Return to Transcripts main page
CNN NewsNight with Abby Phillip
CA Gubernatorial Candidate Face Off in High-Stakes CNN Debate; Rubio Declares "Epic Fury" Over as Battle Over Strait Intensifies; Billion Dollar Surprise. Aired 11p-12a ET
Aired May 05, 2026 - 23:00 ET
THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.
[23:00:00]
MAYOR MATT MAHAN (D-CA), CALIFORNIA GUBERNATORIAL CANDIDATE: People said we couldn't build the housing. I fought to speed up permitting and reduce fees. And now, we have homes under construction. I'll fight every day to make life better for Californians.
KAITLAN COLLINS, CNN WHITE HOUSE CORRESPONDENT: Thank you, Mayor Mahan. Thank you to all the candidates for joining us here tonight for CNN's California governor primary debate. Thank you to Elex Michaelson and to our whole team. And also, special thank you to our host, East Los Angeles College.
ELEX MICHAELSON, CNN ANCHOR AND CORRESPONDENT: And thanks to everybody for watching. I encourage you to get out there and vote. There is a lot to break down. A lot just happened.
(LAUGHTER)
So, if your head is spinning, Abby Phillip and her team at "NewsNight" is going to help break it all down. Stay with us right here on CNN.
ABBY PHILLIP, CNN ANCHOR AND SENIOR POLITICAL CORRESPONDENT: Tonight, a special edition of "NewsNight." Live at the table, Van Jones, Scott Jennings, Xochitl Hinojosa, Brad Todd, and Ana Navarro.
Good evening. I'm Abby Phillip. You've been watching the debate between candidates looking to replace Gavin Newsom as governor of California. There were five Democrats and two Republicans. And Donald Trump and MAGA policies were at the very center of much of tonight's conversation. Now, remember, the top two vote getters will get to advance to the general election regardless of their party affiliation. Van, as a Californian yourself, what did you make of how they differentiated themselves tonight in this crowded field?
VAN JONES, CNN SENIOR POLITICAL COMMENTATOR, FORMER OBAMA ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL: Well, look, I mean, I thought that Tom Steyer, his experience showed. He has run for president. They tried to jump on him a couple times. He's a conviction politician. And if you like, you know, strong left-wing politics, he was your guy. The problem we have in California is we produce more billionaires than any nation or state, and we resent the hell out of them. And so, I'm not sure how many people are going to stick with him because he's a billionaire. I thought Matt Mahan showed a breath of fresh air. He's a young guy. He's new to politics. He was pragmatic. But I think Becerra didn't do himself much good. He looked pretty squirrely on the 'Medicare for All' issue. He was a little bit squirrely on some other stuff. He has been the rising star because of Swalwell getting out. I don't think he helped himself tonight.
PHILLIP: You know, there were a couple of dynamics. I mean, there's the Trump of it all, which we'll definitely get to. But on the -- for the Democrats, the five of them on the stage, I do think that, in a state like California, you've got a lot of progressives. They're very liberal. But there's definitely a sense that they know people want some change. They know that Californians think things are not going so swimmingly in the state. Some things got to give.
XOCHITL HINOJOSA, CNN POLITICAL COMMENTATOR: Yes. Absolutely. Prices are high there. You know, they talk to -- they -- each have to say something about the previous governor. You also have a situation where I think a lot of Democrats don't feel like this is the ideal tickets, that they -- you don't have people on the stage that people are in love with.
PHILLIP: Correct.
HINOJOSA: Eric Swalwell dropped out of the race because he had sexual assault allegations against him. There are some major changes that need to happen within the Democratic Party. It's a moment of reckoning for the Democratic Party in California.
But I do think that overall issues like the cost of living, affordability, health care, all of these things are still things that people care about in California and there needs to be major change. And it's not just policies because of the president and the war. It is policies because the governor and the governor will be on -- likely be on the presidential ballot in 2028. And so, this is also referendum on him.
PHILLIP: Brad?
BRAD TODD, CNN POLITICAL COMMENTATOR, REPUBLICAN STRATEGIST: I think you're right, Xochitl, about that's a -- California good Democrats do have to stare it in the face, what has been happening inside the California Democratic Party that has led to the affordability challenges. Democrats all across the country this year have decided to try to make the election about affordability. But the most democratic state in the country is the most unaffordable state. That's why 1.23 million people have moved out of the state and moved in to places like Nashville and Texas.
And so, I only heard Matt Mahan tonight talk about affordability in a real pragmatic way of what he could do about it. He talked about eliminating the CEQA process, which is an environmental review process that makes infrastructure construction impossible. He talked a little bit about the tax problem, about how California is one of the highest tax states.
I was -- I thought Katie Porter might have had a lane to do that today, but I didn't see it from her.
PHILLIP: Well, let me play what she said about the billionaire tax. It has been so controversial in California. Listen.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
KATIE PORTER, CALIFORNIA GUBERNATORIAL CANDIDATE, FORMER CALIFORNIA REPRESENTATIVE: This tax isn't going to fundamentally change California's economy in the way that young people and the working people of California need. It's a one-time tax. But we don't have one- time revenue needs. It taxes billionaires as if half billionaires don't have two nickels to rub together and couldn't chip in a little bit more.
[23:05:00]
So, yes to a progressive tax code, yes to the wealthy paying more, but this tax is about cheap political points. It is not about really fundamentally changing California's economy for the better. That's going to take real political courage.
TOM STEYER, CALIFORNIA GUBERNATORIAL CANDIDATE, BUSINESSMAN, PHILANTHROPIST: Thank you. Billionaires like me should pay more taxes and the big corporations should pay more taxes.
PORTER: Excuse me, you literally said --
STEYER: And that's why if this proposition is on the ballot in November, I'll vote for it. But going forward, we do need to go further. This is a one-time tax and it also doesn't spread the money across the government the way everything else does.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
VAN JONES, CNN SENIOR POLITICAL COMMENTATOR, FORMER OBAMA ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL: You know, that's one of those times they were kind of trying to jump on Tom Steyer, but he actually did pretty well for himself. So --
PHILLIP: Well, if you support the billionaire tax, which actually maybe many Californians do. I think Katie Porter is betting that some Californians, you know, they want a progressive tax system, but they think that this is like a two by four, hitting their --
HINOJOSA: Yes.
PHILLIP: -- you know, sort of tax paying population over --
ANA NAVARRO, CNN POLITICAL COMMENTATOR: I live in Miami and I can tell you, almost every week right now, there are some California billionaire who comes out as having broken a real estate record for buying a house in Miami that costs $200 million because they are all fleeing the state before a certain deadline, a year deadline, and establishing homesteads in Florida. So, that's not helping the California economy. There are so many industries that have left California. The movie industry, which is so symbolic of California, most of the productions are right now happening overseas or in other states like New Mexico. It's happening in Canada. It's cheaper to fly people and film a movie in Scotland than it is to do so in California. So, they are having very big issues.
I think, out of all those people on the stage, somebody needed to stand out. That did not happen. I cannot believe I sat through two hours of them bickering instead of drinking margaritas at La Palapa tonight on Cinco de Mayo. I do think, you know, that --
PHILLIP: Sorry, we couldn't provide the margaritas.
SCOTT JENNINGS, CNN SENIOR POLITICAL COMMENTATOR, FORMER SPECIAL ASSISTANT TO PRESIDENT GEORGE W. BUSH, SALEM RADIO HOST: These things are not mutually exclusive.
(LAUGHTER)
PHILLIP: We definitely should have some margaritas on the set tonight.
(CROSSTALK)
NAVARRO: Listen, Tom Steyer is a progressive. And even though he has taken all the money from the coal companies, as Katie Porter keeps saying, he's, you know, now an environmentalist and all of that. So, I guess you like him. I have a hard time thinking that a state that is 40 percent Latino, that is pissed off at billionaires, that thinks they're not paying their fair share, is going to vote for Tom Steyer.
It's obvious to me that Xavier Becerra has inherited the Swalwell vote, that he's on the ascent, and that's why he was being hit on like a pinata, to go back to my Cinco de Mayo --
(LAUGHTER)
-- theme tonight, by everybody.
PHILLIP: So, let's talk about the two Republicans who are on the stage, Steve Hilton, a recent California transplant from the U.K, and Chad Bianco, who's a sheriff. Let me show you the polls because I think that -- to understand where we are here. Steve Hilton is sort of nominally at the top of this pack, to put it mildly. But this is all within the margin of error. We don't really know where this is going right now. But Hilton has the Trump endorsement.
He was asked about whether or not he would support mass deportations. Didn't want to say. So, how do you leverage a Trump endorsement to a victory in a state like California where Trump is so unpopular?
JENNINGS: Yes, it's a difficult puzzle to solve --
(LAUGHTER) -- although I have to say, for Hilton, I didn't know much about him before I started following this campaign. I interviewed him yesterday on my radio show. He's quite articulate about asking the right questions, which is this: If the state is failed, if the education system is failed, if it's an affordability crisis, if we're only one of five states where people are actually leaving instead of going into, if you have all these problems, is it a good idea to have one party rule for so long? And Hilton, I think, has articulated that.
I asked him yesterday, you know, is it possible for Republican to get elected governor of California? You know, he has a way to lay out the math that shows yes, you could attract independents and even some disaffected Democrats who are sort of fed up with the fact that they live in a state that's beautiful and has all these things going for it, but has been so mismanaged that people hate living here so much, that they're fleeing to Miami and other places.
And, you know, watching this debate tonight, watching Democrats argue with each other about how to raise more taxes, how to further ruin health care, how to let in more illegal immigrants, it makes you believe that someone like Steve Hilton, if you just articulate the right questions, sometimes, that can get you pretty far in the campaign.
NAVARRO: Oh, come on, Scott. The only way a Republican win in California, if it's somehow out of this crazy jungle primary, two Republicans make it. But if there is one Democrat against Steve Hilton, whether it's Tom Steyer, whether it's Xavier Becerra, that Democrat is going to win.
[23:10:01]
JENNINGS: And my response to that is you're probably right. But my question is, is that a good thing? Is it a good thing for California to continue to just vote for the same party that has created all these problems that everyone seems to agree to exist?
JONES: I -- you're at a boiling point right now in California where if an outsider with the right message came along or a fortunate did that, you could get there. Unfortunately, it is a non-starter to have somebody who will not acknowledge that Donald Trump lost to Joe Biden in 2020. He just basically took himself out of the running. If he would just moderate on anything at all, he would have the opportunity or anybody would have the opportunity to point out a lot of stuff is not working. But that's not going to happen.
You are correct. Snoopy, a twinkie running against a Republican in California will win in California if the Republican is saying that Donald Trump --
NAVARRO: You know --
TODD: Katie Porter will put that to the test, though. I mean, she's one of the worst political athletes we've seen in a large state.
NAVARRO: Oh, come on. Give that woman some credit. She spent the whole night trying to be nice.
(LAUGHTER)
JENNINGS: Trying.
TODD: She's one of the least likable, most uninteresting politicians we see rise to the top in a large state. All the New England states eventually elected a Republican governor. Massachusetts did it for like 20 years in a row. The voters know that the legislature got things under control from their ideological perspective, and they see some adult supervision. You see it sometimes in the south, Steve Beshear in Scott's home state, a Democrat governor in a republican state.
Eventually, it will happen in California because the legislature will manage the state to the point where voters have no other choice. I don't know if it's this year, though.
(CROSSTALK)
PHILLIP: I have to say, I mean, I don't know that no Republican could win. But I'm not sure a Trump endorsement helps. I'm also not sure that somebody who, like, may or may not have been an Oath Keeper --
HINOJOSA: An Oath Keeper. Yes.
PHILLIP: An Oath Keeper --
JONES: An Oath Keeper --
(CROSSTALK)
PHILLIP: And at one point, he said he was proud of it, but then said he was no longer affiliated with them. That combination doesn't seem to bode well for Californians.
HINOJOSA: Well, listen, it's not only that but, to your point about the 2020 election, the Republican Party cannot get away from -- they're scared of Donald Trump. They're scared. Even in a state like California, they are terrified of potentially being on his bad side, potentially going out there and saying that he did not win the 2020 election, you know, disavowing themselves from the Oath Keepers, things like this.
And so -- and this isn't -- and it's not going to work in California. But it's also not going to work in 2026. And if Republicans can't finally disassociate themselves and distance themselves from Donald Trump, they're not going to be able to win the presidency.
JENNINGS: Two Democrat things that I saw, that I actually was impressed by, I agree with you on Mahan.
JONES: Yes.
JENNINGS: He looked like a pragmatic guy. I mean, I didn't see like anybody head and shoulders above just as a tactical matter. But Mahan, you get the feeling that -- just sort of the average commonsense independent might look at that guy and say he seems like the one who's not squabbling about things that don't matter, and that's --
PHILLIP: A Silicon Valley guy.
NAVARRO: I'm surprised that, you know, with -- what? Less than a month to the primary with the absentee ballots, the mail-in ballots already out, the Democratic heavyweights, and by that, I mean somebody like a Gavin Newsom, like a Kamala Harris who's a Californians, like a Barack Obama, haven't called some of these Democrats that are in the low single digits and said, you know, get your, you know, ass out of this race, you're causing us some harm.
PHILLIP: Well, I mean -- well, I mean, let me put up again the -- this is the latest CBS/YouGov poll that meets CNN's polling standard. I mean, maybe this actually explains why those calls haven't happened. Because Matt Mahan, you know, you are kind of impressed by him over on this side of the table. He's at four percent in this poll.
So, if you call everybody below five percent, maybe you're -- maybe you're jettisoning some people who could have last-minute momentum who might be better, some of these folks like Kamala Harris, Gavin Newsom, and President Obama might think might be formidable candidates in the state. So, I mean, maybe they just think it's too soon, but it mostly might be too late.
JONES: I'm going to tell you, the California Democrat, they can call whoever they want to call. People, they don't listen. The California Democrats are going to do what they want to do. Nobody can get anybody doing anything. We were lucky to be able to manage the commonwealth Gavin dance for all those years. They never --
NAVARRO: Well, you might still have to.
(LAUGHTER)
JONES: So, listen, I just do want to say about Matt. He's brand new to politics, he has done a great job in his city, he's got a big future ahead of him. But tonight, he sounded more like he was running for mayor than governor. I think if he took that same path, which has an inhabitable vision behind it, I think he gets somewhere.
PHILLIP: So, let me play -- this is Steve Hilton talking about why Democrats are blaming Trump for things that they're actually responsible for. Here's what he said.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
STEVE HILTON, CALIFORNIA GUBERNATORIAL CANDIDATE, BUSINESSMAN, FORMER T.V. HOST: The Democrats who are here, who have been responsible for 16 years of one-party rule for everything that we see in California, won't take responsibility, and all they can talk about is Trump.
[23:15:06]
It's not Donald Trump who has given us gas prices $2 higher than the rest of the country. It's Democrat policies, which (INAUDIBLE) and all the Democrats here support. It's not Donald Trump that has given us the highest housing costs in the country. It's Democrat policies that all these Democrats support. Donald Trump is the president in all the other states of America where the cost of living is way lower than in California.
Obviously, it is way past time for changing California. And endlessly going on about Donald Trump doesn't serve the needs of the struggling families and small businesses.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
JONES: That's his best moment.
PHILLIP: He has a point.
JENNINGS: It's a great -- again, he's asking the right question. If you're unhappy, no matter what your party is, why would you leave the same people in charge who've run it into the ground? He raised, I think, an interesting point on gas prices, and we've seen news reports about why gas prices are higher in California.
One Democrat actually wound up acknowledging it. It was Villarosa who said, yes, we do have --
NAVARRO: Not Villarosa, Villaraigosa.
(LAUGHTER)
JENNINGS: OK. In Kentucky, we have --
PHILLIP: I believe Mahan also came out against the gas tax in the state which, you know, Tom Steyer vociferously supported and backed up. So, I mean, there are some divisions that are showing up.
JENNINGS: Yes. I thought -- I think it's noteworthy when people all in the same party -- if somebody veers when somebody zigs and everybody else is zagging, I think it's noteworthy, and to say -- and to just basically tell the truth we have fees and taxes that make California gas prices $2 more. That is a moment of honesty, to say, I get it and maybe we need to think about it.
NAVARRO: By the way, Becerra did have that moment of truth. Becerra said, yes, we have this gas tax because it's what allows us to fill the bottles and keep the roads going. So, yes, we are $2 higher than the rest of the country because of that tax, but we're also $2 higher, a buck 50 higher because of the Iran war. Both things are true. And frankly, all 50 states are pissed about that.
JENNINGS: I know. But the governor of California doesn't decide when we're going to finish taking nuclear weapons away from Iran. They could decide whether the lower taxes and fees on Californians. And I think --and I think mixing or mistaking what the governor of California can do versus what the president can do was a big point of contention in this debate. But, of course, it's irrelevant when you're arguing about federal issues that we have no impact on. JONES: Look, this is going to come down to, at least on our side, it's Becerra and Tom Steyer. And I think Tom Steyer, he's a conviction politician. He has a coherent view. People may not like it. They think it's too progressive. But he says what he wants to do. He says how he's going to pay it. And he's sending a lot of money in our state. You cannot knock on 30 million doors. It's a huge state. So, if you can pay for the kind of media that Tom ha paid for --
(CROSSTALK)
NAVARRO: I mean, Tom Steyer has now spent half a billion dollars trying to get elected to something, right?
TODD: Well, he also --
NAVARRO: He spent $350 trying to get elected to president, and that was a big fail. And he's spending $150 million trying to get elected governor of California.
HINOJOSA: So, it's interesting you said that. I think the other thing with the Democratic base right now is they want a fighter. And we saw something very different in Illinois than we did in Minnesota. We saw Governor Pritzker really fight the administration and really try to stand up to Donald Trump. In Minnesota, you saw Governor Walz, who I know you talk about all of the time, did not do that. I actually think that it did not serve Minnesota well, and look at what happened there.
California will be the target of this administration on immigration enforcement, on all sorts of issues because it is the only -- because it is a democratic state, because it is a blue state. That's the reality that we live in. Whoever -- it has been and it will be even more. Whoever is going to be governor will have to stand up to Donald Trump. Can I tell you, after working in Joe Biden's administration, I do not trust -- have he ever set out to do that?
PHILLIP: Can I -- can I just say --
JENNINGS: Whoa, whoa --
HINOJOSA: I don't -- I don't trust that he would be able to do that because -- and that is the feeling.
PHILLIP: Can you trust that he will be able to stand up to Trump, specifically?
HINOJOSA: I don't think that he will be able to stand up to Trump and lead. And the reason why --
NAVARRO: Anybody on that stage who --
(CROSSTALK)
PHILLIP: Before she answers that, can I -- can I ask you why?
HINOJOSA: Because when I saw him in the administration, I think a lot of people did, people understand this, it's he was not effective in governing. And I think that a lot of people in the Biden administration are talking about this because they realized that he was not an effective HHS secretary. And if you ask any cabinet secretary, they would tell you the same thing. And so, I think that there is a -- I think people recognized this, and I think this is why Tom Steyer has gone to the top.
JENNINGS: Do Biden and Harris think that?
HINOJOSA: I think there have been -- I have not spoken with them about it.
(CROSSTALK)
PHILLIP: I'll tell you that this is not -- this is not the first time that I've heard that, right?
[23:20:01]
HINOJOSA: Yes.
PHILLIP: So, what Xochitl is talking about is a real thing. And you kind of got it a little bit of a sense of it on the stage tonight where the attacks against Becerra were not about what he was or wasn't going to do in California. It was about his record in the Biden administration. It was about his character. It was about his leadership.
And I do think that's going to be a problem. I'm not sure the Joe Biden adjacent brand is a good brand right now anywhere in this country. And I also think that the HHS situation, when you dig deeper into what he did in that role, that could be a problem for him.
TODD: I trust Van's analysis. It's your state. You follow California Democratic politics far closer than I do, that this -- the race is between those two for the last slot. But if you look at Tom Steyer tonight, he was making no play for people to his right at all. The gas tax is a regressive tax. It hits working class people hard. And Tom Steyer's answer is buy an electric vehicle.
Well, if you're in construction, you can't do that. If you have a boat, you can't do that. Like there are just certain people who cannot -- the answer is not buying Tesla. And so, I wonder if it is possible for him to consolidate Katie Porter's vote at all. Is that who he's going for?
JONES: It could be. Listen, there is a hunger in California politics from the Latin community, from the Hispanic community. That's another part of the dynamic here. But, you know, the SEIU, dual endorsed. You'd expect the SEIU to come out for Becerra. They dual endorsed Tom Steyer.
NAVARRO: When was that endorsement?
JONES: When? It's like couple day or yesterday.
NAVARRO: OK. So, it was after Swalwell. JONES: Yes. So, that's one thing. There is a hunger to do something there. I think the Latin community would really like to see somebody get across the finish line. But even SEIU dual endorsed.
NAVARRO: You know, I didn't see anybody on that stage that I would say is a fighter in the way that we see JB Pritzker being, you know, not taking any shit from Trump and not letting himself be bullied. I don't see it happening --
PHILLIP: Katie Porter's attempt to present that way --
NAVARRO: Yes, but, well, no, Katie Porter, obviously, is trying to be on her best behavior and win the Miss Congeniality Award in this. I have --
JENNINGS: She's got a long way to go.
PHILLIP: She did say F Trump in her fundraising email.
NAVARRO: I've known Xavier Becerra for well over 30 years. He has been, you know, in Congress, attorney general, HHS Secretary. I'll say this: Is he the most energetic person out there? No. But I didn't see anybody on that stage that was. There has not been a whiff of scandal when it comes to his personal character. There have been no sexual scandals with Xavier, which is a great thing these days.
(CROSSTALK)
PHILLIP: He was asked about -- he was asked about --
NAVARRO: He got pummeled about the chief of staff issue.
PHILLIP: Yes. I mean, that's a scandal.
NAVARRO: No, no, no. But Abby, that's a federal case where there has been investigation, accountability, and indictment. You think for one minute that if Xavier had any vulnerability that Trump DOJ would not have indicted him?
PHILLIP: I guess what I'm saying is -- I'm not suggesting --
NAVARRO: They just indicted --
PHILLIP: -- he personally did any wrongdoing, but I'm saying that there is a controversy around him.
(CROSSTALK)
TODD: Democrats on CNN. It's like 20 Democrats in a ring.
NAVARRO: -- he should have shown anger. If somebody was accusing me of stuff, I'd be pretty damn angry. So, I think that that was a missed opportunity for Xavier because he should have taken offense at the fact that they were trying to tie him to that case instead of being kind of as trying to be factual and fight it off in that kind of nice Xavier way. That's what you're going to -- JONES: One person we haven't talked about is Villaraigosa, and I think Villaraigosa actually did a good job tonight.
NAVARRO: He's at four percent.
JONES: I'm just saying.
JENNINGS: I mentioned him. I said he did good on the gas. And then Ana corrected me on the pronunciation.
(LAUGHTER)
NAVARRO: A twinkie you quoted earlier on has a higher chance.
(LAUGHTER)
JONES: All I'm saying is I thought he did a good job. I thought he was good.
PHILLIP: All I will say is I see the lines being drawn right here at this table. We'll see how this goes. Next for us, breaking news tonight in America's war against Iran. The secretary of state says Epic Fury is over. But Iran and the U.S. are still exchanging fire. We'll discuss. Plus, A surprise twist for Donald Trump's ballroom. Republicans now want taxpayers to fund a billion-dollar bill for it. We'll be right back.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[23:25:00]
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
PHILLIP: What's going on in the war against Iran? Well, there are more questions than answers tonight after the secretary of state, Marco Rubio, said this about the state of the conflict.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
MARCO RUBIO, UNITED STATES SECRETARY OF STATE: The operation is over. Epic Fury -- as the president notified Congress -- we're done with that stage of it. OK? We're now on to this project to freedom.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
PHILLIP: So, the old operation is apparently over as the U.S. moves on to a new initiative that's aimed at guiding commercial ships through the Strait of Hormuz. But just hours after Rubio made that announcement, President Trump put the new operation on hold, saying, Project Freedom will be paused for a short time, but the U.S. blockade will remain in force.
Now, things don't sound over either. Iran and the U.S. have been trading fire and did so soon after Project Freedom went into effect on Monday. Later, Iran launched missiles and drone attacks against the United Arab Emirates. But tonight, Trump and his administration insist that the ceasefire is, in fact, holding.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
UNKNOWN (voice-over): Is the ceasefire over?
PETE HEGSETH, UNITED STATES SECRETARY OF DEFENSE: No, the ceasefire is not over. Ultimately, this is a separate and distinct project.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
UNKNOWN (voice-over): What do they need to do to violate the ceasefire?
DONALD TRUMP, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: Well, you'll find out because I'll let you know. They know what to do and -- they know what to do. They know what not to do, more importantly.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
PHILLIP: So, a lot of people are scratching their heads tonight because, first of all, very unceremoniously, the war is over. The war is over.
[23:30:00]
They launched what could be an important thing, which is to try to -- an operation to try to get the Strait of Hormuz open. Then Iran starts firing at their regional neighbors. And then, suddenly, that operation is also over after Trump says he got a request from Pakistan and other countries that he wouldn't name, asking him to stop the operation. So, kind of seems like Iran successfully pressured Trump to back down.
JENNINGS: Well, I mean, the other alternative view is there are all kinds of conversations going on with Pakistan and maybe even with China. The Chinese foreign minister is holding talks in Beijing on Wednesday with Iran's foreign minister. I've been wondering when the Chinese are going to show up to Iran and say, OK, all right, we have to settle this now because we need our oil.
So, you know, my thinking is there could be back channel diplomatic negotiations going on here that are just a little opaque to us. What Iran has left are these little speedboats that they run out there. I think the president is actually showing some restraint here. And, you know, I guess the competing issue is, is it restraint or is it weakness? Some people have argued it is weakness. I think it is restraint as he tries to get the diplomatic piece.
NAVARRO: We all realize what's happening here, right? I mean, it started as Operation Epic Fury, but it has now gone on for so long that it would require congressional authorization. So, he is changing the name of it, announcing that one thing is over and renaming it something else. What is it now? Operation Freedom. So that he doesn't -- so that he's got some sort of loophole so he doesn't have to go get authorization from Congress. And if this goes on for another two months, it's going to be named another operation. This thing is going to have more reinventions than share.
(LAUGHTER)
JONES: I think this is not good. The reason I think it's not good is that Marco Rubio did an excellent job, not a good job, an excellent job, making the case for the United States escorting traffic through that part of the world. It was a defensive action. It was really well done. And then hours later, the president says, never mind, and gives no actual verifiable reason for doing so. And it looks like the body language looks like the Iranians got pissed, attacked UAE, and we backed off. That's what it looks like.
I don't think that's good. I don't think it makes a lot of sense going forward. And the reality is if we cannot, if in fact we cannot escort, you know, our allies and trade through the strait, that means Iran is stronger than we think, stronger than we want them to be. And it's not just these little boats. They're also firing other stuff. I don't think that what happened today is good.
PHILLIP: Let me play before you jump in because I want you to hear Dan Caine, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs, talking about what Iran has been doing in the Strait of Hormuz.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
GEN. DAN CAINE, CHAIRMAN, JOINT CHIEFS OF STAFF: Since the ceasefire was announced, Iran has fired at commercial vessels nine times and seized two container ships. And they've attacked U.S. forces more than 10 times, all below the threshold of restarting major combat operations at this point.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
PHILLIP: You know, hearing that, first of all, Lieutenant Caine, he is doing -- General Caine is doing his job. He doesn't determine what the threshold is for restarting military operations. The president gets to. So, what would it take for Iran to provoke the United States enough? How many attacks will it take for Trump to actually enforce all the different lines that he has drawn in this conflict?
TODD: Well, today, he also asked the United Sations Security Council to pass a resolution to try to mediate this and push Iran to stop what they're doing in the strait, which I think Democrats in United States should rally around. They've always wanted the United Nations to intervene. So, they should now applaud the president and say this is a great idea and see if they can, through their channels, put the pressure on the Europeans to join that. There are 23,000 people, civilians mostly, from 87 different countries stuck in the strait right now on ships.
And I think it's pretty prudent for the president to not just say let's let both sides blow everything up, let's do everything we can, work through the Pakistanis. He said this is only paused for a couple of days. We'll see what happens in a couple of days. Work through the United Nations. See if the Chinese can get anywhere. This is an intractable problem, and I don't think we should sit here and pretend that, oh, this is as simple as turn the switch on or turn it off.
PHILLIP: Nobody is pretending that except -- nobody is pretending that but the president. I mean, that's the truth. You know, everybody has said from the beginning exactly what you said. This is an intractable problem. The president was the one who said, I'm going to give them 10 days. And if they don't come to a deal, we're going to wipe them off the face of the earth, essentially. So, this is a problem. If there's an expectation problem, that's one of Trump's making.
HINOJOSA: He has tried to declare victory so many times, and we are still in this war. Gas prices are still up. You know, there is no ceasefire. It is a mess.
[23:35:00]
And I think what Democrats want is we want this war to end, so do the vast majority of Americans. I think, ultimately, what happens here is that we don't -- I mean, this war could go up until the midterm elections at this point. And I think that -- and if it does and gas prices rise even higher, that is worse for Republicans. What I find interesting --
TODD: High gas prices are bad. We can agree on that.
HINOJOSA: Yes. But they're going to get worse if he continues this war and does not have a path to get out of it whatsoever. I mean, I think it is a big problem for Republicans.
PHILLIP: So, high gas prices are bad, Brad says. Here's what the president says about that.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
TRUMP: I also thought oil would go up to 200, 250, maybe 300. And I know it would be short term. But I thought it would go -- I look today, it's like at 102. And that's a very small price to pay for getting rid of a nuclear weapon from people that are really mentally deranged.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
PHILLIP: Now, I remind you, the price of gas today is $4.50 thereabouts.
JONES: Yes. Look, I mean, classic kind of negotiation. You've got anchors high, and then says, compared to like the high anchor I just made about a thin air, now it looks a little bit low. But, you know, this is not working. It's very helpful to Democrats when you do stuff like that. It's a small price to pay. But, you know, you're not paying it, Mr. President. Ordinary Americans are paying it.
Also, I love it when American presidents go to United Nations. I also love it when they go to U.S. Congress. And that's what the missing piece here, is that we've not had a chance as George W. Bush did or H.W. Bush did. The American Congress has not had a chance to weigh in on this stuff yet. So, I don't think this is going well for the public.
NAVARRO: Well, but the problem is that he has pummeled international alliances. He has attacked our -- normally, our friends who were going with us. He did nothing to prepare the international community or the American public to the actions that he was going to take. And so, now, going to the U.N., you know, that's something that should have been done way in the beginning and after setting the stage for it.
And on this thing about it's just a little bit of pain, he keeps doing this, right? It's like back when he said, oh, you don't have -- don't buy your daughter 30 dolls, buy her two dolls, don't buy seven pencils, buy one pencil or whatever.
It's just -- and I think there's something that just sticks in the craw of people when they see a billionaire who walks around with pictures of his ballroom and his arch, trying to tell people, it's OK, you can endure short-term pain. There are people in this country who cannot endure short-term pain because they live paycheck to paycheck.
PHILLIP: I cannot emphasize enough that there is no end in sight. There really is not.
JENNINGS: Can I ask you a question on that point? Because you said Democrats want to end the war. And my question is, how do they want to end the war? I think it's a fair --
(CROSSTALK)
JENNINGS: -- it's a fair -- well -- and this is the point I want to make. Whether you think we should have done it or not, now, the United States is in, the military is committed, the president has an objective which is make sure these people don't get a nuclear weapon. My view, and I think the Republican view, is the only way out of the war is complete and total victory. The politics for President Trump to just end this without achieving the objective are far worse than staying in it long enough to win. But what do you think?
PHILLIP: He has, Scott. Come on. But Scott, he has. They announced today that Operation Epic Fury is over. The military campaign is over. That's what they said.
JENNINGS: Well, as Ana said, this is a -- this is a paperwork issue.
(LAUGHTER)
TODD: The Iranians are likely to hit a tripwire and give us grounds to do --
PHILLIP: Is it a paperwork -- is it a paperwork issue really because --
TODD: With the Congress, it is. PHILLIP: I mean, look, they -- Marco Rubio as well made it very clear that the whole ball game right now is the negotiating table.
JENNINGS: Sure.
PHILLIP: That's where they're at. And they know that. The ballgame is the negotiating table because the blockade, it's in place, but it's not necessarily -- it has not moved the needle yet. So, the military operation is already done with. What does complete and total victory look like when really, at the end of the day, they're back to where Obama was during the --
TODD: Not at all because Iran --
PHILLIP: I'm talking about -- I'm talking about in the sense that what they are doing is sitting down with the Iranians and saying, let's make a deal, let's come up with a timetable, let's come up with a plan to remove the material. They're doing the same process
TODD: But with Iran --
PHILLIP: -- that the previous administration did before.
HINOJOSA: Iran is going to rebuild.
TODD: We'll have to go back.
JENNINGS: But with country whose military is totally destroyed --
PHILLIP: But what does complete and total victory look like at this point?
JENNINGS: To me, to me, complete and total victory is to definitively tell the American people the objective was they will not build or possess nuclear weapons. That is the victory. Now, we've met a lot of military objectives. We've destroyed thousands of targets. These people are set back decades in a number of ways.
[23:40:00]
But complete and total victory is there will be no nuclear weapons in Iran, period, end of story.
PHILLIP: So, in other words, we are -- we are not anywhere near that. We're not anywhere near them. We're not having a nuclear weapon. The nuclear material is still very much in Iran. They have not abandoned their terrorist funding and proxy groups and ideology. We haven't completely eliminated their missile program.
TODD: And they have the strait.
PHILLIP: So, what -- and they have the strait.
JENNINGS: We had it. We're the one enforcing the blockade.
PHILLIP: No. Hold on a second. We don't have it. HINOJOSA: No. We don't have power over it.
PHILLIP: We only have it if we can allow transit through the strait. We have a blockade, but we don't have control of the strait. So, what exactly is the victory?
TODD: Wait a minute. You said a minute ago that they still have their missile making capacity. They have 10 to 15 percent of their missile making capacity.
PHILLIP: Yes. OK. So, we're saying the same thing.
TODD: So, we're much better off. No, we're much better off. We're much better off of that.
PHILLIP: All I'm saying is that we're saying the same thing.
TODD: Their navy is gone.
NAVARRO: That wasn't the objective --
TODD: Sure, it is.
PHILLIP: Their missile capacity has been diminished, but they still have it.
TODD: I would add to Scott's thing that they don't have a nuclear program anymore, and they don't have the ability to project mayhem abroad in their region and terrorize their neighbors. And so, that means they have to be incapacitated so they cannot support Hamas, they cannot support Hezbollah, they cannot support the Houthis. This is not something that you might get done in a week or two, but we are much further along than we were when the president started it.
JONES: Look, this is western power trouble. They have trouble with these sorts of adversaries. This is an ideological adversary fighting an asymmetric war. All they need is drones to shut down that strait. And so, that gives them a lot of leverage.
And when western powers go up against highly -- Vietnam, highly ideological opponent willing to be bombed for 100 years, will be communist no matter what you say. These people willing to be bombed for 100 years are going to be Islam or fascist no matter what you say. This is tough for western powers.
And so, I just think that we've gotten ourselves into this thing. I'm with Scott. I don't think cutting and running right now is a great idea. But I think everybody needs to be a lot more honest about the fact that we can bomb these folks and blow up whole bunch of stuff. As long as they have -- as long as they're still in power and have one drone, they can control that strait, and that's a problem for the United States.
PHILLIP: All right. Let's leave it there, guys. Remember when the president's new ballroom wasn't going to cost taxpayers a dime? Well, Senate Republicans are now pushing to include a billion dollars for work related to the president's pet project. We'll discuss that next.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[23:45:00]
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
PHILLIP: It looks like American taxpayers could be footing the bill for President Trump's ballroom. After all, Senate Republicans are now looking to give the Secret Service $1 billion. Yes, that's billion, with a B, dollars for security upgrades for this project, the cash tucked inside of a broader immigration reconciliation package. And the GOP is arguing that the public should bankroll some of the costs after last month's shooting at the White House Correspondents' Dinner. But that's not what Trump has been saying since he started his prized renovation project.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
TRUMP: We have no taxes. This is taxpayer-free. We have no taxpayer putting up 10 cents.
We did this no charge to the taxpayer whatsoever.
I'm paying for it. I'm paying for it. The country is not.
We're donating a 400-million-dollar ballroom.
Myself and donors are giving them free of charge for nothing.
It's being paid for a hundred percent by me and some friends of mine, donors.
Rich people and people are putting up the money. Zero taxpayer dollars.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
PHILLIP: Brad, what in the bait and switch is this?
(LAUGHTER)
TODD: Well, what I would tell you is if Democrats had not been willing to fund the Department of Homeland Security and not shut the government down, we would not have this reconciliation vehicle, which can be passed --
PHILLIP: OK.
TODD: -- Senator Thune and Speaker Johnson were not planning on doing this. There's going to be no vessel for this to happen. Democrats forced them to do this. And so, now, the president --
(CROSSTALK)
TODD: I do support the ballroom. We need a ballroom. The Obama administration felt we needed a ballroom. We need a ballroom.
NAVARRO: Recently, a week ago, right after the White House Correspondents' Dinner attempted shooting, the DOJ ran to court two days afterwards to argue in front of the judge who has put the injunction on the construction about the need to build this ballroom. And in that legal filing that was done last week, Trump's DOJ, that thing read like a Trump tweet, it said over and over, it's going to be free, it's a gift from me to the American people, it's not going to cost anything.
So, the problem is not the vessel that it's on, the problem is not the shutdown, the problem is that Trump lied and that he said over and over again -- first, it started as $300 million project that was going to be paid by his cronies, the tech titans and all the donors that want to kowtow to him, then it got to $400 million. I don't know what the hell happened to that $400 million because I thought it had already been raised. But now, they want an additional billion dollars coming from my pocket at a time when Americans can't pay for gas. So therein lies the problem.
PHILLIP: I do not even understand. I really am trying to understand. You're Republicans. You know you're facing potentially a tsunami come to fall. Just the history is not in your favor this year. Gas prices are $4.50 across the country. And they decide on this day in March -- Cinco de Mayo. I thought they wanted to is to announce a billion dollars in May. A billion dollars for a ballroom?
JENNINGS: Well, if I may --
PHILLIP: A billion?
JENNINGS: If I may serve as the clerk of the table, I'll read you from the bill. None of the funds made available under this section may be used for non-security elements of the East Wing modernization project. That is direct text from the bill. Now, having worked at --
PHILLIP: I don't think that matters at -- it doesn't matter --
JENNINGS: Well, let me finish.
PHILLIP: -- even one (INAUDIBLE) because --
JENNINGS: It doesn't?
PHILLIP: No, it doesn't, because, first of all --
[23:50:01]
JENNINGS: But that's in the bill?
PHILLIP: -- the president said that the project would cost $400 billion and that it would be entirely paid for by private donations. So, now, to then come and say after the fact, well, there's security upgrades that we need to make and it's going to cost two and a half times that amount, in addition to the $400 billion, that is a bait and switch for the American people. JENNINGS: I think that's a valid argument. On the other hand, having worked at the White House, Van was there as well, you've been there, there are security things at the White House that have to be done. I mean, it is the most secured government building in the world, it is a military base, and you can't just ignore that there are security things that go on above ground and underground that most of us will never see.
PHILLIP: The president -- the president bulldozed the East Wing, didn't go to Congress to ask --
TODD: But now is going to Congress.
PHILLIP: -- even once to approve a plan. Nobody even knows what the plan is because he just changes it every three months based on his grandiose ideas.
NAVARRO: And the cost keeps going up.
PHILLIP: And the cost keeps going up. Where is the oversight?
(CROSSTALK)
JENNINGS: Here's the final point on this.
PHILLIP: This is billion-dollar blank check?
JENNINGS: I don't know if anybody has driven by there lately. OK, there's a hole in the ground.
PHILLIP: Yes.
(CROSSTALK)
JENNINGS: We're not -- we are not going to leave it indefinitely nor should we leave it. Brad is right. Every administration has said we need a ballroom, we need a better facility, A. B, it does need to be secure. C, as much of it as possible needs to be paid for by private donations, just as the president said. But to me, I think it's sort of cheap point scoring to say we can't worry about funding to make sure that the White House is secure for the commander in chief of the United States.
(CROSSTALK)
PHILLIP: The White House is secure, OK? The White House is secure. What Trump wants to do is over and above that, and that might be fine, but I think there is an argument to be made that instead of after the fact, you bulldoze the thing first and then say, well, we can't leave the hole there, we got to fill it.
TODD: This is how the White House has always been.
PHILLIP: I mean, that's a wild thing to do --
NAVARRO: By the way, may I remind you that right now, the Trump administration has been trying to prosecute the Fed chair over cost overruns for --
(CROSSTALK)
TODD: The last time we had a White House renovation, Harry Truman just did it, didn't ask Congress. Now, the president is going to Congress. I was told three months ago that the problem --
(CROSSTALK)
PHILLIP: What White House renovation are you talking about? You're talking about the interior?
TODD: South Portico.
PHILLIP: OK. Yes. But --
TODD: The construction on the exterior of the building.
PHILLIP: All right. We've been down this road before. OK? There are different types of renovations. Most of the major renovations, structural renovations to the White House, have, in fact, been approved by Congress.
TODD: That's what's about to happen.
PHILLIP: Well, hold on. There is a fund that the president has available to him to make changes, and I'm sure President Trump has already dipped into it, to make the marble black and on the colonnade and to add text to the exterior of the Oval Office and all of that. There are different tranches of funds. So, there are different issues at play here. And $400 million plus another billion dollars is a very different quantity of money. That's what we're talking about.
TODD: Will you be OK now if it goes to the (INAUDIBLE)?
JONES: I guess, you know, he did say that it was going to be free to the American people. And I assume that when he thought about his ballroom, he didn't think it was going to be insecure. He probably thought it was going to be secure. So, if he wants a billion dollars to make it secure for our free ballroom that promised us, he needs to go to his billionaire friends and get another billion bucks. I don't understand why.
NAVARRO: They're busy paying for the Met Gala.
(LAUGHTER)
JONES: All I want say is that people aren't dumb. It's like he said he was going to give us a free ballroom. We didn't ask for it, and he didn't ask permission for it, but that's what he wanted to do. And now, he's sticking us with a massive bill for it. Now, you can then say, but it's for security. Well, you should have thought about that before you started tearing down the White House, that is what it's going to cost.
HINOJOSA: Well, I think the problem is, and I love you both, but you guys are getting played by this president. At the end of the day, he promised a lower cost, and he's building this ballroom. You have to sit here and defend him every single day. He -- gas prices have gone up. He's trying to sabotage the midterm elections. Like this man is not doing anything to help the Republican Party whatsoever.
And if I were a Republican on the Hill or if I was sitting at this table and my Democratic president were to be doing that, I would be pissed, and I would be out here and calling the White House every day and say, you know, you're about to lose us the election, but the Republican Party won't do that.
PHILLIP: Let me ask you about this reconciliation bill that you love so much.
TODD: I didn't say I love it.
(LAUGHTER)
I love it.
PHILLIP: Just for a second. I think it's important. The ballroom is the ballroom. But look at what else is in it. Another $32.2 billion for ICE, $26 billion for CBP, another $5 billion for DHS, and just a little sliver, $1.5 billion for the Justice Department. Keep those numbers in mind. Also keep in mind that nothing in this bill is paid for. So, this is just adding to the deficit.
[23:54:58]
Also keep in mind that last year, in the big beautiful bill, ICE's budget was basically exploded. They were given over $70 billion.
TODD: To solve a mandate that the president got in election.
PHILLIP: Let me just ask you realistically. Where is all of this money going? And does one agency need to be suddenly, it's not the DOD, the second largest agency in the entire country?
TODD: Well, if you want to say that we should have the DHS bill and DHS funding debated and worked out in a bipartisan way, then Democrats have to drop the filibuster in the Senate and negotiate it and vote for it on the floor and offer amendments. But Democrats refuse to bring that debate to the Senate floor. They won't let the Senate talk about it. So, now, Republicans have to do it in reconciliation.
This is -- all those projects you mentioned, except for the DOJ, come under the Department of Homeland Security. This is the thing Democrats are refusing to debate, to amend, to compromise --
PHILLIP: I'm not hearing you justify the budget --
TODD: Look, the president got a mandate --
PHILLIP: --because it's a lot of money. And I think, again, the American people are asking themselves, where's our money going?
TODD: Wait a minute. I thought it's obvious.
PHILLIP: You told us that we -- you told us when Trump started, it was about saving money, race, fraud, and abuse.
TODD: Wait a minute.
PHILLIP: The whole thing. We're talking about a DHS budget that's now over a hundred billion dollars. What are we talking about here?
TODD: Federal government employees, full-time equivalent employees of federal government is lower than it has been at any point in 20 years. They did, in fact, cut out waste, fraud, and abuse. They're working on it more.
JONES: And now, there's new race, fraud, and abuse with this.
JENNINGS: What they're doing is they're future-proofing it. They're basically funding it into the future so that this fight doesn't happen again while he remains the president. That's what they're doing.
PHILLIP: Next for us, political breaking news. The results are officially in for the races that Donald Trump wanted revenge against the Republicans who ignored his redistricting demands. Plus, one MAGA host says that Republicans deserve reparations after the Supreme Court map ruling. The second special hour of "NewsNight" is just ahead.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
