Return to Transcripts main page
CNN NewsNight with Abby Phillip
Woman Who Dated Graham Platner Says He Raped Her In 2021; Platner Denies Accusations Of Non-Consensual Behavior; Report Shows Investors Lost $3.8 Billion On Trump Crypto Coin; White House Slams Smithsonian Report Claiming Its Leaders Are Radical Activists; Donald Trump's Intervention To Reinstate Team USA Striker On Red Card Stirs Political Storm. Aired 10-11p ET
Aired July 06, 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 VIDEO CLIP)
ABBY PHILLIP, CNN HOST: Tonight, breaking news, political shockwaves in the Maine Senate race. In a CNN exclusive, a woman who dated Graham Platner says he raped her in 2021. Platner denies the allegations.
Plus, Trump sees a red card and raises his own.
DONALD TRUMP, U.S. PRESIDENT: That wasn't a foul.
PHILLIP: After his intervention, the U.S. plays Belgium with the star player back on the pitch.
Also, the White House versus the Smithsonian, a scathing new report claims extreme political activism at the National Museum of American History that erases our heritage.
And --
TRUMP: You're lucky I'm president.
PHILLIP: -- the president brags about ending investigations into crypto after reports show nearly a million investors lost money on his meme coin.
Live at the table, Xochitl Hinojosa, Jason Rantz, Pete Seat, Yemisi Egbewole, and Billy Binion.
Americans with different perspectives aren't talking to each other, but here, they do.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
PHILLIP (on camera): Good evening, I'm Abby Phillips in New York.
Tonight, shocking allegations, a woman who says she dated Maine's Democratic Senate nominee, Graham Platner, tells CNN that he raped her for nearly five years ago. Jenny Racicot says that she has been seeing Platner on and off for two years. But one evening in 2021, Platner entered her home drunk without permission, and after she explicitly told him not to. She says he forcibly had sex with her. Platner denies those allegations.
Now, I want to warn you that her story includes strong language and details of an alleged sexual assault, which may be deeply disturbing.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
JENNY RACICOT, PLATNER ACCUSER: So, he had jumped on top of me and indicated that he had intentions that were sexual in nature. And I remember just at first being like, hey, I'm not into this. Like don't, I'm not in the mood. Like don't, whatever.
And it got to the point where I was like, okay, I feel like I've said this enough times. Like he's not listening to me or he's not hearing me, and I looked at him and I remember this very specific look in his eyes. And I could smell alcohol and I was, like this is different.
I remember specifically him like grabbing at my chest and I like hit his hand and I said, don't touch me. And I remember that during the altercation specifically.
JAKE TAPPER, CNN ANCHOR: And then he kept going.
RACICOT: Yes. And it was this weird mix of like coming in and out of -- I don't think consciousness is the word, but like coming to and kind of falling back into that drunken I-don't-know-what-I'm-doing state. And, yes, and he just -- he would apologize in those moments and then go back to doing what he was doing.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
PHILLIP: Racicot says that she felt her safest option was to comply and that Platner knew what he was -- that he -- that what he was doing was wrong.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
TAPPER: Is there any way that he thought this was consensual or no just because --
RACICOT: I don't believe that you can think that scenario was consensual. You have to understand that that wasn't when somebody's repeatedly -- I mean, when somebody in the middle of it says, don't touch me, like that's obviously not consensual.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
PHILLIP: The allegation was first reported by Politico, and minutes afterward, Platner posted a video in response online.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
GRAHAM PLATNER (D), MAINE SENATE NOMINEE: Any accusation of non- consensual behavior is categorically false. Regardless of the inaccuracy of the reporting, but mindful of the political reality it will inflict, we are taking the time to reflect on the best path forward for the state that I love, the people that I love, the movement I belong to, and the goal of defeating Susan Collins.
154,058 Mainers, the most in primary history, voted to reject a broken politics beholden to Washington and the donor class. They voted for hope, for change.
Throughout it all, you never turned your back on me, and I will not turn my back on you now. Every one of you deserves to see that vision come to fruition and see Susan Collins defeated.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
[22:05:00]
PHILLIP: Platner now has until July 13th to decide whether or not he's going to drop out of this race. If he chooses to do that, Democrats will have until July 27th to find a replacement for him.
Yemisi, you were on here not that long ago talking about this story and going against actually what seemed to be a lot of your party. Many of whom were saying, he's changed, give him a chance, we don't believe the other women he made allegations about him. What now?
YEMISI EGBEWOLE, FORMER CHIEF OF STAFF AND ADVISER, BIDEN WHITE HOUSE PRESS OFFICE: Well, this is not surprising because it has always been a question of his character. And for me, the line was the Totenkopf last year. For his campaign, that wasn't enough. We had the Reddit comments, we had the Kik profile. It was building and building and building.
And what we saw was a pattern of him not being honest about his actions to the very people that, for a campaign, are supposed to protect you. You give them all of the information because then they work on your behalf.
And that alone was an alarm that this is somebody who cannot be trusted, and he looked elected officials in the face, and he let them add their name to his character, and he said, nothing else is coming. And I think what we know now is more was always on the way.
PHILLIP: Yes. What she's talking about is this Wall Street Journal article that reported on a meeting that he had with Senate Democrats. And in that meeting, Bernie Sanders asked him if there were additional allegations that would come out. Platner says there weren't any. Elizabeth Warren asked him, she said, there's a difference between marital issues and sexual assault, and Platner agreed and denied any credible allegations of assault were forthcoming.
JASON RANTZ, SEATTLE RED RADIO HOST: Who in their right mind would believe him in any answer he would give other than to say, yes, there's more that's going to come out? You're a guy with a Nazi tattoo who has this horrible report coming out in The New York Times. There have been rumors about this for a very long time, and they're there giving him the benefit of the doubt. That just seemed really odd to me.
You could not find anyone better in Maine to run up against Susan Collins? You couldn't find any other progressive who would have been able to take on that messaging at all? Like I just cannot believe that.
PHILLIP: That is a very good question
RANTZ: That is an insane position for them. I don't get it.
PHILLIP: That is a very good question. I mean, there is an issue here with a lot of very prominent Democrats, Elizabeth Warren and Bernie Sanders, two among them, who basically turned the other way at the first set of allegations. Why does it take a sexual assault allegation for them to change their minds?
BILL BINION, JOURNALIST: And to that point, I heard Kirsten Gillibrand, Senator Kirsten Gillibrand speak at the Aspen Institute last week, and when Graham Platner came up, all she had to say was that he was a strong candidate and was going to, you know, soar to a victory. There was no even an acknowledgement of The New York Times report of the Nazi tattoo. And if you all will remember, this is the same senator who was called the Me Too senator because, in part, because she led the charge against Al Franken in the Senate. She very much, you know, was instrumental in pushing that culture forward, and I think Me Too was necessary in a lot of ways.
But we didn't need a rape allegation to know that Graham Platner had already allegedly violated the standards that she set, and she was willing to sacrifice all her principles, among many other Democrats, to go up against arguably the most moderate Republican in the Senate, Susan Collins, who's already willing to go up against Trump. You know, this is not some super partisan person.
PHILLIP: Xochitl?
XOCHITL HINOJOSA, CNN POLITICAL COMMENTATOR: Yes. I mean, first of all, shame on the part of the Democratic Party who stood by him. I think that there was, the Democratic Party was very much split in this race.
There are some people that were speaking out against a Nazi tattoo, as you've, I said it as well. There were a lot of other people. I think there were a lot of women after the last allegations that weren't willing to go out and defend him, but there were a lot of men in the party. I will give -- I understand that Jill O'Brien was one of them because she is the head of the DSCC. But like shame on our party to do that.
And now, and our party has to recognize if you want to be the party of values, if you want to be the party of decency, of principle, then you do have to come out and call unequivocally for this man to resign, and that is happening now. I think that what this is a larger problem with both parties, which is how far will you go to hold onto power? And when there are allegations of sexual assault, of rape, of any sexual misconduct, it is incumbent on both, on leaders of both parties to speak out and say that person should not serve.
Did I see it with Donald Trump? No, I still have not seen it. I don't think anyone, I don't think you have said that he should not be our president or serve or that he shouldn't have been elected. But the leader of the Republican Party right now has 28 sexual misconduct allegations against him, and he pardoned people on January 6th. And his party still stands by him as he -- like he is king.
And so there is a bigger problem with our politics, if we are going to turn the other way, to hold onto power and blame the other party when something goes wrong, but not look at our own party.
[22:10:06]
And dare I say, shame on our own party.
PETE SEAT, FORMER WHITE HOUSE SPOKESMAN FOR PRESIDENT GEORGE W. BUSH: We're only a couple of hours into this, and it's already being turned into a litmus test in the Democratic Party.
Congressman Ritchie Torres had a tweet earlier. He said, I have no endorsement to rescind. Graham Platner should drop out. That is, one, a message, obviously, to Platner. But it's also a message to Ro Khanna and to Ruben Gallego, who stood with Graham Platner through all the allegations, through the Nazi tattoo, and both of them are aspiring to national office.
They are thinking about running for president of the United States, and they hitched their wagon to Graham Platner, and now it is blowing up in their face. They're going to have problems on the campaign trail, hypothetically, if they choose to run.
But speaking as a Republican here, it's actually a good day for Democrats, assuming Graham Platner gets out of the race. Because they have the opportunity now to choose another candidate, and I don't know the ins and outs of Maine politics, so I turn to people who follow these things a lot more closely. Chuck Todd, who we all know, put a tweet out today that said, you only need generic Democrat in Maine.
Graham Platner obviously had a lot of skeletons in his closet, and a, quote/unquote, generic Democrat, someone who doesn't have those skeletons, could potentially defeat Susan Collins without the baggage. We'll see.
EGBEWOLE: Well, yes, we're in a tight spot. And I think for both parties moving forward, there should also be the question of how do you market to the working class, and what are your expectations of them? I think one of the biggest pitfalls that the Platner campaign had is that they believed that somebody that lacked morals and values would relate to the working class as a whole.
SEAT: Authenticity.
EGBEWOLE: And I'm going to tell you, as the daughter of two working class immigrants, that's not the way it is. They are some of the most prideful people. Cheating -- they're just things that we thought that they would excuse, and they clearly haven't.
PHILLIP: You know what's interesting, I mean, you bringing that up the other day, and you may have been here when we were talking about this, Vice President Vance actually made a very similar point where he basically said, well, whenever you know, the president crosses the line and says something that's rude or off-color or whatever, it's just the tone police going after the working class essentially was what he said.
There is this kind of part of our political movement on the left and the right that is doing exactly what Yemisi is suggesting, which is basically saying anything that is uncouth or bad or immoral, that's just the working class when it's really not.
RANTZ: Yes. Although, and to be clear, this one was not uncouth. But your point, I think, is valid. I think there's an underlying issue right now, at least with the base of the Democratic Party or the progressive socialist wing, where if you go on X right now, they're still backing Graham Platner, right? I mean, Stephen King just a few hours ago saying, I hope he doesn't drop out of this race.
And I think you have people who are so blindly connected to this far left ideology, and you can make the argument of the far right as well, that you're willing to just give up on having those kinds of morals but I do think that they are very recalcitrant on the left right now, and that is part of the larger issue that the Democrats in power right now, the so-called mainstream Democrats, are going to have to deal with. Because while this specific issue is very obviously different than someone who says, I'm going to wipe my hand on the American flag, or I want to get rid of all police and prisons, that's a base that's not going to be okay.
PHILLIP: Well, what about what Xochitl said, which is that that the Republican Party has already been down this road with Donald Trump, and they looked the other way?
RANTZ: He doesn't have a Nazi tattoo. That's a big piece.
PHILLIP: Listen, that's true. But on the on the allegations of sexual abuse, even on the kind of comments that like the Access Hollywood tape on those issues, I mean, there are some similarities there, wouldn't you say?
RANTZ: I wouldn't say similarities to the rape, no, but I would say -- sure, I agree -- I hear you.
PHILLIP: Just to be clear, I did not use that word when it came to Donald Trump except to say that there are allegations of sexual abuse against him.
RANTZ: Sure. PHILLIP: And he was found liable --
RANTZ: Yes, I would say, I --
PHILLIP: -- in the E. Jean Carroll case.
RANTZ: I think a big piece of the difference here are just the context that went into this. Everyone was saying, don't go with Graham Platner. Every single person said, this is going to happen, and people are going to --
BINION: But a lot of people said, don't go with Donald Trump.
PHILLIP: And yet Donald Trump was able to win, and he didn't get a bunch of Republicans running against him.
(CROSSTALKS)
HINOJOSA: Well, exactly, that's the problem, is that your party stood by him.
RANTZ: Right.
HINOJOSA: That the Republican Party stood by Donald Trump regardless of what the allegations said. And not only that, if you were in D.C. --
RANTZ: Do you believe the allegations? That's the difference.
HINOJOSA: Hold on. Do I believe the -- I believe women.
RANTZ: Trump versus Platner.
HINOJOSA: Yes. Yes, I believe women. I believe women.
RANTZ: But my point is, I don't think a lot of the allegations made against Trump were believed by the base or by the general voters.
[22:15:00]
I think part of the issue was because he was constantly --
PHILLIP: Well, I think that that's also true. This is the problem, though. That was also true of Platner. He -- the allegations were against him, and he was still high in the polls. So, whether you are believed by the base, is that really the standard for how we are going to adjudicate whether people should be holding office?
BINION: Right, no. Morality does not live and die based on -- voters make dumb decisions all the time, you know? That's not the arbiter of morality. And, I mean, you said you believe women. I'm not a believe- all-women person. I think everyone deserves due process, everyone deserves their time to, you know, state their case.
So, I mean, I still think that's fair in this case, but I think we had plenty of information to know going, before this Politico report that he was likely unfit for office. I mean --
RANTZ: The last victim who came forward was dragged because she happened to be a conservative.
PHILLIP: Yes. And I think that there -- so, yes, you're right about that. And it's been interesting to see some of those people who dragged this woman who was in the -- Lyndsey Fifield, who was in the New York Times story, they called it uncorroborated claims. Another person basically said that she was essentially a plant of the Republican Party, and now those people have changed their tune.
But I also think like is there an apology that needs to be had here and some soul-searching that needs to be had here? Is it enough to just say, well, this woman I believe. I didn't believe the last one. And Lyndsey Fifield pointed out to Ruben Gallego, mine weren't sufficiently troubling or serious for you?
After that first allegation, it is fair to ask, what's up with people who have to look at the partisan identification next to your name before they decide whether or not they're going to listen to you?
BINION: The believability of someone's, you know, serious allegations should not live and die based on if they've worked for a right-wing think tank.
HINOJOSA: Well -- but, I mean, I think there's, to your point, that it should not be based off of a few core people in the Republican Party or the Democratic Party because it is not convenient to them, therefore they do not believe the allegations. And that is what has happened in the Republican Party. That is what happened in the Democratic Party. It was not convenient to certain folks in the Democratic Party to believe the allegations, so then, therefore, there were smears against the woman, same with the Republican Party.
I will say you brought up the Nazi tattoo. You know what's interesting about this weekend in Washington, D.C., is there are white supremacists like marching in Washington, D.C.
RANTZ: Republicans didn't back them. Republicans didn't support them.
HINOJOSA: There was actually someone from the administration --
RANTZ: They were -- we spoke out against this immediately
HINOJOSA: No, they did not.
RANTZ: Of course we did.
HINOJOSA: The administration did not speak out. No, they did not speak out against it.
RANTZ: Republicans spoke out against this immediately, and Doug Burgum on this network also spoke out.
HINOJOSA: And so this is what I'm saying. It's one rule for Democrats and another for, one for Republicans. While I think that the American people are going to see the way and the stances that each party takes moving forward.
BINION: This is a great pitch for political homelessness.
All right, next for us. We got to leave it there. Next for us, I want to invite you at home to join the debate. Once ahead, go to cnn.com/abby and you can weigh in on the conversation all hour. We'll get to some of your comments at the end of the show.
Next for us, Trump brags about ending crypto investigations while he rakes in massive profits from the industry. We'll discuss.
And pitch politics. The U.S. played Belgium with a full roster after Trump's red card intervention.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[22:20:00]
PHILLIP: President Trump faces growing scrutiny over his crypto earnings as a new report shows that investors who bought his meme coin ended up losing big time. According to The New York Times, the crypto analytics firm, Nansen, found that nearly one million investors who bought the president's meme coin lost $3.8 billion through the end of the month of June. That compares to Trump's latest financial disclosure, which shows he hauled in $1.4 billion on crypto, including more than $600 million from those meme coins alone.
Now, Trump has dismissed concerns that he's profiting off the presidency, and today he took it a step further with this brag about crypto corruption investigations.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
TRUMP: That they were putting people in jail. What they were doing to the crypto was horrible. It's amazing it survived that onslaught. It was a weaponization of government.
So, now I'm killing Biden, I'm winning by so much, and all of a sudden he becomes totally pro-crypto. They dropped all investigations of everybody. They allowed people to come out of jail, and every time I see a crypto guy that -- where they dropped an investigation, I said, you're lucky I'm president.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
PHILLIP: He's bragging there about a lot of people who are tied to crypto who he has already pardoned. He's only been in office for a year. Perhaps the biggest one is the founder of Binance known as C.Z. That company now is actually very involved in a lot of different things. One of the pieces of reporting over the last several months, according to the Journal and The New York Times, is that Binance still now looks like they've allowed money to go to Iran through their platforms.
So, the president is bragging about this turnabout when he's profiting, but also some of these people were put in prison for real reasons, and now they seem to not have changed their tune.
RANTZ: Well, I think the president has changed his tune on cryptocurrency, right? There's no doubt about that. He was very much against it, calling it a scam, and he has switched.
[22:25:00]
Part of the context behind that is that he believes that not embracing cryptocurrency gives China a leg up on this. We can debate whether or not that's accurate. I think it's probably more accurate than not. But I think his comment, I didn't necessarily take it as bragging that we're releasing criminals from jail. I think it was more the allegation that the Biden administration was overtly tough on cryptocurrency when we didn't actually have very many standards or laws in place.
We have the CLARITY Act right now that we can have a large debate as to whether or not we have to put in place some more restrictions and oversight, which I think we absolutely do, but I think that was the context in the greater scheme of the conversation he was having today.
HINOJOSA: No, President Trump is very clear. He has benefited off crypto 100 percent and while we have seen that most Americans, a million Americans, have not. I was at the Justice Department when we brought the charges against Binance and the CEO. Not only did we bring charges, but they pled guilty. We were not weaponizing anything. They pled guilty to charges, including paying $4 billion.
And exactly what Abby just described here about using the platform for potentially funding Iran is exactly what we were worried about and exactly -- they could not say how they were going to crack down on that, and there was also anti-money laundering allegations, et cetera.
And so the problems that the Justice Department, the federal government felt that were not in the U.S. interest and that broke our federal laws are actually now playing out before Donald Trump's eyes because he is the one who pardoned them.
PHILLIP: And I think also it's an incomplete story that -- the whole China thing. This is from 2025 in the A.P. Trump began to shift during a crypto event at Mar-a-Lago in Florida in May of 2024, receiving assurances that industry backers would spend lavishly to get him re- elected. Another major milestone came last June when Trump attended a high-dollar fundraiser at the San Francisco home of David Sacks. Those close to Trump, including his sons and billionaire Elon Musk, helped further push his embrace of the industry. Sacks is now in the Trump administration as his crypto czar.
And I also would add that some of these pardons that we were just talking about, the path to the pardon also involves money for Trump's political ambitions. So, there's the private money that they're making hand over fist on crypto, and it's not like investing in crypto companies. It's literally meme coins, which are meaningless. And then there's also the political money at the same time as well.
BINION: I'm a big defender of the presidential pardon power, mostly because a lot of people don't realize there is essentially no lever -- I mean, you probably know very well, very -- there's no lever at the federal level to, you know, serve as a check on overly zealous prosecutions, but he makes it very difficult to defend. And I understand why a lot of people want reform.
I mean, just about crypto broadly, according to his most recent financial report, he's executed about 4,000 trades in, you know, three months, including with companies that really want to stay in his good graces. I don't understand how that couldn't be a conflict of interest.
PHILLIP: I mean, how is it not, Pete?
SEAT: Look I'm going to be very clear where I stand on crypto. I've said it here before, but being pro-crypto is being anti-American. If we are in competition with China, we should stay as far away from crypto as possible. If we want our currency, the U.S. dollar, to remain the reserve currency of the world, we need to get out of crypto. If we want to maintain sanction power, we need to get out of crypto.
As we've been talking about, terrorists, criminals, what do they do? They use crypto. That's how they operate. Why would we want anyone to be a part of this?
And I feel sorry for none of these million people who lost money. They fell for a scam. Crypto is a scam from top to bottom.
PHILLIP: So, I mean --
SEAT: The way it works is the people who buy crypto realize it's a scam, and then say, crap, I need to tell everyone to get in so I can make my money back, and those suckers bought in.
PHILLIP: Are you acknowledging that this is a scam that was predicated by the president of the United States?
SEAT: It's a scam predicated by a lot of people who get into this business --
PHILLIP: Yes, but the number one person is the president.
SEAT: -- and they decided to get in because you make a boatload of money on the transaction side of it.
PHILLIP: Yes, that's the president and his family.
SEAT: Yes, and they made money. As Jason acknowledged, they made money. There's no denying or dismissing that.
PHILLIP: What's the next step from that? So, the president and his family scammed a million people and profited --
SEAT: And put this country in a worse position as a result of it.
PHILLIP: -- to the tune $600 billion, not including -- HINOJOSA: Maybe even more than I actually thought.
PHILLIP: Not including the amount that they have earned from the sale of their crypto company, which was really only created knowing that this presidency was coming up, what's the recourse then? What should, what do you think it should be?
SEAT: Well, the recourse is if Congress feels there should be a recourse, then they should put some laws into place.
[22:30:00]
We should have regulations in place.
We don't actually know what crypto is right now. Is it a currency? Is it a security? Is it a commodity? Is it a collectible? And if you don't know what it is, , why are you investing in it in any way, shape or form? So the government needs to figure that.
EGBEWOLE: I think there might be a generational divide on crypto. I have a lot of people in my friend group that are much more comfortable with it.
I think that we can have conversations about Clarity Act and regulating it. I don't think we should just delete it just because the President doesn't know how to operate with it in a way that's good.
PHILLIP: All right. Next for us, extreme political activism. That's what the White House is alleging happened at the Smithsonian museums. What exhibits are so offensive to them? We'll discuss that next.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[22:35:00]
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
PHILLIP: The White House is slamming the Smithsonian in a scathing 162 page report that was released on Independence Day. The Trump administration accused the museum of extreme political activism and said it cannot be trusted to tell America's story honestly.
The report titled "Saving America's Story" singled out the National Museum of American History, accusing its leader of adopting a quote, "ideological framework that no longer treats the American story as a shared national inheritance to be taught or celebrated, but as a political instrument to divide, dispirit and discourage our citizens."
The report is a response to an earlier executive order in which President Trump signed on in March 2025, that directed the museum to quote, "remove improper ideology from such properties."
A Smithsonian Museum spokesperson says that the institution is nonpartisan and independent. And its current secretary says America's greatest strength comes from facing its history.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
LONNIE G. BUNCH III, SECRETARY OF THE SMITHSONIAN INSTITUTION: I think what I want people to understand is that there is a responsibility to continue to make those aspirations available, accessible, meaningful to a whole range of people. And that in essence, America's greatest strength, it's not running away from its history, but it's understanding how that history shaped us and continues to shape us.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
PHILLIP: The idea that the White House is policing what they're calling improper ideology. First of all, that sounds like it's coming straight out of a sort of, you know, top down authoritarian system in which what's taught in schools, what's put in museums gets dictated by one person, the President.
SEAT: I think this is a well-timed conversation because there was a Cato Morning Consul poll that came out in advance of the 250th birthday of America. And 46 percent of Americans, 61 percent of Gen Z didn't know what we were celebrating, they didn't know what the 250th was.
They didn't realize that it was the anniversary of the signing of the Declaration of Independence. And that's shame on all of us, that's shame on our society, that's shame on our schools, that's shame on our museums that people didn't know the importance of that day. And it relates to this because if you read the key findings of this report, it's pretty damning.
They claim that there is no major exhibit dedicated to our founding era, George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, the Continental Congress, not to be found at the Museum of American History in Washington, D.C. They noted in this report that Independence Day was not marked either in 2025 or in 2026 at the museum, even though it was open. That's just a couple of examples.
So, if the National Museum of American History isn't marking this occasion, isn't hosting an exhibit about our founders and our founding document and the Declaration of Independence, how do we expect Americans to know the history?
PHILLIP: I mean, look, I know what you're talking about, but I've been to these museums. The Declaration of Independence is on display.
SEAT: At the National Archives?
PHILLIP: Yes.
SEAT: But not at this museum?
PHILLIP: Well, that's what I'm saying. That's actually my point is that there's a place where the Declaration of Independence is. It may not be at that museum, but it exists in Washington, D.C.
SEAT: But you can still talk about the founders, how -- PHILLIP: People go and they look at it and they read about it and they
learn about it. And so, I mean, I guess that part seems a little bit kind of, it's like picking and choosing.
SEAT: Also, I don't want this to get lost.
PHILLIP: What education you want people to get. If they want to go see the Declaration of Independence, there's a place where they could go do that.
BILLY BINION, REPORTER, "REASON" MAGAZINE: This is a great example of why we should privatize these institutions. I'm going to be the annoying libertarian on the panel for that.
This is exactly what happened with the Kennedy Center, where Trump came in and said, I'm going to get the Kennedy Center working right. And all he meant by that was he was going to replace one alleged ideological capture. He accused the Kennedy Center of being woke, I don't know if anyone goes to see musicals.
Musicals tend to be a little, you know, not often conservative. But he was just wanting to replace that ideological capture with another. Which is to say, you know, art is inherently political, it is also inherently subjective.
And I do not want a politician, especially I do not want Donald Trump, refereeing what version of history is taken or what version of history is told and what art people get to see. I mean, taxpayers should not be on the hook for that. He should not have the power in the first place.
It should be private institutions that people can patronize if they so choose.
[22:40:06]
PHILLIP: But it's also not art, though. I mean, I take what you're saying, but it's not. We're not talking about art, we're talking about history. We're talking about history that is complex, that has good parts and bad parts.
And the Trump administration has been pretty clear that they really just want the good parts, they don't want the bad parts.
HINOJOSA: And to your point, we should be having more information in our museums, not less. I don't understand why they're trying to rewrite history.
And one of the wonderful things about the Smithsonian's is that they're free. And, you know, if you privatize them and there are costs, there are families who might not be able to afford it.
BINION: I mean, but you have to pay to go to museums in New York City.
HINOJOSA: Well, I understand. But Washington, D.C., our nation's capital, that is the wonderful thing about going to them. I think one of the things is that Donald Trump has a lot of insecurities and we see it throughout his presidency.
And for some reason, this is one of them. It is the fact that he wants to erase history because for some reason or someone, you know, in his administration believes that, you know, whether it's Stephen Miller, otherwise, believes that, you know, it undermines their agenda and undermines what he believes in.
And when you have the government, you know, talking to citizens and telling the citizens what they should learn every day, that is government.
BINION: But that's not what's in this.
PHILLIP: Let me just read this. We have a viewer comment that pertains to this obviously.
This viewer says you can't rewrite something that actually happened in the country. And no amount of erasure is going to change that. One of the things that perhaps this viewer is talking about is that the President and his administration have been pretty explicit. The thing that bothers them the most about a lot of these exhibits is that it talks about slavery and they don't like that it talks about slavery because they think it's way too much.
Why is that such a trigger for them when slavery is not only a thing that happened, but it's such a, it is actually a really important part of the country's founding and a lot of those 250 years?
RANTZ: Yes, I don't think you're going to find too many conservatives who say we should be erasing mentions of slavery.
The President is saying it in the context of framing absolutely everything in a way that presents this country in a negative light. Not to say that we shouldn't talk about some of the negatives, but they're saying to frame the entire conversations around that is the problem.
PHILLIP: But nobody is framing all the conversations around that. But the President and his administration have, one of the things that they flagged was that Benjamin Franklin was referenced as both an inventor and also a slave owner. So yes, both parts of the guy are there for people to take as they will. What is wrong with that?
EGBEWOLE: Yes, I think it doesn't send an anti-patriotic message to just say the founding fathers had slaves and I actually think it's helpful to young people who do. I can't believe 60 percent don't know it's 250th.
SEAT: Sixty-one.
EGBEWOLE: Sixty-one. But I think it's also helpful to young people to know about all parts of history because then they kind of get to make the choice of themselves of how they want to view the lens of America.
PHILLIP: We're going to leave it there because we have more ahead. Next for us, politics on the pitch. The U.S. played Belgium with a full roster after the President officially asks for a red card review. We'll be right back.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[22:45:00]
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
PHILLIP: Tonight, Team USA is officially out and Belgium is celebrating a victory despite a stunning reversal where FIFA allowed USA's star striker to take the pitch after President Trump personally intervened.
Folarin Balogun was set to serve a one-match ban tonight after getting a red card in the team's last match, but then Trump made a call to FIFA's President and several days after that call, FIFA's disciplinary committee said it was reversing the suspension.
Trump later celebrated the decision thanking FIFA for, quote, "doing what is right and reversing a great injustice." When asked today about how that call went down, here's how Trump responded.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
DONALD TRUMP, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: I didn't think it was a foul. I thought it was two great athletes that crashed into each other and got entangled. I can't tell him what to do, but -- and I don't believe he made the decision, I think it was a committee that made the decision and they made the right decision.
All I did was ask for a review. I didn't say you have to do this. We're going to have a full team and Belgium is going to have a full team.
And you know what? If they beat us, then they can be really proud. The other way, if they beat us, we'll say it was, I say it was rigged, just like the election was rigged in 2020.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
PHILLIP: Wow.
Let me go to our resident soccer fan at the table here. So here's the thing as a non-soccer fan, I will say everybody can dispute the goodness or badness of the call, but Trump's intervention, you know, maybe they were going to do it anyway. But when Trump intervenes, he seems to make it seem as if there is some shenanigans afoot.
RANTZ: Well, I mean, he didn't go into this saying, I just made this call and now I'm putting public pressure. It was done behind the scenes. I'm glad the President did this.
There was no objective, reasonable person who looked at the call and said it was the right one. It was clearly an injustice. And Keir Starmer, for example, also got involved with FIFA on a Mexico game that just happened yesterday and he tried to get it to stop this earlier gameplay. [22:50:06]
Didn't hear anyone complaining about it. Cristiano Ronaldo was supposed to be suspended for the first two matches and was not.
PHILLIP: But why is it good that he intervened if it didn't have an impact on the outcome one way or another? Because what if it did have an impact on the outcome? Do you think it would be fine if Trump pressured them to reverse the call?
RANTZ: So, if you see something that is clearly an injustice, it was clearly wrong. Of course, I want someone to intervene. They do have rules in place that allow for the postponement of a suspension, it's actually in the FIFA rules.
They didn't necessarily have the breakdown on how the appeal would go. U.S. soccer and their lawyers were pushing through with it, and they followed all the rules and they ended up getting this again postponed. It wasn't fully reversed, but this was an awful call.
We had two top tier teams with their full players going up against one another, and the better team tonight won.
EGBEWOLE: You know, this is an 80-20 issue, and I think that a lot of people actually don't mind that the President said something. I'm going to say my dad, who's big Team Nigeria and Team USA, recalled a time with FIFA that he felt like Nigeria had been screwed before, particularly in a game with Ghana.
I don't think FIFA has the moral high ground. I mean, they did a whole thing in Qatar and slaves built those stadiums. I'm not here to make a argument for FIFA.
HINOJOSA: Well, yes. Everyone knows FIFA is corrupt. We just spent an entire segment talking about how Trump is corrupt. If Trump uses his corruption for someone else besides himself and to benefit the United States, I'm actually all for it. This is like the one time.
PHILLIP: What I could say is, isn't Trump very lucky that they lost tonight? Because if they had won based off of this whole thing, it would kind of tarnish the win.
BINION: The call itself looked bad, but everyone agrees it was fine. I totally agree with you. I think everyone can tell I'm not a big fan of Donald Trump, I was not offended at all by the phone call because justice was served, and I thought Belgium's reaction was really lame when they were like really pushing to, you know, make sure he wasn't able to play.
A win does not mean nearly as much if you win against a team that has been unfairly handicapped. I agree with what the President said, with the exception of the election aside.
PHILLIP: I guess I think that all of you guys are assuming that the call had an impact, which is so interesting because you just told me that it didn't. BINION: I don't know.
PHILLIP: It was right that Trump called, even though technically the claim is also that Trump's call was wrong.
BINION: Well I think -- I am also new to soccer like you during this World Cup, and one thing I've been amazed by, maybe you can educate me, is watching a lot of players give like Oscar-worthy performances on the field, you know, trying to exploit the penalty system for technicalities, and then achieving miraculous recoveries like 10 seconds later.
That is not a broader problem that has made it a little hard for me to take the sport seriously.
PHILLIP: That's not just soccer, that's a lot of sports. Okay, quick last word.
SEAT: Quick last word, people are trying to connect dots that can't be connected. It was already being investigated, They were already reviewing it. He called to find out what was happening.
The point you made about Ronaldo is the most important one, because the Union of European Football Associations came out today, and they said what happened with this American player was, quote, "unprecedented." Bull honky, it was unprecedented.
HINOJOSA: -- birthright citizen. I am not sure that Trump understands that.
PHILLIP: Next for us, your turn to weigh in. The panel reacts to some of your feedback. We'll be right back.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[22:55:00]
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
PHILLIP: And now some viewer feedback from CNN.com/Abby. Yet another example of the Trump curse as it relates to American sports. He attended the only Knicks final game that resulted in a loss, and he got himself involved with the U.S. men's soccer team, and they lost. Stay away from the Yankees. I don't know if you can disagree with that, actually.
RANTZ: Well, he didn't attend the game.
PHILLIP: He didn't attend this game, right. He just got himself involved. That's true. But, I mean, Trump seems to be getting involved in sports, and the outcome is not great for America.
HINIJOSA: Not great at all. Maybe Taylor Swift should have been there after her wedding instead, and that would have been a better outcome, but good vibes.
EGBEWOLE: Good vibes.
PHILLIP: All right, so we have some more, actually, some viewer props for you, Pete. One viewer is a fan of your name, and another one says, Pete is correct. Crypto is a scam. Oh, my God, I agreed with him twice in one night. Wow, that's actually impressive.
SEAT: I actually know who that one's from, my friend Chris, who is a huge fan of the show. He and his wife Gina love you. He texted it to me. He's like, I sent this. He, unfortunately, is a Packers fan, which is a bad thing, but I'm also fond of my name, too. It's actually Pete Shayot. I'm Serbian, but Seat is the Serbian translation of it.
PHILLIP: Wait, say that again?
SEAT: Shayot is actually my last name.
HINOJOSA: Oh, you should do it like that.
PHILLIP: No.
SEAT: Yes, but when my family came, and they Americanized it, it became Seat.
PHILLIP: You should just go back to the original.
EGBEWOLE: You should go back to the original. It rhymes.
SEAT: It's easier to remember.
[23:00:03]
EGBEWOLE: Are you running for office?
SEAT: I did. I lost.
BINION: I was going to say, meanwhile, I have a comic book character name, yes, or a Hobbit name. Take your pick.
PHILLIP: All right, one more for some good names. Lastly, can we find a bipartisan agreement that Xochitl Hinojosa has the coolest name? Xochitl in 2028. Okay.
HINOJOSA: We do the Latino on the ticket. In 2028, it will not be me, though. That's what I was going to say.
PHILLIP: All right, everyone, thanks for watching "NewsNight." "Laura Coates Live" starts right now.
