor's race in California. Voters in the Golden State will narrow down a very crowded field to just two candidates of either party who will advance to the general election in November.

CNN's Arlette Saenz is in Los Angeles at the watch party for one of the candidates currently leading in the polls, Democrat Xavier Becerra.

Arlette, what is the messaging from these candidates in these final hours?

ARLETTE SAENZ, CNN CORRESPONDENT: Well, Jake, this crowded field in this California governor's race is really leaving so many of these campaigns guessing, with one Democrat tied to one of the Democratic campaigns telling me that it's, quote, "a jump ball".

Now, this race has seen a lot of twists and turns throughout this contest, as these candidates have tried to distinct themselves from a very crowded field.

Xavier Becerra, the former HHS secretary, has had a lot of momentum on his side. He has surged after Congressman Eric Swalwell's exit from the race amid those allegations of sexual assault. But Tom Steyer's team, a source tells me, believes that they could try to capture some of those late-breaking voters who have yet to make up their minds.

Many Democratic voters, or a sizable chunk of Democratic voters, have been holding onto their ballots, suggesting that they are making their decisions at the final minutes. And then there's that Republican who is backed by President Donald Trump, Steve Hilton, the former British political adviser-turned-Fox News commentator, who is trying to capture the Republican vote within this primary. So, lots of questions still heading into tonight about how this will

all shake out, whether this will turn into a Democrat-on-Democrat contest come November, or if it will be a Democrat-on-Republican contest.

But many are also anticipating that this could take a long time to figure out. California is notoriously slow with their vote count, and this crowded field potentially extends the possibility that this race could extend into the early hours of tonight or maybe even potentially days.

TAPPER: Arlette Saenz in Los Angeles, thanks so much.

Let's bring in our panel, a couple of California experts, Joe Garofoli of "The San Francisco Chronicle," and CNN senior political analyst, Jon Brownstein.

We're going to talk more about the governor's race in a second. But I want to start with this. There's been this redistricting that happened, so two incumbent Republicans are forced into a race against each other in California's 40th congressional district,

Congresswoman Young Kim and Congressman Ken Calvert. They're fighting for this seat, and it has gotten very, very nasty. And part of their appeal to voters is proving which one is more MAGA than the other.

First, let's take a listen to this ad from Congresswoman Kim.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

AD NARRATOR: Ken Calvert caught faking President Trump's endorsement, begged for it like a dog, now lying through his teeth.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: He's lying.

AD NARRATOR: Real Trump conservative.

DONALD TRUMP, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: Young Kim, thank you. Congratulations. Great job.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

TAPPER: I love that lying, begged for it like a dog. Only Donald Trump or people trying to copy Donald Trump talk that.

And now here's Calvert's ad.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

AD NARRATOR: RINO Young Kim caught trashing Trump.

REP. YOUNG KIM (R-CA): He's got problems. Completely wrong.

AD NARRATOR: Kim even threatened Trump.

KIM: I'll whip his butt. AD NARRATOR: So Young Kim joined liberals to condemn Trump. Stop liberal Young Kim before she stops Trump.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

TAPPER: Ron, what do you make of the strategy here?

RON BROWNSTEIN, CNN SENIOR POLITICAL ANALYST: Well, you know, this is, as you say, in redistricting, sometimes this is what part of the dominant party does. They put two sitting members of Congress together and watch them have, you know, kind of a cage match like we saw in Houston, for example, with Al Green and Christian Menefee.

Look, Donald Trump's overall approval rating in California is around 30 percent. It could hardly be lower. But this is a 55 percent Trump won district in '24.

[18:50:01]

So they're battling it out.

Interestingly, there is money being spent by a shadowy group to promote the Democrat in the race in the hope that they will finish in the top two. She will finish in the top two and basically guarantee the Republican win.

So as often with this top two primary, the geometry, the kind of the angles is very strange and somewhat convoluted.

TAPPER: Joe, what do you think?

JOE GAROFOLI, SENIOR POLITICAL WRITER, THE SAN FRANCISCO CHRONICLE: I -- Young Kim is someone who knows that district very well. She worked as a staffer. Even in the parts of the new district, since it's been redrawn.

But she is a very fierce campaigner. And she as you saw, she's --- she's fearless and swinging -- throwing punches.

Calvert -- Democrats tried to beat him a couple of different times and weren't able to. So I would not -- he's going to be tough to rout out. So I'm very much looking forward to see what happens in that race. That's the wrong part of the state, though, from where I'm concerned.

TAPPER: I know. I know.

Let's go back to the California governor's race. So the top two finishers, regardless of party, are going to advance to November's midterm elections called the jungle primary.

Joe, how do you see this playing out, given the Trump backed candidate Steve Hilton polling pretty well as a top three contender? Yeah, and sort of alluding to what Ron alluded to a couple of minutes ago. Hilton lives by Trump and he's likely going to die by Trump in California because there's a Trump time bomb that's going to go off at about midnight tonight. Trump is the one who -- his endorsements, very much why Hilton's may get into the top two.

But the campaign will be after tonight will be entirely about how Trump endorsed him from the Democrats side, whether it's Becerra or Steyer in the top two with him.

And that's as a proven formula for victory for Democrats in California over the last decade.

TAPPER: And Ron, given --

GAROFOLI: Tie the Republican to Trump.

TAPPER: Ron, given the sheer number of people running for governor, how engaged are voters when it comes to this rather consequential primary? We've seen lots of columns about how wanting how second tier the candidates are.

BROWNSTEIN: Yeah, this election has never really engaged voters in California very much. It's hard to do to begin with. It's a huge state, hard to get noticed.

But, you know, once some of the big names, Kamala Harris, Alex Padilla, decided not to run, I don't think any of these Democrats really connected with voters. And that, I think, you know, is an important dynamic here. I mean, it's sort of -- it's sort of ending up, I think, like the 2020 Democratic primary, where, you know, again, none of the candidates really took off.

And in the end, Democrats just wanted someone who was going to beat Trump, in this case, someone who's going to beat the Trump acolyte. Once Eric Swalwell fell out and it looked like Becerra was the best bet to get into the top two, much like voters kind of had a flight to safety with Biden in 2020, I think we've seen the same thing with Becerra here.

The difference is Steyer has had so much money and so much ability to kind of force himself into the conversation that he's remained in the mix. And there is now at least the outside possibility that whereas a few months ago, Democrats feared being shut out with a one-two Republican finish, now there's at least some risk of Republicans being shut out with a Becerra-Steyer finish and what $500 million more dollars of anti Becerra-Steyer ads between now and November. That's something to look forward to in California.

TAPPER: And Ron, then there's the contentious race for Los Angeles mayor. Recent polling has Mayor Karen Bass essentially neck and neck with both L.A. council member Nithya Raman and former reality TV star Spencer Pratt. Despite Pratt's lack of political experience and questionable past embrace of 9-11 conspiracies, it seems like voters are taking him seriously.

There is this anger against Bass because of her handling of the Los Angeles and the Palisades fires. I wonder if he were to advance, do you think it would be foolish to completely write him off from being able to win in November? BROWNSTEIN: I think it would be tough for him. You know, look, the

alignment is a lot like the governor's race, right? You got like an older mainstream Democrat who doesn't inspire a lot of enthusiasm.

That's Bass and Becerra. You got insurgent to their left, that's Steyer and Raman, and then you've got kind of a gadfly to their right, which is Hilton and Pratt.

And Pratt, you know, is raising issues. People are very frustrated with not only the initial response to the fire, but how difficult everything has been since, dealing with the insurance company, dealing with permitting, dealing with getting things rebuilt in the Palisades and Altadena. But in the end, I think that Pratt as a Trump voter and Trump supporter does face a ceiling, even though I think he is tapping into some genuine discontent here in Los Angeles.

TAPPER: Thanks to both of you. Really appreciate it.

Coming up, the new lawsuit today against something in many of our neighborhoods, Ring doorbell cameras, the new privacy concerns. That's next.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[18:59:02]

TAPPER: Our last lead, starting our national lead, New Jersey is suing the private operator of the Delaney ICE Detention Center in Newark, which has been the site of protests against Trump's immigration policies for more than a week. The lawsuit asks a court to grant the state of New Jersey Health Department access to the center over allegations of inhumane conditions and treatment there.

The Department of Homeland Security has pushed back against the allegations of poor conditions in the facility.

In our money lead, gas prices have fallen more than 20 cents in just one week. Today's national average is at $4.29 a gallon compared to last week's $4.49 a gallon. This price drop is the largest weekly decline since the 2008 financial crisis, but it can slow or even go back up as the situation in the Middle East remains volatile and uncertain between the U.S. and Iran regarding the Strait of Hormuz and more.

And our tech lead, a Virginia man is suing Amazon over the facial recognition software in the company's Ring doorbell cameras. According to Reuters, the plaintiff, who is seeking class action status, filed the suit in federal court, claiming Ring's familiar faces feature collects and stores images of people walking by without their consent, seeking $5 million in damages for the class. Amazon has not commented.

"ERIN BURNETT OUTFRONT" starts now.