Return to Transcripts main page
CNN NewsNight with Abby Phillip
Trump DOJ Releases New Batch of Heavily Redacted Epstein Documents; Epstein Co-Conspirators Redacted in New Batch of Documents; DOJ Says, Untrue and Sensationalist Claims About Trump in Epstein Documents; Supreme Court Blocks Trump's Bid To Deploy Troops To Chicago; Consumers Cautious About Jobs, Income And Inflation. Aired 10-11p ET
Aired December 23, 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, thousands of new Epstein files released, and as the president's name appears, the Justice Department blasts untrue and sensationalist claims.
Plus, the Supreme Court blocks the Trump administration from deploying the National Guard to Chicago. What it says about the president's executive authority and what it means for his immigration crackdowns in other cities.
And a surprisingly good economic report.
KEVIN HASSETT, DIRECTOR, NATIONAL ECONOMIC COUNCIL: It's a fantastic report, 4.3 percent. That's just about as good as GDP numbers get.
PHILLIP: But why aren't more Americans feeling confident about the economy?
Live at the table, Adam Mockler, Marc LoPresti, Joe Borelli and Tezlyn Figaro.
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 New York.
Let's get right to what America's talking about, the Epstein Files part two. Tonight, the Justice Department released a second trove of documents. Much of it is, again, heavily redacted, but here's what the dump reveals. President Trump's name appears several times. It also raises questions about the government's investigation into Epstein. Among the files is evidence that prosecutors were looking to probe and potentially charge more people.
This is an apparent FBI email from July, 2019. It references co- conspirators, ten of them. Now, compare that to what the FBI director, Kash Patel, said earlier this year.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
SEN. JOHN KENNEDY (R-LA): Who, if anyone did Epstein traffic, these y young women too, besides himself?
KASH PATEL, FBI DIRECTOR: Himself, there is no credible information, none. If there were, I would bring the case yesterday that he trafficked to other individuals. And the information we have, again, is limited.
KENNEDY: So, the answer is no one?
PATEL: For the information that we have.
KENNEDY: In the files?
PATEL: In the case file.
KENNEDY: Okay.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
PHILLIP: Now, there is also new information that even surprised the prosecutors who were looking into this case. An email reveals that Trump flew on Epstein's private jet at least eight times, which is much more than was previously reported, and much more than those prosecutors knew. But, remember, Trump denied that he was ever even on Epstein's plane in a Truth Social post last year.
But perhaps the most stunning development today is the statement that was released by DOJ alongside these explosive documents, the Department of Justice going out of its way to describe the documents as untrue and sensationalist. The statement goes on to say that the claims are, quote, unfounded and false. And if they had any shred of credibility, they'd certainly -- they have been weaponized against President Trump already.
Now, while some of the documents in this trove are of questionable origin. The DOJ's statement calls into question whether the government is now focused on protecting one man, Trump.
Now, it's important to note there's no context around these documents, and authorities haven't accused Trump of any wrongdoing or charged him of any crimes in connection with Epstein. But the DOJ is in this moment making it very clear that they have one priority, which is making sure that the world knows that they are scanning these documents for derogatory information about the president. They're proactively putting out statements that sound like they come from the president's personal attorneys, but they're not.
You know, as a lawyer, Elie, I mean, what do you think about the fact that they are doing that on the front end of all of this?
ELIE HONIG, CNN SENIOR LEGAL ANALYST: This whole rollout by the Justice Department has been a debacle, starting with the fact that DOJ just casually blew off the deadline, right, all documents. That's what the law right here says, all documents were supposed to be produced 30 days out, which was this past Friday. Here we are four days later and we're getting 30,000 here, 10,000 there. We don't know where we even are. We don't know if we're close to the finish line. Start with that.
The manner of redactions has been wildly inconsistent. You see some documents where they just sort of excise a name, as they should.
[22:05:00]
You see other documents where it's 110 pages of black ink. They're not following the law.
I'll give you a couple other examples. The law says DOJ has to turn over internal deliberative documents, pros memos, should we charge this person, should we plead this person out. But Todd Blanche has said, we're not going to turn over that kind of stuff because it's privilege. Well, the law says you have to.
So, there's examples that go on and on, and that leads to this chaotic, confusing rollout that we've seen even over the last 24 hours, what's reliable, what's not.
And as to the statement, Abby, that you talked about, where DOJ went out of its way to say, nothing here is bad for Trump, I mean, they're tipping their hands there that their motivation is to make sure none of this blows back on Donald Trump specifically. So, DOJ has completely mishandled this.
PHILLIP: Yes. Marc, I mean, if you were in DOJ right now and you all the political swirl around this, and you know what people are thinking, they're already thinking that DOJ is trying to protect Trump, is this how you would've handled it?
MARC LOPRESTI, CEO AND SENIOR MARKET STRATEGIST, MARKET REBELLION: Well, I think the DOJ'S messaging and certainly the handling of their compliance with this directive is questionable. But at the end of the day, I think you would agree as a former prosecutor, the order is also highly unusual.
HONIG: Oh, right.
LOPRESTI: There is a large degree, typically speaking, of discretion on the part of the members of the Justice Department and the FBI to redact documents for a variety of reasons to protect victims because there's an ongoing investigation, which I believe there still is an ongoing investigation here, where other people may be charged to prevent embarrassment, to prevent revealing law enforcement officers who may be acting in an undercover capacity and potentially putting them at risk.
So, I think this directive, which, by the way, was passed and voted by all but one Republican and signed off on by the president, so it's hard to say that he's trying to prevent these documents from being released, I think there's a compliance challenge there, regardless of what side of the aisle you're on, and I think that's part of the reason why we're seeing a little bit of this bungling on the part of the release.
ADAM MOCKLER, COMMENTATOR, MEIDASTOUCH NETWORK: This still doesn't explain why Kash Patel under oath a few months ago claimed that there were likely no other co-conspirators. He was pretty firm about that.
LOPRESTI: It's not what he said.
MOCKLER: And now it says ten other co-conspirators. He said that Jeffrey Epstein and Ghislaine Maxwell were the only people involved. What did he say then?
LOPRESTI: That's not what he said. We can roll the tape back if you want. The question to Kash Patel was, were there other people that Jeffrey Epstein trafficked or participated in human trafficking, specifically asked about that charge. You can have ten unindicted co- conspirators who committed crimes unrelated to human trafficking under sex trafficking.
MOCKLER: But you know for a fact that Virginia Giuffre was trafficked then.
PHILLIP: But just one second because, Marc, and we can probably play the clip again, but he was asked, did Jeffrey Epstein traffic these young women to any other people? He said, based on the information that we have now.
LOPRESTI: Right, correct.
PHILLIP: But even that, I'm not saying that there were people charged with sex trafficking, I'm not saying that is proven, but the documents certainly suggest that prosecutors were looking into it and perhaps had identified individuals who, yes, those girls were trafficked too. So, I don't know. I mean, I think that Kash Patel, at the very least, was misleading in the sense that he definitively said that there was nobody else involved.
LOPRESTI: Right, but that's not what the question that was asked. And let's be clear, if other people were involved, they should be charged and they should be charged now and they should be charged swiftly. I'd be happy to tell that to the president.
PHILLIP: But I guess what I'm saying is nobody believed --
LOPRESTI: But that's not what was asked.
PHILLIP: Nobody has ever believed that there was no one else involved. So, for Kash Patel to go out there and to say that, and then for us to have these documents that suggests that they were looking into other people, I don't know, I mean, that just strains credulity. That is the issue.
HONIG: Can I give you the timeline here just with respect to the very confusing question of is there actually a criminal investigation or not? Kash Patel in July of this year 2025 memo, two-page memo, said, no further documents should be disclosed, no further criminal investigation to be done. That was what started this whole mess. November of this year, Donald Trump Truth Socials, I ordered an investigation of Bill Clinton and other Democrats. Pam Bondi responds four hours later, thank you, Mr. President, matter assigned to my former office, Southern District of New York, and they will pursue this matter with all the vigor that they normally do.
Friday, Todd Blanche, in his memo that accompanies the Epstein library, says, no further people to be charged, no basis to predicate an investigation. What is going on? Todd Blanche, Pam Bondi, Kash Patel need to get in a room and figure out the answer to this question. Is there a criminal investigation of anyone else right now or not?
PHILLIP: And should there be?
JOE BORELLI, FORMER REPUBLICAN LEADER, NEW YORK CITY COUNCIL: Can I pull this back 40,000 feet? Isn't it embarrassing to have a party so focused on the Epstein documents, the Epstein case and time after time? It's like someone getting their NBA debut and just shooting air ball. It's all game. Today's air ball. I know we're going to pretend like this didn't happen, but if we're wondering why there's so much focus on the DOJ defending Donald Trump, it's because let's talk about what happened today.
Today, there was a letter that was so fake, it was so obvious it was published, it was postmarked after the guy was dead in a state hundreds of miles from where he died three days prior, and yet the media went in circles in a frenzy --
[22:10:07]
HONIG: Hang on.
BORELLI: -- like sharks.
HONIG: I was on this network at 11:00 A.M. and said, watch out, there's questions about this.
BORELLI: But the fact was the networks were covering it, not just this, every single one in a frenzy because they're so interested in getting Trump on Jeffrey Epstein. Again, as The New York Times said, as this network says, as every network has to come on and say before we talk about this, there is absolutely no evidence to accuse Donald Trump of a crime.
Hold on, there is one president --
(CROSSTALKS)
PHILLIP: The DOJ put out that document. And then they said hours after they put out that document, we are looking into this document. So, you're making it sound like it was --
BORELLI: Because it was on every news show.
PHILLIP: Hold on a second. You're making it sound like -- BORELLI: So, they shouldn't have released the document.
PHILLIP: On immediate appearance, it was crystal clear that this document was fake and yet the DOJ itself did not know whether the document was --
BORELLI: Are you going to tell me that there's not a media frenzy every time Trump's name is in the documents?
(CROSSTALKS)
PHILLIP: They conducted an investigation. They then came back and said, we believe that it is false. And you know what? All the media outlets that you are now disparaging reported on that very fact. So, I don't understand --
BORELLI: How about the Democratic document --
(CROSSTALKS)
BORELLI: We had redacted faces that women who were not even trafficked.
PHILLIP: (INAUDIBLE) to frame Donald Trump when the documents that you are alleging frame him are coming from his own DOJ. It does not make any sense.
BORELLI: They have to release all the documents.
PHILLIP: It doesn't make any sense.
TEZLYN FIGARO, PODCAST HOST, STRAIGHT SHOT, NO CHASER BLACK EFFECT NETWORK: Let's answer your first question, because your first question was, isn't it embarrassing to have a party so focused on this? You said, let's take it back 40,000. I suggest we take it back 80,000 feet. What was the first party? Who was the party that first brought up the Epstein -- no. Let's go back.
BORELLI: Donald Trump.
FIGARO: Remember, it was the -- that's right.
BORELLI: In 2019.
FIGARO: So, it was the Republicans that first -- remember it was Epstein, Epstein, Epstein, Epstein. Joe Biden release Epstein, Epstein, Epstein, Epstein. And then now that it's your turn to actually do what you say you're going to do --
BORELLI: And they did.
FIGARO: Now, it was all about -- no, they didn't. Come on.
(CROSSTALKS)
FIGARO: That's what the whole conversation is about. They didn't. MOCKLER: The catalyst for this entire Epstein saga reopening felt like Pam Bondi coming out and saying, I have the list on my desk. Then she handed the Epstein files part one, phase one to a bunch of influencers. So, it's not the Democrats that are obsessed with this. The Republicans have proven time and time again they're willing to play defense for Trump.
But I would honestly say this is the largest cover-up, even larger than Watergate.
BORELLI: Wait, hold on. Let me (INAUDIBLE), say this with me. There is no evidence in any of these documents that link Donald Trump --
MOCKLER: Wait. Have you seen the email where he says that Trump walked nose first into a pane of glass because he was watching girls --
(CROSSTALKS)
BORELLI: Was there any evidence that Donald Trump committed any crime?
(CROSSTALKS)
BORELLI: Let's go to Bill Clinton now. Now, Bill Clinton's getting a massage by a girl who was trafficked and then he's in a hot tub with another girl who was trafficked.
FIGARO: Right. So, say this with me. Say this me. We don't know --
BORELLI: Should Donald Trump be sorry -- should Bill Clinton be allowed in polite society?
FIGARO: Now, it's your turn to say something with me.
BORELLI: And this is a guy who was a pedophile.
FIGARO: Now, it's your turn to say something with me. We don't know what evidence there is because you have not released all the files. Say it with me. We don't know.
BORELLI: We are going to get all the files released and then I'll say it with you.
PHILLIP: All right, we're going to hit pause. We have much more on the other side of this in a minute.
Plus, a major loss for the Trump administration as the Supreme Court blocks the National Guard from being deployed in Chicago to protect ICE agents. We're going to debate what that means for Trump's executive power next.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[22:15:00] PHILLIP: All right. Let's pick up where we left off. I want to just play what -- or let me just read for you actually. This is Marjorie Taylor Greene. She says, this is horrifying, Trump called me a traitor for fighting him to release the Epstein files and standing with women who were raped, jailed and stalls and traffic to men. Only evil people would hide this and protect those who participated. I pray for these women.
The files today, I mean, people's names in terms of people who were involved allegedly are not in here, but it's very clear that there was something big happening behind the scenes, tons of victims, tons and tons of evidence. That's why, going back to what we were talking about in the beginning, if you know anything about this case, it seems entirely improbable that it was limited just to the two individuals who we know are named Jeffrey Epstein and Ghislaine Maxwell.
HONIG: This is why I believe that Ghislaine Maxwell's statement to Todd Blanche, nine hours recorded, right, the audio's out there now, was so utterly non-credible, was so utterly non-believable. Because Ghislaine Maxwell's version of events was, nobody did anything wrong here except maybe Jeffrey Epstein. Ghislaine Maxwell said, I did nothing wrong. If you believe that the only people who did anything wrong are the two people who've been indicted for this, Jeffrey Epstein and Ghislaine Maxwell, I don't know what to tell you.
But I want to point out another thing that DOJ is doing, to your point, Abby, that violates the law. DOJ has decided we are going to redact out the names of people who might have done wrong, but this might be embarrassing to. I understand that instinct. But let me read you what the law the Epstein Transparency Act says. It says, no record shall be withheld on the basis of embarrassment, reputational harm, or political sensitivity, including to any government official public figure of foreign dignitary.
Now, if you don't like that, that's fine, but this is what the law is saying. And DOJ said, we're going to take out those names anyway.
PHILLIP: That's astonishing. I mean, that is -- no, it is. But it's -- what's astonishing is that DOJ is just flouting the law.
LOPRESTI: Well, let's put in context for the viewers though how unusual that is, because I think that's a -- we've got a lot of lawyers and formal lawyers on this panel. I think it is so unusual that I think the execution of it has some folks in the DOJ who have been there 5 years, 10 years, 20 years, as a lot of career people are, confounded because it's not what the policy has been.
[22:20:00]
PHILLIP: Unusual, but it's the law.
LOPRESTI: But it doesn't make it impossible.
PHILLIP: So, what are you going to do? You're just going to ignore it? HONIG: I mean, that's right. I mean, Marc's right, that all of this is contrary to what DOJ would ordinarily do. You'd never dump all of our investigative files. You'd never name names of people who weren't indicted. But the law that passed 427-1 in the House, unanimous in the Senate that Trump signed says, you have to do it this way.
I think there's a lesson here, by the way. I think this law is overbroad. I think this law is leading us into dead ends, is leading us into all sorts of documents that are presented without context, but they have to follow it.
PHILLIP: Well, that's what I was going to say.
HONIG: Yes.
PHILLIP: I mean, isn't the remedy for this, I don't know --
HONIG: They don't have a remedy. They have to follow it.
PHILLIP: Well, I mean, can't they challenge it?
HONIG: No. I don't think DOJ has a basis to say -- well, I mean, I guess --
PHILLIP: Could they just challenge the constitutionality?
HONIG: Theoretically, I guess.
PHILLIP: If the idea is that maybe people's rights are being infringed upon, could they not challenge the constitutionality of a law that forces them to infringe on maybe people's right to not self- incriminate or whatever it is?
HONIG: It's a good question, yes. I think DOJ -- I think if DOJ was independent, they could go into court and say, yes, this violates the rights of uncharged people, the presumption of innocence. Pam Bondi has chosen not to do that.
PHILLIP: Yes. Let me play what the victims have been saying all day today. This is just a snippet of the reaction among some of the women who have come forward about their involvement in the Epstein saga.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
HALEY ROBSON, EPSTEIN SURVIVOR: I think that Pam Bondy and Cash Katel both need to resign and I would love to see number 47 get impeached over this.
DANIELLE BENSKY, EPSTEIN SURVIVOR: They are re-victimizing us in the same way. They gave us this moment of the Transparency Act where we passed a law and we were like, we are seen. We are here, we've arrived. And now to see the carelessness of the way that they're handling, you know, survivors, it's just abhorrent. It's exhausting.
(END VIDEO CLIP) PHILLIP: It's hard to hear that. It's hard to watch these women, as she said, be re-victimized. You know, DOJ officials were saying, well, if you have a problem with how we're doing this, you know how to reach me. Just call me. And some of them have. Nobody's done anything about their names being in these documents,
LOPRESTI: But, Abby, that's the very reason why the sensitivity and the typical policy of the DOJ in conjunction with these investigations is what it is, to avoid re-victimizing people.
PHILLIP: But it is not happening. That is the problem.
BORELLI: We have photographs of a woman, more than one woman, who were clearly victimized, clearly trafficked. They've been adjudicated to have been victimized and trafficked, receiving massages and being intimately touched by one of the most influential and consequential political figures in the United States of America, and that's Bill Clinton. Where are the Democrats demanding that there be am investigation?
MOCKLER: No one is defending Bill Clinton. I'll do it right now. Bill Clinton, if there are photos, an investigation should open.
Now, listen, there's no criminal --
BORELLI: Is there more evidence that Bill Clinton did something wrong than Donald Trump?
MOCKLER: The problem with Donald Trump is -- listen, the problem with -- let me finish.
BORELLI: Hey, let me finish.
(CROSSTALKS)
BORELLI: People are so outraged. You're so outraged about Trump being in a photograph.
MOCKLER: The problem with Donald is the repeated abuse of power dynamics. Throughout Donald Trump's entire life, he has abused power dynamics.
BORELLI: He wasn't screw underage girls like Bill Clinton, though.
MOCKLER: He walked into dressing rooms after he owned the beauty pageant. Have you seen the Howard Stern clip where he walked in the dressing rooms?
(CROSSTALKS)
PHILLIP: All right. Guys, let's do this one at a time. Adam, go ahead.
MOCKLER: I'm sorry. I was trying to make a broader point that there's no criminal activity that has been proven with Trump, but his entire life has been spent abusing power dynamics. I don't even know if he knows what power dynamics are. He bragged about walking into the beauty pageant dressing rooms and 15-year-old girls, then corroborated that and said he would walk into the dressing rooms, abusive power dynamics. He said he grabbed women because they let them do it. You heard that clip right? You've heard that clip. Abusive power dynamics, abuse power dynamics.
Now that he's in office, he's abusing these same power dynamics to cover up the files.
PHILLIP: All right.
MOCKLER: Delay the releases. Redact the releases. I don't care about Bill Clinton, Joe.
PHILLIP: Joe, go ahead and respond.
BORELLI: Do we all agree that Bill Clinton --
MOCKLER: Bring it back to Bill Clinton.
BORELLI: -- probably molested women?
MOCKLER: I'm not laughing.
(CROSSTALKS)
PHILLIP: Hold on a second, Joe. No, we do not know that Bill Clinton did.
BORELLI: He's not in a picture with Giuffre. He's not in a picture with Giuffre.
PHILLIP: We do not know that Bill Clinton is doing what you are alleging.
BORELLI: Is there more evidence that Bill Clinton acted appropriately --
PHILLIP: We do not know that Donald Trump has done anything inappropriate.
MOCKLER: Where was Giuffre trafficked out of? Where was Giuffre trafficked out of?
PHILLIP: Hold on a second. Hold on a second. Seriously, I think both of you I get it right, like there is a lot of politics involved here, but at the end of the day, there are people involved. We don't know all of them, who they are. The political world is now focused only on two men for competing political reasons, and the people left in the rubble of that are women who were actually trafficked. This doesn't make any sense.
BORELLI: One of them, the women have said consistently that they were not touched by Donald Trump.
PHILLIP: But your entire focus on just these two individuals completely obscures the bigger picture.
BORELLI: I'm not. I just know if there's a photo of that guy.
PHILLIP: All I will say --
BORELLI: I don't know the other people.
PHILLIP: Hold on a second. All I will say about Bill Clinton is I take him at his word, that they want every document released.
[22:25:04]
They don't think they have anything to hide. I would like to see President Trump and his administration say and act similarly, because I think that would be refreshing for the political system. Let's all sides (INAUDIBLE) and say, put it all out.
LOPRESTI: Let's talk about one of the areas where things have really gone wrong with this situation, why we wound up with this Epstein Transparency Act that directs the DOJ to do something that have no historical precedent, to my knowledge, and I practiced law for a couple of years too, as you know. Why did it take this long? How many presidential administrations, how many reviews of these investigations? Why does it take this kind of an extraordinary act that is re-victimizing these poor women once again? What's been going on for the past that is 15 years? That's what we should be asking.
PHILLIP: That is the question.
LOPRESTI: That's what we should be asking.
HONIG: One of the few important, indisputable things that we've learned from this is that victims were coming forward to the FBI as early as 1996.
LOPRESTI: Yes.
PHILLIP: Yes.
HONIG: There's a lesson there -- forget about your politics. There's a lesson there in being responsive to victims and giving them a fair hearing.
Look, the original sin in this case was 2007, 2008, when Alexander Acosta, who was the U.S. attorney for the time, gave this absurd softball deal to Jeffrey Epstein, let him serve 13 months in state custody instead of he should have done decades in federal prison. By the way, that's one of the outstanding questions here. It's one of the things we've not yet seen in these documents.
PHILLIP: Yes.
HONIG: What were those prosecutors in that office saying? Because we know from prior OPR reports that there were prosecutors in that office. Maria Villfana is the name of one of them that's public who objected to that softball deal. That's something we need for accountability.
PHILLIP: Some of the many documents I think that the victims want are some of -- are things to that speak to that. They want to see more financial documents. You know, I think that, in a way, when you hear them, they're not as worked up about these photographs as many of the people in the public are because they want the investigative documents that point to what happened in these investigations, why was that 1996 complaint not ever followed? You know, what does it say on the flight manifests and the ledgers, the financial ledgers? Important information that's not out yet should have been out last Friday, but here we are, law just being kind of casually flouted by the administration. We'll see how long that continues.
Next for us, the Supreme Court says that the Trump administration cannot deploy the National Guard to Chicago to protect ICE agents. So, what does that mean for Trump's tough on immigration policy and its executive power? That's next.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[22:30:00]
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[22:31:59]
ABBY PHILLIP, CNN HOST: Tonight, Donald Trump faces the most significant legal setback of his second term so far. In a major decision today, the Supreme Court has blocked the administration from deploying National Guard troops to Chicago to protect ICE agents.
In its order, the majority wrote: At the preliminary -- at this preliminary stage, the government has failed to identify a source of authority that would allow the military to execute the laws in Illinois. The president has not invoked a statute that provides an exception to the Posse Comitatus Act."
In other words, no Insurrection Act, no Insurrection Act here. So, you can't put the military on the ground.
ELIE HONIG, CNN SENIOR LEGAL ANALYST: So this is a major setback to the president's effort to deploy the National Guard around the country. The law that Donald Trump used to send the National Guard into Illinois said that the president can call up the National Guard if he's unable, with regular forces, to execute federal laws.
Now, oddly, both parties originally agreed that regular forces mean the cops, FBI, DEA, ICE, that kind of thing. The Supreme Court, though then on its own, said, well, could regular forces mean something different? Could it mean the military? And the challengers then said, yeah, that's what we mean.
And today, the Supreme Court said, yes, that statute only means if the military is unable to execute the federal laws, only then can you send in the National Guard. And by the way, there's almost nothing the military can do in terms of executing the law.
So bottom line, this decision leaves a very, very narrow lane to send out the National Guard. Only if it's something that the military is allowed to do, which is very narrow, and only if the army, navy, air force marines is incapable of doing it and needs more help from the National Guard.
So, forget about Illinois, forget about Portland, forget about New York. Now, if there's a Republican governor and they want to ask for it, that's fine. That can still happen.
But involuntarily, where the governor doesn't want it, Trump's going to have a problem sending the National Guard.
MARC LOPRESTI, CEO & SENIOR MARKET STRATEGIST, MARKET REBELLION: Today's segment should be called legal things that make you go -- because that is also a highly unusual thing for the Supreme Court to do, right? First of all, they ruled on an issue that was not actually litigated in the lower court. That's an oddball thing to begin with.
HONIG: Alito -- Alito does not like that.
LOPRESTI: Alito does -- shockingly, Alito came out and said, guys, WTF with this? It doesn't make a lot of sense.
And secondarily, the notion that they actually said the quiet part out loud, well, you cant sit in the National Guard, but, Mr. President, you can send in the Marines. That's really, really curious.
HONIG: But there's a -- but there's a -- yeah. But to that, which is there's very little the marines can do.
PHILLIP: A very big one.
LOPRESTI: Just ask a marine. They'll tell you that for sure.
PHILLIP: I mean, one quick, you know, insertion here for the other folks on the panel, the talk of the Supreme Court has been they're just giving Donald Trump whatever he wants. This ruling seems to suggest that at least on some things, they are not. Is that right?
TEZLYN FIGARO, FOUNDER, PUSH THE LINE: Yeah, that's exactly right. Maybe there is something called the rule of law. Congratulations for Chicago, Illinois, pushing back. As a veteran, I said here and many other places that the National Guard had no business on the ground with civilians.
[22:35:02]
And we see that with the recent death of the young lady in D.C., the guardsman in D.C. This was never something that needed to happen. This was all about, you know, creating political conversation around it. Yes, there needs to be something done with crime, Joe, because I know you're going there next. I know the talking point because you guys always say, what about Chicago? You're kind of predictable with it but -- JOE BORELLI, FORMER REPUBLICAN LEADER: You inhale what I was going to
say.
(LAUGHTER)
FIGARO: Exactly. So yes, there needs to be something done with crime, but this was just not the way it was unnecessary. It was not any type of long-term stability on actually reducing crime by investing the resources that the mayor hasn't been doing in Chicago. So I'm pleased to see.
PHILLIP: But also the ice bit of it, you know, ICE agents coming into a city, it causes uproar and protests and protests, by the way, not illegal in this country. The Trump's response to that is that we want to bring in the troops. And I think that that is the other part of this that is part of the conversation, is that the Supreme Court seems to be saying that's not enough to just send in troops just because there are protests against the federal, you know, officials enforcing.
LOPRESTI: The protests aren't illegal, but violent protests are.
BORELLI: But has always been in cities.
PHILLIP: But let's be honest that the degree of violence is something that I think is -- it matters, right? Like throwing a few rocks is not the same thing as a violent protest that would result in the military showing up on the ground.
BORELLI: I would not allow anyone throw rocks at our officers.
PHILLIP: Nobody --
BORELLI: And none of the Chicago officials by the way --
(CROSSTALK)
PHILLIP: Nobody wants rocks to be thrown. But can it be handled in other ways.
BORELLI: None of the Chicago officials after they -- you know, they did a victory lap with the Supreme Court win today, none of them explained to us how they would actually guarantee the safety of ICE officers doing their lawful duties and making arrests and deporting people.
That is a lawful duty that ICE is doing. No one is debating that in the Supreme Court case.
PHILLIP: But why --
BORELLI: Why isn't more of a priority for the --
PHILLIP: What do you mean?
BORELLI: -- Chicago Police Department and Chicago authorities to protect ICE officers -- PHILLIP: Wait, sorry --
BORELLI: -- who are being victimized, who are being violently attacked --
PHILLIP: So, hold on.
BORELLI: -- who are being hit by cars and things.
PHILLIP: Well, hold on. Okay. The hit by cars allegation is also highly questionable. Okay. The case that you're even talking about, they acquitted -- they didn't even charge the woman who they accused of ramming into them. They didn't charge her. So --
BORELLI: So you're not going --
(CROSSTALK)
PHILLIP: Hold on. Hold on a second. Hold on a second.
BORELLI: We're not going to pretend like that --
PHILLIP: While this ruling has been stayed, ICE has continued to operate --
BORELLI: Because --
PHILLIP: -- not just in Chicago, but in Charlotte, all across the country. So it does not seem that any of this has stopped them from doing their jobs. They're doing it.
BORELLI: It has made it more dangerous. Right? The goal of this particular part of the National Guard deployment was to protect officers who were under siege, right. These are officers who always operated, by the way, even during the Biden administration, they operated in cities. But now that Trump's the president, now that they're enforcing the law, suddenly they're under attack by these so- called nonviolent protests.
ADAM MOCKLER, COMMENTATOR, MEIDASTOUCH NETWORK: I live in Chicago, and I've been to the protests at the Broadview Detention Center. The use of force from Trump was disproportionate, end of story. Like it was just incredibly disproportionate.
And when you pull people in Chicago, the majority of them say they do not want the National Guard. They do not want troops mobilized.
Now, people will say that this lowered crime. But yeah, when you mobilize the military into the streets, of course crime is going to be lowered. When you look at D.C., consumer spending at restaurants went down like 30 percent. So, then there's a trade off.
(CROSSTALK)
BORELLI: You're worried about consumer spending. Six hundred people were murdered in Chicago last year.
Two thousand people were shot in Chicago. You're worried about consumer spending? Twenty-five thousand victims of violent crimes --
PHILLIP: That's not what the National Guard was supposed to be doing --
BORELLI: The National Guard -- well, the Trump did deploy National Guard in other cities for public safety.
MOCKLER: Chicago back in 2020 --
BORELLI: Did you protest against the 2,000 people who were shot? Did you protest?
MOCKLER: That's awful.
BORELLI: So why didn't you go a protest --
MOCKLER: Let me finish --
(CROSSTALK)
BORELLI: Why you're more concerned about the consumer public safety -- consumer spending rather than public safety?
MOCKLER: Chicago back in 2021 had a program where they stopped guns --
BORELLI: Do you think people would spend more money if they were less likely to get shot?
(CROSSTALK)
PHILLIP: Hold on a second, you asked him a question. Let him answer the question.
MOCKLER: The majority of illegal guns in Chicago, I live there, come across state lines from Indiana, so there are ways to minimize crime and minimize shootings by having federal troops or not federal troops, federal agents launch investigations over state lines. Sending troops is a temporary, expensive and not a good long term solution.
BORELLI: Do you think that --
(CROSSTALK)
PHILLIP: Let me ask Elie this. Hold on, Joe.
Elie, Trump just today, shortly after this ruling, then turns around and deploys 350 National Guard members to New Orleans.
HONIG: Right.
PHILLIP: What happens now? HONIG: Well, so I think he's found a sort of way to thread the needle
here, right? If you are invited in by a governor, Louisiana has a Republican governor, then you can send in the troops, right? So that is a way to work around this. What he's not going to be able to do is send troops. For the most part, given this ruling into states that have Democratic governors. So any plans for Portland, Oregon, for New York, for Illinois.
PHILLIP: Troops from other states? Because one of the things that were trying to do is to Texas troops. Yeah, send them to Illinois.
HONIG: Yeah, and there's also really importantly, there's always that restriction, though, right?
[22:40:00]
Except for in the direst of emergencies, this is Posse Comitatus, to use I guess, Latin phrase, that military troops cannot perform civilian law enforcement functions. Theres a strict wall there between those two functions.
LOPRESTI: There's a question as to whether or not they were being direct --
HONIG: Tat was in dispute.
LOPRESTI: A civilian law enforcement function. If they're protecting federal agents, that is not per se ipso facto a civilian law enforcement activity. That wasn't ruled on either. It wasn't.
HONIG: That was not in this, right.
FIGARO: Okay. But they won't be sending troops into Republican states, because that would mean you would have to acknowledge what.
BORELLI: They are.
FIGARO: There is crime.
BORELLI: There is crime in New Orleans. And Governor Landry, but --
(CROSSTALK)
FIGARO: Because of the city. What I'm saying is --
BORELLI: Governor Hochul was open about it. He or she put the National Guard on subways, and it worked well.
FIGARO: What I'm saying is, Joe, what I'm saying is, Joe, you guys have been saying, what about Chicago? What about Chicago? What about Chicago? And it failed. You guys lost. You lost the Illinois argument.
BORELLI: Did it work in New York?
FIGARO: You lost the -- say it with me. You lost.
BORELLI: You lost the case in Illinois.
FIGARO: That's it. That's all --
BORELLI: The victims are the people --
(CROSSTALK)
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Thank you for having me, Abby.
PHILLIP: On our legal sage. Thank you very much.
HONIG: Appreciate it.
PHILLIP: Next for us, two big economic reports telling two very different stories about the U.S. economy. That's next.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[22:45:44]
PHILLIP: Tonight, quote, "It's hard to be married just days from Christmas." V.A. workers are bracing for more bad news as job cuts continue and employees face staffing shortages. Across the nation today, competing data presented a mixed picture of Trump's economy in the month of December.
No more than two hours apart, a strong GDP report was followed by a weak consumer confidence number in the -- in months. And this afternoon, another headline prompted some anxiety and dismay. Starting in January, the Trump administration is going to begin garnishing the wages of student loan borrowers who are in default. The Education Department tells CNN that it expects the first notices to be sent to approximately 1,000 defaulted borrowers in early January, and the notices will increase in scale on a month to month basis.
Now, should the agency expand its efforts, millions could be affected. As of April, more than 5 million borrowers were in default and nearly 4 million were delinquent.
You know, this is a kind of topsy turvy moment for the economy. But I also think that there is the economy and there are real people, right? And what they're feeling, what they're experiencing, the student loan borrowers thing could be one of those things that's kind of like a canary in the coal mine. There are so many people who have student loan debt, even if they don't have degrees and are going to be affected by that, on top of the cost of living issues that they're facing.
MOCKLER: Yeah, the GDP number in and of itself, I think is a bit misleading because as you look closer into it, you can see that the vast majority of this comes from rising health care costs. The vast majority of the consumer spending is from rising health care costs. And this is before people are struggling a lot in this economy.
So when you look at the GDP, I don't know if that reflects how people are feeling on the ground when unemployment is up. LOPRESTI: It's not supposed to.
MOCKLER: Yeah, I know. What unemployment is -- I'm just saying I've seen Republicans -- I've seen Republicans running victory laps about a good GDP number.
(CROSSTALK)
LOPRESTI: Right now for you.
MOCKLER: The numbers on the ground don't reflect that. Consumer sentiment is down.
(CROSSTALK)
PHILLIP: A White House official just tonight said, 4.3 percent GDP means that Americans have 4.3 percent more money.
MOCKLER: Can I say that?
PHILLIP: Totally not.
MOCKLER: Real disposable income grew -- real disposable income grew zero percent, meaning that consumption wasn't driven by higher incomes, but rather greater reliance on dipping into your savings.
PHILLIP: Okay.
LOPRESTI: So let's just -- let's just be clear, guys. Okay? These two numbers are very, very different. One is an actual measure of additional dollars added into the economy. And the other is essentially a popularity contest. It's sentiment. How are people feeling?
One has far more accuracy, reliability and relevance than the other one. I understand that there are portions of the population that are hurting. When we get interest rates down. We've talked about this on the show. There are large portions of the population --
MOCKLER: Large portions. Inflation is so embedded in the economy right now that people are struggling. Donald Trump saying he's going to bring inflation down.
LOPRESTI: So, okay --
BORELLI: Consumer sentiment doesn't matter when consumer spending an actual dollar amount measured is actually up. It along with --
MOCKLER: On health care?
BORELLI: It along with exports are the two leading factors of the GDP growth. Both things can be attributed to Donald Trump's thing.
PHILLIP: Also --
BORELLI: Because it's not a mix. You said it was -- (CROSSTALK)
PHILLIP: I mean, let's dive into the numbers a little bit more.
BORELLI: So, let's dive into -- inflation down, exports up, real wages up.
PHILLIP: Some of it includes increases in defense spending, that also contributed and decreases in imports, which is good if you're Donald Trump. And that's the only thing you care about. But some of the cheaper goods that people purchase are imports, which is why Americans might be paying more, but the GDP might be going up.
BORELLI: Abby, it's also -- Abby--
PHILLIP: Here's -- let me just read one more thing. This is more analysis from this report. Wealthy Americans continue to drive much of the growth in consumer spending, lower and middle income consumers have been much more cautious. Economists call that phenomenon a K- shaped economy. The K-shaped economy is staring us right in the face, said Jim Knightly, a chief international economist at ING. The economic growth, he said, is concentrated among higher income households and tech led investments i.e., A.I., while broader consumer confidence remains under pressure.
So, in other words, rich people who have a lot of money and they have a lot of investments are doing well. They're spending money. Poor people are spending money that they don't have. And that is not necessarily a good thing.
FIGARO: And Joe knows this. This is why J.D. Vance said that there was an affordability issue. It was why Mamdani won on an affordability issue.
[22:50:01]
The regular everyday people don't care about talking about GDP, ABC or BET or EBD. The bottom line is I got a bill today and I'm happy to show it to you. Or my daughter went to -- college student went to a doctor today, $1,500, $1,500 -- $400 of that was paid with health care, with UnitedHealthcare and $700 was put back on me.
So, when we start talking about garnishing student wages and student debt and taking a little bit of money they have in their pocket, they don't give a damn about your GDP --
BORELLI: So, two things.
FIGARO: -- Joe. They're just simply not going to get your care about that. And so what's going to happen is you're going to help this blue wave just come on through. And by next year, by the time health care triples -- doubles and triples, because you do not have a solution for health care.
PHILLIP: All right. BORELLI: On student loans, on student loans, the administration, the current one that won the election, actually ran to some degree on not paying off student loans, actually requiring people who took out loans to pay those loans and not have electricians and plumbers and people who work in the manufacturing sector actually subsidize and pay the loans of college kids who decided to get a $200,000 degree in basket weaving.
Now, on the other side, on the economy, we actually have measures that aren't anecdotes like you pointed out about the economy. They are inflation, they are real wages, they are GDP, they are exports, they are all these actual numbers --
MOCKLER: Or saying inflation is down.
BORELLI: -- which we actually measure the economy. Those numbers in terms of what Trump saw this week and what the country saw this week, are an absolute home run for the --
(CROSSTALK)
MOCKLER: Let's talk about inflation.
FIGARO: Electricians and plumbers can't pay their bills either because of tariffs. Inflation rates, electricians and plumbers can't pay their bills either.
MOCKLER: What is the inflation rate when Biden left office? What was it?
(CROSSTALK)
BORELLI: The inflation rate -- okay. People are suffering right now because goods are more expensive, because consumer price index inflation rose --
MOCKLER: What was the inflation rate when Biden left office?
BORELLI: -- 20 percent under Joe Biden. When your -- when your dollar is worth 20 percent less than it was four years ago, right, that's when you feel the pinch. That's when your life starts to --
MOCKLER: You're not going to answer question. What was the inflation rate when Biden left office?
You decided it was a home run, but it was 2.9 to three percent when Biden left office. It's still about three percent.
(CROSSTALK)
BORELLI: If you're going to -- I hope the Democrats run --
LOPRESTI: How many months of President Trump's tariffs --
MOCKLER: But the point is, as Trump was entering office, inflation was -- (CROSSTALK)
PHILLIP: Hold on, hold on.
MOCKLER: Good thing for you.
PHILLIP: Look -- look, I think, you know -- so what Adam is saying is, is important. And what you're saying is important, too, Joe. But I also think the idea that this is a home run that says everything is fine, that is not really supported by this report.
What it says, what it seems to indicate is that the economy is so far hanging on. But I think when economists are looking into these numbers, they're seeing things that worry them about what the average American, the voting population, not just the wealthiest.
BORELLI: Let's call the control room --
PHILLIP: What they are experiencing. And Joe, I --
BORELLI: Do a mashup of all the economists.
PHILLIP: You are a taxationer, hold on --
BORELLI: All the economists who told us there was going to be a recession. Do a mashup of that.
PHILLIP: Joe, you are a practitioner of politics. You understand that you can't win elections with just millionaires and billionaires being happy and content.
BORELLI: And Trump --
PHILLIP: This is going to be an election that is going to be determined by regular people who are wondering, can they replace that washing machine that's been in their house for ten years? This report indicates that they're not doing that yet, because they don't have that kind of disposable income.
So again, from a political perspective and from an economic perspective, there are things in here that really suggest that the average person, not the people with the 401(k)s or the investment accounts, are trying to figure out where to put the pennies together.
LOPRESTI: And I don't think it should be, Abby, I don't think it should be a debate about the haves and the have nots, the rich versus the poor.
FIGARO: It has to be, though.
LOPRESTI: It really should -- but -- but --
FIGARO: It must be.
LOPRESTI: It shouldn't be. We should -- we should all be rooting for the economy. We should all be rooting -- FIGARO: It doesn't work that way because all of us don't have access
--
PHILLIP: All right.
LOPRESTI: -- for an inflation adjustment.
FIGARO: That sounds good, but all of us don't have access. That's why it's called the haves and the have nots.
PHILLIP: All right.
FIGARO: So when the all does it, who benefits those at the top? And you guys are sounding like Joe Biden when Joe Biden said, don't worry about it, don't worry about it. The numbers say this. Don't worry about how people feel. You guys are doing exactly what you guys --
LOPRESTI: But the president's economic policies are designed to do is to stimulate small business growth and additional employment.
PHILLIP: All right. Night next for us, the panel is going to give us their nightcaps, Festivus edition. Be right back.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[22:58:32]
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: The tradition of Festivus begins with the airing of grievances. I got a lot of problems with you people. Now you're going to hear about it.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
PHILLIP: Yes. Today is the annual celebration of Festivus. Thanks to Frank Costanza.
So, for tonight's NEWSNIGHT cap, the airing of the grievances.
Marc, you're first.
LOPRESTI: I think for me, Abby, it's got to be people talking on cell phones or those earbud things in public and not realizing that there's other people around. We don't want to hear your damn conversation.
PHILLIP: Wait, even the earbuds.
LOPRESTI: Even the earbuds, earbud people be damned. I got a lot of problems with you people.
PHILLIP: Go ahead.
FIGARO: I have problems with people that do not wait their turn on the airplane. Like, literally. Why are you getting -- I am not going to let you pass me like -- PHILLIP: If you're sitting behind me --
FIGARO: You will wait. But I did say. I want to say this one quick. When I learned, as we were all sitting here, the one bipartisan thing that we all agree on is New York closes too early. Yes, everything closes at midnight. So, we all agree on that.
PHILLIP: That's a shame.
All right, Adam.
MOCKLER: I am done with people who think other countries pay the tariffs. I was at Charlie Kirk's TPUSA AmericaFest, and every single Trump supporter I talked to said other countries will pay 100 percent of the tariff. That's not the reality.
PHILLIP: Countries are not paying now.
MOCKLER: Yeah.
PHILLIP: All right, Joe.
BORELLI: I do not like paid for streaming services that I pay for. And they still make me watch the damn commercials. I pay for that privilege. I want uninterrupted programing. Not your commercials.
Don't double bill me. That's what they're doing. They're double billing us all. It's bull, and it should stop.
PHILLIP: Yeah. That's right.
MOCKLER: That's fair.
PHILLIP: Y'all are some angry people. Okay. Thank you, everyone. Thank you very much.
Thank you for watching NEWSNIGHT.
"THE STORY IS WITH ELEX MICHAELSON", it starts right now.
