Return to Transcripts main page

The Lead with Jake Tapper

Sources Say, Trump Met With Advisers To Discuss Possible Escalation; "The New York Times" Reports, Iranian Threat To Air Force One Prompted Plane Swap; Trump Suggests LeBron James May Be A Racist; Paramount Agrees To Delay Warner Bros. Discovery Takeover For Months; LeBron James To Sign $8M, Two-Year Deal With Philadelphia 76ers. Aired 6-7p ET

Aired July 24, 2026 - 18:00   ET

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

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

This hour, President Trump claims Iran is getting, quote, more serious about negotiations. But sources say the president also met with top aides and advisers earlier today to discuss possible military escalations against the country. So, where exactly does this war stand after 13 straight nights of strikes?

Plus, breaking news, The New York Times with new reporting about what the Times calls a credible threat that forced President Trump to switch to the old Air Force One in Turkey a few weeks ago. One of the reporters breaking the story joining us live in minutes.

Also, the Trump administration is now admitting it canceled billions of dollars in grants to states simply because those were states that did not vote for him in 2024. That's also according to a report in The New York Times. We're going to dig into those details.

[18:00:00]

And one of the greatest players of all time is headed to the City of Brotherly Love. LeBron James announcing he's signing with the Philadelphia 76ers. And the reporter who broke the news joins me live to talk about the deal ahead.

TAPPER: The Lead tonight right now, Iranians bracing for a 14th consecutive night of U.S. strikes. This afternoon, President Trump was pressed on his exit strategy. Here's how he responded.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

DONALD TRUMP, U.S. PRESIDENT: There's a military exit where we just keep going just the way we are, and we can even make it a heavier dose, and it's knocking out everything they have, or there's a smarter strategy, that's you make a deal, and they want to make a deal. I just don't think they're ready yet.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

TAPPER: Earlier today in Iran, officials there say the military continued its attacks on U.S. positions and U.S. assets in the region, while Bahrain, Jordan, and Kuwait's military say they downed multiple Iranian drones and missiles.

Also today, President Trump said he does not think that China and Russia are enabling Iran, despite his defense secretary suggesting that earlier this week. Here's Trump this afternoon.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

TRUMP: I will tell you that President Xi said he will not partake, and President Putin said the same thing. I think, you know, I trust them.

I don't think they'd want to have me disappointed.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

TAPPER: He trusts President Xi and he trusts President Putin, interesting.

CNN's Kristen Holmes is in DC, where President Trump is about to head to the White House Correspondents' Association dinner, and Kristen, you have some new reporting about Trump's options with this war.

KRISTEN HOLMES, CNN SENIOR WHITE HOUSE CORRESPONDENT: That's right, Jake. We have learned that President Trump met with top advisers as well as cabinet officials over the potential for escalating this war in Iran. But when talking to reporters, the president indicated that no final decision had been made yet.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

REPORTER: Have you made a decision about the major strikes that you were referring to?

TRUMP: No.

REPORTER: Okay. Should we expect to see major strikes?

TRUMP: Look, we're talking to them right now. I think they're getting more and more serious as the days go by for maybe the obvious reason. But we are talking to them right now.

Look, there are two ways. I consider that the smarter way, but the other's probably the easier way, doing what we're doing. And we can take that to a much higher level if we want to. You know, we're prepared to do that, as you know. We're locked and loaded.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

HOLMES: And this idea of these multiple exit strategies, one being military, one being diplomatic, it really shows you the crossroads that President Trump is at.

Now, certainly, when it comes to military, we've seen them preparing for some kind of escalation. We saw the fighter jets going in. We know medics have been sent to that Air Force base in Germany.

But when I talk to U.S. officials, specifically inside the White House, there is very little appetite for any kind of military escalation. They want to be done with this war.

Now, of course, that doesn't mean that the war is not going to escalate because, again, there are a lot of questions as to how President Trump gets out of this current impasse, particularly because intel is showing that the current level of strikes is not going to move the Iranians in terms of their negotiating posture.

TAPPER: And, Kristen, you also have reporting on the Saudi nuclear deal that Trump had talked about a few days ago, much to the chagrin of allies and Republicans on Capitol Hill. Today, President Trump said his Energy Department didn't get out ahead of him when announcing the deal without -- when they announced it, they did not mention any condition that Saudi Arabia had to normalize relations with Israel first. Then the president, after he was criticized, talked about, oh, no, of course, they have to -- that's a condition of it. What are your sources telling you?

HOLMES: Well, not only after he was criticized, after he watched conservative media criticizing the deal, specifically Fox News, The Wall Street Journal opinion page, which said, how could he have this deal that Chris Wright had announced without asking for some sort of normalization, and said that President Biden had been also seeking actual normalization here. That enraged President Trump.

The other part of this is that while he did say that the energy secretary did not get out in front of him, he also later was asked very specifically if Chris Wright had permission to sign this, did President Trump know he was going to sign it? And he said that the two of them hadn't talked about it.

Now, I was told that this led to a lot of anger from President Trump because he did not believe, and neither did other White House officials, that this deal was finalized.

And to be clear, it's not as though from any of these sources that he was always going to add this condition of the Abraham Accords. That appeared to have come later from all this criticism from conservative media. But instead, it was that President Trump himself wanted to unveil whatever the deal was, and the White House and these certain officials, sources, has told me that the White House did not realize and had specifically told Department of Energy not to do the rollout on that Wednesday, which, of course, now we know led to an enormous amount of confusion when President Trump came out and added this condition at the last minute.

[18:05:03]

TAPPER: Kristen Holmes, thanks so much.

Joining us now, CNN National Security Analyst Alex Plitsas. Alex, President Trump keeps saying that the Iranians make a deal, but it's not as good a deal as he thinks that they should offer. It seems this bombing campaign is intensifying. What is your read of the situation and the degree to which there actually is some sort of exit strategy?

ALEX PLITSAS, CNN NATIONAL SECURITY ANALYST: So, my understanding right now is that there is a delegation from Oman in Tehran trying to get a, a final last-minute, last-ditch effort taken care of for the Strait of Hormuz, because that's really the central focus point. So, if that doesn't work itself out and they can't find a diplomatic off- ramp here for the disagreement over the control of the strait, the military strategy at this point is to degrade Iranian military capabilities along the strait, and potentially infrastructure targets or other military targets inside of Iran in the hopes of bringing Iran back to the table.

TAPPER: The total number of U.S. service members killed in the Iran war was reduced on the Pentagon's casualty database. It was 18, to then it was changed to 14. There were four service members returned to the U.S. in a dignified transfer this week. The Pentagon says that they're working on fixing it, this is just a glitch. The New York Times says that three military officials told them that the four most recently killed in action service members were removed, quote, because their deaths occurred after President Trump declared a ceasefire in the war in April.

What's your take on this?

PLITSAS: So, administratively, that's the problem, is that they declared a ceasefire. Operation Epic Fury is technically over as a result of that. The troops are still in harm's way and they haven't left, and the hostilities were still ongoing on and off throughout the ceasefire. And so those casualties were then shifted under other operational names that were going on in the region, largely going back to the War Powers Act where, you know, the president has up to 60 days at that point, and then if there's no resolution from Congress, he's supposed to withdraw.

And when they had the ceasefire, they said, look, at that point, we don't need to do anything. We're within our time limit. Hostilities are over. If they were to recommence, it would be under a new military operation. So, this appears to be administrative shuffling relating back to the War Powers Act with four dead troops caught in the middle who sacrificed their lives on behalf of the country.

TAPPER: The Saudis just confirmed they carried out airstrikes on Houthi targets in Yemen. This war does seem to be expanding by the day.

PLITSAS: I can tell you, I think we can break some news here regarding to that right now. Sources are telling me that the Saudis have made a decision that they are going to seriously escalate the military operations inside of Yemen, that that they have had enough, and that the Houthis' latest attacks on the ships were the final straw, that there is going to be a sustained and increased long-term campaign against the Houthis that has been green-lighted, and for the first time, was actually coordinated.

If you recall previously, there wasn't coordination with the U.S. There were some sanctions as a result of that. But I'm told that Europeans, Gulf allies, and the United States were consulted, and that a decision has been made to escalate that significantly and to punish the Houthis for what they have done at this point. TAPPER: President Trump says that Chinese leader Xi Jinping and Russian leader Vladimir Putin have personally assured him that they never would supply Iran with any help in this war, any weapons. That seemed to be a different answer from the secretary of defense, Pete Hegseth, earlier this week.

You've worked in intel and defense contracting spaces. Do you believe what Putin and Xi have told President Trump, and should he trust what they tell him?

PLITSAS: Absolutely not because the Chinese have provided missile technologies over to the Iranians. They've also helped them with swarm technologies, advanced technologies that weren't yet known to be available on the battlefield that have been used against U.S. aircraft. They have absolutely been involved in providing lethal aid that has been used against U.S. forces in the region.

So, the president's language was careful. It seemed to be forward- facing in terms of providing further support because I think they were warned very clearly behind closed doors. But it is clear at this point that the Iranians have received intelligence support from the Russians, and they've received lethal aid as well, and advanced Shahed drones at that point were also provided. So, absolutely support the background, without question.

TAPPER: Alex Plitsas, thanks so much, always good to see you.

Breaking news in our World Lead, remember that presidential plane swap after Trump left the NATO conference in Turkey earlier this month? He went back on the old Air Force One instead of the new one that was a gift from Qatar. Well, The New York Times has some breaking news about why that swap happened.

U.S. officials believe there was a credible threat from Iranian proxy forces, the Times reports, possibly planning to target President Trump and Air Force One. We should note sources previously told CNN and The New York Times that there was no specific new threat to Trump's life.

Joining us now, Julian Barnes, one of the reporters who broke this story, which seems to have caught the ire of the administration. And, Julian, we should remind our viewers, you were subpoenaed for The New York Times' original reporting on the plane swap. Tell us more about what you and your colleagues are breaking right now, the new report.

JULIAN BARNES, NATIONAL SECURITY REPORTER, THE NEW YORK TIMES: So, Jake, you kind of teed it up right. We had initially reported, and others had reported, it was a very generalized threat as the Iran war was heating up again as President Trump was in Turkey.

[18:10:04]

But we learned that U.S. intelligence got information that there were Iranian proxies in Turkey that were discussing an attack on President Trump and Air Force One. It was considered credible enough that the Secret Service pushed for the change of planes. And, you know, as we know, the plane provided by Qatar was upgraded relatively quickly. It doesn't have the same missile defenses that the old Air Force One has.

So, if you were in a situation where you had new intelligence about a threat, it seems very logical that you would press to get the president on a more well-equipped, a more defensible plane.

TAPPER: Initially, the president had this cockamamie story about letting people have a tour of the new plane while he went home on the old one, and then he went on, he and the White House, vehemently denying your reporting on the threat. Why do you think he did that?

BARNES: You know, this plane is very important to President Trump, right? Planes, in general, are important to President Trump, and he's paid a lot of attention to it. He takes a lot of pride in this new plane. And, you know, he wanted to fly it back. And, you know, he -- you know, when pressed, you know, there was -- he started talking about threats against him later.

So, they sort of came cleaner than they did in the beginning. Like that was clearly a strange excuse to show it off to the troops in the United Kingdom. I don't think there were very many people who read that when he posted that on Truth Social and took that at face value.

TAPPER: On the case against you, the shocking subpoenas against you and your colleagues for the national security leak that they alleged, today Trump said he wasn't going after journalists, he was going after the leakers. What do you make of that?

BARNES: Well, look, I think The New York Times' lawyers showed the judge in a New York courtroom yesterday very clearly that the Department of Justice did not follow their own procedures, right? They are not supposed to go after the reporters as a first step, but the available evidence was that's just what they did. That's what the judge found yesterday. And he forced the government to withdraw these subpoenas, and that was the right call.

Look, Jake, you know you at CNN are doing the same thing we are doing at The New York Times, which is pursuing independent journalism, looking to get out true facts to the public. And that requires journalists being able to speak confidentially to sources. And when you try to subpoena sources, it is an attack on the -- when you try to subpoena reporters, it's an attack on the First Amendment. So, the courts did the right thing yesterday when they forced the government to withdraw these subpoenas.

TAPPER: Yes, there's a lot of evidence that President Trump does not respect the right of the free press or the right of free speech.

Julian Barnes, thanks so much. I appreciate your presence here, and I appreciate your reporting.

After months of back channeling, lobbying, private meetings, today Democrats officially decided which states are going to get to vote first in their primary and caucuses in 2028. So, who prevailed, and what does that mean for their efforts to retake the White House? Our panel weighs in next.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[18:15:00]

TAPPER: In our Politics Lead, everyone's talking about LeBron James' move to the Philadelphia 76ers today, which means, of course, that President Trump is also talking about it. Here's what the president said in the Oval Office today when asked to weigh in his -- on the age-old question, who's the better player, Michael Jordan or LeBron James?

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

TRUMP: Well, Michael Jordan's a guy that's a friend of mine, play golf with him. He's a really good guy. And I think LeBron is -- maybe he's a racist, but maybe he doesn't like Trump. I don't know. But I only like people that like me.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

TAPPER: Oh, boy. I have no idea what he's talking about, the racist thing. I think it's probably true that LeBron James doesn't like President Trump.

Anyway, here's our panel. So, Chris Gallant, he's a Democrat running for New York's First Congressional District on the eastern end of Long Island, Ashley Davis, a former Homeland Security official during the George W. Bush administration.

Ashley, how is --

ASHLEY DAVIS, FORMER HOMELAND SECURITY OFFICIAL, GEORGE W. BUSH ADMINISTRATION: I knew you were going to me. First of all, are you excited he's coming to Philly?

TAPPER: I'm so excited. Look, I'm, it's not even basketball season, I got my mug up. Yes, we're very excited. Maybe -- I was 14 when we last won a championship. Anyway, I digress. President Trump --

DAVIS: Well, no, but I do have to say, my son called me at work today, got me out of a meeting. I'm like, Oh, my God, something's wrong. And he's like, no, LeBron's going to the 76ers. He's so excited. He said you guys are going to win.

TAPPER: Well, we'll see.

DAVIS: Yes.

TAPPER: We'll see.

DAVIS: But I don't know why he's saying this. Obviously, this is something that he said, like, in 2022 or something originally, he called him a racist. And obviously it's coming back, but I can't explain it.

TAPPER: I assume you're a Knicks fan, but, separately, what do you make of -- CHRIS GALLANT (D), NEW YORK CONGRESSIONAL CANDIDATE: Definitely a Knicks fan.

TAPPER: Congratulations.

GALLANT: Thank you. Yes. Well, so, you know, we did, we got the win this year, so it's a very good.

TAPPER: Enjoy it while you can. Yes. So -- but what Trump calling LeBron a racist, that's his first reaction to this huge news that is like a -- you know, it's not just Philadelphians who are excited, it's just, it's cool. It's fun.

GALLANT: You know, this is just typical. He's always just knee-jerk reaction to a lot of things and it's always a distraction. It's -- and it's -- it always turns into something that we can talk about.

TAPPER: Yes.

GALLANT: So --

TAPPER: So, he's also --

DAVIS: Sometimes on purpose.

TAPPER: He's also escalating this fight over history and who gets to tell history. We reported a few weeks ago about what they're doing to the president's house in Philadelphia, the Independence Hall. Today, The New York Times is breaking the story about what's going on at the Smithsonian National Museum of American History.

He signed an executive order, the president, calling on the museum to, quote, install temporary signage near the museum informing visitors of the findings of the report, that's his report, and directing visitors to accurate information America's history.

[18:20:11]

This move follows a recent report from the White House about the American History Museum. The report said, quote, the Smithsonian and museum leadership have directed the museum's mission away from historical education and scholarship of a shared national inheritance to be celebrated and toward extreme political activism rooted in Marxism to divide, dispirit, and discourage Americans.

It went on to say, quote, the report demonstrates that the Smithsonian cannot be trusted to tell America's story honestly. Ashley?

DAVIS: Look I'm going to actually stick up for him on this one because I think a lot of the institutions, and I'm on a board of bunch of them here in D.C., and the Smithsonian's run by taxpayer money, it did go to extremes. Not just about our history, but we went through a lot of processes during, you know, after COVID and kind of that time that divided America.

So, we do need to kind of go back to the facts, but we -- you know, he's picking this fight. The director was in front of the House Republicans today. This is a little bit reminds me of the college education situation.

GALLANT: Look, I mean, this is a distraction and we should be focused on what's going on here at home. You can't rewrite history. This has never been a problem before in these museums. And it's, again, just Donald Trump loves to distract.

We need to be focused on things here back at home. I mean, we have an affordability crisis, we have a war that's going on, or, I mean, whether it's defined as a war or not yet, but these are the issues that American people are talking about. It's not the issues that whether Smithsonian Institute has things that might be well, whatever Donald Trump was calling it at that point. But you know, we, you cannot rewrite history and this is what this administration is attempting to do.

TAPPER: I think to some of the issues just -- I've covered this, so some of the issues at the Smithsonian have to do with how the history is told. For -- I'll just give you one example. There is a Statue of Liberty -- a statue that is portraying the Statue of Liberty as I think an undocumented immigrant. It's obviously an artistic interpretation. Obviously, it's a progressive view, et cetera, et cetera. And that's what you're talking about.

DAVIS: Yes. No, some of these institutions have gone extremely left. And you're right, I mean, it shouldn't -- this never was an issue, but it did become an issue during Biden, and actually during the first Trump administration, which is when the country or a lot of the country swung so far left, and then you saw it swing so far right. And then we'll probably --

TAPPER: But can I also say they also don't like the fact -- that Trump people don't like the fact that the Smithsonian mentions that our Founding Fathers, a lot of them, owned slaves. I mean, that's one of the other things. So, there's a degree of ideology. There's also a degree of whitewashing that they're trying to do.

DAVIS: Yes.

GALLANT: I mean, we should really be looking at our history and learning from it rather than trying to, you know, wash it away. Because if we can learn from our mistakes and the things that we've done in the past, then we can maybe grow as a country and do better in the future.

TAPPER: So, The New York Times is reporting that the Trump administration admitted -- Department of Energy officials specifically admitted that billions of dollars in federal grants were cut because those funds were supposed to go to blue states, states that did not vote for Trump in 2024. In these documents, administration officials so, say those decisions were, quote, based solely on the political identity of the grant recipient state, i.e., whether the recipient's location and/or place of performance was in a blue state or a non-blue state.

I have to say, like I am pretty shocked by that. Chris?

GALLANT: Well, I mean, we continue to attack blue states all the time with this administration right now. I mean, look at the -- whether it's ICE as an issue or, you know, whether it's the -- just taking away federal funding from anyone, whether it's a blue state or a red state, or whether they voted for someone or they didn't, you're still affecting everyday Americans. You're affecting them all equally. So, if you're taking money away from a blue state, then -- or a state that didn't vote for Trump, there are people in that state that voted for Trump, and you're affecting them as well.

TAPPER: It's never too soon to talk about 2028. Today, a key DNC panel selected South Carolina as the likely state to hold onto its first in the nation Democratic presidential nominating contest in 2028. Obviously, this happened, Ashley, during the Biden years because he lost Iowa and he lost New Hampshire, and then he won South Carolina. Do you think the DNC made the right call by sticking with it as the first one?

DAVIS: There's a couple things. I was, actually saw Debbie Dingell this morning who was on the panel or on the rules committee that did this. And I think that the South Carolina being the first state for the Democrats actually helps a more mainstream Democrat get momentum through that first, and Nevada's not extreme left either in regards to a Democrat state. So, I think those first two states help the so- called establishment Democrat candidate than it would, like an AOC or someone else.

[18:25:06]

But if they want to have it there, great. I mean, like it doesn't matter. Obviously, it's over different issues.

GALLANT: Well, I think the fact of the matter is that candidates are going to run in wherever they're going to run. So, as the president, they're going to run and they're going to run based off of their issues. And no matter what state they start in is really where things are going to focus on. As long as they come up with really clear policies and really good ideas, I think the American people can get on board regardless of where their vote starts.

DAVIS: What's interesting to me is this $267,000 fine. There's a fine if your state goes out of order after this is voted on, then you get fined $267,000. It's new.

TAPPER: Yes.

GALLANT: Interesting.

TAPPER: Thanks to both of you, I appreciate it.

Speaking of LeBron, Pennsylvania Governor Josh Shapiro, who is from right outside Philly, he officially declared today LeBron James Day in the commonwealth after the king announced he is heading to the Philadelphia 76ers. What this means for my hometown team's chances at a title, that's ahead. (COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[18:30:00]

TAPPER: Our Health Lead now for an upcoming report on CNN's The Whole Story on Sunday night. I met with former U.S. Senator Ben Sasse. You might know he was diagnosed with stage four pancreatic cancer last December, told he only had three or four months to live. He is still alive. He's spending time with his family, especially his 15-year-old son, Breck.

I recently joined them during their annual trip to the College World Series.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

TAPPER: Hey, Breck, Jake Tapper.

This is Ben's son, Breck, back at the ballpark together. They've attended the College World Series for Breck's entire life. They're giving each other a hard time just like most teens and their dads. This time, it's about Ben's taste in music.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: You're one different.

TAPPER: Why? What is -- how is he different?

BRECK SASSE, BEN SASSE'S SON: I don't know, he's just -- like if Lady Gaga comes on in the car, he won't change it.

TAPPER: She's pretty talented.

FMR. SEN. BEN SASSE (R-NE): That's not true.

TAPPER: She's pretty talented. I mean, like --

BEN SASSE: Yes, we're going to fight now.

TAPPER (voice over): I was reluctant to ask Breck about the fact that his dad is dying. I can't imagine being that dad or that boy. But Ben said it was okay to ask.

So, just -- it must be pretty special coming to this with your dad today.

BRECK SASSE: Absolutely, yes.

TAPPER: Just given the challenges he's facing and the way he's facing them.

BRECK SASSE: Ye. It's -- I love coming out here. This is one of the favorite places for me to hang out. So --

TAPPER: He seems like a pretty great dad.

BRECK SASSE: Most of the time. TAPPER: Most of the time? Most of the time?

BRECK SASSE: Yes.

TAPPER: All right. Thank you, sir. Most of the time. Thanks, Breck. I appreciate it.

BRECK SASSE: Yes, you too.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

TAPPER (on camera): My conversation with Ben Sasse, his wife Melissa, their son, Breck, and more is the feature on this weekend's episode of The Whole Story with Anderson Cooper. Look for that Sunday night at 8:00 PM Eastern here on CNN, and then you can watch it the next day on the CNN app.

Coming up next, a new installment in our Dead in the Water series, digging into an in-depth report just released today, making the case that the deadly boat strikes by the Pentagon should stop.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[18:35:00]

TAPPER: We're back with our World Lead and our continuing series, Dead in the Water, wherein we track the U.S. campaign of strikes on boats in the Caribbean and the Pacific, looking at exactly whom these strikes have killed and whether the strikes are even legal.

The Trump administration has bragged about killing more than 200, what they call narco-terrorists. Trump administration has failed to ever produce any evidence that any of these people are guilty of anything, especially drug -- including drug trafficking.

Today, a human rights organization, the Washington Office on Latin America, or WOLA, released a sprawling report into the strikes. This report is called Killing Spree.

The author of the report and director of Defense Oversight at WOLA, Adam Isaacson joins us now. Adam, thanks for being here. So you say the frequency of these strikes has made Americans go numb to them, but you maintain that the Trump administration is murdering people, some of whom have no connection to the drug trade. Your report suggests certain avenues for accountability for these killings.

What accountability do you think would be most effective or realistic?

ADAM ISAACSON, DIRECTOR FOR DEFENSE OVERSIGHT, WOLA: Well, I mean, the most effective would be go to the U.S. criminal court system. Basically, you have here violated with this policy Section 1111 of Title 18 of U.S. Code, which prohibits murder.

These are cases of murder of people who, you know, premeditatedly were killed without even knowing who they were, without due process. However, there are a host of reasons, from the presidential pardon power to secret memos out of the Justice Department that could make that hard to do.

There's still the possibility of litigation. Victims' families maybe could sue in the United States. Foreign courts could go to -- could try to try U.S. officials because their citizens were killed by U.S. policies. There's international options, but it's going to be hard. It's going to be an uphill fight to get any accountability for these killings.

TAPPER: So, I'm sure that some of these people are drug traffickers, you know, and I don't think you would dispute with that. But I don't know who, and I don't know what, and we've interviewed we interviewed a lawyer for a family in Trinidad and Tobago who said that their loved one was just a fisherman.

We had to lead -- we asked the Pentagon press office a few direct questions yesterday and today, one, can you provide any evidence that these boats were carrying drugs? If so, what kind? How much? Two, can you provide specific evidence proving the people on the boats were drug traffickers? Three, if you're not able to provide this evidence because you say it's classified, why is it still classified? I mean, days after Bin Laden was killed, we knew how that whole operation went down.

Now, they responded said, saying, quote, for operation security reasons, we do not comment on intelligence matters. The department has full confidence in the operational intelligence professionals who inform our missions. Every narco-terrorist killed in Department of War operations, that's what they call the Pentagon, was an affiliated member of a designated terrorist organization actively transporting illicit material along known trafficking routes in international waters, unquote.

What's your response, and is it not at least odd that they're not providing any evidence at all?

ISAACSON: It's enraging that they're not providing any evidence at all because what we know about some of the victims is that they didn't have anything to do with it. The Trinidadians referred to were in Venezuela working on a farm. They'd been waiting for weeks to get passage back on a boat to Trinidad and finally did, and the boat was blown out of the water. There are cases of bus drivers, fishermen. Yes, there were people who maybe had been low-level drug couriers, but otherwise, no.

So, a few things we know about the Defense Department's incredibly squishy targeting. First of all, there's a secret list of terrorist groups, apparently 24 of them, we don't even know really that the Defense Department has added to this list.

[18:40:00]

They're criminal groups, but this administration is calling them terrorists.

Now, the people aboard these boats don't have to be card-carrying members of those groups. They can be affiliates, which is an incredibly squishy term. It may even mean three degrees of separation from the terrorist group, which could just be your neighbor or something like that.

Also, there's no sense -- the DOD has basically acknowledged in briefings with Congress that they don't even know the identities of everybody on these boats. Quite often, they don't know any of them. So, they're going by just sort of life patterns and signatures and, oh, this guy was seen with that guy, and therefore we're going to knock out this boat.

It seems to be really weak and really subject to confirmation bias. And, ultimately, yes, I think there's a very high probability we're killing a lot of people who had nothing to do with the drug trade, or if they were low-level couriers.

TAPPER: All right, Adam Isaacson, thank you so much. I appreciate it.

ISAACSON: Thank you for having me.

TAPPER: Coming up next, a mega update in that mega merger, the deal between Paramount and Warner Brothers Discovery, which is the parent company of CNN. That deal has now been paused for months after lawsuits challenging the agreement. One of the attorneys leading that lawsuit, an attorney general, in fact, joins us next to react.

[18:45:03]

TAPPER: Some breaking news in our money lead. The blockbuster Hollywood mega-merger between Paramount Brothers -- and Paramount and Warner Bros. Discovery, which is the parent company of CNN, is now delayed.

Both Paramount and Warner Bros. Discovery agreed to push the combination off after a pair of lawsuits challenging the deal. As I said, we should note Warner Bros. Discovery is the parent company of CNN.

Here to break it down is CNN chief media analyst Brian Stelter.

So, Brian, why is Paramount agreeing to this delay? And does this mean that the deal is now in any sort of jeopardy?

BRIAN STELTER, CNN CHIEF MEDIA ANALYST: Well, Paramount's agreeing to the delay because it faced legal setbacks in the past two weeks. First, a coalition of Democratic state attorneys general filed a lawsuit. Then the judge overseeing the suit sided with those states and put a restraining order in place. Paramount lawyers concluded that the states would probably also win in the next stage, the preliminary injunction stage, and that would mean a judge would block the deal for months until a bench trial is held.

So, Paramount is saying, let's skip the injunction, Let's get right to a trial. Paramount wants to move quickly because this deal gets more expensive for Paramount starting in October. But there's no way there's going to be a trial before then. Now, here's what a Paramount spokesperson is saying this afternoon,

quote, "The plaintiffs, the states, the way they're defining the markets, bears no relationship to the realities of today's marketplace and cannot withstand scrutiny. So, we look forward to proving our case at trial. So, Paramount's saying they're going to bring up experts, they're going to bring out evidence, and they eventually will win.

If Paramount does not win during a trial, then they're going to go to an appeals court and go along into 2027. But, Jake, this is a major setback for Paramount. They wanted to complete the merger this week and take control of CNN today. Now this will be delayed for many months and likely into 2027.

TAPPER: All right, Brian Stelter, thanks so much.

Here to discuss is California's Democratic Attorney General Rob Bonta, who's leading this lawsuit from 12 states challenging the Paramount takeover of Warner Bros. Discovery.

General Bonta, thanks for joining us.

So, Paramount says this delay is a significant win because it allows them to get this case to trial sooner. When is the soonest that you and the other states are going to be ready for trial?

ROB BONTA (D), CALIFORNIA ATTORNEY GENERAL: Well, let me just say this is a significant setback for Paramount and Warner Bros. Obviously, it's a major development in the case in the favor of the states. And this is what we always sought, a block of the merger until a judge, the court, could decide on the legality of our case. And so, we have that now.

What we've got today is the functional equivalent of a preliminary injunction. They didn't even try to oppose it. They didn't argue it in front of a judge. They didn't try -- conceded.

So far from a major victory for them, it's a major setback. Trial will be decided by the judge. We're going to make a request for when we think trial should be. Paramount Warner Brothers will make a request for when they think trial should be.

We are likely to make a request to have trial in 2027, which is very appropriate based on the expert discovery that needs to happen, the fact discovery that needs to happen. before a trial can and should go forward.

TAPPER: The process of discovery you just referenced, is there something you're hoping to learn during the process?

BONTA: Yeah, we always want to learn more. We did some pre litigation discovery, but it was limited and there's more to do. We want to talk to employees. We want to talk to others in the entertainment industry.

We want to depose their expert who seems to have a certain theory of the case. We want to probe. We want to ask questions. We want to test those theories. And so, that wall needs to happen, and that could lead to additional facts and information that support our already very strong case that the judge has already issued an order in our favor on with respect to the temporary restraining order, and we think that will make our case even stronger as we go to trial. Hopefully, if we have -- if our request is granted in 2027.

TAPPER: What's your basic pitch to our viewers right now as to, or just to the public, why you think this deal should not happen?

BONTA: This is a classic example of a merger that leads to a monopoly, that leads to a substantial lessening of competition. and impacts on your viewers, on the American people, on the people of California. It will raise their prices.

It will raise their prices for cable bills, for satellite bills, to go to the movies. It shouldn't break the bank to watch your favorite TV show on the couch or go to the movies on a Friday night. It will raise your costs.

It will also hurt workers. It'll cut jobs, lead to job cuts and lower wages for workers. It will reduce the quality of what you see. You will pay more, as an American consumer, for less. You will have less diversity of films, less volume of films and TV series, less quality. The quality will erode. Those are all things that we've seen in the past. History shows that that will happen.

And so, this is an everyday issue about affordability. Americans are screaming that their lives are too expensive, whether it be housing, health care, gas, or groceries. And this merger, if it is allowed to go through -- and it shouldn't because it's illegal, will raise your costs even further.

[18:50:01]

We can't have so much power in the hands of so few. We know what happens when that occurs. We get a rigged economy instead of a free and fair economy. We know that we shouldn't have any kings or oligarchs in the economy. We need to have a free and fair economy that's open to competition where quality, not cheating or being rigged, makes you prevail.

TAPPER: California's Democratic Attorney General Rob Bonta, thanks so much. Appreciate it.

We're ending the week on a high note as the king, LeBron James, says he wants to bring a championship to my hometown, Philadelphia. What are the odds that this is going to happen? Well, the man who broke the news of LeBron's big move to the 76ers joins us live to weigh in. That's next.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

TAPPER: News, news today in the sports lead. LeBron James is taking his talents to the Philadelphia 76ers. He inked -- or is inking a two- year $8 million contract with a player option, according to ESPN. [18:55:00]

The four-time MVP left the Lakers in June after eight years, multiple records, one ring, leaving fans buzzing about where he would land for what he says is his last decision.

ESPN NBA senior insider Shams Charania joins us now, who broke the story.

Shams, fans thought LeBron would likely be heading back to his hometown of Cleveland or maybe back to Miami, maybe even to the Warriors. But he said in his post today, quote, "I believe I can help make the Philadelphia 76ers a championship team. I'm so excited to energize a new fan base and start this incredible journey one last time," unquote.

What are you learning about why he picked Philly over some of these other cities?

SHAMS CHARANIA, ESPN SENIOR NBA INSIDER: Jake, LeBron James put his money where his mouth is because from the onset of this process, he wanted to go somewhere where he felt he would have the best chance to compete for a championship, compete at a high level, be a part of a winning culture, and he chose the Sixers over the Cavaliers, the Heat, the Warriors, and he felt that with Jaylen Brown aboard, that's when all of this changed, right?

Jake, when your Sixers went out and traded for Jaylen Brown out of nowhere, they got on LeBron's radar, they got on the map, they were not on LeBron James's list before. The Sixers traded for Jaylen Brown a couple days after LeBron James made the decision to part ways with the Lakers. They go get Jaylen Brown. That puts them on the map.

And then from there, it was a full-on pursuit that they had. Tyrese Maxey, Joel Embiid have close relationships with LeBron. They recruited him. Nick Nurse, your Sixers head coach, was the only head coach that LeBron James, I'm told, spoke to during this process.

And how about Bob Myers? He's the president of Harris Blitzer Sports and Entertainment, which owns the Philadelphia 76ers. Ten years ago, Jake, he went out and got Kevin Durant's commitment would change the landscape of the NBA for the Warriors.

Now, 10 years later, he gets another one of the GOATs of the NBA in LeBron James. And LeBron James felt like the Sixers were that team to potentially win a championship next year over anyone else on his radar. He did not clearly want to play in the Western Conference. It was about going out East now.

And the last hurdle this week, Jake, was getting his family on board. He's got his wife, Savannah, his youngest daughter, young daughter, Zuri, in LA, as well as Bronny James, one of his younger sons in L.A. Bryce James, his youngest son, is at Arizona playing basketball there.

They're all on the West Coast, so getting their sign off, getting them on board to go to the East Coast, where he could commute from New York, could commute from Jersey. We'll see what that looks like. But LeBron James to the Sixers on a veteran minimum contract, obviously a bargain for your Sixers.

TAPPER: Yeah, total bargain $8 million for two years.

He's 41 years old. He says in his post today that he wasn't sure he had another season in him. And as we just mentioned, the contract two years, 8 million, player option. What does that say about his priorities right now? I mean, because honestly, obviously some teams would have paid, you know, much more than $8 billion.

CHARANIA: Yeah. At the beginning, I reported a few weeks ago at ESPN that LeBron James was not going to make a decision on finance. This was not going to be a money-driven decision. This was going to be based on happiness somewhere where he can go, Jake, and not have to gut a roster. He's not going to the Sixers and they're having to shed this salary or trade this person there or do all these different machinations.

He's just sliding right in on a minimum contract. That's the most they could give. But that was the most the Cavs could have given. That's the most the Heat could have given. That's the most the Warriors could have given.

So, it's not, you know, you know, it makes a lot of sense that his finalists were all teams that had championship aspirations that had the minimum contract to offer him. And clearly for him, winning was the utmost priority.

And the biggest takeaway for you, Jake, and every other NBA fan now is LeBron James believes the Sixers are championship material, and that's why he chose them.

TAPPER: It's very exciting, and I'm sure you've seen the tweet that Joel Embiid wrote to him this month in 2014, asking if maybe he would consider being a Sixer. So, this was something of a pipe dream for even Joel Embiid.

CHARANIA: Yeah, everyone was stunned in the NBA. This was one of the most shocking things to happen in a long time. Of course, the Luka Doncic trade is up there. The Jaylen Brown trade obviously was up there from a few weeks ago, but LeBron James going to Philadelphia now, potentially a 24th season and a 25th season on the horizon for LeBron James.

TAPPER: ESPN's Shams Charania, thank you so much, and congrats again on the great scoop to put a huge smile on my face and the face of all my Philly friends.

Coming up Sunday on "STATE OF THE UNION", White House Border Czar Tom Homan, House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries, Republican Senator Bill Cassidy. That's Sunday at 9:00 a.m. and noon Eastern on CNN.

And don't forget, of course, on Sunday night, "THE WHOLE STORY WITH ANDERSON COOPER". I'll be doing that Big Ben Sasse interview. You can follow me on Facebook, Instagram, Threads, X, and on the

TikTok @JakeTapper. You can follow the show on X and Instagram @TheLeadCNN.

If you ever missed an episode of THE LEAD, you can watch the show on the CNN app.

"ERIN BURNETT OUTFRONT" starts now. I will see you Sunday on "THE WHOLE STORY WITH ANDERSON COOPER", Sunday night.