Return to Transcripts main page
CNN NewsNight with Abby Phillip
Trump's DOJ Sets Up $1.8 Billion To Fund Pay MAGA Allies, Including Rioters; Trump Says He Called Off Attack On Iran Tomorrow Amid Talks; Hegseth Hits Campaign Trail Amid War To Attack Trump Foe; Trump Says Iran Attacks Are Postponed; National Mall Conducts An All- Day Prayer Event. Aired 10-11p ET
Aired May 18, 2026 - 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 VIDEOTAPE)
SARA SIDNER, CNN ANCHOR (voice over): Tonight, the president sets up a slush fund with taxpayer money to compensate his allies, including the Capitol rioters.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: How do you spell scam?
SIDNER: Plus, war whiplash again. Donald Trump publicly announces he is going to attack Iran, but changed his mind. Is this a way to manage a war?
Also --
SEN. LINDSEY GRAHAM (R-SC): If you try to destroy him, you're going to lose, because this is the party of Donald Trump.
SIDNER: -- as Trump gets and plots revenge against Republicans who challenge him, is there any room for dissent in the party anymore?
And --
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: If being a Christian nationalist means loving Jesus Christ and loving America, count me in.
SIDNER: -- the separation of church and state disappears in the modern era.
Live at the table, Scott Jennings, Cornel West, Sabrina Singh, Peter Meijer, and Ana Navarro.
Americans with different perspectives aren't talking to each other, but here, they do.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
SIDNER (on camera): Good evening. I'm Sara Sidner in for Abby Phillip.
Tonight, President Trump wants to reward his friends and some of his most notorious supporters with cash using your tax dollars. It is a deal worked out between the Justice Department and the IRS to settle Trump's lawsuits over leaks and claims of unfair treatment.
A so-called anti-weaponization fund has been set up to dole out the money to pay Trump's allies who claim they were unfairly targeted by previous administrations. The amount, $1.776 billion, a symbolic nod, of course, to the adoption of the Declaration of Independence. By the way, it is possible the money that's in that fund could be tapped by January 6th rioters.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
DONALD TRUMP, U.S. PRESIDENT: This is reimbursing people that were horribly treated, horribly treated. It's anti-weaponization. They've been weaponized. They've been in some cases imprisoned wrongly. They paid legal fees that they didn't have. They've gone bankrupt. Their lives have been destroyed, and they turn out to be right.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
SIDNER: The DOJ says anyone with a claim can file for an apology and a monetary settlement. The settlement says there are no partisan requirements. A group of five people will gate keep the money, and the attorney general will pick them. In this case, that's Todd Blanche, Trump's former personal lawyer. But the president will have the ultimate power to fire any of the gatekeepers. The DOJ claims Trump himself will not receive any payments, but he will get a formal apology.
We've got a lot of folks at the table, and this is going to be hot sauce, I can tell already, with the sigh and the arm crossing. So, we're going to start with you, Ms. Ana Navarro. Is this a slush fund to appease his buddies, or is there something that is legitimate going on here?
ANA NAVARRO, CNN SENIOR POLITICAL COMMENTATOR: And the other part you forgot to mention is that there's going to be no transparency, according to them, that they're not going to know. We the taxpayer who are paying for this are not going to know who this is going to.
This is so bad. It is so bad. I mean, it's so bad prima facie. It's just bad on its face. But then when you put it in context, and the fact that Americans can't afford gas, Americans can't afford groceries, farmers are going bankrupt all over this country. We are in the middle of a war that's now cost $50 billion. He wants $1.5 billion for a ballroom. He wants hundreds of million dollars for an arch. He wants $15 million to paint the Reflecting Pool. And then you put on top of that now a $1.7 billion slush fund to pay his supporters and the people who feel victimized.
I mean, I'm so old, I remember when most Republicans used to balk and be shocked and outraged by the idea of reparations to people who suffered slavery, but we're going to be giving money to January 6th insurrectionists. That part's okay. Yes, it's disgusting.
SIDNER: Scott, is this reparations?
SCOTT JENNINGS, CNN SENIOR POLITICAL COMMENTATOR: Look, I think there's a lot about it we don't know. I don't know who's on the committee. I don't know exactly who's going to be applying for it. And so --
NAVARRO: The people that Trump -- the people that Trump approves.
JENNINGS: Well, they say anybody can apply for it. And, you know, I don't think any --
NAVARRO: Okay, I'll apply for it. You think I'll get it?
JENNINGS: Have you ever been unfairly targeted by the Department of Justice?
NAVARRO: I have been unfairly targeted by this administration, yes.
JENNINGS: Have you been unfairly prosecuted by the Department of Justice?
[22:05:01]
NAVARRO: Are those the people that are going to be in this condition (ph)?
JENNINGS: So, the answer is no, you haven't.
So, the issue is, the question is, has anyone in the history of the United States ever been unfairly targeted by the Department of Justice? Of course they have. And there ought to be, just at a top line, a way for people to seek recourse if they have been unfairly targeted.
That having been said, this all started by the fact that Donald Trump had his tax returns unfairly and illegally leaked by the IRS, that's where all this started, and he was initially seeking damages for that, which he has given up. He'll receive no money, as I understand it. And now it has morphed into this idea that there have been people that have been unfairly targeted.
All of this makes me a little uncomfortable, because it's a lot of money and it didn't go through the U.S. Congress. That's number one. Number two, I don't want to see a president necessarily handpicking people to get payments that could -- where he could be accused of just picking people out who are political allies.
But do I want a world where if you've been unfairly targeted by the federal government, and it was truly unfair, and you truly were -- had something done to you that should not have been done, do I think people should be able to seek recourse for that? Absolutely, I do. Because I think it probably happens, and not on a partisan basis, but it probably happens all the time. And I think people ought to be able to seek some sort of damages if they've been unfairly targeted by the department or by the federal government.
SABRINA SINGH, CNN POLITICAL AND GLOBAL AFFAIRS COMMENTATOR: So, does that mean like James Comey or Letitia James? SIDNER: Sure. I mean, I guess the question is, you know, you've got this -- the overarching thing that has people really riled is the January 6th rioters, some of whom pled guilty. I was in one of the trials for the Proud Boys and for the Oath Keepers. And I watched the whole thing and we watched it play out. And it played out as any justice, any trial would play out. And here they're pardoned and they could seek money. Should they be able to?
JENNINGS: My personal view is anybody who committed documented violence against the government or against police officers -- you know, they've not been unfairly treated. If they ended up being convicted of a crime because of violence they committed, you know, I got no real sympathy for them.
Now, if there were people who were on the periphery that were swept up, overprosecuted, whatever, and they have, you know, a way to seek, you know, a recourse here, I have less of a problem with that. But, you know, I draw the line at violence. If you've committed political violence, if you attacked the government building, if you attacked police officers I got real no sympathy for them.
NAVARRO: Scott, you don't have a problem with Todd Blanche handpicking five people who Trump can fire at any moment and giving reparations that are then not disclosed to the American people who are paying for this slush fund?
JENNINGS: Why do you know it's not going to be disclosed?
NAVARRO: Because it says so.
PETER MEIJER, CO-FOUNDER AND HEAD OF STRATEGY, THE NEW INDUSTRIAL CORPORATION: It said it'd be public in whole or in part.
NAVARRO: I mean, kind of like -- you know, like, I have an issue with the --
JENNINGS: So, you -- wait, is it -- it is going to be public?
MEIJER: Public in whole or in part.
JENNINGS: So, this is not true, okay.
MEIJER: So, there are parts that they could --
SINGH: There are parts that they could redact, is what you're saying, not disclose.
NAVARRO: You mean like the Epstein files?
MEIJER: But it's not private from the jump.
SINGH: There, I think that's a great example.
NAVARRO: I have an issue with the Congressional slush fund that pays -- that has paid out --
JENNINGS: I agree with you. That's all done in secret.
NAVARRO: -- sexual claims with our taxpayer money and we don't know it, right. And that should be transparent. It is shameful that it's not. It is ridiculous that we are even considering this, in any way, a right thing to do.
JENNINGS: Look I think transparency is important, and I'll --
CORNEL WEST (I), FORMER PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE: Yes, sure, sure, sure.
JENNINGS: But, look, I do think, partisanship aside, politics aside, people are often, have been, will be treated unfairly by the federal government and the Department of Justice. There were certainly people during the Biden years, you know, pro-lifers sitting, you know, praying quietly on sidewalks who were treated unfairly.
So, look, I don't think we could say the federal government and the Department of Justice is perfect. It is not perfect. And if somebody did have something happen to them that's unfair, are you saying they shouldn't be able to petition their government for some sort of recourse here, because I do believe that. Now, whether the fund is the right thing, I don't know.
NAVARRO: They can at a state level, at a federal level, people who have been unjustly targeted. I mean, we see it all the time with people who've been -- who've spent, I don't know, decades in prison and it turns out that they are innocent.
JENNINGS: It happens.
NAVARRO: And then all of a sudden, you know, they get out. It's, they're proven innocent, and they are given reparations for their troubles.
SINGH: But this fund will not be for those people.
SIDNER: Cornel West, how do you see this? I mean, could the King family come back after what happened to Dr. Martin Luther King being jailed? I mean, how do you see this playing out?
WEST: Well, first, I just want to salute you, Sister Sara. First time I get a chance to meet you --
SIDNER: First time I met you in person.
WEST: -- high-quality journalists, just like you and Abby, just high quality. It's always a blessing.
But I just want to hear my dear brother, Scott, try to rationalize this in some way, and I see you getting checkmated here, because there's just no grounds for a justification of this unless you open the gates and you got trillions of dollars for ex-slaves and ex-Jim Crow people. You got 6,000 at the Innocence Project just at Harvard Law School of people who've been incarcerated, and you got 2.2 of mass incarceration.
[22:10:00]
I've been blessed to teach in prison for 49 years.
Now, tomorrow is Malcolm X's birthday. He's 101. What is it about Malcolm? Well, what we're talking about is just this is just the peak of an iceberg. When you're living in an empire that is unraveling because the hatred and the greed is overwhelming, and so there's no sincerity, there's no integrity, there's no character, so people will justify anything in the name of power and might as opposed to integrity and what is right. That's a spiritual crisis. That's a moral crisis.
Malcolm X was right about that. I was glad to see his face on that magnificent banner down there in Alabama when they marched in Selma and Montgomery. Martin was there, Fannie Lou Hamer was there. But it's not a question of skin pigmentation, it's a question of character, integrity, and the attempt to do what is right.
There's no integrity in justifying $1.8 billion of people who engaged in criminal activity, actually killed some policemen, and they get compensated? They get reparations? And black folk, indigenous folk, other folk, unfair, even white brothers and sisters who have gone to jail innocent, who deserve some kind of accountability. There's no way you can justify this.
But this is just one peak of an iceberg. What we're seeing is spiritual sickness, moral decrepitude, and political corruption on steroids. But the good news is, you still got folks in the country who trying to exemplify some integrity and character and courage.
SIDNER: Peter, is there -- and to you also, Sabrina, is there a way to fight this? Because there has to be someone who's injured by this, right? So, the public, the general public who say, hey, these are my tax dollars, they're not really considered victims of this.
MEIJER: Oh, if only the taxpayers had a claim against frivolous spending by the government. That would be a wonderful thing to have.
No, I mean, the Trump administration is going about this all wrong. The way you're supposed to do is you're supposed to have folks set up a nonprofit, and then you either have a company do the third-party payments into the federal government for leniency, or you just allocate tax dollars from like the Inflation Reduction Act, and that goes to your political allies. That's how you button it up, you make it legal, and you avoid all of this.
But to your point like, on the historic discrimination, I mean, there was $2 billion in the Inflation Reduction Act that was allocated for black farmers in the South who had been historically discriminated against by the USDA. Like there have been tons of programs that have done this.
I think there's a very legitimate claim in -- let's be very clear, I agree with Scott. We're not talking about, and if they are, I condemn it, money going to folks who violently assaulted police officers. I know folks who were at January 6th broke no laws except they were on the side of an invisible line, did not enter any building, were not violent, you know, whose lives were upended and ruined, where other folks who were maybe not of the same political persuasion, who had committed, you know, similar minor offenses, weren't even charged or didn't even have those charges brought up.
So, I think it's important that there is parity, and if there was an overcorrection or an over, you know, exertion in one direction, that tilt back towards the center.
SINGH: Can I just say that we're talking about nearly $1.8 billion to the same president that said the U.S. government can't afford to pay for Medicare, Medicaid, childcare, or daycare. So, I think there are a lot of -- and now you have on top of that the gas crisis where people are paying, you know, over $1.50 than they were before the war started.
So, I think when you look at this giant slush fund of money, I think people are going to look at that and say, well, what about me? What about what can the government do for me? And this is not going to benefit people. So, you know, I think Scott --
JENNINGS: When did he say he we don't -- we can't afford Medicare or Medicaid?
SINGH: He said he -- well, they've cut it and he also --
JENNINGS: For non-citizens.
SINGH: No, he did say that.
JENNINGS: We can't afford it for non-Americans.
SINGH: So he did say that we cannot afford Medicare and Medicaid, and that should be pushed to the states to pay for, and that the federal government could further subsidize. But he did also say that the federal government cannot afford daycare and childcare for millions of families all around the country.
So, I think when you look at a slush fund of this magnitude, people rightfully are thinking that's absolutely egregious. I mean, it is.
JENNINGS: But does everybody here agree generally that it is possible for the federal government and the Department of Justice to make a mistake?
WEST: Absolutely.
JENNINGS: Yes, yes, yes.
WEST: But not just a mistake, it can be chronic. It can be institutional.
JENNINGS: I totally agree with you. So, if we all agree that mistakes can be made --
WEST: That's right. JENNINGS: -- do we all also agree that maybe it ought to be there ought to be a way for people to address those mistakes? I personally think there ought to be.
WEST: Oh, absolutely. That's why I've supported reparations for black people for the last 50 years. That's what the argument is. That's what the argument is.
JENNINGS: I mean --
SINGH: What do you mean why, like it's not an impartial board?
JENNINGS: Why would the executive branch not be involved in the administration of it if it's coming out of the Department of Justice?
SIDNER: I think what you were arguing was transparency though, so that we know where the money goes.
[22:15:03]
JENNINGS: I agree with that.
WEST: Right, it's got to be transparent.
JENNINGS: So, if you know where the money goes and you know what the details of the cases are, then maybe you could pick each individual case apart.
Peter is right, there were some people who did terrible things, committing violence against cops, terrible. But there were some people who got swept up in things, dramatically overcharged, and they weren't treated the same as people who got into similar situations under other administrations. That's absolutely also true. Should they not have a way to get their lives back? I mean --
NAVARRO: But it's also true that the first act that this man did as president is issue a blanket amnesty and pardon for all of them. Not look at it case by case, not look at the ones that have been violent against police, which you say you condemn, but do it in a blanket fashion. And so that's not a good precedent for somebody who wants to issue reparations to people from January 6th.
SIDNER: I mean, they have been pardoned, so, technically, they could file for this and potentially get money, and there's a lot there. So, we'll have to see, wait and see what this happens. But if we don't know who's getting it, then no one's going to understand exactly who is getting a piece of the pie.
There's a lot of questions here. I think --
JENNINGS: Well, look, transparency --
NAVARRO: We haven't even talked about the constitutionality of it. You alluded to it. Congress gets to --Congress gets -- has the power of the purse.
WEST: That's a very good question,
JENNINGS: It is a good question.
SIDNER: It's a big one. All right, we all agree on that one thing. So, I'm going to leave it right there.
Next, the president publicly announcing he's calling off an attack on Iran tomorrow, raising new questions about how he's managing this war exactly.
Plus, on the eve of another revenge primary for Trump, is there room for dissent in the Republican Party?
We will debate all this coming up.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[22:20:00]
SIDNER: Tonight, a bit more whiplash from Donald Trump over the war in Iran. After warning Iran the clock was ticking until the United States launched harder strikes, Trump is again extending his deadline for negotiations, saying he'll hold off on a planned attack set for tomorrow.
On Truth Social, Trump said he told military leadership to be prepared for a large-scale assault of Iran on a, quote, moment's notice if a deal isn't reached, but pointed to regional allies' confidence about a deal's prospects. Speaking to reporters, Trump assured Americans this time is different.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
TRUMP: I was asked by Saudi Arabia, Qatar, UAE, and some others if we could put it off for two or three days, a short period of time, because they think that they are getting very close to making a deal. And if we can do that, where there's no nuclear weapon going into the hands of Iran, I think, and if they're satisfied, we will be probably satisfied also.
We've informed Israel. We've informed other people in the Middle East that have been involved with us, and, you know, it's a very positive development. But we'll see whether or not it amounts to anything.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
SIDNER: Meanwhile, as a growing number of Americans call into question the administration's handling of the war, the defense secretary hit the campaign trail. Pete Hegseth campaigned in Kentucky against one of Trump's foes.
Speaking of which, I'm going to have to go to you now, Scott, because you know Kentucky, and you've been there, and this is a wild campaign with Trump going after the incumbent, as he's done in several other races. But I do want to ask you about sending out the defense secretary at a time when we are in a war that is continuing. Americans are suffering the consequences, as are some of the civilians around the world. Is this a good plan?
JENNINGS: It's highly unusual for the defense secretary to be on the campaign trail. Extremely unusual, and he did have to make clear at his event today that he was there in his personal capacity.
NAVARRO: Oh, come on.
JENNINGS: Now, he does have a connection with Gallrein in that they're both combat veterans, and that was sort of the link between the two. But, obviously, his being there shows just what a priority is for Donald Trump to get rid of Thomas Massie.
I actually live in this district, so I've been subjected to the most expensive Congressional House primary in U.S. history. All the ads, all the mailers, all the texts and so on and so forth, it'll mercifully come to an end tomorrow. I don't know who's going to win. A lot of the people running the anti-Massie stuff believe they have inverted Massie's image.
If you look to -- just in some of the polling and anecdotally the age gap on this is wild. 45 and up are totally with Gallrein. He's the Massie opponent. Below 45 seem to be with Massie, and so he needs a -- Massie would need a big turnout among younger Republican voters to try to withstand it.
By the way, it is a closed primary, meaning only registered Republicans. So, Massie tends to get some support from independents, and obviously he's got a lot of Democrat endorsements in this. They can't vote, and it's not going to help him in the primary.
SIDNER: I do want to, Sabrina, ask you, because, you know, initially, this is really about, we're in wartime right now. The defense secretary's out doing his thing. You've seen Trump not only kind of flip-flop again, which a lot of people might say, well, good, we're not doing strikes. We're trying to talk us through this with diplomacy. But he's also posted some concerning things online on Truth Social over the weekend. A shot of him with his finger on what looked like was supposed to be an A.I. version of the nuclear button with explosions going off behind him. What's happening here? What message does he send?
SINGH: I mean, I think we're in really unprecedented times in that the Secretary of Defense is headlining a campaign event for a candidate. I mean, traditionally secretaries of defense, even though they are political appointees, they don't weigh into the politics of it. And that was something that under the Biden administration with Secretary Austin, we did have to navigate, like we did not have him go to campaign events. If he needed to talk to the president, it was always done, you know, from their offices or in person.
[22:25:03]
So, I do think that sets a very, very dangerous and bad tone for the U.S. military.
On what's happening with this pause or continued negotiations it is very clear that the Gulf countries do not want to see strikes coming back and starting those kinetic actions again. I mean, the UAE has been probably hit one of the hardest. So, if there is a pathway to get to some type of deal -- and we're not even talking about a real deal here. We're talking about a parameter to have a conversation.
So, if we can keep extending the ceasefire and the Gulf countries continue to put pressure on Donald Trump, I think that the ceasefire will hold. But this is someone that I think goes on his whim and is impatient, and I could certainly see strikes starting back up soon.
SIDNER: Can we just -- look, before we go on, let's just look at some of the polling that's come out recently. Because it's really bad for the president if you look at it, how Trump is handling his job as president among registered voters. I mean, there's the numbers there. Trump's handling of the war in Iran. Those numbers are very similar to his handling of the job as a whole, with 65 percent of people disapproving. Will this go to help him or hurt him as he's continuing to do this thing where he says, I'm going to attack, okay, now I'm not going to attack? And it's all been done sort of to the public, but not to Congress. Peter?
MEIJER: No it's been done to the public, but that is also the fact that we don't -- we're not sitting in the negotiation rooms. And whether that's happening in Islamabad, whether that's happening with emissaries from Qatar, from Oman, or whether that's in other channels that the U.S. has, we're only seeing the tip of this much, much, much more delicate regional and specific picture.
Frankly, time is very much not on the Iranian side from their longevity as a regime. Time is also not on this administration's side, just when it comes to gas prices in the midterm. So, the fact that the president is holding off I think does send a signal that there could be a far more significant development in the short-term, especially coming on the heels of the president's trip to China, where Xi Jinping, very notably, and the Chinese government, Xi Jinping does not like to get into domestic affairs of other countries, because they don't want anyone talking about their Uyghur problem or anything else. Or I should say their horrific treatment of the Uyghurs and the human rights abuses.
But Xi Jinping said Iran should not have a nuclear weapon. We agree on that component, and the Strait of Hormuz should be open. That's a very significant concession. And the Chinese --
SINGH: But he did not put anything to open at that point.
SIDNER: Well, let me --
MEIJER: Well, what is he going to do?
SIDNER: Yes, but let me challenge that.
MEIJER: They're they are suffering economically. The Chinese retail consumption was three points off expectations yesterday. It was 0.2 percent, barely grew year-over-year. The Chinese are suffering. SINGH: And there's a lot that China can do to pressure Iran. I mean, including turning off their intel sharing with Iran to target American troops.
MEIJER: That that would be a big one.
SINGH: That would be a big one.
MEIJER: But right now the Chinese are suffering from the closure of the Strait of Hormuz.
SINGH: Of course.
MEIJER: Maybe not more than other folks in Asia, but certainly a heck of a lot more than the United States.
SINGH: But I think this administration wanted to walk away from that summit with Xi Jinping with a win, to say that, yes, the Chinese president is in fact going to put pressure on Iran, and they didn't get that.
MEIJER: There was additional daylight that grew up. While the Chinese -- while Xi Jinping and Donald Trump were talking, the Iranians seized a Chinese-flagged ship and impounded it. I mean, that -- some of the messages coming out of Iran of like, this is a betrayal of the alliance that we had, I mean, that daylight, it may not be a mile wide, but if it was a crack, I mean, you can see to the other side.
SIDNER: I do want to mention that the Chinese had -- Xi Jinping had said this before this meeting with Trump, that the Strait of Hormuz should be open. Obviously, China's suffering as well in a much bigger way even than the United States, and, you know, that they would like to see a closure to this war.
MEIJER: Yes, but the nuclear component and Iran not being a nuclear power, that was a significant development.
SIDNER: Cornel, how do you see this and the way this war is being handled? Because Americans are very, very concerned about it, especially since it's gone on far longer than they were expecting, than they were told.
WEST: You know, I always try to look at the world through the lens of the least of these, the people who are suffering, the most vulnerable. And so when I look in Iran, I see people dealing with execution, subjugation, domination, repression. They're human beings like anybody else. I say the same thing about Gazan genocide. I say the same thing about black folk in Harlem, same thing about poor whites in Kentucky. There's got to be a moral and spiritual lens.
And when you look through the world through a moral and spiritual lens, which for me as a Christian, looking at the world through the lens of the cross, it looks like you're always headed toward crucifixion, because they're the ones who get crucified for the most part, the everyday people, the poor people. And so we see the gangsters at the top manipulating, playing power politics, crushing the people in their own respective contexts, and we end up with a dialogue that's deodorized at the top, that hiding the funk of the suffering and the unbelievable blood that's flowing.
[22:30:09]
So in that sense, I have a critique across the board, but when I see the war, it's illegal, it's an immoral war, but at the same time, I see a moral regime in Iran.
SIDNER: You're saying two things can be true at the same time.
(CROSSTALK)
WEST: Two things can be true at the same time.
SIDNER: How is this going to play out, you think, if this war continues to linger on, obviously, the gas prices and all the cost of the war to the American public, to the regular person hitting pretty hard, how do you see this playing out for the midterms? Do you think it's going --
NAVARRO: It's not good for Republicans. It's not good for Trump. The numbers don't lie, and the numbers have been fairly consistent. I don't know how many regular Americans who are trying to put food at the table, who are taking care of their children, who are working two and three jobs to make ends meet, are really following every development of this war. I think most people are like, just wake me up when it's over, and it's not over.
Every day, it lingers on more and more. I also think, you know, when I see and read these threats by Trump, it's a little reminiscent of TACO, right? "Trump Always Chickens Out." It's a little -- this is the same guy who threatened Iran with complete eradication of their civilization during the Easter weekend. This -- so it's like, it's like the little president who cried wolf a little too much.
And I think something we can all agree on is that the messaging around this war has been disorganized, undisciplined, and not very effective. And I think that this zigzagging and threatening and screaming, you know, at the kids in the yard by Trump doesn't help the messaging issue.
SIDNER: You think it's been disorganized and the messaging just kind of all over the place?
JENNINGS: I think the President has been pretty clear. His number one objective is he does not want Iran to have a nuclear weapon. That's been his top priority. He said it again today. He says it virtually every day. He didn't really make a political decision. He made a national security decision, which is what we elect commanders in chief to do.
He decided that they were on the brink of getting a nuclear weapon. He wasn't going to permit it. It's his red line and he is enforcing it. And he's really sort of set politics aside. I mean, the polling is pretty clear on it, but he has kind of set politics aside and said, I can't worry about politics all the time. Sometimes I have to worry about national security. And that's his choice. And a lot of this rests on his shoulder.
Respectfully, if I might disagree regarding chickening out, I don't think the, you know, top level of the Iranian regime that we took out in the opening hours of this war would think that he chickened out. Probably don't see it that way right now. We inflicted massive military damage against the top layer of Iranian leadership, against their military sites, and so on and so forth.
We have sunk their Navy. We have set them back years upon years upon years in terms of what they would like to do to be able to export terror around the world. The final thing is can you get to a deal where you can guarantee to the American people no nuclear weapons for these butchers? If we get there, that is a victory. And I think if we get there soon, the Americans will see that as a good thing.
(CROSSTALK)
NAVARRO: Yes, but he thinks, he thinks he can use pressure tactics like he did in Venezuela.
MEIJER: Which worked.
NAVARRO: Like he's doing it.
(CROSSTALK)
NAVARRO: There's still, there's still, yes, he took Maduro out, but there's still political prisoners there. And a lot of that was --
(CROSSTALK)
MEIJER: Alex Saab was just extradited -- to date.
NAVARRO: So, do not claim the Venezuela is a victory. It's not. It's yet, you know --
(CROSSTALK)
MEIJER: -- has got 80 percent approval rating in Venezuela right now.
NAVARRO: That's not true. And let me just tell you this. Let me tell you this. The woman who was -- the party who was legally elected in Venezuela is somewhere out in exile because he has made a pact with Maduro's number two. And Maduro's worst executed are still running around free in Venezuela terrorizing the Venezuelan people that are still political prisoners. But he thought that he could, you know, he used all sorts of scare tactics with Venezuela. He's using all sorts of scare tactics to tighten the screws on Cuba.
But those are, you know, smaller countries without a real military and really not much of an option but to fold. Iran is a completely different game and I think these scare tactics of his just are not having the same effect because they have an incredible tolerance, more than I thought they would have of enduring pain and pressure even by the United States of America.
JENNINGS: Well they -- it's because they don't care about their people. I mean, they don't care about the Iranians as brother West said, these people are oppressive to their regime -- to their people who live under another regime.
NAVARRO: That's always been the case.
JENNINGS: But we have inflicted massive damage to them, military.
(CROSSTALK)
JENNINGS: And it's a good thing.
SABRINA SINGH, FORMER DEPUTY PENTAGON PRESS SECRETARY, BIDEN ADMINISTRATION: You have talked about the massive damage to their military and their Navy and Air Force has sunk, but that was never their strongest capability. Their strongest capability was always the nuclear arsenal and the ballistic and missile capability depth, and they still retain that just given open source intelligence reports that are up there.
JENNINGS: It's massively degraded.
SINGH: It has been -- their military has been massively degraded, but their key components and programs still remain intact.
[22:35:00]
And those are the ones that we're negotiating.
JENNINGS: That's not what CENTCOM Commander Cooper testified in Congress.
(CROSSTALK)
SINGH: The nuclear enrichment, the uranium and --
(CROSSTALK)
WEST: But you don't respond to butchery with more butchery. You know, butchery, butchery. You got butchery in Gaza. You got butchery on the West Bank. You got butchery in Tehran. You got butchery going on. If all we do is just butchery, butchery, it's butchery all the way down. What does that mean? It's over. People reach a point where they have a contempt for humanity. We no longer have the capacity to express love, care, and concern for others, let alone the least of these. That's what's said if we're -- it's butchery all the way down, though, brother.
JENNINGS: But in our case, we're taking on the butchers. The case of Iran's regime --
(CROSSTALK)
WEST: No, but in America, there's history of butchering, too. JENNINGS: They butcher their own their own people. They drag them out into the street.
WEST: That's true. That's true.
JENNINGS: They hang them. They behead them. If women don't wear the right clothes, they take off their --
(CROSSTALK)
WEST: That's exactly right. We got butchery and slavery and Jim Crow and Lynching. We got butchery in Gaza. We got butchery in Venezuela. This is Jonathan Swift all the way down, right? We're on our way to misanthropy.
JENNINGS: Should we have looked the other way on Iran?
WEST: I think that we could come up with ways of minimizing the butchery.
(CROSSTALK)
SINGH: You know, I'm not -- I actually think Operation Midnight Hammer was so successful and was so well executed and done that they were on their back foot. And I think if the President had started from negotiating from there, and not launch this war, because at the end of the day, Iran doesn't have a Navy but they closed the strait, and they still close the strait.
And so, I think if we, if the President had done a recalculation of starting from midnight hammer and going from there to the negotiating table, they would be a different -- we'd be having a different conversation.
JENNINGS: We did though. We sent Witkoff and Kushner and they came in and said, our opening position is we have enough material to make 11 nuclear bombs. They communicated to the President that they had no intention of giving up their nuclear material or their pursuit of nuclear weapons. That's the red line.
(CROSSTALK)
SINGH: If nuclear facilities have been (inaudible) and Operation Midnight Hammer are still in the same place that they were in this war --
JENNIGS: I agree.
SINGH: -- because we haven't hit them.
JENNINGS: I, well --
SINGH: So, we have not actually hit their nuclear arsenal.
JENNINGS: I mean, but we dramatically destroyed their facilities last year, but their intentions, their material, their idea, these are fanatics.
SINGH: They are -- I mean, you talked about this president not launching a political war, but he did. I mean, he took out the Ayatollah. That changed political leadership in the country, but that -- I think the miscalculation here is how ingrained the IRGC is into the Iranian society and the hold that they have, that's not going to change.
(CROSSTALK)
MEIJER: They're also economically dependent on a lot of the facilities that have been struck, like they're still productive.
SINGH: Yes,
SIDNER: They are, but they are still holding their position even with all of the suffering that's going on in the country. We will leave this there. Coming up, the National Mall prayer event is raising some questions about the separation of church and state. If that's still being upheld in this Trump era, we'll debate that next.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[22:42:35]
SIDNER: The Trump administration continues to muddy the waters when it comes to the separation of church and state. The latest flashpoint in the debate, an all-day prayer event at the National Mall on Sunday. President Trump addressed the crowd, so did Vice President J.D. Vance and Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth. They spoke alongside a line-up of largely evangelical leaders who pushed messages like this one.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
GARY HAMRICK, SENIOR PASTOR, CORNERSTONE CHAPEL, VIRGINIA: We are in a spiritual war. This is a battle in our day between good and evil, between right and wrong, between truth and lies, between light and darkness. This is a battle for the very soul of America.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
SIDNER: One MAGA pastor even made this claim.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
ERIC METAXES, CONSERVATIVE RADIO HOST: It's hard to believe that it would take two centuries for the Lord to raise up a great man to bring that ballroom finally to stand where it needs to stand where it needs to stand.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
SIDNER: House Speaker Mike Johnson was also there. Here's what he told Fox News ahead of this event.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) REP. MIKE JOHNSON (R) HOUSE SPEAKER: To rededicate ourselves in that way is one nation under God, is a healthy and appropriate thing the people who are the naysayers and who have created this new term of Christian nationalism as a pejorative, a derogatory term, are trying to silence the influence and the voices of Christians and I think that's wildly inappropriate.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
SIDNER: Scott, are Christians really being silenced? I just, I have not seen that in any way, shape or form. And you're looking at me like I'm crazy. And I know I'm not crazy because I hear people talking about their religion all day, every day, all over the airwaves.
JENNINGS: Certainly, Christians feel that way. They feel often that they're marginalized in politics, marginalized in mainstream media. We have Christian persecution going on around the world. We have slaughtered Christians in Africa that nobody seems to -- I don't see any protests on college campuses for them. I think within the Christian community, there is a sense that voices, and lives are being silenced all over this world. And in this particular case, you had a lot of speakers there that had a lot of different messages.
The one that I liked the most came from Dr. Larry Arnn, who is the president of Hillsdale College. You know, he gave a speech about Lincoln's second inaugural, which came at the end of the Civil War and talked about the division in our country and how we had to have national unity following this period of extreme division in our country.
JENNINGS: I think messages like that, I mean, Lincoln, it -- was what Lincoln talked about in his second inaugural was absolutely divinely inspired, in my opinion.
[22:45:04]
It came right out of the Christian context and that's what Dr. Arnn spoke about in his speech. So, I think if we're going to have some national unity in this country, political division has driven us apart, but it may be faith that drives us back together. And I think Christians love the idea of not being marginalized any further, and in fact, being at the center of some sort of national reconciliation.
SIDNER: There are a lot of folks, and I will get to you in a minute, when you look at the attacks on people, it's the attacks on Jews, the attacks on Muslims. And in this country, those numbers are far greater than you see the attacks on Christians. And so, there's a lot of people looking at this saying, wait a minute, who's being marginalized here?
When you hear someone, one of the pastors saying, you know, we've got to root out all evil and lies, and you know, tell the truth. And then, you have a president who was told a lot of lies.
(CROSSTALK) JENNINGS: I mean, we know from investigations of the last administration that there were prosecutors in the Department of Justice who were talking about their desire to throw nuns in jail, particularly ones that wear the habit. Now, that sounds like Christian persecution to me. Look, we have separation of church and state in this country.
We do not live in a theocracy. But at the same time, that does not mean we have to marginalize, make fun of, or otherwise slough off to the side people that have deeply held religious views. You mentioned Jews. We have a massive spike and hate crimes and violent crimes against Jews in this country. That's absolutely the case.
These are also people of faith, and these are also people that deserve our protection and our arms being wrapped around them at the same time. But that's what I saw in this event, national reconciliation around the idea that we are one nation under God, that we do put our arms around people of faith and say, you're welcome to practice your faith here. That's what we do in America.
SIDNER: But there were no other faiths that were, I think, on that podium. And so I want to say to you, do -- does the country still believe in the separation of church and state? Do you -- and why do you think it's important?
WEST: I think we have to distinguish between the separation of church and state and the separation of religion and politics. There'll never be a separation of religion and politics. Citizens will always bring their religious lens through which they view the world to the public square. The challenge is we have to be able to respect each other in such a way that when it comes to a vicious attack on our Muslims in San Diego, we respond with compassion.
There's attack on precious Jews in Pittsburgh, we respond. There's respect on precious black folk in South Carolina, we respond. That's true for Hindus across the board. Now, but Scott invoked Abraham Lincoln, that's second inaugural. That's one of the greatest speeches ever given in the country.
JENNINGS: Maybe the best.
WEST: But that's a high standard. When it comes to Trump, the love of my sweet Jesus has little to do with Trump being happy about his hatred, and he says it publicly. He says it publicly. So, when people elevate Trump, that sounds like this -- that strikes me as a golden calf. That's idolatry. We can all disagree politically.
And so, as Christians, we can talk about Jesus. We can have deep disagreements. But when you talk about somebody who explicitly almost celebrates hatred and revenge, that has nothing to do with Jesus of Nazareth whatsoever. And I believe, because we have to keep in mind, of the first 35 popes, 31 of them were executed. They were martyred. How come? Because to be a Christian in the face of an unjust status quo means you will be persecuted.
That's the history of the black church when we went for over a hundred and some years it was against the law for black people to do what? Worship God without white supervision. They were persecuted. They had to go underground just like the early Christians, not in the spirit of self-righteousness, but we're over against every unjust status quo in every government anywhere in the country in the name of a cross and a Jesus that gave us a joy that the world didn't give us in the world can't take away.
SIDNER: We're going to leave it right there. Next, the panel gives up their nightcaps, "Collab" edition.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[22:53:43]
SIDNER: Scenes of mayhem unfolded this weekend around High Meets Low, a collaboration between watchmakers Swatch and Audemars Piguet. So, for tonight's newscap, what's the collab you'd like to see? Peter, we are going to start with you, and people are going nuts over these things.
MEIJER: I want them to bring back the Oreo flavored Coke Zero because there are all these collabs. The collabs.
(CROSSTALK)
MEIJER: It's like a limited edition. I don't want it to be limited. I want to be able to drink the thing. I think tastes great. So you know what? Stop with the collabs. Just give me what I want.
SIDNER: Wow.
SINGH: Oreo Coke flavour. I've never known that.
(CROSSTALK)
SIDNER: That's new.
SINGH: Wow, okay. So, my collab is I'm a big fan of On Running Shoes. I love the brand when Roger Federer got involved. But I think the best collaboration that they've done so far has been Zendaya and On Running. I think she brings something like young and fun to the brand. It branches out just from like their traditional tennis shoe. And I just, I frankly really do like On Running shoes. So, I think that collaboration was great.
SIDNER: Hopefully she's listening.
SINGH: Yes.
NAVARRO: This is actually a collaboration that launched this weekend in Puerto Rico, and it is Bad Bunny and Zara. So, if you noticed during the Super Bowl, he was -- the outfit he wore, the all-white outfit was by Zara. The Met Gala, the outfit he wore was by Zara.
[22:55:00]
He just launched a collaboration which is going to be available to everybody. So, I am so dying to see what he comes up with.
SIDNER: She's geeked. Cornell.
WEST: Well, for my precious and beloved blood sister, Cynthia, I don't want mechanical time on a clock on a watch. I want rhythmic time with Nina Simone and Curtis Mayfield. And I'll sing a little background.
SIDNER: Okay. Scott -- I like that.
JENNINGS: So, I want a crossover between "NewsNight" and the "Nickelodeon" programming that I recall as a child. You can't do that on television, and "Double Dare.". I think if while we were sitting here if it ran --
NAVARRO: Careful what you wish for (inaudible) --
JENNINGS: (inaudible) -- slime fell out --
(CROSSTALK)
JENNINGS: And I recognize I'll be the first and only one that ever gets slime. But I still think that we would probably drive a lot of interest in our --
(CROSSTALK)
NAVARRO: Oh, I think you getting slime would be great for rating.
JENNINGS: Oh, I have no doubt.
SIDNER: She'll pull the lever.
(LAUGHTER)
SIDNER: All right, everybody. Thank you, guys, so much for being here. No one's getting slime tonight. Coming up, a member of the Judiciary Committee responds to the DOJ/Flynn to compensate Donald Trump's allies including, potentially, the Capitol rioters. Stand by.
