Return to Transcripts main page
CNN NewsNight with Abby Phillip
Trump Defends $1.8 Billion Fund To Pay Allies Amid GOP Backlash; Consumer Sentiment Falls To All-Time Low Under Trump; House Republicans Cancel Vote On Trump's War Powers; L.A. Mayoral Candidate Uses His Viral Videos To Boost His Campaign Chances. Aired 10-11p ET
Aired May 22, 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)
JESSICA DEAN, CNN ANCHOR (voice over): Tonight, Donald Trump defends his slush fund to pay allies and wants praise for not taking money himself.
Plus, as Americans hit the road, consumer sentiment hits an all-time low and the president's economic approval crashes.
Also, it's not just the ballroom and the slush fund. More Republicans are defecting over Trump's war.
REP. JIM MCGOVERN (D-MA): You guys don't have the guts or the balls --
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: The House will be in order.
DEAN: And from A.I. campaign ads to a reality T.V. resume, is Spencer Pratt the model for millennial politics?
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Who is your political role model?
SPENCER PRATT (I), LOS ANGELES MAYORAL CANDIDATE: Jesus Christ.
DEAN: Live at the table, Ashley Allison, Joe Borelli, Lauren Wright, Isaiah Martin and Josh Rogin.
Americans with different perspectives aren't talking to each other, but here, they do.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
DEAN (on camera): Good evening. I'm Jessica Dean in for Abby Phillip on this Friday night.
And tonight, an about-face from President Trump. That nearly $1.8 billion fund the Justice Department is creating to compensate victims of alleged weaponized prosecution, well, Trump appears to want credit for it despite saying this all week.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) DONALD TRUMP, U.S. PRESIDENT: It's been very well received, I have to tell you. I know very little about it. I wasn't involved in the whole creation of it and the negotiation.
I released them from the lawsuit, and I guess they made a settlement of some kind. I wasn't involved in the settlement. I could've been involved, but I didn't choose to be. So, they made a settlement.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
DEAN: But now, on Truth Social, he says he gave up a lot of money to allow that fund to go forward, adding, quote, I am helping others who were so badly abused by an evil, corrupt and weaponized Biden administration, receive, at long last, justice.
But we're learning just how frustrated Senate Republicans are with the administration after that fund derailed plans to pass a major immigration enforcement package. Senator Ted Cruz gave some insight on how poorly a closed-door meeting with acting Attorney General Todd Blanche went, and here's what he said.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
SEN. TED CRUZ (R-TX): Fiery does not begin to cut it. There are probably 45 senators in the room. At least half of them were blasting the attorney general. And they were pissed. Basically, the message they said is, you know what? We were going to pass reconciliation this week. We were going to fund all of ICE, all of CBP, all of Border Patrol, and then you announced this judgment fund.
The Republican senators were pissed. People were -- the entire meeting, they were screaming at the acting attorney general.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
DEAN: And that all comes as the administration faces its second legal challenge, this time with a number of plaintiffs signing on to the lawsuit. They argue Trump's initial IRS case that led to the fund was meritless, and the fund itself is unconstitutional for bypassing Congress' power of the purse.
We're joined now at the table by our five guests. Great to have all of you on this Friday night.
So, here we are. I just laid it out. We've had this week of Trump saying that he had given up so that these others could have access to this fund. Now, he's saying something a little bit different, and it has been fascinating to see what is playing out on Capitol Hill with Senate Republicans.
Ashley, I'll start first with you. What have you been tracking as all of this has been happening?
ASHLEY ALLISON, CNN POLITICAL COMMENTATOR: Well, first, the fund is just a bad idea. It is disrespectful to police officers. It's disrespectful to our Constitution. It's one thing he has the power of the pardon, until he pardoned those people. Okay, I disagreed with it. It's another thing to give them reparations basically for assaulting our democracy and police officers. That's the first thing.
The second thing is the acting attorney general, if he is appointed to potentially be the attorney general, he will have to get confirmed by the Senate, and it sounds like 45 of them would never confirm him for his current behavior, so that's not good politics for Donald Trump.
And the third is the Senate finally is standing up, but still standing up in private. Like you have to come -- you can't talk smack behind closed doors and not be willing to do it in front.
[22:05:02]
And so I'm like, okay, I'm glad you're disappointed, but stand up, have courage, and shut this down, and get control of the leader of your party right now who is off the rails.
LAUREN WRIGHT, POLITICAL SCIENTIST, PRINCETON UNIVERSITY: Mitch McConnell had pretty pointed words about it, though.
DEAN: Yes, he did.
ALLISON: Yes, but he did had pointed words about it.
DEAN: He did. I actually --
(CROSSTALKS)
DEAN: He said, so the nation's top law enforcement official is asking for a slush fund to pay people who assault cops? Utterly stupid, morally wrong, take your pick. That was Mitch McConnell, to your point.
WRIGHT: Yes. I mean, I think the fact that Republicans are so upset about this tells you how controversial it is.
Now, I mean, I can argue the other side of it. You know, the executive branch has broad authority to settle lawsuits involving the federal government. It's highly unprecedented. You know, there hasn't been anyone that's benefited from this yet. I hope it's not January 6th rioters. It very well will be, but no one knows. I mean, we have just as little information about who it's going to benefit as who it's going to not.
ISAIAH MARTIN (D), FORMER U.S. CONGRESSIONAL CANDIDATE, TEXAS: But that implies the root of the problem, is that we will never know.
JOE BORELLI, FORMER REPUBLICAN LEADER, NEW YORK CITY COUNCIL: Well, we know the first person who put a claim in. The first person who put a claim in was Michael Caputo, a friend of mine for a decade.
MARTIN: But we also know --
BORELLI: Let me finish. Michael Caputo was pr- investigated for a decade stemming from the Russia collusion hoax, all coming from a Steele dossier funded by the Clinton campaign. He was bankrupted. His family was made -- you know, his family -- just to put it as a personal friend, his family was put in a horrible position, and he had to sell his house to pay for the legal defense fund.
So, if he gets compensation, I'm happy about this.
MARTIN: They do not have to release the name of everyone that gets a payment.
BORELLI: He is someone who suffered. So, if he's the first victim, I am for it.
MARTIN: Now, wait a second. Hold on.
BORELLI: If we get into people that assaulted cops on January 6th, yes, I think that's ridiculous.
MARTIN: But you won't know.
BORELLI: I think that's absurd.
DEAN: I think everyone is -- can we just say everyone at this table is against anyone who assaulted a cop getting a dime?
MARTIN: Well, yes, but the root of the issue is the very simple fact that there is a fund, a billion dollar fund that's created, and you will not know who gets payment from it, and it's completely controlled by the executive branch. You don't think that that's absolutely absurd?
BORELLI: I mean, do you support people having the right to file lawsuits?
JOSH ROGIN, LEAD GLOBAL SECURITY ANALYST, WASHINGTON POST INTELLIGENCE: We already have that right.
ALLISON: That happens.
ROGIN: People who have been wronged by the justice system already have avenues for recourse. What's going on here is that the president sued his own government and then settled, negotiated with himself, and settled with himself, and is now going to use taxpayer money and force Congress to pay the people who attacked Congress.
ALLISON: Right.
ROGIN: Which is a humiliation of the Congress. That's why they're angry at it because Trump is humiliating Republican senators --
BORELLI: Does Michael Caputo deserve compensation?
(CROSSTALKS)
BORELLI: He's the only name we know, actually.
MARTIN: We won't know every name that gets a payment from this fund. BORELLI: We know one. We know one. We know one.
(CROSSTALKS)
DEAN: He said it himself, right? He disclosed.
BORELLI: Yes. And we know one person right now, and does that person -- is he owed compensation?
(CROSSTALKS)
DEAN: But to Isaiah's point, that's the reason we know, is because he said he did apply, right?
BORELLI: Yes, he very clearly did.
ALLISON: There are also people who have said they are going to file claims that put axes through the window of the Capitol. There are people who smoked marijuana in the Capitol. There are people who are going to put claims to this.
But I think the question is why this fund? Why now? And that is the issue.
ROGIN: What most Republican senators are really pissed off about is the timing, right? They just started the primaries. This is the point where lawmakers now, right now, have to worry about how they look. They have to worry about a scandal, and they -- and all of the sudden, Trump is creating the biggest scandal of the administration at the worst possible time for them while attacking their leader, the unseating John Cornyn, the unseating Bill Cassidy, all to the detriment of his party.
(CROSSTALKS)
BORELLI: It wouldn't have been great to see some of those Republican senators have some fire in their belly over DOJ stuff when it was a crossfire hurricane, when it was going after pro-life groups, you know, when they were filing lawsuits in New York over Trump's real estate claims. That would've been a great time for the Senate to have some fire in their belly over DOJ misdeeds or mishaps.
ROGIN: It's just amazing that the president of the United States has put personal vendettas --
DEAN: Hang on. Let's let -- go ahead. Go ahead.
MARTIN: Let me give you another name that J.D. Vance said would be eligible: Tina Peters, an absolute thug that was convicted of a crime and is sitting inside of prison. Do you think that Tina Peters, as J.D. Vance has said, should be eligible to get our taxpayer dollars?
BORELLI: Look, I think she has a right to apply. I think there's a panel, a five-person panel. If she can make the case before them, I think she should have a case.
MARTIN: That's absurd.
BORELLI: I think she should make a clear case forward.
MARTIN: That's precisely why this fund is absurd, the fact that we will not know.
ALLISON: What about people who have served extreme sentences for drug prosecutions, and now it is clear that the crack to cocaine ratio has been redistributed? Are they eligible for this? Because they have been --
BORELLI: Yes. I think in Trump 1.0, you recall, he did the most significant --
ALLISON: He did the First Step Act, yes, but --
BORELLI: -- justice reform.
ALLISON: Yes.
BORELLI: So, I think his administration has a history of being more lenient against people who have been over perhaps convicted of crimes.
[22:10:04]
So, you think that those individuals who have been --
WRIGHT: I think it would be smart if the administration did put forth some ideas of Democrats who are victims of lawfare. I mean, that would get Democrats really mixed up over this. I bet they'd defend it.
ALLISON: And do you -- can I just ask --
ROGIN: The whole thing is so legally unsound, that it's doubtful that it'll ever actually materialize because it's probably illegal, and the fact is that Congress has the power to appropriate money.
ALLISON: But can I just --
(CROSSTALKS)
ROGIN: You know, the Supreme Court has stopped --
ALLISON: Can I just ask like a real -- like we're doing all these hypotheticals. Do you really think Donald Trump put this fund in place for people who are wrongly convicted of criminal justice for drug crimes? Do you really think he put this in place for your friend?
BORELLI: Yes, I actually do.
ALLISON: Do you really think he did?
(CROSSTALKS)
DEAN: Hold on, one at a time. BORELLI: I'm answering your first question. You asked a question. I'm answering it. You have Mike Caputo, you have Carter Page, you have George Papadopoulos, all these people, never convicted of any crimes, had their lives shattered, had their life ruined. There should be some --
(CROSSTALKS)
ALLISON: You said ten years, right?
BORELLI: And, again, I think Trump calculated this, right? He knew this was going to get dragged into January 6th, all that. I think he's making a calculation --
ALLISON: You think this has nothing to do with January 6th?
BORELLI: I think he's made a calculation that anyone who's still, you know, crying about that is not going to be with him no matter what.
MARTIN: Well, I'm sorry that I think that $1.8 billion --
(CROSSTALKS)
DEAN: Hang on. I want to ask about the political piece of this kind of what Josh was getting at, which is you can't talk about this in the vacuum without acknowledging what we've seen with Bill Cassidy, John Cornyn in Texas with that primary coming up. What Trump's doing, and we've talked about how his lock on the primaries is still incredible, his power. But when you have the sitting senators there who he's now turning against, what does that mean for him politically in the moment?
BORELLI: I think this is what drives the base crazy, right? You had that comment from Ted Cruz. And the part that stood out to me the most was, you know what? We're pissed. We're not going to fund Border Patrol, we're not going to fund ICE, we're not going to do reconciliation. We're going to go home for two weeks. That to me is a bigger scandal than what Trump's even trying to do.
(CROSSTALKS)
ROGIN: They're trying to save their careers --
BORELLI: I mean, literally, Ted Cruz said they're butt-hurt.
ROGIN: -- because they're up for election, and they have to finally respond to voters, and they also want to placate Trump, and he's making that both, doing both of those things completely impossible for them.
MARTIN: But (INAUDIBLE) $1.8 billion for a slush fund.
ROGIN: He's putting all the Republican senators in a no, no-win position, making them spend millions of dollars that they otherwise wouldn't have had to spend, and putting their majority in play, which is directly against their interests and his interests for his personal vendetta. They're right on the politics.
BORELLI: Not what their constituents want, right?
(CROSSTALKS)
DEAN: So -- okay. So, to the -- so, look, then we have Trump, on Truth Social, Thom Tillis, he was attacking too. People don't remember that Thom Tillis, the weak and ineffective senator from the great State of North Carolina, when I told him that I would not under any circum- circumstances endorse him, he immediately quit the race and publicly announced he was going to retire. I said, wow, great news. That was easy. The media said how brave he was to take me on, but he wasn't brave. He was just the opposite. He was a quitter.
Again, down the road, you know, Trump may have success with the people he's selecting to try to take these seats, but in the moment, Thom Tillis still has a very powerful vote. So does John Cornyn. So do -- especially when you're doing reconciliation, where you need all the Republicans on board.
ROGIN: And Tom Massie, who will be in Congress for the rest of the year.
DEAN: Yes.
ROGIN: And if you just think, again, Trump has put his personal vendettas above his own political agenda, the Congressional Republicans' ability to keep control of either House of Congress, the American national interest for another thing, the American economy, and he's very clear about it. He's very open about it. We've never had a situation where the president will say, my personal vengeance is more important than the party's fate or even the agenda --
ALLISON: And I just don't think -- I really don't think -- I understand the -- I respect the ability to stand by the person that is the Republican president, but I really think just unpartisan advice, that this fund, if they vote for it, will backfire on everything. And if you thought that Democrats were going to have a victory in November around the midterms before, this vote would probably get them 60 seats, if possible. They would get such a wide margin in the House. And it probably would make people so frustrated that the governor's races, the attorney general races, the secretary of state races, the state house races, and 2028, they would -- Republicans would still face the backlash because everyone can see what this fund is.
This fund is retribution for Donald Trump.
[22:15:00]
This fund is for January 6ers, and the country was very clear that day is something they never want to see again.
ROGIN: And it's terrible policy.
ALLISON: And it -- yes.
ROGIN: Joe, can I ask you about Texas --
DEAN: Okay, we got to wrap it up. We got to wrap this up.
ALLISON: And fiscally irresponsible. I thought you all were the party of fiscal --
ROGIN: Trump tore (ph) John Cornyn. Was that a good idea for Republicans?
DEAN: I'll let you --
ROGIN: There you, banger.
DEAN: What'd you say?
ALLISON: Banger.
DEAN: All right. Up next, consumer sentiment hitting an all-time low under President Trump as the cost of living gets worse. We're going to discuss that.
Plus, more Republicans are defecting against the president's war, and we learn Trump undercut a decision by Pete Hegseth. We'll discuss that.
Stay with us.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[22:15:00]
DEAN: Tonight, more bad news for President Trump when it comes to how Americans are feeling about the economy. According to the University of Michigan survey, consumer sentiment has dropped three straight months, the lowest level in the survey's 50-year history. That's lower than during the COVID pandemic and lower than the Great Recession. A new Fox News poll found more than half of registered voters think they were better off financially two years ago than they are right now. But still President Trump insists the economy is doing better than ever. Here he is.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
TRUMP: You were a dead country, and today you're the hottest country anywhere in the world. It's true, we're the hottest country.
68 days we hit all-time record highs and since the election adding $9 trillion in value to your savings and retirement accounts, 401(k)s. Your 401(k)s, does anybody have a 401(k)? Well, your people are going to vote for me then. There's no way -- will anybody with a 401vote against Trump? Thank you.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
DEAN: Okay. So, a little data there to give you some context. How many Americans have a 401? Of 70 million Americans, 43 percent of the working population, 60 percent of Americans have some sort of retirement savings plan. All of this is coming, I think, too important to know, when this Fox News poll shows that 71 percent of registered voters disapprove of Trump's handling of the economy.
Joe, can the president outrun these numbers as we get closer to the midterms?
BORELLI: Look, I mean, consumer sentiment is an anxiety-based me- metrics, not necessarily based in any reality or data. I mean, if you look at some of the retailer stocks, consumer cyclical, auto manufacturers, all those stocks are doing pretty well. 401(k)s are doing well, exactly what President Trump says.
DEAN: Hang on. Go ahead.
BORELLI: The issue is that we have two things driving anxiety. We are in the middle of a war, right? That is going to push anxiety down. We have mortgage rates high, we got gas prices high. The gas rates we've seen will come down -- well, the price of oil will come down as soon as whatever happens in Iran, whatever ending to this conflict happens. We saw the volatility work out itself when we perceive that it might be over, and I think that'll happen again.
On the, you know, interest rates and the mortgage rates, mortgage rates were below 1 percent in 2022. They went up to over 5 percent by the end of 2023. I mean, they haven't come down since Joe Biden's administration caused that inflation and took one-fifth of Americans' purchase power away.
The rates aren't going to come down as fast as they've gone up, you know, in that one-year cycle, but they've come down every single year, past two years since 2024, and that's pretty good. It's not where I think we need to be, but I think the president has to -- the president was the one advocating for the replacement of Jerome Powell based on that fact. People pushed back on him, but he was the one saying no, we got to get a change at the Fed to get the rates down lower.
DEAN: Isaiah wants to jump in. I can see it.
MARTIN: I mean, you know what's not going well? People's personal finances. Gas is $5. Trump promised he was going to cut our energy bills in half. They're up 13 percent. Healthcare premiums are up 26 percent. I mean, they can just look around and see the way things are. Inflation's the highest level since the pandemic. So, you want to know why consumer sentiment is where it is? The economy sucks. I mean, just point blank, period.
And, Joe, the point is that this is why the Republican Party is losing elections all across this country, because people see their bank accounts. They understand their wallets. And no matter what amount of Trump bragging about the golden age that he does, they still understand what it's doing to their wallet.
WRIGHT: This is the exact Joe Biden playbook. I just think we should just be very, very consistent.
DEAN: I was just going to say --
WRIGHT: In 2024, we had 48 all-time market highs. Joe Biden mentioned almost every single one of them, even though inflation was also at 3.5 percent, even though his approval rating was also around 35 percent.
MARTIN: There's a big difference.
WRIGHT: Democrats at the time were saying, rah-rah, the stock market, but now they're attacking Trump for doing the same thing.
ALLISON: And we lost.
WRIGHT: So, very, very typical --
ALLISON: So, wake up.
(CROSSTALKS)
ROGIN: You know what Joe Biden didn't do? He didn't start a war with Iran with no justification --
(CROSSTALKS)
ROGIN: Yes. And so what we have here tonight as we sit here, situation where it looks very likely that we're about to restart bombing of Iran, okay? And there are a lot of reports out there that this is about to happen.
And what that means is that all of the problems, not just with the U.S. economy, with the economy of every country in the world are about to get worse, and it means that the Iran war is going to go much longer than otherwise anticipated. And that is a disaster, not just for Americans, but for all people.
And then if you think about the knock-on effects on energy and then manufacturing and then rates will continue to go up, and then inflation, it's a calamity for the world economy --
[22:25:05]
BORELLI: Josh, I bet you --
ROGIN: -- with no strategy whatsoever --
(CROSSTALKS)
BORELLI: You'd have been saying the same thing. I guarantee you there's a clip in this building somewhere of you saying the same thing --
ROGIN: There's some clip of me saying it's about to end, it's about to end, it's about to end. And I keep saying it's not about to end, it's not about to end.
BORELLI: Right now, we have the stock market hitting a higher point than it was in February. ROGIN: And I keep being right, you keep being wrong. And at some point you're going to have to admit that we're in this quagmire.
DEAN: Okay.
ROGIN: Because if you say it's going to end every single day and then it never ends, it's not going to end.
BORELLI: I'll be right one of those days.
ROGIN: Yes, except what kind of world will be left by the time that happens?
DEAN: But here's the question. You mentioned energy prices, and, obviously, there's a lot of components to the Iran war. But you think about gas prices, and that's something that Americans, most Americans see every single day.
ROGIN: And it makes it increases prices for farmers who need gas.
ALLISON: Yes. It has collateral --
ROGIN: Manufacturers --
DEAN: Go ahead, Ashley.
ALLISON: I think, I hear your point, yes. And when we -- when Democrats were running in 2024, voters were saying they were not feeling economically secure, and Democrats looked at the numbers. The lesson is Democrats lost.
And so the takeaway is listen to the constituents. They actually understand what they are living every day. And the challenge is will leaders lead?
I understand Trump didn't run he was going to start a war. He thought that was the right thing to do. I think we all at this table agree Iran cannot have a nuclear weapon. But he also represents the people living in this country. And I think if you were to ask the people living in this country whether or not they want him to figure out the best way not to strike right now, to end this war and bring gas prices down, they would say, make that your number one priority.
And as our leader, it seems like he is ignoring the people who voted for him, the people who didn't vote for him, and the people that are in the middle that have one time and one time not, he's ignoring them. And that is a problem of leadership for the country.
BORELLI: I think you're right about one thing. I think you're right that, you know, sometimes we all fall into this void where we think the bad things only affect our opponents. Like, you know, I think it's foolish for the Republicans to pretend like high gas prices are not going to affect them in the midterm. I think we definitely need to take --
ALLISON: Let me agree, not red or blue. BORELLI: Look for that.
DEAN: All right. Okay, yes, no, I think there's much more to come as we see what happens next.
To your point on Iran, we are going to talk about that. Is the president losing control of his own party when it comes to the war in Iran? It is revealing some fault lines within the GOP. We'll talk about that next.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[22:32:20]
DEAN: Tonight, as President Donald Trump's war in Iran faces nationwide unpopularity, more Republicans in Washington appear to be breaking ranks and demanding oversight. House GOP leadership was forced to abruptly cancel a vote to rein in Donald Trump's war powers due to a handful of Republican absences combined with a growing number of defections.
Now that move temporarily shields Trump from a major rebuke as this war drags on. Responding to the move in real time, Democrats made their frustration apparent.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
REP. JIM MCGOVERN (R-MA): Mr. Speaker, can you explain to the members of the chamber what is happening with the Iran war powers resolution that was scheduled to be voted on this evening?
REP. RANDY K. WEBER SR. (R-TX): Does the gentleman have a parliamentary question?
MCGOVERN: That is my parliamentary inquiry. I just want to know what has happened with the Iran war powers resolution.
WEBER: The gentleman may consult with your leadership regarding scheduling.
MCGOVERN: Mr. Speaker, for the parliamentary inquiry, are we not voting on it because the American people are sick and tired of this illegal war that is costing tens of billions of dollars? Gas prices are through the roof. People can't afford -- people can't afford their groceries.
Is that why you're pulling it? You guys don't have the guts for the ball.
WEBER: The House will be in order. The House, this House will be in order.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
DEAN: That was the House floor on Thursday before recess. Just to give you a little context, there are four House Republicans, Brian Fitzpatrick of Pennsylvania, Thomas Massie of Kentucky, Warren Davidson, and Tom Barrett of Michigan, who have voted in favor with the Democrats of that measure previously.
Josh, where do they go from here? Because we have both what's happening on the Hill and where the GOP is, and if they're breaking ranks. And we also have what's coming next in this war.
ROGIN: This is the most unpopular war in American history by far and for good reason. And the way that these things work is that the longer that it goes on, the popularity goes down, not up over time.
And that is a calamity for the Republican Party, but that's not what's important right now. What's important is that it's a calamity for the United States of America, for our national security, for our alliances abroad, for putting our troops in danger with no clear strategy of what achieves a victory and how to get them out of there and how does this end?
And without any of those answers, everybody can see that the administration is flailing about, and we know they have no strategies because the strategy changes every single day with various justifications that don't make any sense when compared to one another. And that's where we are, and that's a pretty sad state of affairs.
And yes, that's going to be terrible for Republicans in November, but that's really not the most worst thing about it. And Donald Trump doesn't seem to care about that anyway.
[22:35:04]
DEAN: And so what is your sense, Joe, of where the Republicans are? Obviously, they're not monolithic, but he has had real iron-fisted control over congressional Republicans for many years now. What is your sense of if this is starting to be a different scenario?
BORELLI: I think he has, you know, you call it control, I think he has influence over Republicans because his poll numbers within the party have held consistently strong, you know, despite the ups and downs of independents and Democrats over the years. And we've seen his numbers really hold steady, even at times when he's been tested by other voters.
Oh, look, I think the House leadership didn't want to give Democrats more of a theatrical, viral video moments like you just saw Jim McGovern get to do. I think that's part of it.
The reality is, you know, we can't be governed by people's viral moments on the House floor. We have to be governed by some strategy. I think the strategy has been very clear. It's deny Iran nuclear weapons. It's open the Strait of Hormuz and stop funding-- stop allowing Iran to fund proxies.
ROGIN: How's that going?
BORELLI: Well, I think it's going pretty much better than the last administration. ROGIN: Is it? Last administration, the Strait of Hormuz was open, now
it's closed. If that's not better, that's the worst.
BORELLI: If Iran is denied a nuclear weapon, is that a good or bad thing for the world?
ROGIN: That's a strong argument. It's not a strong argument.
BORELLI: I'm asking you if meeting the goal of the war is a good thing. You're like, oh, do you want to let nuclear weapons into Iran?
DEAN: Hang on.
ROGIN: The goal of the war is good. No, the question is whether the prosecution of the war is good, and it's not. Is the goal of the war.
DEAN: Do you think that that is an attainable goal at this point? What Joe's asking about.
ROGIN: So the Iranians, Trump's own Director of National Intelligence, who's about to resign, very sadly for family reasons, said that the Iranians are not developing a nuclear weapon in congressional testimony just a month ago.
So starting a war to stop them from doing the thing that they weren't doing doesn't really make any sense on its face, but everybody knows that that justification is not holding up because there's no point to get the uranium, other than to negotiate with the Iranians, which the administration doesn't want to do, so they're bombing etc., so even by their own measure, they're failing the test.
So to answer your question directly, Joe, no, I wish an Iran that doesn't have nuclear weapons, and I lament the fact that the Trump administration is bungling our chance to make that happen, and actually hurting our ability to make that happen, by prosecuting this war in such an obviously idiotic and contentious way.
MARTIN: I thought that Iran had their nuclear program completely destroyed.
ROGIN: In June. That was a different set of mischaracteristic. You're holding Trump's current lies to his past lies.
MARTIN: I'm sorry I actually hold Trump to the things that he said. I mean, you know, look, I just think that it's really interesting that we go through these things about whether or not Trump is achieving what he wanted out of this war.
Allegedly, the program was destroyed, as you said, Tulsi Gabbard, Joe Kent, Richard Blumenthal, everybody said that they were not an immediate threat to the United States, so it just seems really interesting how you guys, or how the Republicans, are going out and defending this war.
BORELLI: Is the goal of the war a positive goal?
MARTIN: What do you mean by that?
BORELLI: Is the goal of the war of denying Iran a nuclear weapon, the cessation of funding of proxy groups in the Middle East, are these good goals?
MARTIN: I don't see how he's being able to advance those objectives.
ALLISON: Just because the goals, there's goals and then there's strategies to achieve those goals and the question is the strategies that are being deployed right now, the effective way to achieve those goals, and all signs indicate that that's actually not the case.
MARTIN: Do you think the war is going well? Is that what you're saying?
ROGIN: Are you sitting here watching television?
BORELLI: I would say it's not going according to schedule.
ROGIN: It's not going according to schedule.
ALLISON: According to schedule, yes.
LAUREN A. WRIGHT, PRINCETON UNIVERSITY POLITICAL SCIENTIST: There's another reason Republicans like Lindsey Graham are upset is because there is a tyrannical, radical Islamist regime still ripping the fingernails off of teenage protesters in Iranian prisons and there is no protecting America against this regime unless you put American troops' boots on the ground, you remove the arms from the IRGC.
MARTIN: You want boots on the ground?
WRIGHT: No, I'm not saying that. I'm saying this is why Republicans are so upset because there is a principled argument that they could have made from the very beginning, the administration, that we need to dismantle this regime.
It's in Americans' interest. They did not make that case.
And so there's a couple different reasons why there's so much outcry. Yes, it's the gas prices and yes, it's the politics, but there's an ideological reason that has a lot of evidence behind it why you don't want this regime in power anymore. And the Trump administration has never made that case.
MARTIN: If the conservatives really wanted to go and follow evidence, then why did they pull out of the JCPOA? 97 percent of the enriched uranium that they had at the time was completely not there. So why would they pull out of that deal if they understood that that was something that was effective?
[22:40:02]
WRIGHT: They should have made the case. And I'm not saying that they've made it. I've been very critical on this from the very beginning, including on this network, that Iran was an imminent threat and they needed to show us the evidence and they didn't.
And I do think it's very confusing that the nuclear weapons were obliterated and then we had to go back and now there's the nuclear dust. All of these things require clear communications, which have not been there. It does not mean that we should just negotiate and prop up this regime that is obviously a threat to Americans and our allies.
ALLISON: But nobody is saying, nobody wants to prop up or enable this regime. I just think there are, negotiation is going to have to be a part of the-- two weeks ago we didn't even know who he was negotiating with and we still might not even know, which might be why the time is ticking of the bombing.
WRIGHT: And I can't be trusted, whoever is.
ROGIN: All wars end in diplomacy.
ALLISON: That's right.
ROGIN: It's the only way to end a war, unless we're going to nuke them, which I hope we don't.
ALLISON: But I also just want to point out is that like, the will of the current regime of Iran is so much stronger, I think, than this administration actually understood. And so what they are being tested against, I don't think they actually had a strategy, which is incredibly irresponsible for an administration to put us in this situation.
And I think you are somewhat in agreement with me on that. But I think that the one thing that is actually really disappointing to me, but not surprising, is that is why we actually have the three branches of government and the checks and balances. Because today might have been the first day that Congress actually stood up, but for the bending of the knee that Mike Johnson does every single time to remain to his powerful position of Speaker of the House, he prevented that checks and balances from happening.
WRIGHT: I'm glad you brought this up, because the reason the war powers have not been restricted until now, this is the first time we've seen Republicans standing up, is because four Democrats voted against it. And because Fetterman voted against it.
They wanted the President to be able to act in Americans' national security in this. And they realized that, and now something has clearly changed. So yes, we are at a turning point, and things are going to happen.
ROGIN: I think we would be remiss if we didn't mention the fact that the Trump administration is making preparations to attack another country, Cuba. As if they didn't learn one thing, they think Venezuela went great, and Iran is still going to turn out pretty much okay, so they're going to start a third war.
That's a very bad idea, we should not do that. And the checks and balances are gone, the guardrails are gone. WRIGHT: Yes, it's Congress' fault, they're totally enough.
ROGIN: The only thing that can constrain Trump is his concern about the economy and the bond markets and his own personal interests, and luckily those things are being affected because that's the only thing stopping him from expanding the war even further, which would just be crazy.
WRIGHT: Congress cannot even keep the government open. I'm not surprised that they can't, they're not being trusted to weigh in on the direction.
MARTIN: All the Republicans are too weak to stand up to him.
WRIGHT: Oh, please. Oh, you don't think Democrats in Congress are part of the dysfunction right now?
MARTIN: You don't think that the Democrats oppose this war?
WRIGHT: You just got to be fair, man.
MARTIN: Well, the fairness is they're calling a spade for a spade. Republicans are too weak to rein in this President, and that's why we're in this mess.
DEAN: All right, we're going to leave that topic there. Up next, his party -- he says his party is the party of angry Angelenos. Spencer Pratt's viral campaign to be the next mayor of Los Angeles, that's next.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[22:45:00]
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
DEAN: Tonight, an unconventional and uniquely millennial campaign for the L.A. mayor's office is drawing national attention and comparisons to Donald Trump.
Spencer Pratt, a former reality T.V. star who decided to run after losing his home in the Palisades fire last year, has the potential to reshape Los Angeles politics. Trailing incumbent Mayor Karen Bass in the polls, who we frequently criticize personally for her handling of last year's fires ahead of a June primary, A.I. videos of Pratt, created and boosted by supporters, have played a significant role in elevating him into a serious contender.
According to The New York Times, since that first video, he's raised more than $600,000 in donations. That's nearly 10 times more than Bass in the latest filing period. Now this week, CNN sat down with Pratt, a political rookie, to talk about his bid for the mayorship.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
ELEX MICHAELSON, CNN ANCHOR, THE STORY IS : Who is your political role model?
SPENCER PRATT, T.V. PERSONALITY, AND LOS ANGELES MAYORAL CANDIDATE: Jesus Christ.
MICHAELSON: Okay, I mean, that's why.
PRATT: He was a politician. He had to go in and speak.
MICHAELSON: Are there any modern politicians that you're especially studying or drawn to?
PRATT: No, I'm not a politician. I want to be a politician. I want to be a fighter for the people.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
DEAN: So we have Karen Bass, Lauren, who is the incumbent mayor there in Los Angeles. And Spencer Pratt, in this primary, again, she's still leading in the polls, but is giving her a run for her money in the conversations and in dollars.
WRIGHT: It's really remarkable what he's accomplished. I'm from California. I have family in L.A. that's following this very closely.
And I think the message is, if you tell the truth, you know, and you're authentic, it's okay to be outraged when government fails in its most basic responsibilities to keep people safe. I mean, the homelessness crisis in L.A. is absolutely extraordinary.
[22:50:06]
They have 3000 homeless veterans alone, they have tens of thousands of homeless people, they spend about 50 to 80 grand on each of them a year, and they're still not in beds.
There's animal abuse happening in plain view on the streets every night. It's just so scary what is happening there. And so he doesn't even, he says, I don't know any Republicans, all my friends are Democrats.
These are common sense issues. I just want to enforce the laws that Democrats wrote. And it's been a very effective message.
Now, I wrote a book about celebrity politicians. I know the trade- offs. They're very good at campaigning, they're not so good at governing.
But he has spent the last year listening to experts in the DEA and very experienced executives. And I do think that he has a really effective message.
That's what I say, the proof is in the pudding.
MARTIN: This is the root of the Donald Trump playbook. You go, you complain about a lot of different things, but there's no solutions.
WRIGHT: But don't you think he's complaining about real things?
MARTIN: Excuse me. When you go and you look at Spencer Pratt's website, there's no policy.
There's no policy. There's no solutions. All he does is talk about issues, there's no real substance. Anybody can say, I'm going to solve--
WRIGHT: You don't think he has a homelessness policy?
MARTIN: Wait a second. His policy is, I'm going to fix homelessness. That's not actually a policy.
And that's exactly what Trump said. Trump said that he was going to lower prices for America, and he did not do it. That's not actual reality.
ROGIN: Listen, I hate to pull rank here, but as a child of the 90s, I think I may be the only one at the table here who watched The Hills in the first run when the episodes were new. There was no streaming. We had to plan to be at your T.V. at the time that it was on, and we watched it regularly.
So that's my accreditation to say that I'm not against Spencer Pratt. He's been entertaining me for 20 years, 25 years. I like Spencer Pratt. But as a geriatric millennial/young Gen X-er, I kind of think, can our generation do better? Well, instead of no policies, he's got no policies.
ALLISON: Here's the thing, though, I think that the political parties need to actually wake up to, is that the way politics are being run are different.
DEAN: That's what I want to get to.
ALLISON: Whether it's Karen Bass or Spencer Pratt, I'm going to keep my opinion. That's not what I want to actually add into this conversation. But the way you actually win campaigns is through memes right now.
ROGIN: That's how the Iranians won.
ALLISON: But we can say we don't like it. But that is what people are looking for, and we need to either learn how to do it better so that the people we actually want with solutions actually engage with it.
He is climbing in polls because he's like, you know what? I'm going to go find people where we are.
You know who else did that? Barack Obama. He was able to crack a nut and do things and meet voters in a different way.
ROGIN: He was a constitutional lawyer. I'm sorry.
DEAN: It's Barack Obama. It's Zohran Mamdani. It's Donald Trump.
ROGIN: He's got advanced degrees.
ALLISON: Yes, it was.
MARTIN: Zohran Mamdani ran on a real policy agenda. But he got it.
ALLISON: I'm not talking about--
I'm going to pull right here. As the only person who has actually run two Presidential campaigns and worked in a White House, I actually know the craft of how you win elections and how you reach voters in different ways. And in the 2020 election, when people were stuck and trying to figure out, because we were all stuck in our houses, people were scrambling during COVID because they didn't know how to reach people.
And so you had to use interesting tactics. Mamdani's race was successful. His policies, whether you like them or not, but he came up creative ways. The halal truck video was the thing that took him viral.
MARTIN: He communicated policy.
ROGIN: He had substance.
ALLISON: It's how he communicated. Because there are people with good policies that are not getting it out.
WRIGHT: There's a reason why he's resonating, because there is a message he's communicating that's being communicated in the right way.
ALLISON: Properly.
DEAN: So listen to this. Today, this is from the New York Times, Mr. Pratt has not bought a single minute of airtime, according to the media tracking firm Ad Impact, while his opponents have spent close to $2 million on traditional television and radio commercials.
ALLISON: Raising more money than them. It's just like, I'm not, I'm not saying, I don't actually care, I care who wins the race, but it's like, wake up people. Like we are living in a different world of politics.
And if you aren't going to catch up, you're going to get left behind.
ROGIN: Don't hate the player, hate the game.
DEAN: Okay.
Coming up, another high profile resignation from the Trump administration. We're going to have more on Tulsi Gabbard's decision to exit her post as director of national intelligence. That's next.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[22:55:00]
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
DEAN: This weekend, the final generation of World War II veterans returned to Normandy, France, for the 80th anniversary of D-Day and a powerful new CNN film, Why We Dream. Here's a preview.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
UNKNOWN: I had always wanted to go back to Europe to see and understand that I could have been part of one of those tombstones. Here I am, I'm present to see the slaughter of humankind because of so much hate. How blessed I was and so many of us who had been part of that own slaughter and were able to return home.
[23:00:09]
Although it was segregated, we were working on that understanding, that misunderstanding of humanity.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
DEAN: We're so grateful for their service. Why We Dream premieres Memorial Day at 8:00 p.m. on CNN. You can also watch on the CNN app.
And I want to thank you, too, for watching "NewsNight," you can catch our "Table for Five" tomorrow at 10:00 A.M. Eastern. Laura Coates Live starts right now. Have a great night.
