Return to Transcripts main page

The Lead with Jake Tapper

Supreme Court Upholds Birthright Citizenship In Loss For Trump; Supreme Court: States May Ban Trans Athletes In Sports For Girls; NY Rep. Dan Goldman On His Election Loss, Mayor Mamdani, The Democratic Party And Growing Anti-Semitism In The U.S. Aired 5-6p ET

Aired June 30, 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: All right, thanks very much to my panel. Thanks to all of you at home for watching as well. But of course, do not go anywhere, Jake Tapper is standing by for "The Lead."

Jake, I'm having an awful lot of fun covering the breaking news of Taylor and Travis's wedding. Are you ready for it?

JAKE TAPPER, CNN HOST: You need to calm down, as Taylor Swift says -- Taylor Swift says, right?

HUNT: A plus. Yes.

TAPPER: All right. Thank you so much. We'll look for more tomorrow in "The Arena."

HUNT: OK.

[17:00:36]

JAKE TAPPER, CNN HOST: Is the president's potential remedy on birthright citizenship also unconstitutional? The Lead starts right now. Consequential day at the U.S. Supreme Court, President Trump teeing up a legislative fight after losing his birthright case, which guarantees that children born in the United States are, in fact U.S. citizens. What could come next?

Plus, today's other cases that Trump immediately called big wins. And one week after losing his Democratic primary election, Congressman Dan Goldman is ready to talk. He invited me to his office today on Capitol Hill to talk about why he thinks Israel's wars on Iran and Gaza contributed to his loss.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

REP. DAN GOLDMAN (D-NY): The idea that I, who has devoted my career to public service and civil rights and equal justice, would be called a genocide supporter, a baby killer, is unbelievably offensive.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

TAPPER: Plus, Serena Williams on her big tennis comeback. Today's match may be not going exactly according to plan. Welcome to The Lead. I'm Jake Tapper. We're going to start in our Law and Justice Lead on another major decision day for the United States Supreme Court. President Trump racked up a couple big wins, but also a big loss on one of the most closely watched cases, birthright citizenship. The court ruled that a Trump executive order limiting birthright citizenship is indeed unconstitutional. The justices in the majority pointing to the 14th Amendment, which says all persons born or naturalized to the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside," unquote.

The other big cases released today, the Supreme Court handed President Trump a win by upholding state bans on transgender students playing on girls sports team -- teams. Plus, another Trump win as the court lifted a Watergate era cap on how much money political parties can spend in coordination with candidates. Experts think this could benefit Republicans in this year's midterm elections.

Let's discuss it all with CNN Chief Legal Affairs Correspondent Paula Reid and former federal prosecutor Elliot Williams.

Paula, let's start with birthright citizenship it survived with this ruling. Six to three, I believe it was. Walk us --

PAULA REID, CNN CHIEF LEGAL AFFAIRS CORRESPONDENT: Yes.

TAPPER: -- through the reasoning of the majority, as well as the three justices who did not think birthright citizenship as it is should stand.

REID: Yes, and it's an interesting mix. You have the Chief Justice, John Roberts, along with the liberal three justices. Then you have Justice Kavanaugh and Amy Coney Barrett. And in their opinion, they emphasize that this is something that is enshrined in the Constitution. The chief justice writing, "Citizenship then and now was the right to have rights to freely participate in our political community. The framers of the 14th Amendment extended that promise to every freeborn person in this land. We keep that promise today."

Now, this was signaled pretty clearly in oral arguments that the president was not going to win. But it is an interesting collection of folks that he was able to pull together to craft this majority opinion. But he didn't get everybody. They have the dissenters. And in the dissenting opinion, Justices Thomas Gorsuch and Alito write, quote, "The court's interpretation preserves a powerful incentive to enter or remain in this country illegally."

And they really underscore several times in that opinion why they believe that this will encourage birth tourism. And they say that no one with potential allegiance to a foreign power should be able to have U.S. citizenship. Now, I don't want to throw the control room off, but I actually just broke some news.

TAPPER: Yes.

REID: We're already seeing how the Trump administration is going to try to, you know, move forward with this effort to limit birthright citizenship. Even though this was struck down just moments ago. The Justice Department sent out this memo encouraging U.S. attorneys and the Criminal Division to really focus on prosecuting birth tourism schemes. Now, usually these are prosecuted, as Elliot knows, under visa fraud laws, but they're saying, look, look at other things, wire fraud, money laundering, conspiracy to commit money laundering, ID theft, conspiracy to commit health care fraud. This is one of the ways that they're going to try to pursue the president's promise to limit birthright rights and birthright citizenship through prosecution because they couldn't do it through executive order.

[17:05:01]

TAPPER: And also, Elliot, President Trump reacted to the ruling on Truth Social pushing legislation. He said, we can easily make it up in Congress through legislation with the support of the president. That has now been determined during this process. No long and unwieldy constitution -- constitutional amendment is necessary.

Now, I am no legal scholar --

ELLIOT WILLIAMS, CNN LEGAL ANALYST: OK.

TAPPER: -- but it seems to me this is a constitutional amendment that has been upheld --

WILLIAMS: Yes.

TAPPER: -- over and over and over by the U.S. Supreme Court. Harry Reid back in 1993 introduced legislation that didn't even make it out of the Senate Judiciary Committee --

WILLIAMS: Right.

TAPPER: -- to say that children of illegal immigrants can't be considered citizens. If you want to change a constitutional amendment or affirm its meaning, you have to go through the constitutional amendment process. No?

WILLIAMS: You do. However --

TAPPER: OK.

WILLIAMS: -- Justice Brett Kavanaugh today had an interesting approach here, almost a middle ground approach, saying that Congress actually can step in and limit or at least put some sort of guardrails around the language in the 14th Amendment, as the Supreme Court has suggested that it could. Now, he's the only justice -- he and the dissenters are really the only justices who hold that view. But it's not a fringe view at this point. You know, you have a justice on the Supreme Court actually saying that maybe Congress ought to step in.

Now, the language of the 14th Amendment, exactly as you're saying, Jake, is abundantly clear. And any legislation to sort of limit it is going to face its own legal challenges at some point. But this is not the end we've seen of this. I wouldn't be shocked if some member of Congress tries to introduce something like that following Justice Kavanaugh's concurrence.

TAPPER: Right. Senator Rand Paul is introducing a constitutional --

WILLIAMS: It is.

TAPPER: -- amendment, though. I mean, which seems like the actual --

WILLIAMS: Right, of course.

TAPPER: -- potential remedy, although much more difficult.

Paula, a Trump win in a sense --

REID: Yes.

TAPPER: -- the Supreme Court upholding states abilities to ban transgender students from joining girls or women's sports team. What's the reasoning?

REID: So here in a 6-3 opinion, the conservative justice is holding that it is not unconstitutional for states to ban transgender athletes from participating in girls' sports. Now, this is significant because this is ruling that will impact over half the states which have passed laws that are similar to the West Virginia and Idaho laws that were the focus this case. And this is also one of those cases, Jake, that I think really makes it into the public discourse, right? Not everybody's going to be following campaign finance, birthright citizenship, so most people know. But this one, this is the kind of case that I'm going to be asked about when I go visit my friends because, well, I don't like the term culture war, this is a cultural conversation that we're having about transgender Americans sports. This has been a big topic.

This is the latest in a series of legal setbacks for transgender Americans. It was just about a year ago the Supreme Court upheld state bans on transgender care for minors. We did the story on your show. There have been a series of other setbacks for transgender Americans.

So this is a really important set of questions coming before the court. But here they said this ban, these kinds of bans, not unconstitutional.

TAPPER: And that was a 6-3 decision for the majority?

REID: Yes.

TAPPER: Yes. So, and Elliott, the court, the majority on the court --

WILLIAMS: Yes.

TAPPER: -- they're essentially calling this ruling a protection for girls and women athletes. Legally, what are the options, if any, for trans girls living in states that have a ban? Are they supposed to play on the boys team? What are they supposed to do?

WILLIAMS: Not a lot. And that, you know, time will tell there. Now, if they've been discriminated against, bullied, the subject of other sorts of harassment, of course they have lawsuits there, but challenging the state law, you know, they don't have a lot of options here.

The other thing I will note is that the court here only said that states may ban trans athletes, not that they must. And the next legal fight coming, it's already percolating through some of the federal circuit court is challenges to blue state policies that sort of allow trans athletes. And so that's coming back to the Supreme Court. Maybe not next year, maybe not the year after, but it will be there.

TAPPER: All right. Thanks to both of you. Appreciate it.

Let's discuss this all with Anthony Romero. He is the executive director of the American Civil Liberties Union, or ACLU.

Anthony, good to see you again. Before Trump even took office, this time around, the ACLU figured that he would try to end birthright citizenship. So you were prepared to quickly file your legal challenge. What's your reaction to the birthright ruling? Were you at all worried it wouldn't end this way?

ANTHONY ROMERO, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION: Well, we were rather confident, Jake, and we are thrilled, obviously, with the results of today's ruling. President Trump went way too far in his -- some of his first executive orders focused on a whole sort of issues. But this was at the core of his agenda to end birthright citizenship. He made the promise on the campaign stump. We took him literally and seriously.

We prepared our lawsuits, found our clients, figured out where we would file, and then within two hours of him assuming office and signing the executive order, we were in court. And so we're incredibly gratified that today we had a majority of the court, six, three rule in our favor. I think it's a definitive trouncing of President Trump's signature policy.

TAPPER: So President Trump is now calling on Congress to pass legislation not to pass a constitutional amendment to get around the birthright citizenship laws. What sort of legal avenues do you think he could pursue and maybe have a chance of success? And how is the ACLU prepared to challenge any of it?

[17:10:18]

ROMERO: So I was intrigued by President Trump's call for legislation. We'll be glad to school him on the legislation just like we schooled him on the Constitution. There is no legislation that can fix today's opinion, right? It was ruled by a majority of the justices, five of them, on constitutional grounds. Like you pointed out, you have a better command of the constitutional law than our president does.

The only way to undo this ruling from the Supreme Court is either with another ruling from a subsequent Supreme Court or a constitutional amendment. And that process is way too laborious. Good luck to them, right? You need to get a majority of Congress, the House and the Senate, I think of two thirds to propose an amendment. Ratification has to happen in three quarters of the state legislatures or state conventions.

It ain't going to happen, right? And even though Justice Kavanaugh wrote about it in his dissent, lots of things get written in the dissent that have no legal bearing in the future. And you still don't have the numbers. In the Supreme Court, you have to count to five. And we definitely counted to five on the constitutional grounds.

TAPPER: Yes. I don't even think they have 50 votes in the U.S. Senate for it much longer --

ROMERO: They won't. They won't.

TAPPER: -- 60 votes. In a dissent, Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas wrote, quote, "The Court has repurposed the 14th Amendment to protect its own set of preferred rights that the Reconstruction Congress never contemplated and that cannot find support in its tax. Today, the Court does so again by recognizing a constitutional right to citizenship for the children of all foreign birth tourist and illegal aliens. I'm not sure that today's opinion will stand the test of time. Today's opinion devalues that citizenship," unquote.

What do you say to that?

ROMERO: I think he's wrong. I mean, in fact, in the record, in the record of our case, we talked about the fact that during the time of the Reconstruction Amendments, there were clear discussions about whether or not this would apply to immigrants, and it wasn't just cabin to dealing with the original sin of Americans, chattel slavery. And so clearly, I think this opinion stands the test of time. I think the fact that Chief Justice Roberts wrote the majority opinion, the fact that two of Trump appointees, Kavanaugh and Amy Coney Barrett, voted with them, I think is really rather notable. And so I'm really rather hardened by all of this.

Now, clearly they're going to keep trying. But I think it's essential to say that to the nation of immigrants and to the 250,000 children of immigrants who are born in this country every year, they can sigh a sigh of relief, they can take a deep breath that they're not going to have their citizenship yanked by the actions of this president. Not in the next year, not in the next two years, not ever, I dare say.

TAPPER: Anthony Romero, thank you so much.

And we should note that somebody from the Justice Department was invited to come on the show to discuss today and they declined.

Coming up, how today's Supreme Court ruling on transgender athletes keeps this issue front and center. I'm going to speak with a woman who's helped push along this fight. Plus, triple digit temperatures combined with humidity. Why the extreme heat so many of you are about to feel is much different than heat waves of the past. Stay with us.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[17:17:15]

TAPPER: Back in our Law and Justice Lead, some female athletes and activists celebrating today's Supreme Court decision on transgender athletes are now calling for a nationwide ban.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

PAULA SCANLAN, FORMER NCAA SWIMMER: More work needs to be done. We need to see protections in all 50 states in this country. Why should a girl in Texas have different rights than a girl in Connecticut --

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: I agree.

SCANLAN: -- or in New York? And that's exactly what we're seeing here.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

TAPPER: Let's hear now from attorney Susie Cirilli. She has a number of active cases fighting for the rights of transgender athletes. Thank you so much for joining us, Susie.

So at least 29 states already banned trans youth from competing on school sports teams for girls-- for girls. How do you anticipate fighting these issues state by state, or how do you anticipate fighting a nationwide ban, which now you hear some people are calling for?

SUSIE CIRILLI, ATTORNEY REPRESENTING FEMALE TRANSGENDER ATHLETES: Well, first, I want to thank that -- I thank the court for taking on this issue, and some of the justices took this issue on with care and intention. With that being said, you know, the states -- well, I respectfully disagree, actually, with a colleague that you had on earlier that said, you know, what can girls do, trans girls do in states where it is banned? Well, this ruling just applies to some states and it applies to schools. This ruling does not touch other areas and state law like public accommodation. And that state law is still alive and kicking and robust and very much still around.

So we need to use these state laws and make sure that they are being implemented the way they were intended. And that is when you're hosting an event, whether it's a sporting event, Jake, or any event, whether it's a restaurant or a track meet, if you're allowing members of the public to come in and race or eat at the restaurant, you can't discriminate based on a protected class, status. And in this case, it's transgender status and sex.

TAPPER: There's a Reuters Ipso survey from April that showed that 67 percent of American adults said they supported, quote, "banning transgender girls and women from participating in female sports events in schools and colleges," 29 percent opposed. This queries with other polls that have similar findings. What is your argument to the majority of the American public that seem to agree with the court that states should be allowed to ban trans athletes from competing in women and girls sports?

CIRILLI: I'm just a lawyer and I just work -- you know, the law is what it is. And I think with time as we see that -- there's so much misinformation. Actually, Jake, there's no information out there about transgender athletes. And so I think that with time and as we enforce the state laws at the state level and the local level, and as kids play sports, trans kids play sports, non-binary kids play sports, this is just where we are in a society right now. And with time, you know, things will change.

[17:20:03]

We've been here before, Jake, with other issues, and we'll get through this one.

TAPPER: In 2025, President Trump's executive order banning trans women from women's sports impacted many of your clients. I'm not telling you anything you don't know. That includes Sadie Schreiner. And as you know, CNN's Brynn Gingras profiled her last year. Sadie talked about being tired and scared, but continued to fight and said the fight was worth it.

Brynn also spoke with Cassidy Carlisle, a then high school athlete who says she competed against a trans athlete and she supported a ban. This is in the state of Maine. Take a listen.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

CASSIDY CARLISLE, HIGH SCHOOL ATHLETE: It's all about having equal and fair opportunities for women.

BRYNN GINGRAS, CNN CORRESPONDENT: Did you feel that in that moment?

CARLISLE: Overall, I was being beat by someone that is on a different -- that has a physical advantage over me.

GINGRAS: Is there a place in your mind where there can be middle ground?

CARLISLE: I don't think that this is something that gets fixed overnight. I think that, you know, overall, I just want everybody to have fair and equal playing field.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

TAPPER: So based on polling, a lot of Americans, a majority of Americans, even if they have compassion in their heart for trans youth, agree with that position. Agree with Cassidy. What's your response? How -- so you talk about there's not enough information out there. Explain why you disagree.

CIRILLI: Jake, there have been policies in place for transgender athletes. The NCAA had one. The -- an -- this became an issue in 2025 when the administration changed. There was always a policy in place for transgender athletes to participate in sports. And then with the new administration, there was a ban.

And that's where I come in, and that's where my law firm comes in. There was a ban on participate -- a complete ban. And so I think that this issue has come about because of this executive order. And I have to tell you, the executive order is not the law.

Title IX actually requires a whole process in order to change the law. And the executive order, and if you read the executive order, it says it's not a law. So it was successful in scaring a lot of people. But it's not law. It's not the truth.

And you'll see it play out in the cases at the local level.

TAPPER: Well, we're going to continue to cover this. Susie Cirilli, thank you so much for joining us today. Appreciate it.

CIRILLI: Thank you.

TAPPER: We're following some breaking headlines this hour, including some explosive wildfires out west as the U.S. east coast braces for some of the hottest days ever. Plus, Serena Williams is back at Wimbledon going toe to toe with a player 24 years her junior. The headlines that have the world's attention next on The Lead.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[17:27:10]

TAPPER: In our National Lead, Colorado officials now say 16 major wildfires are burning across the state. Sixteen including the Aspen Acres fire. This one started yesterday and has scorched some 23,000 acres, forcing more than 4,200 people to evacuate their homes. Authorities say three firefighters have died over the weekend battling a different fire along the Colorado Utah border. Then there's Utah's Cottonwood Fire, seen here burning nearly 100,000 acres.

It's only 4 percent contained. East of the Mississippi, a major heat wave is building. More than 50 million people will see triple digit temperatures this week. That includes Boston, New York, Washington, D.C. and Charlotte. Heat in Washington, D.C. could break 102 degrees on the Fourth of July, which would break a record.

Turning to our world lead now, officials say the death toll from the earthquakes that struck Venezuela last week now stand at nearly 2,000 people, with thousands more still unaccounted for. Among the missing are dozens of Venezuelans deported by the United States just hours before the disaster struck. The deportees were staying in a hotel in La Guaira, the city hardest hit by the disaster. Some survived the hotel's collapse. Many are believed to be trapped in the rubble.

In our Politics Lead now, President Trump just posted a photograph with election denier Tina Peters fresh out of prison, The Republican former Mesa County clerk was released from a Colorado prison earlier this month. Peters had been convicted in 2024 for conspiring with fellow election deniers to breach her county's voting system. This is in 2021. Trump repeated his false claims about the 2020 election while touting the lunch and Oval Office meet and greet.

In our Sports Lead, she's back four and a half years -- four years later and 44 years young, Serena Williams made her return to the singles court at Wimbledon, but the center court comeback fell short. Williams dropped her first round match to 20-year-old Maya Joint of Australia. In three thrilling sets, the Queen of Tennis isn't done at the All England Club just yet. She teams up with her sister Venus for doubles on Thursday.

Also in our Sports Lead, LeBron James is officially not returning to the Los Angeles Lakers next season, but he isn't retiring either. The Golden State Warriors, the Miami Heat and James hometown team the Cleveland Cavaliers are frontrunners to sign the 41-year-old superstar. Next season will be the 24th for LeBron James, extending his own record. The question, of course, will it be his last?

[17:29:38]

Coming up next, Congressman Dan Goldman going on the record with me in his office about what he believes led to his Democratic primary loss exactly one week ago today.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

TAPPER: In our Politics Lead, it has been one week since New York Congressman Dan Goldman lost his re-election bid, beating -- beaten in the Democratic primary by former New York City Comptroller Brad Lander. Lander was backed by New York City Mayor Zohran Mamdani.

It was a decisive loss and it came as Goldman faced criticism in his party over his support of Israel, including a highly publicized incident in which a Brooklyn coffee shop told Goldman he was not welcome there. In an in depth and exclusive interview earlier today in his Capitol Hill office, the Congressman talked with me about his concerns for the Democratic Party going forward.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

TAPPER: Why do you think you lost your primary race?

[17:34:54]

REP. DAN GOLDMAN (D-NY): Well, look, I think ultimately this really did come down to Israel, Gaza. It has taken on a massive and outsized role in Democratic politics. And it's a really complicated issue. But ultimately, people are, I believe, just incredibly, incredibly horrified by all of the devastation and destruction and death that is going on in the Middle East. And I agree. But I probably -- I have a different view of how to stop this Israeli government, how to rebuild peace in the Middle East. And I stuck with that. And I'm proud of the campaign that we ran.

TAPPER: So if you talk to people affiliated with the Lander campaign, they will tell you that, yes, Israel was an issue, but it was more an issue of Brad Lander was more in touch with the constituents of the district who are more progressive than you. And the constituents didn't necessarily see you as advocating for them and their needs as working families. You obviously disagree.

GOLDMAN: Well, I do disagree, and I think the proof is in the pudding. First of all, I was supported by the overwhelming majority of labor unions. I was supported by just about every single one of the 31 public housing developments in my district. I was supported by the immigrant community leaders, the Chinatown community leaders, the actual working families, and the actual working class communities that are in the district. And in fact, I won those neighborhoods by 14 percent in an election where I got smoked by 32 percent.

TAPPER: So who didn't vote for you then?

GOLDMAN: Well, a lot of the people that didn't vote for me are not the people who I have worked so closely with to save their food stamps, to make sure their Section 8 vouchers are not taken away, to improve the conditions of their decrepit public housing, to build a triage center in my district office, to help immigrant families whose loved ones are being wrongfully and illegally detained by this Trump deportation dragnet.

Those are the people who I have really invested a lot of time with, and those are the people who, for whom, this threat from the White House is existential. I think the broad majority of people who supported my opponent, Brad Lander, did so for other reasons, but that the ones who are actually impacted by this affordability crisis supported me, supported my vision, and I believe this is the pathway for the Democratic Party.

TAPPER: So looking at you and the man who defeated you, former Comptroller Brad Lander, you're both -- you both believe that Israel should exist. You both believe Israel should be a Jewish state and a democracy. The difference is you really have to go deeper than just the shallow, superficial level. You don't call what's happening in Gaza a genocide. You have a relationship with AIPAC. And you, I think you don't refer to what's going on in the West Bank as an occupation. Is there room in the Democratic Party for somebody who is progressive on all these other social issues having to do with the United States, but also disagrees with Brad Lander and Mayor Mamdani on these issues having to do with Israel?

GOLDMAN: You go down the sort of list of progressive policies, and I'm on board there. What has, I think, happened, and I think this is really dangerous, is that some of these, as you say, beneath the surface, very complicated, difficult issues have become buzzwords and litmus tests and genocide in particular, as you point out is -- has been adopted by many as a morality test. And the real concern I have is that has translated into a tremendous danger and fear against Jews in America because American Jews are now being held responsible by too many people for what the Israeli government is doing. And that is anti-Semitism.

And it's becoming normalized. It's becoming more and more frequent. And both as a Jew myself and having many, many Jewish constituents of all types, a lot are really, really afraid because Jews and American Jews are now being dehumanized because of frustration and anger with what's going on in the Middle East. That is anti-Democratic, that is anti-American, and that fundamentally flies in the face of everything the Democratic Party has always stood for.

[17:40:03]

TAPPER: Why do you not call it a genocide?

GOLDMAN: Well, I think, first of all, as a former prosecutor who had to present evidence to convince a jury of 12 people unanimously that all of the legal elements of a particular crime were met, I simply do not think that anybody can know for sure what happened in Gaza right now until there is an independent investigation that includes on the ground, actual evidence gathering. I understand the argument, and I certainly think that there are real legitimate claims that the Israeli government may have committed war crimes, but that is very different than genocide.

TAPPER: How much do you think you are where you are today because you did not endorse Mayor Mamdani?

GOLDMAN: Well, look, I think when you look at all the results around New York last week, his endorsement and his support had a tremendous impact. There's no question about it. I was very clear then, and have continued to be clear that I had real concerns about whether or not some of his rhetoric and his actions would increase or escalate the anti-Semitism that has dramatically skyrocketed since October 7th.

TAPPER: You think it has?

GOLDMAN: I don't know if it's directly correlated, but what I will say is that you're seeing much more frequent use, for example, of Jews being compared to and equated to Nazis, and that feels to be normalized and that feels different than a year ago. That just the fact that I was, you know, prospectively banned from a coffee shop because I broadly support the state of Israel is something that's really dangerous.

TAPPER: I want to play the video of his response.

MAYOR ZOHRAN MAMDANI (D), NEW YORK: I've said that I have political disagreements with Congressman Goldman. I do believe that that's a response that goes beyond that.

GOLDMAN: I think when you compare that to what, calling AIPAC or other Jewish pro-Israel supporters, monsters.

TAPPER: Right. He called them monsters.

GOLDMAN: Which he did. I think those are two very, very different reactions. I do think that he has recognized, then acknowledged that anti-Semitism is up significantly. I'm optimistic that he will take a more evenhanded approach in his criticism. But also similarly, when really egregious anti-Semitic incidents happened, because this is not a First Amendment issue.

TAPPER: He had Mahmoud Khalil at his house, at the mayor's house, and he said he was doing that because he supports Khalil's right to free speech.

GOLDMAN: Right. TAPPER: Did you have an issue with that?

GOLDMAN: It's not a question of the First Amendment. It's a question of whether or not the things that people say are OK in our society. If anybody said similar slurs or stereotypical tropes about any other protected class, any other minority group, they would be roundly condemned. But for some reason, when people say it about Jews, it's OK. Or there's a dispute about whether or not it is anti-Semitic. And that is, to my mind, that's unacceptable. And I think as the leader of any city or country or any elected representative, it is incumbent upon us to set the right example.

TAPPER: Do you wish that he had said something more about what happened to you at the coffee shop?

GOLDMAN: I don't want to make the coffee shop about me personally. I think what is so upsetting about the coffee shop is a reflection, is that it is a microcosm of where we are and particularly the dichotomy between the really wonderful interaction I had with a woman who was wearing a hijab, seemed to be clearly Muslim, and me, who's Jewish. But then to receive that, that social media post, you know, which is, I guess people feel like it's OK calling people, you know, genocide supporters, it's incredibly offensive. I mean, the idea that I, who has devoted my career to public service and civil rights and equal justice, would be called a genocide supporter, a baby killer, is unbelievably offensive. But it's been normalized to such a degree that it dehumanizes Jews and I think creates a really unsafe environment.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

[17:45:09]

TAPPER: We'll be back with more from Congressman Goldman and our exclusive interview with him, including what he says about colleagues who did not publicly come to his defense and did not publicly call out anti-Semitism. That's next.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

TAPPER: Sticking to our Politics Lead and my exclusive interview earlier today with New York Democratic Congressman Dan Goldman one week after his Democratic primary loss. Goldman is talking about factors that he believes led to his defeat and also talking about what it will take to combat anti-Semitism in America and in the Democratic Party.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

[17:50:06]

TAPPER: I wonder if you would disagree with this statement. More non Jewish politicians should be calling this out. It shouldn't only be Jewish politicians calling it out. And when it happened to you, you looked around and you didn't hear non Jewish colleagues who privately told you they were horrified. You didn't see them saying anything, even a tweet. Is that fair? GOLDMAN: Absolutely, that's fair. That is, and I will say that openly, we all need to rally against hate. And part of it is, even if you're looking at it from a pure self-interested perspective, it never ends with one group. It never ends with Jews. It's Jews today, it's someone else tomorrow. And the only way that we are really going to combat this normalization of anti-Semitism is to unify against hate, recognizing that our democracy depends on it.

TAPPER: Pelosi in the race to succeed her because she's retiring. I'm sure you saw the video of Scott Wiener who is running to replace her, Democratic politician, gay, very supportive of trans rights, very supportive, I mean very, very progressive and different from you on the Israel issue. I think he actually supports the right of Israel to exist. But beyond that he is very far left and he was chased out of the trans march. He's to your left on these issues. And I wonder if there are some people in the Democratic Party or the Progressive movement or DSA or I don't know who these hecklers were, but for some of them it's just you're Jewish.

GOLDMAN: So it's either one of two things. Either it's just because he's Jewish or it's because those who are heckling him and accosting him do not believe that Israel has a right to exist. And that I think is a really, really important line. And so I hope that's not the reason why there's this thread of what is now being called as anti- Zionist. Zionism, as I believe it, is simply the right of Jews to have a homeland in their ancestral lands, not to the exclusion of anyone else, but just to exist.

And it was born out of the Holocaust, which was far and away the worst genocide, with 6 million people killed. And even after that, many countries, including the United States, didn't accept all Jews. So this was created as a safe haven for Jews. And if you don't believe that it should have a right to exist, whatever your metric is, whether it's because it's a religious country, which is somewhat debated, or whether there are allegations of human rights abuses.

There are many, many countries around the world that are both religious fundamentally and also do not follow human rights. And if you are having a separate standard for one lone Jewish safe haven, then the only thing reason is because of its Jewishness and its anti- Semitism.

TAPPER: Your mayor doesn't think that Israel has a right to exist as a Jewish state.

MAMDANI: I think any state that privileges one religion over the other is one that I can't tell you I support, whether it be Israel or Saudi Arabia or anywhere else. And a lot of that comes back to a fundamental belief that we should all be considered equal no matter what our faith is.

TAPPER: What was your take on that when you heard him say that?

GOLDMAN: Well, I'm glad he mentioned Saudi Arabia. I mean there are 40 plus countries that are officially Muslim or maybe in the 20s. And I think more than that are officially have Christianity as a religion. Many of those countries do not abide by international human rights.

I mean, even Uganda as an example, which is where the mayor is from, puts people in prison for life for consensual homosexual relationships. But so if that is actually going to be the standard, then I would urge him to speak out against other countries that do not follow human rights in his view and that are fundamentally one religion.

TAPPER: There are at least three major Democratic officials who are Jewish who are contemplating runs for president. Governor Shapiro in Pennsylvania, Governor Pritzker in Illinois, and Rahm Emanuel, the former mayor of Chicago. Do you think that 2028 will be a bad time for Jewish candidates to run for any Democratic office?

GOLDMAN: 2028 is far away in political years. I certainly hope not. I hope people can recognize and I think it's important for everyone in our party to recognize that you can, we can oppose the actions and policies of the Israeli government, of even our government.

[17:55:13]

But recognize that just like Donald Trump is not synonymous with the United States, Prime Minister Netanyahu is not synonymous with the country and state of Israel or the Israeli people holding American Jews or even the state of Israel in some fashion as identical or conflated with the Israeli government. We are applying a very different standard than we apply here in our own country. And that's dangerous.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

TAPPER: We're going to post a fuller version of that interview on the CNN.com website. My thanks to Congressman Dan Goldman for his time earlier.

Another big interview had in The Lead my conversation with Dave Portnoy. The -- to some people polarizing name behind barstool sports. What he says about the moment that caused tension between him and his barstool team having to do with a certain president. Stay with us.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)