Return to Transcripts main page
CNN NewsNight with Abby Phillip
Trump Upends Trade Strategy With New Tariffs on Nations; Americans' Support of Israel's War in Gaza Hits Record Low. U.S. Support for Israel's Actions Drops; "The Washington Post" Reports Smithsonian Removing References To Trump's Two Impeachments From Exhibit. Aired 10-11p ET
Aired July 31, 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, deal or divorce, a global economy on edge with Donald Trump's trade deadline two hours away. And he floats doubling his universal tariffs.
Plus, America's support for Israel's war in Gaza hits a new low, as liberals propose a provocative new litmus test.
JON FAVREAU, HOST, POD SAVE AMERICA: I don't want my taxes funding this. I don't want the people who represent us voting for that funding.
PHILLIP: Also, the socialist hoping to become Gotham's mayor faces flack from both the right and the left.
ZOHRAN MAMDANI (D), NEW YORK CITY MAYORAL CANDIDATE: It is beyond me that politicians are looking to use these dates to score such cynical political points.
PHILLIP: After New York's worst shooting in a quarter century.
And --
KAROLINE LEAVITT, WHITE HOUSE PRESS SECRETARY: We are proud to announce that the construction of the new White House ballroom,
PHILLIP: -- Donald Trump's gold rush at the People's House is expanding with a $200 million price tag.
Live at the table, Scott Jennings, Jamal Simmons, Leigh McGowan and Congressman Mike Lawler.
Americans with different perspectives aren't talking to each other, but here, they do.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
PHILLIP: Good evening. I'm Abby Phillip in New York. Let's get right to what America's talking about, the chaos continues. Donald Trump's permanent tariffs were supposed to take effect in two hours, but instead, the president announced new tariffs on dozens of nations taking effect in a week. He also upended the entire strategy. There will now be a 10 percent tariff on countries that have trade surpluses with the U.S., for countries that have a trade deficit, 15 percent. More than a dozen countries have higher rates because of trade deals that they already negotiated, or because Donald Trump just said so.
So, as for the two of America's biggest trading partners, he is giving Mexico 90 more days to make a deal. Canada not so lucky as Trump is raising their tariff rate to 35 percent. A Canadian official says Canada shouldn't settle for anything less than the right deal. Now is not the time to roll over. We need to stand our ground.
Joining us in our fifth seat at the table is Natasha Sarin, president of the Budget Lab at Yale. Natasha, has there been any deadline that has been set on trade by this administration that has actually been kept?
NATASHA SARIN, PRESIDENT, THE BUDGET LAB AT YALE: So, we do continue to see the can being kicked down the road. And for those keeping track at home, the effective tariff rates have changed more than a hundred times on more than 40 days in this administration.
PHILLIP: A hundred times?
SARIN: Where we are now.
PHILLIP: How's that even possible?
SARIN: Well, where we are now after, as slew of changes today, is that you are going to see effective tariff rates of over 18 percent at current levels. That's relative to 2.5 percent when President Trump took office.
My colleagues and I at The Budget Lab at Yale have estimated what the impact of that is going to be on the economy. And what we've concluded is that you're going to see price increases for the average American family of around $2,400 annually and a smaller economy because less Growth and less investment in this country means fewer jobs by around 0.5 percentage points of GDP, which is about $150 billion. That boils down to like a thousand dollars out of every American family's pocket because the economy's going to be smaller than it would've been in the absence of this trade war.
PHILLIP: Maybe that explains why Josh Hawley wants to hand out $600 rebate checks for the tariffs that people are going to be paying now.
SCOTT JENNINGS, CNN SENIOR POLITICAL COMMENTATOR: Yes, I don't know about that idea. Because part of the issue of bringing in the tariff money is to help alleviate some of our national debt, I think, and to pay for other priorities. I mean, I hear your talking points, but, look, GDP came in at 3 percent.
(CROSSTALKS)
JENNINGS: People are investing in America.
PHILLIP: Hold on.
JENNINGS: I don't --
PHILLIP: Okay.
JENNINGS: This doom and gloom of --
PHILLIP: Scott, let me clear this up.
JENNINGS: It's now July.
PHILLIP: Let me clear this up for you, Scott. What you just said were talking points. What she just said were facts.
JENNINGS: GDP is 3 percent. The market is up. Companies are -- deals are being cut.
PHILLIP: Yes. GDP is 3 percent. GDP net this year so far for the first two quarters of this year is an average of 1.2 percent. For all of 2024, it was 2.8 percent. So, really, we are actually growing at a -- on average. And I don't even want to overstate this, but if you're using GDP as a metric --
JENNINGS: It just came out.
PHILLIP: I'm just pointing out that if you look at it over the course of the time that Donald Trump has been in office, the number is not a terribly impressive number.
SARIN: Can I also --
PHILLIP: But let me let Natasha respond because --
SARIN: Well, Abby's point about the 3 percent that you're quoting, Scott, I think it's actually really quite important to put it in context.
[22:05:00]
So, here are some more numbers.
It's true that growth at this point last year was more like 2.4 percent. It's also true that in November, when we predicted what growth was going to look like based on the economic trajectory, we were anticipating growth in the first half of this year of around 2.2 percent. What we've actually seen is growth at around 1.2 percent, and that is precisely --
JENNINGS: What was it in the last quarter? It was 3 percent --
SARIN: Scott, can I --
JENNINGS: -- after his policy fully took office.
SARIN: Actually, Abby, I think it would be useful --
PHILLIP: Scott, do you understand that there's a first quarter and a second quarter, and when you take first and second and you average them together --
JENNINGS: Do you understand he took over that first quarter and --
(CROSSTALKS)
PHILLIP: I mean, these are just numbers. It's just math. We're talking about, Scott.
JENNINGS: Why are you down-talking the United States?
PHILLIP: Why are you fighting about math? It's just math.
JENNINGS: Why are you fighting --
PHILLIP: All right. Go ahead, Leigh.
LEIGH MCGOWAN, NEW YORK TIMES BEST-SELLING AUTHOR, A RETURN TO COMMON SENSE: Most Americans don't speak math. Most Americans aren't Yale economists. Most Americans don't speak acronyms, GDP 2.8 percent, 4 percent. We don't talk like that. You just said it's going to cost us probably around $2,500 more per family per year or per person per year?
SARIN: Per family per year.
MCGOWAN: Per family per year. So the costs are going up because of these tariffs. And I think what most people don't understand is tariffs are paid -- we've been confused by it a lot. Tariffs are end up being put onto the consumer. The company that imports the thing, brings it in, they pay the tariff. The tariff is then passed on to the consumer. We pay more. So, all these numbers that we're throwing around, the regular American doesn't understand 2.8 to 1.6. They do understand if groceries go up, if housing goes up, if the cost of their goods go up, they understand it like that. And what we're saying is the choices this administration has made will make our costs go up.
PHILLIP: Look, Congressman, just on a very basic level just the breaking news tonight, which is that just shy of this deadline that Donald Trump himself set, he has now changed the rules of the game yet again. And just from a business perspective, how on Earth is any business in this hemisphere or anywhere around the world supposed to understand how they should proceed, where they should do business, where they should manufacture their goods, who they can sell to? How are they supposed to understand that when it keeps changing?
REP. MIKE LAWLER (R-NY): Well, as I said, when the president announced these tariffs way back in April, that as a short-term negotiating tool, this could be very effective. And what we have already seen with Japan, with China, with Vietnam, with Thailand, with the E.U., is massive trade deals, trillions of dollars of investment into the United States, that, by the way, would not have happened, but for using the leverage of tariffs to force these countries to negotiate better trade deals.
PHILLIP: I think that is very debatable. I just want to point out that many people --
LAWLER: Where do you think these trade deals came from?
PHILLIP: Well, no. Many people question whether the investment will happen and whether the investment is actually real, or whether they're counting investments that were already going to happen. They're -- it's funny -- some of it could be funny math.
So, let's just leave it at --
LAWLER: Okay. So, that's funny math when these countries are announcing that they are coming to terms to invest in the United States, when they're talking about reducing trade barriers and barriers to entry into their country.
PHILLIP: They have a real reason to want to do that. I'm just saying --
LAWLER: Of course, because they want to lower tariff rate.
PHILLIP: I'm just saying trust, but verify. Promises of investments need to be verified. You know why? Because in the first Trump administration, there were similar promises and a lot of them did not come to fruition. So, that's why I think there's a healthy degree of skepticism.
LAWLER: Let's see what happened with, for instance, the tariffs that were put on China. What did the Biden administration do? They not only kept them, they tried to increase them. If you look at the fact that countries have agreed to investment into the U.S., businesses have repatriated dollars into the U.S.
You are seeing economic growth, as Scott pointed out rightly. Q2 was the first full quarter of President Trump's administration. You just got the tax bill done at the end of Q2. The tax bill is going to provide real tax relief to thousands of dollars to the average American family. In my district, for instance, with the increased cap on SALT, 90 percent of my district will be able to fully deduct their state and local taxes. That is a massive tax cut, a $6,000 tax deduction for seniors. That is massive.
MCGOWAN: But this is based --
LAWLER: So, this offsets --
MCGOWAN: This is based on the numbers that have changed a hundred times in 40 days, right? You are basing these numbers on something that's constantly changes based on the whim from one person.
LAWLER: You're worried about the strategy. At the end of the day, the question is, what is the end result? And what you're seeing is countries are cutting deals with the United States of America. Businesses are reinvesting in the United States of America. Job growth is up. GDP is up. Consumer Price Index is down. That is a -- we are headed in the right direction.
PHILLIP: Let me make a couple of quick points and just to -- in response to that. Business investment is down. Consumer spending is up, but just a tick, not a huge amount. The other thing is, what is the end goal, in your, view of the tariff policy? Because I understand that the investments, but when you look at the numbers that we're looking at today, Donald Trump says tariffs are good, so you would expect him to want tariffs to be sky high because they're good, in his mind.
[22:10:09]
But what he's done is he's brought tariffs down, whether or not you've negotiated with him or not. So, what's the point of a negotiation with Trump when he's just going to pick a random number?
LAWLER: Look, what he is doing is forcing these countries that have forever had barriers to entry to U.S. goods that have had tariffs on U.S. products.
PHILLIP: Okay.
LAWLER: Okay. He is forcing them to renegotiate.
PHILLIP: Yes.
LAWLER: And when you have -- wait minute. When you have the E.U. that has put price controls on U.S. prescription drugs --
PHILLIP: The E.U. is a great -- I'm glad you brought it up, Congressman, because the E.U. is a great example. He brokered a deal with the E.U. The Americans are paying higher tariffs, okay, 15 percent or so now on most goods. They did not renegotiate pharmaceutical prices, agricultural barriers, digital services taxes. They didn't touch any of those things in the E.U. deal. Why not?
LAWLER: Again, the tariffs are on, if you're importing goods from the E.U., what we have been able to secure is not only investment from the E.U. but a reduction in barriers to entry for U.S. products.
(CROSSTALKS)
PHILLIP: They didn't touch any of those things. That is also a fact. Jamal?
JAMAL SIMMONS, FORMER DEPUTY ASSISTANT TO PRESIDENT BIDEN: Let's talk about U.S. products for a second. I've been spending a lot of time in my home state of Michigan, right? So, right now, people in Michigan are worried because the president has blown up the USMCA, right? So, auto companies are about at the end of their inventory about the cars they already have stock. Now, they're going to have to go make new cars. They got to buy new parts. Those parts are moving back and forth across the border between Canada and Mexico and the United States. At the same time, what's going to happen with, as imported cars go up, they're worried that the used car price is also going to go up because people can't afford new cars anymore, which means they're going to all be in the used car market. So, people who are lower income are going to have to pay higher money, higher prices in order to buy a used car.
These are having real life impacts. Governor Gretchen Whitmer of Michigan just did a whole release talking about the impact on people trying to go back to school and what this is going to do to school supplies. This is all going to have real impacts on families. And I think the president is arbitrary in the way he's doing this and companies can't predict. Families can't predict. It's going to have real impacts on American companies and workers.
PHILLIP: So, we want to know, as a nation, the Fed certainly wants to know what's the trajectory of prices in the United States. And up until now it's been TBD because Trump's tariff threats have not really actually been carried out.
Based on what he announced today, let's say the seven-day window holds, what are you seeing, Natasha?
SARIN: So, a couple of pieces that are quite important. One is that we are already seeing higher tariff rates. The effective tariff rate in June and July was closer to 10 percent. They're going to go way up now. But we are also seeing, as Scott was pointing out, tariff revenue as a result of those higher tariff rates. But what we are also seeing and what we learned today is that inflation is ticking up exactly in the sectors that are exposed to these tariffs.
So, durable goods inflation in this country, that's stuff like your furniture or it's stuff like your child's stroller or their car seat, prices have ticked up 1.7 percent. I know those numbers are --
MCGOWAN: That's good, I could follow that.
SARIN: But to give you one, to give you some context, that is the highest price increase in a six-month period that we've seen in any six months since in the last four decades, absent the pandemic. So, prices are already going up, and the result of these effective tariff rates that are now going to be more than twice what we've had in the last few months is that prices are going to go up even more.
It's true, Scott, that we're going to be collecting revenue, and to your point, we have real fiscal needs and we need to collect revenue. My problem isn't that we are going to have more tax revenue in this country. My problem is that tariffs are a terrible way to raise tax revenue because they're born disproportionately by low and middle income people who consumed the most of what they owned.
SIMMONS: And were we at this rate the last time around 1934, and remember what happened in the 1930s.
SARIN: We do. We have a trajectory and a history of experience.
SIMMONS: It's the Great Depression for those of you who are not -- SARIN: And Ronald Reagan, Scott, I know because we've talked about him in the past, he famously said, we shouldn't actually call this stuff protectionism. We should call it destructionism. Because what it does is it costs the American economy jobs, and it costs us the opportunity to grow.
PHILLIP: All right. Natasha Sarin, on that note, thank you very much for joining us.
Next, America's support for Israel's war in Gaza hitting a record low tonight as some liberals are demanding litmus tests for candidates. Another special guest is going to be with us at the table.
Plus, the Smithsonian has suddenly removed Trump from an impeachment exhibit at the American History Museum. We'll discuss. That's next.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[22:15:00]
PHILLIP: New tonight, America's support for Israel's actions in Gaza hitting a record low as the starvation crisis there grows. 60 percent of Americans disapprove up 15 percent since the start of the war. The plunge is even starker when you look at young Americans. The criticism is so loud that some liberals are even floating a litmus test for future candidates that they should not support funding for Israel's military.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
FAVREAU: I don't think Democratic candidates should be should take money from APAC or vote to fund military support for Israel anymore, like I really don't. Like it's just -- in this government, absolutely not. And that especially includes, I think, the next Democratic nominee for president.
TOMMY VIETOR, HOST, POD SAVE AMERICA: There has to be a total mindset change in the Democratic Party.
FAVREAU: Yes.
VIETOR: When the war ends, we are not going back to the pre-October 7th status quo where -- it's not where the party is, it's not where the world is.
We have to also recognize that the Biden era hug Bibi Netanyahu strategy has to be thrown in the trash can for (BLEEP) ever joining.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
[22:20:06]
PHILLIP: Joining us at the table is Max Boot. He's a senior fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations and the author of Reagan, His Life and Legend. Max, this generational divide is cross party. It's Republicans, it's Democrats. And I think it signals a broader shift that I'm observing, happening. You're seeing, first of all, more Democrats being willing to criticize Israel and more Republicans, especially the younger ones, being willing to criticize Israel too.
MAX BOOT, SENIOR FELLOW, COUNCIL ON FOREIGN RELATIONS: Yes, absolutely, Abby. And a poll that Pew released a few months ago, half of all Republicans under the age of 50 had a negative impression of Israel. That's a very striking finding. And I'm very concerned about Israel's future. As somebody who supports the state of Israel, I'm concerned about what Prime Minister Netanyahu is doing, not just to the Palestinian people, which is awful, the suffering that's going on in Gaza, but also the damage that he is doing to the long-term prospects of the state of Israel, because he is turning an entire generation of Americans against the Jewish state.
And now you're seeing the kind of calls you're hearing to make opposition to aid for Israel litmus test for the Democratic Party. I think that would be horrible. It'd be tragic if that were to occur because Israel has been one of America's most stalwart democratic allies. And keep in mind, the policy it's pursuing right now is not the policy favored by most Israelis. Most Israelis want to do a deal to get their hostages out and in the war, but Prime Minister Netanyahu is listening to the extremists in his own cabinet and continuing this very inhumane policy, which is ultimately undermining international support for the state of Israel, undermining Israel's very legitimacy.
PHILLIP: Congressman, I see you shaking your head.
LAWLER: We just see this totally differently. The fact is Gaza would not be in this situation but not for Hamas and the actions they took, not just on October 7th, but what they have done systemically over nearly 20 years of being empowered to use their own people as human shields.
The suffering of the Palestinian people is the direct result of the leadership of Hamas and in Judea and Samaria of the Palestinian Authority. The fact is no one is demanding that Russia provide the same level of aid to the Ukrainians, no one. Why is it that Israel is being subjected to a totally different standard when we talk about conducting a war?
As President Bush said right after October 7th, the world stands with Israel. The moment they defend themselves, the world will turn. And that is exactly what we have seen. This is rooted not just in anti- Semitism and Jew hatred, this idea of the oppressor versus the oppressed. The oppressor of the Palestinian people is Hamas.
And I will say this, and I think this is important for folks to understand. The world today in the Middle East, we are in a far better place today than we were prior to October 7th. And the reason is because Hamas and Hezbollah have been largely decimated, Assad's regime has fallen, Iran's air defenses are weakened, their nuclear program is basically obliterated, and the fact is that wouldn't have happened if Bibi Netanyahu did not conduct this war in the manner in which he did.
PHILLIP: Let me -- I'm trying to understand something I heard you -- I thought I heard you say. Are you suggesting that the international community is -- should -- or is giving Russia a pass for what in --
LAWLER: 1,000 percent.
PHILLIP: -- in Ukraine versus --
LAWLER: 1,000 percent.
PHILLIP: -- holding -- so you're -- wait a second.
LAWLER: 1,000 percent.
PHILLIP: So, explain that one to me. I'm not even really understanding --
LAWLER: Everyone should be held to the same standards.
PHILLIP: So, the global --
LAWLER: And that has not been what has happened.
PHILLIP: My understanding is that there is pretty much universal global condemnation of Russia's conduct in this war --
LAWLER: So, why Europe still purchasing Russian gas?
PHILLIP: -- including the targeting of civilians in bombings in Ukraine.
LAWLER: And yet, what is Europe still doing? Purchasing Russian gas to fund their --
PHILLIP: Hold on a second. There's --
BOOT: They're providing tens of billions of dollars in aid to Ukraine to beat back the Russian invasion.
LAWLER: How do you beat it back when you fund it on the one hand and --
PHILLIP: I don't want to get distracted by the Russia of it all.
BOOT: Europe is almost (INAUDIBLE) distraction.
LAWLER: No, it's not a distraction.
PHILLIP: Congressman, I don't want to get distracted by the Russia of it all because I'm just saying --
BOOT: Nobody condones Russia's mistreatment of Ukraine in its occupied territory.
PHILLIP: Even by your own analogy, why -- LAWLER: They are not holding Russia to the same standard. They try to hold Israel when it comes to humanitarian aid and assistance. And the fact is --
BOOT: Yes, they are Israel. It's a ridiculous analogy. Russia is being condemned all the time for mistreating civilian --
LAWLER: Israel, in concert with the United States, has actually been providing humanitarian assistance. Hamas continues --
BOOT: Clearly not enough because people starving, as President Trump himself acknowledged.
LAWLER: Maybe Hamas should release the aid and assistance.
PHILLIP: Congressman, just a second.
LAWLER: Maybe they should not be using their own people --
PHILLIP: Congressman, just a second, do you -- just a second, Matt, just a second.
BOOT: Okay.
PHILLIP: Congressman, just on a -- just so we can level set here. Do you believe that there is a humanitarian crisis in Gaza?
[22:25:00]
LAWLER: Yes, as a result of Hamas.
PHILLIP: Okay. All right, so there's a humanitarian crisis in Gaza. Who controls whether aid comes in or out of Gaza?
LAWLER: Israel has been allowing aid.
PHILLIP: Okay.
LAWLER: They have been working with the United States to bring aid into Gaza.
PHILLIP: I'm just wondering into, do they control it or not?
LAWLER: There is an operational security around the border for a reason.
PHILLIP: Yes or no.
LAWLER: For a reason.
PHILLIP: Congressman --
LAWLER: Would you prefer --
PHILLIP: I'm not saying --
LAWLER: Would you prefer that asking Israel do not control the border?
PHILLIP: I'm not asking whether it is justified or not. I am just asking do they control the flow of aid in or out of Gaza.
LAWLER: Right. And aid has been flowing in.
PHILLIP: The answer is yes, correct? All right, so --
LAWLER: Why is it that Hamas continues to steal aid and prevent aid from getting to their own people.
PHILLIP: I want to move for just a second because one of the things that you also said was that you felt like this all was rooted in anti- Semitism. A few days ago, Turning Point USA, which is a very pro-MAGA group of young people, they had a focus group of young people, young MAGA folks about this issue, and listen to what some of these people had to say.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Do you guys see Jew hate increasing amongst your generation?
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: I think that there's a lot of collusion between criticism and hate. I think that there is legitimate hate out there, but a lot of criticism is being framed as hatred or you don't support this because you're criticizing it. And that's like I think that that's a little inseparable from what the left does.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Yes. Do you guys think it's anti-Semitic to say you don't like Bibi Netanyahu?
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: No.
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: No.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: I don't believe so.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
PHILLIP: So, essentially, I think what they're saying is what a lot of Democrats are saying, which is that should we not be able to criticize how things are done, you know, the degree of things being done without being accused of being anti-Semitic. That's the question that they're asking.
MCGOWAN: Yes, of course. This is why I think young people are seeing with their own eyes. They're not seeing through the lens of old politics or the way we used to do geopolitics. They can see with their own eyes on their phones what's happening in Gaza, and it's atrocious. Because these people are not just starving, they are being starved.
Like I am from Canada originally, if we were not allowing food into Alaska, if we were stopping Alaska from getting food, I wouldn't say, well, I'm Canadian, so I have to stand up for Canada. I would be like, feed the people, let the people have food. I think the problem is when politics and religion mix, which is what they really shouldn't do, and in an ethno state like Israel, politics and religion are intertwined. So, when you criticize the government, you end up sounding like you're criticizing the religion. And that's where I think people get confused. So, it's not anti-Semitic to say you don't like what Netanyahu's doing, and yet they are constantly put together.
I was speaking to a really good friend of mine recently who is Jewish in Los Angeles, and he was saying that like he's feeling so isolated himself in America right now from his own temple. Because if he doesn't 100 percent stand up to support everything Israel's doing, he feels like he doesn't belong in his own temple.
And he said, I'm having such a hard time right now because there's two things that I've always thought of myself as, an American and a Jew. And he's like, and right now I feel isolated from both communities and it is the weirdest feeling.
And I think a lot of people feel like that. They know what's happening, they can see what's happening, and they want it to stop.
JENNINGS: We have to address -- I mean, I agree with you. Young people are seeing things with their own eyes. And what they're seeing is massive amounts of propaganda. Look what The New York Times had to admit to just in the last few days. I've heard what Pete --
PHILLIP: Hold on. What did the --
MCGOWAN: What did The New York Times --
PHILLIP: They admitted to --
JENNINGS: Running a photo that was a complete and total hoax.
PHILLIP: Hold on, they admitted that they ran a photo of a starving child who also had a disease?
JENNINGS: You're going to defend this?
PHILLIP: Is that the admission?
JENNINGS: It's a hoax.
MCGOWAN: It's like you're going to act like people aren't starving?
JENNINGS: And it was sent around the world to make people think that Israel had starved that child. He had a preexisting condition.
PHILLIP: What about all the other children in that story? What about them? Are they hoax?
JENNINGS: Abby, there is a --
PHILLIP: Don't -- no, no, no, don't Abby, don't -- no, okay?
JENNINGS: There is a coordinated propaganda campaign right now --
PHILLIP: Don't do that, Scott.
JENNINGS: -- to paint a distorted picture of what's happening.
PHILLIP: Are all of those other children a hoax?
JENNINGS: Some of them are. There have been other stories about children of Israel's actually paying to have taking care of for their preexisting condition.
PHILLIP: There have been 25 people who died of starvation.
(CROSSTALKS)
PHILLIP: Scott, hang on a second. You just claimed that this whole thing --
JENNINGS: They ran a correction. They ran a correction.
PHILLIP: You claimed -- what you claimed was that all of these people, not just young people, but everybody in the world, the photos that they're seeing, the stories that they're reading, the first person accounts are a hoax?
JENNINGS: I'm saying --
PHILLIP: Are they a hoax?
JENNINGS: I'm saying that the photo that The New York Times ran and then ran a correction on is a part of a propaganda campaign that is occurring right now.
PHILLIP: I do not agree with you on The New York Times photo. But let's say that that one was wrong, they ran a correction, fine, what about all of the other children?
JENNINGS: Sure.
PHILLIP: What about what about all of the other people?
JENNINGS: What about all of the other hoaxes?
PHILLIP: So, when you say that this is a hoax, Scott -- no, Scott. I'm putting a stop to the talking points, okay? That's what I'm doing here.
JENNINGS: Are you?
PHILLIP: Because I'm talking about human beings --
JENNINGS: When are we going to put a stop with the propaganda?
[22:30:01]
PHILLIP: Listen, we've said it before on this show. We are talking about real things here, not talking points. Leave the talking points at the door.
JENNINGS: Can I -- can I give you another example?
(CROSSTALK)
PHILLIP: Scott. Scott. Just hold on for just one second because here's what -- I want to play -- let me play the House Speaker, Mike Johnson, who was asked about this issue. And I want to give him actually a lot of credit here because he answered this question with humanity and honesty. Listen to this.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
REP. MIKE JOHNSON (R) HOUSE SPEAKER: We've got a humanitarian crisis in Gaza. I mean, the pictures tell a thousand words and it's heartbreaking. We want an end to the conflict there. We want peace and we want to end that whole crisis.
President Trump is using a strong hand to try to forge that. And we're moving in the right direction. The IDF under Israel, of course, has opened new channels for food aid to go into Gaza. And we've set up new mechanisms. The U.S. is going to work with our partners and allies around the world to make sure that happens.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
UNKNOWN: I agree with everything he said.
PHILLIP: I want to -- but I want to just underscore real quick. I want to give him a lot of credit for that. mean, maybe it's more than -- he just answered the question honestly. He didn't try to spin it. He didn't call it a hoax. It is a choice to call what is happening in Gaza a hoax.
JENNINGS: But --
PHILLIP: You might disagree with the decision to run a single photo.
(CROSSTALK)
JENNINGS: I'm taking about the photo. I'm talking about the photo.
PHILLIP: But your comments --
(CROSSTALK)
JENNINGS: And it's an example --
PHILLIP: But Scott, I'm just -- I'm asking you --
JENNINGS: -- of the kind of propaganda that's being used to call a public opinion. That is my point.
(CROSSTALK)
PHILLIP: I'm asking you to pull back from this ledge, okay? That is what I'm asking. And answer the question honestly. That photo, let's say that that photo was maybe the wrong editorial decision. But is what is happening over there a hoax?
JENNINGS: No.
PHILLIP: Okay. Thank you. Thank you.
JENNINGS: I agree with everything Johnson said. There is a humanitarian crisis, but the question was why is public opinion changing? And I'm telling you that it's changing because people are being misinformed. There's another example.
(CROSSTALK)
LEIGH MCGOWAN, "POLITICS GIRL" PODCAST HOST: No, it's changing because we are no longer being misinformed.
JENNINGS: For days -- for days, we've been told that there's no evidence that Hamas is looting the trucks. Today, the United Nations own data that they published said 90 percent of the trucks --
(CROSSTALK)
PHILLIP: Scott, that data -- okay. That data -- hold on, Scott.
JENNINGS: -- from May to July were looted by Hamas. So again, propaganda.
(CROSSTALK)
PHILLIP: Scott, stop. That data says that those trucks that you're talking about -- it's not 90 percent. But those trucks that you are talking about were either taken by hungry people or by armed looters.
JENNINGS: And who are the armed looters?
PHILLIP: Hold on a second, Scott. Do you know how many, what proportion of those trucks were taken by armed looters versus hungry people? No, you don't.
JENNINGS: There's -- there are armed Hamas looters.
(CROSSTALK)
PHILLIP: So, so, Scott. So, I'm just saying --
JENNINGS: But I'm just saying --
PHILLIP: Just one second, okay?
(CROSSTALK)
JENNINGS: You said there's no evidence. There's evidence.
PHILLIP: I am just saying, we have -- we have reporters in Gaza who are talking to women and families who go to the entrance points for aid trucks and they go there to try to get aid directly from the trucks because they are worried about going to the distribution sites because it is dangerous. So, those hungry people are quote, unquote, "looting from the trucks to survive". So, I just want to -- I just want to make that point.
(CROSSTALK)
REP. MIKE LAWLER (R) FOREIGN AFFAIRS COMMITTEE MEMBER: But who's making it dangerous at the distribution points?
(CROSSTALK)
JENNINGS: Where is the danger?
(CROSSTALK)
LAWLER: Look --
PHILLIP: I don't know. I don't know, Congressman, who is making it dangerous at the distribution points.
LAWLER: Hamas, a terrorist organization.
(CROSSTALK)
PHILLIP: Okay. But will you also --
(CROSSTALK)
MCGOWAN: That's not correct.
(CROSSTALK)
LAWLER: Here is, yes, it is.
MCGOWAN: No, it's not.
LAWLER: Here is the fundamental -- here is the fundamental point. Okay.
(CROSSTALK)
MCGOWAN: Hamas is not shooting the Palestinians who are trying to get food at the --
(CROSSTALK)
LAWLER: Oh, really? Hamas doesn't shoot the Palestinian people? Stop.
MCGOWAN: I'm not saying they have never shot anyone. I am saying they are not --
(CROSSTALK)
LAWLER: Oh, they're not. Now, they're reformed.
MCGOWAN: You guys, you are -- this is so disingenuous, the way you are acting.
(CROSSTALK)
LAWLER: Here is a very simple point. Here's a very simple point.
(CROSSTALK)
MCGOWAN: Can we listen to Max? Can we listen to Max?
PHILLIP: Okay, Congressman, I'm going let you finish your point.
LAWLER: As the chair of the --
PHILLIP: Hold on a second.
(CROSSTALK)
LAWLER: -- the chair of the Middle East and North Africa --
PHILLIP: Hold on a second. Congressman, let me finish -- let you finish your point and then I want Max to make his point and then we'll move on.
LAWLER: Yeah, look. To me, we can all agree that the situation in Gaza is terrible and nobody wants innocent Palestinians getting killed or being starved in any way. There's a very simple way for this to end and for people to get the support and assistance they need. That is for Hamas to agree to the terms of a ceasefire that they just rejected again and end this war. Release all of the hostages and allow the U.N. and other organizations to come in and provide the support that is needed.
But one thing that is clear, when this conflict ends, Hamas cannot remain in power. And anybody that thinks Hamas can remain as the governing body in Gaza, is absolutely out of their minds.
PHILLIP: No one -- no one thinks that. No one wants that. No one believes that.
MAX BOOT, SENIOR FELLOW, COUNCIL ON FOREIGN RELATIONS: No one is defending Hamas. They are an awful, evil, terrorist organization that started this war with their unprovoked attack on Israel. That is 100 percent true. And I completely, as a strong supporter of Israel, I completely backed Israel's right to defend itself.
But Israel's own generals concluded about a year ago that the war had reached the point of diminishing return. And right now, you can't expect Hamas, which is a death cult, to simply surrender. And you cannot make the innocent --
(CROSSTALK)
LAWLER: Right, and they've used --
BOOT: Can I finish my sentence, Congressman?
LAWLER: They've used the hostages for reason.
(CROSSTALK)
PHILLIP: Congressman, Congressman --
BOOT: Can I finish my sentence, Congressman?
PHILLIP: Congressman.
(CROSSTALK)
PHILLIP: Hang on a second, Congressman.
BOOT: Let me say something, okay?
[22:35:00]
(CROSSTALK)
BOOT: You could not expect Hamas to surrender because they're an evil organization --
(CROSSTALK)
PHILLIP: I asked him to stop so you can finish. Go ahead, Max.
BOOT: And you're right, they are holding the people of Gaza hostage. But Israel, as a liberal democratic country, has an obligation to abide by the laws of war and to avoid inflicting undue harm on civilians. Israel is recognizing that to some extent because in the last week, they've actually opened up and allowed more aid in.
But clearly, given the fact that we can all agree there are starvation conditions in Gaza, the aid has been inadequate. And this is causing not only extreme suffering in Gaza, but as I mentioned earlier, this is doing long-term damage to Israel's international standing and support. And as a supporter of Israel, this greatly pains and anguishes me to see.
PHILLIP: One quick thing for you, Jamal. You know, the -- sometimes there are political scrambles that happen, right, when the right and the left meet on certain issues. And this may be one of them. A foreign policy expert and "Washington Post" columnist Shadi Hamid wrote this, "The pro-Palestinian movement must be a big tent and welcome anyone willing to question their past positions and update them in the face of incontrovertible evidence of Israel's crimes against humanity."
He's talking there about people like Marjorie Taylor Greene. He's talking there about people like even, I mean, Tucker Carlson, others. I mean, just -- these are dyed in the world MAGA types. And I mean, I wonder what you make of that?
JAMAL SIMMONS, CNN POLITICAL COMMENTATOR: I think for those of us who hold Israel security is something that we find to be important, we want Israel to be fine. We want Israel to be secure that we have a kinship toward Israel because it's a nation that feels a lot like the United States is and how it's constructed, right?
So, we do hold them to a high standard. The same way we would hold the U.S. government to a high standard when they interact, when we were in Afghanistan, and what we did when we were there, and we try to take care of people when we were in the middle of a war in Afghanistan, right? We did that. So, I think, to say that we're not -- that it's something wrong with holding Israel to a high standard, I think that that's disingenuous.
So, for those of us who have a kinship with Israel, I think we want to say, like, Israel, behaved the right way. And so, what we're seeing now is this crazy confluence that you're just talking about. We're seeing the United Nations, the Red Cross, the Red Crescent, independent reporters who are on the ground, conservative Republicans, the President of the United States, the Speaker of the House of United States, or both Republicans, all saying that there is a humanitarian crisis happening here and Israel can do something to stop it, they're not doing.
The only people who say something's different -- something different than that, it's Bibi Netanyahu. And why would we take Bibi Netanyahu's word for this when he clearly is the one who is self-interested in perpetuating the situation. We've got to do something to save these children.
PHILLIP: All right, we have to leave the conversation there. Thanks, everyone, for that. Max Boot, thank you for joining us. Next for us, a race from history, the Smithsonian quietly pulling Donald Trump from its impeachment exhibit. That's next.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[22:42:24]
PHILLIP: Tonight, rewriting history. "The Washington Post" reports the Smithsonian removed references to President Trump's two impeachments from an exhibit. Now, according to the "Post", the exhibit notes, that only three presidents have seriously faced removal, a reference to Andrew Johnson, Bill Clinton and Richard Nixon. The museum told CNN that a future exhibit will include all impeachments.
(CROSSTALK)
MCGOWAN: A future exhibit. A future exhibit when the White House isn't asking.
PHILLIP: The children of America will just have to pretend like the last 10 years never happened.
SIMMONS: Well, this is happening just not in the Smithsonian. It's sort of happening everywhere, right? Florida is in the middle of doing this. We have to decide as a country, do we think it's better for our kids to be armed with all the best information, the best facts, to be able to tackle a world where we can't even imagine that things are going to have to deal with? Or are we going deprive them from information so they walk into the world without knowing the history they need to know in order to compete?
MCGOWAN: I say that all the time. Like, how ignorant do we want our children to be? It's like, oh, you learned real facts? Well, I learned Florida facts. So, I don't know that slavery existed. Or I don't know that Donald Trump was impeached. It's not a way to live as a country. It's certainly not way to educate our children.
But ultimately, I think at the end of the day, this is a White House that's willing to change history, willing to change facts based on the needs and will of the president. Why would you scoff? That's literally what we just read. He asked -- dismissed --
(CROSSTALK)
JENNINGS: You all know we have internet schools, right?
MCGOWAN: Oh, okay. So, your teacher teaches you that three presidents were impeached, and you're supposed to go on the internet and say, was my teacher right? Oh, it really was for. No, that's not how it works, Scott.
JENNINGS: I mean, I think you're blowing it out of proportion.
MCGOWAN: The White House -- I'm blowing it out of proportion. Can you absolutely imagine --
(CROSSTALK)
SIMMONS: It's a big thing.
(CROSSTALK)
JENNINGS: You look really upset about it.
MCGOWAN: -- if another president --
(CROSSTALK)
UNKNOWN: It's the Smithsonian.
JENNINGS: I mean, they're going to put it back.
MCGOWAN: Oh, no. He's changing history.
(CROSSTALK)
UNKNOWN: -- put it back.
MCGOWAN: Did Steve Bannon roll back --
(CROSSTALK)
PHILLIP: If they rolled back the clock and they got rid of the Clinton impeachment, too. I mean, would you be good with that?
JENNINGS: I don't care what they do with the impeachment exhibit. The reality is, whether it's in there or not, if I were Donald Trump, I wouldn't mind it being in there because like when he hung his mug shot up in the Oval Office, it's like a reminder that he triumphed over his political enemies, right? He had two impeachments, he beat them both. So, I don't know -- I don't know when they're going to put it back, but I think it's a little -- we're blowing a little out of proportion to say --
(CROSSTALK)
MCGOWAN: No.
JENNINGS: -- we're changing history because they're updating an exhibit at one museum. I mean --
(CROSSTALK)
MCGOWAN: I think it is an outrageous comment.
PHILLIP: Can I -- can I offer like maybe a common sense proposal to the Congressman to my right? I mean, can we please take politics and politicians out of things like the Smithsonian and the Park Service? And, you know, because if this were a one-off thing, I'd be like, okay, weird, weird. It is really weird, but not a big deal, maybe. But there are other things. I mean, the improper ideology was targeted in the Trump E.O.
[22:45:04]
What does that even mean? It targets things like talking about race and maybe the African-American History Museum, which is a lot about race and slavery. Transgender and Queer, erased from the Stonewall Uprising National Monument website by, I guess, the National Park Service. I just -- I don't know, just straight up, like, can we just not have things just reflect what actually happened as opposed to what the politician in the White House wants to say happened?
LAWLER: Look, I've always been a big believer about teaching the good, the bad, the ugly when it comes to history. You know, obviously people are going to have different perspectives, different beliefs about what may have happened. But the reality is it should all be covered. It's part of our history and it's part of who we are as a -- as a country, as I said, the good, the bad, the ugly.
And I think when it comes to museums, generally of the mindset, it should all be there. It's kind of like you look at the, you know, the Baseball Hall of Fame. Banning Pete Rose or banning Barry Bonds to me is not the right way to approach it, put it all in there. The gambling was part of it. The steroid use was all part of it.
PHILLIP: All right.
LAWLER: And I think that's a -- that's a better way to approach --
(CROSSTALK)
PHILLIP: I can't wait to see the bill that comes out of this conversation. Everyone, thank you very much for being here. Next for us, Blue Jeans, Sydney Sweeney and how the outrage machine works.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[22:51:13]
PHILLIP: After learning Donald Trump's and the Epstein files, the context of course is still a mystery. Many on the right have suddenly dropped their obsession with demanding answers in that case. In fact, they're echoing Donald Trump, brushing off the importance of a story about abuse and trafficking of minors involving elites that they once cared about.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP))
DONALD TRUMP, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: Are you still talking about Jeffrey Epstein?
LAURA INGRAHAM, FOX NEWS HOST: Molly, they're obsessed with Epstein and the Epstein files.
JENNINGS: Nobody in the Republican Party is worried about this. And most of America is not worried about this.
BRIAN KILMEADE, "ONE NATION WITH BRIAN KILMEADE" HOST: The truth of the matter is, none of them really impact you.
UNKNOWN: This story is a tabloid sensation. This isn't what journalism's intended to be.
JESSE WATTERS, "JESSE WATTERS PRIMETIME" HOST: If I were a Democrat, all I would be talking about is Epstein. Because you don't have anything to say about anything.
ABEL MALDONADO, FORMER LIEUTENANT GOVERNOR OF CALIFORNIA: If there's no evidence of a new crime, what are we talking about this for?
JENNINGS: There's no conspiracy and there's no story. Tonight --
LAWLER: Frankly, this seems like a colossal waste of time and effort.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
PHILLIP: Trump also insisted it's a waste of time, quote, "-- somebody that nobody cares about." The problem is, MAGA Republicans did care about this for years. In fact, Trump hired many of those people who made their names pushing conspiracies about the files, including Trump's own attorney general. Take a listen to Pam Bondi before May when she reportedly told Trump that he's in the files.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
PAM BONDI, UNITED STATES ATTORNEY GENERAL: I think tomorrow, Jesse, breaking news right now, you're going to see some Epstein information being released by my office.
It's sitting on my desk right now to review -- A truckload of evidence arrived. It's now in the possession of the FBI. It's a new day. It's a new administration. And everything's going to come out to the public. The public has a right to know.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
PHILLIP: So, back to the original point. What's a story that MAGA media now thinks is more important? What demands airtime, accountability, and attention?
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
SEAN HANNITY, FOX NEWS HOST: Actress Sydney Sweeney is facing backlash from the extremely woke and insane mob over her new American Eagle ad campaign.
HARRIS FAULKNER, "OUTNUMBERED" HOST: The woke mob continues to unravel over Sydney Sweeney's genes.
ELIZABETH MACDONALD, FOX BUSINESS HOST: The woke outrage over that Sydney Sweeney ad for American Eagle --
WILL CAIN, "THE WILL CAIN SHOW" HOST: The Sydney Sweeney jeans ad revealed the left's obsession with jeans.
EMILY COMPAGNO, FOX NEWS HOST: They are having full meltdowns about a blonde, beautiful woman wearing jeans.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
PHILLIP: CNN's Brian Stelter did a search of how many times both stories were mentioned on Fox this week. Since Monday, 181 times for Sydney Sweeney's jeans, just 18 times for Jeffrey Epstein. So, obviously, they've decided to bypass the story that they've hyped up for years in favor of intelligent and inquisitive analysis on a more important story.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
JIMMY FAILLA, FOX NEWS SATURDAY NIGHT" HOST: Democrats should change their pronouns to we suck and not to be crass, but she's got big boobs, Laura, and that used to be the business model.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
PHILLIP: Now, this is a type of internet discourse in which a story like this starts with a random person online who gets amplified by people who need these stories to maintain their relevance. So, in this outrage ecosystem that we are in, it's fair to ask who exactly is having a meltdown in this case. Back in a moment.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[22:59:19)
PHILLIP: A quick programming note, don't miss the final episode of the CNN original series, "Live Aid, When Rock and Roll Took on the World". Bono and Bob Geldof joined forces decades later to stage a second global concert event. Go behind the scenes of 2005's "Live 8", Sunday night at 9 P.M. on CNN. And thank you for watching "NewsNight". "Laura Coates Live" starts right now.
LAURA COATES, CNN ANCHOR: Tonight, the family of Virginia Giuffre speaking out about the Epstein scandal with questions for the President, and one very direct message.
Plus, it's 11 P.M. Do you know where Trump's tariffs are? Well, we're just one hour away from that midnight deadline, and Trump is going on a new tariff blitz. I'll talk to the one attorney general who says he can end it all in the courts.
