Return to Transcripts main page

The Lead with Jake Tapper

Trump's Plane Swap Raises Security Questions; Trump's Vaccine Order Creates Confusion For Parents; Final Hour of Voting In Key Primaries; Russia Releases Ailing American Robert Gilman From Detention; Trump Admin Faces Criticism Over Proposed Changes To Head Start. Aired 6-7p ET

Aired August 11, 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]

PHIL MATTINGLY, CNN ANCHOR: Welcome to Lead, I'm Phil Mattingly. Jake Tapper is on assignment.

This hour, as we learn new details about President Trump's secret plane swap in the Middle East, it's also raising serious questions about security around the president and how serious the threat was from Iran. We'll go live to the White House in moments.

Plus, it's election night in America. Voters in six states are casting their ballots, and the first polls close in just about an hour. What will tonight's results mean for the midterms? Our political analysts are here to weigh in.

And President Trump's new executive order on vaccines raising even more questions for parents as children prepare to head back to school. Trump says kids should get the MMR vaccine in three separate shots, but right now it doesn't even exist. So, what exactly should parents do? An infectious disease specialist is here to answer your questions.

And a former U.S. Marine is free after four years in Russian detention amid serious concerns about his health. Robert Gilman is on his way back to the United States right now. Paul Whelan, another former Marine wrongfully detained in Russia, joins us live to react.

The Lead tonight, new questions about security for those traveling with President Trump following a stunning Washington Post report revealing Secret Service agents whisked Trump off of Air Force One in Turkey last month onto a separate smaller plane by way of a catering truck. This was after Trump was told he needed to take the older model of Air Force One back to the U.S. from the NATO conference in Turkey.

Now, our reporting shows the new Qatari gifted one did not have all the bells and whistles to protect the president from a credible assassination plot by Iran. All this meant journalists and White House staffers believed they were traveling with Trump, but were really on a decoy plane. And Trump appeared to mislead reporters when they pressed him on whether there was something fishy going on.

Here's what he said on the second leg of the trip from England back to the U.S.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

REPORTER: You're saying there wasn't a security concern?

DONALD TRUMP, U.S. PRESIDENT: No. Why would there be?

REPORTER: Do you know why they had us close our window blinds? That was not usual.

TRUMP: Well, yes, because you're, you know, probably on a dangerous flight because of the sleazebags that we have to deal with.

REPORTER: Do you think that Iran was possibly thinking of --

TRUMP: Well, I mean, if they ask you to close your windows, probably they feel that way. They didn't ask me to close mine, but if they did, I would've done it.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

MATTINGLY: Then a reporter asked President Trump if he was aware of any credible threat against Air Force One. He said, there's always a threat, and quote, if I go, you go.

CNN's Kaitlan Collins joins me now from the White House. Kaitlan we're both veterans of many an Air Force One trip. The mechanics of all this, the fact it happened at all, what are you hearing right now about what's happening behind the scenes?

KAITLAN COLLINS, CNN ANCHOR AND CHIEF WHITE HOUSE CORRESPONDENT: Yes. But, Phil, presumably, every time that we have been on Air Force One, the president has also been on the plane, and obviously that was not the case in this dynamic where the reporters were purposefully misled about the president's whereabouts as he boarded the plane in plain view of the cameras, and then obviously got on that catering truck to then get onto a decoy or a secret plane while the Air Force One plane that everyone thought he was flying on was used as the decoy during that mission.

And so we've seen the White House responding to this only with a statement about the president's security in terms of what this trip looked like. The president himself, though, has not yet commented on this matter since being asked about it by reporters on that trip there, where he talked about the Iranian threats and said that he didn't -- he was not asked similarly to close his blind as the reporters who were back in on Air Force One seated on the right side of the plane, which is also the same side as where that catering cart was that they were not obviously or, able to see him being moved onto that, which is why they had to close their blinds.

And when we're looking back through the notes from that day of the reporters who were traveling, they thought, with the president, Phil, you can see where reporters talked about the fact that they were not only asked to close their window shades, which is extremely unusual and not something that has ever happened when I've flown on Air Force One with the president, including as of last week, but a Secret Service agent came to the back of the plane to make sure that they had closed those blinds. And so, obviously, that was so they could not see the president.

But it's led to a lot of questions here in Washington, not just about the level of threat that this obviously posed to the president, given they took such deliberate and elaborate measures to conceal his whereabouts. We've seen lawmakers, including all the way up to Chuck Schumer, demanding briefings in response to that.

But it's also raised questions about the methods that were used here, given obviously presidents have traveled to war zones before. That information is given only to a very tightly held group of reporters that are traveling with the president. They know where they're going. They don't announce it until the president has landed.

[18:05:00]

In this situation, obviously the reporters here were given no information then or immediately afterward.

And I should note, the president right now has just flown to Ohio for an event, and both reporters that are traveling with him that send out those pool reports noted that there were no catering carts or catering trucks on the tarmac as the president was boarding. But yet, still from the president so far, no comment since this reporting surfaced first from The Washington Post last night. Phil?

MATTINGLY: I always appreciate the subtleties of pool reports. Kaitlan Collins, I always appreciate you as well at the White House. Thanks so much.

And, obviously, don't miss Kaitlan on her show, The Source with Kaitlan Collins. Her guests tonight include Anne Compton, who was on Air Force One on September 11th, 2001. That's tonight at 9:00 Eastern on CNN.

Well, joining us now, retired U.S. Army Lieutenant General Karen Gibson. She was the Senate sergeant-at-arms and former deputy director of national intelligence. Lieutenant General, really appreciate you joining us.

Look, you were tasked with the Senate security after January 6th, so you know a thing or two about trying to keep principals, powerful people safe. I guess from a big-picture perspective, what stands out to you about why this happened?

LT. GEN. KAREN GIBSON (RET.), U.S. ARMY: Yes. So, you know, our officials, our elected officials receive thousands of threat reports. The vast majority of them are bogus, but each one has to be evaluated. I would look at three criteria. One, is it feasible? Is this an attack that could actually happen? Two, is the source credible? And better yet, is it corroborated? Do I have multiple things that would back this up? And then the third is the imminence.

And I think the Secret Service, out of an abundance of caution, should a report look at least feasible, are probably going to take these kinds of actions, particularly in the wake of mistakes like Butler, Pennsylvania, or even the time when the gunman was able to come very close to the ballroom where the president was, and other dignitaries, during the White House Correspondents' Dinner.

So, from a Secret Service law enforcement perspective, I'm less surprised. You know, certainly, it's their job to safeguard him. And the other thing I'd say, Phil, is I do find it entirely plausible that there might be a serious threat to the president by some Iranian- backed entity. The U.S., the U.K., a number of European states have foiled or disrupted Iranian-backed attacks over the last several years, frankly, going back decades, but it continues, and they've demonstrated an intent and a capacity to do this, although they have not succeeded against the president or our elected officials. It's still something the service has to take very seriously.

MATTINGLY: Yes. I think you make a great point. I think there's an important distinction here that people need to recognize about the Secret Service has a job to do. And I think you respect that job. If you've been in the bubble or been in pools, you deeply appreciate what Secret Service has to do, but you're also very aware that their job is not you. Their job is the principal, in this case, the president. But it also -- the thing that always sticks out to me is that like what does this say about the viability of the threat matrix that they were staring at in that moment? It seems like it was realer than anything else we thought at the time.

GIBSON: I think, certainly, it must have seemed quite real to the service to make that kind of adjustment, and it does appear to have been rather late notification. You know, if they had more time to plan, perhaps they would've come up with a different ruse than loading the president into a catering truck, which, you know, I actually find to be rather clever approach. I know, I understand where the journalists are coming from, but, you know, from a Secret Service perspective, you know, it seems to have got the job done.

The other thing I would say in this case is any time we disclose how we are safeguarding dignitaries, the specifics of that, it does limit the ways in which we can keep them safe in the future. And so in that regard, it is unfortunate. I understand why it's news. It's out there now. But it's probably not a method that the Secret Service will be using in the near term for the president or any other dignitaries.

MATTINGLY: That actually threads right into a question I wanted to ask you, which is what is the level of knowledge the public should have about stuff like this?

GIBSON: You know, again, going back to the fact that there are thousands of threats that come in, I'm very cognizant of the ones that come in for senators. And there are thousands of reports that come in that law enforcement diligently work to check. I don't think the public needs to know all of them. When we have these near misses or an attempt, like Butler or the White House Correspondents' Dinner, or the person who was seized near Mar-a-Lago, I think that's worth public reporting. But when threats are thwarted or someone is arrested, I'm not sure it necessarily needs to be disclosed. We do need to make sure there are adequate resources for protection. And, you know, frankly, if I could put in a plug, the legislative and judicial officials also get a lot of threats. And so ensuring that they are protected, that's something that the public should press for as well.

[18:10:00]

MATTINGLY: To that point, are you confident that those resources exist now, that people are doing enough to help the Secret Service or protective agencies protect who they need to protect?

GIBSON: Yes. So, I think the service has looked at how many dignitaries do they protect, and who deserves what kinds of -- or merits what kinds of protection based on both their position, their relevance to the government, and the threats that are levied against them. These are finite resources, and I certainly know that's how we assessed threats over at the Capitol, was looking at the validity of the threats, the veracity, the feasibility of those and to balance the scarce resources. But it is a difficult resourcing situation at times.

MATTINGLY: Lieutenant General Karen Gibson, I really appreciate your expertise. Thanks so much for sharing it.

GIBSON: Thank you.

MATTINGLY: Well, after President Trump's executive order upending the childhood vaccine schedule, we're getting answers to your most pressing questions next with an infectious disease expert.

Stay with us.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

MATTINGLY: In our Health Lead, back to school season is here, and for many families, that means making sure children are up to date on their vaccinations. But some health experts worry President Trump's executive order seeking to reduce and space out vaccines could unnecessarily confuse parents.

[18:15:04]

The executive order moves to spread infant vaccinations across five separate doctor's visits and cut the number of recommended vaccines for all children from 18 to 11 vaccines. The other seven shots would require a provider's recommendation.

Joining us now is infectious disease specialist Dr. Celine Gounder. Dr. Gounder, I really appreciate your time.

The White House says the president's E.O. is aimed at maximizing parents' choices about their children's vaccinations. The American Academy of Pediatrics says it injects, quote, uncertainty and fear and confusion where none is needed. What's your assessment of this executive order in this moment? DR. CELINE GOUNDER, EDITOR-AT-LARGE FOR PUBLIC HEALTH, KFF HEALTH NEWS: Well, so first of all, nothing changes today for parents or children. A federal judge blocked the last attempt to cut the vaccine schedule back, and that was in March. That ruling still stands. So, your pediatrician is working from the same schedule as they were last week. If you're unsure about any vaccinations, ask which shots your child is due for and why.

With respect to the executive order, in particular, during the announcement, President Trump noted that this was because of his concerns around autism. There is no mention, actually, of autism in the executive order. There was also mention of the idea of spreading shots out being safer. There's no study that shows that spreading shots out is safer. There's none that show that giving them together cause autism.

And with respect to a link between vaccines and autism, this has been studied in millions of kids more than 40 different studies in countries around the world, and no increased risk has been found associated with vaccines with respect to autism.

And there are other causes, potential causes of autism that really do need to be researched much more heavily and funded more generously, such as genetics, the role of parental age and others. But to say that it's vaccines that's driving this is really a red herring.

MATTINGLY: One of the questions I had, healthcare providers already work with some parents who want to space out their children's vaccines. This order ostensibly could push more families to try and do that, requiring more doctor's visits, which require more time off of work, possibly more co-pays. Are you concerned that this actually inadvertently adds more barriers to the actual process?

GOUNDER: Well, this has been looked at. So, researchers in Oregon followed about 100,000 kids. The ones whose parents spread the shots out made more trips to the doctor and ended up getting fewer vaccines. So, every extra visit is one where somebody has to take time off work, time away from other responsibilities. There may be childcare costs, transportation costs, and so on. And so it reduces your vaccination rates as a result.

MATTINGLY: The E.O. also calls for splitting up the combined measles, mumps, and rubella vaccine, a change that President Trump has long advocated for despite experts saying the combined shot is safe and effective. But the biggest issue here seems to be that even if parents wanted to separate the shots, no separate vaccines for measles, mumps, and rubella currently are FDA approved or available in the U.S.

I don't understand this. Like where does this come from?

GOUNDER: Yes, Phil, I agree with you. It's just not feasible. So, separate measles, mumps, and rubella shots just aren't made in this country. Merck stopped making them for the United States back in 2009 because almost nobody was ordering them. And Merck now says it would take more than ten years to get FDA approval for three separate products. There's also no published benefit or published evidence of benefit to separating MMR into the constituent components. There's no evidence that giving the three together is dangerous. And, in fact, the three were combined for a very practical reason. All three use a weakened live virus. They're made the same way, and they're due at the same ages. So, the idea was to put them into one shot to reduce visits, to reduce needles, injections, and as a result, more kids ended up completing the series.

MATTINGLY: I really appreciate. Parents can only be confused by what just happened. I say that as a parent. And I appreciate you actually explaining in good detail, citing studies and actual facts.

Dr. Celine Gounder, thank you very much for your time.

GOUNDER: My pleasure.

MATTINGLY: Well, one Democratic Congresswoman is waging a battle with the Department of Justice over Epstein files that she says should not be redacted. I'll ask her what she's learned, next.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

MATTINGLY: In our Law and Justice Lead, a Democratic lawmaker is questioning why one specific email in the Trump Justice Department's Epstein files is still redacted. Congresswoman Madeleine Dean of Pennsylvania is accusing the Justice Department of violating the Epstein Files Transparency Act, saying the email does not include information about victims, but about President Trump.

The redacted version on the DOJ website is of a 2009 email Jeffrey Epstein got from his attorney, Jack Goldberger, and then forwarded to his associate, Ghislaine Maxwell. The subject line reads, Trump. Part of the email reads, quote, spoke to Alan Garten, Trump's attorney, redaction. Garten arranged a 20-minute phone conference with Trump and Brad in lieu of a depo. Following was discussed. The rest is redacted.

Now, Trump has not been accused of any wrongdoing in connection with Epstein. The Justice Department tells CNN that the redactions in this document were made because the information is privileged.

Congresswoman Dean joins me now. Congresswoman, you went to the DOJ to look at the unredacted version of this email. You transcribed it, held it up in your notes when questioning then-Acting Attorney General Todd Blanche during a House hearing in June. What about that email was so important for you to transcribe?

REP. MADELEINE DEAN (D-PA): Well, number one, it was not privileged material. So, the whole obstacle that then -Acting Attorney General Blanche put up that this is privileged because it's attorney-client privileged information is simply not true.

[18:25:05]

He knew it at the time. It was from an attorney to Jeffrey Epstein, Jeffrey Epstein to Ghislaine Maxwell. Privilege falls away. And, of course, it is about Mr. Trump. Mr. Trump would not sit for a deposition, so in lieu of that, he had a conversation.

And what it is, the paragraph that is fully blacked out that I was able to transcribe and show as I shared in the hearing shows that Mr. Trump says the exact opposite of what he has said publicly, that he was probably never at Mr. Epstein's house. He said he probably was. That he was never on the plane, says he probably was.

What do you know about the allegations? I'm looking at my own transcribed notes. What do you know about the allegations against J.E.? Only what I read in the paper. You ever been to J.E.'s house? I may have been there with my wife. Any young girls there? No, but may have been children of other guests, but that's it.

And then tellingly at the end, there is an ask. Trump specifically asked Garten, the attorney, to advise us of the interview. The other final line is that the manager of Mar-a-Lago, as I shared in the hearings, said that Mr. Epstein was never asked to leave Mar-a-Lago.

So, what Mr. Trump has said in public and what DOJ blacked out with no justification, it should not have been redacted or blacked out, according to the law, is just, it seems to me, a cover-up of anything that Mr. Trump said.

MATTINGLY: Can I ask you just take a step back, the process to actually see that email, what was that like? We've heard some stories from some lawmakers. It seems pretty labor-intensive to actually get in there and look at the unredacted versions of things. And were you given any explanation as to why the information was, quote/unquote, privileged?

DEAN: And, of course, as I said, privilege doesn't hold up in this case. I said that in the hearing and the attorney general knows that. It is infuriating, Phil. By law, this information should be revealed because, after all, this is about justice for the survivors and victims. That's entirely what I care about.

Do you know what we have to do? We have to make appointments, members of Congress, doing our job, have to make appointments to go into the Department of Justice. I go in with a fully prepared notebook because it's millions of files to decide what are the most relevant for me to take a look at in the time that I have.

I cannot write anything in the notebook that I put on my right hand side because I'm a lefty, and then over on a piece of paper given to me by Department of Justice, I can take notes, and, literally, you saw I transcribe what I see in those documents.

It's infuriating. This research, this investigation has been done by many talented people. I think it must be very upsetting to the people in the room. There's literally a council for Department of Justice in the room. I couldn't take, of course, any kind of electronics, no iPad, no iPhone, no smart watches. And so I have to rely upon my quick writing down of whatever I can see.

And then when something is still redacted, I ask the minder, would you please find out why that remains redacted, because by law it should not be. It's an infuriating process, and it is very intentional to make sure we don't get at the information. Interesting that when Mr. Trump's name appears tens of thousands of times, we can't get at the information.

MATTINGLY: One of the questions I've had throughout the kind of statutory complications, which is probably being too kind, the inability to comply with what's in the actual law itself, and the many questions that have come up around that is what's the recourse here? What do you see as the recourse here going forward, especially if Democrats are in the majority next term?

DEAN: Well, I think we will have to complete our oversight by way of lawsuits and, of course, getting the gavels of relevant committees.

What you should know, Phil, is that before Mr. Acting Attorney, then- Acting Attorney Todd Blanche, came before the Appropriations Committee, he actually invited me and my chief of staff and comms director to a reception at Department of Justice. I took advantage of that invitation and went in, had the chance to have a simple conversation with him, first about Philadelphia cheese steaks and sports teams.

But then I asked him specifically, person-to-person, face-to-face, I want to take the measure of the man. And I asked him specifically, number one, when will you redact all of the personal identifying information? And I said this also in the hearing. And he said, well, we have. And, of course, they hadn't. And then he very defensively said, well, if we get information we would redact it within 20 minutes.

Then I said, when are you going to release the remaining 4 million files? He said, there'll be no more releases. Everything else is a duplication or another guy named Epstein, which made absolutely no sense to me, seems quite incredulous.

[18:30:07]

Most importantly, I asked him a third question, when will you begin to prosecute? We have more than 1,000 survivors and victims, and we have one woman in a summer camp and another man who is dead, Epstein. When are you, a top prosecutor, going to prosecute? With that, he asked me, do I know what it means to prosecute? I did let him know I'm an attorney by training. And then he said, we've been given very misleading information, appearing to blame the victims.

When I questioned him in this way in the appropriations hearing in public, he then later went on to tweet that I was hysterical. Very interesting that a gentleman of this kind of power, of this kind of ability to prosecute, has no interest in prosecuting. The cover-up is complete. And instead, blame the victims and call an attorney who's looking for justice hysterical.

MATTINGLY: People owe more to these victims. If we've learned nothing else I think that's certainly the case.

Democratic Congresswoman Madeleine Dean of Pennsylvania, I appreciate your time. Thank you.

DEAN: Thank you for staying on this.

MATTINGLY: Well, the first polls close in just about a half hour in tonight's critical primaries. Up next, we're talking about the potential impacts on the midterms with two campaign veterans.

Stick around.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[18:35:00]

MATTINGLY: In our Politics Lead, I think we all know what that music means. It's Election Day with high-profile House, Senate, and gubernatorial races in South Carolina, Vermont, Alabama, Connecticut, Minnesota, and Wisconsin. And in less than 30 minutes, polls will close in two of those states, including South Carolina, where there is a rushed primary to choose a Republican to run for the late Senator Lindsey Graham's seat.

Senator Graham's sister, Darline, was appointed to the seat after her brother's sudden death last month. But there's a crowded field vying for it today.

My panel joins me now, and I want to start in South Carolina. Governor Scott Walker, this race is not a group of no-names. It's been striking to me that there are big South Carolina Republican names, and big South Carolina Republican names who have not been scared away by President Trump seeming to get behind Darline Graham. How do you think this ends?

FMR. GOV. SCOTT WALKER (R-WI): I think it's wide open. I mean, you've got at least in one of the polls, one of the frontrunners, Congressman Ralph Norman was in the gubernatorial race earlier this year. So, you got a whole mix of people with high name I.D. You've got a former governor, a member of Congress, and, of course, now the newly appointed senator. So, I think it's wide open. I think many of us will be surprised to see what happens tonight.

MATTINGLY: Karen Finney, as a Democrat, not often you look down to South Carolina and see statewide opportunities here. But who would you like to see win if you could pick your candidate?

KAREN FINNEY, CNN POLITICAL COMMENTATOR: Oh, my friend, I learned in 2016 to never make predictions about who could be or who would never be the nominee. I mean, look, I think they're all interesting. Obviously, South Carolina is of particular importance to Democrats, because we're moving it up, or keeping it, I should say, as the lead- off to the primary calendar. So, it will be interested to see who comes through in this primary.

And, frankly, also, you know, which is stronger, the power of Donald Trump and the legacy of Lindsey Graham, or a desire perhaps for something different?

MATTINGLY: Yes. No, that's a great point.

All right, we have to get to the race that I think you both are very keyed in on. There's a race in Wisconsin where Democratic socialism is back on the ballot with State Assemblywoman and Democratic socialist Francesca Hong taking on Milwaukee County Executive David Crowley for governor. Here are their closing arguments.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

DAVID CROWLEY (D), WISCONSIN GUBERNATORIAL CANDIDATE: Every decision that I have made is about making sure that life is better for working families.

We need a governor who doesn't just talk about problems. We need someone who's going to solve them. And that's what I've done my entire career.

FRANCESCA HONG (D), WISCONSIN GUBERNATORIAL CANDIDATE: And right now as governor, what I'm most serious about are the issues that voters are telling me they want solutions for, for permanent affordability, to tax the ultra rich, to make sure we're getting corruption, like he is, out of politics.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

MATTINGLY: I refer to you as Governor Walker because you used to be the governor of Wisconsin. I'm interested in your view on this, Governor. Establishment Democrats backing Crowley say the socialist brand will lose in November. Are they right in Wisconsin?

WALKER: Well, they're right in the sense that they have -- probably have a better chance with Crowley than Hong. But I've warned Republicans, don't assume just because she's so radical out there, and because more importantly not just on her issues, but on her tweets, I mean, talking about canceling Thanksgiving, abolishing the police, getting rid of prisons. Those are things that with swing voters in Wisconsin, she's going to be wildly out of touch with.

By the same token, though, she's got a lot of passion, which is why she's going to win probably by a big margin in the primary. And in a close election, where, typically, Wisconsin goes opposite of the White House, I wouldn't concede anything in this election.

MATTINGLY: Karen, to that point, I think it's a really good one for people to internalize. When I've been out in the field reporting in any number of states, people are just pissed. Like it's almost like if you have any type of incumbency, regardless of party or what your views are, like, look out, something's coming. Is that something that she could ride to a victory here statewide?

FINNEY: Well, let's not underestimate the power of the some $3 million that the RGA has been spending to help prop her up, by just -- you know, just that little $3 million thing. You know, that is certainly helping her out quite a bit. And, Crowley, I mean, he was in, then he was out, then he got back in. So, you know, I think it's a pretty muddled picture for Democrats. And -- but we'll see what happens. I mean, I think what's interesting is the party is trying to say, look, whoever wins, we're going to be unified behind that person and try to do the best we can to hold onto the seat going into November.

MATTINGLY: Governor Walker, do you think Tom Tiffany is the candidate you want right now statewide?

WALKER: Oh, absolutely, particularly, again, if it's Hong. I mentioned some of the radical posts and social media comments she's made. But on top of that, I mean, if I was them, I'd be running an ad soon with all the F-bombs she's dropped in rally after rally after rally, contrast that with Tom Tiffany, who's a pretty low-key, pretty kind of steady Eddie kind of guy.

[18:40:09]

I think with, again, swing voters, the people who go back and forth each election, voting for me and Barack Obama, for example, in the same year in 2012, that's not based on politics. That's based on tone. Some of them didn't like Donald Trump's tone in 2020. They're not going to like Hong's tone this time either.

MATTINGLY: I thought F-bombs were cool now. We're not doing F-bombs.

FINNEY: We'll find out, won't we?

MATTINGLY: All right. I do want to ask about this. President Trump isn't ruling out declaring a national emergency when it comes to America's election system. Take a listen.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: If they never get the Save America Act done, you have the right to declare a national security emergency for elections.

They can't challenge it. It can only be overturned by a two-thirds vote of both houses of Congress. So, if you do this in the next month, we will get photo I.D., proof of citizenship, and a limit to mail-in ballots, and you don't --

TRUMP: Let me just say this, stranger things have happened, okay? I'll leave it at that.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

MATTINGLY: Governor Walker, how concerning is this to you?

WALKER: Well, I hope in the end, get this done by the state level. I think the SAVE Act actually makes sense. We did it in our state. People went crazy about it when it happened. Every presidential election since then, it actually has seen the numbers go up, make it easy to vote, but hard to cheat. I just think it's something that should be done legislatively. Make the case, push back, do it, like we did in Wisconsin, like they did in Georgia and elsewhere, and the results have been positive.

MATTINGLY: Karen?

FINNEY: Yes. The concern is that the SAVE Act really isn't about election integrity. It is about election suppression. It is about Donald Trump's fear of his party facing the electorate in the fall. But I do want to say, Phil, I think we have to take this very seriously, because we have learned our lesson with Donald Trump. When he intimates these kinds of things, we should take him seriously.

I mean -- and the lesson that I think he took from January 6th is that the Constitution is inconvenient. And so he is constantly in this second term, look at the ways that he has, you know, bended the law, gone around the law, misled America, not told us the truth, withheld the truth. So, I think we have to take it very seriously.

And I'm glad to say that on our side at least, in the democracy group, I think there are a lot of folks taking any threat that he might make very seriously, and trying to prepare for the worst, quite frankly.

MATTINGLY: States do a pretty good job at elections.

FINNEY: Yes, they do.

MATTINGLY: I'm just going to throw that one out there. It's also constitutional.

Karen Finney, former Governor Scott Walker, I appreciate you both, as always. Thank you.

A former U.S. Marine has been freed after four years in Russian detention. Paul Whelan, another former Marine wrongfully detained in Russia, joins us live to react ahead.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[18:46:25]

MATTINGLY: Good news in our world lead.

Robert Gilman, a U.S. marine corps veteran who had been detained in Russia since 2022, was released today. This is a picture of Gilman on a plane coming home. He's on the left wearing a baseball cap. It was posted today by President Donald Trump, who said he spoke with Gilman, who requested, quote, "a great cheeseburger" when he lands later tonight.

Just days ago, an advocate for Gilman warned he was, quote, near death after psychological and physical torture. A State Department spokesperson said Gilman was released on humanitarian grounds. Russia previously said Gilman was arrested because he was drunk and got into an altercation with a police officer. Advocates for Gilman deny this, saying he was hit by the police, got sick and accidentally kicked the officer.

Joining me now, a man who knows all too well what it's like to be held prisoner by Russia, Paul Whelan, he was wrongly detained from 2018 to 2024. Paul, I appreciate you joining us. You've been advocating for Robert

Gilman release today. It happened. What's your reaction?

PAUL WHELAN, FORMER RUSSIAN PRISONER: Well, Trevor Reed and I have done a lot, you know, a lot of other people have, too. But the two of us, we wanted a former marine home.

He's one of us. It's a small group. We're proud today. It's a good day for America. We have a citizen back, but we have a veteran and a marine back. And that means a lot to us. We both Trevor and I remember what it was like being in Russia, me having emergency surgery, him having medical issues himself. And we know what Robert's gone through and we're just ecstatic that he's home.

MATTINGLY: Were you surprised he was released on humanitarian grounds without any sort of prisoner exchange or concessions from the U.S.?

WHELAN: Well, don't be fooled. The Russians don't do anything for free. So, if we have Robert, they have something. It might be people. It might be concessions. They have something.

Unfortunately, they don't look at human life the way we do. Look at Ukraine. We want one person back. Humanitarian grounds. They would have come up with a whole laundry list of stuff. They wanted to make this happen, unfortunately.

MATTINGLY: You mentioned the work that you and Trevor Reed had been doing, doing on this, for a good while before there was an outcome here. Did you think that we were going to reach this point? Did you think this was the outcome that would happen?

WHELAN: Well, in the back of our minds, we were reminded about Otto Warmbier. And both Trevor and I thought about that when we were being detained. We wanted to make sure that didn't happen to another American.

So, we worked, you know, with our Congress, people like Haley Stevens, Debbie Dingell, Elissa Slotkin from Michigan, working with them to make sure that Robert came home.

MATTINGLY: Other than obvious medical treatment. I'd like you to explain to people. I've learned a lot about what happens for returnees in these types of situations, the support that they get. What do you think Robert Gilman will be receiving now that he's out of this nightmare situation?

WHELAN: Well, the first thing is going to be that cheeseburger. We're usually fed pretty well, coming back from eating horrible Russian food, but he'll be at the Brooke Army Medical Center. They'll give him all sorts of exams and vaccinations and what-have-you. Then he'll go to Fort Sam Houston next door for a couple weeks.

He'll talk to specially trained psychologists that deal with prisoners of war. He'll work with the Army, with the joint personnel recovery activity. They are specialists in bringing back people from war zones and whatnot. They're great with hostages. So, he'll spend a couple of weeks there just getting back to normal, you know, putting weight on, just kind of enjoying being back in America. His family will be there, friends.

[18:50:03]

Trevor and I are going to get on a phone call with him soon, chat to him.

But, you know, it's a time to kind of fall back and regroup, a transition because, you know, the world's going to hit him pretty quick.

MATTINGLY: Can I ask you, you know, on that point, we're talking during the break that I followed so much of your story through my colleague Jennifer Hansler, who did amazing reporting. And you guys spoke a lot over the course of that process. How are you doing now?

WHELAN: You know, I'm doing okay. Um, working on this sort of advocacy does trigger things for Trevor and I. It can be difficult, you know, reliving what we went through, but, you know, we're working with, like I said, you know, Congresswoman Haley Stevens on a compensation bill that will help compensate, from sanctioned funds, people like us that have been held overseas so we can get our lives back together.

You know, the aftercare is quite minimal right now. You know, the government does a lot to get us back and then they kind of open the door and they leave you on the curb. So, we're trying to get members of Congress, especially, some of the members of Congress that are slow to react to these -- these issues. We're trying to get them on board, get their signatures on this bill and get this compensation bill signed into law.

You know, organizations like Hostage International and Hostage Aid Worldwide will work with Robert as they work with us, so that he can transition back into a normal life again. Trevor and I are still working on that. I've been home two years. He's been home longer.

It's a process. It doesn't happen overnight. And like I said, we're working on this advocacy so we can help other people like Andre Khachaturian, Steven Hubbard, another Michigander, and David Barnes, people that are being held wrongfully, and we want them back. It does trigger what we went through. It can be difficult, but you know, that's a price we're willing to pay to get our fellow citizens back.

MATTINGLY: It's extraordinary work that continues. Please keep us posted on the legislative efforts and anything we can do on that front.

Paul Whelan, I will never forget when we learned that you were going to be free. I really appreciate you taking the time. Thanks so much.

WHELAN: Yeah. Thank you, sir. I appreciate the support.

MATTINGLY: Well, the Trump administration is proposing major changes to a program that helps hundreds of thousands of low income children. Those potential impacts, next.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[18:56:28]

MATTINGLY: Sweeping changes could be coming to Head Start, the anti- poverty program which provides early education and health services for 700,000 low-income children under the age of six. The Trump administration wants to eliminate several federal rules and give states more control over how the program is run. Proposed changes include new nutrition and physical activity requirements, cutting administrative expenses requiring English-only education, and increasing class sizes.

Joining me now is Joel Ryan, the executive director of the Washington State Association of Head Start.

Joel, appreciate your time.

The Department of Health and Human Services, which oversees the program, says, look, these changes will give providers more flexibility, get more children into the program, save two-plus billion dollars a year. What's your response to that?

JOEL RYAN, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, WASHINGTON STATE ASSOCIATION OF HEAD START: Yeah. Well first of all, thank you for having me. Have a chance to talk about Head Start.

I mean, I think the first thing, the first place I really want to start is Head Start is a program that really works. It gets kids ready for school. We know from research that kids that go through the Head Start program are more likely to be ready for kindergarten. They have better educational outcomes, better health, and they're more likely to graduate from high school and college.

So, first off, the Head Start program is really does an incredible job. It also helps parents, by the way, find emergency food and housing services and gets them back into the workplace. So, it's a terrific program. So, when it comes to head start, I think what's important to understand for your viewers for the rule is that the Trump administration spent the last 16 months trying to dismantle the Head Start program.

First, they tried to eliminate it through Congress. That didn't work. Then they've tried to restrict immigration and head start. They've closed five regional offices, delaying funding for head start providers, impacting kids and families across the country. And now they're trying to dismantle the Head Start program from the inside. Piece by piece.

I think this rule is a disaster. It is eroding the quality of the program. They're increasing the size of classrooms by adding -- trying to add more kids into the classroom. They're eliminating and support services for kids with disabilities, maternal health, health services, mental health, oral health, teeth brushing. They're also making it -- I think another thing that's important, it's

not just about flexibility, Phil. It's -- this is also about making it harder for kids to enroll. So, they actually, in their proposal, they actually make it more difficult for children who are experiencing homelessness to enroll in the program.

So, it's not about red tape when it comes to the standards. These are quality standards and safeguards to make sure that kids are safe and that parents have a safe place to put their kid to go to work.

And the other thing I might add too, is they're also decreasing the number of hours that Head Start can offer to parents, making it even harder for families to go to work. So, you know, the Trump administration, unfortunately, has been trying to bully people. And now, they're -- they've decided to pick on, you know, little four- year-olds who are low income.

And, you know, I'm glad you're having me on your show today so that your viewers know we need their help to stand up and call their member of Congress, send in comments to the federal register. There's so many people across this country who you either were a Head Start child, or maybe you were a parent, or you believe in this program so much.

We need those folks to call Congress. Head Start has had a long history of bipartisan support.

MATTINGLY: Yeah.

RYAN: But they need to hear from you and your viewers about why Head Start is so important.

MATTINGLY: And to that point, the public has about 60 days to comment on these proposed changes.

Joel Ryan, it's a very important story we'll definitely stick with. Thank you so much for your time.

You can follow the show on X and Instagram @TheLeadCNN. If you've ever missed an episode of THE LEAD, you can watch the show on the CNN app.

"ERIN BURNETT OUTFRONT" starts now.