Return to Transcripts main page
CNN NewsNight with Abby Phillip
Moderates Exiting Washington as Raw Politics Take Over; Bill Battle Shows How Independent Thinkers Face Wrath; Trump Threatens Funds for States, Firms, Colleges, Nations. Trump's Predecessors Speaks Out; Mamdani Says He's Not a Communist. Aired 10-11p ET
Aired July 03, 2025 - 22:00 ET
THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.
[22:00:00]
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
ABBY PHILLIP, CNN ANCHOR (voice over): Tonight, from the American flag to the white one, why moderates in Congress are heading for the exits.
Plus, from Israel and Gotham to colleges and companies, are Donald Trump's threats a political form of extortion?
Also while the administration cheers the end of USAID, a new study predicts 14 million people will die because of DOGE's eraser.
And --
DONALD TRUMP, U.S. PRESIDENT: We don't need a communist in this country.
PHILLIP: -- as a surprise candidate emerges on the national stage, Americans debate the difference between socialism and communism.
Here at the table, Scott Jennings, Joel Payne, Neera Tanden Lance Trover.
Americans with different perspectives aren't talking to each other, but here, they do.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
PHILLIP (on camera): Good evening. I'm Abby Phillip in Washington.
Let's get right to what America's talking about, is the nation's center collapsing. Gridlock in Washington is certainly nothing new, but the drivers of this era seem to be the extremes of each party while the moderates are not just taking a backseat, but getting off the highway all together.
The battle over Donald Trump's mega bill is a good illustration of this. Both Republicans and Democrats sounded the alarm that it will kick millions off their healthcare, among other things. But for anyone who dared to speak up, they faced the wrath of the president and his MAGA allies. That includes Republican hTom Tillis, who spoke out against the bill and promptly announced that he's calling it quits.
Tillis took aim at his colleagues saying, quote, in Washington, over the last few years, it's becoming increasingly evident that leaders who are willing to embrace bipartisanship, compromise and demonstrate independent thinking are becoming an endangered species. Too many elected officials are motivated by pure, raw politics who really don't give a damn about the people they promised to represent.
Now, Tillis joins the ranks of disgusted lawmakers, like Arizona's Jeff Flake, Utah's Mitt Romney, and Ohio's Rob Portman, all of whom bowed out as tribal politics have taken over Washington.
These mega bills, first of all, mega bills that are straight down party lines, are now the thing that Washington does. And in this moment, when you do have some Republicans who are airing their grievances, raising some concerns. They're not being courted, right? Like they're not being like talked to. They're just being told, stop talking, like we're going to pass this thing anyway.
SCOTT JENNINGS, CNN SENIOR POLITICAL COMMENTATOR: Well, in the negotiations over the big, beautiful bill going back months in the House, you know, Speaker Johnson had to negotiate among different factions. That also happened with Thune over in the Senate. I mean, ultimately, you know, what they had to vote on was one big, beautiful bill, but that ignores that they had all this back and forth amongst themselves over a long period of time.
The other thing I would say is that I think in the Republican coalition right now, it's more ideologically diverse than it's ever been in my lifetime. It's more racially diverse and it's more diverse across, you know, different segments of our population. And that's why you have everybody, from RFK, to Rand Paul to, you know, Mitch McConnell all in the same party. This is an elastic party and Trump's administration reflects that.
So, I don't guess I agree that one narrow extreme dictates what happens in the party when you look at the elasticity and the ideological diversity in the GOP.
JOEL PAYNE, DEMOCRATIC STRATEGIST: Yet only two of those people you named Donald Trump's trying to drive out the party. I mean, there are no Republican moderates. This phenomenon that you're talking about, Abby, it's a Republican phenomenon. There is a wide ideological diversity in a Democratic caucus. You have everyone from AOC, Zoran Mamdani to Joe Manchin in the Democratic big tent. The Republicans are the one that, particularly in the last 15 years, they have really driven out any kind of diversity. There's only purity in the Republican caucus.
I worked actually in Congress when there were Republican moderates, where the Bob Corkers and the Jeff Flakes and Bob Bennett of Utah, people like that, I literally served with those people. They would not fit in this Republican Party. I'm not sure if they're Democrats but they darn sure aren't Republicans.
JENNINGS: Do you think Joe Manchin's still a Democrat? I mean, he had to leave Congress because he didn't fit in with the far left fringe.
PAYNE: I think he is. He actually was the author of the latest major Democratic legislation a couple years ago.
[22:05:02]
JENNINGS: A couple years ago, good point.
PHILLIP: Neera?
NEERA TANDEN, PRESIDENT AND CEO, CENTER FOR AMERICAN PROGRESS: I mean, I think the obvious example here is Thom Tillis, right? And let's be candid, what happened with Thom Tillis? Thom Tillis basically said in his own words that this legislation that the Senate considered was going to hurt over 600,000 North Carolinians, was going to take healthcare away from 600,000 North Carolinians.
And the choice he faced, honestly, let's just be candid, was to stay a Republican run for office or -- and hurt his constituents, or give up his political interests and put his constituents first. And, you know, I actually think the truth is that there was bipartisan opposition in the Senate to the big, beautiful bill because people like Thom Tillis recognized that protecting his constituents came first.
And that's the tragedy of the Republican Party today, which is, unfortunately, people have to make this tradeoff and they are -- too many are choosing their political careers over the people they serve.
PHILLIP: I'm kind of stuck on what Scott was saying about the Republican Party being from RFK Jr., which I think doesn't really apply on fiscal issues. It's really in this narrow lane of health quackery.
TANDEN: Quack-quack conspiracies.
PHILLIP: But also Rand Paul, Tom Massie, Trump wants to run them out. Like he's actively -- Trump has actively said he wants to kick Tom Massie out of office because Massie is too vocal about his opposition to some of these policy issues. I think that is not really a reflection of an elastic party, to be frank.
LANCE TROVER, REPUBLICAN STRATEGIST: I don't know. I mean, I go to what Scott said in terms of the negotiations that happened. You have a caucus called the Governing Majority Caucus, and that's what then their whole deal was SALT and the SALT issue, and they got that increase. That was their number one battle that went on, and that's what members do.
And, look, members come, members go, and their reasons for leaving, that's what happens in Congress all the time. And so we may have a couple that are leaving here. Joe Manchin left on his own. And, I mean, and I go to what Joel said, I mean. I mean, you're saying our party is -- I mean, you guys have now a socialist in New York City who -- and then AOC and then Bernie, that your party's heading exactly to the far left. So, where is the wiggle room in your party? Is there any member of the Democratic Party that's not pro-choice, because you guys don't require or allow anybody to be pro-choice or to be pro-life in your party?
PAYNE: That's -- I'm pretty sure that Tim Kaine and Joe Biden have very diverse views on abortion --
(CROSSTALKS)
TROVER: Two people are gone, Joe Biden and Tim -- and Joe Manchin.
PAYNE: Okay, fine. But more broadly, I mean, this idea of Republicans, like the only thing that Republicans really have in common right now, this political era that we're in right now, is self- loathing. They are forcing them self to vote for this terrible piece of legislation. And the only thing that unites them more important than anywhere on the ideological spectrum is fear and fealty to Donald Trump.
JENNINGS: Democrats are having hard time coming to grips with the fact that we're taking all of their voters, working class Americans, multiracial, multi-ethnic, multi-generational working class Americans all over this country who heretofore have almost uniformly voted Democrat en masse came towards the Republican party last November, and Trump did win the national popular vote because of it. It is an ideologically diverse party because of all of our new constituents.
PAYNE: I think the Republican voter base is slightly more diverse. I do not think elected Republicans are more diverse and you're going to pay a price for that development (ph).
PHILLIP: Well, saying though is worth contemplating though. I mean, the party has -- in the last election, they have, you know, peeled off some Democratic-leaning voters, at the same time, that according to a Gallup poll, the parties are actually moving to the extreme.
So, among Republicans, those who call themselves conservative have gone from -- conservative or very conservative gone from 58 percent and 94 to 77 percent. That's among liberals that's also happening, but to a much lesser extent.
TANDEN: Much lesser degree, it's gone from 25 to 50.
PHILLIP: Yes, so it's a much lesser --
TANDEN: Which has -- we have more moderates in the Democratic Party.
PHILLIP: But Americans are saying --
TANDEN: I mean, I'm sorry. I'm sorry.
JENNINGS: What Moderate is in your party?
TANDEN: What are you talking about?
JENNINGS: Who is the most moderate member of your party in the Congress right now?
TANDEN: Jared Golden, Maria Theresa Gluesenkamp, these are people who are winning Republican districts. They have districts that are Republican, a majority --
JENNINGS: You're going to nominate a moderate for president in '28?
TANDEN: Yes. I think we may well nominate a -- Joe Biden, was he a leftist socialist? Is that what you were thinking?
JENNINGS: He governed like one. He was the biggest (INAUDIBLE) of all time. He campaigned like a moderate and governed like Bernie Sanders and now he's out on his ass.
TANDEN: Okay. I'm just saying it seems like a big ideological difference between Bernie Sanders and Joe Biden. But I think the point I make is just as where are we today?
[22:10:01]
You are right about the voters that moved to Donald Trump, and those are the voters who are right now raising the largest scale concerns. What's Trump's support amongst Latinos? It has collapsed. What does Trump support amongst Asians? It has collapsed. What has Trump's support amongst young people? It has collapsed. He had a promise to those people that he would focus on the cost of living in this legislation that is in this -- sorry, this legislation.
The real issue here is that people, the people who are going to bear the burden of this are working class people. And that is, I think, a real question for Republicans going forward.
PHILLIP: All right. So, now, Lance, I need you to respond to that point specifically. Trump has strayed from what he said was an election that was about cost of living. And even his promises on immigration, according to the polling, have gone farther than a lot of Americans would like it to go. So, is there a risk here that even though there was a coalition that came together to elect him, he has left that coalition by focusing on ideological purity test priorities?
TROVER: I don't know how you can say that when he is just keeping campaign promises though. Let's go to the immigration issue. The border is shut down. No one is coming across the border. Four years, 12 million illegal immigrants pouring across this border. Within six months, Donald Trump has it shut down. That's keeping campaign promises. When does that ever happen to this country?
TANDEN: Is it (INAUDIBLE) campaign promise to say over and over again you won't touch Medicaid, and then you take a trillion dollars for Medicaid? Oh, I'm sorry, just in the last few days, saying this legislation shouldn't touch Medicaid, and it absolutely does. So, is that keeping a promise? That's not keeping a promise. Or is it I'm going to lower the cost of everything? I'm going to lower the cost of everything. I'm going to lower the cost of everyday goods, and then you put tariffs on people. Who pays those tariffs? The American people.
TROVER: Here's essentially what the Democrats are going to vote for whenever this bill, whatever happens with it. They're essentially saying, let's raise the income tax back up to where it was pre -- TANDEN: No, they're not.
TROVER: This is absolutely --
TANDEN: In fact, Democrats have offered amendment after amendment to keep the tax cuts for working class people and just not for the billionaires, and Republicans have voted against that multiple times. That was multiple votes over this weekend where Democrats said, let's do all the tax cuts for middle class people. Let's do all the tax cuts for people under a million. Let's do all the tax cuts under for $5 million. Republicans voted no on each --
JENNIGS: Neera, did any Democrats vote for the 2017 tax rates when they came up the first time?
TROVER: Of course not.
JENNINGS: They did not course. In fact, they called it -- in fact, Nancy Pelosi called, quote, Armageddon.
TANDEN: In 2017 --
JENNINGS: She called it Armageddon. Now you're saying they want tax rates. So, which is it? Oh, and, by the way --
TANDEN: In 2017, they offered -- the same thing happened. 2017, they offered amendments --
JENNINGS: You're way past the graveyard on this.
TANDEN: No, I'm not.
JENNINGS: You want higher taxes? We want lower taxes. It's been that way for time in memorial.
TANDEN: We're fighting for tax cuts for the middle class, and the fact is --
JENNINGS: That's what we did.
TANDEN: No, essentially, here's the deal --
TROVER: You talked about working people. What about no tax on tips.
PHILLIP: Guys, just give her a second. Let her finish her thought, then you can have a thought, and we got to go.
TANDEN: This legislation takes healthcare from 17 million people.
JENNINGS: No.
TANDEN: 17 million people will have less -- fewer people will have healthcare after this, a trillion dollars for Medicaid, in order to pay for tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans. You could actually just do the middle class tax cuts and not the tax cuts for billionaires and just not do the Medicaid tax cuts and Medicaid cuts. And people would've agreed with that, that would have been 67 --
JENNINGS: We're never going to agree to give -- we're never going to agree to give Medicaid to illegal aliens. And we're never going to agree to let people sit, able-bodied people.
PAYNE: You don't have to take your word on that. Take Josh Hawley's word on it.
TANDEN: Exactly.
PAYNE: I mean, Josh -- well, yes, while apologizing to his constituents. Take Lisa Murkowski's word on it.
JENNINGS: Also voted for it.
PAYNE: Okay, who apologized to the American people voting for it?
PHILLIP: Scott, whenever you bring up the able-bodied folks and undocumented immigrants, we're only getting to like 6 million. So, you have like a whole other 6 million.
JENNINGS: There's also people who are duplicated in multiple states.
PHILLIP: Depending on the estimate. I'm just saying, there are millions and millions of other people that you're not accounting for, and those people are going to be affected. They are going to be affected.
So, I think some of this is about, you know, honesty and advertising here with what's going on in Capitol Hill.
JENNINGS: I agree, I don't think she should be dishonest about it.
PHILLIP: What's going on in Capitol Hill. And if the Medicaid cuts are the price that Americans have to pay for tax cuts for everybody, including very wealthy people, then that should be what Republicans run on proudly, okay?
Up next for us, he's threatening everything from nations to colleges. So, is Donald Trump engaging in extortion? We'll debate that.
Plus, as MAGA celebrates eliminating USAID, a chilling new study is showing the life and death consequences that the cuts are having and will have.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[22:15:00]
PHILLIP: President Trump flirting with the line between leverage and extortion, and many say he is crossing it. Former Harvard President Larry Summers called Trump's effort to stop the university from enrolling international students, quote, extortion. Also, this week Trump warned Israeli prosecutors to drop Benjamin Netanyahu's corruption case, suggesting that he would withhold U.S. support if they don't. We also learned paramount settled Trump's 60 Minutes lawsuit for $16 million so that the company can get approval for its sale. Trump also told New York City's mayoral candidate, Zoran Mamdani, to behave himself if he's elected or he'll lose federal funding for the city. We didn't even mention that Eric Adams had his criminal case dropped in what seemed to be an arrangement that was about immigration enforcement in the city.
[22:20:00]
But this paramount settlement is something that obviously a lot of journalists are concerned about. But even over on Capitol Hill, lawmakers are asking that very question whether this was a sort of pay-to-play kind of deal, and the transparent way in which the Trump administration has basically said, if this doesn't get settled, no deal. I'm not really sure how that flies for this country.
PAYNE: It's just a really dangerous precedent. And, you know, I guess what's interesting to me, and I'd be curious what my Republican friends think about this. Why does he have to bully and intimidate everyone? Are his ideas just that bad? I mean, he's an unpopular president. We know that historically at this rate. He has an unpopular agenda. He's trying to force a terrible bill down the throats of the American people. He's got secret police trying to capture people off the streets.
JENNINGS: Secret police? What are you talking about?
PAYNE: Why in the world does he need to bully and intimidate people? Why? Why can't he convince people? What happened to using the powers of persuasion of the president? Is he able to do that or does he only have the ability to bully people?
JENNINGS: I'm hung up on the secret police. Who are the secret police?
PAYNE: The mask people who are grabbing 75-year-old grandmothers and folks like that off the street. I hope you don't encounter them.
JENNINGS: You mean the ICE agents who are out enforcing federal immigration law and are in danger of being --
PAYNE: Who are not announcing themselves and who are being docked (ph).
JENNINGS: So, yes, okay, secret police. Look, he has ideas, he has opinions, and he has influence because he is the president of the United States. You mentioned the Mamdani situation. He's out promising as part of his campaign platform to actively stop federal agents from enforcing federal law in New York City. Why wouldn't the president talk about federal funds for New York City?
PHILLIP: Just to be clear, he is saying that New York City's law enforcement will not cooperate with ICE, which is not a new policy, just to be clear.
(CROSSTALKS)
JENNINGS: Why is that a good thing? Do you agree with that?
TANDEN: Should he get --
PHILLIP: Scott, I don't have to agree with it just to tell you what the facts are.
JENNINGS: The facts are, they don't want --
PHILLIP: It's not a new policy in New York. It's also not a new policy in all the other parts of the country --
JENNINGS: Why is it the mayor of New York City saying, Mr. President will help you enforce federal law?
PHILLIP: Here's the thing. There are reasons. I don't -- you don't have to agree with it. Many people have debated this. I think it's debatable. The argument that they make is that when they allow law enforcement locally to do their jobs without immigrants fearing deportation, or that they would be handed over to the feds, law enforcement is able to more effectively combat crime. That's the argument.
JENNINGS: Here's what I hear, that you have someone who may well be the next mayor of New York City, who's openly saying out loud, I don't want federal laws enforced in New York. So, the setup for this piece was what's Donald Trump doing with these situation (ph)? What he's saying in New York City is, why would I continue to fund a city who won't even enforce federal law or help me enforce federal that will be violated every day?
PAYNE: Do you think he should arrest that person, that public official? Do you think he should arrest a public official because he disagrees with his policy?
JENNINGS: I think if someone is actively violating federal law, they're in trouble, just like that congresswoman who violated federal law at the ICE facility.
PHILLIP: So, Trump -- speaking of Mamdani, he said, I'm not going to let this communist lunatic destroy New York. Rest assured I hold all the levers and have all the cards. And so to that, I ask, what happened to federalism? What happened to the federal government staying out of the affairs of state and localities, whatever? Like it doesn't matter anymore?
TROVER: No, go ahead.
TANDEN: I don't think this is just a mere federalism question. I mean, what's interesting about all these things you've just discussed here is this is the largest expanse of the powers of the federal government. For the federal government to say, we don't like what a university teaches or who it admits, for a federal government to say, I don't like what the media is doing, I don't like what it's -- what I'm going to use the power of my antitrust abilities here, the Department of Justice, to intimidate media companies. I don't like what particular businesses are doing, so I'm going to determine their prices through tariffs.
I mean, what is interesting about this whole discussion, I am a big believer in, you know, deferring to states on things that they should do. But here, you have massive expansion of federal powers and traditional conservatives. I mean, I have to ask like, are you not concerned that a future Democratic president will decide that we can use the powers of the state in this way. I mean, there was a reason why Republicans for so long were concerned about federal overreach and now because it's, you know, maybe false king (ph) here, you're all okay with it, but it seems like the principles have gone out the window.
TROVER: Well, it seems to me the Supreme Court has spoken to this just last week in terms of his powers when it comes to, you know, executive orders and the like. But did anybody go into --
(CROSSTALKS)
PHILLIP: They were talking about whether individual district courts can nationally enjoin. But I think the question is about whether the federal executive should be, or can put their hands in every facet of American life and essentially coerce private entities, private companies, to do their will and use the force of the federal government to threaten them to do it.
[22:25:11]
TROVER: Well, let's just take a look at the universities. I mean, these universities take hundreds of millions, sometimes billions of dollars, taxpayer dollars. And so somehow they're not supposed to be, you know, held to account by the federal government? I mean, let me finish.
TANDEN: What about the university's cancer research?
TROVER: Let me let finish.
TANDEN: Why is that okay?
TROVER: Let me finish.
PHILLIP: Well, I mean, I think that that's also the other part of this. And when we talk about the universities and you use Trump's preferred way of describing this, they get, they take, they are providing a service, okay? So, they are being paid for their work. So, it's not like charity, like they're doing cancer research.
TROVER: But when does anybody that receives taxpayer funding suddenly that, oh, you're off limits? No, you have got anti-Semitism going on in your campus or you don't allow, and you run off every single conservative or you allow every conservative speaker --
(CROSSTALKS)
TROVER: We'll fix it next time. We'll change it next time.
TANDEN: So, it's okay to take cancer research away from cancer patients because --
TROVER: What I'm saying is --
JENNINGS: Why don't they use their endowment if it's that important?
(CROSSTALKS)
TANDEN: Every -- this is a really important point.
JENNINGS: If it's a matter of life and death, why don't they dip into their $5 billion?
TANDEN: It's not just Harvard. They've actually cut -- they've cut research for cancer in universities across the country. But the issue here is, why is it okay? I'm sure I think it's a good --
JENNINGS: Why is it okay to violate the civil rights of mass numbers --
TANDE: It's wrong. It's absolutely wrong.
JENNINGS: Okay. And that's what the president's argument is. You're violating their civil rights.
TANDEN: Okay.
JENNINGS: You need to pay attention to what we're saying here. You can't take tax dollars if you're going to violate the civil rights of these students.
TANDEN: Okay. So, you're okay with like the fact that we are going to be farther away from cures for dementia, for Alzheimer's, because the president's --
JENNINGS: That's your excuse for civil rights violation?
TANDEN: No. I mean --
JENNINGS: Well, we'll have to accept some anti-Semitism --
PHILLIP: I'm sorry, just one second, because I think, yes, I mean, honestly, there's something called proportionality, okay? And it's like you want to just use a sledgehammer for every single problem when there are ways that they can address anti-Semitism civil rights violations, by addressing those issues. They were talking to Harvard before somebody in the Trump administration sent a letter that wasn't approved, threatening them and blowing this whole thing up.
So, I guess the idea that there's only one way to deal with this and that is to basically jeopardize all of America's scientific research for the next God knows how many years, decade, or more, that is a completely disingenuous argument. There are other ways, Scott, that do not diminish the importance of battling anti-Semitism, but that address that issue and don't punish the rest of the country.
JENNINGS: What other ways? The only language the universities understand is money.
PHILLIP: Why would you punish the rest of the country? The woman in Iowa whose mother --
JENNINGS: If the universities have just said yes --
PHILLIP: The woman in Iowa whose mother is dying of cancer and needs an experimental cure, why should she be punished for an issue that could have been dealt with in a more targeted way?
JENNINGS: Why can't the universities just say yes? You're mad at Donald Trump can't. Why aren't you mad at the universities for violating civil rights in the first place?
PHILLIP: I would love an answer to the question. Why is it that the Trump administration refuses to act in a proportional way to the issue at hand? Why?
JENNINGS: That's your -- it's your view that it's not proportional. I think civil rights is important.
TROVER: This has been going on for decades.
PHILLIP: What is going on for decades?
TROVERS: They way conservatives have been treated on campus, this anti-Semitism issue has been exploding for decades. To Scott's point, they understand nothing but money and blunt force trauma.
(CROSSTALKS)
TANDEN: You just said it. You just said it. This is the strategy, blunt force trauma.
TROVER: Yes, because they understand --
TANDEN: The president wants to use blunt force trauma, your words, to accomplish these particular tests (ph).
TROVER: They have been saying here --
TANDEN: and you know what the actual appropriate response to anti- Semitism at the Department of Education, where previous administrations, bipartisan, George Bush's administration, other administrations, is to do like fines and other things. And --
JENNINGS: That wasn't working out. That wasn't working.
TANDEN: And now the universities --
TROVER: Northwestern University, what did they do? They made a deal with the protesters, not to mention justice in Palestine. That's their answer. So, when you talk about proportionality, there is no proportionality because they don't understand anything other than to cave into groups like Students for Justice in Palestine.
(CROSSTALKS)
PAYNE: These universities have money taken from them, it doesn't just hurt the people who are targeted. You know what hurts? Kids from Iowa, from Missouri who rely on those universities paying for foreign students to make it easier for students from middle class communities all around the country --
TANDEN: Or working class.
PAYNE: -- or working class communities to go to those schools. So, there are knock-on effects.
PHILLIP: Up next for us, a sobering prediction as the Trump administration brags about ending USAID. A new study is saying that DOGE's cuts may lead to 14 million people dying by the end of the decade. Now, former Presidents Bush and Obama are giving a rare rebuke of Trump's decision.
[22:30:01]
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
PHILLIP: Barack Obama and George W. Bush are uniting to speak out against President Trump's decision to end USAID, which Obama calls a travesty. And now the administration brags about DOGE cutting the agency. Researchers say it could cost millions of lives.
[22:34:59]
A new study estimates that the gutting of USAID could contribute to 14 million deaths by 2030. Nearly a third of those, some 4.5 million, are children under the age of five.
Secretary of State Marco Rubio hailed the agency's last day, quoted saying, quote, "life-saving humanitarian aid and promotion of economic development abroad must be in furtherance of an America First foreign policy."
That quote actually, I think, bears pondering. Life-saving aid must be in furtherance of an American -- America First policy. There's that. On top of that, you have the former U.N. ambassador and USAID administrator saying that the idea that life-saving aid is continuing. Now that parts of USAID have been brought into the State Department, just not true. Listen to this.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
SAMANTHA POWER, FORMER U.S. AMBASSADOR TO U.N.: They have cut 80, 90 percent of the life-saving programming going on overseas. It depends on the program. We can go through specifics, but whether it's HIV AIDS or malaria or TB, right now there are families not getting malaria bed nets.
What Secretary Rubio continues to state publicly is that the life- saving assistance is continuing. It is not. What he is saying is false. So far, what he has done in the name of efficiency is cut this life saving programming.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
PHILLIP: So, for the cost of, I don't know, Trump's garden of heroes that's being funded by Congress right now, you could save hundreds of thousands, maybe millions of lives. I'm just not understanding why something that was bipartisan for so long, Lance, because everybody understands the power of soft power, why that has suddenly become, if we give it to them, we can't, you know, it's not going to be for us, you know, this sort of zero-sum game of it all.
LANCE TROVER, FORMER SPOKESMAN, DOUG BURGUM 2024 CAMPAIGN: You know, I got to admit, anytime I hear this 14 million people are going to die because of Donald Trump, I'm sorry, I just glaze over like the rest of America. I'm so, I'm not sure. I'm not suggesting USAID.
PHILLIP: That's kind of a sad thing to say.
TROVER: No. No. That's exactly no. That's what every decision Donald Trump makes. It the world is ending. Twenty million are going to die. No one is going to make it out of line. That is the standard (inaudible) of every --
(CROSSTALK)
PHILLIP: Okay. But let's, okay, let's take Donald Trump out of it. Take Donald Trump out of it.
TROVER: Let me take him. I mean, this is --
PHILLIP: No. No. Take him out of it. Take him out of it. American -- America stops funding lifesaving aid. Millions of people will die as a result. Does that matter to you?
TROVER: If that's accurate, yes. That would matter to me. But the secretary of state disagrees with that and the secretary of state would say, hey. I put in a request for $17 billion in foreign aid. It may not be to the levels of what Joe Biden and others --
JOEL PAYNE, DEMOCRATIC STRATEGIST: So, I'm not sure that's true. Because he just said life-saving aid is tied to adherence to Trump's policy, one. Two, Marco Rubio is a very or at least the Marco Rubio that existed before Donald Trump, who's very supportive of this type of soft power.
I mean, Marco Rubio was one of the biggest proponents in Congress of investing in programs like USAID. And it does just, I think it just signals Republican fealty to Donald Trump, and also Republicans detaching from leadership around the world. I mean, it's not just supporting programs, giving people money, supporting health outcomes.
It is making sure that the American, your reputation around the globe is held in the type of regard that we don't have to send troops in every time we need to influence something halfway across the world. Sending in money from malaria nets is, in many cases, more effective than sending in thousands of troops.
PHILLIP: There's also Ebola. I mean, that's one of the things that, Samantha Power talked about. I mean, I covered Americans came home. One American came home and had contracted this horrible, horrible virus. And the only reason that did not become a global outbreak is because we stepped in as a nation to build the infrastructure to prevent that disease from crossing borders.
So, will we do that again? I don't know. Should we? Probably. That's America first.
NEERA TANDEN, PRESIDENT & CEO, CENTER FOR AMERICAN PROGRESS: I think what's really odd about all of this is that Elon Musk came in with a kind of chainsaw, created a lot of damage, and I got to think if we wanted to just be honest, I think a lot of people, Republicans and Democrats, would say some just minimal investments we've made to see -- to save sick children from dying in another country are, like, good investments to make.
And I mean, I hope that now that maybe Elon Musk is persona non grata in the Republican Party, we could all just admit that some of this was just unnecessarily hurting people and down at the hands of a person who is like the richest man in America, in the world.
Not the richest man in America, the richest man in the world basically slashed this program that provided aid to sick children, sick mothers in Africa, sick people around the world, and that is wrong. And, you know, maybe we could all agree with that.
[22:40:00]
PAYNE: Ranked cruelty for no real reason.
PHILLIP: Scott, I mean, the State Department is bringing in some of these functions, but what's also a result of this is that by tearing it down in the first place, they're now trying to rebuild things that they probably shouldn't have been torn down. That seems pretty wasteful to me, but at the end of the day, what do you think is going to be happening here?
Are we really going to pull back from leadership in the world on soft power, leaving millions and millions of people at risk of dying of things that are incredibly preventable, just to say that you did it?
SCOTT JENNINGS, CNN POLITICAL COMMENTATOR: Look, I think a couple of things can be true at the same time. Soft power is a good thing, and it does make a difference when it is deployed correctly and in a smart way. And the president's opinion and Marco Rubio's opinion is that the USAID bureaucracy and the quasi-governmental shadow bureaucracy and these NGOs that had grown up around it were in many cases taking taxpayer dollars and not using it in furtherance of the foreign policy of the current administration.
And so, what they've tried to do is eliminate the bureaucracy that they think was working at cross purposes with what they believed is best for America and put it directly under the accountable political leadership of the State Department, which in this case is the Secretary of State.
No. I don't believe we are fully pulling back on soft power, but there's a difference between smart spending and dumb money, and we have exposed time and again millions upon millions of dollars being spent on programs that everybody at this table would agree sound and are ridiculous.
PHILLIP: You know, the last word I'll say about that is because I was also here when we were reporting on some of those programs that were being cited as USAID programs when they were in fact State Department programs. And what's going to happen is that when the next president comes in who is not a Donald Trump or not a Republican, all those very things that you think are not in furtherance of Donald Trump's policy are not going to be in furtherance of another president's policy.
JENNINGS: Well, okay. Let me --
(CROSSTALK)
PHILLIP: So, there are consequences to that too, and maybe you're okay with that.
JENNINGS: I am.
PHILLIP: But we're going to be sling shotting ideologically from president to president, and that's the structure --
JENNINGS: Okay.
PHILLIP: -- that's being created here.
JENNINGS: You and I are in agreement actually about this. I actually believe that the elected political leadership of this country sets the foreign policy, and our soft power and our military strategy ought to reflect what's in the best interest of the foreign policy on which that president got elected.
So, if the American people choose a president who want to do foreign aid and solve power a different way, that's fine, but it ought to be up to the politically elected leadership, not the bureaucracy that apparently answers to no one.
PHILLIP: I'll check back in with you, and there's a Democratic president on that very topic.
Coming up next for us, President Trump says New York City's Democratic mayoral candidate is a communist. We'll discuss whether that's true.
[22:45:00]
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
PHILLIP: President Trump is taunting New York City's Democratic mayoral candidate, Zohran Mamdani, calling him a communist and threatening to deport him.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
DONALD TRUMP, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: We don't need a communist in this country, but if we have one, I'm going to be watching over him very carefully on behalf of the nation. A lot of people are saying, he's here illegally. He's, you know, we're going to look at everything, but and ideally, he's going to turn out to be much less than a communist. But right now, he's a communist. That's not a socialist.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
PHILLIP: Mamdani was asked about that comment and his politics in an interview with NBC. Listen.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
KRISTEN WELKER, HOST, NBC: How do you respond? Are you a communist?
ZOHRAN MAMDANI (D), NEW YORK CITY MAYORAL CANDIDATE: No. I am not. I call myself a Democratic socialist, and as income inequality has declined nationwide, it has increased in New York City. And ultimately, what we need is a city where every single person can thrive.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
PHILLIP: Now, we could spend some time on the differences between communism and socialism. Not sure that's what the viewers want tonight. However, and --
(CROSSTALK)
JENNINGS: I would love to hear you.
PHILLIP: To be honest, I am not sure that is what the Democratic Party wants tonight. But at the same time, that is where we are. That is the conversation that we're having.
PAYNE: Well, boy, I take a bet on whether Donald Trump could actually define communism and the difference with communism. So, --
PHILLIP: That's true too.
PAYNE: I'm taking all bets here at the table right now.
PHILLIP: That's true too.
PAYNE: Listen. Donald Trump, when we talked about this earlier, about being a bully, Democrats actually should be happy that we have folks, again, who have a wide range of appeal that are within our tent. And you're going to need Zohran Mamdani's and people who are moved by Zohran Mamdani as a part of a bigger Democratic coalition.
So, yes, he might not use the language, he might not actually line up with the agenda of every other Democrat across the country, but that's okay. I mean, you, big tent parties need to have room for people who do not actually align pure -- purely with every single thing that the master party says.
PHILLIP: Scott, you can't chuckle at that because you were just talking about how big your tent was. But look --
(CROSSTALK)
JENNINGS: Oh, it's awful. I mean, their tent is so diverse that in one corner, you have the socialist, and in the other corner, the communist.
PHILLIP: Listen, hey, --
JENNINGS: It's really wide.
PHILLIP: Hey, look. You just told me.
PAYNE: Why do you think he's a communist?
JENNINGS: Because he literally uses the phrase, sees the means of production
PHILLIP: Okay. But that's not the distinction between socialism and communism, but I hope we can.
TANDEN: Can I just give an example of a person who has seen the means of production? It is a fascinating thing that the federal government has a stake now in a steel company. That's never happened before.
It's actually Donald Trump who decided to have the federal government own this -- own the production of a company, usually conservatives would have criticized that, but I guess it's because of the cult king we don't.
[22:50:01]
PHILLIP: So, Tom Suozzi, the New York representative, he's a Democrat. He's a moderate. He actually is a moderate. He's a moderate.
TANDEN: A moderate.
PHILLIP: He won in a special election. He said this in an op ed. Part of what of Mamdani's appeal is his plain language. Both he and Mr. Trump tuned in to voices beyond the beltway buzz. We need not mirror them, but understand what their victories revealed, a deep frustration with politics as usual, and a longing for leaders who address kitchen table concerns. Reclaiming that focus isn't just smart politics for Democrats. It is a return to roots. Right?
TANDEN: I actually think Mamdani's election signified that the cost of living is still a concern. It's the cost of living is a deep concern today as it was six months ago, as it was a year ago, as it was two years ago, and that, you know, the irony is that Donald Trump who said he would work on cost of living hasn't done that, which has given a lot of people --
(CROSSTALK) PHILLIP: I just have to also note as we are talking about, you know, candidates who are making promises to voters to address their economic, you know, needs. Donald Trump, as a Republican, ran on massive tariffs, which is not Republican orthodoxy. Do be clear. He ran on reshoring and sort of upending globalization, not very conservative.
But now that's Republican orthodoxy and nobody on the Republican Party is complaining about it, or at least not the ones that Trump likes.
TROVER: You said something about the roots, the roots of both socialism and communism, I think we can agree, are a rejection of capitalism, the very thing that has made our country the greatest country in the world right now. That is where he is. You pulled out the line about, taking over means of production. I think it's very clear where this guy is going.
I don't know why you guys wanted to keep talking about it. I would not want to be talking about this guy because look, that may work in New York City. That may work for those voters there. But the old saying, is it going to play in Peoria? I don't think so.
PAYNE: There's a very good chance. There's a very good chance that at the end of this election in New York, you're going to have lots of voters who voted for Donald Trump last year and voted for Zohran Mamdani this year.
PHILLIP: Well, that actually we know that that had happened.
TANDEN: That's right.
PAYNE: Absolutely.
PHILLIP: Because Mamdani performed better than the Democrat in these Trump parts of New York.
TANDEN: Or these places that moved to Trump.
PHILLIP: In places that moved to Trump. So, there are parts of the city where immigrant communities voted for Donald Trump and then turned around and voted for a democratic socialist. That's a real thing. Just like it was a real thing when those same Obama voters turned around and voted for Donald Trump. So, --
TANDEN: And look, I --
(CROSSTALK)
JENNINGS: And congratulations for explaining just how terrible of a campaign Kamala Harris ran. I mean, she couldn't keep people who want to vote for socialist from voting for Donald Trump. Look, New York City has had --
PAYNE: Do you not vote for socialist?
JENNINGS: Frankly, terrible governance for years. And now this narrow, narrow, narrow sliver of liberal, rich, white, female Democrats who nominated Mamdani who have amount -- enough money to lead when he destroys the city nominated this guy. The working class went for other people, but what he's going to do is end up destroying the city for the working class, defunding the police, emptying the jails, fighting against federal enforcement of our immigration laws. The rich liberals who voted for him can leave. The working class can't.
PHILLIP: Coming up next, the panel will give us their nightcaps. They'll tell us what product they'd put their name to inspired by a presidential perfume.
But first, a programming note. Don't miss a whole story episode on the trial of Sean Diddy Combs. Laura Coates looks at how we got here and what's next for the hip hop mogul.
It airs Saturday night at 8 p.m. Eastern right here on CNN.
[22:55:00]
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
PHILLIP: We are back, and it's time for the news nightcap fragrance edition.
President Trump, as you may know, has a new fragrance that he is calling his official scents. Here is the woman's perfume, each selling for about $250. So, you each have 30 seconds to tell us what product you would want to put your name behind, Joel.
PAYNE: Well, you all probably know the movie "Men in Black," the "Men in Black" neuralyzer that erases our memories. I think many Americans would love to erase the memories of the last nine months or so. So that would be my product.
PHILLIP: Scott.
JENNINGS: Okay. You know, a lot of times on this show, we spill the beans and we deliver we deliver roast. We deliver roast. So, I was thinking ahead of the fourth of July, what can I do to unite the country? And what I came up with was my own special brand of coffee.
PHILLIP: Scott.
JENNINGS: Scott Jennings Common Grounds coffee. It's a 100 percent original roast, which you do get on the show. Unless you think this is coffee just for Republicans, it's actually also endorsed by our own Abby Phillip.
PHILLIP: Oh, my God.
JENNINGS: The highest rated coffee for the highest rated show coming to a grocery store near you. Scott Jennings Common Grounds for the July 4 is my product.
PHILLIP: I guess we're not --
JENNINGS: get it tonight.
PHILLIP: I guess we're not working Scott hard enough because he's got plenty of time for this.
(CROSSTALK)
TANDEN: Yes. Some of us don't have this much time.
JENNINGS: And I want to thank the people over at the grocery store for helping me mock this up today. They were asking when we going to put this into production. Putting your face on this, I assume, is going to sell a million bottles of this.
PHILLIP: As long as I get a cut, I'm good. All right. Go ahead, Neera.
TANDEN: Much less time to think about this one, but I would say, my thing was my new product would be Republican spines. I think we should buy them as much as possible.
PHILLIP: Okay. Go ahead, Lance.
[22:59:56]
TROVER: I love my dog, Agnes. She goes everywhere with me, but she sheds. She sheds a lot. So, I would, like, probably try to create a shampoo. Maybe it's a perfume, maybe it's a special coffee for her to drink. I don't care. For her to stop shedding, I'd all the proceeds can go to dog shelters around the world, but I would love to stop the shedding.
PHILLIP: If you figure that out, I'd take a cut of that too. You make a killing.
Booker T sends his regards on that. Everybody, thank you very much, and thanks for watching Newsnight. You can catch me anytime on your favorite social media X, Instagram, and TikTok. CNN's coverage continues right now.
